Lords Sitting of 13 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 5).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
  TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reports of Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 28th of June and the 5th of July last discharged; and Bill committed.
  ILFRACOMBE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  LAMBETH WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
EDINBURGH DISTRICT LANACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 28th May last discharged, and Bill committed for Monday next.
BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    NEWRY, KEADY. AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    SPALDING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Heneage be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Chelmsford; read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMMERCIAL (No. 2), 1900.
  Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives abroad on Trade Marks Laws and Regulations: Part I. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PARTICULARS OF PIECE-WORK WAGES: PEN-MAKING).
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 12th July, 1900, applying with modifications the provisions of Section 40 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, to factories and workshops in which is carried on the making of pens. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— RECENT NEWS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: May I ask the noble Marquess opposite whether the Government have any further news from China?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I regret very much to say that we have no news whatever. Of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, there are certain items of news current this afternoon in London, but they do not come from the Government, and, confining myself entirely to the question the noble Lord has asked me, I can only say that we have no news at all.

  MILITIA ESTABLISHMENT— STATISTICS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War (1) to what extent the Militia is below its establishment at the present
  1428
  time; (2) of those serving, how many so-called Militiamen are serving in Great Britain, and of these how many are below twenty and eighteen years of age:, (3) what force of Militia Infantry, deducting Militiamen under twenty years of ago, and making an average allowance for casualties and absentees, could at the present time be put in the field for the home defence of the United Kingdom. In putting this question to my noble friend, I have no desire at all to revive1 the discussion on the Militia Ballot Bill I do not wish to ask your Lordships to-consider whether the Militia Ballot Bill or the promise of clean clothes which was given by my noble friend the Secretary of State for War will be the more likely to fill the chronic vacancies in the Militia. But I should like to clear up a personal matter. I am, unfortunately, very deaf, and I did not hear what the noble Marquess said in answer to the remarks I made in the recent discussion; but on reading his speech I find that he spoke of my inability to recognise any merit in any measures except those which I my-self initiated. That is a very general assertion, and I therefore ask the noble Marquess to condescend to particulars, and to name the measures I have initiated bearing upon this question which I prefer to the measures proposed by the Government. As to the strength of the Militia, I have received a communication from an officer thoroughly conversant with the state of things in one district, in which he states that I ought to have asked how many Militiamen were below sixteen. I do not know who it comes from, but I hold in my hand another letter, written on official paper but anonymous, in which it is stated that in a certain district the actual strength of the Militia is 5,655, while the establishment proper is 9,255, so that in that particular-district the Militia is below its proper strength by 3,600. The writer goes on to say that the number of captains is three-fourths of the establishment, and that the Militia are now being trained in great part by subalterns, which accounts for the adverse criticism recently passed by the Commander-in-Chief as to their efficiency.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE):. My Lords, the noble Earl began by asking; me for an explanation of a passage which

  1429
  he quoted—I have no doubt correctly—from the speech I delivered the other evening when his motion in favour of the Militia ballot was debated. The noble Earl on that occasion pressed upon your Lordships the desirability of having recourse to the Militia ballot. I, on the contrary, asked your Lordships to believe that other measures having important effects upon the efficiency and strength of the Militia force should be tried before there was any question of having resort to the ballot, and at the end of my remarks I told the noble Earl that I thought he was unable to see any merit in any measure except that which he was himself pressing upon the House.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Initiating.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl presses the word "initiating." He certainly initiated it on that occasion, at any rate. He refused to admit that our measures had any merit, but I am glad the House thought with us and came to the conclusion at which we had arrived. The noble Earl a few moments ago called my attention to a case in which an anonymous informant had told him that in a particular district the Militia was to an alarming extent below its strength. I cannot identify the case, but if the noble Earl chooses to supply me with the necessary information I will make inquiries. I will now answer the questions on the Paper. I may explain that the figures which I shall give him will be exclusive of the permanent staff of the Militia and of the Militia officers. The establishment of the Militia is 124,273. The number of men now serving with the Militia is 91,824, but in addition to those there are about 12,000 Militia Reservists who are now serving with the Line. If those be added the deficiency is increased from about 20,000 to about 32,000.
  THE EARL OF WEYMSS: Are they not exclusive of the establishment?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Including the Militia Reservists the deficiency will be 32,000, and excluding them, 20,000. Of the Militia serving at home there are in Great Britain 57,000, and in Ireland 13,000. Of the 57,000 in Great Britain there are, under the age of twenty, 21,000, of whom 5,000 are under
  1430
  the age of eighteen. Of the 13,000 in Ireland 5,500 are under twenty and of those 1,400 are under eighteen. Then, my Lords, we come to the Infantry Militia. The Infantry Militia in the United Kingdom numbers 54,000,, of whom 22,000 are under twenty. About 2,700 would represent the normal deduction to be made from that number on account of sick. All that I need add is that for the purpose of calculating the number of men who can be put into the field for the home defence of the United Kingdom, we should certainly not deduct all men below the age of twenty. No such deduction has, to the best of my belief, ever been made.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for the statement he has just made. Perhaps he will pardon me if I again refer to the personal matter I mentioned when asking the question. My noble friend has just stated that what he said referred to the measure that I was pressing on the House. What the noble Marquess really said was that I could see no merit in any measure that I did not myself initiate. What I want to point out is that I had nothing whatever to do with the initiation of the measure for the Militia ballot. I was simply pressing on the Government the measure which they themselves initiated.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENTSATION ACT (1897) EXTENSION BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order).
  LORD HERRIESpointed out that the first clause provided, amongst other things, that where the contractor pro-vided and used machinery driven by mechanical power for the purposes of threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work, he, and he alone, should be liable under the Act to pay compensation to any workman employed by him on such work. He proposed that the words "horses or" should be inserted before the word "machinery." He could not understand why, if a contractor made use of machinery, the contractor should be liable to pay compensation, whereas if he made use of horse power the liability should fall on the employer and not on the contractor. They had been told that the difficulty could be got over by insurance, but it would be impossible for the employer to

  1431
  insure the workpeople of the contractor against accidents. Moreover, the clause as it at present stood would give rise to a great deal of litigation as to when the employment began. Supposing, for instance, a man employed a contractor with a self-binder to cut a field of corn, would the liability for compensation begin when the contractor was attaching the horse to the self-binder, or when he entered the field? He ventured to think that many legal questions of this kind might arise. If one of the horses employed by a contractor was vicious and kicked and injured somebody, surely the man who employed the contractor could not be considered liable. He had been told that this question was threshed out in the Committee of the House of Commons, but from inquiries he had ascertained from a Member for an agricultural district that the point had never been raised at all. The Amendment was in no way opposed to the principle of the Bill, and he hoped the noble Viscount would accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 15, after 'uses' to insert 'horses or.'"—(Lord Herries.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Although I confess that I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment, I am afraid I cannot accept it. The great object of the Bill is to avoid litigation, and the Department which I represent are of opinion that the words of the Bill as it stands are quite clear and not likely to lead to litigation. Although it is true that some of these machines are driven by horses, a good many of the horses may belong to the farmer himself.
  LORD HERRIESpointed out that the clause, as he proposed to amend it, would read, "provided that where the contractor provides and uses horses or machinery."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the Amendment would be a great improvement to the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said that in his opinion the Amendment was a very reasonable one. If a contractor's horse kicked a man the contractor ought to be liable for the injury just as much as he would be liable for an injury caused by the machinery he used.
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid it would be better not to insert the words in the Amendment. He thought the difficulty which the Board of Agriculture must have felt was that if the words "horses or" were inserted there would be a difference in the case of a man kicked by the farmer's horse and a man kicked by the contractor's horse. It would be better not to draw this distinction.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid that, under the clause as it now stood, if a man was kicked by the contractor's horse he would obtain compensation from the farmer, who might then recover it from the contractor to whom the horse belonged. He supported the Amendment. If the contractor provided and used horses, he alone should be liable to compensate just in the same way as if he provided machinery.
  On Question, "That the words 'horses or' be here inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 25.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Rosse, E.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.']

  Spencer, E.

  Herries, L. [Teller.]

  Ripon, M.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Zetland, M.

  Avebury. L.

  Leigh, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.))

  Macnaghten, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  St. Levan, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Welby, L.

  Morley, E.

  De Ramsey, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Morton, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lindsey, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Mar, E.

  Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

  Alverstone, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Newton, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Farquhar, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Balfour, L. [Teller.]

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  James, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Morris, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he did not think there would be any objection to his Amendment, which he explained on the previous evening. It provided that a ship could not be deemed to have been within the area laid down in the Bill by reason only that it had been built or fitted out within such area.
  Amendment moved—
  "In clause 2, line 27, after 'has' to insert 'been built or fitted out within such area or that it has.'"—(Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD HENEAGEsaid that, so far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the Amendment. It appeared a fair and reasonable one, and he gladly accepted it.
  On Question, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government have really considered what the effect of this clause is. I pointed out when I was in the House of Commons that the clause was practically unworkable. It proposes that dock companies shall get immunity from liability for accidents to the same extent that shipowners now do under the Limitation of Liability Acts. I will quote one instance as an illustration of what I mean. Supposing a dock-master, by mismanagement of sluices, lets out the water, and half-a-dozen ships are grounded and the goods injured, the liability of the dock company is to be limited to £8 a ton, not by any relation
  1434
  to their own property, but by relation to the ship of largest size that has gone into the dock during the previous five years. If this principle is going to be admitted there is no reason why the liability of railway companies and other contracting bodies should not be limited in the same manner. I hope before your Lordships pass this clause you will see that by it you are introducing the principle—the entirely new principle—of limiting liability for dock companies and other undertakings without the least reference to the same considerations as those which limit the liability in the case of shipowners; the standard that is set up has not the slightest relation either to the obligation of the dock company or the breach of duty they commit. I do not think such a change in the law ought to be made except after full consideration by the Government of the day. I should like the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade to state the reason for this clause. It is said to be a bargain between the shipowners and the dock companies, but we have the rights of the goods owners to protect. There may be damage to the extent of thousands of pounds done to goods, but the goods owners get no consideration under this Bill.
  EARL EGERTON: While I cannot defend the clause upon any logical principle, I should like to explain that it is the result of agreement between dock-owners and shipowners. It does not limit the amount of damages in an ordinary accident, but is designed to meet such accidents as the one which occurred two years ago in the Manchester Ship Canal. It will be remembered that the ship Harold, instead of obeying orders and going astern, went ahead and charged the dock gates with such force that they were carried away. Had it not been for the presence of mind of the man in charge of the dock, who closed the gates immediately, the water for several miles would have been let out and enormous damage caused. It was felt on either side that there should be some limit to the liability of the shipowner and the dockowner in accidents of an exceptional1

  1435
  nature, and this limit the clause provides, though, speaking on behalf of dock- owners, I would have preferred a specified limit of, say, £50,000 or £100,000.
  LORD AVEBURY: The noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill said the clause had been agreed to by all those who were interested. I should like to know if merchants and insurers, who are quite as much interested in the matter as shipowners, and dock companies, are in any way parties to the agreement represented by the clause.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The criticisms upon this clause seem to imply a greater amount of affection for it on the part of the Board of Trade than really exists. I ventured yesterday to explain the position of the Board of Trade in regard to the clause. If the clause has to be defended upon its merits the defence must come from the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill. The Board of Trade are not committed to this clause. Their position is this—they are aware that this is a Bill which is ardently desired by the two parties to this transaction, but whether their interests ought to prevail over the interests of those whom the noble Lord behind me has mentioned is a matter really for the House. I do not make myself responsible for the clause, nor do I in any way defend it. At the same time, I am bound to say that to strike out the clause would be tantamount to rejecting the Bill. If the clause goes to a division, I shall feel bound, after what I said yesterday, to vote for the clause; but I do not think this expression of opinion on my part ought to be held to bind the Government to vote in the same direction.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): When I addressed your Lordships yesterday I spoke under some reserve. I certainly was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord behind me, the late Attorney General, had spoken on behalf of the Government in support of the clause in another place. Now, however, I feel perfectly free to express my opinion. A more monstrous and more ridiculous provision than that contained in this clause I have never heard in my life, and if the question is put, "that the clause stand part of the Bill," I shall certainly say "not content."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: This is not a specimen of a very united Government. we have heard to-day what is to me an entirely new theory as to the responsibility of the different members of the Government. The noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade has stated that the Board of Trade do not particularly like this clause. That may be, but they take the responsibility of giving their assistance to pass the Bill through Parliament, and therefore they become responsible for it.
  LORD HENEAGE: I cannot help thinking that an inconvenient course has been adopted in allowing the Second Reading to pass unchallenged, thus approving of the principle of limitation, and raising the question at the present stage. I came down yesterday fully prepared to discuss the Bill on its merits, and so far as I could see there was no opposition except from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who said he did not wish to disturb the unanimity of the House. We approved yesterday of the principle that there was to be limitation, and the only question was how was that limitation to take place. The noble and learned Lord the late Attorney General objects to the second clause of this Bill. I thirds I must remind him that on the Second Reading in another place, after approving of the first clause of the Bill, he said—
  "All I say is that it does seem to me that the dock company has some right to say to the shipowner, 'If you ask that when a ship runs down the dock gates its liability shall he limited to £8 a ton, there ought at least to be some reciprocity.' "
  It was on the basis of such a claim that this arrangement —workable, though utterly illogical—was arrived at by the shipowners and the dock companies. No alternative proposition of any kind whatever was made in the House of Commons, nor by the Law Officers of the Crown in the Standing Committee; and every alternative proposition suggested when the Bill came back from the Standing Committee was thoroughly discussed, and, with one or two exceptions, rejected. What would the noble Lord have us do? We have got to find an agreement, and a basis for that agreement. It would be impossible to make the whole dock liable, because you would have to make the whole fleet of the shipowners liable in the alternative

  1437
  case. The parties interested have endeavoured to find a fair basis, and what they have done is to substitute for the dock as the basis the largest ship that trades with that port. The compensation that will be paid will be exactly the same as if the damage had been committed by the largest ship in the dock. It may be said that that is a rough-and-ready estimate, but it has been arrived at by practical business men not fond of litigation. For my part I think there is less likelihood of litigation when men of common sense enter into a common sense agreement than there is in many of the laws that are passed by Parliament, even when they are drafted by the most learned lawyers. There will be no difficulty whatever. The largest ship that enters a dock is well known to every-
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 183.]

  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  On Question agreed to, Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  body in the vicinity of the port, and if it is not known the information can very easily be obtained from the Customs or Board of Trade officers at the port. I was asked by my noble friend near me (Lord Avebury) whether the goods-owners had been consulted in this matter. I do not know that chambers of commerce have been consulted, but the underwriters, who are really responsible for these goods and to whom this point is of much greater importance, have boon, and agree as to the advisability of passing this Bill.
  On Question, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Balfour, L.

  Macnaghten, L. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Morris, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Reay, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Egerton, E.

  De Ramsey, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Herries, L.

  Welby, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Kenmare, L. [E. Kenmare.]

  Windsor, L.

  Leigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Alverstone, L. [Teller.]

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Lindsey, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Morley, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Waldegrave, E.

  James, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Pirbright, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Frankfort de Montmorency,

  V. [Teller.]

  LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 10 virtually explains itself. I understand that the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill does not disapprove of it, and I hope your Lordships will find it in your power to sanction it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 10, Sub-section 1, page 3, line 30, to leave out 'six' and to insert 'three.'"—(Lord de Ramsey.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I wish to add another important subsection to Clause 13. When the question of these accidents was before the Royal

  1439
  Commission their attention was called to the fact that there were certain railways in connection with factories and mines belonging to private owners which did not come under the Board of Trade or the Home Office. The Commission recommended that these lines should be brought in in some way, and my Amendment gives jurisdiction over them to the Home Office.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 13, page 4, line 41, to add as a new sub - section —'(3.) Where any line or siding is used in connection with a factory, workshop, or mine, and is neither part of the factory, workshop, or mine, nor a railway within the meaning of this Act, the occupier of the factory, workshop, or mine shall be under the same obligation to give notice of accidents occurring on the line or siding to persons employed in the factory, workshop, or mine as a railway company in the case of accidents occurring on a railway; but the notice shall be given to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall have the same powers and duties with respect to inquiries and investigations and the appointment of an assessor to the coroner as the Board of Trade has in similar cases.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBUBY: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment providing that new debentures or debenture stock issued may not be "in priority to" any existing debentures or debenture stock of the company. The Bill as it stands authorises the creation of a new charge in priority of the debentures which at present are by Statute a first charge on the companies concerned. The debenture - holders are not shareholders, but creditors. The majority of debenture stocks of our great English railways are stocks in which trustees are permitted to invest by Act of Parliament on the faith of their being, as they now are by law, a first charge upon the company, and it is now proposed for the first time to place another charge before them. I know it is argued that there is a precedent in an Act passed in 1889, but I venture to think that that Act is rather an example to be avoided than a precedent to be followed. It is not really a precedent. In that case the charge was created in the interest of the community as a whole; here it is for the benefit of a class—no doubt a very meritorious class, and for a very proper object; but still in the interest of a class. The acceptance of the Amendment would be no real hind-
  1440
  rance to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, because if any company was unable to raise the money it would go into the hands of a receiver, who would then be able to rearrange the debt. I submit that to over-ride the present law and the rights of present debenture-holders and place new creditors in priority to those who have at present by Act of Parliament a first charge is a very dangerous precedent. It is true that this Amendment was rejected in the House of Commons though brought forward by a Member of great weight and experience; but it came on late at night, and from what I have heard since, I have no doubt that under other circumstances it would have received the general support of Members with commercial experience. Second debentures are, as everyone knows, an inferior security. Millions of money—a large proportion in trust—have been invested in railway debenture stock on the faith of Parliamentary enactments that they are a first charge upon the undertakings. But if this Bill passes in its present form the existing debenture stocks will cease to be a first charge; they will sink to the position of second debentures. It is to maintain them in their present position, to uphold the character which Parliament has itself conferred on them, that I move to omit these words.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 14, page 5, line 8, to leave out 'in priority to or,' and to leave out 'pari passu with,' and to insert 'after.' "—(Lord Avebury.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I mentioned in the Standing Committee the course which I thought it was right to take on this matter. The Government will not now adhere to the words "in priority to" for the reason that if we place all these debentures in priority to the other debentures we should place them in priority to the debentures of 1889. Therefore we will not maintain that position, but we must maintain the position that the debentures may be issued pari passu with any existing debentures or debenture stock of the company, I hope my noble friend and your Lordships will accept, if I may call it so, this compromise.
  On Question, "That the words 'in priority to or' stand part of the clause,'" resolved in the negative.
  LORD AVEBURY: After what the noble and learned Lord has said, I withdraw my Amendment to omit the words ''pari passu with."
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, before the question is put "that the Bill do pass," I should like to say that when this question was before the Royal Commission, it was stated, probably correctly, that many accidents which occur to railway servants result from their own conduct—not necessarily from un-meritorious conduct, but from excess of zeal. This is not a matter that legislation can deal with, as to punish railway servants for desiring to fully perform their duty is repugnant to their employers and to public feeling. Therefore, nothing has been done in this Bill in reference to these accidents. It has been suggested, and I have done my best to see whether it can be carried into effect, that the best course would be to form a Conciliation Board, composed of three representatives of the railway companies, three representatives of the men, and one independent and impartial person, to formulate rules and to suggest methods by which these accidents can be mitigated. Such a Board would also be of great assistance to the Board of Trade if they made suggestions as to the best rules that could be made for carrying out the provisions of this measure and so preventing accidents. I hope this suggestion will be carried into effect. It will be a most valuable supplement to this Bill, and will be a great service to the railway servants of this country.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass," agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE SECRETARYSHIP OF THE MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the reasons why the Local Government Board permitted Mr. Denis O'Connor Kelly to retain the office of secretary to the Mayo County
  1442
  Council after that gentleman refused to present himself for examination; and whether the Local Government Board will bear the extra expense caused by this permission being given by the Board. I should not trouble your Lordships with this question if I did not think it was one of great public importance. To explain my position I must refer to the question which I put on 26th June last to the noble Earl who represents the Irish Office in this House.* On that occasion I asked my noble friend whether, before ratifying; the appointment, the Local Government Board had taken any steps to ascertain the fitness of Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly, the late secretary to the Mayo County Council, for that post, to which he was appointed by the Council; and if not whether the expense caused by the condition of the accounts when Mr. Kelly resigned the office will be borne by the Local Government Board or the ratepayers. Owing, I have no doubt, to the omission, on my part to put the question on the Paper, although I had already given private notice of it to the Irish Office, which I thought was quite sufficient, the noble Earl said he was unable to give me very much information. But he did give-me this information. He said—
  "I can only say that the appointment of the late secretary was not ratified by the Local Government Board; on the contrary, the Department refused to ratify it because the late secretary declined to present himself for examination."
  I would draw your Lordships' attention) to the last words in that reply—namely,. "the late secretary declined to present himself for examination." It was distinctly stated in the advertisement issued by the Local Government Board that no person was eligible to be appointed to the-office of secretary of a county council in Ireland (1) unless he is over twenty-one; years of age at the date of his appointment, and undertakes to devote his entire time to the duties of his office; (2) and unless he (a) is an existing secretary of a. county council, or has acted for a period of three years as a duly authorised assistant to a secretary of a county council, and satisfies the Local Government Board that he has efficiently discharged the duties of his office; or (b) shall have been examined and his qualifications certified by some person or per-
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiv., page 1067.

  1443
  sons appointed for that purpose by the Local Government Board. The advertisement stated that the Local Government Board might, if they saw fit, dispense with the examination in the case of a candidate who could produce a certificate of having passed a public examination at least equivalent in the opinion of the Board to that which the Board required to be passed by secretaries of county councils, or could show that he possessed actuarial, legal, or other special qualifications for the office. Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly had not been secretary to any other county council, he had not acted as an assistant to a secretary to a county council, and he had not passed any examination; but notwithstanding this the Mayo County Council, in the exercise of their discretion, or their indiscretion, whichever you like to call it, appointed him to the office, and it then remained for the Local Government Board to call upon him to pass the examination. Although he refused to present himself for examination the Local Government Board allowed him to retain the position, and he acted as secretary to the county council for a period of more than six months. At the end of that time the condition of things was such that the Local Government Board addressed a letter to the county council, in which, they stated that—
  "The affairs of the Council have been allowed to lapse into a condition of almost hopeless confusion, and it will involve an expenditure of much time and labour to rectify the mistakes and supply the omissions of the past ten months."
  I will quote to your Lordships a short extract from a letter which appeared in The Times on the subject on 16th February last, and which shows the condition into which things had been allowed to get. It is as follows—
  "The secretary has neglected his business shamefully, no attempt has been made to keep the office accounts, the counter ledger has not been posted since the end of last September, and the first half-year's rate, which was agreed on by the Council on19th May last, was not put in course of collection till October. No records exist in the office so show the total amounts collected on the several accounts for which the various collectors are responsible. The secretary of the council, whom the Board's letter describes as quite incompetent, and who has now resigned, is a brother of Mr. O'Connor Kelly, the chairman of the council."
  Now comes the question on which I desire information. I want to know why the Local Government Board allowed Mr.
  1444
  D. O'Connor Kelly to hold office after he had refused to submit himself to an examination, and whether the £1,000 which had to be spent in putting the books and accounts in a proper condition will be borne by the ratepayers or the Local Government Board? I wish at once to say that I desire to throw no reflection whatever on the integrity of Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly; it is purely a matter of incompetence. If the Local Government Board, when he refused to submit himself for examination, had insisted upon his resigning at once, this state of things could not possibly have happened. Therefore, it seems to me that the expense incurred was entirely due to the looseness with which the Local Government Board conducted their business. Under these circumstances it is extremely hard that the ratepayers should be made liable for this large expense.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I am able to give the noble Earl a rather fuller answer than I was able to give him when he asked this question on the last occasion. The Local Government Board for Ireland report that it is not the case that they permitted Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly to retain office after he refused to present himself for examination. On the contrary, they requested the county council to proceed at once to a fresh election. As no permission was given by the Board, as alleged, there was no expense caused by the supposed permission. It appears that during the interval between his nomination by the county council and his being called upon by the Local Government Board to undergo the necesssary examination, he was temporarily employed by the council to dispose of arrears of work left by his predecessor in office. The Local Government Board sent down two clerks in connection with these arrears. The other clerks were appointed by the county council, and the expense in connection with the employment of those clerks will be borne by the ratepayers. The Local Government Board did not at any time ratify or sanction the appointment of Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly. On his being nominated by the county council the Board called upon him to undergo an examination, allowing him the usual six weeks to prepare for it. No extra expense was caused by this allowance of time. On the contrary, it was

  1445
  productive of some saving to the ratepayers, as the county surveyor, who acted as secretary during the interval, received an allowance of £3 3s. per week, whereas the secretary's salary would have been double. Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly refused to submit to an examination, and the Local Government Board directed the council to take stops to fill the vacancy.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I cannot help expressing the opinion that ten months is. a long time to elapse between the election of Mr. D. O'Connor Kelly and the time at which he was compelled to resign.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The people primarily to blame for the condition of affairs that existed, and the expense involved, are the Mayo County Council, who ought not to have appointed an incompetent person.
  THE EARL OF AREAN: But their appointment was only subject to the ratification of the Local Government Board.

  VETERINARY SURGEONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  [SECOND HEADING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, a good deal has been done in recent years to improve the status and morale of the veterinary profession, and this Bill is intended to be a step in that direction. At this moment there are two corporations who grant diplomas to veterinary surgeons—the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Highland Agricultural Society. The former has considerable disciplinary powers by which, in case of gross misconduct, they can withdraw their diploma from a veterinary surgeon. The Highland Agricultural Society do not possess such powers, and consequently, no matter how badly a man holding their diploma may behave, they cannot have it withdrawn. I will give your Lordships a single instance of what has taken place. A veterinary surgeon holding the Highland Agricultural Society's diploma insured a fictitious horse under a fictitious name, and then, in his own name, certified as to the soundness of the horse and afterwards certified as to its death. Then, in the fictitious name, he applied
  1446
  for the insurance money and got it. The insurance company, however, found him out, prosecuted him, and he was sentenced to three months imprisonment without the option of a fine. Notwithstanding this he is practising at this moment with the diploma of the Highland Agricultural Society. The object of this Bill is to give the latter society power to withdraw diplomas in such cases. The powers are carefully guarded, and the Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament.
  Moved, "That the Bill be read a second time."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  *LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord has described the object of this Bill. It will effect its purpose, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
  On Question agreed to, Bill lead 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

NEW BILLS.
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Farquhar). (No. 184.)

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 185.)
  House adjourned at Six of the clock, to Monday next, Eleven of the clock.