Sitting of 20 June 1877

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC Bills— Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [204].
Second Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment* [51], debate adjourned; Marriage Preliminaries (Scotland)* [161].
Committee—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Holywood, &c.)* [192]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [179]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Brotton, &c.)* [191]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, &c.)* [178].
Withdrawn— Locomotives on Common Roads [22]; Agricultural Holdings (Ireland)* [58].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON COMMON ROADS BILL.— [BILL 22.]
  (Colonel Chaplin, Mr. Charles Praed, Mr. Samuelson.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  COLONEL CHAPLIN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to consolidate the existing law and to introduce some Amendments into it. That the present Bill was perfect he did not pretend to say—on the contrary, he believed many improvements might be introduced in Committee. He might fairly say that the existing law relating to locomotives on common roads was faulty:—nor was this to be wondered at when they reflected on the enormous strides that had taken place within the last few years in machinery of every description, and remembered that the Act regulating the use of locomotives on roads was passed in 1861, and that since that time, with the exception of an amending Act in 1865, no legislation had taken place on the subject. It seemed to him, therefore, that the subject required and deserved immediate attention not only in the interest of those who used locomotives, but for the safety of the whole community. The first object to be aimed at in dealing with the question was the safety and convenience of the public; and the second should be the expansion of the general industry of the country, so far as they could do so. Some years ago great prejudices existed against the introduction of steam engines on common roads, and some persons who had heard that he had brought in a Bill on that subject had expressed a wish that he would put a stop to those nasty things altogether. That had been said partly under the idea that those machines damaged the roads, but mainly because they were ugly, and also because they might frighten horses. Those prejudices still existed, though perhaps in a modified form; and he thought that by judicious legislation that unsatisfactory state of things might be put an end to altogether. He did not, however, believe that either the House or the country would listen to a proposal for prohibiting altogether the use of loco-
  40
  motives on public roads—they were now so extensively used throughout the country that they might be said to have become a necessity. As to the last objection—he had had considerable experience in regard to horses both on town and country roads, and his conviction was that the danger apprehended in that case generally arose much more from the ignorance of those who had charge of horses than from any real danger through the use of locomotives. He thought that bicycles were really more dangerous than locomotives. Considering the rapid progress made in our days by mechanical science, it was obviously impossible to frame a law on that subject which would endure for all time, without requiring a revision; and early this Session a Select Committee was appointed to consider how far, and under what regulations, steam or other mechanical power might be allowed to be employed on tramways and public roads. That Committee had before it the Report made by a similar Committee which sat in 1873, and gave it as their opinion that in that Report there were sufficient materials to form the foundation of future legislation. They expressed their concurrence in its main recommendations, among which were these—that the direct legislation affecting the use of locomotives on common roads should be consolidated into one Act, and that that Act should not be temporary in its duration. He hoped, therefore, he was not presumptuous in now endeavouring to consolidate the law on that subject. With regard to the duration of the Act, he understood the recommendation to which he had referred to mean that they should pass a law which would last as long as possible, not one that could be expected to last for all time. The inquiry made by the Committee of 1873 appeared to have been exhaustive and complete. They took evidence, among other things, as to the large amount of capital invested in those engines, which rendered the question involved one of importance to the employers of labour. Four years had since elapsed, and it was the unanimous testimony of all the manufacturers of those machines that the ratio of increase in their use in this country within the last five years had greatly exceeded that of any former period. The evidence taken in 1873 with respect to horses was somewhat

  41
  contradictory, as was only to be expected when different interests were concerned; but the Committee found that even those witnesses who were opposed to the employment of locomotives on public roads admitted that horses soon got used to the sight and the sound of those engines. That entirely agreed with his own experience; and he maintained that any infinitesimal danger which might arise in spite of proper regulations and precautions could not for a moment counterbalance the enormous advantages resulting from the use of steam power on the roads. As to the question of the damage done to the roads by the wheels and tires of locomotives coming in contact with them, the Act of 1861—the first Act regulating the use of locomotives on common roads — dealt with that matter. Since then, however, immense improvements had been made in the construction of wheels, and he thought that our legislation on that head should have due regard to the present conditions of mechanical science. The object, of course, should be to secure the roads against all unnecessary and avoidable injury from the passing of locomotives along their surfaces. The result of the operation of the law as it existed was that the owners of engines were often compelled to break it, and it was monstrous, in his opinion, that they should be obliged to use wheels by which unnecessary damage was done to the roads. Then there was the system of licensing, to which, for his own part, he was rather opposed, as tending to relieve the owners of engines from that sense of responsibility by which it was desirable they should be influenced. As to the requirement that a red flag should be carried 60 yards in advance of an engine, he thought it an useless precaution—and, more than that, the evidence which had been given before the Committee showed that it had the effect of frightening horses to a considerable extent. He had introduced a clause into the Bill providing for an appeal to the President of the Local Government Board. These and many other matters of detail could be advantageously dealt with in Committee. It only remained for him to say that, although he believed there were some persons who desired to see the use of locomotives on our roads done away with altogether, yet that was not the view taken by the community
  42
  generally, who believed them to be a necessity to the country: and, moreover, the experience which had been already gained in working them had shown that they could be constructed on an improved plan, so that they might be employed without doing any injury to the roads. The question really was—whether Parliament should or should not sanction the permanent use of locomotives on common roads, and whether the time had not come when such sanction should not be legislatively given?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Chaplin.)
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, that he had always taken an interest in this subject; and although he had opposed a Bill dealing with it introduced by the late Mr. Cawley, he was now of opinion that some measure with respect to it ought to be passed. Such a measure should, however, in his opinion, be brought forward by the Government, and should not be in the hands of a private Member; and, further, the question had to be considered whether, under the present disorganized state of the law in reference to highways and turnpike trusts, it was at present practicable to pass any useful measure in reference to the use of road locomotive engines upon them. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the evidence taken before the Select Committee of 1873 and its favourable character; but he believed that out of the 15 witnesses examined, 12 of them were interested in manufacturing, and in otherwise promoting the use of locomotives on common roads. He did not say that this necessarily gave a bias to their views; but still they must keep the fact in view in weighing the evidence. He could from his own experience state that a great deal of damage was done to roads by locomotives, and it was no wonder it should be so, seeing that they were not constructed to bear such heavy burdens. To render them fit for the purpose would cost a large sum of money. He did not know whether any active opposition was intended to the Bill; but if no more cogent arguments were adduced in its favour than had yet been offered, he felt disposed to ask his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Bill.
  ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEsaid, he was strongly opposed to machines of this description being allowed upon our public roads, the surface of which they ruthlessly cut up, and broke down the bridges. So far as Scotland was concerned, he was sure the roads were not sufficiently strongly made to bear the enormous weights put upon them by these machines. At the present moment they had a Bill before the House of Commons—the Roads and Bridges Bill—and it was a very important matter for the country to consider whether, if a Bill of the description they were now considering should be sanctioned by the House, the whole country would not soon be covered with engines of that description. But he objected to it also in the interests of horses—indeed, he was much surprised that an hon. and gallant Member, who was so much interested in horses, should have brought in this Bill. It was all very well to say that horses would get accustomed to the machines —he himself had known instances over and over again where horses could never get accustomed to them. While, however, objecting strongly to the use of these engines, he was not at the present moment prepared formally to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but merely wished to enter his protest against it.
  MR. MONKsaid, he was sorry that his attention had not been earlier called to the provisions of this Bill. He agreed that it would be well if they could pass a consolidation Bill upon this subject: but this Bill did more—it proposed many alterations in the law; and, moreover, it was very defective—it did not provide for the consumption of the smoke, nor propose any limitation to the weight of the engines; nor did it propose any means by which those who used them should compensate for the enormous damage they did to the roads. He also thought that a measure of this sort could only be introduced with advantage on the authority of the Government, for it would be utterly impossible for a private Member to obtain the information necessary to guide the House in dealing with it. Under the circumstances, he did not think that it would be desirable to read the Bill a second time.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he very much concurred in the remarks of the last speaker, and wished the Government
  44
  could have taken up the subject; but, seeing that their hands were already so full of business, he thought the House was indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend for the pains he had bestowed on the subject. As to the danger arising from the frightening of horses, he was not disposed to attach very much importance to that point—what frightened them was the snorting of the engine; but there would be no difficulty in providing that an engine should be noiseless, as he had been informed was the case in Paris. The red flag, too, ought, in his opinion, to be done away with; and as to the damage to bridges, those who subjected them to the strain of unreasonably heavy loads ought to repair them. He might also observe that the regulation as to the rate of speed of locomotives sometimes operated very harshly; so that it would be well that no hard-and-fast line as to pace should be laid down. He hoped, he might add, to see light passenger locomotives soon running on our roads, going at the rate of nine or ten miles an hour. That would be no novelty, for in 1834 or 1835 an engine constructed in Glasgow used to run a short distance from that city with passengers, and was very successful; but so great was the opposition offered by the trustees of the road to the experiment, that it had to be given up. They raised the tolls; and, that step failing, they covered the road with new broken stone, so that the wheels were shattered daily, and had to be replaced by others made during the night. At last, so great was the strain that a boiler blew out and all the passengers were killed. It was clear, however, that but for the opposition which had been offered to it, the experiment would have gone on satisfactorily; and, entertaining that view, he should vote for the present Bill if the second reading were pressed; although, considering the large interests involved in the question, and the amount of consideration which it required, he hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of a division.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, this seemed to him to be a very crude Bill, and required a great deal of adjustment. He thought, indeed, that no Bill could be satisfactory on this subject unless it was introduced on the responsibility of Government. As an instance of the careless way in which the clauses were framed, he might mention that by Clause 9 the authorities

  45
  of any borough or town in England with a population of 5,000, or upwards, by the last Census, might regulate the speed of locomotives through their streets; but the very next sub-section applied to Scotland, and said that this power should only be vested in the authorities of any town of 10,000 inhabitants or upwards. Therefore, the framers of the Bill seemed to contemplate that the interests of less than 10,000 people in Scotch towns were not worth taking care of. He was sorry that so many of the Home Rule Members were not present to look after the interests of their country—there was no restriction whatever in the Bill as to the towns of Ireland, and therefore no authority there had power to remedy any evil connected with the use of locomotives on roads; although Clause 13 said that the county surveyors in Ireland might regulate other kinds of locomotives than those stated in the Act. He thought that the Bill, apart altogether from the principle of allowing locomotives to run on public roads, was so crudely drawn up, that it should either be withdrawn by its promoters or negatived by the House.
  MR. WHEELHOUSE, while he should be one of the very last to say that the use of locomotives should be entirely prohibited on roads, thought that notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill as to the regulations local authorities would be empowered to make to ensure safe passage along the streets of large towns, he feared that if these locomotives were once permitted to be taken through them we should get into a difficulty out of which it would be impossible to see our way. Not only the streets had to be considered, but there were the passengers on foot and horses and carriages. It should be remembered how in our larger mercantile cities there were continually passing day and night lorries carrying scores of loads from the manufactories to the railway depôts, and that in these towns the passing of locomotives along their streets became a question of the gravest importance. The traffic should be developed, he admitted—no one was more anxious to assist in this — but, at the same time, it must be done safely. He entertained no unreasonable objection to traffic being conducted through the streets, if only it could be so carried on,
  46
  and upon regulations framed, not by a private Member, but by the responsible Government of the country. In all these matters public safety, irrespective of all other considerations, first claimed attention; and when he looked at the streets of his own borough, even though they had been so largely improved during the last 30 years, and when he remembered the large towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire, with their comparatively narrow streets formed long ago, he was compelled to come to the opinion that, unless under the strictest regulations were imposed by Government, it might be endangering the lives of the inhabitants. In referring to the population of the towns he had indicated, it must be remembered that flocks of people—men, women, and children—had to pass along the streets at certain hours, often in the dark, or the grey of the winter mornings or evenings, some miles perhaps between the factories and their homes, and on their way these crowds would have to pass these engines. He did not speak of country districts. He could quite understand that provisions ought to be made to meet agricultural requirements and agrarian interests as far as it was desirable. But he was speaking from what he had observed, that the danger to horse and carriage traffic and to foot passengers inflicted by steam engines might be something no one could fully appreciate who had not lived, as he had for some months every year, in one of the largest manufacturing towns in Yorkshire. As he understood the Bill, any person owning an engine or employing one would be at liberty to take it through the streets, no matter what might be the damage caused to the roads, and there was nothing requiring those persons to pay for the repair of such roads so damaged. The only exception was in case of damage to bridges. But were the ratepayers to be called upon to repair the roads so broken up? Most of them did not care about the engines, which were used for a limited interest only, the general public having no concern in them. In fact, if the public were consulted the general feeling would be found that they would rather not see the engines. They made horses restive and endangered carriage traffic. It was not unreasonable, then, that they should object to repair the roads damaged by the locomotives. It was no individual

  47
  instance he was placing before the House; but they were dealing with a question so large that every aspect of the case should be presented and put responsibility of doing anything the upon the shoulders of the Government. With all deference to the introducer of the Bill, he doubted whether any private Member could get at the information necessary to initiate a Bill of this kind. The Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Select Committee could hardly gather enough information; how, then, could such a duty be satisfactorily undertaken by a private Member? He ventured to submit to the House that the whole of the information desirable in dealing with such a subject was not before them. There were just one or two other matters worth attention. There seemed to be an attempt in the Bill to change the present law in reference to standing engines and factories being required to consume their own smoke. These locomotives were not to be so required, and persons who went through the streets of our manufacturing towns, or even went down the Embankment now, and remembered the feeling of having his head only a little lower than the fumes from the chimneys, would have a slight experience of what would be the state of things if these engines in the streets, at all hours, by day and night, were puffing their smoke over passers by. It might be said this was putting the matter too broadly, and that there would only be an engine here and there. But they all knew that the development of trade since 1861 taught a different lesson, and it was impossible to say what the end of this seeming small beginning might be. There was another matter in the Bill which required to be looked after. He had no objection to the red flag, and saw no difficulty a man carrying a red flag would have in using both hands on an emergency; but there was no doubt the attempt made in the Bill to substitute something else for the flag was simply useless. It had been said that the red flag now often became a coloured rag on a little stick; but here it was proposed to have a red band on the hat of a man walking somewhere in the same street with the engine, and on the band in white letters the word "Locomotive." Surely this was mere playing. If there should be a man to precede the engine,
  48
  he must be distinguished in such a way that he was at once known among a crowd. If not, what was the use of having a man so engaged? With reference to the distinction made between the towns in Scotland and those in England, he thought that at least the application of the Bill should be to Scotch towns not less in number of population, but rather the other way. Whether the Bill was to apply to Ireland he did not know; but he could not see that the measure was adequate to the requirement of the case. Looking to the whole of the circumstances, and anxious as he was at all times—and speaking more especially for the district he represented —that there should be no unreasonable attempt made to restrict trade and limit traffic, he trusted that the Bill would be withdrawn, in the hope that when the necessities and requirements of the case were brought to bear upon the Administration the Government would take on themselves either to introduce a new Bill or one having for its object a consolidation of the old measures. While anxious that this subject should be well ventilated, he was extremely desirous that the responsibility should be on the shoulders of the Government.
  MR. C. H. WILSONthought a great many of the objections to the Bill would be removed if power were given to the local authorities not only to regulate the traffic, but to prohibit entirely the use of these traction engines where it was evident that the disadvantages would be much greater than the advantages. It would be well also if the same power of regulating the traffic were given to the Local Boards of Health in the rural districts as to the Town Councils in the towns. In his opinion, the use of these locomotives would result in many cases in driving private carriage traffic off the roads to a great extent—such he could state had been the result in the neighbourhood of Hull. In a great many cases, no doubt, the use of these engines would, be productive of economy, but they were liable to abuses, and while they were of benefit to their owners might do much harm to others. At present, the number of these engines was comparatively few, and he would suggest that the Board of Trade should have authority to give certificates as to safety to locomotives to be used on common roads. On the whole he

  49
  would support the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HENLEYpointed out that the Bill imposed no limit as to the length of the train which might be drawn by the traction engines. If a train consisting of six or seven waggons overtook a loaded waggon on a country road where, as was often the case, there was hardly room for more than two carriages to pass, there might in consequence be a complete block. He thought that, at all events, there should be a regulation in such a case that the loaded waggon should remain stationary till the train passed. Nor was there any provision as to the rate of speed while passing vehicles drawn by horses. It was desirable also that there should be a provision to prevent the trains from using bridges which were not very secure, and to insure the prompt repair of a bridge which might happen to be damaged. In the district where he lived, and where there were many small bridges over brooks, this was a matter of considerable importance; for by an accident of this kind, a whole district might be put to inconvenience by the destruction of their means of communication.
  MR. BEACHsaid, the Bill had not been sufficiently circulated in the country to allow of its provisions being properly considered. Steam engines were now indispensable for agricultural work, and therefore it was extremely important that there should be some legislative regulations for their use. The two points dealt with in the Bill were the danger to the general public and the hindrance of road traffic. With regard to danger, he thought that had been much exaggerated, as horses were now generally accustomed to these engines; and the red flag was only a signal to those approaching, and was not waved as they passed by. As to the danger of bridges, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had referred, there already existed a provision that if a notice was put up that a bridge was not safe for a traction engine to pass over, it would not be allowed to do so. The great fault of the Bill was its inadequacy to meet the damage done to roads by locomotives. The day of tolls was rapidly growing to a close, and therefore tolls would be an inadequate provision. He was of opinion that the case would be better met by a
  50
  system of licences, the produce of which should be placed at the disposal of the local authorities for the maintenance of the roads, and if the area of highway districts were increased, it would be easy to pay the amount to the proper local authorities. The damage done to roads depended much on the season of the year; and as steam engines had now come into general use for farming purposes, it would be extremely detrimental if any undue restriction were placed on the use of them. The matter, however, ought to be in the hands of Government, and not of a private Member. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Chaplin) might be very well satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and he (Mr. Beach) trusted the Government would bring in next Session a measure which, while it effectually provided for the safety of the public, would rather promote than discourage the use of locomotives, which every day were becoming more and more essential to agriculture.
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he agreed with those who thought it would have been well if legislation on this subject had been brought in by Government. Considering the difficulties that the occupiers of land had to deal with, that the acreage under wheat was now 20 per cent less than formerly, and that heavy-soil farms were a drug in the market, and were continually being thrown upon their landlords, it was obvious that no unnecessary obstacle should be placed in the way of any machinery which would facilitate agricultural operations. At the same time, the interests of the public ought to receive the fullest consideration, and due provision should be made that these engines should be used and not abused. In many respects this Bill was a great improvement upon the present law, and particularly with regard to the consumption of smoke. It was impossible to avoid a little smoke when fuel was first put on the fires; but magistrates were now in the invidious position of being obliged to convict although the nuisance was unavoidable. The Bill proposed a more reasonable regulation. Something had been said of giving more power to local authorities to stop the employment of locomotives. It would be most disastrous if local authorities had any such power. Local authorities should be fully empowered to do those things of which they were the best

  51
  judges; but if they had power to stop the traffic of a county, or stifle improvements, great mischief would be the result. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board would give the House some assurance that the Government would take up the question—in which case he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would be content with the second reading, without going further with his Bill.
  MR. PELLhoped the House would not challenge the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was simply to remove certain objectionable features in the existing law. The Bill itself seemed a reasonable one, not at all in excess of the requirements of the time or of the matters it dealt with, and was in strict conformity with the Report of the Committee of 1873, which sat expressly to consider this subject. He did not believe that these locomotives were so dangerous to the public or so injurious to the roads as some asserted. It would be most unwise to drive agricultural engines off the roads, inasmuch as their employment was attended with great advantage, and the cost of maintaining the roads they passed over fell chiefly upon the very persons who used them. The case of traction engines, which were constructed for hauling great weights over roads not constructed for such traffic, occupied a different position; but as they were valuable in some kinds of work, it would not do to prevent their use. He doubted whether, having regard to the expenses they involved and the damage they inflicted upon the highways, they effected any saving at all. If they continued in use, it was only because their owners paid nothing towards the maintenance of the roads. He thought a contribution for this purpose might fairly be exacted from those persons, and that some restriction ought to be placed upon the use of traction engines, by means of licences or tolls. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not go to a division; but if he did, he should vote for the second reading.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he saw no objection to the use of traction engines on roads provided they did not exceed a reasonable weight, and that they were properly constructed. In his opinion, the roads were, as a rule, improved rather
  52
  than cut up by the pressure upon them of traction engines—in that respect, he thought the fears of hon. Members unnecessary. There was certainly some difficulty as to the passing of traction engines by other vehicles—especially where the roads were narrow—because it would sometimes happen that the engines could only travel in the middle of the road; but this difficulty could be obviated. He further admitted that horses were often frightened by them; but speaking from experience he declared that by degrees animals got quite accustomed to the engines and were not at all disturbed by them. In short, he knew no difficulties connected with the use of these engines that could not be overcome.
  COLONEL BRISEwas in favour of facilitating, as far as possible, the use of locomotives, but he was afraid that at present the roads were not in a sufficiently favourable condition to sustain the great weight of the engines—certainly that was so in the district with which he was acquainted. His great difficulty in connection with the Bill was that great trouble would be experienced in getting the owners and users of these engines to contribute towards the maintenance of the roads. He believed that the only way in which this difficulty could properly be met would be by compelling the owners of such machines to take out licences for their use—but then in what way was the money to be distributed? He thought there were several matters in the Bill deserving of consideration; but he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not proceed further with it this Session.
  MR. EVANSagreed with hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, that the subject should be taken up and dealt with by the Government. He thought the Local Government Board was competent to deal with the question and form adequate regulations to govern the use of locomotives. He held it was inadvisable for the Government to be going on year after year passing, as it were, an Act of indemnity in connection with these engines. He suggested that much of the difficulty might be met if some plan were devised by means of which owners of engines might be made to contribute towards the maintenance of the roads.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think that a very strong case had

  53
  been made out in favour of giving the Bill a second reading. Much more time would be required to make it a thoroughly useful and practical measure than the House had at its disposal this Session. At the same time, he admitted that his hon. and gallant Friend had done good service in drawing attention to the subject. A great deal had been said respecting the imperfections of the law; but they were not so very numerous as to demand attention until they could be grappled with effectually. There were several important omissions from the Bill as it was drawn. Some specific enactment, for instance, ought to have been included with reference to the weight of the engines. The Government had no desire unduly or vexatiously to limit the use of road locomotives. On the contrary, they desired to do what was judicious in this matter. But the difficulty was to hold the balance even. The interests of inventors and agriculturists required that no unnecessary impediment should be placed to their use: but the interests of the public were not identical with those of the owners and farmers, and demanded that nothing should be done which would interfere with the free use of the Queen's highway. The interests of the ratepayers had also to be considered. The Bill under consideration was defective in many respects. Such a Bill ought certainly to lay down regulations with respect to the weight of the engines, the construction of the wheels, and the hours during which the locomotives should be allowed to ply upon the roads. His opinion was that some reasonable compromise ought to be sought for in the matter. Supposing the Government made concessions to the owners of the locomotives, the latter ought to submit to further regulations than those to which they were now subject. These and other matters involved could no doubt be dealt with by regulations made by a competent authority; but at present there was no uniform road authority throughout the Kingdom. He recognized the fact that some contribution towards the maintenance of the roads should be made by the proprietors of engines. With respect to the question of whether the Government should not take up the matter and deal with it, he would explain that the debate now proceeding had not been necessary to direct his attention to it— he could assure his hon. and gallant
  54
  Friend that he had given this subject a great deal of consideration. He had hoped to introduce a Bill this Session to consolidate the Acts of 1861 and 1865 which dealt with road locomotives, and a measure had been actually prepared for that purpose; but he felt that it was necessary that any Bill dealing with road locomotives should follow another Bill dealing with the highways and establishing a uniform road authority; and as he saw no prospect of such a Bill becoming law this Session he had not introduced it. If there had been a reasonable probability of obtaining sufficient time for a full discussion of the details of the Bill he should be glad to avail himself of his hon. and gallant Friend's aid in legislating on this subject; but considering the period of the Session and the serious omissions from the Bill, he could not think any useful purpose could be served by reading it a second time.
  MR. WYKEHAM MAETINwould vote for the second reading of the Bill. Speaking from personal experience, he could say that in the county of Kent traction engines were nearly as common as carriers' carts, and while useful to the agriculturists they did not do any serious injury to the roads. In Warwickshire, with which he was also connected, there were very few of these engines, and their want was greatly felt in those districts where the farmers had few facilities for delivering their produce. There were parts of the country in which thousands of acres of land remained unlet because there were no means of taking the produce to market, and the introduction of locomotive engines on the turnpike roads would tend greatly to the advantage of those places. There were certain points on which regulations would be necessary; but these were points of detail which could be arranged without difficulty. The regulation of the hours during which the engines were to be permitted was an important point; but it would be unreasonable to restrict the rate of speed to four miles an hour.
  MR. VERNERfeared that the effect of certain clauses would be that the roads would be taken out of the hands of the surveyors and be put under irresponsible persons. If this was intended he greatly objected to it, as he found that the Bill was to be extended to Ire-

  55
  land. He felt confident that the roads in the North of Ireland were not such as could be used by traction engines;— from the geological formation of the country, and certain peculiarities in the traffic, the roads would be fearfully cut up. The evidence given before the Committee confirmed this view.
  COLONEL BERESFORDopposed the Bill on account of the dangers attending the employment of locomotives on the public highways. Such accidents were of frequent occurrence, and he thought the subject ought to be taken up by the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he knew very little about the Bill before it was now proposed for the second reading; but, after looking through it, he thought everyone must arrive at the conclusion that the Bill, as it now stood, was most unsatisfactory. He would not oppose the measure if he really did not think it a bad one—but there were so many omissions that he did not see how it could be satisfactorily amended in Committee. In respect of Scotland, he thought that, since the House would probably be engaged to-morrow on a Bill for the abolition of tolls in Scotland, it was very unreasonable to discuss the present Bill so far as it was applicable to that country. He had known considerable damage to be done by traction engines. He drew a very large distinction between the engines which were used for agricultural purposes and those which were used by traders in pursuit of gain, or were used in the construction of public works. Whilst agreeing with the principle that traction engines might be used under proper regulations—and, in fact, were found to be so valuable an adjunct to husbandry that farmers in many districts could not do without them—he maintained that this Bill would be of no practical use.
  MR. STORERsaid, that the Bill had been anxiously looked for by the agricultural classes. It should be remembered that all the objections raised to locomotives had been originally used against railways. The Bill might, perhaps, be improved in Committee, but it ought to be read a second time. The great argument in its favour was that heavy land could not be cultivated without steam, and in many parts of the country where heavy weights had to be
  56
  moved, the use of traction engines had become almost indspensable.
  MR. LEIGHTONregretted that the Government had not clearly stated the course they intended to take with regard to this Bill. For his own part, he considered the Bill bad in principle, inopportune in time, and one-sided in detail. The question was really a financial one, yet the financial points had been omitted from the discussion. There was no insuperable objection to locomotives being used on common roads if their owners paid a sum towards the repairs adequate to the damage they caused. The Preamble declared that experience proved that the use of locomotives was not injurious to roads. His own experience proved exactly the contrary. He knew a road which formerly cost £23 a-mile, and now, since a locomotive had been placed upon it, was costing £119 a-mile. He knew another road, under similar circumstances, which formerly cost £35 a-mile, and was now costing between £300 and £400. He would not press too far the argument based on the danger of these engines to life and limb, though no one could doubt that they were dangerous. The mode of exacting a proper contribution towards the repairs of the roads from the owners of locomotives was a simple one. There could be no very great difficulty in creating a system of licences to be granted by the road authority, whatever that authority might be. But in the Bill there was no attempt to provide any machinery of that sort. The importance of the whole question was enormously increased by the gradual discontinuance of turnpikes. There was one unanimous opinion expressed from all sides of the House in which he joined, and that was that the Government should without delay legislate on the whole subject of roads in a comprehensive spirit.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONremarked that a Highway Bill had been promised from year to year, but always postponed; and he hoped that in dealing with this measure his right hon. Friend would not make one Bill wait for the other. The time had come for the use of locomotives, and engineers could easily overcome mechanical difficulties.
  MR. GREENEapproved of the principle of the Bill as a measure of protection, but he thought the subject was one which ought to be taken up by the

  57
  Government as a whole, and the use of locomotives on roads be included in general legislation for highways. There was no doubt that these engines injured the roads to some extent. With regard to horses, what frightened them was the sight of things they were not accustomed to, and he would suggest that if the drivers of locomotives were to put in front of the engine two of those grey horses which were to be seen outside harness makers' shops he believed the real horses would be perfectly satisfied. There were other things besides engines which frightened horses—bicycles, for example; and he spoke feelingly on the matter, for his son had sustained a serious injury owing to his horses having been frightened by a bicycle.
  COLONEL CHAPLINsaid, that in consequence of the statement of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board he would withdraw the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 51.]
(Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. R. Smyth, Mr. Dickson, Mr. D. Taylor.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 51.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he was not aware of any question which opened up such a wide field for consideration. The Bill had been previously submitted to the House by him, and it was consequently not now necessary to trouble the House again at any length, if it were not that it had undergone some modifications and additions which it would be needful to describe. The Bill now consisted of two parts. The first dealt with the Ulster tenant-right custom. The second part of the Bill, which was not formerly included in it, endeavoured to extend tenant-right to the whole country, and not alone the North of Ireland. He did not intend to advance any new principles of law with regard to the Ulster tenant-right custom. He proposed simply to legalize a right which had existed for a great number of years, and to carry out more effectually what, he believed, was
  58
  intended to be done by the 1st clause of the Land Act of 1870. In the Bill, it was taken for granted that tenant-right existed in all holdings in Ulster; and a reference to early records would show that tenant-right was universal in Ulster, and that it was only at intervals that it had been destroyed in particular districts. In order, however, to establish this, there was a difficulty in carrying out the Act of 1870. A tenant had at present a difficulty in establishing his rights in a Court of Law, not because the tenant-right did not exist, but because the onus of proof that it did exist was thrown upon him by the law as it now stood, and because, however much he might be entitled to tenant-right, it might be impossible for him to prove it by evidence which was regarded as admissible or conclusive in a Court of Law. This was more especially the case in regard to the larger and important class of leasehold tenants. It was to obviate this difficulty, and render tenant-right more secure, that the Bill proposed that the onus of proof should be transferred from the tenant to the landlord—that it should be for the latter to prove the land was not subject to tenant-right. Then the Bill provided that a surrender should not destroy the existence of tenant-right. And as there had been many cases in which the rights of tenants had been nominally purchased up, the Bill would provide that no sales should be valid unless it was for a valuable consideration. Then the Bill would give the right of free sale by the tenant of his interest in the land, and that was a provision that had been the most called into question of any of the Bill; but he (Mr. Crawford) held that that privilege was an essential portion of the original Ulster tenant-right, that it was necessary to give security of tenure, and that it was the confidence it had inspired that had made Ulster the most improved part of Ireland. So far the Bill was the same as last year. But, besides that, the Bill contained some provisions applicable to the rest of Ireland. They thought it hard that a mere change of a few pounds on the rental of premises should, as was the case at present, deprive a tenant not only of his tenant-right, but of any claim to compensation under the Land Act. A case in which this had been held showed the necessity of some amendment in the Land Act in order to obviate

  59
  the occurrence of similar cases in future. Then, in order to facilitate the settlement of the amount of rent as between landlord and tenant, the Bill contained certain provisions for the amendment of the law. At present when a landlord and tenant differed as to the amount of rent, the only way to bring about a settlement of the question was for the landlord to give the tenant notice to quit. This led to heart-burning and contention, and frequently to legal proceedings. Clauses were, therefore, introduced into the Bill which would enable differences as to rent to be settled without going to law, and without any interruption of the friendly feelings which had subsisted, and which it was desirable should subsist, between landlords and tenants. Then he had tried to extend the Bright clauses of the Act of 1870, which were now the subject of inquiry by a Committee upstairs; and with a view to make them more generally available, he proposed that the amount of public money which might be advanced to the tenants to enable them to purchase their holdings should be raised from two-thirds to three-fourths of the value. He felt that this was a question of the utmost importance. It had excited the greatest attention in Ireland, and its settlement was looked forward to with the greatest anxiety both in the North and South of that country. The London Standard had recently expressed its approval of the first and second parts of the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Butt's) Bill, the former of which proposed to extend the Ulster tenant-right to the whole of Ireland. He (Mr. Crawford) could not give a better description of the purposes of the Bill, the second reading of which he was then moving, than in the words of that paper—
  "Mr. Butt's Bill is divided into three parts, the first of which proposes to enlarge the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland. Thus, the two first parts of the Bill have for their object the amendment of the Act of 1870. As regards the former object there can be no doubt that sooner or later it will be attained. If the Ulster custom is good for one province it cannot be bad for the other three. And everyone will admit that the intention of the Legislature should not be allowed to be defeated by mere defect of language. It has been ruled, for example, that if a tenant surrenders his holding to obtain a lease he thereby forfeits his right to compensation for improvements. It is certain
  60
  that this was not the intention of Parliament, and it is obvious that the ruling must operate against leases, which it ought to be our endeavour to encourage."
  Questions regarding tenant-right might be difficult of discussion by Englishmen who did not know what the Ulster custom was. Nor was it, perhaps, strange that those who were not acquainted with the facts should view with alarm the proposal to give Irish tenants privileges not possessed by English tenants. But it must be recollected that there was a great difference between Irish and English tenants. In England the improvement of the farms was almost always done by the landlords, while in Ireland they were usually done by the tenants. The Irish tenant had, therefore, a right to expect greater security of tenure than the English tenant, and if they were given this security they would be more inclined to invest their capital in the land. There was no better way of giving that security than by establishing tenant-right, coupled with the right of free sale. In no part of Ireland where tenant-right did not exist had there been any great improvement. He did not accuse the landlords of Ireland, as a rule, with being bad landlords. Many of them were good landlords, and the principles of tenant-right were ordinarily observed in the North; but that was not always the case with new landlords, and the consequence was, that while many estates did not now require the application of the present Bill there was no security that it might not be wanted on a change of proprietorship. If they looked back half-a-century they would find that legislation was even then going on as to this question between landlord and tenant, and legislation must still go on till the tenant had obtained such adequate security as was proposed by the Bill. It might be said that there had been no Petitions in its favour. But he could point to meetings supporting it from month to month, and even when meetings had been held to oppose it, it was a curious fact that hardly a word was said against its principles. The interest which Ulster took in this question had been shown at the last Election, and would be shown still more at any future Election. When he proposed this legislation in favour of the Ulster tenant he believed that he was standing on a plat-

  61
  form on which the landlord and tenant question might be settled for a long period to come, if not for ever, and that, too, on the best terms. This legislation would, in his opinion, lead to better feeling between landlord and tenant, and give to the latter that security without which no man could be expected to invest his capital in land, and he contended that the Bill was founded on the principles of right and justice; and he was conscientiously convinced that it would do more to settle the question between landlord and tenant in Ireland than any other which could be proposed. As that was his impression, he confidently asked the House to assent to the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Sharman Crawford.)
  MR. PLUNKET, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, having so often before resisted various violent proposals as to the Irish Land Question, he appeared before the House again on the subject with great reluctance; but the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Sharman Crawford) left him no other course. He deplored the agitation which was kept up on the question, and that the settlement of 1870 was not left to bear fruit. Those who instigated these Bills constantly stirred up ill feelings on the part of tenants by dangling before them hopes of what they never could or ought to get; at the same time, denouncing the great advantages which were conferred on the tenants by the Act of 1870, representing it as a failure and contending that the fundamental principles of that measure should be changed. Then, when the House of Commons, after full debate, felt itself bound to reject these Bills by large majorities, not composed of members of one, but of both sides of the House, still the agitation was continued. Class was set against class, tenant against landlord, and the repudiation of existing laws as land-tenure was carried so far as to weaken the confidence of the people in that House, which it was desirable should be entertained by all subjects of Her Majesty, and especially in Ireland. He did not, however, believe that any feeling of that kind would be successfully stirred up or permanently maintained in Ulster. He believed that
  62
  this tenant-right agitation was beginning to break up. Men like his hon. Friend who proposed reforms short of the most violent alterations were being quickly left behind in the race. Even in the North this Bill, with all the violent clauses it contained, was denounced as quite inadequate by the more reckless agitators. He did not deny that the Bill was not so extreme in its principles, or so violent in its proposals as some of those which had been laid before the House by other hon. Members; but if any check had been given to these visionary demands, he traced that circumstance to the fact that they had last year been rejected by large majorities in that House, composed not of one Party exclusively, but, as he had already said, of hon. Members sitting on each side of the House. The Bill of this year was, in its most important aspects, almost identical with that of last year and the year before. It must, therefore, be with the indulgence of the House that he should try their patience by travelling over the same ground. As had been well said by the hon. Member for Down they could not go much into detail without getting out of Order; but many of the details of this Bill were not germane to main principles. Part of the proposal dealt with the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act of 1870, and those clauses being submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, this was not the time to discuss them; but this he would say in passing, as this was a Tenant Right Bill which must concern Ulster, that every Member from Ulster upon the Committee, or who had supported the appointment of the Committee, was as anxious as any hon. Member who supported the introduction of this measure, that every facility should be given, and by the best machinery that could be devised, for the carrying out of the policy of those clauses in the Act of 1870. In the first place he would refer to the 7th clause in relation to contracts. That clause provided that after the passing of the Act, no contract should be valid for the acquisition by the landlord from the tenant of the tenant-right custom, unless the contract should be in writing, signed by the tenant, and made for a valuable consideration. That clause, so far as it dealt with tenant-right, and so far as he was able to form an opinion of it, he did

  63
  not think a mischievous or injurious one. As regarded the general question of tenant-right at the end of a lease, he stated clearly, as far as he was concerned, and he might say the same of every Conservative Member coming from Ulster, they were as desirous as any men could be that the question should be set at rest speedily and finally, and he would take the opportunity of observing that this would now have been done by the law, if it had not been for the hon. Member who introduced the Bill now before the House. He (Mr. Crawford) opposed the Bill brought in last year by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland). That hon. Gentleman was not now present, and he (Mr. Plunket) felt sure every hon. Member deplored the cause of his absence; but in his absence, he would say that the proposal then made had the assent not only of the Members from Ulster, whose names were on the back of the Bill, but of many, if not all, the other Ulster Members. That Bill differed in some comparatively unimportant respects from the corresponding clauses of the Bill now before the House; but it proposed to carry out the principle, and it was opposed by the hon. Member who now urged his Bill in the interest of the tenant-farmers of Ulster. In dealing with the Bill, his Opposition took much the same ground as it did two years since, when the question was fully debated and afterwards voted on by the House. He might be excused, however, if he referred to the circumstances under which the Ulster claims were passed into the Land Act of 1870. Although his hon. Friend did not charge all the Ulster landlords with being bad landlords, and was good enough to grant a few exceptions as not being utterly bad, still he did imply that strong and new legislation was necessary to keep the landlords of Ulster straight. It was right to remind the House of the circumstances under which the clauses of the 1870 Act, as far as regarded Ulster, were passed. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was speaking strictly to the Bill, explaining it, and he held it was an important subject, and he should be allowed to proceed. As regarded the clause dealing with the sale of holdings by the tenant, either by auction or contract, he could not imagine anything which would be more detrimental both to the interests of tenants, as well as
  64
  landlords, than that a landlord should not be allowed to exercise a control in the selection of a tenant. The clause provided that a landlord must have a "reasonable objection," but how was the reasonable objection to be determined? The landlord might suspect the proposed tenant of being a seditious character, or he might be a drunkard, or there might be many objections sufficiently reasonable to the landlord; but, according to the Bill, unless he was prepared to put down his objections to the man in black and white he had no right to take exception to him. Could such a provision be in the interest of tenants themselves? Had it not been one of the advantages of the Ulster custom that the landlord selected the incoming tenant from the adjoining tenantry, from among those with whom he was accustomed to live in harmony and peace? Clause 6 gave the tenant an absolute right to sell his holding by auction, and that was one of the most monstrous proposals that could be made. In the reasons given for the Bill the hon. Member for Down had only adduced a single case of hardship or abuse under the Ulster custom, and even now at the end of three years he had not mentioned the name.
  MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD: I beg pardon. The names are at the service of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, that even though the hon. Member was able to give a few names, he would hardly contend that that would be sufficient justification for such a change in the law as was proposed by the Bill. He had a full recollection of the circumstances under which the Land Act had been passed, and he also remembered the Coercion Acts which were also carried, because they were found to be necessary at that time. There were, he said, circumstances connected with the Administration of that period which rendered the coercion laws that were passed necessary; they had hoped that while those penal measures would have been but temporary, the large concessions of the Land Act would have remained permanent and undisturbed. He rejoiced to think that half this happy forecast was being fast fulfilled, and that coercion and its causes were fading out in Ireland. And now he put it to the House whether it was

  65
  wise that they should be constantly agitating this land question? If the tenants of Ireland were to be constantly told that they were oppressed, would there be any likelihood of their settling down in contentment? The tenantry of Ulster were well off as undoubtedly they deserved to be; but their position was grounded on other conditions besides the Land Act of 1870. It was grounded on the good relations existing, and which had for centuries existed, between landlord and tenant in that part of Ireland. He knew that the hon. Member for Down denied that; but he contended that, nevertheless, it was a fact. He hoped the present Government would resist any attempt to alter the spirit of the Act of 1870, and would not allow this Bill to become law. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that as an English Member he had a right to address the House on this subject. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERasked if the hon. Member proposed to second the Motion.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did. As an English Member he was entitled to say something. He felt that the Act of 1870 was a fair settlement— [Loud cries of "Divide!"] The hon. Member proceeded to address the House, but was quite inaudible owing to the noise.
  DR. BRADY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. It appears to me we came here to discuss this Bill fully and perfectly out to the end. This has been done to a large extent by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket); but now the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) rises to tide over the few minutes which remain, with the clear object of preventing the division which we all desire to see being taken. [An hon. MEMBER: He is talking it out.] I should like to have your opinion, Sir, on the point.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) is in possession of the House. He has done nothing that is out of Order.
  MR. GOLDNEYcontinued, when—
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Report brought up.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, that it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill that they have power to introduce provisions into the said Bill to regulate the supervision of refreshment houses in Ireland, and to increase the penalties for the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: I oppose the passage of this Motion, Sir. I think that this is rather too important a question to be dismissed in a moment. It deals not only with Sunday closing but with the traffic on the other days of the week. It also deals with the supervision by the police in a manner which would not be tolerated for a second in this country.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise to Order. If the hon. Member opposes the Motion, I apprehend that will settle it to-day.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member oppose the Motion?
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: I do, Sir; I object to it being taken now.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Motion would stand adjourned until to-morrow.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, with your permission, I should like to make an announcement to the House which the House may feel interested in hearing. In accordance with the advice given me by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) the other night I have considered whether I should be justified in giving up Wednesday next, June 27th, in order to make way for the consideration of this Bill, so that its passing may be facilitated this Session. My only object has been to secure facilities for the Bill; and, on consultation with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I find that there is a general impression that the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the necessities of the case. I, therefore, accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which it was made, and I fully accede to the arrangement he proposed.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain and to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 204.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.