Sitting of 6 March 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL—(by Order).
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I rise for the purpose of moving an Instruction to the Committee
  "That, in order that the public shall derive some definite advantage in return for the right to tunnel under the public streets proposed to be conferred by the Bill, that they (the Committee) do insert clauses in the Bill providing either (1) for payment to the Local Authority of a royalty or share of earnings after interest on capital and working expenses; or (2) for specially reduced fares on certain trains between hours most convenient for the working classes and for clerks and others engaged in business, the Railway Company being required to run a specified number of such trains daily."
  I must apologise for again calling the attention of the House to the subject of the Tunnel Railways. In the discussion which took place in this House on the 11th of last month there appeared to be a general feeling that there are important interests connected with the making of these railways; and I do not think that I unduly trespassed upon the time of the House in calling attention to the rights of the public, so far as the subsoil

  379
  of the roads in the Metropolis is concerned, seeing that private individuals are applying for Acts of Parliament empowering them to take that subsoil without compensation or charge. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees did me the honour to acknowledge the propriety of the course I took as a Metropolitan Member, and he suggested that as the discussion had practically answered the object I had in view in calling public attention to the matter, in all probability not only the promoters of the Bill, but the Committee to whom it was about to be referred, would seriously consider the large and important question I had raised. I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman thought some practical result might come from the discussion. I suggested two ways of compensating the public—either by giving a royalty to the Local Authorities or by devoting to the public a share of the earnings, after payment of interest on the capital and working expenses. The right hon. Gentleman suggested a third way in which the public rights might be recognised, and that was by establishing cheap fares, having special regard to the fact that the land was to be appropriated without payment, or that a free permanent way was proposed to be acquired under Parliamentary authority. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman, and being satisfied with the feeling which appeared to prevail in the House upon the question, I withdrew the Instruction, and I certainly had the impression that the subject would be considered by the Committee to which the Bill was referred. I attended the meeting of the Committee, under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury); but, to my surprise, the counsel for the promoters, for all practical purposes, ignored all that had taken place in this House. He did, in a few words, refer to the Motion I had brought forward, but only to treat the matter with indifference, and to insinuate—for he did not state so in distinct terms—that I had withdrawn the Instruction because it had been unfavourably received, and because I had no chance whatever of carrying it. Now, that was not the spirit in which the Resolution was either received, discussed, or withdrawn. There was
  380
  an understanding that the matter should be considered, and I was much surprised to find that the promoters, through their counsel, dealt with the question in this way. The Chairman said that the Committee knew nothing about the Instruction, and that they could only take cognisance of the Bill as it was placed before them by the counsel who appeared in their legal capacity in the Committee Room. I also ascertained that the promoters did not intend to do anything in the way of conceding a royalty, or share earnings, or specially cheap fares. Of course, the company are bound to give the working class trains which ordinary Railway Companies are required to give, but I do not gather that they propose to give any special cheap trains as a consideration for the free permanent way they are to acquire under the Bill. I do not propose now to re-argue the claims of the public, because it is generally admitted that the public have a substantial interest in the matter; and although the landowners on each side may have some shadowy claim, that claim is of no practical value. The only substantial interest in the roadway rests in the public. I ask the House to look at the question from a larger point of view, namely, the right of the people of London to the land over which the public streets run. This is one of the earliest of those railways which, in the end, will inevitably run like a net-work underneath London—not only small railways for the conveyance of passengers, but tubular railways to connect great lines on either side for the carriage of goods traffic. It may be satisfactory to the House to know that the promoters of these Bills take a most sanguine view of their prospects. In fact, the syndicate promoting these Bills have assured the Committee that they are prepared to give a guarantee to find the whole of the capital—some £3,600,000 for one of the railways alone. I propose to discuss the three Bills which appear on the Paper at the same time, seeing that the decision upon one of them will settle the fate of all.
  MR. COURTNEY: There may be a little difficulty in reference to the third Bill.
  SIR J. PULESTON: I am advised that the promoters of the third Bill are prepared to say that the matter

  381
  shall be mentioned in the Committee, and that it needs no Instruction.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I was mentioning that the promoters take a most sanguine view of the prospects of these tunnel railways, and expect the undertaking to he enormously profitable. One of the companies proposes to provide facilities for carrying as many as 350,000 persons a day, and the railway which is already in operation from London Bridge to Stockwell, and which is admittedly not in a perfect condition, with unsatisfactory stations and approaches, has carried in a little over two months, 900,000 passengers. At a recent meeting the company owning that railway expressed the greatest satisfaction at the financial as well as the engineering results of the undertaking. Therefore, from actual experience in connection with the experiment of the South London Railway, there is conclusive evidence that the privilege asked for is one of enormous value. That being so, I think it is the duty of the House to take care that the public interests are very well looked after. The other night, in a discussion which occurred here, there was a general consensus of opinion as to the desirability of legislation in reference to providing cheap trains at convenient hours for the working classes. When the Railway Passenger Duty was partially remitted, in the interests of the public the House insisted on compensation being given in the shape of an increased number of workmen's trains, and now, when a far more valuable concession is about to be handed over to a Private Company, it is time to give practical effect to our opinions, and to extend a policy which has been recognised and affirmed over and over again. The people promoting these railways are a syndicate of financiers. I believe they call themselves "The Exploration Company, Limited," and they want to get a concession out of which they expect to make money.
  An hon. MEMBER: That is not so.
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the facts in regard to the syndicate. The evidence before the Committee shows that some of these gentlemen are prepared to put in very large sums, and to retain their holdings.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: That fact rather strengthens my case. The fact that the financiers who form the syndicate propose to retain their shares shows the value of the concession, and makes it more necessary that we should secure to the public full compensation the rights granted. I have no wish to throw cold water on the efforts of the promoters, and I move this Instruction without any hostility whatever to these railways. I have no interest in the matter except the public interest, and I have no wish to impose conditions which would prevent the railways from being made, or seriously embarrass the promoters. It is, however, such a good thing that I think they can well afford to give the public some substantial return for the large powers they are asking for. I beg to move the Instruction which I have placed on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: The proper form would be to instruct the Committee to insert clauses to carry out the views of the hon. Member. The first part of the Instruction, which explains the reasons for submitting it, is unusual.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I shall be most happy to move the Instruction in the form suggested by you, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert clauses in the Bill providing either (1) for payment to the local authority of a royalty or share of earnings after interest on capital and working expenses; or (2) for specially reduced fares on certain trains between hours most convenient for the working classes and for clerks and others engaged in business, the Railway Company being required to run a specified number of such trains daily."—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
  MR. BARTLEY: I supported the hon. Member on the last occasion, and I very much regret that he did not carry the Motion to a Division. What has occurred since shows, I think, that it does not altogether answer to leave these matters to the chapter of accidents, and that it is better, as we cannot always trust a Committee to do what we wish, to give a definite Instruction. I agree that these railways will rapidly increase in the Metropolis, and that, therefore, the subject is one calling for serious consideration. For all practical purposes the roads are public property, and as these new companies are asking for important rights it is only fair that they should pay for them. One of

  383
  the great difficulties of London is the ever-increasing burden of the rates. They are growing by leaps and bounds, and the proposal in the Instruction seems to me to be a reasonable way of getting some relief for the ratepayers by making the promoters of these lines pay a royalty, after a fair dividend is paid to shareholders, to the Local Authorities. I trust that the Instruction will be passed and that it will be understood, in future, that when these companies make use of the subsoil of the public streets they shall pay the locality some distinct and definite sum for the privilege.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I rise for the purpose of opposing the Instruction. I took the liberty of saying, when the subject was under discussion before, that I thought the raising of the question was not in the interest of the London County Council. I now understand that the Committee have decided that, although there may be value in the subsoil, that value belongs by law to the frontagers. The view I take of the matter is that there is no value at all in the subsoil at such a depth, and therefore that no payment is due to anybody. Whatever the traffic may be, either under or over the roadways, the public gets the full benefit of it. The principle that the travelling public should pay towards the taxation of London is, to my mind, an utterly wrong one. It would be better for the public interests that the Local Authorities should maintain all the highways in order that the people should be able to travel cheaply. We have lately been dealing with the question of market rights and tolls, whereby provisions brought in for the consumption of the community are made to pay taxes. That is a vicious and exploded fallacy, and certainly ought not to be applied to railways and subways. What we want is that the localities should take national undertakings of this kind into their own hands, make the subways, and derive all the profit that can be obtained from them. It is right that they should be maintained by the public money, but not as a legislative source of taxation. What was said by the Chairman of Committees on the last occasion possesses great weight and authority, namely, that in granting a monopoly the Committee should see that the fares were as low as possible,
  384
  and that the public should receive some benefit when the railway was successful.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: The Instruction only directs the Committee to make provision for cheap fares.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I have no doubt that without any Instruction at all the; Committee would do its duty and provide minimum fares for the working classes.
  SIR J. PULESTON: The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) speaks with some weight and authority, having been a member of the Committee which had this subject before them last year.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I have had the subject before me on three occasions.
  SIR J. PULESTON: Then still greater importance attaches to the remarks of the hon. Member. The first question before the Committee is whether it is desirable that additional means of locomotion shall be established under the sanction of this House. That principle being affirmed, it is necessary to provide such increased means of locomotion, without giving an undue advantage to anybody. This Instruction commands the Committee to insert these special clauses; but a Committee now sitting upstairs have already arrived at a different decision, with full knowledge of the discussion which occurred the other day. If the Instruction is passed, it becomes an absolute command.
  MR. HANBURY: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the difficulty of the Committee was in having no official knowledge of anything that had taken place in the House on the matter. That is why no attention has been devoted to it. But it is not too late to look into the question; and if the Instruction is forced upon us, we must consider the matter.
  SIR J. PULESTON: I think that without laying down a hard and fast line, the Committee might be able to take cognisance of this discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) supports the Instruction, and yet he knows that, in reference to cheap fares, it may be practically impossible to carry it out and to divide a penny into fractional parts. At the same time, he proposes to make it obligatory.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I merely said that I preferred one alternative to another.
  SIR J. PULESTON: The Instruction, if passed, will practically command the Committee upstairs to insert these provisions, and I am afraid the result would be to throttle an important enterprise.
  MR. COURTNEY: The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has expressed disappointment that more good has not resulted from the previous discussion of this subject. My difficulty is in knowing what the Committee have done in the matter.
  MR. HANBURY: The Committee have not practically reached this question yet. It can only come up upon the clauses of the Bill, and we have only just begun to consider them.
  MR. COURTNEY: That is what I anticipated, and in view of that fact I consider the Instruction premature. I would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to wait until the Committee have finished their labours, and then when the Bill comes again before the House, if no notice has been taken of his suggestion, he can once more raise the point. I certainly deprecate the interpretation which the hon. Member for North St. Pancras has put upon the remarks which fell from me the other day. I said that the subject was an important one, and that it deserved full consideration, but I do not think I anticipated in any degree what the result of that consideration would be. All I expressed was my own view that if it was desired to make a revenue out of the undertaking the proper thing would be to provide some sliding scale in respect of rates, so that the fares might be reduced as the profits of the undertaking increased. I had no intention of speaking of the working classes alone; I had everybody in view. As the matter is still before a Committee I should strongly deprecate the giving of a mandatory Instruction or doing anything that would interfere with the deliberation of the Committee.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I am afraid that I must take a Division upon the Instruction.
  (3.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 111.—(Div. List, No. 78.)

  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Central London Railway Bill to
  386
  insert clauses in the Bill providing either (1) for payment to the Local Authority of a Royalty or share of earnings after interest on capital and working expenses; or (2) for specially reduced fares on certain trains between hours most convenient for the working classes and for clerks and others engaged in business, the Railway Company being required to run a specified number of trains daily,"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton,)
  —put, and negatived.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON AND PADDINGTON SUBWAY BILL.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the South Kensington and Paddington Subway Bill to insert clauses in the Bill providing either (1) for payment to the Local Authority of a Royalty or share of earnings after interest on capital and working expenses; or (2) for specially reduced fares on certain trains, the Subway Company being required to run a specified number of such trains daily,"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton,)
  —put, and negatived.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I rise for the purpose of moving,
  "That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of a scheme for the revision of Railway Rates which is based upon the full recognition of the legality of Station Terminal Charges, with respect to which the Standing Committee on Trade expressly refrained from formulating any opinion."
  I have placed the Motion on the Payer because it is the only opportunity the House will have of dealing with the important question of the rates and charges of Railway Companies. I hope, with the indulgence of the House, that, in a certain measure, I may be allowed to deal with the question in a general spirit, and that my remarks may not be limited to this particular Bill. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated—not in this House, but in answer to a deputation—his belief that this House is not a very suitable place for discussion of the complicated details involved in these Provisional Orders, I quite admit that this

  387
  is so, and that it is desirable that all these technical questions should be submitted to the investigation of an ordinary Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman himself proposes after the Second Reading of this Bill and of others of a similar character which appear upon the Paper to refer them to the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think it would have been a more satisfactory course if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to submit them to the Standing Committee on Trade which dealt with the original Railway and Canal Traffic Bill of 1888, of which Bill these Provisional Orders are the result. I believe that that Committee would be able to deal with these measures in a much more satisfactory manner than a Joint Committee; but if they are to go before a Joint Committee of both Houses, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the Committee will be a representative Committee, comprising Members who have some knowledge of the question, and who can be trusted to do justice as between the Railway Companies and the traders of the country. I believe there is a disposition to appoint what are called unprejudiced gentlemen, which really means gentlemen who know nothing about the matter. Personally, I am of opinion that it is of the utmost importance that the subject should be dealt with by a tribunal possessing special knowledge. Perhaps I may be allowed to call to the recollection of the House the exact circumstances under which these Provisional Orders come before them. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 threw upon the Board of Trade the duty of drawing up a scheme for the classification of railway rates and charges, which, when completed, was to be submitted to the consideration of the House. In the Standing Committee on Trade there was a divergence of opinion as to whether the Board of Trade was the best tribunal to deal with the matter. Some of us thought that a special tribunal would more satisfactorily deal with it, and that it would be wiser to appoint a special tribunal unconnected with any Governmental Department. I am quite ready, however, to bear my testimony to the skill, ability, and zeal with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh
  388
  and Mr. Courtenay Boyle, the representatives of the Board of Trade, conducted the investigation, although I am unfortunately compelled to differ from them in regard to the results at which they arrived. A long and careful inquiry was held in the Westminster Town Hall. Many able counsel were engaged to represent the interests of the Railway Companies and the great traders of the country; but, unfortunately, the small traders were not at all, or at all events quite insufficiently, represented. My contention is that the compromise effected as between the Railway Companies and the larger traders and manufacturers will be the cause of serious detriment to the small traders. The basis of the compromise is (1) concessions in regard to private sidings; (2) the principle of a graduated mileage rate for long distances; and (3) special rates for tram loads and truck loads. I, of course, am glad that the large traders and manufacturers have been able to wring some concessions from the Railway Companies; but the small traders have just reason to complain that the maximum rate should be charged on small consignments and for short distances. With respect to "smalls," the term by which small consignments are technically known, the Board of Trade-tribunal has not investigated the matter, or, at any rate, have made no alteration in favour of the public. The maximum rates for small distances have been enormously increased, and, if this Bill becomes law, the position of the small trader would be immensely damaged or irretrievably ruined. The special question dealt with in the Amendment is station terminal charges. To terminal charges for services, such as loading, unloading, and delivery, the traders take no exception, provided they are not paid for where not performed. The Railway Companies allege that the station does not form part of the railway system, that it is provided in excess of that system as a whole, and consequently that the extra charge ought to be allowed. But that station accommodation is provided as much for passengers as for goods, and I never heard of a terminal charge being made upon a passenger. The legal position is

  389
  somewhat difficult to describe. The Board of Trade tribunal say they find that the law on the subject was carefully set forth in the case of "Hall v. The Brighton Railway Company," in the Court of Queen's Bench, and that the Court allowed a terminal station charge. But that is not an absolute and definite expression of the law. The Railway Commission dissented entirely from the view of Mr. Justice Wills, and the Court of Session in Scotland took an entirely contrary view. I am told that the question will be brought before a higher Court as a test question upon an appeal in a case in which the Great Northern Company are concerned. The Board of Trade, however, accepted the decision in the case referred to. The railway system of this country has been built up by various Acts of Parliament, but many of them contain no reference to terminal station charges. The London and North-Western Company have 1,800 miles of system, but only 800 miles of it are, by the Act, to carry these terminal charges. Of the Great Western, out of over 2,000, about 900 miles only could claim power to charge terminal station charges under the decision in Hall's case. The Board of Trade tribunal in this matter have taken it upon themselves to decide what the law has not decided, and to make it universal over the whole railway system, and it will place upon the traders of the country a, binding and absolute obligation for all time which would add immensely to their charges. To show how it would affect small agriculturists and traders, I will read a letter from a well-known trader of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who says—
  "I think it may be of service to point out that the Board of Trade proposals would be most unfair. Take Class C, in which grain of or over two tons' loads would be carried. The station terminals proposed are 2s. per ton—result, two tons would pay 4s., while eight tons would pay 16s. The cost to the Railway Company for the station terminals would be the same whether the load was two tons or eight tons, yet, while 4s. would be earned by the companies in one case, they would receive four times as much in the latter. To propose to give a Railway Company 16s. for placing a truck in position for loading and unloading with the value of the ground for the time allowed for each consignment seems to me to be absurd, and I am surprised that such a monstrous proposal should be dreamed of by the Board of Trade. There are many instances on the North-Eastern Railway where the grain rate for four-ton lots does not exceed 2s. per ton
  390
  altogether. No short-distance traffic would be possible if the companies get and exercise the powers proposed. If the companies could nut charge them for short distances they do not require them for long distances. Having, along with another trader, had the North-Eastern Rail-way Company before the Railway Commissioners on the question of their bay rates, and having got the total terminal service charges fixed at 1s. 6d. per ton as a maximum, and as they gave up their claim to station terminals, we are at present in the position of getting hay carried at 1s. 6d. nominally, but really only 1s. 3d. per ton, while, under the powers sought, hay is put into Class 3, where station and service terminals together will be 4s. 8d. per ton, or more than three times the present rate or charge."
  That is what a very practical trader says and probably other hon. Members may be able to give instances quite as striking. The President of the Board of Trade took a leading part in the consideration of the Railway and Canal Act of 1888 in the Standing Committee, and on this question of terminal charges, which some of us endeavoured to remove entirely from the purview of any tribunal that might be fixed hereafter, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "That there seemed to he an apprehension that Railway Companies would be able to make not only their existing rates and charges, but terminals plus those rates and charges, thus putting an additional burden upon traders."
  The right hon. Gentleman added—
  "That was not his intention, and if there was any danger of that he would accept words to deal with the matter."
  I wish that the Committee had accepted that suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and that words to that effect had been inserted. In that case I should not be asking the Board now to express an opinion upon this most important issue. The Board of Trade has come to the conclusion that terminal charges are to be accepted as a legal charge, because Lord Balfour of Burleigh said in Westminster Town Hall—
  "That it remains the law until it is upset; it remained the law when Parliament was legislating in 1888."
  Therefore, as the Grand Committee did not strike out the terminal charges altogether, it was taken by the Board of Trade as constituting a right on the part of the Railway Companies to make those charges. If the House of Commons was to do any good it surely ought to protect the interests of the smaller traders who were not represented in the inquiry that

  391
  took place. The Railway Companies have raised a cry of alarm in the matter. Sir Richard Moon at a recent meeting of the London and North Western Company predicted the ruin of the company if terminal charges are disallowed, and said it would he necessary to withdraw all proposals for the application of new capital. I hope that the House of Commons will not for a moment allow a threat of that kind to affect their decision. On the contrary, it is the duty of the House to do justice to the interests of the small traders who were not represented in the inquiry. I believe that the Railway Companies, who have always in the matter of rates pursued a most conservative course, would have been wise if in this matter they had taken a new departure and profited by the experience of the railways in America or Hungary where the zone system is in force, and had endeavoured to revive waning industries at a distance from the seaboard by encouragement in the way of low rates. The result would have been such a development of industry as would in the end have largely recouped the companies granting such facilities. I believe that the Railway Companies are conducted as a great monopoly in much too rigid and conservative a spirit, and it is only by the pressure of the House of Commons that they can be induced to make that reasonable progress in the matter of charges which the public have every right to demand. It is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House declines to proceed with the consideration of a scheme for the revision of Railway Rates which is based upon the full recognition of the legality of Station Terminal Charges, with respect to which the Standing Committee on Trade expressly refrained from formulating any opinion,"—(Mr. Philip Stanhope,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: In seconding the Resolution, I have only a few words to add to the able remarks with which my hon. Friend has introduced the sub-
  392
  ject. I do not intend to speak on behalf of the large manufacturers and traders, who are perfectly able to look after themselves, but I think that this opportunity, the only one which will be given to the House, ought to be taken, to let the Government know that there exists a very widespread feeling of anxiety throughout the country amongst agriculturists and small traders with reference to these Provisional Orders. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade thinks that he has had already a fair quantity of Petitions and deputations on the subject, and that he has had a very troublesome question to deal with as between the great Railway Companies and the interests of the industries. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he must only consider those appeals as a small sample representing the deep and widespread anxiety which prevails throughout the country concerning this question. I think that the reason why the Board of Trade has not received far more remonstrances has been principally owing to three causes. First of all, there is hardly an hon. Member who has not had his attention called during the last few years to the unfair railway charges and the unequal railway rates, and has not given his constituents serious and solemn pledges to obtain justice. Secondly, the careful and exhaustive examination which took place in 1888 went a long way to reassure the country, particularly the declaration of the President of the Board of Trade that in any classification of the rates the Companies should not be allowed to have maximum rates and, in addition to them, terminal charges. Thirdly (and speaking on behalf of the County of Gloucester) there has been a feeling of personal confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, which his well-spent political life in the county naturally inspired in all classes. It was felt that the interests, at all events, of agriculture were in good hands, and that we might safely, and with some confidence, await the result of the Board of Trade's proceedings. Prom time to time, too, the country has been assured by the right hon. Gentleman in speeches that these maximum rates were not, after all, anything to be greatly alarmed about—that, although they were put down as "paper" rates, which might legally be

  393
  charged, they were not rates that were intended to be charged! But the anxiety in the country is very great indeed. The Railway Companies are exceedingly strong and exceedingly able. They are an enormously powerful corporation, which is making a great outcry, and protesting that the new Schedule of Rates are going to bring on them ruin, devastation, and confiscation! We have heard this outcry before from other monopolists in days past. We know something of the rates of the Railway Companies in the west, but studying the figures of these Provisional Orders I can for the life of me see no reason for anxiety on the part of railway shareholders as to their dividends. I cannot see where the ruin comes in. The agriculturists are anxious specially about the milk rates. Every one will agree that this is a most important question from the point of view not only of the agriculturist, but of our great and dense populations that there should be a cheap and plentiful supply of pure milk. The rates originally proposed by the Great Western system were simply scandalous, and they have been reduced since last bummer 30 per cent. A farmer who now sends his milk 40 miles, pays 9d. for a tin holding 12 Imperial gallons, and 2d. for the returned empty tin, making 11d., or something under 1d. per gallon. A farmer sending his milk under the new maximum rates this same distance of 40 miles the charge will be 10½d., terminal charge 4½d., and return carriage 2d.—or a total 1s. 5d., instead of 11d., or an increase of 50 per cent. On distances not exceeding 100 miles, the present total charge of 14d. will be increased to 20½, or 50 per cent. It is the terminals that so largely increase the rates. They make all the difference. The milk trade has been growing steadily for the last 40 years, and we wish to know why these terminal charges have been introduced when they have never been charged hitherto P These are not the times when anything ought to be done to discourage agricultural enterprise by legislation of this kind. A reasonable limit of 10 per cent. over the present charges might have been left to the companies; but I protest against giving them such a limit as 50 per cent. in order to increase their charges on what is one of the necessaries of life
  394
  for the people. There is also the question of perishable articles, such as fruit, vegetables, butter, &c, to be considered. In future it is proposed, in the case of such perishable articles, to charge any quantity below 2 cwt. as 2 cwt.! I think that that is a most monstrous proposal, so far as the small farmer is concerned. We are looking forward to the development of allotments and small holdings as means of providing the country with increased supplies of milk, butter, vegetables and fruit; but it is proposed to put this block in the way, and to say, "Unless you send 2 cwt. you shall not be charged a reasonable rate." I am much interested in the question of how we are going to feed our growing population, and I cannot help thinking that the profits of the Railway Companies have been enormously increased in the past, and will be in the future, by the growing trade of the country, which they are really as interested as anybody in seeing developed. I hope, apart from political differences, the House will express such an opinion that the Committee will have courage to fix the rates and charges of the Railway Companies in a manner which shall be fair to the trading and agricultural interests.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): In the year 1888 Parliament thought fit to impose a very severe and arduous responsibility on the Board of Trade. It is not possible to exaggerate the difficulty of the task imposed on the Board of Trade by Section 24 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of that year. I am, of course, responsible for proposing it to Parliament; but I have very frankly to admit that if I had known what I know now of the extreme difficulty of the work I should have hesitated before I made such a proposal. It imposed not only the task—which in itself would have been sufficient—of codifying the railway rates and charges authorised by something like 900 different Acts of Parliament, and for 970 different Railway Companies; and of reducing chaos to order by enabling the trader and the agriculturist to know what services the rates were charged for, and whether they were legally charged—a thing which no man without

  395
  the most careful legal assistance and search can possibly tell under the law as it stands. This would itself have been a sufficient task for any Government Department; and that was really the original proposal of Government to Parliament. But in the course of the discussion on this matter in the Standing Committee, that Committee decided that the Board of Trade should do much more than that—that it should not merely codify the law; not merely, in plain language, deal with the existing powers of the Railway Companies under many Acts, but should also decide for the future what rates should be just and reasonable as between the companies and the public. Although I attempted to induce the Standing Committee to lay down some definite directions upon which the Board of Trade should act, though I saw at that time the extreme difficulty of the task imposed upon us, yet they were unwilling to do so, and both the Railway Companies and the traders, after consideration, preferred to leave to the Board of Trade the unlimited discretion conferred, and the Act was passed in that form. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) has referred in just terms to the work done by Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in this matter. Nothing could exceed the patience and ability which these two gentlemen displayed in the conduct of the inquiry entrusted to them, which lasted for 85 days, and they have had the matter under further consideration since that time. The result is the Provisional Orders now proposed to be read a second time. Of course, I was aware from the beginning, as I suppose everybody must have been, that it would be quite impossible that the decisions of the Board of Trade in such a matter would satisfy both the contending parties. We have been assailed, on the one hand, by those who have spoken on behalf of the greatest of our Railway Companies, as having confiscated their property. We are assailed to-day by the two hon. Members who have addressed the House as if we had done hardly anything for the traders of this country. Is it not obvious that the truth must lie somewhere between those extremes? We have endeavoured to act not as an administrative body, but as a judicial body, between
  396
  these conflicting interests. We have acted as a Court of First Instance in a matter, the gravity and importance of which it would be impossible to exaggerate. And now the decisions at which we have arrived, after the most careful inquiry, after hearing and re-hearing and considering and re-considering all that could be alleged, are before the House, and will, I hope, be referred to the only tribunal that can properly consider them—a Committee of both Houses. The hon. Member for Wednesbury has given us some credit. He has admitted that the large traders, and I think he might have admitted that all traders, will obtain in future very considerable advantages under this classification and schedule now proposed. He has admitted that with regard to service terminals he has no objection to our proposals. But he says that we have failed to deal properly with the question of "smalls," and that we have not lowered the maximum rates for short distances. I contest both of those statements. We have conferred upon traders this very considerable advantage in the matter of "smalls." At present, under the existing law, to which we have been bound to give consideration, the Railway Companies are entitled to charge whatever they think reasonable. We have limited that power in a very great degree; and with regard to maximum rates for short distances, or for any distances, if hon. Members will but give their consideration to the classification and the schedules, I am quite sure that they will see that the existing maximum rates have been very considerably limited in a long list of articles such as I cannot now detail to the House. That is the simple fact.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: In a small minority of articles.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, in a large number. But the main point of the hon. Member's objection is that we have allowed the principle of station terminals. In the hon. Member for Cirencester's (Mr. Winterbotham's) remarks upon station terminals for milk and other perishable articles, he entirely omitted—as many others have done—to consider that actual rates ought not to be compared with maximum rates. That is a very elementary part of this problem, which does not even seem to have presented itself to the hon.

  397
  Member's mind. But more than this; he does not seem to have the least idea that at the present moment the Railway Companies are not compelled by law to carry milk or perishable articles at all by these quick trains, by which it is necessary in the public interest that they should be carried. The companies may refuse to carry them if they like; and they may charge whatever they choose for carrying them. What have we done? We have imposed upon them the obligation of carrying this species of traffic by these quick trains, often, no doubt, to the considerable derangement of their passenger traffic. We have imposed also the further obligation of carrying that traffic at moderate maximum rates—at rates which are admitted by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to have been considerably lowered since our proposals of last summer. This body says that the reduction on these rates ranges from 25 to 35 per cent. on full cans, and from 25 to 30 per cent. on empties; and the total amount of service station charges on each can has been reduced 32 per cent.
  *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: From the proposals of last summer.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Quite so. The Chamber considers the rate still excessive. But in this matter it seems to represent the views of those persons who, like the hon. Member, wish to take the lowest rate at which milk is carried at present, and to compel the Railway Companies to carry it at that rate, with a small addition of 5 or 10 per cent. as a maximum. Who can say that the price of milk will not be very considerably raised in future? Milk is not an article—and I do not think it will be—which is the subject of competition from abroad. Who can say that the cost of conveyance may not be very materially increased as compared with what it is at the present moment? We have taken these matters into consideration; and in fixing a maximum we have adopted the figures named in the schedule, believing that the companies will work within that maximum, as they have hitherto done, for the advantage of the farmers and the public in building up a trade which they have established without any maximum at all. They will not be so foolish as to hinder or to stop the development of
  398
  such a trade, which they need not have established at all unless they had chosen. That is our view as to milk; but we are merely a tribunal of First Instance, and if hon. Members interested in the agricultural districts think we have not gone far enough in this matter, and that the milk rate should be still further reduced, their obvious remedy is to formulate their complaints on behalf of those who are concerned and petition this House, and these Petitions will be referred to the Committee, who will act as a final tribunal in deciding this matter; and if our proposals are too high they will reduce them. But the hon. Member for Wednesbury is not contented with that. He deals with the question of station terminals as one which ought not to be left to the Committee; and because we have admitted one principle to which he is opposed, though in other matters of equal importance we have done what he admits to be of great advantage to the trading public, he moves an Instruction which would kill this Bill. It could not be proceeded with if this Instruction were carried. What is the position with regard to station terminals? First of all, let me explain what they are. Station terminals are charges made for the use of accommodation at the stations and duties undertaken thereat before or after conveyance. The Standing Committee, I quite agree, did not express an opinion upon the legality of these station terminal charges. They left it open in the Bill to the Board of Trade to authorise them or not; but they distinctly pointed to their being authorised by directing the Board of Trade in determining them to have regard only to the expenditure reasonably necessary to provide the accommodation in respect of which the charges were to be made. But although they did not decide whether these terminals should be charged in all cases or not—they were perfectly clear that, if authorised, they should be specified and not included in conveyance rates. I do not think the hon. Member will deny that. There was a long discussion on this point in the Standing Committee. The hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester (Sir W. Houldsworth) proposed that
  "In every case the maximum rates and charges should be deemed to include all terminal

  399
  charges of every description other than service terminals."
  It was pointed out that if station terminals were mixed up, as now, with conveyance rates, it would be very injurious to the interests of traders—first, because long-distance traffic would be compelled to pay a far larger proportion of charge for station accommodation than short-distance traffic; and, secondly, because traders who have provided their own sidings at considerable expense to themselves would be called upon to pay for stations in the shape of conveyance rates though they do not use the stations. Now, those two reasons induced the Committee to reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester by a majority of 45 to 12; but, while they took this view, there certainly was in the Committee a strong feeling that the law should not give the companies both station terminals in all cases, and also their existing maximum rates. The hon. Member for Wednesbury has quoted some words of mine. What did I say? I said—
  "It appeared there was an apprehension that the Railway Companies would be enabled to make not only their existing maximum rates and charges but terminals, plus their maximum rates and charges, thus putting an additional burden on the traders. That is not my intention, and if there was any danger in that respect I would accept words to amend it."
  No words were inserted; but I think I have acted up both to the spirit and the letter of the words I used in the Standing Committee. No doubt station terminal charges have been inserted in the Provisional Orders; but what are the facts? As far as legal decisions have gone, the law has decided that the Railway Companies are entitled to make these charges.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: Not in Scotland.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think any one who examines the different Acts on the subject will see that—if it be admitted that the decisions which have already been given were right—in the great majority of cases, at any rate, the law will enable the companies to make these charges. They do make them at present, and they are paid by the traders. Those were the facts with which I had to deal. I felt that, although for this reason it was just to accept the principle of station terminals,
  400
  yet, as the matter had not been decided by the highest Court in the land, there was a possibility that the legal decisions might be reversed. Therefore, I reduced the maximum conveyance rates in exchange for the advantage given to the companies by setting at rest any doubts which exist as to their right to make station terminal charges to such a large extent that I have been charged with confiscation by those who have not thought fit to see that by allowing station terminals I give them something in return. I maintain that it is to the interest of traders to have station terminals separated from conveyance rates. Very well, then, what is the way to deal with this matter? If I have not gone far enough in lowering the conveyance rates in exchange for the concession of station terminals, let the Committee go farther. The hon. Member for Wednesbury would debar the Committee from revising these rates at all. He has said, and said rightly, that this is no Party question. This is a question affecting the interests of the whole country, irrespective of political Parties. The Board of Trade and I myself have, in regard to these companies, discharged the work imposed upon us by the Act of 1888. I do not ask the House to read the Bills a second time from a personal or a Party feeling in the matter; but I do ask them to proceed with the measures in the interest of all the parties concerned—the traders, the Railway Companies, and the general public. I can conceive nothing worse than that after an exhaustive inquiry the question should still be hung up for consideration by some future Parliament. In the interests of the traders themselves, who are at present under a law which they cannot ascertain, and who are subjected to charges as to which nobody can tell them whether they are legal or not, it is highly desirable to have the law put in a plain and concise form. I should like to give the House an ocular demonstration of what has been done. In these two Bills there is a classification and schedule of rates of the whole of the Great Western and North Western Railways. Such a classification at present does not exist, and the rates are scattered through about 70 different Acts in each case. It must be desirable that such a simplification of the law as

  401
  that now proposed should be carried out. If the House does not approve the specific proposals of the Board of Trade in detail, cannot they trust to a Joint Committee of both Houses? I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. W. MCLAREN: The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech, referred to the question of the rates for the carriage of milk. I should like to say a few words on that subject, because I have been for the last year Chairman of the Special Committee of the British Dairy Farmers' Association, which has carried on almost entirely the agitation on this particular branch of the subject, and has obtained no fewer than four modifications of the proposed rates and charges—a much greater amount of success than any other trading company has achieved. We have devoted a great deal of attention to this matter, and have come to the conclusion that not merely are the rates proposed by the Board of Trade excessive, but that the whole method of charging is cumbersome and unworkable in the extreme as far as milk is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment had not taken into account the fact that the actual rates cannot be compared with the maximum rates. I do not think the hon. Member could have overlooked so obvious a fact. We all know that we are dealing with maximum rates, and we remember that they are at the company's and not at the owner's risk. But I dispute the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that he has obtained important concessions on the point, because he has only proposed to lay upon these companies a statutory obligation to do what they are now voluntarily doing; and although it is true that the Central Chamber of Agriculture admit a reduction of 33 to 40 per cent. in maximum rates, which were put at 150 per cent. above existing actual rates, the fact is that the proposed maximum rates are still 100 per cent. above these actual rates. It is computed that 2 per cent. will cover the difference between owners and companies' risk, so that this point is not really worth considering. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if we object to his proposal we can formulate our complaints, and can Petition Parlia-
  402
  ment. Well, we have recently Petitioned and Memorialised the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Dairy Farmers' Association and several Chambers of Agriculture, especially the one in Cheshire, have offered to be satisfied if the present actual rates are increased by 25 per cent. and made the maximum, for we believe that will give an ample margin for contingencies, especially as some of the existing charges are considered too high. For the conveyance of 12 gallons of milk 25 miles the Railway Companies asked to be allowed to charge 2s. 8d. The Board of Trade said they must charge 2s. 3d., but they have now reduced that to 1s. 4½d.; but the present actual charge is 9d., so that there is an immense margin for further reduction. We specially objected to the method of terminal charges for the carriage of milk. The companies were at one time willing to abandon them, and proposed a system of charging by cans at an inclusive rate, and, therefore, I think they may now be reasonably expected to have a, rate per gallon which will include everything. By the present proposals there are no fewer than eight separate charges upon every gallon of milk conveyed by railway. There are the station terminals at either end—1½d. each, loading 1d., unloading 1d., loading of the empty can id., unloading ½d., the carriage of the full can and the carriage of the empty can. Every separate gallon of milk a farmer sends to market has these eight separate charges made upon it. These minute charges make the reckoning of the cost per gallon almost impossible, especially as some cans may be full and others half full. There is the terminal charge made per can, the charge per mile and the charge per gallon, two or three different ways of charging. Then in the Bill there is a most extraordinary provision under the head of perishable articles. Where a consignment is less than 2 cwt. the company is to charge as for 2 cwt., and the charge applies to milk as to other perishable articles. So that for sending a churn of milk the company may charge as if the weight were 2 cwt., they may charge per gallon by mileage, and there are certain terminals per can. It is impossible for the seller to reckon out the cost of the carriage of milk per gallon

  403
  when charged under two different, rates, to say nothing of three different charges sometimes. The station terminals are upon the can full or half full, large or small. Where the milk dealer or farmer has been in the habit of charging per gallon, he is now to be involved in arithmetical difficulties. The terminal charges will amount to 6d.; that is to say 1½d. at either end, 1d. at each end for service, and ½d. at each end for empty cans. At Paddington Station where the Great Western Company receive 2,000 cans of milk daily, the company will receive £3,000 a year for service that will not cost them more than £350, and for station terminals the charge is proportionally extravagant. There is this additional difficulty for service charges that loading a can of milk requires two men, and one of these is almost always the farmer's man, at the roadside station, the other man being a railway porter; so that while the farmer provides half the labour he pays the company for the whole. Practically this is what it comes to, for although it is urged by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that service terminals are optional in practice, that is not so, because the farmer cannot keep his man waiting about the station to load, or waiting for the cans to arrive, he is dependent on the services of the railway servants, and for these the whole charge is exorbitant. Of course these are the maximum rates, and I do not for a moment forget that, but if they are to be reduced, as possibly they might be in every day working, then the farmer is landed in a complicated system of fractions and decimals, with which his arithmetical knowledge is unable to grapple, and there will be an endless source of irritation to all concerned. It is exceedingly important that whether the rates are reduced or raised there should be cheap carriage for such a necessary article as milk. Nothing is more important in agricultural produce to the health of people in large towns than that there should be a cheap supply of good milk available; but I know in large towns like Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, the average supply of milk per head of the population gives an incredibly small quantity, and it is evident that thousands of people never use milk or
  404
  know what pure milk is. We ought to do all we can to help them to obtain from the farmers a good supply; but these rates the company are to charge, and if they charge anything approaching them, as I have little doubt but they will, will be almost prohibitive to the supply of milk to the poorer classes in our towns. I do not know why the charge on milk and perishables should be so greatly increased. The Railway Companies have raised objections to the Provisional Order that their charges are reduced, and various companies have had meetings of their shareholders and losses of thousands of pounds have been suggested; but if there is a general reduction in the carriage of other classes of goods why this excessive increase in the rate for the carriage of milk when this is an article upon which it is far more necessary that the rate should be reduced? I hope it may be found possible for me to move the Instruction which stands in my name when the Bills have been read a second time. It is—
  "That with regard to the carriage of milk, the proposed rates shall be simplified, and shall be made a rate per gallon varying according to distance, which shall cover charges of every kind, including the return of the empty can."
  You have been good enough to tell me, Sir, that there is some doubt from a technical point of view, but I trust that when the Bills are read you will allow me to submit the point for your consideration, for I believe if I were allowed to move the Instruction it would be received with general assent. I do not wish unduly to tie the hands of the Committee but I do think we ought, in view of the importance of the subject to the population of our large towns, to indicate that whatever may be done in regard to maximum rates, the rates upon perishable articles, like dairy produce, should not be materially increased.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I regard this as the most important question that has come before the House this Session. A question which deals so intimately with the conduct of the trade in the agricultural produce of the whole of the United Kingdom is a question which may well be described as of the greatest importance. Hon. Members who have to deal with matters upon a large scale may not have brought their minds to appreciate

  405
  the vast importance of the slightest detail of railway rates when it has to be considered in connection with an industry struggling for existence. It is not easy to exaggerate the importance of this Bill, it is not easy to master the intricacies of the points raised. Let hon. Members take up the Bill and attempt to master its contents. Let them go through the clauses of the Bill itself, pass on to the Schedules, the different parts, the close and long array of various articles by the thousands, allotted to the different classes, and they will see the Bill deals with matters the difficulties in connection with which can scarcely be overrated. I was not at all surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade announce to the House frankly that had he realised for a moment the difficulties he was about to encounter in undertaking for the Board of Trade to settle this question of Railway Bates he would have shrunk from that duty. I had the honour of serving on that Committee to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and I have the strongest impression of the difficulty and delicacy of a duty which ought to have been referred to a Commission, or to have been placed before the Railway Commission. I am glad to add my testimony to the zeal and care with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle have conducted a difficult duty, but it is obvious, and if they were here to speak for themselves they would admit this, that at the commencement of their task they knew very little of what they were undertaking, but they learnt their work as they went. Their first suggestions though falling far short of the extravagant proposals of the Railway Companies were still, on subsequent consideration, largely modified, and now we have the last revise in this Bill. We have the opinion of the Board of Trade, and we are asked to decide whether we agree in that opinion or not. I think it would be more convenient if we had the evidence upon which that opinion was formed. As a matter of fact, however, no part of the evidence given during 85 days has been laid before the House. The public prints no doubt contained from day to day certain information connected with the inquiry, but still it is the fact that we are asked
  406
  to accept the conclusions upon the evidence, not having that evidence before us. In station terminals we are asked to accept a conclusion embodying a new principle; and upon what are we asked to do this? So far as my memory serves me in the course of those 85 days no open evidence was taken, no published evidence sent forth to the world, on the question of the method of arriving at these charges. I believe that a gentleman of great ability was asked to make a special valuation of the buildings at the railway station, but I have never heard of anyone having had the opportunity of seeing his Report. The evidence on which this conclusion is based has never been laid before the House. It will be convenient that we should be told what principle was adopted by this Committee of the Board of Trade in arriving at their conclusion. I was under the impression, derived from the President of the Board of Trade, that the endeavour was to approximate the maximum rates to the actual rates, and we have now before us certain proposals in the Schedules of a graduated mileage system for short distances and small consignments, and for long distances and large consignments, and all these we adopt. But I am bound to come to the conclusion on reviewing the result of the decision of this tribunal, that they do appear to me to have been more largely influenced by the large traders and large consignors over Long distances, and that the interests of small traders for short distances and for small consignments have met with much less favour at the hands of the Committee. I judge this not only from the clauses which have been alluded to dealing with the question of "smalls" and "perishables," but from the fixing of the minimum at 2 cwt. That is fixed as the smallest amount to be charged, so that a trader will be charged for 2 cwt., though his goods may weigh only 2lbs., and I notice the same thing under other heads. The Schedule as it stands is directly hostile to the interests of the small traders. Now these are the days when the yeomen farmers of England have a right to be heard. Quite recently I had the opportunity of hearing what their views are, as expressed at a meeting of a highly-representative character, attended by yeomen and other farmers. I found among

  407
  them men of great intelligence who had taken the trouble to go into the details of these proposals as they affected their industry, and the general opinion was, and I do not wonder at it, that which I have expressed. Looking around them what do they see? They see these great Railway Companies, the creatures of the State, with a great monopoly and a great success, with the value of their shares mounting from day to day, so that on the leading lines a £100 share is worth £150. They look at these things and then they look at home, and contemplate the difficulties with which their own industry is struggling, and they find those difficulties enhanced by the imposition of unreasonable rates of railway carriage, I say the small farmer has a right to be heard. It is a fact that the Railway Companies will not deny, that these companies possess at many rural districts an absolute monopoly, and when they have no station of any other company to enter into competition with them, a company can do what it chooses—the trader is at its mercy, and it is then that these maximum rates will be put in force. The maximum rates over long distances may be accepted, for as a fact that maximum has not been approached, but it is on the flow of trade from small holders, from small village or roadside stations, that these station terminals and these short distance clauses will press so heavily—will impose the power of charging rates which if charged in their entirety will bring ruin on the industry of the small farmer. It is urged the Railway Companies will not charge these excessive rates, but I am not assured of that. The late Mr. Grierson was one of the ablest of railway managers, a fair, and honest, and honourable man; but he distinctly announced as the guiding principle for railway rates was this, "Let the traffic pay as much as it will bear." This being the acknowledged guiding principle, what have we at these wayside stations in rural districts where there is no competition for the traffic? We have the maximum rates, plus the short distance clauses, plus the station terminals, the service terminals, and everything else, altogether amounting to a rate the company will have the power to enforce and will enforce if in their view the traffic will boar it. The principle of
  408
  station terminals about which so much has been said, is one that is indefensible in its present shape. I pass by for the moment the larger aspect of the question, taking note of what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade that the decision of what is practically an inferior Court—a decision not accepted by the traders—is naturally the only decision that now is recognised, and I ask how has the figure of 1s. 6d. been reached as the fixed terminals applicable to every station for every distance and for all sorts of traffic? We have not yet been afforded any statement showing how this was arrived at, and I can only surmise that it is following the practice of the Railway Clearing House, where the companies adopt a station terminal of 1s. 6d. in their arrangements inter se for their own convenience, and that this has been blindly taken by the Board of Trade as an easy way out of the difficulty. But see how it works in large consignments of hundreds of tons and in small consignments, to have this 1s. 6d. terminal on either end. In addition to the maximum short distance clauses is it not obvious that 1s. 6d. terminal imposed on agricultural produce, butter, eggs, milk, going from station to station for short distances, that this terminal charge will lead in many cases—
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Baronet is mistaken as to the charge in such cases.
  *SIR R. PAGET: I am glad to be corrected as to these terminals; but there are cases where for comparatively short distances the 1s. 6d. will be imposed as for long distances, and we have not been told the reason for this. There is a certain sweet simplicity about the arrangement that no doubt has been attractive. The farmers are strongly of opinion that the infliction of the terminal is in many cases the imposition of a new charge. This question has been so largely dealt with that I will not follow it up beyond saying that one of the objections taken the other day was this: that if Parliament passes the Bill in its present form it will seem to be a sort of indication to the Railway Companies of this kind—"You have not hitherto made charges for terminals, for return of empties, or for loading or unloading, and now these are set out as indicating

  409
  charges you Lave a right to make." What farmers fuel is that practically a change is introduced, and that which was not legal before is made legal now, and may militate against the agricultural interest. There are one or two other points upon which the views of farmers are entitled to be heard. There is the question of the detention of trucks or demurrage. It has been stated as within the experience of a, farmer that he was charged a 2s. rate on this account for detaining trucks a couple of days with hay or fodder, while hay coming from Holland is allowed to remain 14 days without such charge. Now, if this can be substantiated, I think there is reason to complain. I do not know if this is considered undue preference, but I should like the Attorney General to turn his attention to this with a view of getting more clearly at the law of demurrage; it is by no means so clear as traders desire it should be. The rates on perishables by passenger trains are directly against the interests of small traders, and then there is another point upon which the farming interest complain, that there is no distinction made in the carriage of fat and lean cattle, the rate being the same for both. They also complain of the charge for the cleaning of trucks. It has never been paid before, and they contend that there is no reason because Parliament has for the sake of preventing the spread of disease imposed upon Railway Companies the duty of keeping cattle trucks white and clean, that the charge should straightway be shifted on to the shoulders of the farmer. On the carriage of manure much might be said. Owing to the peculiar arrangement of the Schedule, large classes of manure which it is to the public interest—for everything that contributes to fertilising and improving the cultivation of the soil is of public interest—large classes of manure will be subject to an excssive rate. As a matter of public policy, everything that has to do with the cultivation and distribution of food should be considered and rates should be imposed to improve distribution, and a good case has been made out for asking the Railway Companies to make further modifications. Speaking on behalf of the agricultural classes, we have no desire to
  410
  despoil the Railway Companies, nor do we believe in the possibility of that despoilment. There was an article in the Economist the other day, in which the writer, after setting out the estimate of the companies that they would be subjected to an enormous loss, divided among eight or nine leading companies, of £380,000, proved by the clearest figures, and taking their own basis for calculation, that the loss could not be more than a quarter per cent on their dividend. This upon their own figures, upon which they are not likely to have erred. I do not deny for a moment that in many particulars this proposed legislation is very acceptable. It is the outcome of prolonged inquiry, and it effects a compromise between the traders on the one hand and the companies on the other. I, for one, should be most glad that differences should be put an end to, provided always we could secure such modifications as we have a right to ask. I should like to have heard a little more from the right hon. Gentleman as to the details of the concessions. He stated that the companies were in many cases being allowed the benefit of station terminals in return for largely reduced conveyance rates. But the trades of England wish to know the instances in which the rates have been reduced, and to whom the benefit has been given of being allowed to charge station terminals. The Joint Committee to whom the Bill is to be referred has before it a task of great difficulty. They have to act as a Court of Appeal from the opinion expressed by the Board of Trade after a prolonged inquiry of 85 days. I trust that, to prevent undue labour, the Committee may come to an agreement with regard to the points that are to be fought. I know that on some points the interests of the agriculturists and traders will be clearly defined and will be well placed before the Committee of both Houses. But I do trust, in the interests of all concerned, that we are approaching the time when this question may come to an end; but that can only be by those who go before the Committee determining to bring it to an end. If, however, they go with the intention of re-opening every question discussed before the Committee of Inquiry and the Board of Trade, then it will be hopeless and endless. I sin-

  411
  cerely hope that the points will be confined within the narrowest possible compass. It is a misfortune that the appeal in the case of Hall has not yet been decided, for it would possibly reverse the decision of the Queen's Bench. I regret, too, that the Returns promised by the President of the Board of Trade, of the actual rates of Railway Companies, have not yet been presented, for I think they would have been useful to us in this discussion. Altogether the case is one of extraordinary intricacy and importance, and those on whose behalf I have spoken think they have a right to have their objections heard and considered.
  MR. BARCLAY: Sir, I think the House will arrive at a just conclusion as to the proper mode of dealing with this Bill and other Bills now before the House, by recalling the circumstances which led to their introduction. The Railway Rates Committee of 1881, appointed to investigate the complaints of traders, and especially of farmers, who alleged that they were overcharged for short distances on noncompetitive lines, ascertained that those complaints were well founded. In defence, the Railway Companies asserted that they were entitled to make an indefinite charge for station terminals. It was clearly shown before the Committee that in respect of long distance and non-competitive traffic the companies were not exceeding their maximum rates; and that the maximum rates in such cases were practically valueless. The Railway Companies could not charge anything like the maximum rates. The addition of station terminals provided by the Bill will have the effect of making maximum rates for short distance traffic equally valueless.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member does not understand the Bill. It reduces the maximum rates for short distances in respect of non-competitive traffic.
  *MR. BARCLAY: I am quite willing to admit the rates may be lower, but it has been shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury that with the addition of station terminals the maximum for hay would be higher than it was before. And in regard to milk, the hon. Member for Crewe has
  412
  shown that no benefit would result. Looking at the tables I find that the maximum rates for the lower kinds of fish, irrespective of station terminals, is £8 a ton from Forfarshire to London, while the existing rate for salmon is £4 a ton. I put it to anyone whether advantage will result from fixing maximum rates which the Railway Companies find it impossible to charge. These proposals, instead of redressing the grievances of the farmers, will have the effect of binding the burden on their shoulders. I do not think that this House intended by the Railway and Canal Act, 1888, to give the Railway Companies power to exact higher rates, but cases have been instanced in this Debate showing that farmers and others interested in short-distance traffic will not be in the least benefited by this Bill, but will have the grievances of which they complain imposed upon them under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. The question of station terminals in past times has been decided by the Courts of Law in favour of the traders. But the companies depend upon the recent decision in the case of "Hall." Traders are anxious to have a decision upon the point, because it is the keystone of the whole position with regard to short-distance traffic. The case of "Hall" was decided against the companies by the Railway Commissioners—a common sense tribunal, appointed by this House to consider railway questions. The traders carried that case to a division of the Court of Queen's Bench, hoping ultimately to carry it to the Court of Appeal so as to obtain an authoritative decision of the law, but a technical defect in the Judicature Act prevented the appeal. But so certain were they that the point at issue was an essential element in the question that they raised another case, that of "Sowerby v. The Great Northern Railway Company." The Railway Commissioners considered themselves bound by the decision given in the case of "Hall," and decided accordingly. An appeal has been taken against that decision of the Railway Commissioners, to the High Court of Appeal, and I am informed by the solicitor in charge of the case that it may be heard next Monday week. It seems to me that it is of the greatest importance that the House should have before it an

  413
  authoritative decision on the question of terminals by the Court of Appeal before it pronounces a definite opinion on these Bills. I do not suppose that the President of the Board of Trade desires to increase the legal powers of the Railway Companies. When the decision of the Court of Appeal has been given the House will be in a better position to judge whether the proposals embodied in this Schedule and in the various Provisional Order Bills before it ought to receive its approval. In any case, the Committee cannot sit on these Bills until after Easter, when, as I have already said, a decision in the case of "Sowerby v. the Great Northern Railway Company" may be expected. Therefore, I submit that we ought to defer these Bills for further consideration after Easter. If the decision is against the traders, we shall have to try and make the best of the Bills; but if in their favour it would be a very extraordinary circumstance that this House, which has been appealed to to protect the farmers, should, previous to the anticipated decision, legalise the grievance of which they complain I therefore respectfully move that this Debate be now adjourned for the purpose I have indicated, and I think it would onle be a fair and considerate mode of treating the representations of the farmers on this subject if Her Majesty's Government would assent to this course.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg. Sir, to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the object of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was merely to move the Adjournment of the Debate, I would suggest, with all deference, that he might have made that proposal without speaking at the length he has; but, as the Motion has been made, I would ask the House to consider the position in which the matter now stands. It is obvious that the Joint Committee of the two Houses to which these Bills are to be referred, and to which the Act of Parliament says we should refer them, will have a very long and difficult task before them. If they are able to
  414
  complete their task, and if the Bills to be sent to them are to become law within the limits of the present Session, that is about as much as will be possible. I submit to the House that if the course suggested by the hon. Member be adopted it would be doing its best to render it utterly impossible that these Bills, whether the House may approve of them or not, should become law this Session. I would further submit to those who object to the Bills that they will have ample opportunity when the Bills have been reported by the Joint Committee of discussing the present question over again, and of pressing their objections to the point of opposing their further progress. The hon. Member opposite has told us that in a fortnight or so he expects a certain decision will be given by the Court of Appeal on this question. All I can say is that he is a very sanguine man. He seems to forget that the law is full of delays, and that the decision he anticipates may be deferred beyond Easter; but, at any rate, if that decision is not given by the time the Bills are returned to us by the Joint Committee, it is still possible that the statements made to-night can be repeated. Therefore, I submit that hon. Members will be in no worse position than they are in at present if they allow us to proceed with the Bills at once. If they decline to do this they certainly will prevent our being able to pass these Bills into law, and thus may defeat the very object which they themselves have in view.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) not to press his Motion for Adjournment. I have listened to a considerable part of this Debate. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, but was unable to hear that of the President of the Board of Trade in consequence of my being engaged elsewhere. I may, however, say that while I agree with a good deal of what has been said, I think that the question under discussion is essentially one for the consideration of the Committee. I know of no question more difficult or more complicated, or which requires more careful investigation and judgment than that which it is now

  415
  proposed to submit to the Joint Committee, and I can only express the hope that these Bills will be sent before the Committee as soon as possible. After all, this is only a preliminary stage, and not the final one. The Committee will have power to deal with all the questions that have been raised as to terminals and maximum rates, and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken will be able to appear before the Committee and give evidence, as was the case in 1881. It is most important that the work should be begun as soon as possible, as the inquiry is likely to be a long, laborious, and anxious inquiry. With regard to the legal decision spoken of by the hon Member (Mr. Barclay), if that is given in a week or even in a month, or at almost any time this Session, it will be in sufficient time for the Committee. Complaints have been made as to the way in which the work has been done; but I must say that I give the utmost credit to the noble Lord who presided over the Inquiry, and to Mr. Courtenay Boyle, of the Board of Trade, for the very admirable manner in which they performed their task. I never knew a case in which a heavy and laborious inquiry such as that in which they were engaged was conducted with greater skill, knowledge, and ability, than the inquiry conducted by those two gentlemen. I ask the House to let these Bills go into Committee as soon as possible, because the whole of the questions affecting the interests of farmers and small traders—questions of station terminals and other terminals and maximum charges—can be dealt with by the Joint Committee. That Committee will doubtless be a strong Joint Committee of the two Houses, and this House should bear in mind that it is not likely to appoint on its Committee a number of gentlemen who are more favourable to one interest than the other. It will, doubtless, be a Committee that will do justice to all parties, and I think it is to the interests of this House and of all who care about the subject that these Bills should be sent to that Committee as soon as possible. I would point out, further, with regard to the question of rates—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that this is a Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I was only pointing out that the Board of Trade exercise a very important influence in these matters. I hope the House will let the Bills go to a Committee as soon as possible.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion?
  *MR. BARCLAY: No, Sir; I press the Adjournment.
  MR. GROTRIAN: This is a very important question, and it seems to me that we are in danger of not being able adequately to discuss it by the intervention of this Motion for Adjournment. As you, Sir, pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, he was unable to deal with points having a most important bearing on the questions at issue. I am in the same position. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Motion for Adjournment; but if he does, teat it will not meet with support, and we shall be able to resume the discussion after the Division.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I was strongly impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Forfarshire, and agreed with him that there was good reason for the Adjournment of the Debate; but after the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. I feel convinced the more desirable course to pursue would be to send the Bills quickly to a Committee. Therefore, I hope the Motion for an adjournment will be withdrawn.
  MR. BARCLAY: After the expressions of opinion to which I have listened, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MAJOR RASCH: I am obliged to trouble the House with a very few words. I represent a constituency where the agricultural depression has reached its lowest depth. There the farmers manage to eke out a pre-carious existence by sending milk to the London markets. If this Bill passes into law that trade will be knocked on the head. An hon. Member opposite has rather understated the case. Now, a 12-

  417
  gallon tin of milk can be sent from Essex to London for 6d., but this Bill will make the charge 1s. 5d.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  MAJOR RASCH: The Great Eastern Bill will enable the charge to be raised 140 per cent., to say nothing of the cost of returning empties. At the present moment there are absolutely no terminal charges, but if the Bill becomes law there will be a terminal charge of 6d. for each 12-gallon tin. The result will be ruinous to the Essex farmers, and London will be supplied with iced milk from Holland or else will have to depend on London milk produced under the most adverse and deleterious circumstances. The Essex farmers may be divided into two categories: those who are ruined and those who will be ruined by the passing of this Bill, for it will prove the last straw on the back of the agricultural camel. No doubt we shall have the usual procession of railway directors who will tell us that these charges are only a matter of form. But the President of the Board of Trade, in the Debate on the Cheap Freights Bill, admitted that the tendency of Railway Companies was, in course of time, to reach the maximum charges; and if such rates as these are put into the Bill my constituents will refuse to look on them as a matter of form.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I do not rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, nor to detain the House, except for a few minutes. We have heard a great deal about injury to the agricultural interest, but little has been said with reference to the hardships that will be inflicted on commercial interests. Looking to the district which I represent, I fail to see the justice of the proposals made by the Board of Trade. The Great Western Railway Company will be enabled, if they are carried, to charge on the South Wales portion of its system 35 per cent more than it charges on any other portion of its system. Why should that be allowed? It may be said the maximum rates were originally fixed so high because the railway was made at a time when the district was not so fully developed as it has since become; it is now one of the most important portions of the Great Western system, and there is no longer any
  418
  justification for continuing an exceptional rate. I admit that these details might be better discussed in Committee, but it must be borne in mind that if this Bill goes to a Committee upstairs as proposed the only other opportunity the House itself will have of discussing it will be on the Report and Third Reading stages, and it, therefore, behoves us now to bring forward those points which we deem to be of first importance. We all desire to acknowledge the great industry and ability displayed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in the conduct of this most onerous inquiry; but, at the same time, human beings sometimes form opinions which the great majority of their fellows cannot agree with, and some such decisions have, I believe, been come to by those gentlemen. Reference has been made to the hardships likely to be entailed by the short-distance clause. In my district that clause will have most serious effects. I know of several instances in which not only a six-mile, but a 12-mile limit will be imposed. I could name a case in which the Railway Companies would be able to charge 12 miles for a 3½ mile journey. These are matters which will have to be thorougly sifted, and I, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. If he should press it to a Division and fail to carry it he would, I hold, defeat the very object he has in view.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I will not detain the House by going into the various points which have been raised; I wish to enter my protest in the firmest way I am able against that part of the Bill which deals with terminals. I am disappointed to find anything of the sort in the Bill. I had thought that after what occurred two years ago that question was dead and buried. But there is one detail in the Bill of some importance. The Railway Companies ask to be enabled to charge 1s. for every truck that is lime-washed or cleaned. I believe that that is an innovation.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is included in the ordinary charges now.
  MR. GRAY: The same reply might be given to every criticism. I entirely disagree with the proposal to enable

  419
  the companies to make it a special charge. It might just as reasonably be said that a person who rides in an omnibus or in a railway carriage ought to contribute to the dusting and cleaning of those vehicles. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade, who is in charge of this Bill, contained advances of a conciliatory nature, but my experience has taught me that, after speeches of this kind, when the Committee stage is reached, the right hon. Gentlemen who seem so conciliatory on the Second Reading, stiffen their backs against pressure, and we cannot induce them to bend to any extent to our wishes.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My hon. Friend forgets that the tribunal to which this question will be referred is entirely beyond my control.
  MR. GRAY: That is what I was coming to. I have to decide whether I will vote with my Party or with the hon. Member opposite. If the Government will give me an assurance that they, as a Government, will use no undue influence in the Committee, then I will vote for the Second Reading with great pleasure. If Government influence is to be used in respect to the question of terminals and other charges, the traders and agriculturists will have very little chance of getting their way. If, however, the Committee are to deal with these questions with a free hand, then I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is an important point that the hon. Member should know that the Committee will be distinctly a judicial tribunal, absolutely free from any influence on the part of the Government. My sole duty, when the Provisional Orders come back from the Committee, will be to carry out the decisions of the Committee.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like to draw attention to the milk question. The present policy is to get rid of the system of keeping cows in the cellars of London and other large towns—a system very apt to produce disease, for not only does it make the place unhealthy but the milk produced under such cir-
  420
  cumstances is far from good. Yet the effect of the passing of this Bill would be to encourage that system by making it impossible for farmers to supply London or other large cities with milk at a profit. I never in my life heard of terminals being charged for returned empties. I call that quite a new phase of railway extortion. I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture will give us his views on this subject.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I only wish before a decision is taken to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whose fairness and anxious attention to this Bill we all desire to acknowledge, that the question of terminals will go up to the Committee with his strongly expressed opinion in favour of terminals. I believe that those who represent agricultural constituencies have no objection to the recognition of the principle of some extra payment in respect of short distances, but we strongly object to the companies getting besides an additional allowance for such distances the power of charging terminals. Our complaint is that small traders in isolated districts are taken advantage of by the Railway Companies, and therefore the maximum ought to be kept so low as to protect these traders. I join with the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea in hoping that the Amendment will be withdrawn, as a Division would prejudice our case before the Committee
  MR. MARK J. STEWART: I think that the sooner these Bills are sent to the Joint Committee the better it will be for all concerned. I can only say, with regard to the high rates contained in the Schedules, that hitherto traders in the South of Scotland have escaped these very high rates. We now send milk to London at 1½d. a gallon without any terminal charges. It is most important that these advantages should be continued, as, according to the charges in the Schedule, the cost of carriage will be 1s. 3d. a gallon—a considerable difference for the London consumer to sustain. I am in no way antagonistic to the interests of the Railway Companies. I know that theirs are enormous undertakings in

  421
  which many persons have embarked their savings. But still justice ought to be done, and therefore I advocate the sending of these Bills to a Joint Committee as soon as possible.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I rise to express my views in response to the appeals which have been addressed to me from the other side of the House. Hon. members representing agricultural constituencies seem to be under a misapprehension. It is said that no terminals are charged at the present time; but it is forgotten that Railway Companies can charge anything they like for the carriage of milk, and they need not carry milk at all unless they like to to do so. Now it is proposed to make it obligatory to carry the milk, and the charges are limited to a certain maximum. As far as the Government proposals go, they are clearly a gain to the farmer. There may be objections of detail; but those who have such objections to urge, should make their voices heard in the Committee. I hope that they will do so, and their representations will receive every consideration. Expressing my opinion as an individual, I think it to their interest to send these Bills to a Committee.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Must those who wish to raise these points appear at their own expense by counsel before the Select Committee, or will it be at the expense of the Government?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Arrangements will be made whereby all Petitions presented within live clear days of the sitting of the Committee will be heard. Further arrangements are already in progress between the Chambers of Agriculture and other bodies that all these interests shall be represented.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: With the permission of the House I will state the reasons why I think I may now withdraw the Amendment. I would, first, ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that he will give us an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Committee on some favourable opportunity, and before any decision is taken in the matter. I
  422
  understand from the assurances which have been given to the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. Gray) that the Government is going to give an absolutely free hand to the Joint Committee, which will not only have an opportunity of discussing the amount of the maximum rates, and of the terminals, but will also be able to say whether terminals shall be charged or not. I hope the fact of my withdrawing the Amendment now will not be taken by the House as indicating any abandonment of the position I have taken up on the question, and that it will not be supposed that the House of Commons has come to a decision in favour of terminals, when, on the contrary, there is a great disposition to vote against them—a disposition of which we do not avail ourselves because we prefer to let the Committee have a free hand in dealing with the question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BARCLAY: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether petitioners will be heard individually by the Committee, or whether they will have to appear by counsel?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In the ordinary way.
  *MR. BARCLAY: Why should not a petitioner be entitled to state his own case? An individual trader would have to incur enormous expense if he appeared by counsel.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Petitioners will have precisely the same right as they have before an ordinary private Committee of this House.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: This is an important matter. Will the right hon.

  423
  Gentleman state whether individual traders will be able to state their ease before the Committee or not?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever sat on a Private Bill Committee, but the same course will be pursued before this Committee as before an ordinary Private Bill Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read second time, and committed.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Ordered, That all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and desire their concurrence.—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach)

QUESTIONS.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to do anything, and, if so, what, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Forestry?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The Select Committee on Forestry made two recommendations: (a) The creation of a Board of Forestry; (b) the establishment of a School of Forestry in more than one centre. But the powers of the Board of Agriculture under the Act which created that Department are strictly limited as follows:—The Board may undertake (1) the preparation of statistics and making of inquiries relating to Forestry. (2) The inspection of schools in which technical instruction is given in connection with Forestry. (3) The aiding of any such school and of any system of lectures or instruction connected with Forestry. The Board has, therefore, no means of giving effect directly to the recommendations. But we are doing what we can within our
  424
  powers by (1) making farther statistical inquiry than has yet been made into the extent of woods and plantations, distinguishing the younger from the older woods; (2) by inspecting and aiding by a grant the lectures given in the University of Edinburgh under the sanction of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society. We have also undertaken under certain conditions to make grants towards the Chair of Agriculture and Forestry, about to be established in the Durham College of Science; and we are now in correspondence with the Surveyor's Institution, with a view to the official recognition and of the examinations in Forestry conducted by that Institution. I should be very glad to promote the development of education in Forestry as far as possible, and I think that within the powers of the Board of Agriculture we are doing all that can be done in that direction.

  INDEX TO POPULATION TABLES.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board why there was no "Index to the Population Tables" compiled for the Census of 1881, similar to that for 1871, as comprised in Parliamentary Return [C. 676 II]; and whether in view of the great utility of such an Index to all persons having occasion to consult the Population Tables, he will give instructions that such an Index shall be prepared on the lines of such Return for the approaching Census?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have made inquiry on the subject, and the Index referred to was, I am informed, omitted on the ground of time and cost. I agree as to the great utility of a full Index, and I will arrange that such an Index shall be prepared in connection with the next Census Returns.

  LAMBETH CHARITIES.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether the Charity Commissioners have yet received a Report from the accountant who was to inquire into matters connected with the Lambeth Charities; and, if so, whether the Local Authorities and

  425
  others interested in the Charities can have a copy of the Report?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners have, within the last few days, received the Report to which the question refers. They propose to communicate it in the usual course to the Trustees and to the executors of the late assistant overseer, at the cost of whose estate the inquiry has been conducted. The Commissioners will await the receipt of observations upon the Report in the result of this communication before taking further action in the matter. There is no reason to believe that the dealings with the charity funds reported on by the accountant will result in any ultimate loss to the charities.

  ACHILL ISLAND.
  DR. TANNER: In the absence of my hon. Friend (Mr. DEASY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government engineers have approved of the making of certain projected roads, and the completion and construction of piers in Achill Island; and why the works have not been commenced? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the distress alleged to exist in Achill; that many of the inhabitants are on the brink of starvation; whether he is aware that only a small proportion of the Islanders have had relief work given them, these being obliged, in numerous instances, to travel very long-distances to and from work; that the supply of seed potatoes has run short; that many of them have been found to be rotten, and that in many cases the good ones have been consumed for food; and whether any steps will be taken to remedy the alleged faults in relief of distress in Achill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): With regard to these two questions, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday to a similar question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Darlington.
  DR. TANNER: What piers are being-made in connection with the Island of Achill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: None.
  DR. TANNER: None! The people are to be allowed to starve and die.

  FIAR'S COURT.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that a recent Fiar's Court for Wigtownshire fixed the supposed price for Bore (or Bear) for crop and year 1890, although this variety of barley has for a considerable period ceased to be grown in the county; whether it is lawful for the Fiar's Court to fix a price for Bere where no Bere is grown in the county; and whether the parish minister is entitled to claim the price of barley instead?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): It is the case that a Court for Wigtownshire struck a price for Bere for the crop 1890, thus following the practice in that county for many years, with the exception of the year 1889. I am informed that the quantity of Bere grown in this county is very small, but that it is not known to have altogether ceased. The question of whether or not to include a product in the Fiar's prices appears to be one for the Jury, who return their verdict on the evidence or their own proper knowledge. If Bere is an inferior quality of barley, the minister would, I think, be entitled to claim the highest Fiars prices for that article.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
  MR. CHARLES ACLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the claims of those Inland Revenue officers who are employed in such extra departmental duties as the collection of agricultural statistics for the Board of Trade to some remuneration for their services, in addition to their salaries received for their services in the Department in which they are regularly employed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): From the 1st of September last an increase in the scale of salaries was granted to the Excise Service, involving an additional annual cost of over £30,000, and on maximum salaries such cost would amount to something like £50,000.

  427
  Prior to this a sum of about £11,000 was annually paid for the work connected with the agricultural statistics; but when suggesting the grant of the new scale the Board of Inland Revenue recommended that this amount should no longer be paid to the officers, and that no extra remuneration whatever (except expenses out of pocket) should be granted to them for the Agricultural Returns work, which was to be regarded as forming part of their ordinary duties. In some cases no doubt the change will, in the first year or two, involve a relatively small loss to some officers, but such loss can bear no comparison with the gain, for the new scale gives larger increments and improved prospects. The increase in salaries, moreover, counts towards superannuation, whereas the awards for Agricultural Returns work did not. It must also be borne in mind that, in as far as it can be shown that the collection of Returns caused an increase of expense in travelling or for subsistence during prolonged absence from home, it will be met by a corresponding increase of payment on these accounts, whereas formerly the increased cost was paid by the officer out of his award. The Government regret that after the position of the Excise officers has been so generously dealt with a leaflet, such as probably prompted the present question, has been issued by members of the Service.

  COLLOONEY AND CLAREMORRIS RAILWAY.
  DR. TANNER (in the absence of Mr. SEXTON): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the employment of unskilled labour on that part of the Collooney and Claremorris Railway, in the Swynford Union, is about to cease; and what further provision the Government intend to make with a view to provide work for the destitute in this the most congested district in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On some parts of the line of the railway mentioned, the earthworks are being gradually completed. On other parts, however, of it there is still a good deal to be done, and arrangements are in progress for concentrating the labour at these points. In this way it is hoped that consider-
  428
  able employment will be given for another month or so. Should the necessity arise, it is proposed to start other relief works in the district.
  DR. TANNER: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has in no way answered the first paragraph of the question, which is, whether the employment of unskilled labour is about to cease?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I answered the question quite fully.
  DR. TANNER: I really regret to have to meet these impertinent answers——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  DR. TANNER (in the absence of Mr. SEXTON): I beg to ask the Postmaster General on what grounds is payment in full for Sunday duty in the Dublin Post Office withheld from hall porters, bag officers, yard officers, postmen, and labourers, and only paid to sorters; if it is the fact that a Treasury Minute was issued last July, 1890, for payment in full for all grades performing Sunday duty; and will he have an order made to the Dublin authorities to likewise pay the officers referred to above, the same as has been granted to sorters dating from last July?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that by Treasury Minute of July last, payment for Sunday duty was authorised in the case of sorting clerks and telegraphists. No such authority has been granted as regards other classes of Post Office servants, whose case is now under consideration.

  AUSTRALIAN MAILS—MISCARRIAGE OF LETTERS.
  MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction is felt, both in Melbourne (Australia) and this country, at the frequent miscarriage of letters to and fro; whether complaints have been made to him from time to time on the subject; and whether he can assure the House that measures are being taken to ensure the regular and safe despatch and delivery of letters in the future?
  *MR. RAIKES: Beyond the occasional isolated cases of loss or delay which necessarily occur when a large mass of correspondence has to be dealt with, I have received no complaints of the miscarriage of letters between this country and Melbourne. But if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will cause inquiry to be made.

  ALLEGED DISTURBANCES NEAR VAN.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the serious disturbances which are reported by telegraph to have occurred quite recently near Van, and the attack which is said to have been made upon the British Consulate in that city?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No information has been received of these reports.
  MR. BRYCE: Have the Foreign Office made any inquiry?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: As I have already explained to the House, while a newspaper correspondent telegraphs home news of this kind, Her Majesty's Representative will, in ordinary course, inquire into the facts, but does not telegraph the occurrence unless immediate action is required. If anything extraordinary occurs we shall hear of it in due course.
  MR. BRYCE: But the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Are not the Foreign Office in the habit, when reports of this kind are made, of inquiring whether our Representative has received information?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; when sensational telegrams appear we do not necessarily make inquiry.

  THE LATE DUKE OF BEDFORD.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain from the Coroner for Westminster, and state whether the name "Francis Charles Hastings Russell" was or was not used in administering the oath to the jury at the inquest upon the late Duke of Bedford; and, if not, what name or names were used?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I can add nothing to the answer which I gave last night, and which is perfectly clear and explicit—that the jury were sworn to the full name and title of the deceased person.
  MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the name I gave yesterday was not what was commonly called the full name?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is a much greater master of English than I am. I cannot conceive that the full name "Francis Charles Hastings Russell" can mean anything but "Francis Charles Hastings Russell."
  MR. COBB: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that that is not the name of the deceased?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is a totally different question, which the hon. Member has not yet put to me.

  SUPPLY OF SEED POTATOES.
  DR. TANNER (in the absence of Sir THOMAS ESMONDE): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that the sacks in which the supply of seed potatoes, which are to be sold at 1s. a stone, sent to Ballinore were found to contain a considerable quantity of clay, and that many of the potatoes were utterly unfit for seed; and, whether, in view of the poverty of the district, and the absolute necessity of the potato crop being sown this month, the Government will take immediate steps to ensure that a sufficient supply of sound potato seed is supplied to the people, and at a price they can afford to pay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The district named cannot be identified.

  THE CLARE GRAND JURY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the resolution forwarded to him by the Grand Jury of the County Clare, strongly recommending the making and maintenance of a light railway between Ennis and Scariff, has been received, and whether any steps will be taken to carry out the recommendation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to has not been received. I may, however, say that, having regard to the large sum of money already provided by Parliament for the construction of railways in Ireland, I do not consider this a case in which. Government could ask for a special grant from Parliament.

  KANTURK UNION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what relief works are intended to be instituted in the Kanturk Union for the relief of labourers in the district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The condition of Kanturk Union is receiving careful attention. It has not so far been found necessary to open relief works there.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentlemen who are under the Poor Law Board have made repeated visits and reported unfavourably upon the condition of the labourers in this district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said the condition of the Union is receiving attention.
  DR. TANNER: If it is clearly shown that the people are in a very bad condition—starving condition—will something be done?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If relief works are necessary they will be started.

  ARMY AGENTS.
  Mr. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what alterations have recently been made in the system of payment by the War Office to Army agents, and what are the precise duties which Army agents will in future perform for the War Office, and on what terms their remuneration is to be fixed?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETAY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The alterations which will take effect from the 1st of January next are that the firms now acting as Army agents will issue the pay of officers without any charge upon the public for their commission. Messrs. Cox pay the regiments of Guards and distribute the estates of deceased soldiers. These duties it is proposed, for the public convenience, to leave in their hands.
  432
  The remuneration has not yet been fixed, but it will probably amount to about £1,800 a year, as against £21,000 paid to the agents for their present services.

  PROJECTED FORTH AND CLYDE SHIP CANAL.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the project of a ship canal, connecting the Forth and Clyde, as proposed by Mr. Charles John Wilson, of Hawick, at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce; whether he has seen the Report of Messrs. Crouch and Hogg, of Glasgow, on a direct route from Yoker to Grangemouth, through a rich mineral district; and whether the Board of Trade can give any facilities for testing the practicability of the scheme, its probable cost, the prospects of traffic, and the likelihood of its commercial success?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have seen the pamphlet to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not know what facilities could be afforded by the Government which are not at the disposal of those who are interested in such a scheme.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is intended to give effect this year to the oft-repeated assurances made to the officers of the Scottish Fishery Board that some increase would be made to their salaries in view of the greatly increased duties which have been laid upon them of recent years?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Secretary for Scotland has been in communication with the Scottish Fishery Board on the question of the salaries of the fishery officers. The final letter from the Board was received on the 26th February last, and the Secretary for Scotland is now in a position to lay his proposals before the Treasury.

  ON-LICENCES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the information in his possession on which he bases

  433
  his statement in the Return on On-Licences, "that in many cases, for which the Magistrates' clerks are not responsible, the registers do not contain accurate records as to the ownership of licensed houses;" who are the persons who are responsible for the alleged defects in the existing registers; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure that in future the registers shall be properly kept?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The headnote was prefixed to the Return in consequence of my having reason to believe that the provisions of Section 36 of the Licensing Acts, 1874, are not strictly observed. It often happens that changes of ownership, after a licence is first granted, are not stated either by the applicants for renewal or by the new owners, and that the name of a person who has ceased to be the owner continues on the register. I propose to issue a circular to the Licensing Justices calling their attention to the matter.
  MR. SUMMERS: The Act of 1872?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think it is 1874.

  MRS. MARY CATHCART.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if his attention has been called to the seizure of Mrs. Mary Cathcart, of Wootton Hall, Stafford; if he will disclose the name of the Magistrate who with Drs. Bond and Savage are alleged to have signed a certificate for her confinement in a private lunatic asylum; if he will state when and where the doctors examined Mrs. Cathcart; and if he will call upon the Lunacy Commissions to disclose the name of the person or persons by whose authority they made such examination and signed such certificate?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that no Magistrate signed a certificate in this case; but Mr. Pennington, a Justice for London, appointed under the Lunacy Act, 1890, made an order on February 28 for the confinement in the Priory, a private asylum, upon certificates signed by Drs. Bond and Savage, who examined the lady at the asylum on the 25th inst., by authority of her husband,
  434
  under whose urgency order she had been taken there on the 24th inst.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what relief works have been started in the famine-stricken district of South Castlehaven and Toehead; how many people have been employed, and what sum of money has been disbursed in such relief; and how much of this money is being paid to relief agents, and how much to the people requiring relief?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Relief works, consisting of road making, have been proceeding in the district mentioned since 10th February last. Between that date and 28th February the daily average number of persons employed on those works was 72. The amount paid in wages was £68 1s. 11d. On 28th February the number of persons employed bad increased to 94.
  DR. TANNER: Can the Chief Secretary say how much of this money has been paid to relief agents, and how much to the persons requiring relief?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am peculiarly unfortunate this evening in my endeavour to make myself understood by the hon. Gentleman. I believe all this money has been given to persons to whom it is intended relief should be given.
  DR. TANNER: How soon can I get an answer?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: I will put it down for Monday.

  RELIEF IN THE TUAM UNION.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the works under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act will be commenced in the Tuam Union, and if he can now name the works to be executed, or else the parishes or districts in which they will be undertaken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To correct some possible misunderstanding on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, I would point out that there is no Statute-such as that mentioned in the question.

  435
  Works will very shortly be commenced in the Tuam Union. They will serve the Electoral Divisions of Dunmore, Addergoole, Milltown, Kiltenan, Foxhall, Kilshanny, Belclare, and part of Clare-Tuam.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON VACCINATION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps have been taken for selecting and nominating a member of the Royal Commission on Vaccination in the place of Mr. Brad-laugh; and whether, having regard to the importance of securing throughout the inquiry, so far as may be, an adequate representation of those out of whose complaint the Commission has arisen, he will advise the immediate nomination of a suitable parson to fill the vacancy holding the general opinions on the question held by the late Mr. Bradlaugh?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not know what opinions Mr. Bradlaugh held on the subject of vaccination at the time of his death, but I had confidence in his independence and judgment, and felt he might be relied upon to give full weight to the evidence produced before the Commission. I have been in communication with more than one gentleman recently with a view to filling the vacancy caused by Mr. Bradlaugh's death, but am not yet in a position to make any announcement to the House on the subject.
  *MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. Bradlaugh was accepted as a representative of those who are opposed to compulsory vaccination?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes; I am aware it was the case, and I feel that in selecting some one in his place I am bound to give weight to that consideration.

  SALE OF STAMPS IN PUBLIC HOUSES.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in neighbourhoods where the post offices are closed at or about 8 o'clock in the evening many licensed victuallers are in the habit of obliging their customers by
  436
  selling them postage stamps; and whether the licensed victuallers are liable to a penalty for selling postage stamps to their customers after the post offices are closed, or, in cases where there is no post offices in the immediate neighbourhood, at any time during the day?
  MR. JACKSON: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General has asked me to answer this question. He is not aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers. No one is entitled to sell stamps without first taking out a licence.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT, 1884.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a Bill to extend "The Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884," so as to make its provisions applicable to elections of Vestry Clerks and other parochial officials who are elected by open Parochial Vestry or poll of a parish?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am not prepared to introduce such a Bill. As far as my information goes, there is no demand for it. In the event of a District Councils Bill being introduced, the matter will necessarily receive consideration.

  THE AMERICAN COPYRIGHT ACT.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Copyright Bill has actually passed the Congress of the United States, and whether it contains the provision that American copyright shall only be granted to books deposited before publication with the Librarian of Congress, printed from type set within the limits of the United States, or from plates made there from, and that, during the existence of such copyright, the importation of any such book or edition thereof not made from type set within the limits of the United States is prohibited; and, in such case, bearing in mind the renewed declaration of the Prime Minister on 4th March

  437
  on the Associated Chambers of Commerce that English remonstrance on foreign commercial policy pre- Judicial to British trade at home and abroad is wholly futile under the present fiscal system, as we have no means of supporting the remonstrance, for giving any advantage in return for favourable concessions—what definite domestic action, as distinguished from remonstrance with a foreign Power Her Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent injury being done to industry and labour in the United Kingdom, and the probable disemployment of many workpeople concerned in the book trade, to restrain the transfer to America of the productions of the works of British authors desirous of securing American copyright by the use in the United States of American type or plates, and simultaneously enjoying copyright in Great Britain and Ireland?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): We have no official knowledge of the measure, and only know from the newspapers that it has been passed. It is quite impossible for me to express any opinion respecting its provisions until we see them. I do not know what changes may have been made in the Bill during its passage through Congress, and I am, therefore, quite unable to indicate what would be the policy or action of the Government with respect to it.

  TOWN HOLDINGS COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Motion will be made for the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Town Holdings?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to put a notice as to the re-appointment of the Town Holdings Committee on the Paper within the next few days.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that out of 1,084,361 persons employed in mills and factories in the United Kingdom as many as 656,549 are females, the Government will consider the advisability of appoint-
  438
  ing one or more women members of the Royal Commission on Labour?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no knowledge as to the accuracy of the figures the hon. Gentleman quotes in his question, but I have to say the Government will carefully consider all suggestions that may be made to them as to the constitution of the Royal Commission on Labour.
  MR. SUMMERS: The figures, I may mention, are to be found in the Blue Book.

  MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the jurisdiction at Quarter Sessions of the existing Middlesex Magistrates is reserved to them by "The Local Government Act, 1888," as fully as if resident in that county, though they may be residing actually in the county of London?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am advised that Middlesex Justices are not disqualified from acting as Justices in that county merely by the fact that they reside not in Middlesex, but in the county of London. If any reasonable legal doubt exists on the point, the matter can be tested in the Courts of Law.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business he proposes to take on Monday and next week?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think we shall begin with the Irish Supplementary Vote on Monday. I hope we may get the Navy Supplementary Votes to-night, but if not we shall proceed with them on Monday following with the Irish Supplementary Vote—or, as my right hon. Friend suggests, if the Navy Votes take any considerable time, it might be well to postpone the Irish Vote until Thursday. But Supply-Supplementary Votes will be the business next week.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman will permit me to remind him that there was rather an understanding that due notice should be given as to when the Irish Vote was intended to

  439
  be taken; many Irish Members are interested.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, we will say definitely that Irish Supplementary Estimates will be taken on Thursday.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND), 1891.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Return of Particulars of Relief Works opened in certain portions of Ireland up to the 28th day of February, 1891."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]

  FAILURE OF THE POTATO CROP.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Report on the Failure of the Potato Crop and the condition of the Poorer Classes in the West of Ireland."—(Mr Arthur Balfour.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]

  POTATO CROP, 1890 (IRELAND AND GREAT BRITAIN).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Extracts from Reports upon the Potato Crop, 1890, made for the Irish Land Commission, in certain Unions of the Counties of Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Lei trim, Limerick, Mayo, Sligo, Waterford, and Wexford, by Messrs. Cunningham, Dillon, Doran, Eyre, Headech, Porter, and Roberts, Assistant Commissioners, with a Report upon the Potato Crop of Great Britain in 1890, and also upon the Supply and Distribution of Seed, with Suggestions."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 134.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Mr. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Osborne Morgan to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  HARES PRESERVATION BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
  DR. CLARK: This I think is an opportune time to ask the House to consider the present system of administration and legislation for the different parts of the Empire, and to consider, not in a Party spirit, a possible solution of the problem of devolution. I think the subject ought to be considered and might be considered outside the spirit of Party, and in that view I find the leaders of different Parties agree. The noble Lord the leader of the Tory Party especially I may mention. He, in his speech at Newport five years ago, claimed that it had always been the contention of the Tory Party that people in their own localities should govern themselves, and that they should be encouraged to take an active interest in the administration of their own affairs. He pointed out that there might be weaknesses in the Local Authorities, but the wisdom of a largo Central Authority would correct the failures and mistakes of each. It was the sort of speech we might expect from an advocate of federalism. Three years ago the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Lord Hartington) spoke upon the subject, and said that in addition to County Boards perhaps some larger authorities—perhaps National Local Authorities—should be erected for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) proposed a scheme at the same time very much on the same lines. I think under these circumstances, since all parties in the House have expressed themselves more or less favourably towards the

  441
  principle of Home Rule, we might be able to consider the question on its merits and quite apart from Party feeling. I will try to do so, and more from the standpoint of Scotland and Ireland, because there it may be said to be a burning question, and the people are not satisfied with things as they are. There may be satisfaction in England or not, but here it depends upon the English representatives themselves. Out of some 670 members there are only about 200 representatives from outside England, so that England has more than two-thirds of the entire representation in the House, and any particular question can be determined by English Members. That there is discontent in Ireland I suppose everyone will admit. You have Ireland governed and administered from Dublin Castle, and the great bulk of the people of Ireland detest Dublin Castle rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham at the time when he proposed his scheme of Home Rule all round talked of the administration of Dublin Castle as similar to the rule of the Austrians in Italy, or the Russians in Poland; but I will not go so far as that, I will content myself with saying that the great bulk of the Irish people detest the kind of administration they get from Dublin Castle. In Scotland we are, perhaps, the most democratic nation in Europe. Thanks to John Knox we have had national education for centuries, and our Presbyterian form of religion tends to democracy, yet in this democratic country we are governed by Boards continually, and by the irresponsibility of Parliament House. Now, I think the Scottish people are tired of Parliament House and this administration by Boards. I hope, from what I have heard from the First Lord of the Treasury, that we shall be saved from the crowning indignity of not only having our administration conducted by these Boards, but our Local Legislation proceeding from them also. There is not much feeling in favour of Parliament House, it has ceased to be popular—from being Presbyterian it has become Episcopalian; it used to be Liberal, it has now become Unionist and Tory. I think the Scottish people are no more in favour of Parliament House administration than the Irish people are in favour of the rule of
  442
  Dublin Castle. The discontent in Ireland is of old standing, but the Scottish discontent is a thing of yesterday. There has been discontent for the last 20 years to my knowledge, and a disposition towards Home Rule for the purpose of compelling the Imperial Parliament to consider Scottish matters, and seeing that time is given for proper attention to Scottish business. There was a time when Scottish Members thought if they had a Secretary for Scotland to take charge of Scottish business, as the Home Secretary has charge of English internal matters, and the Irish Secretary of Irish affairs, they might have more attention paid to the claims of Scotland. The agitation was then for a Secretary of State for Scotland, and now that we have such a Minister, and after experience of some four or five—some in the Cabinet and some outside, some in this House and some in the House of Lords—we find that things are just as bad as when we had to depend upon the Lord Advocate; and those who thought they would be content with that small reform are now compelled by the facts of the case to go much further in the direction of Home Rule. Both in Scotland and Ireland legislation is very much in sympathy with administration. The voice of Scotland and Ireland as expressed by the great bulk of the people is not considered by the Government in this House, and not considered by the great English majority by whose assistance measures are thrust upon Scotland and Ireland against the public opinion in those countries. So you have a condition of affairs that should make even right hon. Gentlemen opposite reconsider their position. With a democracy the only sound basis of law and administration is the will of the people, but where you have laws passed and administered contrary to the desires of the people, there you have a condition of things tending either to the development of anarchy, or returning to an autocratic form of Government. It is a condition of affairs utterly incompatible with democracy. But apart from any questions of this kind, in this House you have a state of congestion in public business, and we are unable to carry through the business we take upon ourselves. It is physically impossible, without sitting all the year

  443
  round, for Members to find an opportunity to invite the attention of the House to subjects of the deepest interest to their constituents. Out of 200 or more notices of Private Members at the beginning of the Session some dozen find an opportunity for Second Readings on Wednesdays, and these are determined, not by their relative importance, but by the accident of the ballot, and some of the important matters are never submitted for consideration. For nine years my hon. Friend has attempted to secure some sort of right of way to the health resorts of our country, our mountains, and moors. These mountains and moors during the last 15 years have become more precious in the eyes of proprietors than arable land; they would prefer to have their crops destroyed rather than have their game disturbed. It is eight or nine years since we have tried to get a decision upon a Permissive Bill for Scotland. I do not wish to multiply illustrations; I only wish to indicate the difficulties. Irish Members have the habit of urging their claims with a persistency that has hitherto secured them an advantage as between Scotland and Ireland, and altogether the state of affairs is such that Members of all Parties are coming round to the opinion that there must be some system of devolution of business into the hands of people who know how to carry it out. We are trying Grand Committees, and there are some who are prepared to go further and establish National Committees; but I think we are practically all agreed there should be some system of devolution of business. On this side we are prepared to support a measure of Home Rule for Ireland, and I am in favour of the proposal. But the question is, what kind of Home Rule is to be given? and this is a question that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench should consider, and then say something that will shed a little more light on their proposals. We have had a Bill before us, but this the country has rejected. We hear of a modified proposal, but I think we ought to know more about it, and how the difficulties are proposed to be met. I do not think any measure for Ireland will be considered, unless those responsible for the preparation make
  444
  everything clear. This vis inertiœ will never carry through any system of devolution. Upon this question of Home Rule for Ireland I think that the country has determined that, so far as it may be granted, it will not be on the lines of the 24th clause of the Home Rule Bill; that whatever may be done, Irish Members, or a portion of them, will require to remain here to take part in Imperial work. If that is the case—if they have the control of their own domestic affairs—the question naturally arises, shall they have a voice in the control of ours? If so, then probably, being a Celtic race, they will keep together and sell their vote to either side for what they can get for it; and I think nobody can object, under the circumstances, to their doing anything of the kind. We may be able to modify this; but, so far, I have not yet heard from either side any scheme that would not be anomalous. But we are not anxious about anomalies. If an anomaly is of old standing and works well, we keep it in existence; but I do not think we can create new ones. Even Conservatives will not go so far as that, although they support old anomalies. Some hon. Gentlemen say they are not prepared to put the Constitution into the melting pot; but it seems to me we are doing that; we are melting down this old Parliament and re-casting it; and the only question is, what form are we going to give to the new castings? You must see that they are suitable to the State machinery. We are told that Scotland ought not to stand in the way; that we ought to do all we can to get the Bill passed for Ireland granting Irish Home Rule; and that then it will be far easier, for the first step will be taken, to give Home Rule to Scotland. But I think it would be much easier to give Home Rule all round than to proceed by different Bills for one fraction after another. The difficulties you have to meet are such that they may be more readily met by devolving local privileges to each section of the country. So far as Scotland is concerned the difficulties are greater to English Members, for they do not understand our laws and our administration. In England and Wales you have English laws and English modes of administra-

  445
  tion; in Scotland we retain our old laws, our old methods of administration, and our old terminology is much more foreign to Englishmen than is the case of Wales or Ireland. They cannot understand these things, so they run away and only return when the Whip calls them to vote against our desires. Now the question is, are we to have a form of Federal Home Rule or of Colonial Home Rule? Shall the tendency be towards federation rather than dualism, and will Ireland accept it? So far as I understand the conditions laid down Ireland would accept it. Ireland wants the control of her own domestic affairs, and I think she can get that as well under the Federal tie as under the dual system. Leading Irishmen, too, have been in favour of federalism as against the dual system. The father of the popular movement, Daniel O'Connell, began as a repealer, and fought the battle of repeal for many long years, but he died a Federalist. In one of the last letters of his published correspondence, and dated October 12, 1844, he balanced the advantages of repeal and federation. He wrote—
  "Simple repealers are of opinion that a reconstituted Irish Parliament should have precisely the same power and authority as the former Irish Parliament had. Federalists, on the contrary, appear to me to require more for Ireland than simple repealers do, for besides a local Parliament having full practical local authority, Federalists require that for the consideration of Imperial questions, colonial, military, and naval questions, and the lines of foreign policy in a Federal Parliament, Ireland should have a fair share of representative power. It is but right and just to confess that in that respect Federalists would give Ireland more weight and importance in Imperial concerns than would be acquired by a policy of simple repeal. For my own part I own"—
  and this is from the father of the Repeal movement—
  "that since I have come to contemplate the specific differences, such as they are, between simple repeal and Federalism, I do at present feel a preference for the Federal plan, as tending more to the utility of the Irish connection with England than simple repeal."
  O'Connell, then, was a Federalist. Isaac Butt, who succeeded him, was a Federalist, and the living leaders are Federalists. Mr. Parnell is a Federalist, or else he got £10,000 from Mr. Rhodes under false pretences.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  DR. CLARK: Mr. Davitt is undoubtedly a Federalist. This is a question that depends as much upon Irish opinion in America as upon Irish opinion at home. I think that all the active members of the Irish Party, all the prominent leaders in America, are quite satisfied that Federalism is the proper solution of the Irish difficulty. In the States recently I saw some of the extreme men, and I have known some of them for the last 20 years. I met them during the Fenian times, and among those of the extreme men I met in America last year, and who have been Fenians, there was not one who would not be content with a Federal system for Ireland, that country having the management of her own affairs in a manner similar to that enjoyed by each State under the American Union. I take it, then, that a form of Federal devolution would be acceptable to Ireland, while the Imperial Parliament would be relieved to give attention to important Imperial concerns. Undoubtedly any Government that takes this question in hand will meet with strong support from Irishmen. There will be a strong Irish agitation in the next Parliament, and if there are fewer Home Rule Members returned for Ireland there will be more Scotch Home Rule Members. We can get rid of agitation if we proceed to dispassionately consider a system of devolution. I have put my Resolution in a somewhat vague form advisedly. It may be that the Welsh people do not require what the Scotch and Irish people require. Scotland and Ireland have had Parliaments in the past, but the Welsh difficulty may be solved by means of a Grand Committee. There are some English Members who think that the Imperial Parliament should remain as at present, and that Scotch and Irish Members should devote themselves to local matters in their own countries, while English Members occupy the first part of the

  447
  Session here with English matters, all subsequently meeting for Imperial work. I have no objection to such a system being tried, but I think the only method of meeting our difficulties is to devolve a portion of our work upon National Assemblies, Parliaments, or Councils, such as the States of America have, or as different parts of the Canadian Dominion have, with an Imperial Parliament for Imperial purposes only. I think we are coming to that. Any other system may be tried, but the only system that will give us what we want—time to consider our domestic affairs, and the time we ought to give to Imperial matters—will be by devolving these powers upon National Assemblies. We have three-quarters of the population of the globe, more or less, under Imperial control, and a quarter of the whole territory. Within the Empire young nationalities are growing up, and we have to consider how we may bind all these together with a Federal tie in a really Imperial Parliament, where all parts of the Empire shall have representation. We have not got that now. I think right hon. Gentlemen on the other side should carefully weigh what is taking place in Canada and Australia. In Canada you have a Party in some of the Provinces actually agitating for secession, for separation from the Empire, in order to be united to the great American Republic. There is a strong agitation going on in Nova Scotia in favour of union with the United States, and throughout Canada there is a Party asking for a fiscal tie with the United States. Such a tie would soon be followed by another and still closer tie. It has been said that Canada must either have representation in Westminster or in Washington. You have representatives sitting in Australia for the purpose of discussing the binding together of the various colonies in an Australian Dominion with an Army, a Navy, and a Supreme Court, and they are considering whether they will permit the Privy Council to be a final Court of Appeal. In Canada the Queen has more Subjects than in Ireland, and more in Australia than in Scotland, and those rising nationalities have a much greater future than either Scotland or Ireland possibly can have. I think the Party opposite, who are doing nothing to solve
  448
  this problem, are the real separationists, and may bring about the separation of the various portions of the British Empire. The first step necessary to prevent this is for the House to devolve its purely local affairs, and be an Imperial Parliament in reality. How supremely ridiculous it is that this Imperial Parliament should have to decide whether Belfast shall have a main drain, or a monument shall be erected in a certain street in Dublin, or Edinburgh shall have an hotel at the Railway Station, or Glasgow shall have a special bridge or dock! The remedy of federation has been a success wherever it has been tried. Canada has tried it for nearly a score of years; America for a century, and Switzerland for 500 years, whilst Germany has given it a trial and it has been successful. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is going about objecting to any right of veto to the Imperial Parliament, but, in my opinion, that is one of the best things possible. The Supreme Court has been one of the evils of the Federal system, as it has occasionally declared some Act which has been in force for some time in a particular State to be contrary to the Constitution. The only Supreme Court in our case would be Parliament, which would determine whether the Local Bodies had gone beyond their powers I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing this question again before the House, and giving an opportunity for its discussion. I think opinion is moving in favour of the Federal system, and that it is the only system by which we can keep together this great and mighty Empire, and bring to pass the state of things foreshowed by the Poet Laureate—
  "—the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furled.
  In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
  There the common sense of most shall hold a fretiul realm in awe,
  And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, in order to increase the efficiency of the Imperial Parliament to deal with Imperial affairs and in order to give speedier and fuller effect to the special

  449
  desires and wants of the respective nationalities constituting the United Kingdom, it is desirable to devolve upon the representatives of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales respectively the management and control of their domestic affairs,"—(Dr. Clark,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend has referred in his speech more particularly to Ireland and Scotland; he has not made many references to Wales, and, indeed he was not very happy in those he has made—thereby it seems to me adding an argument to the many he has used in favour of the principle of the Amendment. The Principality is the smallest of the nationalities mentioned in the Resolution, but I do not think it is the least interesting, and I do not think it is less capable of self-government than England, Scotland, or Ireland. Whatever will tend to increase the efficiency and vigour of Parliament ought to commend itself to every Member of this House. There seems to be a consensus of opinion that the Parliamentary machine is clogged with the arrears of legislation we have to deal with. There are many small questions coming before this House which ought not to come before it all. It is not a dignified thing for an Imperial Parliament to have to trouble itself with small questions similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend. The second part of the Amendment deals with the principle of devolution. I do not see any danger at all in that principle, and I venture to join my hon. Friend in the appeal he has made that the discussion should not be carried on in a Party spirit, but with the object of seeing what can be done to increase the efficiency of this House by devolving upon the different nationalities the management of their own affairs. There has been a great access of national feeling in Wales during the last few years. I think everyone will admit that the comparatively greater attention paid to Welsh matters in this House is due
  450
  to the fact that there has been an increase in the strength of the feeling of Welsh nationality. Up to a short time ago it would have been quite unnecessary and superfluous to argue the question that the Welsh had a separate nationality; but the Welsh oracle of the Government, the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), said the other night that the Welsh people were not a nation at all, that we had no right to say we had any national feeling, and that we were only a small and obscure population pursuing a pseudonational chimera. I fear it would not be in accordance with Parliamentary usage to describe the right hon. Gentleman a "malignant censurer," but that is what other traducers of our nation were called in Henry VIII.'s time. I was interested the other day with the Petition of the Welsh people to Henry VIII., in whom the Welsh people took some interest because he had Welsh blood in his veins. They said—
  "So that we crave pardon, Sir, if we say it was fit for the honour of your dominions, that some part of it should never be conquered.… To your Highness, therefore, we offer all obedience, desiring only that we may be defended against the insults of our malignant censurers. For we are not the offspring of the runaway Britains (as they term us), but natives of a country, which, besides defending itself, received all those who came to us for succour.… As for our language, though it stems harsh, it is that yet which was spoken anciently, not only in this island, but in France. Some dialects whereof remain still amongst the Bas-Bretons there, and here in Cornwall. Nor shall it be a disparagement (we hope) that it is spoken so much in the throat, since the Florentine and Spaniard affect this kind of pronounciation, as believing words that sound so deep proceed from the heart.… We doubt not, but as in all countries the mountains have afforded as eminent wits and spirits as any other part, so ours, also, by your Highness's good favour and employment may receive that esteem."
  That may be said to be somewhat an ancient authority, but there is one authority which may be regarded as the highest by the Postmaster General. Lord Salisbury, the head of Her Majesty's Government, speaking at Carnarvon in 1888, and speaking as the head of Her Majesty's Government, used these very striking words—
  "If ever there was a people who were a separate nationality, it is the Welsh. They

  451
  are a people of very ancient extraction, they have their own language. They have up to a certain point a separate history: and yet there is no people, I believe, who are more firmly convinced that their own political, commercial, and industrial, security depends upon their close political union with the larger country by whose side they live."
  Although the Postmaster General has a summer house in Wales, I think that on this matter the Prime Minister is a better authority than the Postmaster General; and, therefore, as Wales is one of the nationalities, the question arises whether the claims and interests of the Principality, and her separate desires and aspirations, have been sufficiently attended to by the Imperial Parliament. I should like to call attention to the words used the other day by the greatest authority on all sides of the House as to the way in which the business of the House has been conducted for a great many years past. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, on Tuesday evening, spoke as follows with regard to the Principality:—
  "And, as to Wales, what attention was ever given to any Welsh question or interest in this House by this mass of English Representatives until within the last five or six years?"
  He also said—
  "In Welsh, Irish, and Scotch questions—in matters where they are entitled to decide for themselves—the other partners are borne down, overruled, and cast out of the precincts of this House by the enormous preponderance of the English vote."
  That is absolutely and strictly true, if I may venture to say so, and we had an illustration of it only a few days ago. I have taken the trouble to analyze the vote on the majority side upon the Motion for Disestablishing the English Church in Wales, and I find—and this will show how Welsh opinion is weighed down by the opinion of English Representatives—that out of 235 Members there were only 2 Welsh Members who voted in that majority; 12 Irish Members were to be found in it, 15 Scotch Members, a good number of them being Unionists, and 206 English Members, If I may be allowed to put it the other way, of the Welsh Members you
  452
  had only 1 out of 14 voting against the disestablishment of the Church; of the Irish Members you had 1 out of 8, of the Scotch Members you had 1 out of 5, and of English Members you had 1 out of every 2 voting against it. That shows the consideration given to Welsh desires in this House. It is an attention which we would rather not have, which does away with the effect our voices ought to have in Parliament in regard to our domestic legislation. Another circumstance illustrating the neglect of Welsh interests in the House occurred during the last Session, when the Welsh Members, after repeated appeals and great effort, and although the Motion for a Committee was kept standing on the Order Book of the House for weeks, were refused the request that the Financial Relations Committee should inquire whether the Principality was or was not unnecessarily oppressed by an unfair incidence of taxation. This is not the time for discussing that question, but it could easily be proved that Wales is suffering from considerable injustice in this respect. I simply mention the matter to illustrate my point, that we do not have the attention paid to exclusively Welsh affairs in this House that we ought to have. It may be asked by the Government or by our opponents what plan we have for applying and carrying out the principle we advocate. My hon. Friend did not produce a plan. I do not know that it is necessary to lay down a plan in dealing with an abstract principle of this kind. The principle involved is clear enough, and if the House agrees to it, it is for the Government of the day, who have all the necessary materials at hand, to find out a way to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend said that we do not want self-government so much in Wales as they do in Scotland, or as they do in Ireland. But in regard to this matter, it does not seem to me to be necessary to give identical powers to every part of the United Kingdom. So long as Wales has an assembly to govern her own affairs, it will matter very little whether it is called a Parliament, a National Council, or anything else. We are not at all wedded to the Norman name "Parliament." Wales, as far back as the time of Henry VIII.,

  453
  had a National Council of her own, which was abolished in the reign of William and Mary; and I may point out that there is already a kernel for such a Council in the provisions of the Local Government Act recently passed, for by the 81st section of that Act it is provided that the County Councils of several counties may combine together for one purpose. They may so combine, but there is no reason why they should until you increase the powers of the body. There is no reason why that Act might not be so enlarged as to enable the people to deal with their own local affairs to a very extended degree. But what do we propose? There is the matter of Private Bill legislation. The Government have already prepared a plan for dealing locally with Scotch Private Bill legislation; why should they not apply the same principle to Wales? I see there are now 183 Private Bills on the Orders of the House, and 16 of them are Welsh. The proportion of the Welsh Representatives in the House is 1 out of 24; but the number of Welsh Private Bills is 1 out of 12, all of them relating to local matters, which could be much better dealt with, and at much less expense and inconvenience, in Wales than in this House. On inquiry the other day, I ascertained that for one of the public undertakings in South Wales the immense sum of £88,388 0s. 4d. has been spent in getting Acts of Parliament up to December last. Then there is the question of administration, and in this work the English people have not been very happy; they have made many errors, and none greater than in the policy of repressing the Welsh language. By the 27th of Henry VIII., Act 26, after enacting that all Courts should be held, and all evidence given, in the English tongue, it was provided by Section 2:—
  "And also that from henceforth no person or persons that use the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner office or fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's dominion, upon pain of forfeiting the same offices or fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English speech or language."
  It may be said that that is an old enactment, but it is now in force, and, moreover, it is the keynote of the
  454
  administration of affairs by the English Government in Wales. ["No, no!"] Oh! but it is. I did not intend to pursue that matter closely, but I could give instances to prove my contention. By this policy you have destroyed your Church in Wales. You have always appointed English Bishops there until the last few years. You do not do so now, perhaps, because of the strong national feeling that has arisen; but I say that administration in this spirit has practically destroyed the influence of your Church in the Principality. I doubt if there is more than one Lord Lieutenant in any county in Wales who understands the Welsh language. They are all, I am afraid, members of the Tory class, save one, who has become degraded from Liberalism to Liberal Unionism. Nearly all the Justices are English-speaking people, and, speaking broadly, most offices in the Principality are filled in that way. Next as to domestic legislation. There are already instances of separate domestic legislation for Wales in the matters of Sunday closing and intermediate education. But if Wales had had an Assembly of its own it would have settled those questions, including the subject of higher education, much more satisfactorily than at present. The Welsh people are nothing if not educational. They are great lovers of education. There is a strong feeling among the people that there ought to be a degree-conferring University in the Principality, and those especially are matters which the Welsh people wish to settle, and could well settle, for themselves. Again, take the question of burials, and the Act passed through the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan). At present that Act is worthless. We have endeavoured to amend it, but have found it impossible to do so. Without going into details many domestic questions of a local or

  455
  national character might be dealt with much more satisfactorily by an Assembly of our own than in this Parliament. As to public works, some friends of mine think that important works in the Principality ought not to be decided upon by a local tribunal; but however that may be, I think that many of the public works that are dealt with in Private Bill Committees might be dealt with in the Principality. It may be asked whether Wales is capable of wise self-government. Well, I do not want to flatter the Welsh, but I think Wales is quite as capable of governing itself as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, both of which have separate legislative powers. The latter has gone in advance of England by extending the suffrage to women. It is an interesting fact that the oldest code of laws existing in a living language is a code prepared by the Welshman, Howell the Good. These laws were changed at the time of the Union in the reign of Henry VIII. You improved these laws in some particulars, but in others you did not. For instance, under the law of Howell the Good we had no primogeniture. Land in the Principality, according to the old Welsh laws, descended equally upon all the children of the family, and I think it was not an improvement to do away with that law. If you had had the same law in England, and had allowed us to retain ours, we should not be suffering now from the evils of the feudal system. But if we are capable of self-government, are we fit to be entrusted with it? An argument used against giving self-government to Ireland is this: "You are a parcel of people unfit to be entrusted with Government; we are afraid to entrust the interests of the Irish people into the hands of the class who would be in power in Ireland if the Home Rule Bill were carried." Can that be said of Wales? No one can say that the Welsh are a criminal people, or disloyal, or anything of that kind. Mr. Justice Wright, on the North Wales Circuit the other day, said he had gone through three counties and had only had four prisoners to try. Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, who is going the South Wales Circuit, has had white gloves presented to him in three counties and in two county boroughs.
  456
  If we are capable of governing ourselves, then we ought to be entrusted with self-government. Experience shows in all quarters of the globe that the more people are entrusted with responsible self-Government the more they prove equal to the demands made upon them. By granting Home Rule to the Welsh people you would not be weakening the Empire. The Welsh people are proud of belonging to the great British Empire. Our loyalty would not be weakened, but our attachment would be strengthened; and assuredly, the day will be a happy one for the great British Empire when we shall have a domestic Legislature for each of the four Nationalities which constitute the United Kingdom. (8.2.)
  MR. SOMERVELL: It appears to me that the sting of the Motion now before the House is in its tail. There has been some discussion as to who is responsible for the alteration from its original form, but I think I can trace in it the hand of the hon. Member for Hanley. The Motion says—
  "It is desirable to devolve upon the Representatives of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales respectively the management and control of their domestic affairs."
  Well, Sir, since the day our first Mother, with the assistance of the Serpent, got the better of Adam that has been the problem which has puzzled mankind, and if Parliamentary Representatives are only to be elected because they undertake to manage and control their domestic affairs, I fear that not many men will be found to possess the qualification, and that the restriction as to sin will have to be abolished. Passing from the amended and expurgated edition to the original Motion, I find—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at thirty-five minutes after Eight o'clock till Monday next.

THE SCOTCH RAILWAY STRIKE.
*EARL WEMYSS, in rising
"To call attention to the strike of railway servants in Scotland, and to the system of picketing, and the outrages by which it was accompanied; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would take such measures as would in all future strikes ensure due protection to Unionists willing to work and to non-Union workmen,"
said: My Lords, although I imagine that few of your Lordships will assent to the dictum of Sir William Harcourt "that we are all Socialists now," I apprehend we must all agree that home politics in the main tarn upon social questions in which the working man is the prominent figure. I mean the working man as generally understood, though I think there are many of your Lordships who may lay claim to the denomination, who work overtime, and are as hard worked as any of Her Majesty's subjects. This question which I venture to bring before your Lordships is one, I think, of great national importance. It is easy to understand why social questions occupy the strong position they do. The other day a Member of the other House, whom I have not seen for some years, met me in the street, and we got discussing this subject. My friend said, "The fact is, the working man now takes a greater interest in politics than he did." My answer was, "Pardon me. I think it is the politician who takes a greater interest in the workman since he has had a vote." This is nowhere more strikingly exemplified than in the railway strike, to which I am calling attention, for politicians of every kind—Home Rulers, Disestablishers, politicians lay and clerical—have rushed wildly into the fray and expressed their sympathy in words and something more substantial with those who were on strike. Let me show the sort of language which has been used with reference to the strike by politicians. Let me take a distinguished friend of mine, an ex-Minister and an ex-Governor-General of India (the Marquess of Ripon). He writes to the Glasgow Committee sending a subscription of £25, and he
346
says that the position taken up by the Directors—mark the word "position," it is not what the Railway Directors have done as regards overtime, or long hours, or anything of that kind, but that the position taken up by the Directors of the North British Railway, and of the other railway lines in Scotland with reference to this strike—is unjustifiable and universally condemned. I think my noble Friend ought to be very much obliged to me for giving him an opportunity of explaining publicly to the House in what respect the position taken up by those Directors was unjustifiable. As to the statement that the action and position of the Directors was unjustifiable, I leave him to settle that with the Chairman of the North British Railway (the Marquess of Tweeddale), whose action is impugned. Then you have Members of Parliament. Take one of them, Mr. Cunninghame Graham. This is the language he held to these poor men on strike, who were suffering many privations. Mr. Graham pointed to the Clerkenwell explosion, and the legislation which followed the agitation among the Highland crofters, and then he said—"I do not wish such things to happen in connection with the railway strike as occurred at Clerkenwell and in the West Highlands." What is this but the old philanthropic advice—"Mind you do not nail his ears to the pump." Then you have Mr. Munro Ferguson, who warns the railway servants to be slow in entering into a fight, but, having entered, to fight it out—mark the words—"with whatever weapons come to hand." Was it surprising the men should have been stimulated to action by such advice? I shall presently have to call attention to the outrages which have taken place, and though, of course, we cannot actually trace them to those words, it is not unnatural that the men should have been urged on by such language as that. One of the great points in the Scottish strike was the breach of contract. And yet you have one of the many clerics who rushed into the fray justifying the breach of contract by saying that "Matthew, when keeping his accounts and making up his books on the Sea of Galilee, when called on broke his contract." That is the sort of rubbish that has been talked during the course of this

347
strike. Now, let us see what was the nature of the strike. I certainly have hearty sympathy with the men who thought that they were over-worked and had to work those long hours. No doubt the safety of the travelling public is more or less dependent upon the hours which these men work, and doubtless much of the' sympathy of the public was due to the question of their own safety. The railway servants complained of their long hours. They wanted a ten-hours day, with overtime. The Executive of the Union did not wish the men to strike until they had all sent in their notices, as they were serving under contracts from one week to a month; but the men took the bit in their mouths, and struck on the 24th December, at a time of the year when a railway strike would cause the greatest inconvenience and would be felt in every home. It was hoped by their striking without notice, and without completing their contracts, that the whole public would be brought to their knees, and that trade, industry, and commerce—everything—would be paralysed. The result of the strike was the loss of something like £1,000,000 sterling to Scotland in trade, manufacture, and commerce, and the railway it is said lost £200,000 or £300,000. So much for the action of the railway servants. What was the position taken up by the Directors—the position which my noble Friend the Marquess of Ripon considers to be unjustifiable? They were ready throughout to meet and to discuss the grievances of the men, and mind I do not speak as a Railway Director, I speak as one of the public. They were ready from first to last to meet the men and discuss the grievances of which they complained, and they had, in fact, settled grievances in some of the branches of railway work; but on principle they objected to professional outsiders taking par in the discussion, as my noble Friend himself I am sure would do in the case of any dispute with his own gamekeepers or workmen. And they insisted on the men who had broken their contracts returning to work. But the men refused to meet the Directors on this footing until the 29th January, when they accepted the terms offered them by the Railway Directors, that is to say, they were prepared to discuss the matter on the
348
terms which had been refused at the commencement of the strike. So far the strike has happily ended. But I want to call your Lordships' attention to what were the accompaniments of the strike. There were outrages, picketing, and what I may call a state of siege on the part of the railway servants. On the North British Railway there were 16 cases of intimidation, 25 cases of outrages on the person, 12 cases of outrages on property, and 16 cases of outrages on public safety. I have them all here, but I do not desire needlessly to trouble your Lordships with all the details. Here are some of the cases of outrage. William Oliver, engine-driver; James Lightbody, fireman; Robert Allison, conductor of North British passenger train from Hawick, molested on arrival at Newcastle by servants of the North Eastern Company, who shouted and threw coal and slag at them, and otherwise annoyed them. On January 11 Robert Anderson, signalman, and John Denholm, pilot guard, both loyal servants at Sighthill, attacked by Thomas M'Killop, Caledonian engine-driver on strike, who was apprehended. On January 15th Alexander Bowman, loyal engine-driver, knocked down and severely injured when crossing the Links at Burntisland on his way from work to his house by William Millar, coal trimmer at Burntisland Dock, and two men unknown. On the same date, January 15th, David Marshall, loyal engine-driver, molested by a crowd of men, women, and children when on his way to St. Margaret's Locomotive Works, Edinburgh; they followed him from his house to the works gates, hooting, pushing, and jostling him, and were accompanied by a piper. On January 17th, other cases occurred. George Mitchell, loyal engine-driver, struck by stone and collar-bone broken. This was a remarkable case, because notwithstanding this man had his collarbone broken, when passing Cadder Bridge, near Bishopbriggs, with an express passenger train at 50 miles an hour, he brought it safe into the station. But I might go on multiplying examples. Of outrages on property there were 12. I need not trouble your Lordships with them, but they were all in the same direction. Sixteen of the cases I have got on the North British Railway were

349
outrages on the public safety. This is the sort of thing that was done. I mention these cases because they affect the whole travelling public, not merely the servants of the Railway Companies. On December 31st pieces of slag were placed between the switches and points at one of the junctions—culprit not discovered. On January 21st two spraggs were placed on the line; January 22nd points tampered with, engine turned on to other line and collided with another—culprit not discovered; on another occasion a railway chair was placed on the line and caused obstruction—culprit not discovered; again on January 16th a large rock which required several men to move was placed on the Highland line. Thus your Lordships see the safety of the travelling public was endangered in every direction, and there was besides what I have mentioned a good deal of stone-throwing. As regards the question of picketing, there were 32 cases of picketing, and it was only by the system of picketing that the strike was maintained. Here is a case of a man who states that the picket entered his signal box and so threatened him, he being the signalman, that he had, for fear of personal violence, to leave his post. In another case a door was forced and three panes of glass were broken by a band of pickets. On January 4th a loyal signalman was molested at his house. At the principal locomotive depôts, and other centres, large picketing parties assembled both by day and night, and did their best to intercept and prevent men getting to their work and to persuade others at work to leave. No violence was openly used, although there were many instances of loyal men being attacked outside and annoyed at their homes. The wives and children of the men on strike also caused great annoyance by hooting and jeering and stone throwing. That was the state of things which existed during this strike. Now, what is the state of the law with reference to Trades Unions and combinations of workmen? Before the Royal Commission which was appointed to consider these questions in 1868 there had been more than 30 and 40 Acts passed at different times. That Commission, in considering this question, sat for two years, and they came to the conclusion that it was
350
desirable that the laws with regard to combinations in restraint of trade should be altered and repealed. The result was an alteration of the law. At the same time the Commission, while recommending that the combination of workmen should no longer be considered to be in restraint of trade, expressed itself in the strongest possible way against the abuses of picketing and interference with the workman who declined to join these combinations. The whole law on this question of the right of picketing, and the right of a man to the free exercise of his liberty, was laid down by my noble and learned Friend Lord Bram well before that Commission sat in the famous cases arising out of the Tailor's Strike in London. The charge of the noble and learned Lord to the jury, and the sentence, are appended to the Report of the Commission in a footnote. That Commission sat in 1868 and 1869. This is what the noble and learned Lord says in his charge, and I think these are words which ought to guide us in all our dealings with this most vital question. He says—
"The liberty of a man's mind and will to say how he should bestow himself and his means, his talents and his industry, was as much a subject of the law's protection as was that of his body. Generally speaking, the way in which people had endeavoured to control the operation of the minds of men was by putting restraints on their bodies, and therefore we had not so many instances in which the liberty of the mind was vindicated as was that of the body. Still, if any set of men agreed among themselves to coerce that liberty of mind and thought by compulsion and restraint, they would be guilty of a criminal offence, namely, that of conspiring against the liberty of mind and freedom of will of those towards whom they so conducted themselves."
Then he goes on to say what the state of the law was, and he ends with reference to picketing that he was of opinion that—
"If picketing should be done in a way which excited no reasonable alarm, or did not coerce or annoy those who were the subjects of it, it would be no offence in law. It was perfectly lawful to endeavour to persuade persons who had not hitherto acted with them to do so, provided that persuasion did not take the shape of compulsion or coercion."
Now, the action of the pickets which I have referred to was more or less coercive; there were outrages upon property, there were outrages upon the person, and there was intimidation. It appears to me that a state of things of that kind should not

351
be allowed to continue. If the law is sufficient, let the law be administered uniformly and firmly. The Royal Commission which sat in 1868 and 1869 accompanied their recommendations, as I have said, with the strongest possible expression of opinion that the abuses of picketing should be uniformly and carefully repressed. My belief is that you cannot have picketing without abuses such as those to which I have referred. You talk about moral suasion; but the fact of the matter is that picketing represents the power of the Union that is at its back—the coercive will of those men by whom it is directed. What I think is: that if the law is sufficient, it ought to be enforced. If it is not, in that case it ought to be strengthened. All the more should it be strengthened in the cause of liberty, because you have to deal now, in the case of the Unions, with a new spirit which has risen up—the spirit of what is called the New Unionism. With the old Unionism of the time of the Com mission a strike was a last resort. They endeavoured to get what they wanted in the interests of the workmen without having recourse to a strike, which, in nine cases out of 10, is accompanied with great misery, great loss, and very bad feeling. They were anxious to get what benefits they could for the working men without having recourse to this ultima ratio. Mr. Macdonald, who subsequently became Member for Stafford, and of whom I used to see a great deal at that time—I am talking of 22 or 23 years ago—explained how Trade Unions, which were, besides, benefit societies, were for the general good and improvement of the working classes; and how it was through their influence that we have the Factory Acts and the Masters and Servants Act. He also referred to many other Acts passed for the benefit of workmen by Parliaments, which at that time were supposed to be capitalist Parliaments, and we had evidence given by Mr. Macdonald to the effect that the Parliament of the day, both Commons and Lords, was ever ready to lend a willing ear to any complaint on the part of the workmen, and to remedy any evil which they suffered from, which appeared to be a genuine evil, and required a remedy. That was the character of the old
352
Unions. But the new Unions are of a totally different character. So far from discouraging strife, the new Unionism fosters strife; the new Unionism is more of a political organisation than an organisation like the old Unions for the improvement of the condition of the working man. The new Unions foster strikes. They are, as it were, a Labour Land League, or rather I may put it better by saying they are a Labour League on the principle of the Land League. As the Land League was instituted to make war on the landlords, so this new Unionism under its leaders endeavours to make war on capitalists, the object being to get all the instruments of production into the hands of a labour-governed State. Therefore, I hope no approval will be given to anything like this new Unionism, and that the Government will resist it, for I believe that liberty in this country is as dear to the working man as to any other member of the community. I do not know what the proportion now of men not in the Union is to men in the Union, but I know at the time to which I refer—I am talking of 22 years ago, when the Royal Commission upon the question sat—it was 17 men out of the Union to one man in the Union. But I hold this is not a question of numbers. It is a question of principle—and if there is one man who objects to join the union the whole power of the State and of the Empire ought to be brought to bear for the protection of that man regardless of what the majority may be on the other side. If that man is not free, as my noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) said, to dispose of his labour and whatever he has wherewith to gain his livelihood to the best of his knowledge and ability, supposing he does no harm to anybody else in so doing, he is entitled to the protection of the State, even though he may; be alone. And unless this be so, we are no longer a free people. This question is at present, as we know, a very grave one. I am inclined to think that the present law, if properly administered, (is sufficient, and I am strengthened in that view by a pamphlet which has been written by the Professor of Political Economy at Glasgow (Mr. Mavor) on the Scottish strike. He thus describes the present law—

353
"7. Penalty for intimidation or annoyanc, by violence or otherwise: Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—(1) Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children or injures his property; or (2), persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or (3), hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or (4), watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or (5), follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road; shall on conviction thereof by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction (in Scotland the Sheriff of the county or any one of his substitutes), or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besotting within the meaning of this section."
In the recent strike there can be no doubt whatever that the law was contravened by the picketing which occurred. A state of siege was established. The loyal servants of the North British Railway Company had to be housed and fed within the property of the Company. At Cowlairs there were 180 beds and food was supplied to 270 men; at the Haymarket, in Edinburgh, there were 20 beds, and food was supplied to 90 men; at Kipps there were 24 housed and 48 boarded; at St. Margaret's 140 men were housed, and 230 boarded; at Dundee there were 80 men housed and 54 boarded. In speaking of Dundee, I should explain that in the early part of the strike nearly one-half of the railway employés would have been willing to accept the terms of the company had they been permitted to do so, bat they were not allowed to come in. Lodgings were also provided outside the company's premises for a number of men at Kelso, Hawick, and other places. At Cowlairs the company employed cooks and provided provisions. I believe the purveying was generally done by hotel-keepers and restaurateurs. It was simply a state of siege. All those servants were simply sticking to their duty
354
and endeavouring to fulfil their contracts. They were free men, and were entitled to protection. The other servants who had broken their contracts swarmed outside the railway property, insulting and injuring the loyal men. Such a state of things is disgraceful, and it never was intended by the Legislature that it should exist; and if the law is not sufficient it ought, as I have said, to be amended and strengthened. I have spoken about the old Unionism and about the new Unionism, and I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships very cursorily the state of things which now exists; and if your Lordships would allow me to say a few words more I should wish now to explain my position, for I am anxious that my motives should not be misinterpreted or impugned. I should be sorry if it went out that in taking up the cause of free labour against this tyrannical exercise of power I am hostile to Unionism. Far from it. I should be sorry if it were thought that I am in any way unfriendly to the person who is commonly called the working man. I think I have already given substantial proof to the contrary. I was intimately associated with Mr. Macdonald in making that alteration in the law of 1857 which put master and servant upon a fair footing, and I have served on the Trade Union Commission for two years. Previously to the passing of that Act masters could only be dealt with in disputes with workmen for breach of contract civilly, while the workmen were liable to be taken into custody on a criminal charge, handcuffed and sent to prison. As I have said, I got the Bill through the House of Commons, which put the master and servant on a fair and equal footing. Both are now treated on an equality, and the question of imprisonment can only arise where fines are not paid, as would happen in any other case. Upon the Trades Union Commission I was most heartily in favour of doing away with the prohibition against combinations of the men as being in restraint of trade. All along, however, I have felt that anything which interfered with a man's freedom or will and action to bestow his labour as he chose, ought to be, as the Royal Commission recommended, uniformly and carefully suppressed. We have now a new Royal Commission in prospect. We

355
do not yet know the terms of the reference; but I hope whatever they may be that the Commission will find what is so much wanted—namely, a modus vivendi between capital and labour. I doubt very much whether this Commission will be able to collect any information or come to any conclusion very different from the Commission of 1868 and 1869. That Commission had its origin in the Sheffield and Manchester outrages. It recommended the relaxation of the law coupled with the suppression of the abuses of picketing, and it went into the different suggestions which were in vogue at that time for establishing a modus vivendi between labour and capital. It went into the questions of profit-sharing, arbitration, conseils de prudence as in France, and conciliation. The conclusion to which the Commission came was that not in co-operation or arbitration or in the French system was the remedy to be found, but in conciliation. The last paragraph of the Report, and I am thankful to say that I was the means of introducing that last paragraph into the Report, ran thus: I will venture to read it to your Lordships because what I believed was true then I believe to be true now, and I shall be disappointed if we do not find that this Commission when it concludes its labours comes very much to the same conclusion and endorses the views of its predecessor of 23 years ago. This is the conclusion of Sir William Earl's Report:
"The establishment of Boards of Conciliation such as those brought before us in evidence by Mr. Mundella and Mr. Hollins seems to offer a remedy at once speedy, safe, and simple. These Boards require no complicated machinery, no novel division of profits, no new mode of conducting business; they need no Act of Parliament, no legal powers or penalties. All that is needed is that certain representative employers and workmen should meet at regular stated times for 'table talk' and amicable discussion around the table of the common interests of their common trade or business. There is not a trade or business in the United Kingdom in which this system might not at once be adopted, and we see no reason why in every case results should not follow from the establishment of Boards of Conciliation as satisfactory as those at Nottingham and in the potteries, to which we have before referred. If this Commission were to have no other result than to be the means of drawing attention to this simple, speedy, practical way, not so much of settling as of anticipating and preventing disputes between masters and workmen, and of establishing lasting friendly relations between capital
356
and labour, we believe our time will not have been misspent, and that good will come of our inquiry."
That, I believe, was founded upon this fact, that a Committee was brought together in Edinburgh in 1867 of eight representatives of the coal industry, owners, lessees, and here are the Resolutions that they passed—
"(1) That a Board be formed to promote friendly intercommunication in the iron and coal trades; (2) that the object of said Board shall be to consider and determine the rate of wages and all questions affecting the iron and coal trade between employers and employed, and to secure a salutary means of preventing disputes; (3) the Board shall consist of employers and employed, to be elected by district meeting, and shall deal with matters between employers and employed, and by conciliation put an end to disputes."
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think the word "employed," which is used there, is a much better word than "employé," which has got into use. I forget the circumstances now, I do not remember at this moment why nothing came of that, but I imagine it was in a great measure owing to the fact that some of the large coal owners did not at the time come into it. It is a long time—24 years ago. But, as in 1867, I venture to think that a Conciliation Board, meeting round the table in the way suggested, is the real solution of the labour problem, and I hope my noble Friend (the Marquess of Tweeddale) will say something on this subject before the close of the Debate. I believe he has since the strike met the employed of the North British Railway Company round a table, and I hope they will be able to come to a satisfactory solution of the question which led to the strike. I do not know what the objects and duties of this new Royal Commission will be, but I hope and trust they will consider amongst other things the state of the law as it at present exists, whether it is sufficient or insufficient for the protection of those who decline to join Unions and who are willing to work when there is a strike, or of Unionists who do not desire to come out on strike. I hope the Royal Commission will inquire into this subject. At any rate, as regards myself, it will be a satisfaction though what remains to me of life to feel upon this vital question of capital and labour that I have, by the favour of your Lordships' kindness, availed myself of an oppor-

357
tunity of putting in, not as against Trades Unions, but in the interests of all labour, a plea for liberty.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, to the abstract proposition in the elaboration of which my noble Friend has taken up some little time, namely, that every man should have the right to make the best bargain he can for his labour which is his own property, and should be protected in the enjoyment of that property as he is protected in the enjoyment of all other legal rights, I do not suppose any of your Lordships will have any objection to make. That, I think, is a proposition which nobody will traverse. But the noble Lord goes a great deal further than that, and by his question assumes that the proper protection has not been given to those whom he terms the "loyal" workmen employed upon these Scotch railways. I submit that my noble Friend has not substantiated that proposition. He read out a certain list of cases of what he called "outrages" which have been committed, but although I listened very attentively to what my noble Friend said I could not discover that in any of the cases he showed any proof whatever that those outrages were caused by the men on strike.
EARL WEMYSS: Oh, yes; I mentioned several specially which had been committed by men on strike.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My memory no doubt is deceptive, but I do not remember them.
EARL WEMYSS: I will give you the list.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: In my opinion, the worst case which my noble Friend mentioned was that of the engine-driver who was accompanied home by a crowd, who shouted at him, and were preceded by a man playing on the bagpipes. If that engine-driver had been a free-labourer imported from England I could imagine that the procession headed by a bag-piper might have had an intimidating effect upon him; but if he was an engine-driver who had been previously in the employment of one of these Scotch railways and was a native "to the manner born," I scarcely think an incident of that kind deserves to be placed in the category of intimidation and outrage. The noble Lord also refrained from giving your Lordships
358
any information as to how many of these cases had been brought before a Court of Law, and how many convictions had been obtained, or in how many cases the defendants had been discharged. I venture to think that if statistics were forthcoming upon those points your Lordships would find that the number of cases in which it was claimed that persons had been injured or intimidated, which were brought before the Courts of Law were very few, and that in a large proportion of those cases the defendants were discharged. But I do not wish to go at any great length into that point, and I would only say that I, for one, strongly object upon such evidence as has been produced before your Lordships' House to asking Her Majesty's Government to do what my noble Friend suggests; that is to say, to take such measures as will in all future strikes ensure due protection to workmen. That is tantamount to saying that in the present strike Her Majesty's Government have been remiss and that due protection was not accorded to those persons. Does my noble Friend mean to say there was not sufficient police protection? If so, did the proper parties apply that the soldiers should be called out—that the military forces of the Crown should intervene in the disputes? If not, I fail to see what reasonable ground of complaint there is. As a matter of fact, having read the newspapers very closely during the whole period of these strikes, although I have no facts or figures or statistics to lay before your Lordships' House, my belief is that the force of police was certainly, in the great majority of cases, amply sufficient to afford protection. Undoubtedly there was a certain amount of intimidation in certain cases. I remember cases where the wives of the men who were unemployed threw stones, and there can be no doubt that in some cases intimidation was used. But in view of the enormous magnitude of the considerations, in view of the large number of men on strike, I submit that the amount of intimidation practised was very small, and I further say that the police protection was, as a general rule, sufficient. As far as can be judged from the speech of my noble Friend, there is no reason for assuming that ample protection was not given in those cases, and,

359
therefore, there is no ground for the question which my noble Friend asks Her Majesty's Government. Now, I would like to make a few remarks upon two points which were raised by my noble Friend. He has stated that the Railway Directors were in all cases ready to hear complaints. The complaints of these men were, if I remember rightly, of three kinds, and mainly complaints as to long hours. I do not think my noble Friend or any Member of this House will deny that, as far as we can tell from the evidence which was made public, the hours worked on some of these railways were inordinately long; and the fact that a Commission has been granted by Government in the other House to inquire into that question may be taken as substantiating the fact. Another ground of complaint was that grievances would only be heard on the part of individual persons employed through the head of the particular grade or department to which he belonged. Tour Lordships must understand that, rightly or wrongly, working men seriously believe that they endanger their future prospects by making complaints. They consider that in being compelled to make their complaints, not to the Directors or even to the General Manager, which they cannot do, but to the subordinate officials, they become marked men; that they are marked out for future vengeance, and that they are likely to lose their employment and means of livelihood. What the men desired was that they might be heard through persons who were not directly interested or in the employment of the companies—I might almost say that they might be heard by counsel; and, considering all the circumstances of the case, I confess that appears to me to be not an unreasonable proposition. These complaints were formulated over and over again for, I think, a period of two or three years, but no action was taken in the matter and no relief was afforded. Then my noble Friend commented very severely upon what he calls New Unionism. I do not pretend to know what is the exact difference between New Unionism and Old Unionism, but my noble Friend said the object of the New Unionism is this: that they are political organisations, and their object is to foment strikes. Now, I think that
360
is a hard thing to say. I am not here to defend Unionism of any kind——
EARL WEMYSS: I said on the part of leaders.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: But in view of the facts that the strikes to which my noble Friend alluded were rushed by the men, and were entered upon in direct opposition to the advice of the leaders, I think it is rather hard to say that the object of the leaders is to foment strikes. My noble Friend is, I think, perfectly aware that the executive of the Working Men's Association were strongly opposed to the men leaving their work except at the expiration of their notices, and that the strike was, as I say, rushed, and undertaken contrary to the advice and wishes of the executive. It appears to me to be a little hard, under those circumstances, to brand those men with a desire to create and foment strikes. I entirely agree with everything my noble Friend has said as to the hopes we may all entertain in the future that some means may be devised for settling these most serious trade disputes without friction. The amount of money involved in these contests is gigantic; and, what is much more serious than the mere money value, all the industries of the country were for a time paralysed. The strike did not merely affect the railways; it affected the comfort of everybody. It affected mining operations, shipbuilding, ironworks—it affected, in fact, the whole industries of Scotland; and I think that it is little less than a scandal that at the close of the 19th century we have been unable, with all our ingenuity, to devise any means by which differences of opinion of this kind between man and man can be decided except by the rude arbitrament of force. In all that I entirely agree with my noble Friend, and I agree with him in hoping that the time may not be far distant when some means of settlement may be devised. But I do not agree with my noble Friend in what he has said as to the lack of adequate protection in these strikes; and although I am entirely of opinion, as is he, that all due protection ought to be given to every man in the legal exercise of all his rights and privileges, I should be sorry to ask Her Majesty's Government the question which my noble Friend has asked them,

361
as it appears to me that in doing so I should be expressing my opinion that Her Majesty's Government have been remiss in this matter, and that proper protection was not afforded to the people who were not on strike.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion for any length of time, because I have no doubt that while Her Majesty's Government will in all probability say that they desire the existing law to be firmly and duly enforced, I do not anticipate that they will be in the least likely to say they propose to introduce fresh legislation on this subject, or to abandon the policy which was adopted in 1868, for which the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India received such well deserved credit. But as the noble Lord on the Cross Benches has thrown his fly over me, I think it would be scarcely as respectful in me as I desire to be to him if I were to remain silent and not to answer the question he has addressed to me. Before I do so, I desire to say that it seems to me very unjust that my noble Friend should have attempted to throw upon the whole of the men who went out on strike in Scotland upon the occasion referred to the blame for the more serious part of the outrages which he has mentioned. I do not at all believe that those men did give, or would give, any real encouragement to the serious part of the outrages which my noble Friend has described. I do regret exceedingly one portion of his remarks, in which he seemed to bring some charge against Mr. Munro Ferguson, as if he had used words lending encouragement to the violations of the law, which my noble Friend referred to. My noble Friend knows, I am sure, that nothing could have been further from the intention of that gentleman than anything of the kind. With regard to the question which my noble Friend has addressed to me, what I have to say is this: I quite admit that I feel a deep and earnest sympathy with the desire of the railway employés for shorter hours; so does my noble Friend on the Cross Benches himself, as he has said; and so does the whole of the House of Commons, for they have recently passed a Resolution on the subject and appointed a Committee to see how those
362
hours can be shortened. Under those circumstances, it was natural I should take an interest in the strike which was going on in Scotland; but my noble Friend objects to my having said that I thought the position taken up by the Directors of the railways was unjustifiable, and I will explain at once in what respect I thought, and still think, that that position was unjustifiable. Railway Companies seem to me to stand in a somewhat different position from ordinary employers. They have been entrusted by the public with large powers and privileges; they are, to a certain extent, public servants, and have important public duties to perform; and anything which tends to prolong a dispute of this kind, which imposes heavy loss and great inconvenience upon the public, anything which tends to increase that loss and inconvenience unnecessarily, is in my opinion unjustifiable. In two respects especially the Directors of these companies took up a position which cannot, in my opinion, be defended, and which tended to prolong the strike. In the first place, I do not think they were right in refusing to meet the officials of the Trades Union. My noble Friend says he is quite sure that if I had a difficulty with persons in my employ I should certainly refuse to discuss the question in dispute with the officials of any Union. In that he is wrong, for I should in these days certainly not take that course. If there was (which there is not) a Labourers' Union in Yorkshire, and a strike were to take place among the labourers in my employ in connection with that Union, I should think it my wisest course, and I should certainly adopt that course, to go at once to the officials of that Union and deal with them. They would be the men who would have the most influence with the labourers, who might very likely have had a hand in getting up the strike in order to put forward whatever demands they might have to make or to remedy any grievances they might wish redressed, and the wisest course, I am confident, would be to go at once to those officials and enter into communication with them. I think, therefore, that the refusal on the part of the Scotch Railway Directors was wrong, and, under the circumstances, unjustifiable. Then, further, I think

363
myself that the demand which was made by them that the men should return unconditionally to their work after the strike commenced without having the questions in dispute settled, a demand which put an end, as I believe, to the various attempts at conciliation which were made, was wrong. I felt that that demand was one which the Directors had better not have made. The strike having taken place, I think if they desired, in the interest of everybody to bring it to an end, their wisest course would have been to enter into communication with those who were the representatives and had the confidence of the men, with the view of coming to such terms as might upon fair and reasonable grounds bring the strike to a termination as soon as possible. Those were the grounds upon which I gave expression to the opinions to which my noble Friend has alluded. I adhere to those opinions now, and I say specially, in conclusion, that it does appear to me to be most unwise, and if I may be pardoned for saying so, most foolish in any body of employers in these days to attempt to ignore the existence of Trades' Unions. They exist, and will continue to exist. They have conferred great benefits, I believe, upon the community, though they may have made, as all other bodies have made, mistakes from time to time; and I am quite certain that the only wise course for employers in the present day to pursue is to acknowledge the existence of the Unions and to work with them as far as they can.
THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE: My Lords, I should not have thought it necessary to trespass on the time of your Lordships if my name had not been referred to by my noble Friend on my left (Earl Wemyss); and if the noble Lord who has just spoken had not attempted to explain the remarkable expressions which he used in a letter upon the subject, characterising the position taken up by the Directors of the North British Railway in connection with this strike as unjustifiable. I have no right to speak for the other companies; but I may say in respect to them that the attitude which they took up was identical with that assumed by ourselves. I have no desire at any length to occupy the time of the House, and I shall confine myself as far as
364
possible simply to a statement of the position taken up and the circumstances under which it was taken up. It has been the invariable practice of the North British Railway Company, on occasions of complaints being made connected with the service, to receive the representative of the particular grade or department in which the complaint has arisen, and to discuss the complaints, and, if well founded, apply a remedy for them. This practice has been often adopted. In 1883, for instance, the different departments of the Railway Company approached the Directors, and, on that occasion, various concessions were made. Early last year similar approaches were made by one or two of the departments, and concessions were again made; but on that occasion several of the departments refused to approach the Directors in the manner in which they had been accustomed to bring forward complaints, and insisted that they should be received together en masse, headed by the Secretary of the Associated Societies of Railway Servants in Scotland. Now, whether rightly or wrongly, the Directors decided not to receive the men en masse, and not to receive them headed by the Secretary of the Associated Societies of Scotland. Your Lordships will easily understand that decision in respect of the fact that the grievances of the different departments are not the same. The duties are very different. Take, for instance, the grievances of the signalmen. They desired that more of their number should be included in a working day of eight hours, and even less. That was a totally different question from the question raised by engine-drivers, goods guards, and others. It was, therefore, for the advantage of the men, as well as the companies, that the complaints from those grades should be heard by the heads of the different departments without the presence of the Secretary of the Societies of Railway Servants. With regard to the representative of the Associated Societies, I desire, for myself, to say that I have no abstract objection in the least to receive a gentleman who might be regarded as an outsider, who really represents the views of the men, and who may be in a position to bind them to any agreement which might be come to between them and the company.

365
But in this particular instance the Directors had no reason to believe that the individual in question did adequately represent the men. No better evidence of that can be given than the fact that this gentleman, Mr. Tait, was entirely opposed to the strike. He took what may be described as a plébiscite of the men; it resulted unfavourably, and his decision was that there should be no strike. Now, what use would it have been to enter into negotiations with an individual who, in such an important matter as that, was unable to bind the men to an agreement? I think, therefore, the Directors were wholly justified in the attitude they took up with respect to those points. But then it has been said that the action of the men was justified morally, if not legally and technically, by the excessive hours which they had been required to labour. I am not going to dispute the fact that in some instances, not in so many as may be supposed, excessive hours of labour do occur; but that opens up the great question whether, even admitting everything that has been said as to the grievances of the men, the servants of the North British Company were justified in doing what they did and in ignoring and disregarding the agreements they had entered into voluntarily with the company, knowing all the circumstances connected therewith? Are there any circumstances which would justify such a breach of their agreements? I doubt it. If we can judge from what appears in the newspapers, the Army, the Navy, the Civil Services, and a variety of other branches of employment have just as many, and in some cases greater, grievances, but surely nobody would say that would justify either a mutiny or a strike in those employments. Now, I agree with the language which was used by a very important official of the Government in dealing with the Savings Bank clerks. What was the language which he used with regard to his conduct on that occasion? I am quoting now from the speech made by Sir Arthur Blackburn to the Savings Bank clerks a short time ago. He said—
"There may be, no doubt, in the conduct of the affairs of a great Department, and in the discharge of its multifarious duties, occasions for difference of opinion and even for grievances
366
to arise at different times; but there are legitimate ways of adjusting these differences and of remedying these grievances. As, unfortunately, now a very old Civil Servant, I desire to express my opinion, in which I believe you will all concur, that the very last resource which a servant of the State ought to employ is that of refusing to obey orders."
In the case of railway servants I should adopt every word of that language, merely altering the last words and saying that the very last thing a railway-servant should have recourse to is striking without any notice, and committing a breach of his agreement. With regard to these hours of labour, I would venture to point out, and I have a Return here which I think your Lordships will be of opinion justifies what I am about to say, no doubt the hours of labour were excessive. That I will admit, to a certain extent; but what I dispute is that they were anything like of a nature to justify the conduct of the men. I have made an extract of cases in which railway servants have worked more than 12 hours at a time from the last Return submitted to Parliament. I have taken three companies for comparison, and I may say I have not picked them as being in favour of the North British Railway Company—it would be impossible to give them in the cases of all the Railway companies. First, I will take the case of the goods guards on the North Eastern Railway Company: of these there were in March 85 per cent. who were occupied on duty for over 12 hours; on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway there were 96 per cent., on the Great Northern 88 per cent., and on the North British 70 per cent.—that is to say, 26 per cent. lower than the highest in the other Companies, and considerably lower than any of the others. Taking the case of the engine-drivers and firemen on the North Eastern there were 81 per cent., on the Great Northern 86 per cent., and on the North British 70 per cent. In the case of signalmen there were on the North Eastern 8 per cent. who were occupied for over 12 hours; on the Lancashire and Yorkshire 18 per cent., on the Great Northern 9 per cent., and on the North British 5 per cent. That is to say, in March last the North British Company compared favourably with those three companies in respect of the number of hours worked by goods guards, engine-drivers, firemen, and

367
signalmen who were, I may say, the principal men by whom questions were raised in connection with this strike. Now, it has been said that this matter of excessive hours has an important connection with the question of danger to the public. It is a very remarkable fact that if you look at this Return of the summary of circumstances which contributed to accidents in the year 1889, in comparison with the 10 preceding years, you will find that there were 113 accidents in that year, and those are divided by the Board of Trade into 14 classes. You would naturally expect, if you judge from what has been said in respect to the danger incurred through long hours, that a large proportion of these accidents would be shown here to have been due to that cause; but what is the case? Out of 113, seven only come under this class, which is not all comprised of long hours, the different classes being insufficient establishment, long hours, or inexperienced servants. That is to say, out of over 100 cases, seven only are included, and not really the whole of the seven, as due to excessive hours of working. Then your Lordships have heard it stated very often—and as I have not had as good an opportunity of refuting the statement as on this occasion, I will, with your Lordships' permission, take advantage of it—that the North British is one of the greatest sinners, if I may use the expression, in respect of the overtime question. What is the case in respect of danger to travellers? I find from this Return that of the 69 investigated train accidents, the largest number occurred on other railways, and only two were on the North British, with a mileage of over 1,000 miles, and a train mileage of 13,720,000. In respect to immunity from danger to passengers, you find that the North British—and I am sorry the representative of the Railway Department is not here, because he would, I am sure, confirm what I am saying—stands in the very first rank, and that in some respects it is in a higher rank than any other line. I have referred to that circumstance because it is one of the things most prominently put forward, namely, that the strike was justifiable—although not technically—morally, and in reality in the interest of the general public. That makes me regret somewhat the Resolu-
368
tion which was come to in another place the other day, which described the great danger to the public through the system of working overtime, and so forth. The fact is, that it has little or no connection with the subject in the management of railways. Now, I do not dispute that at one period when signalmen were kept a long time on duty, danger might and did occur; but in these days, when safety depends so much upon the appliances in use on railways, I think if gentlemen who take an interest in railway matters would turn their attention to requiring Railway Companies to use more efficient brakes, they would be better occupied than in denouncing the North British Railway or its directors. My Lords, the question really which we had to consider was this: In acceding to, or refusing, the demands of the men in the way in which they were made, we really had to consider whether, as directors appointed by the shareholders who provide the capital with which these railways are made, we in future are to direct the management of our railway ourselves, or whether the management of the railways throughout Scotland was to be handed over to gentlemen in the position of Mr. Tait and Mr. Burns. That was really the issue, and in deciding that we should refuse the demands of the men, made as they were, and that we would only receive them in the manner I have pointed out, I believe we took up a perfectly sound attitude, and one which is perfectly justifiable. To the general question of length of hours and the great questions of capital and labour, it is not my intention to refer now, more especially as a Committee has been appointed to deal with the one and a Commission to inquire into the other. But I must beg to be allowed to express my own humble opinion of these inquiries that very little will be shown by them beyond the fact that labour will always find its best friend in capital, and that however cunningly you may devise your legislation you will do very little in reality to affect the terms upon which capital will employ labour whether in regard to hours or in regard to pay.
*EARL FORTESCUE: I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I offer a few remarks. I must say I was surprised to hear my noble Friend Lord Dunraven answer my noble Friend on

369
my right by saying that he seemed to give no evidence for his statement. I, on the contrary, understood him to say he was quoting documents which had been supplied to him by the North British Railway. As out of the great number of instances of injury to property and of intimidation, and even injury to individuals, he in several instances said that no culprit was identified, we could not expect to receive accounts of trials in those cases; and really when we find cases mentioned of points disarranged and of obstructions placed on the rails, capable of overturning trains, whether those acts were done actually by men on strike or by sympathisers, it seems to me that the sympathies of the traveling public at least ought to be strongly enlisted against strikes carried on—I will not say by such means—but aided by such nefarious practices, or, rather, intended to be aided by such nefarious practices. When we are told of insufficient evidence of injury to individuals, surely the heroic courage and energy of a man who persevered with his work and went on managing his engine, though his collar-bone was broken, must not be forgotten. The man himself, I suppose, knew best whether a stone that was thrown at him had that effect; and surely those other instances of personal injury—I am not speaking now of abuse and insult—are quite reasonably stated by my noble Friend as affording a just argument that in some way or other insufficient protection was given to those who were engaged in the important public service of labouring in different capacities on the railways. And here I must be allowed to say in answer to the noble Marquess who contended that Railway Companies were placed in an altogether exceptional position and that they were bound to see that public danger and inconvenience do not result from strikes which take place among their servants, that surely if there are public obligations upon the Railway Companies, who are the employers there must be in the interest of the public corresponding duties and obligations on the part of their servants. The very important service of the railways was interrupted. We hear it stated that it is established that something like £1,000,000 was lost on account of that strike in Scotland, and this strike took
370
place (this has always struck me as a very important feature in regard to this case) on the part of men who deliberately broke their contracts to go on strike. Well, the Railway Companies can hardly do more than make contracts with persons, not permanent contracts, but contracts terminable at a longer or shorter period for the performance of certain services; and I do not see what better precaution they can take than by making such terminable contracts. Surely they are not responsible or blameable for not immediately yielding to the demands of men who did not wait until the termination of their contracts before they suddenly threw up their work and discontinued their services at the moment when it would cause not only the greatest possible damage to trade and manufactures, but also inconvenience to private families all over the land. I, as a consistent Liberal years ago, remember supporting Lord Shaftesbury in his endeavours to prevent helpless children from being overworked in factories. I followed in that the lead of other consistent Liberals like Lord Russell, Lord Palmerston, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Macaulay, and we had the support also of men like Lord Beaconsfield (then Mr. Disraeli) and Lord John Manners—Conservatives—though it was against the Conservative Government we had to fight including Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham and their then Colleague Mr. Gladstone. But though it was thought necessary to take additional measures for the prevention of injurious overwork in the case of helpless children we at the same time equally maintained the principle of non-interference with adult labour, or the contracts which adult labourers made with employers. Liberals heartily rejoiced, I heartily rejoice for one, that the laws relating to employment as between employers and employed were put on a juster and better footing very much by the labours of the noble Lord, Viscount Cross when in the other House. But if it is right that the liberty of men of the wage class to combine and to unite for legal purposes should be protected; on the other hand it is as essential that the liberty of working but not uniting with the majority of other working men in the same business or in other businesses should be equally protected. I pro-

371
test earnestly against the tyranny of those who wish to curtail, under the disguise of a humane interference for the protection of the helpless, the liberty of adults of sane mind to labour for whom they please, in what manner they please, and when they please, under contract with their employers; and to give notice at the end of their contracts that they will cease so to labour. But I hold that it is essential for the maintenance of law and order and, in the long run, of liberty that contracts should be enforced and protected between adults of sane mind, capable of making contracts.
*LORD BRAMWELL: I wish to say a few words to your Lordships upon this subject more to lament the existence of what I believe to be a very great evil and mischief than to suggest a remedy for it. I have always said and held that by the common law of the land there is nothing unlawful in a Trade Union and now there is nothing unlawful in it by statute. I have said the same thing of strikes; they are not unlawful and they are not even without, in many cases, great justification. I see nothing immoral in them where the only object is to raise the wages of the strikers, and as the noble Marquess has said, I have said and do say there is nothing unlawful in picketing provided that it is lawfully practised, but that is what it never is. I do not know the particulars of the Scotch strike or of the Scotch picketing, but I do not see how your Lordships should reasonably have been led into a discussion whether it was a laudable strike and laudable picketing or not, because I should suppose that some of that picketing of which we have heard could not have been lawful I under any provocation. If the men received any provocation, about which I express no opinion, the remedy was not to break the heads of those who did not choose to join them, or throw stones at engines and demolish stations. Their remedy was a different one. If the picketers had only done what they pretend and nothing more, that is to say, if they had merely met their fellow workmen in a friendly way and asked them to join, with nothing but a kind persuasiveness in their manner nobody could have objected to it; they would have a perfect right to propagate their own opinions and try to get persons
372
to ally themselves with them. But that picketing would not pay; it would not be worth the trouble to picket in that way. The picketing must be of such a character as to inspire terror. That is the object of picketing, and it is one which succeeds tolerably well in many cases. Your Lordships have heard that I tried—I am sure I do not know how many years, I believe 20 years ago—a picket case in connection with a tailors' strike, which as far as I remember was for no other reason than an increase of wages. They would, I dare say, have said that they had picketed in the mildest possible way. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was one of the counsel that defended one of the picketers, and got him off, and he will be able to tell your Lordships whether I am exaggerating. The men who had not joined in the strike were in such terror of these pickets that they did not dare to take their work home to the master tailors; they got their wives to do it in many cases, and it was pitiable to see the women in the witness-box—they were in the greatest possible terror, and described the treatment they had met with to be of such a character that it was not surprising they were in that condition of alarm in which they exhibited themselves. It matters not that there is no blow given—though I believe there are few cases of extensive picketing in which there is no blow-given; if the conduct of the pickets was such as to excite terror in the minds of those picketed, and to deter them from doing their lawful work, I say it is an intolerable wrong and mischief both to the men who desire to work and to the community at large. It would be bad enough if it were some benevolent, intelligent autocrat who terrorised over people in this way; but when you consider that the tyranny is exercised by people who are actuated by ignorance and greed it is insufferable, even though there may be no blow proveable. I have said I do not know what the remedy for this is. You could not put down Trades Unions if you would, and I for one would not; on the contrary, I take the liberty of saying before your Lordships what I have said before in open Court, if I were a working man I should be a Unionist. I think that Trades Unions are useful institutions,

373
and I would strike for good cause. You cannot get rid either of Trades Unions or of strikes. You have got now an excellent law against unreasonable intimidation—if one may use such an expression, if we can suppose there ever was any reasonable intimidation; the difficulty is in reaching the offenders and protecting those persons who are injured and oppressed by it, and the only thing that I can suggest as a remedy for what I believe to be a most serious mischief is that the persons picketed, those who do not agree with the pickets, should be carefully protected, and that that remedy should be applied which the noble Marquess has so well administered elsewhere, namely, that the law should be enforced, and people taught that they could not safely break it.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (the Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence in saying a few words on the important Debate which has just taken place. I confess, on reading the Notice of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, I thought he had introduced the subject of the Scotch Strikes simply as a peg on which to base the discussion he has raised on the general question of strikes. I have not been disappointed altogether in that; but, as the Debate has turned so largely on the subject of the recent strikes in Scotland, I would ask to be allowed to say a few words. I think your Lordships will agree that the speech which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord has gone very far towards answering the speech made by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, for he—having, perhaps, more experience than anybody else in your Lordships' House in cases of this kind—has emphatically stated that he sees no remedy, except, perhaps, additional police protection, for those who may be subjected to and suffering from the picketing system. I should like to say a few words more, particularly upon two suggestions which have fallen from the noble Earl. I shall not go into the question which has been raised by Members of your Lordships' House in reference to the origin of the strikes—whether the Directors of the Railway Companies were justified in the action they took in not meeting their employed in the way in which they desired;
374
or, on the other hand, the position taken up by the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Ripon), that he thought the Directors were not justified in that action. The question of the strikes and of what led to them is, I think, entirely outside the question put by the noble; Earl. As I understand that question, he asks Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to take any measures; in future to prevent the scenes which took place during the recent strikes in Scotland from recurring in future strikes. The noble Earl, in addition to that, made two suggestions. One was that the law as it at present exists is sufficiently strong (and I think he himself rather inclined to that view); and the other was, that if the law is not sufficiently strong, fresh legislation should be initiated in order to strengthen it. I will take the earlier suggestion first—namely, that the law is sufficiently strong, and consequently, as the noble Earl implied, was not sufficiently enforced. I desire most emphatically to repudiate any suggestion of the kind. The noble Earl knows, I think, as well as anyone that the initiation of criminal proceedings in cases of this description rests with the Lord Advocate, who, as the representative of Her Majesty in cases of public prosecution, is bound to see that all necessary proceedings are taken where the law has been broken; and I do not imagine that anyone who knows the present Lord Advocate will think for a moment that he is not likely to discharge the duty to the fullest extent. But apart from that I think the noble Earl must also be aware that the enforcement of the law in the different districts of Scotland rests with the Sheriff or Magistrates for each district. Let me take the case of Lanarkshire where the most important breach of the law took place—at Motherwell. When those disturbances began, the Sheriff, with the greatest promptitude, asked for assistance from Glasgow in the form of an additional Police Force. The additional Police Force that was supplied from Glasgow for Motherwell was not sufficient to meet the difficulties which had arisen, and a force of, I think, 119 men was obtained from Lancashire, I think, for the purpose of stopping the disturbances and, in addition, a troop of cavalry was sent from Glasgow, and on their leaving

375
another troop was sent from Edinburgh. So that a sufficient force was sent for the maintenance of law and order in Motherwell, where the only disturbance really that occurred, I think, during the strikes took place. That it was amply sufficient to maintain law and order was shown by the fact that no further disturbances took place after the arrival of those various forces. The noble Earl has also pointed out that there were a great many cases in which personal violence was offered to the loyal servants of the Railway Companies. He has made that statement, but I should like very much to be informed if he or anybody else who is interested in the case can point out any case where information was given or where it was known that violence was intended to loyal servants of the Railway Companies, and whore no steps were taken in consequence for their protection. I am quits sure the noble Earl will find that it is impossible to Joint out such a case. I would also ask whether it is possible that additional legislative powers could have any effect in such circumstances? As far as I know, wherever any breach of the law took place, ample precautions were taken for the protection of those who were threatened, and proceedings were initiated in regard to any violence committed. As the noble Earl knows, no doubt, proceedings are pending in Scotland at this moment, in reference to the action taken by people in those strikes. Then the noble Earl also referred to the subject of picketing. I have already referred to what was said on that point by the noble and learned Lord who spoke just now. It is a question of enormous difficulty and one beyond the powers almost of the legislature in any Act of Parliament to deal with. As the noble and learned Lord said, every one of these picketers is presumably, according to their own statement, acting in the mildest and most reasonable manner possible, that is their own statement in almost every case. In a very large number of cases, to my own knowledge, tickets have been issued to those who were engaged in the picketing stating exactly what is the condition of the law, and exactly what they were to do. Probably the noble Earl knows that also. Surely this makes it very difficult to prove against them cases of
376
breaking the law; it affords primâ facie, evidence that they have kept themselves within the limits of what they are legally entitled to do, and it is therefore much more difficult to prove a case against them. As the noble and learned Lord has told us, when about 20 years ago he acted as Judge in some picketing cases arising out of the tailors' strike which were brought before him, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was able to make so good a case for the accused persons that he got them acquitted. That is with regard to the existing state of the law, and the presumption of the noble Earl that the law, as it is as present is sufficiently strong to do what he desires is, I think, correct. With regard to his other proposition that if not strong enough Her Majesty's Government should take measures to ensure due protection in future strikes, I think the noble Earl has conclusively answered his own argument. At the close of his speech he strongly urged the constitution of Boards of Conciliation. I feel sure he does not propose that those Boards should be initiated by Her Majesty's Government, for in that case their influence might be destroyed altogether.
*EARL WEMYSS: Self-originating I meant.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think I misunderstood the noble Earl. He also made allusion to the Commission which is about to be appointed to inquire into the labour question, and the noble Earl said he hoped that Commission would inquire into all questions between capital and labour, with a view to their settlement as soon as possible. Until the Commission has completed that inquiry, at all events, I think it would be quite impossible for Her Majesty's Government to consider anything of the kind. Speaking for myself, no one can possibly be more anxious that the relations between capital and labour should be organised on such a footing as was alluded to by the noble Earl (Fortescue), namely, that all labour should be absolutely free, and that everything which would interfere with that freedom, in the case of adults of sane mind, should as far as possible be done away with. That is my own view, and I am sure it is the

377
view of all your Lordships; but to try and bring about that result by legislative measures would be, as the noble Earl must know, a most delicate and difficult, and almost impossible task.
*EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, it is only by courtesy that I may be permitted to say a few words in reply to what has just fallen from my noble Friend and also from Lord Dunraven in the earlier part of the Debate. The noble Earl implied that whatever cases I mentioned in illustration and support of my argument were not of much importance, and that I had failed to bring home the fact that this picketing and this system of intimidation which has been established has interfered with the freedom of others. The argument of my noble Friend who has just sat down was this: that the law has been enforced to the full extent, even to the extent of calling out the military at Motherwell, where there had been a disturbance. But it is not only a question of what may be done when there is a disturbance, or what is commonly called a disturbance; what I have said is, of two things one—you are, in fact, on the horns of a dilemma—either the law is sufficient, but has been insufficiently enforced, or it is insufficient and ought to be strengthened. Looking to the Act of 1875, "watching, besetting, or following" is a crime; that is to say it renders the person doing so liable to a penalty; and that if properly enforced must be sufficient. But that does not really cover such a case as occurred at Motherwell, where a sort of civil war went on for a time, where hard fighting took place, and the soldiers had to be called in. However, that is not so much the sort of case I mean as that of St. Margaret's Station, where the so-called "loyal" workmen were actually beleaguered. There it is very plain that the law, if sufficient for their protection, cannot' have been properly administered. That is a matter for the authorities to decide. I say that if you have in a free country such a state of things as existed at St. Margaret's Station where there were men willing to work either with Unionists or not, willing to come and do the duty of those who had left, who had to be bedded, boarded, and protected, you evidently require to add another word of prohibition. To "watching and besetting" yon would have to
378
add "beleaguering," and make beleaguering an offence. Do not tell me that watching and besetting being made illegal is sufficient if, whoever is responponsible for administering the law in Scotland can allow such a state of things to occur as a station to be actually beleaguered by a crowd of men "watching and besetting" those who are shut up within.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.