HC Deb 12 May 1899 vol 71 cc544-59

That a sum, not exceeding £133,098, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year-ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments.

Resolution read A second time.

*MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty) moved to reduce this Vote by £100. He said that on Friday night last he was prevented from doing so in Committee. Within the last three years he had called the attention of the Board of Trade to the serious overcrowding of railway carriages in large cities. He thought steps should be taken to stop this overcrowding, and the railway companies should be compelled to remedy it. Clause 7 of the railway bye-laws states, that when a carriage contains the full number of passengers no additional persons shall remain therein, and that they may be removed by any duly authorised agent of the company, and that for overcrowding, passengers are liable to a tine of 40s. for the first offence, and afterwards to a penalty of £5. Too much power is in the hands of the railway companies, and it is for this reason that he pressed the right honourable Gentleman to take some steps to compel them to provide better facilities for passengers. The railway companies should provide more carriages of the class chiefly in demand. No doubt he would be told that the platforms were not long enough. To that he would reply, "Make the platforms longer." He thought in this matter that the convenience of the public should be considered first and not the railway companies. He only wished that the President of the Board of Trade would put his foot down and show that his Department were the masters of the situation.


When the honourable Member speaks of the power of the Board of Trade to shorten or lengthen platforms he is not in order, because it is not the duty of that Department to control such matters.


proceeded to say that on page 2 of the bye-laws it was provided that any person failing to leave the carriage when requested to do so by any duly authorised person might be removed under the direction if such servant or agent. Under this new bye-law it would be competent for any servant of the company, any of those small boys so numerously employed, to request passengers to come out, and to call for assistance to eject them, and stop them at any stage of the journev. The other might lie applied at a booking-office for a ticket and he was told "This is the last train; go without your ticket." Now if this bye-law had been confirmed by the Board of Trade, it would have been quite possible for any official to have turned him out at any intermediate station. He sincerely hoped that the right honourable Gentleman would take care that these bye-laws were so modified as to suit the convenience of passengers, and that the interests of the railway companies would be studied rather less in future. It was provided in the bye-laws that every passenger in the train should be supplied with means of communication, and he should like to see that bye-law enforced, He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would give his attention to this matter, and not allow the railway companies to control the Board of Trade. With regard to private lines, the Board of Trade gave facilities to companies to join with other main lines, but took no power to control the level crossings of these private lines. He should like better arrangements made at level crossings for the protection of the public. Then there was the question of the trawlers sailing at night without lights. Now the Board of Trade had power to impose penalties on trawlers who failed to carry lights at night. He asked the right honourable Gentleman to give some attention to this matter and to see that the penalties were inflicted. If those penalties were insufficient to deter trawlers from sailing without lights, a bye-law inflicting heavier penalties should be made. There was also a matter in connection with the water supply in his own constituency at a railway station. He had previously brought the matter under the notice of the Board of Trade. The other day he had occasion to inquire again, and he did so in consequence of the report of the medical officer of health for the county, who complained of the unsatisfactory state of the water supply at that station. In reply to his question, the right honourable Gentleman stated that he could not go down and inquire as to the working of the water filter at that station. The manager of the railway company had stated that the water supply was ample, but he asked the right honourable Gentleman not to accept the statement of the officer of the railway company, but to accept the report of the medical officer for the county. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would attend to this matter, for it had now been going on for three years. On page 110 of the Estimates there was a sum put down under the heading of superintendent of publications and assistant librarian. He received £800 a year, and he provided out of that an assistant librarian whose salary was not mentioned. Now, he objected to a system of sweating in any Government office. They did not know whether this assistant was brushed off with £2 or £3 a week, for it was not stated. On page 112 there were items connected with the Patent Office. Now that Office produced a revenue of £230,000 a year, and the expenses amounted to £63,000 a year, which left a balance of £167,000 of clear profit. He contended that the Patent Office ought not to be a profit-making concern, but that every encouragement should be given to the inventor. The struggles of poor inventors were many and great. Many of them struggled hard, lived in the humblest abode, and often spent their last shilling in the development of an idea which they believed would lead on to fortune. When they had developed their invention they went to the Patent Office, and had to pay very large fees and take a considerable amount of risk. In regard to the registration of patents, he I advocated the adoption of the system now working in America, which worked very satisfactorily indeed. He knew that reductions were made some years ago, but they had not been satisfactory to the inventor.

Amendment proposed— To leave out '£133,098,' in order to insert '£132,998.'"—(Mr. Weir.) instead thereof.

Question proposed— That '£133,098'stand part of the resolution.

MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)

said that on Friday night last he took up the time of the House discussing many questions affecting the shipping interest, but the right honourable Gentleman gave him very unsatisfactory answers on several points, although on the majority of the matters which were brought to his notice the answers were not altogether unsatisfactory. There was one case to which he wanted to call the special attention of the right honourable Gentleman, and it was with regard to the steamer, the "Tuscan Prince." He had asked the right honourable Gentleman whether this steamer had carried passengers in the shape of pilgrims from Jaffa, and whether this steamer had a Board of Trade certificate, and was licensed to carry passengers. The reply he received was that she carried no passengers, had no certificate to carry passengers, and carried no surgeon. He did not know what inquiry the right honourable Gentleman had made, or whether he had communicated directly with the owners of the vessel. He, however, had received a letter from one of the men who was serving on the ship, a copy of which lie had forwarded to the right honourable Gentleman. That letter, stating the full facts, was signed by a seaman who was on board the "Tuscan Prince," and he wanted to know how it was that this steamer was allowed without any licence whatever to carry 100 pilgrim passengers, huddled together on the foredeck of that vessel, and apparently, in addition to the passengers, she also carried a deck cargo of sheep. That was a very serious state of affairs if it was possible for shipowners to run their vessels and carry passengers without being properly inspected and manned, and when a question was put to the right honourable Gentleman by him with regard to the matter, he got the reply, "I am informed that the 'Tuscan Prince' carried no passengers." He did not think that it was quite the correct thing that, after a complaint was made to the Board of Trade with regard to a breaeh of the regulations, they should simply communicate with the owners, who denied that the state of things was as represented, and then no further inquiry was made. The Board of Trade had ample opportunities of inquiring whether the statements of this sailor were correct, and if they found them to be accurate he trusted that there would be no further delay on the part of the Board of Trade in putting the law in force and punishing the offenders. He should not be at all surprised at cholera being imported into this country by steamers carrying those pilgrims from infected places, when they were put on board British steamers in this mean manner, huddled together on the foredeck of the vessel, without any proper protection, and without any surgeon. If this was the way in which the Board of Trade managed its business, it was not very creditable to them, and they had no right to come to this House and ask honourable Members to vote money in order to mismanage the business in that manner. He had had some controversy with the right honourable Gentleman with regard to the articles that were to be supplied to seamen, and he had objected to the continuous discharges system. The right honourable Gentleman had declared that this system was the best, and he had appointed a Departmental Committee. In the first place, he objected to a Departmental Committee inquiring into such an important subject, which concerned the interests of shipowners, captains, and seamen. If a committee was to be appointed, then let it be a committee of this House, and let all the shipping interests be properly represented. The right honourable Gentleman had taken a most unusual course. He declared emphatically in favour of continuous discharges, and said that in his opinion that system, with a character, was the best to adopt, and then he appointed a Committee of his own officials to inquire into the subject. Now, he had the greatest possible respect for the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, but the remarkable thing was that the President of the Board of Trade has declared himself in favour of a certain system, and he was now asking his officials to inquire and report to him upon that very subject. He asked the right honourable Gentleman in all fairness did he really think his own officials would report against his own desire and against his expressed wish and opinion? He did not think they would, for his opinion was that they would not dare to do anything of the kind, and in all probability they would report in favour of the system which the right honourable Gentleman had evidently been convinced was the right system by certain shipowners, and he was disregarding entirely the views of the seamen. The right honourable Gentleman replied the other night, "We will ! have the continuous discharges, but if they do not like to have them they can have the ordinary single discharge when they are paid off at the end of every voyage." Now, was it any use whatever to appoint a Committee to inquire into such an important question when the Committee had already made up its mind to recommend a continuous discharge for seamen which they could have if they liked, and if they did not like it they could have the old form? The result would be, that as long as a man had got a "V.G.," or a good character, he would stand by the continuous discharge, but as soon as he had the misfortune to get with a captain with whom he could not agree, and he got a report for bad conduct, he would throw his continuous discharge on one side and take up the single discharge, which he could buy for 3d., 4d., or 1s. He wanted to remind the right honourable Gentleman that he was not making any provision as to the time that a seaman must serve before he was entitled to be rated as an able seaman or fireman, and that was, after all, the most important point for which they were contending. They wanted men to be qualified seamen, and, if the shipowners chose, they could have an examination of competency, and make every seaman pass that examination. No man could be a qualified able seaman unless he had had three years' service on board a ship. At the present time, when ships were so badly manned, it was all the more important that they should have good men. Under this system any kind of men would be allowed to continue to go to sea. He knew that shipowners suffered some inconvenience through men failing to join their ships after having signed their articles. Now if a man gave in his continuous discharge and missed his vessel, he could send up to the Registrar-General and get another copy for 6d. or 1s., and he could ship the next day in another vessel. What they wanted was a parchment certificate, and when a man signed on he should hand that certificate in to the captain, and if he failed to join the vessel it should be returned to the Board of Trade, and when he wanted to join another ship he would have to apply to the Board of Trade for his parchment, and then they could suspend his certificate for one, two, or three months as a punishment. With regard to foreigners, he had never objected to them being on board British ships, but did the right honourable Gentleman propose to give licences to foreigners who could not speak a word of English? The crew of the "Afghan Prince" was made up of men belonging to twelve different nationalities, and that was a nice state of affairs to have on board a ship. Surely they were not going to carry interpreters for them all, and they would not get a boatswain who understood twelve languages at £4 10s. a month. He thought that if a foreigner was allowed on board an English ship he ought to understand our language so as not to endanger the lives of the people on the vessel. Why should this question be referred to a Departmental Committee instead of to a Committee of this House? The House very often appointed Committees on far less important subjects, and there was a strong feeling in the House in favour of an inquiry into this question. The right honourable Gentleman had said that no continuous discharge would be of any use whatever unless the character and conduct of the man was inserted in it. He would accept that if the right honourable Gentleman would go a little further and say that wherever a seaman had been given a bad discharge, and felt himself aggrieved about it, he should have the right to appeal to some independent authority to have his case tried on its merits. It was for that reason, and many others, that he hoped the right honourable Gentleman would consider the matter and see if he could not give them a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the whole subject. With regard to the North Atlantic winter load-line, he was not at all satisfied with the answer given by the right honourable Gentleman, nor with the manner in which the change had been brought about, and he ventured to say that some day there would be more noise made about it. The shipowners asked for this, and the seamen and officers never asked for it at all. The right honourable Gentleman granted the shipowners this Committee, but he took good care to exclude from it those very persons whose interest it was most of all to be there. It had been said that the matter was such a highly technical one, dealing with load-lines and freeboards, that the seamen would be of very little use on such a Committee. He thought that was a reflection on the seamen which the right honourable Gentleman was not justified in passing, for seamen did understand when a ship had sufficient freeboard. No Report of this Committee had been laid upon the Table of the House, and they did not know really what had been done. The evidence had never been printed, and without having had a proper opportunity of discussing this matter the alteration was to be enforced. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would give orders for that evidence to be printed, for Parliament had a right to have that evidence. The proposal was to alter the load-line to the extent of another six inches, but it was only vessels of over 350 feet in length that were able to load to this extent, and the more freeboard the less cargo she would carry. The one anxiety of the shipowners was to carry cargo, but as far as he was concerned he said, "Hang the cargo!" if it was a question of risking the lives of the sailors, which they ought: to consider before the cargo. Ho would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman how many of this Committee were in favour of the change. He had heard that there were a considerable number of the members of the Committee who were opposed to it, and if the captains, engineers, and seamen had been represented on that Committee there would have been no change whatever. He therefore asked that the House should have an opportunity of considering the evidence, and should have a day for the discussion of this question. There was one other matter to which he desired to allude. At North Shields one of the Board of Trade officials had been charged by four seamen with receiving money for providing employment. The matter had been before the Board of Trade for some two or three weeks, and as far as he could ascertain at the present time no action had been taken. The case was considered by the local Marine Board, who were the responsible parties at North Shields, and their report had boon sent to the Board of Trade in London. He would like to ask if any further action had been taken by the Board of Trade in the matter. He apologised to the House for taking up so; much time, but really the shipping ques- tion was such a big and important subject I that they could not discuss matters concerning it in a few minutes.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)

called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the state of the level crossing at Falkirk on the North British Railway, where, during the last twenty years the traffic had increased immensely, and the danger to the population was now very great indeed. The Burgh Council had taken action in the matter, and he believed they had been successful. He wished, however, to have the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade upon the matter, and he should like the right honourable Gentleman to make a recommendation to the railway company in question that greater care should be taken with regard to this level crossing.

MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)

drew attention to certain grievances of his constituents arising out of the management and state of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland. He thought that there had been great neglect of duty on the part of the Board of Trade, who only found out that the line of railway was in such a state of disrepair after such accidents had happened as had happened in Monaghan. It was not after lives were lost and people had been maimed that the Board of Trade should find out the state of the railway on which such an accident had occurred. He also wished to call attention to another matter with regard to this line of railway. Great inconvenience was caused by the scarcity of trains. At one town there were only two stopping trains a day, one at 10 in the morning and another at 8 o'clock at night. That was a shocking state of things, having regard to the importance of the town, and so far as ho was able, he would keep those matters before the House until redress was obtained. Ho hoped, however, that he would obtain from the President of the Board of Trade some promise that something would shortly be done to remedy the evils he complained of.

MR. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

called attention to the case of a lighterman who was drowned recently in the Thames in consequence of his skiff being swamped by the wash of a foreign vessel. If the like happened in the case of a British vessel in foreign waters, it was detained until a satisfactory settlement had taken place, but if an accident was caused by a foreign vessel trading in English waters there was no power to detain the vessel. The right honourable Gentleman had promised some legislation on that important question, and he hoped he would use his influence to obtain it. The honourable Member also called attention to the overcrowding of third-class carriages in morning and evening trains on the Metropolitan and Great Eastern Railways. When workmen were going to and from their work the trains were overcrowded to a scandalous degree. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would exercise the power he had at his disposal to stop such overcrowding, which had become a public scandal.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

desired to know whether the right honourable Gentleman intended to take any steps in consequence of the very serious finding of the Court of Inquiry with regard to the wreck of the "Stella," and whether any recommendations would be issued to the companies which ran the Channel Islands steamers. He also wished to know the number of inquiries held by the inspectors of the Board during the past year into fatal accidents to individual railway servants. He had repeatedly protested against the distinction made by the Board of Trade between fatalities in mines and fatalities among railway servants, and he thought that the two classes of fatality ought to be dealt with in the same way. He thought that an expert from the Board of Trade should be present at the inquiries, and should take an active part in bringing to light the cause of the fatalities in question. He also expressed a wish to know whether any steps had been taken to increase the number of inquiries by the Board of Trade into the fatalities among railway servants. He complained that the public were left in the dark as to the proceedings of the sub-inspectors, who were appointed by Mr. Mundella some years ago. Their inquiries had, it was true, led to the better lighting of goods yards and improvements in shunting, but there was no accurate information as to the inquiries they had held in relation to the accidents which had occurred. A third point which he desired to bring before the House was in regard to the offer made to bring about a better mode of conciliation in industrial disputes. He regretted that that offer had not yet been carried out, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect of further action being taken during the ensuing year to bring about a better system of conciliation than existed at the present time.


The honourable Member for Northampton has raised questions of detail which I hardly expected to be raised at this stage. I desire to supply the information asked for, but I am not provided with it; if the honourable Member will put any question on the Paper with regard to any of the matters I will do the best I can, and give the fullest information in my power. Like the honourable Gentleman, I greatly regret that the employers did not see their way to adopt some such method of endeavouring to put a stop to trade disputes as those which I originated. The employed, I am glad to say, showed a great disposition to fall in with the views I expressed, and to meet the masters in the hope of arriving at some settlement. I hope, at all events, I was right in believing that the spirit of conciliation in larger matters even than that now in question is growing, not only in this country, but in the world generally. I shall be glad to hear that capital and labour have settled on some means by which these disastrous disputes can be put a stop to. I am sorry my proposals did not succeed, but I do not regret having made them. I know that when the Board of Trade or myself endeavour to put an end to individual disputes or to set up some permanent machinery, and are not successful, those efforts are regarded as great failures, and it is said it would have been better if we had not moved in the matter. I do not share that view. I am quite prepared to bear the criticism which has been passed upon me, and I do not regret any step I have taken. The honourable Gentleman asked whether the Board of Trade was prepared with any further representations. When I receive the report with reference to railway accidents it may be my duty to make some representations to the railway companies. As to the level crossing to which the honourable Member for Falkirk has called attention, the Board of Trade has no power of interference, as the crossing is one which was made before the Board had jurisdiction. It was made under parliamentary powers, over which the Board of Trade have no power, and at a time when it was little used, though now it is used very greatly. I am always willing to make representations to the railway company, but at the same time the remedy is a very costly one. I am afraid I have no power over the railway in Monaghan. The honourable Member representing that constituency was rather severe in his criticisms upon the Board of Trade for not overlooking the whole of the railways throughout the country and making them safe. It would be impossible for any Government department to undertake the inspection of the great lines of railway, and see that they were in a proper state of repair. Railway companies must take care of their own lines, but if an accident takes place the Board of Trade holds an inquiry, and the railway company is held responsible. It is a serious grievance that no train should stop at a railway station for ten hours. I have remonstrated with the railway company, and they have not responded as I expected. It is a serious grievance to the people of the town, and I think that this particular company should remember that it exists not only to pay dividends, but to serve the public, although they might not see any immediate profit in what might be necessary. The honourable Member for Stepney has alluded to a matter which was hardly in order, but with regard to that I can only repeat what I said the other day, that we must see how the law stands before we take action. He also alluded to the overcrowding, which is much to be regretted. On the Metropolitan Railway I have been in first-class compartments in which one could hardly breathe. But everyone must admit it is impossible for the companies to control all the persons who travel, and allowances must be made for those travelling at certain hours, who are willing to put up with it because they naturally wish to got home as quickly as possible. It is suggested that we ought to prosecute the railway companies for overcrowding, but I do not see why the Board of Trade should become general prosecutors. If offences against the bye-laws are committed, it is open to any passenger to take active steps, but to prosecute whenever a breach of the bye- laws is committed is a thing the Board of Trade cannot undertake, as such action would tend to show that the President of the Board of Trade was master of the situation—which, as a matter of fact, he is not—and any such attempt must result in failure. Still, I will endeavour to bring the companies up to the mark in this respect. With regard to the water question which has been referred to, I cannot undertake to look after water wherever it is found. The honourable Member for Caithness was rather indignant with regard to the matter of the salary of the Superintendent of Publications, having regard to the fact that no salary is put down for the assistant librarian, and instanced it as another case of sweating. If either of these gentlemen sweats the other I have no sympathy with them, because both positions happen to be held by the same individual. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough, who had a good innings the other night, has repeated much of what he said on that occasion, and I have nothing to add to the reply then given. The objections of the honourable Gentleman to continuous discharges I cannot understand, for they must be of advantage to seamen as records of service, when they wish to obtain berths on other ships. The Board of Trade Departmental Committee has not been appointed for the purpose of deciding whether there shall or shall not be these discharges, but for the purpose of considering the conditions under which those discharges shall be given. Then the honourable Member referred to the "Tuscan Prince," and said that it was a monstrous thing that this ship should have been carrying passengers without an ordinary certificate. When the honourable Gentleman put a question to me on the subject before, we communicated with the owners of the vessel, but the reply has not been received. The honourable Gentleman has since been informed that 100 pilgrims were carried to Jaffa. But, Sir, the honourable Member is quite mistaken if he supposes that the owners require any certificate from us to carry the pilgrims. Then the honourable Member talked about those poor people lying about on deck and not having sleeping accommodation. I invite any honourable Member who has had experience of Eastern travel to say whether this class of passengers do not prefer to remain on deck, and whether it is not very much healthier for thorn to do so. The honourable Member do voted a considerable portion of his speech to the question of the North Atlantic winter load-line, and objected to the constitution of the Committee because there was no seaman representative. I say again that that Committee consisted of men with technical knowledge, and it is perfectly useless to put seamen on the Committee who have no knowledge whatever of technical matters. The honourable Member seemed to think that there were only shipowners on the Committee, and he made use of an expression to the effect that they had no solicitude about the lives of seamen, and only cared to carry as much cargo as possible. I do not believe that shipowners have no solicitude for the lives of seamen. Of course shipowners wish to carry as much cargo as they can. And why not? Does the honourable Gentleman wish British ships to be quite incapable of competing with foreign ships? If you prevent the British ship from carrying cargo which it can properly and with safety carry, then I say you are putting it under a great disadvantage with its rivals, and the Committee ought to consider whether or not the existing load-line is now appropriate, having regard to the great change that has taken place as to the lives of seamen. I may tell the honourable Gentleman that every member of the Committee signed the report, with the exception of the Canadian representative, who was abroad at the time, but who, I believe, concurred. The honourable Gentleman says he has not seen the Report. The Report of the Committee was presented to the

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F. Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Fellowes, Hon, Ailwyn Edward
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Fisher, William Hayes
Arnold, Alfred Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Charrington, Spencer Fletcher, Sir Henry
Balearres, Lord Clare, Octavins Leigh Flower, Ernest
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Forster, Henry William
Balfour, Rt. Hon Grld W. (Leeds Coghill, Douglas Harry Gedge, Sydney
Banbury, Frederick George Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)
Barnes, Fredk, Gofell Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cranborne, Viscount Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Cubitt, Hon. Henry Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bethell, Commander Curzon, Viscount Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dalkeith, Earl of Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Blakiston-Houston, John Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goschen Rt. Hn. G J (St George's
Bond, Edward Denny, Colonel Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Doughty, George Goulding, Edward Alfred
Brassey, Albert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Gretton, John

House on the 23rd of March, 1899, and is now lying on the Table. There has been no concealment on the part of the Board of Trade, as the whole of the honourable Gentleman's speech seemed to imply. I may further add that I have consulted the Chairman of the Committee, and he has no objection to the publication of the evidence, which will be printed.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

said there was one point which the right honourable Gentleman had not referred to—viz., the proposed new bye-laws of the North Eastern Railway Company, and the right claimed there to deal with passengers without a ticket.


Perhaps the honourable Member will allow me to explain. Of course, as the honourable Gentleman knows, the Board of Trade does not make the rules. The rules are submitted to the Board, and they approve of them. The North Eastern Company submitted a code of rules to the Board for their approval. They were advertised and made as public as possible. Several objections were taken to some of them, representations were made to the company on the subject, and the company is taking the matter into consideration. The Department, however, has not yet received the revised rules.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 33.—(Division List, No 143.)

Gull, Sir Cameron M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Gunter, Colonel Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Rutherford, John
Helder, Augustus Mil bank, Sir Powlett C. John Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Hill, Arthur (Down, West) Milton, Viscount Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire) Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk
Johnston, William (Belfast) Morrell, George Herbert Stanley, Lord (Lanes)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Morton, Arthr. H. A. (Deptford Strauss, Arthur
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Mount, William George Sturtt, Hon. Chas. Hedley
Kenyon-Slavney, Col. William Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Keswick, William Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Knowles, Lees Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Laurie, Lieut. - General Myers, William Henry Valentia, Viscount
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn Newdigate, Francis Alexander Welby, Lieut. -Col. A. C. E.
Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H. Nicol, Donald Ninian Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Whitmore, Charles Alger on
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Pilkington, Richard Williams, Jsph. Powell (Birm.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Purvis, Robert Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l) Rankin, Sir James Wyndham, George
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Rentoul, James Alexander Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Macdona, John Cumming Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Maclver, David (Liverpool) Rickett, J. Compton
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Pirie, Duncan V.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Goddard, Daniel Ford Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Billson, Alfred Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.) Robson, William Snowdon
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Horniman, Frederick John Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Caldwell, James Jones, William (Carnarvon) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Channing, Francis Allston Macaleese, Daniel Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness) M'Leod, John Wedderburn, Sir William
Colville, John Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Daly, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Havelock Wilson.
Davitt, Michael Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Doogan, P. C. Philipps, John Wynford

Resolution agreed to.