Lords Sitting of 4 August 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; passed, and returned to the Commons.

  DROGHEDA CORPORATION BILL.
  On the Order for the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Drogheda Corporation Bill,
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)said the Bill originated in their Lordships' House, and its object was to extend the limits of the borough of Drogheda. When the Rill came before the House of Commons that House passed a mandatory Instruction to the Committee to which the Bid was referred ordering them to lower the municipal franchise of the borough. The Bill came back to the House of Lords containing the new clause. It was referred to the Standing Orders Committee on the ground that the new clause was not covered by the notices of the Bill, and, therefore, it had not complied with Standing Orders. The Standing Orders Committee did not, however, deem it its duty to refuse to allow the Bill to proceed, as no opposition was raised before it, but if there had been any opposition to the Bill it was probable that the Standing Orders Committee would have taken quite another view of their duty. But he took the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this undesirable practice of introducing into local private Bills affecting local interests, clauses dealing with the franchise, which properly belonged to public legislation. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)said that, if the system to which his noble Friend had referred was allowed to be pursued, reforms in municipal law and government would be introduced here and there through the
  1418
  country through the medium of private Bills. He only regretted that the Standing Order's Committee had not refused to allow the Bill to proceed.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, said that if there had been the slightest indication of opposition to the Bill he should not have given his vote to allow the Bill to proceed. Probably the reason why there was no opposition was that the political party now in a majority in the Corporation of Drogheda would continue to be in a majority under the extension of the franchise.
  Report of the Standing Orders Committee upon the Amendments made by the Commons considered (according to Order), and agreed to; Commons' Amendments also considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment to be considered on Thursday next.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.—[No. 233.]
COAL MINER REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee, with Amendments; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 234.]
FINANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
On the report of Amendments to this Bill,
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the Amendments had been considered by the Standing Committee, and some valuable suggestions were made by the late Lord Chancellor and by the present occupant of the Woolsack. He assured Lord Herschell that he would consider suggestions he made with regard to alterations in Clause 3, and he afterwards informed him that he considered the Amendments befitted the Local Government Board more than himself (Lord Londonderry) as introducer of this Bill. He consulted Lord Harris, and he promised to lay the matter before the Local Government Board The President of the Local Government Board advised the consideration of the Bill by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. In all probability that committee would not sit before next year, and the Bill (winch he was extremely anxious should pass the House before it rose) would not conclude its stages during the present Session. But he understood the Local Government Board would not give their concurrence in carrying through the Bill unless Clause 3 was eliminated. He was extremely loth to eliminate a clause which he considered of great importance, more especially as it had been considered in Committee; but, as its elimination seemed the only way to get the Bill through, he agreed to it. He moved that the Bill be reported, with Amendments, to the House.
Amendments reported (according to Order); a further Amendment made; Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 235.]

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[The EARL of MORLEY, CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

AMENDMENT OF 46 & 47 VICT. C. 60, SS. 4 AND 7, AS TO PERIODS FOR PROCEDURE, AMENDMENT OF REPRESENTATIONS, ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES.
(1.) In Section four of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, "seven days" shall he substituted for "fourteen days" wherever those words occur.
(2.) The notice of a subsequent meeting of a sanitary authority required by the said Section four shall not be necessary except in the case of a meeting at which a final resolution is to be passed.
(3.) A representation under Section five of the said Act of 1883, or any certificate of a sanitary officer relating to the same, may be amended at any time prior or subsequent to the making of an improvement scheme in pursuance thereof, and the power of amendment hereby given shall include power to permit any such representation to be signed at any stage of the proceedings thereon by any person duly qualified to sign the same, and such signing shall have the same effect as if the representation had been originally so signed; provided that no amendment other than the addition of a signature shall be made without the consent in writing in the case of a representation of the persons who originally signed the same, and in the case of a certificate of the sanitary officer, and any signature added shall be verified by a member or officer of the sanitary authority.
(4.) In section seven of the said Act of 1883 "two consecutive weeks" shall be substituted for "three consecutive weeks," and the notices to be served under the said section may be served at the same time as, or at any time after, the publication of the advertisement in that section mentioned.
(5.) Any notice under the said section seven may be served on the agent of the person required to be served in like manner as on such person, and need not be served personally; provided that, if the service is by post, the letter shall be registered.
(6.) Where the Local Government Board direct a local inquiry to be held under the said Section seven, the inspector of the Board appointed to hold the inquiry shall, not later than seven days before the day on which the inquiry will be held, forward by post in a registered letter addressed to the usual or last-known place of abode of every owner or reputed owner, lessee or reputed lessee, and occupier of the lands proposed to be taken compulsorily, a notice of the date on which the inquiry will be held.>
THE EARL OF ARRAN*THE EARL OF ARRAN moved, in Sub-section (5), after the words "may be served on" to insert the words "the owner and," in order to provide that any notice under Section 7 of the Act of 1883 may be served "on the owner and" agent of the person required to be served. The noble Lord said he proposed these words because the time for giving notice had been considerably shortened, and there might not be time for the agent or principal to consult each other in the time named—a fortnight instead of three weeks.
THE EARL OF RANFURLYcontended that the Amendment did not seem in any way necessary. The memorandum on Sub-section (5) showed that what the noble Lord required was provided for.
[The memorandum referred to by the noble Earl was as follows:—
"Section 7 of the Act of 1883 directs notice of land to be taken compulsorily to be served on the owner, etc., by delivery of the notice personally to him or to his agent, or by leaving the notice at his place of abode, or sending it by post to his place of abode. It has been held that the notice must be delivered to the agent personally, and cannot be served by leaving it at his place of abode or sending it to him by post. The sub-clause allows the notice to be served on the agent in the same manner as on the owner, save that if the service is by post it is to be by registered letter."]
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE VESCI LORD DE VESCI moved, in Subsection (6), after the word "occupier," to insert the words "or agent of the persons required to be served."
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRANbrought up the following new clause, which he moved to insert after Clause 4:—

PROVISION IN CASE OF LETTINGS BY SANITARY AUTHORITY TO PERSONS OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
(1.) Where a complaint is made to the Local Government Board by any person resident in a sanitary district that the sanitary authority of the district have, in contravention of Section thirteeen of the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883, made any letting under the principal Acts to a person other than an agricultural labourer, or permitted any tenement or part thereof acquired under the said Acts to be held by any person
1422
other than an agricultural labourer, as occupier thereof, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, direct a local inquiry to be held, and a report made to them with respect to the grounds of complaint.
(2.) If it appears upon the report of the inspector that the complaint is well founded, the Local Government Board may direct the sanitary authority to take steps within a time to be named by the Board for determining any letting made or removing from any such tenement or part thereof any person permitted to hold the same in contravention of the said Section thirteen.
(3.) If the Sanitary Authority do not within the time so limited take such steps as may be directed in that behalf, the Local Government Board may make an Order giving any of their inspectors authority to take such steps as aforesaid, and to exercise all the powers and to perform all the duties of the sanitary authority for the purpose of making lettings under the principal Acts.
The noble Lord said a clause to the same effect was in the original Bill brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Gerald Balfour, but was eliminated in Committee on the representations of Mr. Dillon and Mr. J. E. Redmond, on the ground that it affected the evicted tenants. As there were only 27 evicted tenants who had been put into labourers' cottages, he did not think that could be the chief object of the clause. There had been very improper lettings, and it was to guard against these that the clause was introduced. Mr. Gerald Balfour, in withdrawing the clause, suggested that next year a separate Bill might be passed containing it. But it had since been decided that instead of introducing it in a fresh Bill it would be better to reinstate the clause in the Bill now before the House.
LORD DE VESCIsaid he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the clause. It was only where the law had been contravened that the Local Government Board would hold an inquiry, and when the Inspector reported to that effect an Order would be made on the sanitary authority. He had examined the Act of 1883, and it did not contain any specific power to the Local Government Board to enforce it. There was no justification for the elimination of the clause in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he could not see what objection there could be to the insertion of the clause. If, on inquiry, the complaint that persons were living in the labourers' cottages for whom

1423
they were not intended was not just, the Local Government Board would dismiss the Inquiry and there would be an end of the matter.
LORD CLARINAsaid he had had a large experience of the working of the Labourers' Acts in Ireland. Several improper persons had, to his knowledge, been admitted to labourers' cottages. An evicted tenant occupied one of the cottages. He was not only placed in the cottage but appointed collector of rents, and the result was he pocketed the money he received and let in his securities for the amount. No Act has been more abused than the Labourers Act. He supposed it was the intention of the Legislature to provide means for the erection of labourers' cottages at a reasonable rate of interest, but he doubted whether it was ever intended that the local authority should have the power of fixing rents on such cottages which did not represent half the cost, for which the unfortunate ratepayers had to provide. He employed between 40 and 50 labourers himself, and he had four or five cottages erected on his estate, not one of which, however, was occupied by his labourers. Indeed, in several cases they were occupied by men who were not agricultural labourers at all. He knew of a cottage where, the tenant having failed to pay his rent, the board of guardians had been obliged to turn him out. The result was that nobody would take the cottage, and people amused themselves by smashing every window in it.
THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid the Government were unable to accept this clause. The Bill was passed through the other House as a non-contentious Measure, this clause having been eliminated by the Chief Secretary, as various boards of guardians objected most strongly to it. It was only by eliminating the clause that the Bill could be passed through as a non-contentious Measure. He would point out that Sub-sections 1 and 2 of the clause already existed in the law as it now stood, that the cases the clause was desired to rectify were extremely few, and that the Chief Secretary in withdrawing the clause left to himself the power to bring in at a future Session a short Bill to put further power in the hands of the Board of Works or other
1424
authority to carry out the very views submitted by the noble Lords. ["Hear, hear!"] He would also point out that no remonstrance had been addressed to the Government on behalf of the labourers, who were by no means behindhand in making complaints when they considered that improper lettings had taken place, and into which the Local Government Board made full inquiry. In these circumstances he trusted the noble Lord would not press the clause, the effect of which, if carried, might be to prevent the passage of the Measure.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that, as far as he understood the matter, if this clause were left out the Government admitted that improper persons could be allowed into these cottages. He should like to have that definitely stated, because it would be something for them to go upon. The noble Marquess stated in his Second Beading Speech that improper persons had already slipped into these cottages.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (LORD ASHBOURNE)observed that the question was largely one of convenience and prudence. Everybody who read the clause would find a great deal of good sense in it, and it would be worthwhile considering and applying if there was a chance of passing it into law in the present Session. ["Hear, hear!"] The matter was discussed in the House of Commons, and it was found that this was a clause which would be keenly contested, which would lead to debate and difference of opinion, and if it should now by any accident be inserted it would mean that it would kill the Bill. The Bill was a convenient Bill, which would simplify, shorten and cheapen procedure, and it would be inexpedient and imprudent when the Bill had reached their Lordships' House at this stage, in order to insert a clause which commended itself to many of their Lordships, practically to kill the Bill. The Chief Secretary had not taken up a non possumus attitude with reference to it, and had suggested that on a future occasion, when the opportunity presented itself, the matter might be enabled to take its place on the Statute-book. The effect of pressing it on now was not to improve but practically to kill the Bill, and he would suggest that the noble Lord, having presented the clause, would

1425
be acting wisely and prudently if he allowed it to be negatived. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF ARRANpresumed that the Government when they introduced the clause in the Bill considered that there was some necessity for it and that the matter was not provided for by existing Acts and should, therefore, be inserted. He would like to point out that even if this Bill fell through (his year there was nothing to prevent boards of guardians acquiring land for labourers' dwellings under the existing Acts. ["Hear, hear!"]
The House divided on the Question, "That the clause be inserted in the Bill."

CONTENTS

…

…

25

NOT-CONTENTS

…

…

19

DIVISION LIST.—CONTENTS.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Cheylesmore, L.

Clarina, L.

Durtrey, E.

Clinton, L.

de Montalt, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Mayo, E. [TELLER.]

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Inchiquin, L.

Verulam, E.

Langford, L.

Templetown, V.

Massy, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Boyle, L (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Rathmore, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Castletown, L. [TELLER.]

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Ventry, L

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Balfour, L.

Belper, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President)

Churchill, L. [TELLER.]

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Coleridge, L.

Glenesk, L.

Lansdowne, M.

James, L.

Dudley, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Morley, E.

Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Oxenbridge, V.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Ashbourne, L.

Clause agreed to.
VISCOUNT DE VESCI VISCOUNT DE VESCI moved the following new clause:—
A rural sanitary authority may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, sell any cottage or cottages with the land attached subject to the following conditions:

(1.) The purchaser shall be liable for the repayment of all charges or proportion of charges attached to such cottage or cottages and the land attached as may be specified in Sections twelve and eighteen of the Labourers' (Ireland) Act of 1883, and subject also to the conditions of letting as specified in Section thirteen of the said Act of 1883.

(2.) Such cottage or cottages and land shall be offered for sale at a reserve price, being not less than the charges or proportion of charges already incurred and paid by the rural sanitary authority.

(3.) Such cottage or cottages and land shall be offered for sale at the said reserve price first to the owner or representative of the owner from whom the land for said cottage or cottages was originally purchased or taken on lease.

(4.) If such owner or representative shall decline to purchase, or shall have neglected to do so within a reasonable time to he specified in the notice to him that such cottage or cottages and the land are for sale, then they shall be offered for sale at the paid reserve price to the actual occupier of the holding from which the land was taken.

(5.) If such occupier shall decline to purchase, or shall have neglected to do so within a reasonable time to be specified in the notice to him that such cottage or cottages and land are for sale, they shall be offered for sale by public auction or tender after specified advertisements in the newspapers circulating in the district, at a price nut less than the said reserve price.

THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid the Government would agree to the Amendment with the addition of the following words after the word "attached" in the first paragraph, "which have ceased to be required for the accommodation of the labourers within the district."
VISCOUNT DE VESCIassented to the insertion of the words mentioned by the Earl of Ranfurly.
Clause, as thus amended, agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 236.]

RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
On the Order for Committee on the Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Bill,
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The EARL of DUDLEY)said the Bill had been framed in order to improve the means at present existing of averting and concluding industrial disputes. It therefore dealt with a subject of some importance—important not only in view of the dislocation brought about in the home industry by these trade disputes, and the consequent misery entailed amongst hundreds of people directly and indirectly concerned, but even still more important in view of the loss to their international trade, when, in these days of keen competition, the apprehension of even a temporary stoppage of work caused the removal of many valuable orders from English to foreign firms. It was almost impossible to estimate with any degree of certainty the actual loss that these disputes occasioned to the trade of this country, but some conception could be formed of its magnitude from statistics furnished by the Board of Trade. From the report on strikes and lock-outs he found that in 1894, 1,061 trade disputes came to the knowledge of the Board of Trade, involving 324,000 persons and the loss of 9,320,000 working days, while in 1893 no less than 31,200,000 working days were lost by this cause. These figures showed that the evil was a serious one, and, he thought, afforded sufficient justification for the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. In framing the Bill, two courses were open to the Government.
1428
They could, on the one hand, have attempted to attain the object they had in view by drastic and coercive methods; while, on the other hand, they could chiefly rely upon the powers of conciliation and persuasion. Those were the two alternatives, and the latter course was the one which had been chosen. The Government had adopted that course because the whole history and experience of previous legislation upon this subject clearly proved that drastic and coercive methods had invariably failed in bringing about a settlement of these industrial disputes. Much good work, however, had been done by voluntary boards of conciliation which had been formed in various places for dealing with this matter. These boards had relied solely upon voluntary methods and upon the powers of conciliation, yet their achievements stood out in marked contrast to those of legislation. By their action not only had many disputes been settled, but so effectually had friction been allayed and misunderstanding dispelled that many impending lock-outs and strikes had been averted. They proposed, therefore, in this Bill to follow the voluntary principle. They did not attempt in any way to supersede or interfere with the system so successfully adopted by these voluntary boards. On the contrary, they sought in every way to encourage and stimulate its growth. By Clause 1 it was proposed to allow any board of conciliation or arbitration to add importance to its status and weight to its decisions by obtaining registration from a Government department. This registration would not involve any interference with the constitution or the rules of the conciliation board. The only condition was that the Board of Trade should be kept informed of its proceedings, and of any methods it might adopt for settling disputes. By Clause 3, the Board of Trade was empowered to stimulate the establishment of a conciliation board where none existed. But, although they considered that, in the majority of cases, trade disputes were best settled by local means, there might be cases in which either there was no conciliation board available or the action of such board was ineffectual. In such cases the action of a Government Department might be the best means of settling a dispute or of inducing the parties to

1429
come to an amicable arrangement, and therefore the Bill proposed to allow the Board of Trade to take such action when it saw fit to do so. During the last two or three years the Board of Trade had been very successful in arranging industrial differences through the action of an impartial nominee, conspicuous instances of the value of such mediation being the great coal trade dispute in 1893 and the boot and shoe dispute in 1895. It might be said that the Board of Trade already made every attempt to bring about a settlement of disputes, and that, therefore, no further legislation was required to give it additional authority. But, unless the Legislature expressly stated in an Act of Parliament, that in its opinion the Board of Trade ought to take all reasonable steps to bring about a settlement of trade disputes, there was a danger that such action might be regarded by public opinion as lying outside the scope of a Government Department. Practically, therefore, what they asked by the clause was that the Board of Trade should be given a mandate by Parliament to use its discretion in these matters, and to exercise what powers it might possess in this respect for the general good of the trading community. Such were the main provisions of the Bill. Of course he did not suggest that if the Bill passed into law no trade disputes would take place in the future, but he believed it would be found to be a practical Measure of considerable utility and value, and that it would tend to lessen the number of strikes and lock-outs which now unfortunately occurred. ["Hear, hear."]
Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; the Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY, in moving the Second Beading of this Bill, said the object of this Measure was to facilitate by special legislative means the extension of railway communication in districts where at present the means of transport were very inadequate. The Bill had been brought forward mainly in the interest of the agricultural industry, and he did not hesitate to express a hope
1430
that it might be found to be a useful addition to those other measures, by which the present Government had sought to relieve to some extent the depression which undoubtedly existed amongst many of the agriculturists of the country. At the same time the Bill was not framed in the interest of agriculture alone, and the Government trusted that if it passed into law other industries also would derive some benefit from its provisions. No one would deny the enormous advantages which all traders derived from the power afforded them by our railway system of distributing their merchandise with case and rapidity; but, important as the facilities of communication undoubtedly were to ordinary traders, they were often more so to agriculturists, whose produce was often very perishable, and which must, therefore, in order to command a fair price, arrive at the markets without delay. It so happened that in many of the country districts the means of transport were by no means what they might be. For instance, in seven counties in England and lowland Scotland there were no less than one million acres of cultivated land more than three miles from a railway station. In Wiltshire, out of a total acreage in round numbers of 859,000, 325,000 were thus situated. In Suffolk there were 286,000, in Herefordshire 102,000, and in Berwickshire 128,000 acres more than three miles from a railway station. The inconvenience and expense that must be entailed upon those who cultivated those acres could well be imagined. There had been a very widespread demand that Parliament should attempt by some means or another to stimulate the extension of railway communication. That demand was very clearly expressed at a conference, including representatives of the most experienced and well-informed opinion upon the subject, summoned by Mr. Bryce in 1894. In France and in Belgium systems of secondary railways had been established for some time with great advantage to both consumers and producers. Mr. Ritchie, Sir Courtenay Boyle, and he made a short tour of inspection last autumn. They found that in Belgium especially the establishment of light lines had been attended with great success, that they were cheaply constructed, and as a whole

1431
profitably worked, and that even in those districts where they were not worked at direct profit, so great were the benefits derived from them that their further extension was still being asked for. There were good reasons to believe that an extension of railway communication in this country would in many cases be very advantageous, particularly to the agricultural population, and that if such an object could be facilitated by legislation it was the duty of the Government to undertake legislation. In considering the direction of any such legislation it was necessary to bear in mind that the development of railway communication by private enterprise depended mainly upon one condition, the condition of profitable investment. It might be assumed with considerable certainty that in those districts where an extension of railway communication was now required the conditions were not such as to promise, under existing circumstances, a fair return upon private capital invested in the lines, and the first problem, therefore, which the Government had had to consider was whether by legislation those conditions could be improved, whether the cost of establishing and working new lines could be so materially reduced as to hold out a prospect of a fair return upon the money invested in them. After considerable consideration the Government had come to the conclusion that it was possible and expedient to effect such a reduction in, at any rate, two directions. In the first place, the present cost of promoting a new railway was a very heavy item. As the law now stood, compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for the purpose of a railway could only be acquired by a direct appeal to Parliament, and the cost of that appeal was very great. In the second place, the working expenses of a railway were greatly increased by the regulations enforced by the Board of Trade in the interest of public safety, regulations which always tended to increase rather than to diminish in stringency. In both those directions the Government considered it practicable to effect a considerable reduction, and the method by which they proposed to do so was one which, though somewhat novel, would he hoped, meet with the approval of the House. They proposed to set up a Light Railways
1432
Commission of three members, to whom all applications for power to construct railways under the Bill would be submitted. The members of the Commission had already been selected, and he was glad to say Lord Jersey had consented to act. Of the other two members one was a gentleman of legal knowledge, and the other was an officer who had served for several years in the Royal Engineers, and who had much experience of State Railways in India. The latter would receive £1,000 a year. The functions of this Commission would be of a very important character, and on the manner in which the members discharged their duty would depend the success of their proposal. They would have to carefully consider every scheme, satisfy themselves that there was a real need in the locality, that all persons who might be affected had been consulted, and that full opportunity was given for objections to be heard. The local inquiries of the Commissioners would not be of a merely judicial or administrative kind. They would be expected also to help and advise the promoters of light railways in any way that they could, carrying out this work in a sympathetic and informal manner. If the Commissioners were satisfied that a scheme was a good one then they would have to approve the order authorising the undertaking, which would be sent to the Board of Trade for confirmation. Objection had been taken that too much latitude was allowed to vary the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. He should in Committee propose an Amendment to insure that such portions of that Act as related to the acquisition of land should be embodied in their entirety. Further precautions were taken as to the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and it would be in the power of the Board to say whether any scheme should be submitted to the direct judgment of Parliament. He was aware that objection had been taken that land should not be compulsorily acquired, except on the express direct sanction of Parliament. He hoped that that objection would not be pressed. They believed that no real injustice was possible. On the other hand, he would express his opinion that unless the present cost of promotion was lessened by relieving promoters of the necessity of applying to

1433
Parliament, serious and, in some cases, insurmountable obstacles would be placed in the way of these light railways. They proposed to lessen the cost of promotion and also the cost of working. It would not be necessary to take in sparsely-populated land, where only four or five trains would run in a day, the precautions for safety which would be necessary in centres of population. So far he had dealt with the cheapening and simplifying clauses of the Bill. They were founded mainly on the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1894, but, although they agreed in these recommendations, they did not think that they went far enough in some respects. Simplification was necessary, but it was not the sum total of what was necessary. Some financial help from Imperial and local sources would also in many cases be required, and provision was therefore made in the Bill for aid of that kind. But before the Treasury was called upon to lend money for a light railway it was necessary that it should be satisfied that all the parties in the locality, who were concerned in the undertaking, were co-operating and providing for their share of the expense. They sought to establish the safeguard that State aid only should be given when the bonâ fides of the undertaking were guaranteed by those responsible for the administration of the locality. They had, however, foreseen that cases might arise where a local authority was not in a position to provide a contribution, and in such cases they had followed the experience of Mr. Balfour's Act in Ireland. He hoped he had said enough to convince their Lordships that this was a Measure which attempted to deal in a practical manner with a question of some importance, and that therefore it deserved to be passed into law. [Cheers.]
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked whether there was any place in England where the working of a light railway could be seen, and also what was the cost of constructing such a railway.
THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid there were several light railways in this country. Mr. Ritchie and himself had visited one in Cambridgeshire. Their experience in Belgium led them to believe that these lines could be made at about £3,000 or £4,000 per mile.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I wish to inform the Rev. Prelate that he need not go to Belgium to see those railways. He has only to take a pleasant summer trip to Ireland, and he will see lots of them. [Laughter.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsympathised with the objects of the Bill, but did not altogether agree with the methods by which those objects were to be attained. His noble Friend had said that the principal object of the Bill was to simplify and render less costly the existing procedure in regard to the promotion and construction of light railways. But how was that done? It was done by giving absolutely uncontrolled powers to the Light Railway Commission appointed by the Board of Trade, and to the Board of Trade, a branch of the Executive Government, which powers had up to the present time been exercised exclusively by the Legislature. He agreed that the present procedure before Parliament might be simplified and rendered cheaper and easier; and if the Bill but accomplished that object it would have the sympathy of everyone who wished to see enterprise encouraged in this country. But it was quite a different thing for Parliament to surrender all its powers to a Government Department which was checked by no legislation, for as he read the Bill, the Board of Trade could, by the operation of its provisions, override the Lands Clauses, Railway Clauses and the Companies Clauses Acts. They had heard a great deal about light railways, but he did not think that anyone in the House or out of it had any notion of what a light railway was or was intended to be. There was no sort of definition of it in the Bill, or in any Act, that he was aware of. Therefore the word "light" was an inoperative term in connection with the Bill. The Bill included not merely all tramways, but any railway which the Board of Trade thought might justly be brought within its scope. It certainly included tramways in towns, and it might include large trunk lines throughout the country. He was aware that Clause 9, Sub-section 3, provided that if the Board of Trade after having considered an application were of opinion that by reason of the magnitude of the proposed undertaking, and the effect

1435
thereof on the undertaking of a railway company, the proposals of the promoters ought to be be submitted to Parliament, it should not confirm the Order. But that was entirely in the discretion of the Board of Trade; and there was no appeal to Parliament from an Order of the Board of Trade, as, according to Clause 10, such Order was to have the same effect as if enacted by Parliament. Then, who were the promoters of those applications? They were, first, local bodies—municipalities, County Councils and District Councils—who were to be empowered, not merely to construct, but to work those railways; and, secondly, any individuals or limited companies. Up to the present, Parliament had only given compulsory powers, under certain safeguards, to companies incorporated by Act of Parliament for the purpose of carrying out an undertaking for the public benefit, and railway lines constructed merely to serve private interests were excluded. Those restrictions were removed in the discretion of the Board of Trade. He confessed it seemed to him a doubtful policy to turn Boards of Guardians and County Councils into amateur railway contractors and directors. Under the existing law, municipalities and local authorities were confined, in their operations under the Tramways Acts, strictly within the limits of their own districts. But, under this Bill, any local authority might construct a railway beyond its own district, in an absolutely undefined and in an absolutely uncontrolled manner, on proof, merely to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, that such extension of the railway was expedient in the interest of the district. It would be possible, though he did not say it was probable, that under this Bill the London County Council and the Oxford County Council might make a line between Oxford and London; and it would be possible also for a company to make a tramway through the streets of London, evading all the provisions of the Tramways Acts, without the consent of the frontagers or the local authorities, and without the precautions which were taken under the Tramways Acts for the sale of those undertakings to the local bodies. At present procedure was regulated by the Standing Orders of Parliament, and by
1436
the Clauses Acts. Under those regulations, plans and sections had to be deposited at fixed periods, advertisements had to be published in the local papers, und notices had to be served on owners and occupiers of lands proposed to be compulsorily taken. It was true that, under Clause 7, the Commissioners were told to take all reasonable steps for consulting with the owners and occupiers of the lands proposed to be taken; but there were no definite instructions as to how owners and occupiers were to be informed of the proposed construction of the railway. Surely, it was absolutely necessary that there should be statutory obligations to deposit at fixed times proper plans and sections of the proposed railway? Surely, there should also be a statutory provision that notice should be given to owners and occupiers, and, where roads were used, to local authorities having control over the roads. When an application was sanctioned by the Commissioners it went before the Board of Trade for confirmation. Here, again, there were no definite instructions given to the Board of Trade, nor could there be obtained from the Bill a ghost of an idea as to how the Board of Trade would act in carrying out the large and important duties with which they were intrusted under the Bill. Sub-section (a) of Clause 11 enabled the Board of Trade to incorporate the Clauses Acts, which were practically an important code of laws in relation to the taking of land by railway companies, with such variations and exceptions as they might think fit. He thought it was absolutely wrong to allow any branch of the Legislature to vary statutes enacted by Parliament. Again, the Board of Trade was to appoint a single arbitrator to whom all questions of compensation for land taken compulsorily were to be referred, thus superseding the Lands Clauses Act. With the objects of the Bill in promoting railways and cheapening the cost of their construction he fully sympathised. But the Board of Trade, both in the inception of schemes and in the promotion of schemes, had practically uncontrolled power. He had great confidence in the Board of Trade. Its officials were extremely able and they always endeavoured to do their duty by the public. But the Board of Trade was a public office; its heads were political Ministers of great

1437
importance who were constantly changing, and it was impossible to say what views the heads of the Department would take in the future of the large and and unchecked powers given them by the Bill. It would be out of his power to offer any suggestions for the Amendment of the Bill in Committee, and Amendments of importance should certainly be moved in Committee of the Whole House and not in the Standing Committee to which the Bill would be referred. He would therefore make a few suggestions to his noble Friend in charge of the Bill which, if adopted, might meet to some extent the objection he took to parts of the Bill. In the first place, there should be in the Bill some definition of a light railway, or at any rate some indication of what its objects were. It was stated in the first Hub-section of Clause 5 of the Bill that where it was certified to the Treasury by the Board of Agriculture that the making of a light railway would benefit agriculture, or by the Board of Trade that by it a necessary means of communication would be established between a fishing harbour and a village, or that it would tend to the development and maintenance of some definite industry—he would add also the development of any remote or inhabited district—advances would be made by the Treasury for such light railway. He thought they should take that as an indication of the principal objects of a light railway. He also suggested that the extent of a light railway should be limited to 15 or 20 miles, unless the Light Railway Commission approved of a greater length, in which case there should be a special report to Parliament. He suggested, further, that in a given time, before the Commissioners held an Inquiry into an application made to them, plans and sections on a fixed scale should be deposited in some place where those interested could have access to them. Otherwise it would be impossible for those interested to know the effect the railway would have on properties through which it would pass. Notices should also be served on every owner and occupier whose land it was proposed to take compulsorily. The powers given to the Board of Trade to vary any Statute of Parliament should be taken absolutely out of the Bill. He should like, if it could be done, that the regulations
1438
which obviously the Board of Trade must make in consequence of this Bill should, in some way or other, be laid before Parliament for approval. He should also like to see the schemes approved by the Board of Trade laid before Parliament. They were setting a dangerous precedent in giving those large powers to a branch of the Executive absolutely uncontrolled by Parliament whose functions they had hitherto been. Whether the supervision of schemes approved by the Board of Trade should be secured to Parliament by means of Provisional Orders, as in the case of Public Health Bills, or by laying the schemes for a definite time on the Table of the House, as in the case of Charity Commissioners' Schemes, he left his noble Friend to decide, but he thought that Parliament should be cognisant of what was going on in regard to light railways. He was not in any sense hostile to the Bill. He sympathised, as he had said, with its objects. He feared that the benefits which agriculture would reap from it had been somewhat exaggerated. He did not, however, under-rate the importance of cheapening and developing local communication, especially communication between harbours and fishing villages, which could not afford large railways. But much as he sympathised with the objects of the Bill, it seemed so strong a Measure that he should scarcely be performing his duty if he did not call the attention of the House to its provisions. [Cheers.]
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

TRUCK BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
LORD CHURCHILL, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that by the Act of 1859 establishing the Naval Reserve, the raising of volunteers and the payment of retaining fees was limited to the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, and it was proposed by Section 1 of the Bill that the powers should be extended subject to the regulation of the

1439
Admiralty, and that Naval Reserve men might be allowed to enrol and re-enrol, and retaining fees might be paid outside the United Kingdom, and the places mentioned. These powers were restricted, and no volunteer might be enrolled or paid outside the British Islands unless he was a British subject serving on a ship registered in the British Islands. In the opinion of Parliamentary Counsel the prohibition of the entry of Lascars could be effected by Admiralty regulation, so for this reason it was not inserted in the Bill. The opportunity had been taken in this Act to amend the Act of 1859 in another particular, and Clause 2 cleared up a slight legal doubt which existed in Clause 11 of the Act of 1859.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

JUDICIAL TRUSTEES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons: Read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 237.]
House adjourned at Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Four o'clock.