HC Deb 08 July 1914 vol 64 cc1173-91

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [30th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Wardle.]

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."

On the 30th of June this question came before the House, and, after discussion, a Motion to adjourn the Debate was carried. That Motion was carried for a specific purpose. The House then declared, I take it, that it desired to keep a grip of the Bill, and not to give a Second Reading until the question which was outstanding between the directors of this company and their employés regarding their Superannuation Fund was settled one way or another. The point they raised was that the House expressed a desire that the directors should meet a deputation of the men, and discuss this matter. Anyone reading the Debate that took place on the 30th June will see that that is the purport of the Debate. In the first place, the question discussed was "that the Bill be read a second time this day three months," and later the question was "that the Debate be now adjourned." I hope the promoters will not proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill to-night because they have not fulfilled the intention of the House when the Debate was adjourned.

I repeat that we do not desire to kill this Bill. We desire that it should go through on its merits, but the custom has arisen, and it will certainly be taken advantage of whenever it is necessary, of discussing the general responsibility of railway companies on the Second Reading of Railway Bills. There need be no mistake about that. It has been done on both sides of the House and by all sorts of interests, and until the Standing Orders are altered that opportunity will be taken by us to discuss our grievances. If my reading of the Debate is correct, the House practically requested the directors to meet the men and settle this matter, and the intention of the House has not been fulfilled. The directors have only agreed to meet the men to-morrow, and I hold that until that conference has taken place this House ought not to give this Bill a Second Reading. The position to-day is practically the same, though not exactly to the letter, as it was on the 30th of June, when the Debate was adjourned by a majority of eighty. Until the hon. Member in charge of the Bill can come to this House and say that they have met the men, that they have discussed the question of the superannuation fund with the men, and that the matter is settled, I hope the House may not change the mind which it expressed so emphatically on the 30th of June.

Mr. DICKINSON

I beg to second the Motion for Adjournment.

The circumstances have in no way changed to those which obtained on a former occasion when this matter was Debated. At that time as the House will well remember, the pros and cons of this dispute between the directors and the members of the staff were fully set before the House. In the course of the Debate it became perfectly clear that the Adjournment was moved, and was indeed carried, with a view to some kind of settlement being arrived at before this House should be called upon to deal with the matter any further. This idea of settlement was in the mind, not only of hon. Members on this side, but of hon. Members opposite. This appears to be clearly the case from the speech which was made towards the end of the Debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who is perhaps better acquainted with the procedure on these Bills than almost any other hon. Member in the House. I notice that in his speech when he was dealing with the question, the right hon. Gentleman said:— The hon. Member for Derby proposed seven should sit on this board as against eight. The hon. Member for the City of London has—it may be slowly and in an injudicious manner, for which he personally is not responsible—proposed the lesser number of three. I do submit that if hon. Members reflect on the extreme unwillingness of companies to come to this House for power to raise new capital, they may take it that these things which are asked for are really and truly necessary. The difference between the parties in this case is not such as to warrant the House in taking an extreme course on this Bill on the Second Reading. This is not the last stage on which hon. Members will be able to state their case. Mr. Lough: The point cannot be raised on the Third Reading. Mr. Stuart-Wortley: I am not sure of that. Besides, it the Second Reading is passed now, there will be time for subsequent negotiations. Speaking for myself and other directors of railways in this House, I am able to state that we fully concede that there ought to be representation. The objects are two. One is to give control to the guaranteeing company, and the other, which is only a degree less necessary, is to secure that the men who are contributors to this fund should have the best of all possible means of knowing what is being done in the management of the fund. That, I think, should be conceded, and for that purpose I should have said that the presence of three is enough. If the presence of three is not enough, then let that number be increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1914, col. 324–325.] I only quote those words in order to show that some sort of settlement embodying a system of representation of the staff on the Committee that manages the superannuation fund was to be arrived at or secured before this matter was dealt with by the House, and in accordance with that understanding the House adjourned the matter. I hope that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will accede to this moderate request made on behalf of the staff and of this House, that before we are called upon to vote for or against this Bill we should have some certainty that the demands of the men will be met. Otherwise many of us will find ourselves in the position of having to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, although we recognise that it deals with subjects that it would be advisable to pass.

Sir F. BANBURY

I cannot admit that the interpretation put upon the action of the House last week by the hon. Member who has just sat down is correct, but however that may be—and I do not want to go into that matter now—I would like to draw the attention of the House to the reasons given by the two hon. Members who have just spoken on the Motion to adjourn the Debate. I think I am not misrepresenting the hon. Member for Leicester—and as this is an important matter, I hope if I have misunderstood him he will correct me—when I state that I understood him to say that he on his part could not consent to the Second Reading of this Bill until the directors had met the men and come to a settlement. Is that correct?

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

nodded assent.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), who seconded this Motion, said a settlement must be arrived at, and the Second Reading should not be taken until a settlement had been arrived at. I think I am not misstating the words of either of the two hon. Members. That is the whole difficulty. The railway company are not going to purchase their Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the question of superannuation, and the Great Northern Railway Company think that the attempts which are now continually being made to prevent the Second Reading of Omnibus Bills, or Bills to which there are no objections in themselves, in order to extort certain concessions, right or wrong, on something which is quite different, is a new system which has sprung up, and is one which it is impossible to continue. During the Debate last week it was stated by some hon. Member opposite that the men had asked to see the directors, and that the directors had refused. It was said that it had been stated that the directors would always meet the men whenever they were asked to do so, provided, of course, that the request was reasonable. I said that I was only one director, and that I could neither speak for the board nor dictate the actions of the board, but that I would represent to the board what had been said, and, as far as I was personally concerned, if the men wanted to see any of the directors, I saw no objection to that being done. I was present at the board meeting on Friday, and I stated what had taken place. The board passed two resolutions. The first was:— Sir Frederick Banbury having reported the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Company's Bill, and that the Debate stood adjourned, the board, after full consideration, resolved. 'That in view of the voluntary contributions by the company for the benefit of the members of the superannuation funds, which are largely in excess of the statutory liability of the company, the board feel that the control of the administration of the fund must remain with the shareholders and representatives and that they could not justify to their shareholders such an increase in the number of elected representatives as would tend to weaken that control. The second resolution was to this effect:— On the proposal of Sir Frederick Banbury, it was agreed that the directors would receive a deputation of the members of the fund, if an interview were still desired. I believe that the members of the fund who objected to both the proposals that were put before them intimated their desire to see the directors. The majority of the members, who expressed their approval of the proposal which the directors put before them, also desired to see the directors, and both parties will be seen to-morrow. That, however, has got nothing whatever to do with this particular Bill. I do not know whether I should be in order, but I think possibly it might be well so as to avoid any misconception, to point out exactly what the directors have offered to the members of the superannuation fund. The superannuation committee consisted originally of seven directors and six members of the staff. Those six members of the staff were chosen ex-officio, and were heads of six departments. When the company, as I told the House last week, guaranteed in addition to the 2½ per cent., which they contributed to each member of the fund, that whatever—

Mr. G. H. ROBERTS

On a point of Order. I do not want to prevent the hon. Baronet from reviewing the whole circumstances, but I would like to understand from you whether it will be competent for other people also to follow on the same lines?

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not intend to review the whole case. I was only going to put the particular point before the House with regard to the number of men who were on the superannuation committee and the proposals which the company made in order that there might be no misunderstanding actually upon the case on which we should have to vote.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

I am afraid that would be rather irregular on the mere Motion "That the Debate be now adjourned." We ought to keep on that Motion. The question is whether the Bill is to be further considered to-day or on some future occasion.

Sir F. BANBURY

I thought perhaps it was not very regular, but it rather shows the spirit in which any attempt to be conciliatory is met, that a Labour Member should be desirous of stopping my putting the case before the House.

Mr. G. H. ROBERTS

Not at all. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was not desirous of preventing the hon. Baronet from making his statement. I only desired that we should have the same facility for covering the same ground that he purposes to cover in his speech.

Sir F. BANBURY

Of course I bow to your ruling. The position is as I have already told the House, and, if the Adjournment is agreed to, the only result will be that a considerable portion of valuable time will have been wasted for no reason at all. First of all, it must be remembered that this is 8th July, and that we are now getting very near the end of the Session. Secondly, it must be remembered that whatever may be the result of the meeting to-morrow, between the directors and the men, the statements of both sides of the men will have to be reported to the full board, and the full board—I presume hon. Members on both sides of the House would desire it—will give consideration to the arguments that have been put forward. The board does not meet until the end of July, and therefore this Debate would stand until August before it could be taken again if the conditions of the two hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the Adjournment are to be fulfilled.

Sir A. MARKHAM

You could have a special board meeting.

Sir F. BANBURY

Of course, we could have a special board meeting, but what should we have a special board meeting for. If the idea is that because there is objection here we are going to surrender the position we have taken up, I say at once that there is not the slightest chance of our doing that, and we had much better go to a Division and come to a decision now. We are not going to buy our Bill under any circumstances whatever, and, if hon. Members think that we are to be threatened and browbeaten into buying our Bill, they are mistaken, and I shall certainly oppose the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. WARDLE

I listened with some amazement to the hon. Baronet. There is no question of buying the Bill. It is a question of asking the House of Commons to pass a Bill which is in the interests of a private corporation. If that private corporation comes to the House of Commons for a Bill, surely the House of Commons has the right to review the conduct of its business under Bills which have been previously granted to it by the House. What is the position to-night? The hon. Baronet has come to the House and stated quite frankly that he is not going to concede to his employés anything whatever under pressure from this House. I take it that is his position, that he will not even consider representations which are made to him from this House. That is really the whole point we have to bear in mind.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not say that.

Mr. WARDLE

According to the hon. Baronet's own confession, what have they done? Last Friday they held a board meeting after the Debate had taken place in this House, and certain statements were made to the board. They came to a decision that they would do nothing, that they would not alter their policy, and they would not take a single step to meet the objections which these men have been putting forward. Having come to what is practically a final decision, they then say, "We will meet a deputation and talk it over with them." That is a most curious way of doing business, and of recommending the policy of the Great Northern Railway Company to the House of Commons. Let it be remembered that this is not a new question. It has been before the board of directors of the railway company for over two years. Representations have been made in this House before. Representations have also been made by members of the staff before this, and, until this week, the company have refused to receive representatives of the staff. We now find ourselves in this position. That having arrived at their policy they are willing to consider what the staff have to say, but it will not alter their policy. Is it any wonder there are labour troubles in this country? For two years these men have been knocking at the door of the hon. Baronet's board-room. They have been asking for a very small concession—for an elementary right. That right has been denied to them, and now the hon. Baronet wants to threaten the House of Commons, for that is what he is doing. He tells us that the Great Northern Railway Company and other railway companies are going to tell this House that they intend to dictate the terms upon which the Bills they bring forward shall be passed. So long as the present Standing Orders of the House continue, and I hope they will always continue, it is not only a valuable right, but a right in the public interest that these questions should be discussed here rather than that the men should be driven underground in their agitation, or allow sores to fester in their mind, or that the railway companies should be permitted to tyrannise over their men. I, for one, support the Adjournment, and I hope it will be agreed to unanimously.

Mr. ERNEST JARDINE

As a matter of personal explanation I should like to say I have no share in the Great Northern Railway Company, and that I am inter- ested in waterways, which, I hope, will compete very seriously in the future with the company. But I would ask this House to be the real, legislative, fair and unbiassed assembly that most Members claim it is. Here we have a domestic quarrel, into which I will not enter, between the Labour party and the Great Northern Railway Company. The Chairman of the Labour party made it quite clear when he said that in future Opportunity will be taken by us to extort what we desire.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

If the hon. Member wants to quote me, I would ask him to quote me accurately, and if he wants to criticise our action, I would ask that he should first know something about the Standing Orders of the House relating to these questions.

Mr. JARDINE

I will repeat the words of the hon. Member for Leicester:— Opportunity will be taken by us to bring up Labour questions. And now I am adding my own words "to blackmail the railway company." That policy is quite clear, and I think in private the railway companies will admit it. I say frankly, if I were a Labour man, that is the attitude I would take up.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

It is not our attitude.

Mr. JARDINE

If the Labour party took up that attitude right through, instead of being merely supporters of the Liberal party, it would very much strengthen their position. They would gain the respect of working men, they would become powerful, and they would be better able to influence the legislation of this country. But I want to appeal to the Members of this House generally, to a body which is supposed to give fair and reasonable consideration to whatever comes before it. What has this House to do with this quarrel between a trade union and the Great Northern Railway Company? This House should merely consider the Bill that is brought before it. It should consider whether it is in the interests of the public. Is it desirable that the proposed works should be carried out? That is the point this House ought to deal with. It should not attempt to curry favour with the Labour party. It should consider the Bill on its merits and leave these parties to fight out their own battle. It is clearly to the interest of the country that the Bill should be carried through, and I appeal to hon. Members on either side to simply consider the Bill on its merits, and now and always to discard these Labour troubles that are brought forward here instead of being settled between the Labour leaders and the directors of the company. They should allow no attempt to secure a settlement on the floor of the House by blackmail, extortion or threats, either now or in the future. They should give no heed to threats to oppose Bills under such circumstances, either now or in the future. I admit that the railway companies are considerably to blame in this matter. They bring forward a Bill. There is opposition to it in some part of the House. They make concessions on the floor of the House, not because they are fair and reasonable, and ought to be made, but simply because they want to get their Bill through.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must remind the House that we are only now discussing the question whether the Debate on the Second Reading shall be continued to-night or adjourned to a future day. That is the only question before us.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I point out that the hon. Member for Leicester, in supporting the Motion for the Adjournment, urged that a settlement of this dispute ought to be arrived at before the Second Reading of the Bill was taken. Is it not then in order for my hon. Friend to point out the reasons why, in his opinion, the dispute has nothing whatever to do with the Second Reading of the Bill, and affords no good argument for supporting the Motion for Adjournment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member would be in order in doing that.

Mr. JARDINE

I have only a few more words to say, that is to ask the Members of this House, apart from the Labour party who would naturally oppose this Bill because they do not get their own terms, to consider the Bill on its merits, not to butt in with something which has nothing to do with the Bill, but to do the work they are sent here to do, namely, to act in the interests of the community at large and not attempt to curry favour with one section of this House.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I would ask your ruling, Sir, whether I am entitled to give the reasons why I think we should not proceed with this Bill? If I do so it will be necessary for me to deal with Clause 44 of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That would not be in order until we have disposed of the present Motion. If the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate is defeated, then apparently the hon. Baronet would be in order. At present he must deal with the question whether the Second Reading is to be debated to-day or some day next week.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I am afraid that, ruling very much restricts the discussion which can now take place. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that when he talks about blackmail he should have a quiet talk with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), because at the present time his company—I will not say more than this, and I will reserve what I am afraid will be a long argument—are seeking to obtain immense sums of money for property for which they have never paid, yet he is the man who is always calling the Chancellor of the Exchequer a thief, or using similar language.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have never called the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a thief.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I mean figuratively speaking, of course.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have never called him a thief even figuratively speaking, whatever else I may have called him.

Mr. LEIF JONES

It is very unfortunate that the last speaker from the opposite side should have thought it necessary to introduce such words as "blackmail" and "extortion" into this discussion. I should have thought that the practice of the House and the Standing Orders would have prevented him from using such language. I see no reason why he should have drawn a distinction between the Liberal party and the Labour party in this matter. So far as I could understand him he advised us to have nothing to do with blackmail, but advised the Labour party to blackmail as much as they could.

Mr. JARDINE

It is what they are here for.

Mr. LEIF JONES

This is the opportunity provided by the Standing Orders and the practice of this House for bringing before the House any grievances in connection with the management of railways. I am inclined to agree that it is not a very good practice, but I ask hon. Members who object to it what other opportunity there is under our Standing Orders to bring the proceedings of railway companies under review?

Sir F. BANBURY

I have not made any objection to the speeches which have been made by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and I have not criticised them. All I have said is, "Why not vote now, and why keep on adjourning in the hope that by an adjournment you will compel the company to meet their demand?" I object to the Adjournment. Let them bring forward their case, and let the House decide upon it.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The hon. Baronet may have no complaint, but certainly the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Jardine) did complain very strongly of the action of the Labour party in making this Motion, and he appealed to us not to support the Adjournment on that ground.

Mr. JARDINE

I did not complain of the action of the Labour party. I said that if I were a Labour Member, I should do what they are doing.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The hon. Baronet in fact said that his company are not going to purchase their Bill by making concessions at the request of the House.

Sir F. BANBURY

I never said that.

Mr. LEIF JONES

That can be the only meaning of the hon. Baronet's speech. That is a position which no director of a company which is coming to this House for powers is entitled to take. It is no disgrace to a board of directors to have to bow to the will of the House of Commons. They may say that our conditions are too hard, and they will not proceed with their Bill, but the hon. Baronet has no right to use language such as "purchasing the Bill at the price of bowing down," because the body to whom he bows down is the House of Commons, which is the final expression of the will of the people of this country.

Sir F. BANBURY

You do not seem inclined to try it.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I suggest to the hon. Baronet that he should somewhat moderate his phrases and realise that it is necessary for his company to make terms with the House of Commons. They are coming to us for the grant of powers, and it has been our practice, when a company asks for fresh powers, to say to them, "How have you used the powers already entrusted to you?" It is under that practice that this opportunity has been taken of raising this question and of very properly addressing to the directors of the Great Northen Company an inquiry from the House as to the use they have made of powers which they only have in virtue of being a company constituted under an Act of Parliament, The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) gave in his own language a version of a resolution passed by the board of directors at a meeting last week. I should like to ask the hon. Baronet if he will read it to the House by way of interruption or let me have it.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have read it.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I do not quite interpret it as the hon. Member for Stockport did. He said that the directors had already come to a decision in this matter. I did not so understand the resolution which was read, and I took the effect of it to be that the directors felt that as the company were providing a large part of the money for this fund it was necessary that they should retain a majority upon the board of management of the fund or what they called the control of the fund.

Sir F. BANBURY

There is nothing about control.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I understood that it meant retaining the control. So far as I understand the matter the railway members of this fund have never asked that they should have a majority on the board of management. They have asked for seven out of fifteen. It is all on the point of the seven out of fifteen they are to meet the directors.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That, again, is going into matters appropriate to the main Question. We must first dispose of the Question whether the Debate be adjourned or not.

Mr. LEIF JONES

My diversion arose through the reading of the resolution by the hon. Baronet and the version given of it by the hon. Member for Stockport, which made the resolution appear worse than I think it is. I will not pursue that point. It is exceedingly unfortunate that the Bill should have been put down for to-day, when the board of directors are to meet the men to-morrow. I do not know how that comes about. I know the purpose of my own vote last week when the matter came up before. I voted for the Adjournment in the hope that the directors would meet the men, and that they would come to some amicable settlement of this question. I thought the men's demand was not unreasonable, and I believe that the directors of the Great Northern Company, when a reasonable case is presented to them, would be ready to meet it and yield to argument. I appeal to the hon. Baronet, who, although a very strong and able defender of his causes in this House, I have always found to be a very reasonable man, to say whether it would not be wise for him to agree to the adjournment to some day next week, when the meeting will have taken place. We are not prejudging to-night what will be done at that meeting, but we want to know, before voting on the Bill, what is the attitude of the directors towards the demands the men are putting forward. The hon. Baronet will be serving the interests of his company, as well as the House of Commons, if he will agree to the adjournment of the Debate in order that the meeting may take place to-morrow, and that we may know where we stand when we come to vote upon the Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN

I think perhaps, in fairness to all parties concerned, I ought to state how it was that the Bill was set idown for to-night. On 13th June, on the adjournment of the Debate being decided, the House was asked by the Chair on what day it should be set down, and I, acting on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means, said "this day week"—that is, a week from that date, thinking that it would be a fairly reasonable time in which something might be done. If there had been, at the request of all parties concerned, a further adjournment of the Debate, no doubt the Chairman of Ways and Means might put a Motion down in regard to that, but I thought I ought in fairness to the hon. Baronet and everyone concerned to make that quite clear to the House.

Mr. DUKE

I cannot help thinking, as one who is neither a shareholder in the railway company nor a Labour Member, that it is unfortunate that a considerable degree of heat should be generated over what really ought not to be a question involving any heat. I share absolutely the view which the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) expressed, that this House is invested with a control over legislation in respect of the holders of franchises in this country for public purposes. It is idle to pretend that this House is not invested with that duty. It is a duty which is enforced whenever questions arise before Committees of the House with regard to the extension of franchises, and I do not think it helps in a discussion of this kind to have it suggested that whatever people who control franchises in this country may think, the holder of this franchise or that will do as he thinks fit in his existing position. It is a heroic attitude, but I do not think it is business. The immediate question is whether this Debate ought to be adjourned. If the position is that the directors of the Great Northern Company have made up their minds that the meeting with their employés to-morrow is an idle formality, to my mind the Debate ought not be adjourned, and there should be sufficient communication of the facts to enable the House to come to a conclusion whether the demand which is presented is so outrageous in its character that the board of directors who are controlling a public service ought to say before it is presented to them, "We will have none of it."

If the demand is of that character and if that is demonstrated to the House, so far as I am concerned, although my natural inclination would be to do what I could for the under dog, I would vote against the adjournment, and in favour of the Bill. But on the other hand, if the demand is one which we should expect the representatives of a public Department to entertain when it was presented by a public servant, I regard the directors of railway companies in this country as performing a public service, and having a public responsibility to discharge, and the line which I would take upon this matter would depend upon two considerations, first of all, whether the demand which is made is a manifestly outrageous demand which ought not to be made or entertained, and then whether the House is seriously to permit that whatever is the character of the demand, and whatever may be presented to the directors of the Great Northern Company to-morrow, in no circumstances will the directors entertain the proposition which may be put before them by their employés. To my mind that is not a possible position at the present time. It is totally out of accord with the control which the House of Commons exercises over the conduct of those who possess franchises in this country, and greatly as I should regret to take any step which would hinder the progress of a Bill involving among other things, a large expenditure of money—the money and the labour may be balanced, but I would put above both of them the public interest. I would let the capital and the labour balance themselves, as I suspect they will when the thing is worked out, because I suppose there will not be any gratuity on either side, but the public interest is that this shall come to an amicable settlement, and I hope someone representing the company will be able to tell the House that the meeting to-morrow will be a real meeting, and that the directors will entertain the considerations which are submitted to them, and will come to a decision upon them upon their merits, and without any prejudgment by reason of what may have taken place last week or to-night in this House. I hope we shall hear something which will enable one to vote upon the merits of the proposal.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. ALDEN

I am in full accord with what the hon. Member has just said and I hope the hon. Baronet would allow us to put to him a direct question as to whether, when this deputation is received tomorrow, it is to be received with a direct negative or whether it is still an open matter, and there is still room for reconsideration. If the hon. Baronet can say that there is still room to reconsider this matter, we do not bind ourselves absolutely, and we will do our best when we have heard the arguments for and against, but obviously it would be unwise to do anything more than adjourn the Bill to-night. We can hardly expect the House to say definitely that this Bill shall be rejected or should be accepted while we are in this position, and I ask the hon. Baronet to consider this point. It is true it is introducing some extraneous matter to deal with this subject on a Bill of this nature, but surely the hon. Baronet can see that there are many subjects which might be quite extraneous to a Bill of this nature and yet ought to be considered by this House as matters of public interest on the Second Reading! There are many occasions on which the whole interest of the public might be bound up and involved, and on occasions such as that, although they do not directly affect the Bill itself, it is the duty of the House to pronounce an opinion. I ask the hon. Baronet whether he will or will not say to-night that this matter is still open, and when the deputation is received it is within the power of the directors to vary any decision which they may have already come to, and I think he will see that under these circumstances it would be as well for the House to adjourn the consideration of the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

Of course the answer to the question which the hon. Member has asked me as to whether it would be in the power of the directors to vary their decision is in the affirmative. It is always in the power of directors to vary a decision at which they have arrived. I was rather surprised to be asked that question. With regard to the other matter, the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for Adjournment distinctly said that unless an amicable settlement was arrived at, which, of course, means unless the men get their own way, they will vote against the Second Reading. That being so, I see no reason why we should not divide now and settle the matter at once, instead of adjourning and having it all over again.

Mr. ALDEN

May I point out that neither the Mover nor the Seconder definitely put the point that they wanted some arrangement to be arrived at so that what they ask must be given? I think the hon. Baronet might look at it in that light.

Mr. CHARLES BATHURST

I think the pronouncement which has just been made by the hon. Baronet must have brought disappointment to those who, with an impartial mind, have listened to this Debate. He has himself stated that all the men were claiming was that an opportunity should be offered for an amicable settlement to be arrived at. Well, that amicable settlement cannot be arrived at unless the railway company and their employés, or the representatives of their employés, have an opportunity of meeting.

Sir F. BANBURY

These are not the actual words. The actual words were that the representatives of the men should have some certainty that the demands of the men may be met.

Mr. BATHURST

I am not concerned with the actual words. It is perfectly clear to me that if this Debate is note adjourned, the meeting between the railway company and their employés to-morrow will be a farce. I am not at all sure from the attitude of my hon. Friend that that is not his object.

Sir F. BANBURY

indicated dissent.

Mr. BATHURST

Well, all I can say is that if that is not his object in taking up the line he is taking—

Sir F. BANBURY

My hon. Friend has made an accusation against me. My object all through the Debate last week and the Debate to-night has been to be perfectly candid with the House. I gave an undertaking that I would endeavour to get the directors to see the men, and that undertaking was carried out. They are coming to see us, and to suppose that we are not going to listen to what they have to say is an absurdity. But, on the other hand, to acquiesce in the idea that we must agree to the demands of the men, and that we are not to get our Bill unless we agree is also an absurdity. Whatever we think to be right will be done to-morrow, whether we get the Bill or not. We shall do what we think right quite irrespective of whether we get the Bill or not.

Mr. BATHURST

The representatives of the men have asked that there should be an Adjournment of the consideration of the Bill until after the railway company and the representatives of the employés have met to consider this matter. It seems

to me that that is a most reasonable demand. I entirely agree with every word that has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). I for my part resent the very arbitrary line which the directors of railway companies adopt in this country. After all, as my hon. Friend has stated, they enjoy a franchise, or a monopoly as I prefer to put it, which has been permitted to them by this House, and which they enjoy on the consideration only that the public interest is served. There cannot be any surer way of doing a disservice to the country than encouraging these constant quarrels, or in any way tending to promote these constant quarrels between railway companies and their employés. We had a signal and alarming instance of this only two years ago, and I for my part do not want to see a repetition of it. Surely it is in the public interest that these meetings between railway companies and their employés should be encouraged in every possible way, and that we should not come to any hasty decision on this or any other Bill pending the decision of a dispute such as is now pending between the Great Northern Railway Company and their employés. I hope that, in view of the attitude taken up by the directors, the Debate will be Adjourned until after the meeting has taken place.

Question put, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 60.

Division No. 161.] AYES. [9.10 p.m.
Adamson, William Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward
Addison, Dr. Christopher Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Fitzgibbon, John
Agnew, Sir George William Cotton, William Francis Flavin, Michael Joseph
Alden, Percy Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) France, Gerald Ashburner
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Crean, Eugene Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson
Arnold, Sydney Crooks, William Gelder, Sir William Alfred
Astor, Walderf Crumley, Patrick George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Cullinan, John Gilhooly, James
Barnes, George N. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Gladstone, W. G. C.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Glanville, H. J.
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Dawes, James Arthur Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Delany, William Goldstone, Frank
Bentham, G. J. Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones
Bethell, Sir John Henry Denniss, E. R. B. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Black, Arthur W. Dillon, John Gulland, John William
Boland, John Pius Dixon, C. H. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Booth, Frederick Handel Doris, William Hackett, John
Bowerman, Charles W. Duffy, William J. Hancock, J. G.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Duke, Henry Edward Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hardie, J. Keir
Brocklehurst, W. B. Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Bryce, J. Annan Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Elverston, Sir Harold Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Hayden, John Patrick
Byles, Sir William Pollard Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Hayward, Evan
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Chancellor, Henry George Farrell, James Patrick Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)
Clancy, John Joseph Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Hemmerde, Edward George
Clough, William Ffrench, Peter Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Clynes, J. B. Field, William Henry, Sir Charles
Higham, John Sharp Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Hodge, John Middlebrook, William Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Hogge, James Myles Molloy, Michael Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Holmes, Daniel Turner Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Robinson, Sidney
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Mooney, John J. Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roe, Sir Thomas
Hunt, Rowland Muldoon, John Rowntree, Arnold
John, Edward Thomas Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Murphy, Martin J. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Needham, Christopher T. Scanlan, Thomas
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Newton, Harry Kottingham Sheehy, David
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster) Sherwell, Arthur James
Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) Nolan, Joseph Shortt, Edward
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney) Nuttall, Harry Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Jowett, Frederick William O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Joyce, Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sutton, John E.
Kellaway, Frederick George O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Kelly, Edward O'Doherty, Philip Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Donnell, Thomas Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Kilbride, Denis O'Dowd, John Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
King, Joseph O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) O'Malley, William Tickler, T. G.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Toulmin, Sir George
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) O'Shee, James John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Leach, Charles O'Sullivan, Timothy Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Levy, Sir Maurice Outhwaite, R. L. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Parker, James (Halifax) Webb, Henry
Lundon, Thomas Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lyell, Charles Henry Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Whyte, Alexander F.
Lynch, Arthur Alfred Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wiles, Thomas
Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Pratt, J. W. Wilkie, Alexander
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Pringle, William M. R. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Callum, Sir John M. Radford, G. H. Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Raffan, Peter Wilson Wing, Thomas Edward
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Randles, Sir John S. Yeo, Alfred William
Manfield, Harry Reddy, Michael Young, William (Perth, East)
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Marks, Sir George Croydon Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Martin, Joseph Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Meagher, Michael Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Wardle and Mr. Dickinson.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Gardner, Ernest Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.
Baker, Sir Rartdolf L. (Dorset, N.) Gilmour, Captain John Malcolm, Ian
Baldwin, Stanley Gretton, John Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Rees, Sir J. D.
Barnston, Harry Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Harris, Henry Percy Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Stanier, Beville
Bigland, Alfred Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Swift, Rigby
Blair, Reginald Hewins, William Albert Samuel Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Boyton, James Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Bridgeman, William Clive Hill-Wood, Samuel Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Butcher, John George Holt, Richard Durning Touche, George Alexander
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hope, Harry (Bute) Watson, Hon. W.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Weigall, Captain A. G.
Chambers, James Horne, Edgar Weston, Colonel J. W.
Courthope, George Loyd Houston, Robert Paterson White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.
Croft, H. P. Ingleby, Holcombe TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Dalrymple, Viscount Lewisham, Viscount Frederick Banbury and Mr. Ernest
Du Pre, W. Baring Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. Jardine.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed upon Friday next (10th July).