Sitting of 30 April 1901

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
TOOK THE OATH.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Omagh Gas Bill [Lords].

  Shields Bridge Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  THAMES DEEP WATER DOCK BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Cellardyke, Helmsdale, Leitir Mhor, Macduff, and Porthgain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Cellardyke, Helmsdale, Leitir Mhor, Macduff, and Porthgain"; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1. "That, in the case of the London United Tramways, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 16, 17, 18, and 18A be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  2. "That, in the case of the Rodgers' Patent Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  4. "That, in the case of the Dorking Gas Bill, Petition for additional Provision
  180
  the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  5. "That, in the case of the Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Oldham, Ashton, and Hyde Electric Tramway Company' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."

  First four Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  KETTERING URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  Mr. BILL reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Burton-on-Trent Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Sidney Barwise, M.D., Medical Officer of Health for the County of Derby, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Sydney Barwise do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Sidney Barwise, M.D., do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  CLYDE NAVIGATION DRAFT PROVISIONAL ORDER, 1901 (62 AND 63 vic., c. 47).
  Ordered, That the Proceedings of the Committee of this House on the Bill for the Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Act, 1899, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the

  181
  Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to inquire into the Clyde Navigation Draft Provisional Order 1901.—(The Lord Advocate.)

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY 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. HAYrose to move the following Amendment—
"That this House, having regard to the manner in which the London and North Western Railway Company have evaded their obligations in respect of the re-housing of persons of the labouring class displaced for the purposes of the company, declines to confer additional powers upon the company."
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have looked at the Amendment which the hon. Member has placed upon the Paper, and if he is going to move that I am bound to tell him that I think it is out of order. He may move the rejection of the Bill on some relevant ground, but to discuss on the present Bill a question as to what the conduct of the railway has been under previous powers would be out of order. The hon. Member, of course, may vote upon any ground he has present in his mind, but he cannot argue in this House either on the particular Amendment or on the Second Reading the question of the conduct of the London and North Western Company under Bills which deal with matters different to that now before the House.
*MR. HAYsaid that under the circumstances he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was aware that in so doing he was adopting a course which was seldom pursued in the House in reference to private Bills; but he did so because the provisions of the Bill conflicted with the public interest in relation to the re-housing of the people. There had during the present session been one precedent at any rate for the action he was taking. Only a few weeks since a motion was submitted to the House for the
182
rejection of the Bill promoted by the Gas Light and Coke Company, on the ground that that company had failed to comply with the obligations placed upon it by Parliament. The debate which then ensued led to the withdrawal of the Bill. In submitting the motion he had first of all to claim the indulgence of the House upon the first occasion on which he had ventured to address it. He wished next to make it clear that in the motion he was submitting he had no desire to hamper the London and North Western Railway Company in the conduct of their business. He had had no communication of any sort or kind with any persons or society connected with the company except the personal acquaintance which he enjoyed with hon. Members of that House who happened to be directors of the company. The object of his motion was to induce Parliament to lay down once for all the principle that a company which in pursuit of profits had constantly to seek the sanction of Parliament for its schemes, should not, under the advice of their officials, endeavour to drive a coach-and-four through the regulations laid down by Parliament for public companies and public bodies in regard to the housing of the working classes. He did not think he could better state his case than by quoting the purport of a question he addressed to the Home Secretary on the 7th March last, when he drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Broad Street dwellings had been acquired by the company, and the tenants given notice to quit. That property immediately adjoined the Broad Street Station of the company, and the Shoreditch Borough Council officials had been informed that the buildings were to be cleared of the tenants and demolished, and the land handed over to the company for the extension of its premises.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understand the hon. Member is now discussing something done under a former Bill, and is going to contend that the company has not fulfilled its statutory obligations. Is that so?
*MR. HAY: I am quoting from a question I addressed to the Home Secretary

183
on 7th March last, to prove the non-observance by the company—both in spirit and in law—of the duties imposed upon it by Act of Parliament.
*MR. SPEAKER: By a previous Act of Parliament?
*MR. HAY: Yes.
*MR. SPEAKER: Then, as I have said, it is not open to the hon. Member to discuss that; I cannot permit a discussion on the mode in which the company has carried out previous Acts of Parliament. The debate must be based on something directly connected with this Bill.
*MR. BARTLEY: Would it not be in order, inasmuch as this Bill proposes to interfere largely with the dwellings of the people, to refer to the way in which the company have acted in the past, and to argue that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass, because under it they might act in the same way again?
*MR. SPEAKER: Let me put an extreme case. Suppose a company had not made a bridge which under an Act it was bound to make at some point in London; a year later they came to Parliament for powers to make a bridge in Cumberland; could it be argued that that power should be refused because they had been guilty of default in London? I am quite aware there are sections in this Bill relating to the housing of the working classes. They are inserted under Standing Order 183a, and provide exactly what duty shall be imposed on the railway company. They also provide for a penalty in case of default. I understood from a question put to the President of the Board of Trade the other day that legal proceedings are actually being instituted against the company in respect of their action in the case now being referred to by the hon. Member. I must rule that such action cannot be discussed on this Bill.
DR. MACNAMARA: But is it not open to us, when a company comes to Parliament for new powers, to discuss before granting them
184
whether they have carried out the obligations laid upon them by previous Acts?
*MR. SPEAKER: I think not. If that were permitted there is scarcely anything done or omitted to be done by a company which might not be discussed on an omnibus Bill of this description.
*MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he should like to put a parallel case, because he had recently given a vote under a misconception in the light of the present ruling of the Chair. When the Great Eastern Bill was before the House there was some discussion on the rule which compelled employees of the company to join benefit or other societies formed by the directors. The representative of the company agreed to strike out that particular rule, and he accordingly voted for the Bill. But in doing so he quite thought he would have power in another year if the company failed to carry out that undertaking to oppose any future Bill promoted by it. Although there might be power to punish a company for default by penalty or mandamus, the final power, he respectfully submitted, should rest with the House of Commons to deal with breaches of parliamentary undertakings. If the London and North Western Company had not carried out duties imposed upon it by existing Acts, it surely should be open to Parliament to punish it by rejecting the present Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: This is not the case of a breach of a Parliamentary undertaking. They have always inserted the model clause, and can be compelled to observe it. No doubt where a company has obtained leave to raise capital to be spent in a particular way, and then asks for further capital, its action in regard to the first grant may be taken into consideration. But that is a totally different case to this.
MR. FLOWER: But would it not be possible for an hon. Member to show that the clauses of this Bill are inadequate?
*MR. SPEAKER: It would be for the Committee to consider that point. These clauses are prescribed by the Standing Order, and they cannot be put forward as an objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.
*MR. HAYsaid that in view of the ruling of the Speaker he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. It was clear that although they were not permitted to refer to the past action of the company this measure did not sufficiently safeguard public interests. It was only on the 16th May, 1899, that a Report was presented to the House by one of its Committees recommending that the company should be compelled to pay the costs of certain proceedings, because it had unnecessarily harassed certain private poisons and interests. No sooner had Parliament come to a decision on the matter than the London and North Western Railway Company applied for an injunction in the High Courts to restrain the Taxing Master of this House from issuing a certificate for the payment of the costs. It was obvious that the House should seriously consider whether any powers of any sort or kind ought to be given to the company except upon terms. The provisions of the Bill were absolutely futile to prevent the company evading its obligations as to the re-housing of the working classes. How was it, if the provisions were adequate, that in the only instance in which a company had been brought to book had been when clauses over and above the labouring class clauses in this Bill had been in such Bills. It had been shown that the London and North Western Railway had, by the trickery of the attorney or legal chicane, evaded the duties imposed upon them by Parliament in regard to the conduct of their business. He could quote precedents against this Bill by referring to the South Eastern and South Western Railway Bills.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not in order. The hon. Member is now seeking to initiate a discussion as to whether the provision made generally by Parliament to compel railway companies to re-house the working classes is adequate
186
or not. That is not a matter which can be discussed upon private business. If the hon. Member had got a motion or a Bill upon that subject it might be then a proper subject for discussion, but it cannot be discussed on a private Bill as private business.
*MR. HAYsaid that the only basis upon which they could form an opinion as to what the company would do if this Bill became law was what they had done in the past, and if that was any guide the company would again flout Parliament, and the whole energy of the company would be devoted to defeating the objects and provisions of this Bill. According to the Official Returns there had been during the last nine years something like 153 schemes initiated by local authorities in regard to which proceedings had been taken; whilst during the last session of Parliament, out of a total of 218 private Acts receiving the Royal Assent, 120 contained a section affecting the dwellings of the poorer classes and conditions as to displacement and re-housing presented to Parliament and put into force with reference to the housing of the people. Therefore this matter of the housing of the working classes, when private Bills were before the House, was one of the highest importance, and of extreme urgency. This Bill did not in any way protect the interests of the working classes if they were displaced for the purposes of this company. The local authority, which was the authority under the Public Health Act, 1891, and the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1900, to deal with overcrowding, was powerless under this Bill; indeed, it was not even referred to in the labouring class clauses of the Bill. In fact, this Bill contained clauses which defeated the intention of Parliament as expressed in the two statutes which he had mentioned. Therefore he urged upon the House not to let this Bill pass unless they knew exactly what the company proposed to do in reference to the re-housing of the labouring classes who were to be displaced by the Bill or otherwise displaced by the company. This matter affected London and London working classes, not merely from the point of view of convenience, but with

187
regard to their physique and industrial capacity. It also affected the general public health of the metropolis, and it was idle for them to pass laws to reform the condition of the working classes if those laws were set at nought, and companies were allowed to ride roughshod over the intentions of Parliament. Powers were asked for in this Bill to clear certain areas in Hammersmith. These powers imposed upon the company obligations in regard to re-housing. Those obligations had been insisted upon by Parliament in previous Bills, but this company had gone from one subterfuge to another to evade them. His object was to prevent this Bill becoming law, because he believed it would be dangerous to the public interest. He appealed to hon. Members to discard the easy-going attitude too generally adopted with regard to private Bills, and to remember that this company stood at the present moment before the Law Courts in an action commenced by the Home Secretary. He hoped that the House would insist, by rejecting this Bill, on the company giving very definite undertakings that they would observe both the spirit and the letter of the Acts which they obtained year after year to facilitate the conduct of their business. He ventured to say that, by rejecting this Bill, the House would ensure that provisions would be placed in the Bill which would prevent the recurrence of those actions which had led the responsible Minister of the Crown, finding that it was his imperative duty, all milder methods having failed to obtain observance of the law by the company, to call this the premier railway company of the United Kingdom to book in the law courts of the land.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the ruling of the Speaker, to the effect that it would be out of order to refer to the past action of this company, would be in the minds of most hon. Members when they voted. This Bill was brought forward by the company to extend their powers, and give them, amongst other things, the power of displacing some of the working classes in London. Under the ordinary clauses put in all Bills of this kind, the
188
company were supposed to find housing accommodation for the poor people displaced from their present homes. The question was, could they trust this company to carry out the intentions of the House? A railway company was looked upon by some people as the servant of the public, but it was more in the relation of a tradesman. Its master was its shareholders, but it was employed by the nation to do certain commercial work, and if it did not carry out that work, it was liable to be dismissed from the service of the nation. The case before the House was much the same as a private individual employing a person to redecorate his premises, who, in doing so, did great damage to his property. The result was that he did not employ that tradesman again, and the House ought to be doubtful about employing this great company to carry out the work suggested in the Bill, because they could not trust it. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Hay.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I cannot recommend the House to reject this Bill on the Second Reading, because, in my opinion, it is necessary for the carrying on of the duties of the London and North Western Railway Company, and there is nothing in its actual provisions which is open to objection. At the same time, I share the views of those who sympathise with the gallant struggle which my hon. friend behind me has made under adverse circumstances to protest against certain proceedings of this company. Profiting by his example, I do not intend to deal with that subject, beyond alluding to the question in dispute between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company, in order to show the necessity for a proposition which I shall suggest to the House in a moment. The

189
clauses inserted in this Bill are the usual clauses inserted in Bills applying to railway companies when they ask for powers, and they are framed in accordance with the Standing Order. They are drafted to carry out what is undoubtedly the clear intention of Parliament, and they enact that when a railway company comes to the House asking for powers to acquire land, and when that land is occupied by persons of the working classes, adequate and proper provision shall be made for the people who are displaced. That, undoubtedly, is the intention of Parliament, and that is what is supposed to be carried out by the clauses inserted in this Bill. But although, in my experience, these clauses have hitherto been sufficient to secure fairly well the object which the House has always desired to secure, and hopes to secure, by them, there is a particular case in dispute between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company, which shows that there is a great difference of opinion between the London and North Western Railway Company and the House as to what is really secured by these Standing Orders. This dispute has, unfortunately, been going on between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company for more than twelve months, but we have been unable to obtain from the London and North Western Railway Company what we consider a proper scheme under the provisions of their Act of 1898 for the rehousing of the working classes who have been displaced by them; and one of the most important questions at issue between the Home Office and the company is whether or not, under these clauses, railway companies, in providing housing accommodation in cases of clearances, are bound to fix a scale of rents which shall meet with the approval of the Home Office. The railway companies have taken up the position, I understand, that under these clauses they are not so bound, but I am not here to express any dogmatic opinion on the subject.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in going into the general question of the Standing Orders on this particular Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has somewhat gone beyond the question before the House, but what I understood him to be doing was that he was referring, by way of illustration, to the inadequacy, in his opinion, of the present Standing Orders, with a view to making some suggestions as to how those Standing Orders might be improved.
*MR. RITCHIE: That is exactly my object. I wanted to show the House that as these particular clauses are now framed they leave serious doubt as to whether or not they secure that which the House desires. As an illustration of that I would merely say one of the disputes between the London and North Western Railway Company and the Home Office is whether these clauses place upon railway companies the obligation of fixing such a scale of rents for the new dwellings as will secure that the same class of persons who have been displaced by the clearances will be able to occupy the new dwellings. If the court should decide that the interpretation put upon these clauses by the London and North Western Railway Company is correct, every railway company in the kingdom would at once avail itself of the decision, and there would be an end to the provisions which the House of Commons has passed in order to provide fresh housing accommodation for tenants displaced by railway companies. I feel very strongly the desirability of seeing that these clauses shall be of such a nature as to make it clear that the railway companies are bound to do what the House of Commons desires should be done; and I have been in consultation with my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, who is responsible for these matters in the provinces, as I am in London, and we have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to inquire into the very important point whether or not the House, in order to attain that which it desires to secure, should make any alteration in the existing Standing Orders or the clauses based thereon, so that we should feel sure that in granting powers to railway companies to displace people belonging to the working classes we were placing a corresponding

191
obligation on them, from which they could not escape, to provide for the rehousing of any people who might be displaced under these powers.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have listened with some satisfaction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I think the proposal he has made is one that will meet with general satisfaction. It is perfectly obvious that there have been occasions on which the provisions of the Acts have not been properly carried out by the railway companies concerned, and I think we will all hail with satisfaction the statement that the Government intend to alter the Standing Orders—(Mr. RITCHIE dissented)—well, to recommend the appointment of a Committee to consider the question, and we may be quite certain that on the evidence placed before the Committee they will alter the Standing Orders, so that this point cannot again arise on any particular Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the points raised in connection with the Bill before the House. I doubt whether the recommendation of the Committee to be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be made retrospective, so as to affect an Act of Parliament which has actually been passed, and, therefore, having a suspicion of the London and North Western Railway Company as to the way, if the Bill were passed, they would provide housing accommodation, I will most certainly vote for the postponement of the Bill until after the Report of the Select Committee, or for the rejection of the Bill at the present moment.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid a question had arisen in the course of the debate on which he desired to say a few words—the question whether the London and North Western Railway Company had come under any obligation in regard to the re-housing of the working classes. Speaking as a director of the London and North Western Railway Company, he pointed out that the Bill before the House was an ordinary omnibus Railway Bill. With regard to the question of the displacement of the working classes under its provisions, the total number of tenements that would be
192
touched in the county of London under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary was forty-three. The company was obliged to do no less and no more with respect to these tenements than the Standing Orders obliged them to do. He was prepared to say on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company that they would not have the slightest objection to a general inquiry as to whether the Standing Orders were adapted to securing the end in view, or adapted to modern requirements, and needed alteration. But he submitted to the House that it would be hardly fair to deal with a large general question of that character in connection with an ordinary omnibus Bill which affected, in a small way indeed, the rehousing of the working classes. He would only say with regard to these particular tenements that the company came under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, and his right hon. friend had often shown the House that he was not a man to be trifled with. He would not enter into the dispute between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company, as that would be settled elsewhere. He would only say that clouds of suspicion had been raised against the railway company in reference to the acquisition of another property not affected by the present Bill. But that property was not to be acquired under any parliamentary powers whatever, and in reference to it the railway company had not attempted to evade any Act or any regulation in any Act.
*MR. RITCHIE: That is the point. You have attempted to secure the property without parliamentary powers.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid his right hon. friend seemed to have a charge behind his statement, which if he was permitted to go into the question he would not shrink from dealing with. He would, however, only say that the contract had been made in the Court of Chancery, and the railway company had nothing in the least to conceal with regard to it. The company had no objection at all to join in the inquiry into the general suitability of the model clauses which they were obliged to insert in their Bill. He denied, as the representative

193
of the London and North Western Railway Company, that the company had evaded or tried to evade any obligation thrown on them by Act of Parliament, and he thought the House would not be justified in dealing with this general question upon the omnibus Bill now before the House.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim had stated that there was nothing in the Bill which was open to objection. The objection was that the company were permitted by the Bill to deal with certain tenements—forty-three in number—within the area of the city of London. He was not going into any technical detail, but if the Bill were passed the working people who would be displaced within that area would be absolutely in the hands of the railway company. That was the broad issue before the House. He therefore had great pleasure in supporting the motion for the rejection of the Bill.
MR. FLOWERpointed out that while everyone had heard with the greatest satisfaction the statement of the Home Secretary, the proposal did not help the House very much in the particular matter under discussion. This Bill had to be either read a second time or rejected, and he could not help thinking that the position taken up by the Home Secretary was rather an illogical one. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman disapproved of the Bill as it stood, distrusted the clauses relating to rehousing, and desired that those clauses should be altered, and yet he was unwilling to advise the House to reject the Second Reading of the Bill. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was really a strong argument in favour of the rejection of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim had spoken of the willingness with which the railway company, of which he was a director, would co-operate with such a Committee as was suggested. No doubt the company would be willing to co-operate, and the right hon. Gentleman was to be congratulated upon the somewhat altered manner which the company had adopted through its spokesman in the House and in the conduct of its affairs. The
194
Bill certainly proposed to dishouse a certain number of people; it was not possible to say exactly how many. It was easy to quote the number of houses to be demolished, but, in regard to a neighbourhood like Hammersmith, who would say how many were the persons to be displaced? Under the ruling of the Speaker, it was not possible to discuss the past history of this company, and it would probably also be out of order to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the euphemistic expression he used in regard to the company being "under a cloud." "Under a cloud" was a very delicate euphemism for "having received a writ." This Bill should, once for all, be rejected. A protest should he recorded against what seemed to be the growing tendency of the great railway companies to domineer the House. A great many Members felt that that kind of thing had gone on for too long, and that it was high time for Members to say whether they were going to be masters in their own House, or merely the registrars of the decrees of the great railway companies. That clear and straight issue was before the House, and he appealed to Members to deal in summary fashion with the Bill, because it would show that this young House of Commons was really in earnest on the great question of the housing of the people, and that it was resolved to use every possible means in its power to insist upon the great public monopolies being faithful to their trust and obligations.
*MR. RITCHIE: May I rise, with the indulgence of the House, to make an appeal to those who represent the London and North Western Railway Company here. I am bound to say that I think the argument which has been used, that the Bill with these clauses ought not to pass, is by no means a weak one. But, as I believe that the Bill is one which contains much of value and much that is necessary, I would appeal to my right hon. friend who has spoken on behalf of the railway company whether he will not now assure the House that in Committee he will be prepared to drop the portion of the Bill to which objection is taken.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid he had already stated on behalf of the railway company

195
that they would be quite willing to join in any inquiry in regard to this matter. The House, being extremely suspicious of the London and North Western Railway Company, might possibly suspect, if they insisted on retaining the clauses, that the company desired to evade any alteration which might hereafter be carried out on the recommendation of the proposed Committee. Under those circumstances he was quite willing to assent to the omission from the Bill of these particular clauses, so that those matters would be dealt with in the future under any fresh model clauses which might be recommended to Parliament by the Committee.
*MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the offer of the right hon. Gentleman really did not touch the point at issue. The opponents of the Second Reading desired that the Bill should be brought up to the level which the Home Secretary had said should be the state of things in future. If the company were really anxious to meet the views which had been expressed in the debate, they would agree to let the Bill stand over until the Select Committee had reported, in order that any recommendations of that Committee might be incorporated into the measure. His experience of railway companies was that, while they were ready to act up to their legal obligations, they were also quite ready to take the alternative of their legal obligation. To put a case: If a railway company failed to comply with a provision of an Act of Parliament it might have to pay a penalty of £10. That company might find that it answered its purpose to pay the penalty in order to obtain an advantage equal to £100. It would have then performed its legal obligation, as it would have paid the penalty, and that was all it was obliged to do by Act of Parliament. That was the sort of spirit in the action of the railway company which was resented by Members of the House, and was the reason of the opposition to this Bill. Personally he was anxious not to do anything which was unjust to the railway company, and it would be unjust to reject the Bill because of that objection. He should, however, vote against the Bill, because he felt that the company ought not to put Members in the position of having
196
to reject the measure because they could not come to terms as to these particular clauses and powers. As he had already suggested, he thought the Second Reading should stand over until the Select Committee had reported. The Bill need not be blocked to any serious extent, as the evidence was all to hand, but the recommendations of the Committee, if any, could then be incorporated, while, if the Committee made no recommendations, the Bill would not suffer by the delay.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)said he failed to see how the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down was applicable. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill should be hung up until such time as the Select Committee had reported. Supposing the Select Committee reported that the model clauses should be altered. What then? The railway company had dropped the clauses to which the schedule referred, and therefore what was the good of holding up the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke in behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company had just told the House that he was prepared to drop all that portion of the Bill which proposed to take lands situated in Hammersmith and elsewhere in the county of London at present occupied by working class dwellings. very well, there was an end of that. But supposing that the Select Committee sat, and assuming that it was very expeditious in the consideration of this matter, and that it reported in a month, how could the new model clause be made applicable to a Bill which did not contain any proposal to take any working-class houses? He could understand that hon. Gentlemen proposed to read the London and North Western Railway Company a lesson—
*MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he did not understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had absolutely withdrawn the clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim suggested that he would withdraw the clauses if that would meet the wishes of the House. What he (Mr. Grant) said was that they should keep these clauses in until the Select Committee had reported.
*MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he would much rather that the clauses were rejected altogether, and he understood that that was the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, so far as the House was concerned, they might consider these clauses gone. That being so was there any good result to follow the hanging up of the Bill? He thought it was unfair to the railway company, because if the House were to reject this omnibus Bill, which contained proposals for widening reads, building bridges and substituting them for level crossings, improved stations, and so forth, they would not be punishing the London and North Western Railway Company but the public. When the clauses objected to were dropped, the least thing the House could do was to pass the Second Reading of the Bill, which, in other respects, was unobjectionable.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that there were many things in this particular Bill to which, in the interests both of the public and of the London and North Western Railway Company, they could not take any reasonable exception. And in so far as the House of Commons wanted to help a railway company to confer a public benefit, such as a railway company ought to seek to confer, there there was nothing in the Bill worthy of opposition except that which related to dishousing and rehousing. In connection with any Bill which sought to widen lines, to substitute bridges for level crossings, to give passengers and traders greater facilities both as regarded fares and freights, the House of Commons would support the railway company within reason. So they could support nine-tenths of this Bill, but not the essential tenth on which the discussion had taken place. He had been positively delighted to hear the way in which Member after Member had stood up and said what eight or nine years ago he had to state humbly and quietly, as "a voice crying in the wilderness." Railway companies were incidentally becoming a public nuisance in promoting their private ends, and he welcomed the speeches made from the other side of the House. Daniel was coming to judgment; the brands were being snatched
198
from the burning every time, and he congratulated some of the London Members on their conduct that afternoon. The point they had got to deal with was, should they, by this Bill, confer upon the London and North Western Railway Company—the wealthiest railway company in England—the power to continue to dishouse the working classes, and to evade rehousing, as this and every other London railway company had been allowed to do?
MR. MACARTNEY: No.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him if he preferred experience to the suggestion of a director. His brief was not marked, as was that of the right hon. Gentleman. This Bill sought to give the London and North Western Railway Company the power under model clauses—he called them immoral clauses—to dishouse and rehouse. Now, under these clauses it was possible for the London and North Western Railway Company, where it had power to pull down twenty houses, to pull down nineteen, leaving only one, and thus technically comply with the conditions of the clause. That was, the company could dishouse 430 persons without making any provision for rehousing them. Private Bill legislation of that kind was getting an overwhelmingly serious matter. Last year 120 clauses were passed by the House of Commons in various Bills relating to London to dishouse London people. During the past twelve months railway companies in London had dishoused between 8,000 and 9,000 persons in advance without making provision for rehousing them. Well, that was a condition of things which was becoming intolerable in a city which suffered so much from overcrowding and congestion; and the House of Commons was now practically unanimous in saying that that condition of things must cease. The Home Secretary, judging from his remarks that afternoon, had, like St. Paul, been wrestling with the wild beasts of Ephesus—the wild beasts of Ephesus consisting of the hon. and gallant Members at Euston. And the Home Secretary had indicated that he had had the hardest possible task in bringing the London and North

199
Western Railway Company up to the level of their obligations. He wanted the Home Secretary to see that the House of Commons shared his views. The right hon. Gentleman who represented the railway company had declined to comply with the sensible request of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He ought to have been glad to support the hon. Member in the suggestion that the two directors should do everything in their power to interpret the feeling of the House.
MR. MACARTNEY: I did not say anything of the kind.
MR. JOHN BURNS: No, the right hon. Gentleman did not. He was too wise. Having been a soldier, his fellow director's knowledge of tactics was greater than his. The kind of tactics and strategy the House of Commons should impose on the London and North Western Railway Company was a strategic movement to the rear, and the sooner they were compelled to do it the better. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the company would interpret the wishes of the House of Commons in spirit and in letter; but the right hon. Gentleman gave a more generous interpretation, and said that they would withdraw the clauses objected to altogether. The Chairman of Committees, to whose appeals to the House he was generally deferential, but who had not that day given to the House that clearness of vision which he generally did, had said that the clauses were dropped. But he (the hon. Member for Battersea) emphasised and repeated the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Rugby, that there was no reason why the Bill should be lost. He did not want to impose any inconvenience on either the public or the railway company, whose interests ought to be identical. But it was possible for the Second Reading to be suspended for a month or six weeks until the Select Committee had reported to the House. The Home Secretary would say to the Select Committee, "Strike out of the model clauses the twenty houses and substitute one." That would meet the case. The railway companies should also be made to rehouse the people in advance of their dishousing,
200
and they should likewise be compelled to clearly indicate in every way in their Bills the number of people that were going to be dishoused. If these three points were decided upon at the Home Office and adopted by the Select Committee, and if the Bill came up amended on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee, he would be delighted to let the London and North Western Railway Company have the Second and Third Readings of their Bill all in one day—before Derby day. He urged the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill to consent to this reasonable, practical, and modest proposal. He represented a London constituency through which the largest number of trains went every day in this great city. From 1,700 to 2,000 trains went through Clapham Junction, which was in the heart of his constituency, and time after time the London and South Eastern, the London and South Western, and the London and North Western, which all had lines there, under the twenty-house clause had been able by only displacing nineteen houses to dishouse in the past ten years thousands of persons and subject them to great inconvenience. The fact was that the railway companies had incompetent men in the House to represent them and transact their business. [Cries of "Oh."] That was so, and one of these days they would sack the ornamental guinea pigs.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper way to speak of hon. Members of this House, and it must be withdrawn.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he withdrew the expression. When would the railway companies see the unwisdom of proceeding with Bills of this character and wasting the time of the House, as it was wasted time after time by discussing Bills of this nature, to the exclusion of other business? He believed if such Bills were sent to a Select Committee they could deal with them and bring in their Report in twenty-four hours, and the railway companies would get the Bills passed. The only way in which the House could teach the railway companies the way in which they ought to proceed was either to suspend the Bill or to reject the Second Reading, and show the London

201
and North Western Railway that they could not with impunity transgress the conditions imposed upon them in reference to the housing of the working classes.
MR. MACONACHIEsaid he would not detain the House more than a few moments. But, taking considerable interest in these matters, he hoped the House would not allow the Bill to go through until they were thoroughly satisfied that the conditions would be fully carried out. His experience was a unique one, and he regretted to have to state that in no case where the London and North Western Railway had made arrangements with him had they carried them out. They consistently contravened their Act of Parliament whenever it was needful. Some years ago they agreed to act up to the clause in their agreements winch prohibited them from giving preferential rates to traders; but after carrying out that agreement for two years they broke it.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not in order in discussing that question.
MR. MACONACHIE, judging from his experience of the company, trusted that the House would see that any clause that was put into the Bill to deal with this matter should be of such a nature that the company would have no way of getting out of it.
MR. FIELDsaid he took a great interest in railway matters, and entirely concurred with what had been said by hon. Members generally upon the subject. He appealed to the House not to allow the Bill to pass until the Select Committee had sat and reported upon it. The time of the House ought not to be occupied to such an extent by discussion upon private Bills. With regard to the remarks of the Chairman of Committees, he would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that railway companies were not philanthropic institutions. They promoted Bills for the purpose, not of benefiting the public, but of earning dividends for their shareholders, and to extend
202
their facilities for so doing; and they did not care how many people they inconvenienced for that purpose. He thought some system should be adopted by which railway Bills should be sent to a Grand Committee. He was against the Second Reading of the Bill, and he trusted it would be suspended until such time as the Report of the Select Committee was brought to the House. He believed in these cases that "right of way" was an important element to the public generally, and all those matters ought to be considered before the House agreed to read the Bill a second time. He hoped on this occasion the Government would not attempt to sway the House, but would allow the House to express its view.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that had the opponents of the Bill suggested that the discussion upon this matter should be adjourned he would have certainly supported them in the attitude which they had taken up, but having regard to the fact that the promoters of the Bill had now expressed their willingness to drop the obnoxious cause, and the only parts of the Bill which remained were parts to which no objection could be taken, he was not prepared to vote for the rejection of the Second Reading.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he was unaware that there was anything disgraceful or improper in his representing his position with regard to the London and North Western Railway, and he thought he had deserved better treatment at the hands of the hon. Member for Battersea. The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that, in deference to the opinion of the House, the company wished to withdraw the clauses relating to the housing of the working classes. The hon. Member for Battersea had said the company might attempt to avoid this obligation in some underhanded manner. On behalf of the company he would undertake that they would not displace any of the working class at Hammersmith. The company had no intention of avoiding their ob igations. It was not the company's fault that the time of the House was taken up on private Bills. The House must alter

203
its procedure in order to get relief. Seeing that the company had met the House, he asked them to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that Clause 4 having been deleted, the question of housing or dishousing could not now arise, but he would just like to know how the matter stood. He pointed out that the company had large unexpired powers in other Acts, and he thought the time had come when railway companies ought to receive a salutary lesson; therefore he hoped the House would not allow the Second Reading, but would reject the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESappealed to the House not to be led away by passion. There appeared to him to be a very strong feeling against this company; whether that was because it had declined from its former eminence in respect of its management or its directors
he was unable to say. When, in pursuance of parliamentary practice, the company came to the House of Commons for powers to do necessary work, a tremendous case was made against it. But that case had disappeared with the exclusion of the model clause. The whole case made against the London and North Western Railway Company was that it was unwilling to fulfil its obligations because it had neglected to do so in the past. It was quite clear that the model clause would have to be reconsidered at some future period, but in the meantime, it having been dropped, the Bill was not affected by it, and he thought the House would not act wisely if it were to allow itself to be persuaded to reject the Bill. He hoped they would think twice before they took that course.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 210. Words added. (Division List No. 162.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Henderson, Alexander

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Higginbottom, S. W.

Anstruther, H. T.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hoult, Joseph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, George H.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Baldwin, Alfred

Fisher, William Hayes

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Fison, Frederick William

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Banbury, Frederick George

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kitson, Sir James

Bill, Charles

Forster, Henry William

Knowles, Lees

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Garfit, William

Lawrence, William F.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gibbs, Hn. vicary (St Albans)

Lawson, John Grant

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Graham, Henry Robert

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Green, Walford D (Wednesbu'y

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Brymer, William Ernest

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gretton, John

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesharu)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Groves, James Grimble

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lowe, Francis William

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Hall, Edward Marshall

Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chapman, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Charrington, Spencer

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Coddington, Sir William

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Haslett, Sir James Horner

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Cranborne, viscount

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

Majendie, James A. H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Helder, Augustus

Malcolm, Ian

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Purvis, Robert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Rea, Russell

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Milward, Colonel victor

Rentoul, James Alexander

valentia, viscount

Mitchell, William

Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunt'n)

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Whiteley, H (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Mount, William Arthur

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Muntz, Philip A.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynes'd

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Wylie, Alexander

Parker, Gilbert

Spear, John Ward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Younger, William

Penn, John

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Pierpoint, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen.

Pilkington, Richard

Stock, James Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stroyan, John

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Crean, Eugene

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cremer, William Randal

Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Crombie, John William

Harrington, Timothy

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cust, Henry John C.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Asher, Alexander

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Helme, Norval Watson

Ashmead-Bartlet, Sir Ellis

Delany, William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S Geo

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Austin, Sir John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Holland, William Henry

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Barry E. (Cork, S.)

Dillon, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Bartley, George C. T.

Donelan, Captain A.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Doogan, P. C.

Jones, William (Carvarvonsh.

Bell, Richard

Duffy, William J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Duke, Henry Edward

Joyce, Michael

Bigwood, James

Duncan, J. Hastings

Kennedy, Patrick James

Black, Alexander William

Dunn, Sir William

Langley, Batty

Blake, Edward

Edwards, Frank

Law, Andrew Bonar

Boland, John

Elibank, Master of

Leamy, Edmund

Bousfield, William Robert

Ellis, John Edward

Leng, Sir John

Boyle, James

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Levy, Maurice

Broadhurst, Henry

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Lewis, John Herbert

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lough, Thomas

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Farrell, James Patrick

Lundon, W.

Burns, John

Field, William

Macdona, John Cumming.

Burt, Thomas

Flavid, Michael Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Flower, Ernest

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Caine, William Sproston

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Caldwell, James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Cameron, Robert

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Cann, James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Crae, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gilhooly, James

M'Eadden, Edward

Carew, James Laurence

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Govern, T.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Causton, Richard Knight

Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'rH'm'ts

Markham, Arthur Basil

Channing, Francis Allston

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Milton, viscount

Clancy, John Joseph

Grant, Corrie

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cogan, Denis J.

Greville, Hon. Ronald.

Mooney, John J.

Colville, John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hammond, John

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Priestley, Arthur

Sullivan, Donal

Moss, Samuel

Randles, John S.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Moulton, John Fletcher

Reckitt, Harold James

Tennant, Harold John

Murphy, J.

Reddy, M.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Newnes, Sir George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gowr

Norman, Henry

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tomkinson, James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Renwick, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rigg, Richard

Tritton, Charles Ernest

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tully, Jasper

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Robson, William Snowdon

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

O'Doherty, William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Schwann, Charles E.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Dowd, John

Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Partington, Oswald

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Paulton, James Mellor

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Yoxall, James Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Soares, Ernest J.

Pirie, Duncan v.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (North'nts

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hay and Mr. Warner.

Plummer, Walter R.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Strachey, Edward

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Reading put off for six months.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he now moved that the votes of Mr. William Ellison Macartney and Colonel Amelius Richard Mark Lockwood be disallowed. The House had seen by the division the immense value which attached to every vote, and if the votes of the gentlemen he named were disallowed the majority against the Bill would be ten instead of eight. They were directors of the London and North Western Company, and they used their power as Members of the House to vote for a Bill promoted by that company, of which they were the paid agents. He moved as a matter of principle, because he was of opinion that the sacred trust given to hon. Members by the people should not be exercised by agents of a monopolist company. The trade of Parliament must cease. He had all the greater pleasure in moving that Mr. Macartney's vote be disallowed because after he had become a Minister of the Crown he was appointed a director of the London and North Western Company.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he would second the motion willingly, although he
208
supported the Second Reading of the Bill. He was of opinion that no shareholder, and certainly no director, of any company, ought to vote for a Bill promoted by his company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim, whose vote was challenged, described himself during the debate as the representative of the London and North Western Company, and he spoke avowedly as the representative of the company, and not as representing his constituents. A company ought not to have any representative in the House. He regretted that in recent years the high code of honour which the House had set up in these matters in times past, and had acted upon with strictness, had been greatly relaxed, and he thought the time had come when the House should revert to its ancient habit of imprisoning, without any considerations of party whatever, hon. Gentlemen who, as shareholders, and certainly as directors, voted for a Bill in which they had a personal concern. He therefore supported the motion.
*MR. SPEAKER: The question that each vote be disallowed must be put separately.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLmoved that the vote of Mr. William Ellison Macartney be disallowed.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSformally seconded the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of the Right honourable William Ellison Macartney be disallowed."—(Mr. MacNeill.)
*MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the vote of the right hon. Member for South Antrim be disallowed. The right hon. Gentleman will make any statement he wishes to make, and then withdraw from the House.
MR. MACARTNEY: I have only a very short statement to make. On a previous occasion when my vote was challenged, I ventured to point out to the House that the action of a director voting on a Bill promoted by his company had been brought before the House many years ago, and had been defended by one of the greatest parliamentary authorities that ever sat in the House. My predecessor, the present Lord Rathmore, on that occasion voted for a Bill promoted by the London and North Western Company, he then being a director of the company, and a member of the Government. His vote was challenged and was defended by Mr. Gladstone, who argued, and successfully argued with the House, that it was not an occasion on which Lord Rathmore should not have voted, having regard to his personal honour, and to his position as a member of the Government. I simply submit to the House, that the House and its predecessors have always vindicated the right of a Member in my position to vote as I have voted, and that in voting, I have done nothing derogatory to the interests of the honour of the House, or to that regard for it which every Member of the House ought to have. Had I supposed that in giving this vote I should have served my own private interests, I would admit that I had done something which merited the reflection of the House. But in casting this vote I can in no way advance my private interests either as a director of the company or as a shareholder, which I am in a small way. I submit that the point raised is not one in which the House of Commons should deviate from
210
the invariable decision it has come to on similar occasions under the guidance of the highest parliamentary authorities that have adorned this Assembly.
The right hon. Gentleman then withdrew.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I hope the House will quite clearly express on this occasion, as it has on previous occasions, its dissent from the principle underlying the motion of the hon. Member opposite. We have had this question up before us in many previous Parliaments over and over again, and I do not hesitate to say that the balance of Parliamentary authority and tradition, as well as of common sense, is altogether against the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite. One of those Gentlemen—I did not hear the whole speech, but I heard enough to see that he was sufficiently logical to endeavour to extend his proposal, not merely to directors of companies, but to shareholders of companies.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I never said anything of the kind.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I refer to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, and I compliment him when I say he was sufficiently logical to carry his argument to its proper conclusion. The hon. Member told the House that if the vote of a Member was to be disallowed because he was a director, so also it should be disallowed if he were a shareholder. We all know that the pecuniary interest of a shareholder in a company may be, and very often is, greater than that of a director of the company. Is it not evident that in an assembly like this you would only land yourselves in a hopeless difficulty if you attempt to press to its conclusion any such principle as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite? We are on the eve of the discussion of the coal tax. Are you going to exclude from the debate and the division lobby every Gentleman who has an interest in coal mines?
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: That is a public Bill affecting public interests.

211
Here is a private Bill affecting the private interests of shareholders.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are public Bills to be decided by private and corrupt interests, and not private Bills? Is that the principle the hon. Gentleman lays down? A public Bill comes before us affecting the interests by taxation of the whole community. On that you may be influenced by the most corrupt and personal motives. But let it be a private Bill affecting only the interests of a particular company, then the whole motive is altered, and those considerations which are legitimate when you are dealing with a public Bill are to be rigidly excluded.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is the Parliamentary rule.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There the hon. Member comes to a direct question of fact. He should put it to the Speaker whether it is in defiance of Parliamentary rule. If it is so, I have nothing more to say. I am only arguing the question to the best of my humble ability as to what is the custom and practice of Parliament in this matter. If the hon. Member desires I will sit down for him to test the point by putting a question to the Speaker.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I accept the challenge. Mr. Speaker, the rule, with great respect to you, has been laid down repeatedly, that in a public Bill the question of personal interest cannot arise. In private Bills, on the contrary, it has been held in reference to Members sitting on Committees and voting upstairs that any direct pecuniary interest invalidates the vote.
*MR. SPEAKER: In dealing with public Bills the consideration comes in with greater force whether it is not the public duty of a Member to vote, although he may have some private or pecuniary interest. The question is not one of order. It is for the House on each occasion to weigh the advantages. It is for the House in this matter to say whether or not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim has any such direct private
212
pecuniary interest as should prevent him from voting.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is it not the case that in public Bills the interests of an individual are only concerned as a member of a class, or as a member of the public; but that in private Bills, such as this, the interests of shareholders and directors only are affected?
*MR. SPEAKER: It is impossible for me to say as a matter of order to what extent, or under what circumstances, hon. Members may be interested in a public Bill. An individual Member may be very largely interested in such a measure.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Yes, as a member of a class.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is evident from what has fallen from the Chair that I was not incorrect in saying that there is no such practice as that which hon. Gentlemen opposite have laid down. If they will look back to the debates, which have arisen on the occasions when the hon. Member for South Donegal took the part he has taken to-day—for I give him credit for the virtue of consistency—they will see that the House has decided, as I hope they will decide to-day, that there is no case for disallowing the vote. It is evident that if the House were to lay down the other principle they would involve themselves in endless disputes both as to private and public Bills. The honour and credit of the House, I venture to say, will not suffer by the action taken by my right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim, when his motives are known. If the hon. Member for Durham were to get up this afternoon, as probably he will, to object to the coal tax, in which he is personally and largely interested, everyone knows his personal interest, and everyone also knows his integrity and honour. They may think him biased, but they will not think him corrupt. If he votes, as he probably will vote, against the coal tax, it will be open to say that, if he had not been a coal-owner, he would not have taken that view; but no one will attribute corruption to him, or say that his vote should be

213
disallowed. The same broad principle of equity ought to guide us in the case now before the House. I am only asking the House to do on this occasion what they have always done on the many occasions this question has been brought before us in similar circumstances. I ask them not to put a personal slur upon my right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim—for that is what it amounts to—by disallowing the vote he has just given.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite accurate in saying that this is a question which has often come before the House on similar occasions in previous years, and that the decision of the House has generally, though not universally, been in the direction he urges the House to take on this occasion; but I cannot help thinking that there has been of late years a somewhat altered feeling on the subject in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has ingeniously brought in the action of Members with regard to public legislation and public Bills, and has represented that as if it were on the same footing exactly as the action of a Member when deciding on the merits of a private Bill. The House will see that there is a great difference between the two actions. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the case of taxation. The great business of this House is to levy taxation, or to take it off whenever the opportunity arises to do so, and there is no taxation which can be imagined which will not affect a larger or smaller number of Members, directly or indirectly. Taxation is a part of our regular duty, and it is our business to disregard our personal interest and to look to the interest of the public. As public men and public servants we are quite capable of doing so, but that is an entirely different case from that of a director of a company who comes here to advocate the case of the company, and who has had a part in preparing the Bill which he submits to the House, and which is submitted to the House in order that the House may impartially Judge as between the public and this very company as to what is right and what is wrong. In almost every case, in the smallest petty sessional division
214
in the country, a justice who is interested in any case which comes on leaves the bench. Another attempt is made to confuse the issue by introducing the shareholder. He, again, differs from the director in this, at all events, that he has no part in the Bill. He may ultimately benefit or suffer by the Bill, but he, at all events, has no part in preparing and promoting the Bill. But the director is the main person. He is the governing influence in the very party which is coming to the House to ask something of Parliament. I began by saying that in these days, I think, and am glad to think, public feeling in this matter, and all cognate matters, has been somewhat quickened. There is no slur on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim. The right hon. Gentleman is above suspicion. He has only acted, as the First Lord of the Treasury says, in accordance with precedent, but that is no reason why we should not now express our opinion that in future, in order to save ourselves, at all events, from imputations that are sometimes cast upon us, the vote of a director in regard to a measure promoted by the company of which he is a director ought not to be allowed.
MR. BARTLEYthought this was an occasion upon which the House might set an advanced precedent. It was all very well to say that similar votes had been recorded on previous occasions. No doubt they had, but he believed that the country, with its growing intelligence and knowledge of these matters, would consider whether it was really well that directors should have the right to take a prominent part in voting for measures such as the one just disposed of. It seemed to him to be altogether a mistake for an hon. Member who was a director to vote on a measure affecting the company with which he was connected. He did not for a moment suggest that the Member was not strictly honourable in doing so, but certainly it was a much better thing that the idea of the House should be that on such occasions a director should walk out. That course had often been taken; it had been taken this session. He thought the House should in some way or another announce that they considered it wiser and better

215
that a Member who was a director should retire when a division on a Bill, in which his company was interested, took place. This was especially the case now when it was continually thrown at the Government that a number of those who had seats in it were directors of companies. It was unfortunate that that should be the case, and it was also unfortunate that when a question of this sort came up they did not take the highest and strictest view of the matter. He should be sorry to vote against his right hon. friend, because he had acted in accordance with many precedents, and, he believed, strictly in good faith; but he thought it was desirable that the House should express its opinion that, in all matters concerning private companies, it should be considered etiquette and high tone that Members interested as directors should retire.
MR. DILLONdesired, at the outset, to challenge the statement of the Leader of the House, that it was entirely unprecedented for a vote to be disallowed upon an occasion such as that under discussion. On the 11th March, 1892, the hon. Member for South Donegal made the following motion—
"That the votes of Sir Lewis Pelly, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, and Sir John Puleston, given on Friday, the 4th day of March, in favour of the grant in aid of the cost of a preliminary survey for a railway from the coast to Lake victoria Nyanza, be disallowed."
After a prolonged debatev that motion was carried, by 154 against 149 votes, after receiving the support of the greatest authority on parliamentary procedure and propriety who ever sat in the House, namely, the late Mr. Gladstone. This was an a fortiori case, because in the case of the Mombassa Railway it was pleaded that a great question of national policy was at stake. What was proposed then was a grant of public money for the purpose of making a preliminary survey for the construction of a railway to the victoria Nyanza, and it was contended that the three gentlemen, whose votes it was sought to have disallowed, had a direct pecuniary interest in the scheme, inasmuch as they were directors of the
v In the course of this debate the precedents were gone into very fully. See Debates, Fourth Series, vol. ii., pages 323 and 640.
216
East African Company. On that ground by a majority of six, the House disallowed the votes. It was not then contended that it would be throwing any slur upon the gentlemen in question, but the matter was debated on the broad ground of principle and policy. The contention of the Leader of the House that, if this principle was affirmed, the House would be irresistibly drawn to the position that no man should vote on a great question of taxation who might have a personal interest in it was, if he might say so with respect, mere clap-trap. It would simply mean that nobody at all would vote, because many questions of taxation affected every single Member of the House. The right hon. Gentleman also sought to do away with the distinction between public and private Bills in this regard. But that distinction was recognised in the Standing Orders of the House, because there was a rule that no Member who had a direct pecuniary interest in a Bill should serve on the Private Bill Committee by which that measure was considered, whereas there was no corresponding rule with regard to Public Bills. The real and actual distinction was this—no matter whether a measure was in form a private or a public Bill, the real distinction was, did it apply to a certain specific enterprise or to the general public interest? The true principle should be that, where any proposal was brought before Parliament, whether in the shape of a private Bill or of a motion in Committee of Supply, nobody should vote who was a director of the company concerned. If, unfortunately, that precedent had been departed from more than once, that was all the greater reason for the House to lay down a wholesome rule for the future. The precedent of Lord Rathmore had been alluded to. He was a very honourable man, but his case formed a very bad precedent, for his was a most striking case of a Minister of the Crown uniting with that position the directorship of innumerable companies. According to the Directory of Directors, that gentleman was a director of no less than ten companies.
*MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the particular case before the House.
MR. DILLONthought this was an extremely proper occasion for the question to be raised and decided by the House. It would have been a perfect scandal if this Bill had been carried by the votes of railway directors, and yet the difference of a very few votes would have brought about that result.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid this was not the occasion upon which a question of this kind ought to be decided or ought to be raised. He agreed that there was a strong and growing public opinion that directors would do well to abstain from voting upon an occasion of this kind, when they might be supposed to have a private interest in the matter. He had just left a case in the law courts in which the learned judge was a shareholder in the company concerned. He at once told counsel that he had an interest in the matter, and counsel said that that did not make any difference. He thought it would be better for directors to abstain from voting, and if the House thought it was right to decide in that sense the proper course was to pass a Standing Order to provide that a director, and he would like to add a shareholder, should not vote on any question in which he was privately interested. No doubt his right hon. friend and others in the same position thought that they would be guilty of some laches in the matter if they did not exercise their right to vote upon this question. The only way to decide the question was by a motion for a Standing Order to give effect to what he thought was the growing feeling of the House in respect to this matter. He submitted that this was not a proper way to raise the question, and they were all bound to feel that the right hon. Gentleman had voted in a perfectly honourable and straightforward manner.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By leave of the House, may I be allowed to say one word. I am reminded by what has fallen from my hon. friend of a circumstance which ought to be in hon. Members' minds. On the last occasion on which this question was discusssed. I think it was in 1896, on the motion to disallow the vote of my right hon. friend the Member for North-East Manchester, there was a debate
218
similar to this, and at the conclusion of the debate it was agreed that a Committee of the House should be appointed to consider whether any alteration should be made in the Standing Orders with regard to the voting of Members on questions in which they were interested. That Committee was a strong one, and it reported against any alteration of the Standing Orders.
MR. GODDARDthought a good many Members of the House were of opinion that such a rule as had been suggested ought to be made. He quite remembered the debate of 1896 upon this question, and he believed the First Lord of the Treasury had used almost exactly the same arguments this day as he did in 1896. He stated that if they attempted to do anything of this kind they would land the House in tremendous difficulties, but he wished to point out to the House that in almost every municipality of the land this rule was strictly observed. If it could be carried out in a municipality, why on earth could it not be carried out in a large and more important body? In a municipal council, if a question of purchasing tramways or public lighting came forward in which any members of the council were directors, or even shareholders, or in which they were pecuniarily interested in any way, they would not even take part in the debate or in the division. There was no difficulty whatever in carrying out such a rule. In matters where a member of a corporation was personally interested he was prohibited either from taking part in the debate or voting upon the question, and if he did either he would be liable to some penalty. It seemed to him to be a reasonable and righteous rule, and he could not see why there should be any difficulty in carrying it out in the House of Commons.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the hon. Member for North Hackney had based his argument upon the case of a judge admitting that he was interested in the company concerned in the case, and who would not act unless both sides agreed. He would remind the hon. Member that both sides did not agree upon this question. The hon. Member

219
had told the House that the right hon. Gentleman was not so keen about voting as a director, but it was the sacred rights of directors he was looking after. What could be worse than that? He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been most unfortunate in the protector and defender of this case. He had considerable doubt as to what had been put forward as the result of the inquiry made by a Committee upon this question. But, whether that Committee reported or not, the matter was not in the hands of any small Committee. The dignity and honour of the House were the possession of the House itself, and without casting any slur upon the right hon. Gentleman—and be hoped he would not take it personally, because they were enunciating a principle—the House ought to assert its real opinion upon this subject.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that there was no intention of casting a slur on the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought they should take care not to cast a slur upon the House itself, as would be the case were the motion to be rejected. The distinction attempted to be drawn between a private and public Bill was altogether fallacious. The House existed to protect the public; the directors of a railway company existed to protect their own interests. Every Member of the House knew that nineteen times out of twenty the interests of railway directors conflicted with those of the public at large. Quite recently two aldermen of the City Council of Manchester were compelled to resign their seats for having taken part in transactions as aldermen in which they had a direct pecuniary interest, and he hoped the House would not rest content to set up a lower standard of purity than that which obtained in a municipal council. The great charge brought against politicians in America was that of corruption, especially that the legislative powers of the Senate were controlled by persons financially interested in its decisions. As had already been stated, the power of companies was growing in the House, and if they did not pass such a motion as the one under discussion, it would go forth to the country and to the world that the House of Commons was less concerned about its own honour than about the
220
interests of the directors of public companies. Hon. Members were aware that there was no more serious charge which could be levelled against politicians than the statement that the House of Commons was simply an annexe of the Stock Exchange. There was a growing feeling in the country in that direction, and the House of Commons in its own interest, and to preserve its own good name, would do well to pass the motion under discussion. But there was a wider aspect to the question. As the days went by Bills directly affecting the pecuniary interests of hon. Members would become more and more common, and if it was to be taken for granted that a Member of this House might use his influence in the Lobby, as he saw the right hon. Gentleman doing, to persuade hon. Members to vote for him and the company in which he was interested, the chance of a straight and honourable consideration for Bills affecting the pockets of the well-to-do would become very remote. As an act of public policy, and as a safeguard against the House of Commons being made more corrupt than it was in matters of finance, he strongly supported the motion. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!" and Nationalist cheers.]
MR. MALCOLM: On a point of order. Has any hon. Member of this House the right to suggest that the House is in any degree corrupt?
*MR. SPEAKER: I did not catch the expression of the hon. Member. There was a great deal of noise in the House at the time. I hope the hon. Member will use language respectful to the House of Commons.
*MR. KEIR HARDIE (who was received with Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!"): I do not withdraw anything. If I had said anything untrue I would at once withdraw it. My statement was that by passing this motion we would safeguard the House of Commons against becoming more corrupt financially than it is. [Nationalist cheers and Ministerialist cries of "Order!"] If the rules of the House permitted, I could give case after case to prove the point that is in my mind, and one great illustration—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to discuss—even if he thinks the House of Commons is corrupt, and I do not understand that he has said it is—that question.
*MR. KEIR HARDIE: I understood so, Mr. Speaker, and I shall continue my support of the motion. I want hon. Members to understand that there is a strong and growing feeling amongst the working classes of this country that the House of Commons is an annexe to the Stock Exchange—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—controlled by the Stock Exchange in Stock Exchange interests, and that, by passing this motion, the House will disabuse the public mind of that impression, and safeguard the purity of the House.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he had one suggestion to make to the House. It was a very inconvenient thing for the special votes of individual Members to be disallowed by the House of Commons. Every time a discussion of this kind arose they had to take great pains to explain to the House and the country that the conduct of the individual whose vote was to be disallowed was not impugned at all. It was in the necessity of the case that that should be so, for they had no Standing Order on the subject. On this occasion they desired to say clearly that they did not impute misconduct of any kind to the right hon. Gentleman whose vote they were discussing, but, in order to make the decision of the House on this occasion more impersonal than it would otherwise be, he ventured to suggest that everyone in the House who was a director should refrain from voting upon the motion.
*SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid he had a strong objection himself to voting as a director, and if it should ever happen that it lay upon him to give a casting vote on a railway Bill promoted by a company of which he was a director, and in that way carry the Bill against the wishes of a considerable portion of the House, it would be a difficult position. It would be to him, and he believed to many hon. Members around him, a painful thing that
222
they should lay down what maybe called a sound principle by throwing blame upon an individual who had only followed the custom usual in the House for many years past, He should decline to vote for passing that motion, for, as it stood, it seemed to him to place many of them in the difficult position of establishing a sound principle at the expense of punishing the individual. He should prefer that the debate should be adjourned with a view to the Standing Order being altered, so as to lay down clearly the line that those who were directors should pursue in relation to those Bill in which they were interested.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had before him the Report of the Committee which was appointed in 1896 to consider this question, and from that it appeared that since 1837 the House had never disallowed the vote of a director in circumstances similar to those now under consideration. That was a very strong Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other eminent Members of the House were upon it. It seemed to him that, if the House were to disallow the vote of a director, it must also disallow the vote of every Member who was a shareholder in the company concerned. This was not the case of a resolution to make a grant in aid of the company of which the right hon. Gentleman was a director. It was the case of a private Bill to grant the company powers to spend its own money in doing certain works which might conceivably ruin it. That was not a Bill that gave any direct pecuniary advantage or interest to any shareholder or director who voted for it in this House, and therefore it seemed to him, under these circumstances, not admissible to exclude a Members vote, whether he were a director or a shareholder. If the House disallowed the vote of the light hon. Gentleman it appeared to him that they would have to go a great deal further and deal with the case of those Members of the House who were contractors, or associated with firms of contractors, and also with the question of Minister-directors.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is a different question.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would leave that, and say generally that the question they were discussing was, in fact, only a small part of the much larger question. He was, personally, sorry that the director voted. That was a question of taste, but he thought that, because the director had not observed that fine taste the House would like to see observed, it would be a little hard to pass upon him a vote of censure of an altogether unexampled nature.
MR. FIELDsaid the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim would have shown more taste if he had not voted. He would ask what was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman should abstain from voting. Was it not because it was considered wrong that a director should vote? They all knew perfectly well when a railway Bill was
coming on, because the railway directors who were Members of the House came there prepared to support the Bill. Whenever a railway Bill came on they saw every railway director rushing thereto support it. He entirely agreed with the proposal, and intended to support it. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that this was only the fringe of a great question, but they must begin to attack it some time, and this was the first opportunity. They who intended to vote for disallowing the votes of the two hon. Members had no idea whatever of assailing or impugning their integrity, but they thought it was wrong for them to vote, and he trusted that the House, by the result of the division, would put an end to this system.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 268. (Division List No. 163.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Crombie, John William

Hayden, John Patrick

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cullinan, J.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Delany, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Asher, Alexander

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hobhouse, C. F. H. (Bristol, E.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Dillon, John

Holland, William Henry

Atherley-Jones, L.

Donelan, Capt. A.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Austin, Sir John

Doogan, P. C.

Horniman, Frederick John

Barry; E. (Cork, S.)

Duffy, William J.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dunn, Sir William

Jordan, Jeremiah

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Frank

Joyce, Michael

Black, Alexander William

Elibank, Master of

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Blake, Edward

Ellis, John Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

Boland, John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Langley, Batty

Boyle, James

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Leamy, Edmund

Brigg, John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leng, Sir John

Broadhurst, Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

Levy, Maurice

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Field, William

Lloyd-George, David

Burns, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lough, Thomas

Burt, Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lundon, W.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Flower, Ernest

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Caine, William Sproston

Flynn, James Christopher

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Caldwell, James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cameron, Robert

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Cann, James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Crae, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gilhooly, James

M'Fadden, Edward

Carew, James Laurence

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

M'Govern, T.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Causton, Richard Knight

Grant, Corrie

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Cawley, Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Channing, Francis Allston

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Clancy, John Joseph

Hammond, John

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Cogan, Denis J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Mooney, John J.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Colville, John

Harrington, Timothy

Morley, Rt Hon John (Montrose

Craig, Robert Hunter

Harwood, George

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Crean, Eugene

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Moss, Samuel

Moulton, John Fletcher

Reckitt, Harold James

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Murphy, J.

Reddy, M.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Newnes, Sir George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Nolan, Col. John. P (Galway, N.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tomkinson, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Norman, Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Tully, Jasper

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

Wallace, Robert

Nussey, Thomas William

Robertson, Edmond (Dundee)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Robson, William Snowdon

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Roche, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Russell, T. W.

Weir, James Galloway

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Schwann, Charles E.

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Doherthy, William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

O'Dowd, John

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Kelly, James (Rosscomn., N.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

O'Mara, James

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

Spence, Rt. Hn. C. E. (Northnts

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Partington, Oswald

Stevenson, Francis S.

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Paulton, James Mellor

Strachey, Edward

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Sullivan, Donal

Yoxall, James Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Pirie, Duncan v.

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Priestley, Arthur

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Rea, Russell

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cavendish, Y. C. W. (Derbysh.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Forster, Henry William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Garfit, William

Anstruther, H. T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Gibbs, Hon. vicary (St. Albans)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Arrol, Sir William

Chapman, Edward

Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Charrington, Spencer

Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'ml'ts

Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Gore, Hon. E. S. Ormsby-

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Coddington, Sir William

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Graham, Henry Robert

Baird, John George Alexander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Baldwin, Alfred

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Grenfell, William Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gretton, John

Banbury, Frederick George

Cranborne, viscount

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick),

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Groves, James Grimble

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B (Hants.

Cust, Henry John C.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bigwood, James

Dewar, T R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Bill, Charles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Bond, Edward

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Harris, Frederick Leverto

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bousfield, William Robert

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Brassey, Albert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Holder, Augustus

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Brymer, William Ernest

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bull, William James

Finch, George H.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Butcher, John George

Fisher, William Hayes

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Fison Frederick William

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hoult, Joseph

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Smith, H C (N'rth'mb., Tyneside

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Mount, William Arthur

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Spear, John Ward

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Muntz, Philip A.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Myers, William Henry

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Stock, James Henry

Keswick, William

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stone, Sir Benjamin

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stroyan, John

Knowles, Lees

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Law, Andrew Bonar

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lawson, John Grant

Pemberton, John S. G.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni.

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Penn, John

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Percy, Earl

Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pierpoint, Robert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Pilkington, Richard

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederic k

Valentia, viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Warde, Col. C. E.

Lowe, Francis William

Purvis, Robert

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'nton

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Randles, John S.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Whiteley, H. (Aston-und.-Lyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

Remnant, James Farquharson

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell- (Bir.

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, K.)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wills, Sir Frederick

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

Richards, Henry Charles

Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlinghsh.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Majendie, James A. H.

Rigg, Richard

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Malcolm, Ian

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Robinson, Brooke

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Melville, Beresford valentine

Ropner, Col. Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Rothschild, Sir Lionel Walter

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Milton, viscount

Rutherford, John

Younger, William

Milward, Colonel victor

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Mitchell, William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would now move to disallow the vote of Colonel Amelius Richard Mark Lockwood, who was also a director of the company. After that he would move to disallow the vote of another hon. Gentleman. He did not exercise his right to reply on the previous motion, and, therefore, he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would permit him to give a better version of what took place on the Personal Interests Committee which he so airily disposed of. He sat for many hours on that Committee. The Report presented to the House was a colourless Report, but in the documents which were incorporated with it there was a record of a particular Amendment to which he desired to direct the attention of right hon.
228
Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. The Amendment was as follows—
"That the following paragraphs be inserted: Your Committee think it desirable that the position and votes of Members who are directors or shareholders in companies affected by private Bills should be regarded more strictly than has been the case of late years. Such instances as those of directors and shareholders who have undertaken to represent companies and to conduct Bills through this House would appear to come within the spirit if not the letter of the rule."
The Amendment was proposed by Mr. Haldane, and on a division was defeated by six votes to five. The ayes were Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. MacNeill. The noes were Mr. Bonsor, Sir W. Hart-Dyke, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Solicitor General,

229
and Mr. Woodhouse. He knew as a fact that two Members of the Committee who were, absent would have voted in the affirmative had they been present. Among the ayes there was only one directorship, that held by Mr. Courtney in a small company in Cornwall, whereas among the six noes there were no fewer than sixteen directorships. One hon. Member in the last debate in supporting the Government mentioned that a learned judge in the courts stated that he was interested as a shareholder in a company before him and that he would withdraw if it were desired, but the case wont on. There was, however, the well-known case in which Lord Campbell, then Lord Chief Justice of England, reversed the decision of Lord Cottenham. Lord Campbell said that no one would accuse Lord Cottenham of being influenced by personal motives, but that the administration of justice should be above suspicion and that, therefore, the decision would be reversed. So far as Colonel Lockwood was concerned, there was no one in the House who had an atom of personal ill will or bitter feeling against him. He begged to move that Colonel Lockwood's vote be disallowed.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he would have contented himself with formally seconding the motion were it not that he desired to reply to the argument advanced by the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no distinction whatever between a private and a public Bill, and tried to score a point off him by suggesting that he argued that on a public Bill a man could act from private interest, whereas he could not do so on a private Bill. The distinction was as clear as any distinction which had ever been drawn in the House. With reference to a private Bill the House acted judicially, and the principle which regulated private Bills was the principle which regulated the conduct of judicial functionaries in the courts. A public Bill did not confer a private advantage on any individual, though it might necessarily affect the pockets of the country at large, but if hon. Members were excluded from voting on such Bills they would necessarily be excluded from voting on almost every public Bill, certainly
230
on every Bill with reference to taxation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the coal tax. If an hon. Member happened to be a colliery proprietor it was not suggested that he would not have a perfect right to vote against the coal tax, but if a Bill were brought forward to give that hon. Member's colliery special advantages he should not vote for it. The distinction was perfectly clear. Suppose, again, a general railway consolidation Bill were introduced, it was not suggested that a railway director would not have a perfect right to vote on such a Bill. It would be a Bill affecting all railways, not his own railway particularly, and he would be interested in it as a member of the public. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that he laid down the proposition that shareholders should be also excluded from voting. He, however, expressed a doubt in that matter. He was doubtful as to whether shareholders should vote, but he was certain with regard to directors. He would point out that a shareholder might only have an infinitesimal interest in a company, whereas, a director was a paid official, and in a special sense the representative of the company. It was of course perfectly true that a shareholder might have a larger interest in a company than a director, but when a line had to be drawn some cases were excluded which ought not to be excluded, and other cases were included which ought not to be included. The line should be drawn somewhere, and because it could not be drawn to exclude every possible case, it was argued it should not be drawn at all. It would be admitted that infant children ought not to be bound by contracts, but a person of eighteen might be more sensible in the management of his business than a person of thirty. But if the argument that had been used were relied on, a mere child might be held to a contract. He thought the House ought to return to its ancient practice.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the vote of Colonel Lockwood be disallowed."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to state, in placing myself in the discretion of the House, that I voted in a way which I

231
believe is according to precedent for a Bill of public and general convenience, and that in doing so I was not actuated by any corrupt motive.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No one suggested it.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I do not insinuate that for a minute, but that was my reason for voting. I did so in what I believed to be the exercise of my right, and I was not actuated by any private, or corrupt motive. I believed it to be according to precedent, and that I had the right to vote, and in that I believe I shall be sustained by the House.
The hon. Member then withdrew.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought it was hardly necessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain that he did not vote from any private or corrupt motive. He did not believe there was a Member of the House who would for a moment suggest such a thing. This was a question of principle, and if it had not been that the men against whom this motion was directed were honourable men, like the right hon. Member for Antrim and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just left, the House would not tolerate the motion for a moment. It was the fact that men like the hon. Members, whose actions were beyond reproach, lent themselves to such a practice that caused the rule. He was a Member of the Committee appointed in 1896 to consider this matter, and the rule laid down by that Committee was that the House should go into each particular case, and that rule was only adopted by a majority of one. A very much more drastic rule came within one vote of being adopted by the Committee, and he thought that it was to be regretted that that ride was not adopted. It was hardly necessary to argue that there should be a difference between a shareholder and a director.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is referring, I believe, to the motion made by the hon. Member for South Donegal. In the drastic rule to which the hon. Gentleman refers no such distinction was made.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not refer to the motion made by the hon. Member for South Donegal, but to a motion made by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire. It was quite true that the more drastic rule did not draw a distinction if a shareholder undertook to pilot a Bill through the House; in that case he put himself in the same position as a director, and a distinction should not be made between a shareholder and a director who undertook to pilot a Bill through the House. The directors were the promoters of these Bills. The Bills had to be submitted to the board of directors. [A vOICE: And the shareholders.] He submitted that such a remark was based upon a misconception; the Great Western Railway Company had 70,000 shareholders, and it was idle to suggest that they were all responsible. When a Bill was submitted it came before the board of directors, and the policy was considered by them, and if there was an important matter likely to raise opposition in the House it was considered by the board of directors, and the board of directors alone, and to suggest that men who had fully considered a Bill would come here as Members of Parliament and act purely and simply in the public interest was absurd. He did not think that any man ought to put himself in a position where his private interests conflicted with his public duty. He would put it higher. He did not think a man ought to put himself in a position where his duty as trustee for a corporation conflicted with his duty as trustee for his constituents. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House had argued as if the motion imputed sordid motives; that was not so. It was because the men against whom the motion was made were honourable men, and they knew they had a duty to their board, that this question was so difficult. If they had not been upright men there would not be the same difficulty in the matter. In this particular case, the Bill introduced by the railway company dispossessed working men. That was a matter in which the public interest and the fiduciary interest of these directors were in conflict. All they had to consider as directors was that it was necessary to dispossess these men and pull down their cottages in order that

233
their railway might be able to pass through the district; but as Members of Parliament they had to consider what right they had to dispossess these poor people. They knew as directors that the building of other cottages would entail a much larger cost in extending the line, and that was the reason that no directors should place themselves in this position in the House of Commons No solicitor could act for a railway company in this House He did not know if there were a Standing Order against it, but he did know it was the practice. A solicitor in this House at the present time had given up a practice worth thousands a year upon entering the House of Commons; but suppose he had given up his practice and become a director of a company, he could promote Bills, argue on them, lobby for them, go into the Committee for them, and, in short, do everything that was necessary. In the case of a company Bill the solicitor was the servant of the directors, and he failed to see why an employer should be allowed to do that which his servant was precluded from doing. It was not only railway companies who were the delinquents; the House was overrun with directors of various kinds. First it was a railway Bill, and then it was a water Bill, and then—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now arguing against the presence of directors in this House, not against their voting, which is the question before the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if it was well known that the votes of directors would be disallowed he believed there would be fewer directors in the House. The predominant element in selecting hon. Members as directors was not their knowledge of rolling stock, but that they were popular and respected Members of this House, and those Gentlemen could not meet their colleagues on the board unless they did something, unless they did their best in the interests of the company.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question whether the vote should be
234
disallowed on the ground of personal pecuniary interest.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would not pursue that subject any further. It was, however, very important that it should be made as difficult as possible for hon. Gentlemen to vote in regard to Bills in which they were pecuniarily interested. These Bills were becoming more and more important, and every year they came more into conflict with the public interest. It had been contended that these railway companies simply came to Parliament for powers to spend their own money. That really was a sophistry. They came for privileges and compulsory powers to dispossess people of legal rights, and they asked Parliament to confer upon them valuable monopolies. It was, therefore, most essential that the House should be in a position to judge these matters impartially, without any suggestion of taint or of personal or private interest.
SIR SAMUEL HOAREthought that many Members had not fully realised the position of the Bill in regard to which this discussion arose. The question was not one of very great importance; it rested with the director himself as to whether or not he thought it desirable to vote. The question with regard to the Bill was only whether it should go to a Committee upstairs, and he would remind the House that every precaution was taken that upon such a Committee no men having any interest whatever in the Bill should sit. Each Member signed a paper stating that he had no interest whatever in the Bill. An hon. Member had said that the shareholders had no voice in regard to these Bills, but it was one of the duties of Committees upstairs to see that the shareholders had approved of the Bill, and, according to law, steps had to be taken that they should approve. The House might therefore rest assured that every precaution was taken to prevent any private interest whatever interfering with the carrying through Parliament of Bills of this character.
MR. HARWOODemphasised the fact that there was a great distinction between shareholders and directors.

235
The question before the House was one not of private corruption, but of official position. Many Members on both sides of the House who were shareholders in the company voted in the division on the Bill, but he did not suppose that one of those Members considered that fact in the vote he gave. But what about the case of a director? Did the House ever know of a director of a private company voting against a Bill promoted by his company? The objection was that directors of private companies wore pledged by their official position; they did not come to the consideration of the question with an open mind. In any case where Members could not give a free vote
upon a Bill the House would do well to disallow the vote.
MR. BLAKEsaid the atmosphere downstairs was like the atmosphere upstairs. The same influences, suspicions, and difficulties in forming an accurate judgment existed in the House as in the Committees upstairs, and all they desired was that the same precautions which Parliament had thought fit to take with reference to the constitution of Committees upstairs should be taken by the House in forming its judgment downstairs.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 202;. Noes, 287. (Division List No. 164.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Price, Robert John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Priestley, Arthur

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Reckitt, Harold James

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.

Weir, James Galloway

Reddy, M.

Stevenson, Francis S.

White, George (Norfolk)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Strachey, Edward

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sullivan, Donal

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Reid, Sir R. T. (Damfries)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Tennant, Harold John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roche, John

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Russell, T. W.

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Tomkinson, James

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Tully, Jasper

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wallace, Robert

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chapman, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Charrington, Spencer

Graham, Henry Robert

Aird, Sir John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Coddington, Sir William

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Grenfell, William Henry

Anstruther, H. T.

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Gretton, John

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Arrol, Sir William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Groves, James Grimble

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cox, Irwin Edward B.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cranborne, viscount

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'dnderry)

Baird, John George Alexander

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

Baldwin, Alfred

Gust, Henry John C.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Dewar, T. K. (TrH'mlts, S. Geo.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

Banbury, Frederick George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Helder, Augustus

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henderson, Alexander

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Dimsdale Sir Joseph Cockfied

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Beach, Rt Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Higginbottom, S. W.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Doughty, George

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Bigwood, James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Bill, Charles

Duke, Henry Edward

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Bond, Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Horner, Frederick William

Bousfield, William Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

Brassey, Albert

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finch, George H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawles

Brown, A. H. (Shropshire)

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Brymer, William Ernest

Fison, Frederick William

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bull, William James

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

Butcher, John George

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Campbell, Rt Hn. J A (Glasgow)

Forster, Henry William

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Garfit, William

Keswick, William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond.

Kimber, Henry

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gibbs, Hon. vicary (St. Albans)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Cavendish, v. C. W. (Derbys.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Knowles, Lees

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Law, Andrew Bonar

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlts)

Lawson, John Grant

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

MR. SWIFT MACNEILLmoved that the vote of the hon. Gentleman Sir William Houldsworth, Baronet, he disallowed. This was, in reality, a matter of the strictest principle, because the hon. Baronet was intensely respectable. He was the ideal of respectability, and that was what made it much more dangerous. Having regard to the manner in which the Government had been wasting public time, he would be as brief as possible. He wished to draw public attention to the fact that this company had wasted entirely a whole Parliamentary day by this Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant to the motion before the House.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLread the Order of the Irish Local Government
240
Board prohibiting a county councillor from voting in any matter in which he was personally interested, and said that every vote which had been given upon this question had been a party vote, and although the Whips of the party had not acted, they had certainly voted in the lobby for the Bill, and brought their influence to bear in favour of the company. He thought the Opposition had done a good day's work in shaking the Unionist Government, and they had not been wasting time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of Sir William Houldsworth be disallowed."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 289. (Division List No. 165.)

AYES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Donelan, Capt. A.

Leng, Sir John

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Doogan, P. C.

Levy, Maurice

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Duffy, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lloyd-George, David

Ambrose, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

Asher, Alexander

Edwards, Frank

Lundon, W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Elibank, Master of

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Ellis, John Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Austin, Sir John

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

M'Crae, George

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Fadden, Edward

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Govern, T.

Bell, Richard

Field, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Black, Alexander William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Blake, Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe-

Boland, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

Boyle, James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mooney, John J.

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Brigg, John

Furnesss, Sir Christopher

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Broadhurst, Henry

Gilhooly, James

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moss, Samuel

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Grant, Corrie

Moulton, John Fletcher

Burns, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Murphy, J.

Burt, Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Newnes, Sir George

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hammond, John

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Caine, William Sproston

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Caldwell, James

Harrington, Timothy

Norman, Henry

Cameron, Robert

Harwood, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Carew, James Laurence

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid

Carvill, Patrick George H.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Causton, Richard Knight

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Cawley, Frederick

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Clancy, John Joseph

Holland, William Henry

O'Doherty, William

Cogan, Denis J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Dowd, John

Colville, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Crean, Eugene

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Crombie, John William

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Cullinan, J.

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Partington, Oswald

Delany, William

Kitson, Sir James

Panltnn, James Mellor

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Langley, Batty

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Layland Barratt, Francis

Pickard, Benjamin

Dillon, John

Leamy, Edmund

Pirie, Duncan v.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Price, Robert John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Priestley, Arthur

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Reckitt, Harold James

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.

Weir, James Galloway

Reddy, M.

Stevenson, Francis S.

White, George (Norfolk)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Strachey, Edward

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sullivan, Donal

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Reid, Sir R. T. (Damfries)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Tennant, Harold John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roche, John

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Russell, T. W.

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Tomkinson, James

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Tully, Jasper

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wallace, Robert

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chapman, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Charrington, Spencer

Graham, Henry Robert

Aird, Sir John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Coddington, Sir William

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Grenfell, William Henry

Anstruther, H. T.

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Gretton, John

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Arrol, Sir William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Groves, James Grimble

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cox, Irwin Edward B.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cranborne, viscount

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'dnderry)

Baird, John George Alexander

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

Baldwin, Alfred

Gust, Henry John C.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Dewar, T. K. (TrH'mlts, S. Geo.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

Banbury, Frederick George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Helder, Augustus

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henderson, Alexander

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Dimsdale Sir Joseph Cockfied

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Beach, Rt Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Higginbottom, S. W.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Doughty, George

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Bigwood, James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Bill, Charles

Duke, Henry Edward

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Bond, Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Horner, Frederick William

Bousfield, William Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

Brassey, Albert

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finch, George H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawles

Brown, A. H. (Shropshire)

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Brymer, William Ernest

Fison, Frederick William

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bull, William James

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

Butcher, John George

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Campbell, Rt Hn. J A (Glasgow)

Forster, Henry William

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Garfit, William

Keswick, William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond.

Kimber, Henry

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gibbs, Hon. vicary (St. Albans)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Cavendish, v. C. W. (Derbys.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Knowles, Lees

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Law, Andrew Bonar

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlts)

Lawson, John Grant

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Parkes, Ebenezer

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Spear, John Ward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Spencer, E. (West Bromwich)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Penn, John

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Percy, Earl

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Lowe, Francis William

Pierpoint, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Pilkington, Richard

Stock, James Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stroyan, John

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macdona, John Cumming

Purvis, Robert

Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Pym, C. Guy

Thorburn, Sir Walter

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Tollemache, Henry James

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Randles, John S.

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Manners, Lord Cecil

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, viscount

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Richards, Henry Charles

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Melville, Beresford valentine

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Webb, Colonel William George

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Middlemore, John T.

Robinson, Brooke

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Milton, viscount

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Milward, Colonel victor

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Mitchell, William

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wilson, A. S. (York, E.R.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rutherford, John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Morrison, James Archibald

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wylie, Alexander

Mount, William Arthur

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Young, Commander (Berks, K.)

Muntz, Philip A.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Younger, William

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen.

Myers, William Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, H. C. (N'rth'b., Tyneside

Parker, Gilbert

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Grant, Corrie

O'Mara, James

Ambrose, Robert

Griffith, Ellis J.

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Asher, Alexander

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Paulton, James Mellor

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hammond, John

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Austin, Sir John

Harcourt, R. Hon. Sir William

Pickard, Benjamin

Harry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Pirie, Duncan v.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harwood, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Price, Robert John

Bell, Richard

Hayden, John Patrick

Priestley, Arthur

Black, Alexander William

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Reckitt, Harold James

Blake, Edward

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Helme, Norval Watson

Redmond, William (Clare)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Boyle, James

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Brigg, John

Holland, William Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Broadhurst, Henry

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Rickett, J. Compton

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burt, Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Robson, William Snowdon

Caine, William Sproston

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Roche, John

Caldwell, James

Jordan, Jeremiah

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Joyce, Michael

Russell, T. W.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

Schwann, Charles E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

Carew, James Laurence

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Carvill, Patrick George H.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Causton, Richard Knight

Leamy, Edmund

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clancy, John Joseph

Levy, Maurice

Soares, Ernest J.

Cogan, Denis J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northnts.

Cogill, Douglas Harry

Lloyd-George, David

Stevenson, Francis S.

Colville, John

Lough, Thomas

Strachey, Edward

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Crean, Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cremer, William Randal

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tennant, Harold John

Cullinan, J.

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Fadden, Edward

Thomas, Dav. Alfred (Merthyr

Davies, M. vaughan- (Cardigan

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomson, E. W. (York, W.R.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Tomkinson, James

Dillon, John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Tully, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wallace, Robert

Dully, William J.

Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Warner, Thomas (Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

Moss, Samuel

Wason, Eugene Clackmannan

Edwards, Frank

Murphy, J.

Weir, James Galloway

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

White, George (Norfolk)

Ellis, John Edward

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Norman, Henry

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid

Field, William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'fi'ld

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Doherty, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts.

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Dowd, John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Anstruther, H. T.

Arrol, Sir William

Aird, Sir John

Archdale Edward Mervyn

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Macartney, Rt Hn A v. G. Ellison

Baird, John George Alex.

Fison, Frederick William

Macdona, John Gumming

Baldwin, Alfred

Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Forster, Henry William

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Garfit, William

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hn A G H. (City of London

M'Killop Jas, (Stirlingshire)

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Majendie, James A. H.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Manners, Lord Cecil

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Bigwood, James

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Bill, Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Melville, Beresford valentine

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bond, Edward

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Middlemore, John T.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Milton, Viscount

Bousfield, William Robert

Grenfell, William Henry

Milward, Colonel victor

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Gretton, John

Mitchell, William

Brassey, Albert

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Groves, James Grimble

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gunter, Sir Robert

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Moon, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Brymer, William Ernest

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bull, William James

Hamilton, Rt Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.

Butcher, John George

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morrison, James Archibald

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford

Cautley, Henry Strother

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mount, William Arthur

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Muntz, Philip A.

Cecil, Evelyn, (Aston Manor)

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Myers, William Henry

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Chapman, Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Parker, Gilbert

Charrington, Spencer

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Coddington, Sir William

Horner, Frederick William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hoult, Joseph

Penn, John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

Percy, Earl

Colston, Chas. Edw. Athole

Howard, John (Midd., Tottenham)

Pierpoint Robert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pilkington, Richard

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Purvis, Robert

Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Randles, John S.

Cust, Henry John C.

Keswick, William

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kimber, Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Remnant, James Farquharson

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Knowles, Lees

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawrence, William F.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lawson, John Grant

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lee, A H. (Hants., Fareham)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Robinson, Brooke

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Doughty, George

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rutherford, John

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lowe, Francis William

Sandys, Lieut.-Cl. Thos. Myles

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Seton-Karr, Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Bi'm

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Wills, Sir Frederick

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Tollemache, Henry James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Smith, H C (Forth'mb. Tyneside

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Valentia, viscount

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Spear, John Ward

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wylie, Alexander

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Webb, Colonel William George

Younger, William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Stroyan, John

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to direct your attention to the fact that an hon. Member who I understood was Sir William Houldsworth voted in the "No" lobby.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is too vague a statement for me to take any notice of it.
MR. BOULNOIS: I was one, of the tellers in the "No" lobby, and I can only say, Sir, that I did not see Sir William Houldsworth in the "No" lobby.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: No, Sir, I certainly did not vote.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I apologise to the right hon. Baronet? I mistook him for someone else. [Ironical laughter.] I consider that a most ample and absolute apology is due to him, and I beg to tender it.

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Bury, in favour of re-enactment; to lie upon the Table.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Bury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITY COMMISSION SCHEMES.
  Petition of Thomas Allen, for power of Appeal against Dismissal for Head and Assistant Teachers; to lie upon the Table.
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL.
  Petitions against proposed Customs Export Duty; from Orgreave; Elsecar; Soothill Wood; North Gawber; Haigh Moor; East Gawber; Allerton Main; Robin Hood Colliery; Shireoaks and Steetley; Wharncliffe Silkstone; Bowers (No. 1); Wyke; Manvers Main; Altofts Collieries; Altofts (No. 1); Swinton; Wakefield; Barrow Hæmatite; Hartshead and Clifton Scholes; Clayton West; Stanhope Silkstone; Methley; Tankersley; Morley Main; Peckfield; Manvers Main; Ackton Hall; Cadeby Main; Loft-house Colliery; Crigglestone; Newmarket Silkstone; East Ardsley; Bruntcliffe; Grange; Batley (No. 1); Nunnery (No. 1) Collieries; Roundwood; Pontefract; South Kirby; Allerton Silkstone; Treeton; Rockingham; Smithy Wood and Drift; Gorton wood; Mirfield; Haigh; Mirfield and Ravensthorpe; Middleton; Tong; Jordon; Old Thorncliffe; West Ardsley; Barnsley Main; Ossett Roundwood; Wombwell Main; Low Laithes; Darfield Main; Stratford Main; Woolley; Rothwell; Ryhill; Skelmanthorpe; Rotherham Main (No. 2); Halton; Low Stubbin (No. 2); Houghton Main; Wakefield Main; Netherton; Bowling; Sharlston; Featherstone; Woothorpe Carlton Main; Heckmondwike Coal Company; Waverley; Wheldale; Waterloo Main; Leeds Central; Hickleton Main; Thornhill; Dewsbury; Aldwarke (No.

  247
  2); North Staveley; Garforth; Mitchell Main; Primrose Main; Monk Bretton; Grimethorpe; Millbridge; Fryston; Silkstone (two); Car House; Denaby Main; Wharncliffe; Gawthorpe; Glasshoughton; Hemsworth; Birley (No. 2); Hightown; Aldwarke Main; Greasbro'; Good Hope Branch; Denby Grange; Wortley and Farnley; Nunnery; Methley; Monckton Main; Sneydale; Bowers; Lepton; Kippax; Low Stubbin; Rockingham; Birley (No. 1); Foxholes; Whitwood Mere; Wharncliffe Woodmore; Snydale (No. 2); Tinsley Park; Scholes; Church. Lane; Fence; Thrybergh Hall; St. John's, Newland; Wath Main; and Chickenley Heath; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions, in favour, from Woodthorpe; and Aspatria Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petition from Manchester, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Norwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Cardiff, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition of Scottish Poor Law Medical Officers' Association, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against, from West Kensington; Liverpool (two); Ampthill; and Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
  MINE (EIGHT HOURS) BILL
  Petitions, in favour, from Glynea; Aspatria; Crynant; Merthyr; Lantwit; Woodthorpe; and Cardiff; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Birkenhead, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions, in favour, from Carlisle; Small Heath; West Kirby (two); Hitchin; Sheffield; Uplowman; Chatham; Whaddon; Porton; Salisbury; Todmorden; Chapeltown; Newbury; Hands worth; Plaistow Green; Cheltenham; Penrith; Henshaw; and Little Hungerford; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against, from Kidderminster; and Lough borough; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions, in favour, from Seacombe (two); Wirral; Garston; Birkenhead (six); Garstang; Dunfermline; Dartmouth (two); Beading; Sheffield (three); Westminster; Burnham; Aberporth (two); Mountsorrel: Brixham; Rock Ferry; Leeds: and Falmouth; to lie upon the Table.

  SITE VALUES (LONDON) RATING BILL.
  Petition from Tynemouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL LIST.
Committee to consider of the Acts relating to the Civil List—
That so much of His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of the Session, as relates to the Civil List, and His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 5th day of March, relating to Grants to Her Majesty the Queen and Members of His Majesty's Family, be referred to the said Committee.
That the Report which, upon the 28th day of March, was made from the Select Committee, to whom several Papers relative to the Expenditure of the Civil List were referred, be referred to the Committee, upon Thursday.—(Sir William Walrond.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented of Licence granted Lucy Jane Symons, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the St. John the Baptist's Home, S.W. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Accounts presented, of the Metropolitan Police, and the Police Pension Funds for the year ended 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 144.]
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Account presented, of all moneys received and of the disposal thereof, and of all contracts for the grant of Deferred Life Annuities and for Payments on Death made during the year 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 145.]

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 319 (Christmas Island, Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report No. 320 (British Solomon Islands. Report for 1899–1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GOLD COAST.
  Copy presented, of Laws and Regulations affecting Lands and Mines and the
  250
  Labour of Natives, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 29th April; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 146.]
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 29th April; Mr. Price]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 147.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Public Records (Admiralty).—Copy of Seventh Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents which have been removed from the Office of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
  2. Public Records (Supreme Court of Judicature).—Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Central Office and in the District Registries, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

  WARS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CHINA (COST AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered, "of estimated cost of Wars in South Africa and China, showing how the expenditure is to be met."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the accommodation available in the House of Lords when the Sovereign is personally present in Parliament, and the advisability of substituting Westminster Hall on such an occasion for the House of Lords, do meet in Committee Room A on Friday, at three o'clock.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to printed. [No. 148.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 148.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ADMINISTRATION OF ANNEXED TERRITORIES.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to lay before the House the scheme of civil administration proposed by Sir Alfred Milner before it is brought into operation; if so, can he state when it may be expected that the scheme will be laid upon the Table, and will opportunity be given for its discussion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The scheme of civil administration will be evolved gradually, as experience is gained of the requirements of the different departments. Consequently I do not anticipate that it will be possible, on any given date, to lay a complete scheme upon the Table of the House. The principles on which civil administration will be based, and some of the more important appointments which have already been made have already been communicated to Parliament in the parliamentary Paper Cd. 547 (pages 1 and 16).
  MR. BLACK: Arising out of that question, am I to understand we are to have no opportunity whatever of discussing this scheme?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, certainly not.
  MR. BLACK: No opportunity?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hon. Members are not to understand that
  252
  they will have no opportunity. The hon. Member will find plenty of opportunity.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the scheme for civil administration it is proposed to have two separate legislative councils, one for the Transvaal and another for the Orange River Colony, and in what language the orders of these councils will be promulgated.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As to the second point, nothing has yet been decided, but I am in communication with Sir A. Milner as to the precise practice to be followed.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in any scheme of judicial administration for the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies care will be taken that Scottish Law Agents in general are declared eligible to be admitted as attorneys in the new colonies, in the same way that Writers to the Signet and solicitors in the Supreme Court are already admitted.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already referred the matter to Sir A. Milner for his consideration.

PLAGUE IN SOUTH AFRICA.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the places in Cape Colony and Natal, outside the district of Cape Town, in which cases of plague have occurred within the knowledge of the Colonial Office.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The bulletins which have been published show that, besides a few cases imported into adjacent districts from the Cape Peninsula, there have been in the Cape Colony one case at Hermon Camp, one case at Port Elizabeth, and an outbreak at Somerset West. No outbreak of plague in Natal has been reported.

BOER PRISONERS—INTERMENT IN INDIA.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether

253
he has any information showing Ahmednagar to be an unhealthy station for European troops, and that troops stationed there have suffered from enteric fever; and, if so, will the captured Boer prisoners be deported to some more healthy part of India.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The viceroy reports to me as follows:—
"There is no foundation for rumours about unhealthiness of Ahmednagar. The rate of admission to hospital per thousand is actually less than that of Kasauli, Ranikhet, and Dalhousie, all of which are hill stations occupied by British troops; and is approximately the same as in Poona and Umballa, where British troops are stationed throughout the summer."
In these circumstances I see no reason for altering the arrangements which have been made.

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any despatch has been received from Lord Kitchener, in response to his request, giving the reasons which General Botha alluded to as not surprising to Lord Kitchener of the Boer non-acceptance of Lord Kitchener's terms; if so, will he lay this despatch upon the Table?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Guildford): No, Sir.
MR. BLACK: May I ask whether Lord Kitchener has declined to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's request for such a despatch?
MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; we have heard nothing whatever from Lord Kitchener with regard to the matter.

RECENT DESPATCHES.
MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a despatch has been received from the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa narrating the operations in the field since 15th November, 1900; if so, to what date the narrative extends, and whether this despatch will now be published.
MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener has sent a despatch, dated 8th March, which I am laying on the Table.

NUMBER OF TROOPS ENGAGED IN THE WAR.
MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Imperial troops in South Africa at the commencement of the Boer war; the number of troops since raised and enlisted in South Africa; and the number of troops of all branches of the Service that have been sent to South Africa from this country, India, and the colonies since the commencement of the war.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The hon. Member will find all the information he requires in a Return of the Military Forces in South Africa, presented to Parliament in March. A further Return will shortly be presented.

MILITIA EQUIPMENT.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the equipment of some Militia regiments is out of date and much worn, not even being of one pattern for the whole battalion in some cases, and whether he will see that they are properly provided with good equipment.
LORD STANLEY: I am aware that some Militia battalions have equipment which is not of the latest pattern in some respects. The commanding officer is responsible that the equipment is serviceable in all respects. If he considers any part unserviceable he would report it. I am not prepared to authorise the heavy cost of equipping all the battalions with the latest pattern so long as their equipment is serviceable.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: If an officer reports the equipment as unserviceable, will he get a fresh one?
LORD STANLEY: He certainly ought to if it can be proved that it is unserviceable.

AMMUNITION FOR VOLUNTEERS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state at what price cartridges are now supplied to volunteers who purchase them for practice purposes, and is it proposed to increase the number of cartridges supplied free of charge to each volunteer.
LORD STANLEY: In Infantry volunteer corps ten rounds per enrolled member may be purchased at the reduced price of £4 per 1,000, any further supplies being purchased at the rate of £5 per 1,000. Ninety rounds are allowed free per annum for each Infantry volunteer as before.

CANADIAN TROOPERS—ARREARS OF PAY.
MR. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that three months arrears of pay are still due to troopers of the Canadian Mounted Rifles who have returned to Canada from South Africa, he can state when these arrears will be made good.
LORD STANLEY: In all cases of men coming home with unadjusted balances of pay due to them, sixty-one days pay, or £5, whichever is the greater, is issued to them, and where the claims exceed these amounts, and where there is any corroborative evidence available, four-fifths of the amount claimed are issued. It is very difficult while the war is still proceeding to clear up the numerous accounts, but the general officer commanding the lines of communications has been instructed to make every endeavour to facilitate the adjustment of accounts in South Africa. I have no knowledge of the cases referred to in the question.

MILITIA RIFLES.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the Militia will have the new rifle issued to them; and if regiments of Militia having worn-out rifles will be provided with new ones be ore their annual musketry practice takes place.
LORD STANLEY: No new pattern of rifle has been adopted. The officer commanding a Militia battalion is responsible for seeing that arms which have become unserviceable are replaced.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Perhaps the word "unserviceable" goes too far. I want to know if the weapons which are partly worn out are being replaced, as the shooting of the men is affected.
LORD STANLEY: If the shooting is affected the weapon is defective, and should be replaced.

ROYAL GARRISON REGIMENT.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether accommodation or separation allowance will have to be provided for over 2,000 women and children belonging to the 1st Battalion Royal Garrison Regiment, which is going to Gibraltar, and is 650 strong.
LORD STANLEY: The first battalion is going to Malta. The second battalion, which is going to Gibraltar, has, according to the latest information, sixty-seven families, with 250 children at the most. There are thirty-five quarters available at Gibraltar for these families. The others will have separation allowance.

YOUNG SOLDIERS.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what are the numbers of the men of less than two years service serving in the battalions and batteries raised last year.
LORD STANLEY: The numbers are 9,429.

TROPICAL FORTRESSES—SUBSTITUTION OF INDIAN FOR BRITISH TROOPS.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state which are the tropical fortresses at which it is proposed by his Army organisation scheme to substitute Indian regiments for British ones.
MR. BRODRICK: Indian troops will be quartered at Hong Kong, Singapore,

257
and Mauritius, but not to the exclusion of British troops.

MARK IV. BULLETS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that many of the fifty million defective Mark Iv. bullets were made by private contractors, will he state the total sum which was paid to them for this work.
LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. As I have previously explained to the hon. Member, I cannot do so without giving considerable unnecessary trouble to the department concerned.
MR. WEIR: Could not the information be obtained from the books at the War Office in two or three minutes?
[No answer was returned.]
MR. WEIR: I shall raise this question on the Estimates.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERvE—SURGEONS.
CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain why the privilege of serving in the Royal Naval Reserve is denied to medical practitioners, and whether, in view of the duties which the surgeons of the Royal Navy would have to undertake in time of war, he will consider the desirability of forming a medical branch of the Royal Naval Reserve.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): This question has been under the consideration of the Admiralty on several occasions, but it has not been thought desirable to form a medical branch of the Royal Naval Reserve. Emergencies will be met by the entry of surgeons for temporary service, for which special regulations have been drawn up and circulated through all the universities and medical schools.

INDIA—PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURE.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what are the amounts, in tens of rupees, of capital expenditure on railways, water storage, and irrigation allocated for these purposes respectively in the financial
258
statement for the year ending 31st March; has sanction been given to the construction of a broad-gauge line to complete through communication between Bombay and Karachi, and at what point from or near Ahmedabad is such railway to start on the route through the Rann of Kutch and the districts of Thur-parkar; and what will be the length of such new line and the total cost in tens of rupees.
LORD G. HAMILTON: (1) Assuming the question to relate to the year ending 31st March, 1902, the answer is: for railways, 6,506,400 tens of rupees; water, storage and irrigation (not shown separately), 1,128,000 tens of rupees. (2) A broad-gauge line has been projected from Viramgam, on the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway, through the Rann of Kutch to Hydera bad, in Sind, but its construction has not yet been sanctioned. (3) The length of the line would be 360 miles, and the cost has been estimated at 3,240,000 tens of rupees.

COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to carry out the recommendations made by the Board of visitors of Cooper's Hill College in their Report on the retirement of certain professors, that in the case of Mr. M'Leod every consideration should be shown him in the matter of his retiring pension, and that in the case of Mr. Hearson the amount of his retiring allowance should be increased.
MR. O'MARA: May I ask the noble Lord which of the two contradictory Reports of the Board of visitors this question refers to, and which of the two contradictory Reports will be carried out.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I think that if the hon. Gentleman opposite had paid a little more attention to the two Reports he would see that they are in no sense contradictory. With regard to the question asked by my hon. friend, I have to say that the Council of India are considering Mr. M'Leod's retiring allowance, the desire being to give him the full amount possible under Civil Service Regulations. Mr. Hearson has a pension

259
from the Admiralty in addition to that proposed for his service at Cooper's Hill College. I doubt, therefore, if any increase will be sanctioned to the amount already approved.

MOROCCO—FRENCH MILITARY OPERATIONS.
*MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and other Governments with regard to the movements of French troops in and towards the dominions of the Sultan of Morocco, and whether he can give the House any information upon the subject.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): His Majesty's Government have received no information that French troops have entered the dominions of the Sultan of Morocco. It has, on the contrary, been stated more than once by the French Government that the recent operations on the eastern frontier of Morocco have been undertaken, not from any hostility to that country, but in order to prevent the recurrence of attacks from the nomad tribes which infest its borders.

COAL DUTY DRAWBACKS.
SIR CHARLES PALMER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received the promised statements from the exporters of coal under contract on which they claim drawback during the present financial year, and what is the estimated quantity and probable amount of such rebate.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The Board of Customs have received a large number of contracts from exporters of coal, and a large staff is now engaged in examining them. I can give no estimate at present.

COAL CONTRACTS—PROFITS.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the instruction to coal contractors seeking remission of
260
the new duty that they must disclose and prove their margin of profits, whether, in numerous instances, merchants committed to c.i.f. sales have not covered for coal or freight, and that, in the case of colliery owners selling forward f.o.b., the margin of profit will depend on the cost of production of the coal when raised; whether he is aware that there are several cases on record at Cardiff and other coal ports during recent years when the anticipation of profit by the merchant in speculative sales has not been realised, but where actual loss has resulted; and if, in order to assist contractors who are not covered in arriving at their margin of profits, he will indicate what the course of the market and the cost of production will be during the currency of their contracts.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: it was not intended to ask coal contractors to disclose their profits, which are necessarily problematical; and no apprehension need be entertained that anyone will be required to prove things that are still a matter of speculation.

COAL EXPORT STATISTICS.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say approximately what proportions of the exports of coal consist of bituminous, semi-bituminous, and anthracite coal respectively, and how much of the steam coal is what is known as smokeless; and what proportions are for navigation, gas-making, locomotion, household, manufacturing, and smithy purposes respectively.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot give all the details asked for nor for the whole country. But of the total quantity of coal exported from Newcastle, North and South Shields, Blyth, Sunderland, Hartlepool, Cardiff, Swansea, and Newport, which was, in round numbers, in 1900, thirty-one and a half million tons, approximately twenty-two and a quarter million tons was steam coal, and six and a half million tons gas coal; the small balance would mainly be for household and smithy purposes.

COAL DUTY BONDS—STAMP DUTY.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a

261
bond has to be signed for two shillings per ton and the stamp duty on the bond paid in the case of bunkers which are not chargeable with the coal duty; if so, on what ground; and will he consider the advisability of discontinuing the practice of demanding a bond in this case.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Under the standing regulations that have long been in force, bonds, in the penalty of double the duty involved, are required, on the shipment of dutiable articles, for use on board vessels proceeding on a foreign voyage, the condition being that the goods so shipped shall be used on board. Coal being now liable to an export duty, the same rule as to bonds has been adopted, in order to minimise the risk to the revenue by the lauding at a foreign port of coal shipped for bunkering purposes only. The bonds are liable to the usual ad valorem stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1891. Moreover, a single general bond may be given, by which the necessity for an ordinary bond and payment of stamp duty on each transaction will be avoided.

JAPANESE EXPORTS OF COAL.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the exports of coal from Japan to British India, China, and Hong Kong for the years 1891, 1895, 1899, and 1900 respectively.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): In 1900 the export of coal from Japan to British India was 316,746 tons; to China, 826,053 tons; and to Hong Kong, 826,162 tons. In 1899 the corresponding figures were 295,197 tons, 949,051 tons, and 660,207 tons. I am unable to state the corresponding figures for 1891 and 1895.

BRITISH COAL EXPORTS TO INDIA.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the exports of coal from this country to the continent of India in the years 1895, 1899, and 1900 respectively; and can he say to what extent the variations shown have been produced by the competition of Indian and Japanese coal.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The exports of coal from the United Kingdom to the continent of India in 1895 were 805,247 tons. The corresponding figures for 1899 and 1900, as stated in the Return recently laid on the Table of the House on the motion of the hon. Member, were 432,890 tons and 100,049 tons. I am not prepared to say to what extent the variations shown have been produced by the competition of Indian and Japanese coal.

AMERICAN TONNAGE DUES.
SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that vessels entering the ports of the United States of America from certain European countries, for example, Holland and Denmark, are exempt from tonnage dues, whereas tonnage dues are charged upon British vessels entering United States ports, upon the ground that light dues are charged by the British Government upon American vessels which enter British ports; and whether, seeing how few American vessels enter British ports as compared with the number of British vessels which enter United States ports, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of the United States, with a view to an alteration of the law or practice of the United States of America being made, so that British vessels may no longer be at a disadvantage in United States ports as compared with those of other European countries.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: vessels from British ports entering the ports of the United States of America have to pay certain tonnage dues because light dues are charged upon American vessels entering ports in the United Kingdom. The point raised in the second paragraph of the question is one more for the Foreign Office than for the Board of Trade.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897.—PENDLETON COLLIERIES.
MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent ballot that

263
has been taken by the miners employed at Messrs. A. Knowles and Company's collieries at Pendlebury and Pendleton on the question of contracting out of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897; whether he is aware that on the Act coming into force the Registrar-General certified a scheme of contracting out, and that the men have been dissatsified ever since the scheme was certified; if he is aware that over 1,500 miners have expressed by ballot their wish to be placed under the provisions of the Compensation Act, and less than 300 were in favour of contracting out; and whether he will make inquiries with a view of giving effect to the wishes of the majority of workmen employed at those collieries.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have received no representations on this subject from the miners, but since the hon. Member gave notice of his question I have made inquiries, and am informed that at a recent ballot of a section of the workers at these collieries a majority voted against the scheme which was certified in 1898 by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Compensation Act, however, provides, in cases where the workmen are dissatisfied with the working of any scheme, for an appeal to the Chief Registrar, and it appears to me that the proper course for them to take in the present instance is to ask him to examine into their complaint.

YSTALYFERA IRON AND TIN PLATE WORKS.
MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of William Gurrier, of Ystalyfera, by his employer, Mr. J. Newton, of the Ystalyfera Iron and Tin Plate Works; whether he is aware that such dismissal is because the man refused to inform his employer whom he intended to vote for at the district council election, and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
*MR. RITCHIE: I have no information with regard to this matter, and it is not one which concerns my Department or in which I can take any action.

FACTORY RETURNS.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Annual Returns, under Section 34 of the Act of 1895, and also the half-yearly Returns of the Outworkers, under Section 42 of the same Act, will be published.
I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Annual Return will be published, ordered by Section 34 of the Act of 1895, and omitted from the Factory Inspector's Report for 1899, and promised in reply of the Home Secretary on the 31st July, 1900.
*MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Member will permit me, I will answer his two questions together. It was intended to publish the Fourth and Fifth Annual Returns of persons employed in the Chief Inspector's Report for 1900; but, in order to hasten the publication of that Report, the Chief Inspector has decided to omit them and to publish them separately. They will be taken in hand as soon as the Chief Inspector's Report for 1900 is completed. It has not been usual to publish any analysis of the outworkers' lists, but this was done once—in the Report for 1899. I will consider whether it would be useful to have it done in the present year.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to publish the first part of the Report?
*MR. RITCHIE: I should not like to make any promise; I am doing all I can to push it on.

CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—MEAL RELIEFS.
MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in October, 1900, some new duties were instituted at the Central Telegraph Office, London; whether a petition was sent to the Postmaster General complaining of the character of the duties, and asking for meal reliefs; and whether he is aware that nearly six months have elapsed since the

265
petition was forwarded to the Postmaster General, and if he can now state when an answer will be given to the men.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire. E.): A rearrangement of some of the duties at the Central Telegraph Office was made in the latter part of last year, and a petition was sent to the Postmaster General upon the subject, asking for supper reliefs. The matter is still under consideration, and a decision will shortly be given.

INGROW SUB-POST OFFICE ROBBERY.
MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a burglary occurred at the sub-post office at Ingrow, near Keighley, Yorks, on the 11th January: that stamps and other articles to the value of some £30 were stolen; and that the then sub-postmaster is being compelled, on threat of legal proceedings, to make good the amount to the Post Office Employees Mutual Guarantee Association. Limited; whether this has his sanction, and whether it was laid down by the Postmaster General in office when the Guarantee Association was founded that cases of burglary should be so dealt with, and whether, in connection with such cases, he is prepared to move in the direction of adopting some system which will not involve innocent men in the service of the Post Office in financial ruin in the event of a burglary.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General was not satisfied that the loss of post office property at the, Ingrow office was due to burglary, and the late sub-postmaster was therefore called upon to make good the amount. He stated that he was unable to do so, and his sureties paid it in the ordinary course. The Postmaster General cannot interfere in regard to any steps which the sureties may take to recover the amount from, the late sub-postmaster.

CUSTOMS OFFICERS' GRIEVANCES.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why, of the three classes of the Customs Department, one, the
266
waterguards, is compelled to work eight hours each Sunday without receiving any pay, whilst the landing officers get 12s. for every two hours worked on Sundays; and will he cause an inquiry to be made, so as to put the remuneration on a more equal basis.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The character of the various duties of the waterguard renders it imperative to have officers in attendance on the arrival and departure of vessels at uncetain periods, and it is therefore a condition of the waterguard service that such duties have to be performed at any hour of the day or night or on any day, including Sunday. Candidates for appointment as boatmen are informed in the printed particulars issued that their hours of employment extend over Sundays, whenever required, and that the extent of such Sunday employment varies according to local conditions. No overtime is allowed, and the men join the department on that understanding. The liability of clerical and landing officers to employment on Sundays is not part of their conditions of service, and is comparatively rare. Such attendance is usually given at the special request of the shipowners, etc., who pay the overtime.

CUSTOMS WATERGUARD OFFICERS.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the result of the inquiry promised by his predecessor in office in May, 1900, into the case made out for an increase in salary to the waterguard officers of the Customs Department; will he explain why, without giving any reasons, the claim of the men for an increase in grade was dismissed; and can he hold out any hope for an early reversal of this decision.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: An allowance for travelling and subsistence was authorised to boatmen employed at distant stations in London between midnight and five a.m., and the supply of light serge jackets for summer wear was sanctioned for boatmen generally where the Board of Customs may consider it desirable. No reason is seen for making any other change in the various conditions of service affecting the class. It is not proposed to reopen the question.

LOCH DUICH FERRY, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have yet considered the expediency of providing a grant for the construction of a road between Glenelg and Ardnitoul (Loch Duich Ferry), Inverness-shire; and, if so, will he state the decision arrived at.
*THE LORD ADvOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that no application has been received for the road referred to, and that any application should be made to them through the statutory road authority. If, however, the hon. Member refers to Ardnitoul path, I am informed that this has been put forward after two others by the local authority for construction out of the Congested Districts Board's grant, and will go on, if there is money enough, after 1 and 2 schemes are completed.

INNERNESS-SHIRE MAILS—GLENELG PIER.
MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that in the winter months is sometimes happens that the mails cannot be landed at Glenelg, Inverness-shire, owing to its being impracticable to send out a boat to meet the mail steamer in stormy weather; and can he ascertain whether a site for a pier at Glenelg was surveyed some years ago, and an estimate of cost obtained, and, in view of the proposed mail steamer service from Mallaig, will the Congested Districts Board consider the expediency of arranging for the construction of the proposed pier.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that in January, 1898, Mr. Baillie sent an application from the inhabitants of Glenelg for a pier. The usual schedule as regards the estimated cost was forwarded to him by the Board, but no reply has ever been received.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING IN MORAY FIRTH.
*MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many
268
foreign trawlers, of each nationality, were observed by the Fishery Board cruisers illegally fishing in the Moray Firth during the year ending 31st December, 1900.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that one Norwegian and three Dutch trawlers were observed by their cruisers illegally fishing in the Moray Firth during the year 1900, and the master was convicted and fined in each case.

AVOCH HARBOUR, ROSS-SHIRE.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the loss sustained by the fishermen of Avoch, Ross-shire, in consequence of the unsatisfactory condition of the harbour, will the Fishery Board take steps to procure an estimate of the cost of placing the harbour in a state of repair approximating to its original design.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the only application for aid received by them is one for improving the existing harbour, and the cost involved, as estimated by a reliable engineer, is £2,860.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Fishery Board negotiated with the parish minister of Avoch, Ross-shire, relative to Avoch Harbour, will he say whether the minister acted on his own behalf; and if not, will he say on whose behalf he acted; and will he state the nature of the negotiations, and at what stage they had arrived when they were arrested.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that, so far as they are aware, the parish minister of Avoch was acting on behalf of the fishermen of the locality and of Mr. Fletcher, of Rosehaugh. The negotiations consisted of discussing plans and estimates, and of applying for a grant towards a scheme adopted by the applicants, involving an expenditure of £2,860, towards which Mr. Fletcher generously promised to advance one-fourth. The negotiations are, I believe, awaiting the return of Mr. Fletcher to this country.

DEATH CERTIFICATES IN SCOTLAND.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland a number of interments take place without the production of a medical certificate of death, will he state what steps it is proposed to take to remedy this state of affairs.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: A medical certificate of death is not a necessary condition of burial in any part of Scotland. No action could be taken in the matter without legislation, which it is not at present proposed to undertake.

CATTLE TRANSIT ON IRISH RAILWAYS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a case recently heard at Ennis Petty Sessions, respecting the delay and damage to cattle in transit; whether he is aware that the cattle were crowded in wagons all night without food or water, and that the case was dismissed on its merits; whether he will ask the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to inquire into and report upon the constant complaint of consignors regarding the treatment and delay of live stock in transit; and whether the claim of carrying companies to detain and deliver live stock as may suit their convenience will be permitted to continue.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): It is the practice of the Department to inquire into complaints of the nature mentioned in the second paragraph. The Department has no information as to the claim of the carrying companies in respect of detention and delivery of live stock. But it has no general power to regulate the traffic arrangements of railway companies. When an infringement of any legal provisions coming within its jurisdiction in respect of the transit of stock is brought under notice it is prepared to take up the matter against the company or person in default.
MR. FIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry into the matter? He has not answered my question at all.
MR. WYNDHAM: I have made the fullest inquiry.

OGILBY ESTATE, CO. TYRONE.
MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the rental of the holdings on the Ogilby estate, in the county of Tyrone, has been finally settled; if the request for its sale to the tenants; has been issued to the Land Commissioners under the fortieth section of the Act of 1896; and if not, can he explain the cause of the delay.
MR. WYNDHAM: A large number of claims for turbary have been filed by the tenants, and until these have been disposed of there cannot be a settlement of the rental. The matter is at present the subject of negotiations between the solicitors on both sides. Heavy costs both to the tenants and the estate would be incurred if the claims were brought before the land judge to be disposed of.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are not the delays in this court due to the insufficiency of the staff?
MR. WYNDHAM: Evidently in this case the delay was due to the negotiations between the solicitors before the case reached the Commissioners.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But has not the judge stated in open court that delay is due to an isnufficient staff?
[No answer was returned.]

DISTURBANCES AT LETTERKENNY.
THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the perpetrators of the recent attack made on a Church Lads' Brigade at Letterkenny, County Donegal, on Thursday, 18th April, have been yet brought to justice; and, if not, can he explain why they have not been apprehended; and will he state what protection will be given in the future to prevent a recurrence of such attacks.
MR. M'FADDEN: Is it not the fact that a similar attack on a

271
Roman Catholic convent occurred in Letterkenny only a few days ago, and that both outrages were the work of corner boys, and were denounced by all respectable inhabitants?
MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I regret to say that, owing to the suddenness of the night attack, which took place on the Kith April, the offenders were not identified, and they have not since been traced, in spite of the best efforts of the police. The police will use every endeavour to prevent a repetition of the offence.
MR. M'FADDEN: Arising out of the question, may I ask whether any Members of the Lads' Brigade were seriously injured?
MR. WYNDHAM: That does not arise out of the question.

BELFAST VALUATION.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why, seeing that the first list of Griffith's valuation for Belfast in the year 1860 was printed and published by the Government in one volume, which could be obtained by the ratepayers, that precedent has not been followed on the present occasion of a new valuation, and will he order the publication in a similar way of the present valuation lists for that city.
MR. WYNDHAM: To have printed the lists would have involved a year's delay, and would have entailed considerable expense without compensating advantages. If the lists are to be printed, it should be after the appeals are heard.
MR. FIELD: Then how are the people whose valuations have been enormously raised to know it has been done?
MR. WYNDHAM: The lists are open for inspection, and ample steps have been taken to ensure publicity.

OUT RELIEF IN THE LISTOWEL UNION.
MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sum
272
expended on outdoor relief in Listowel Union, it being £380 more than the combined expenditure in Tralee and Dingle Unions, and slightly in excess of the combined expenditure for the same purpose in Killarney, Dingle, and Kenmare Unions, though any of the other districts are comparatively poorer than Listowel; and whether he proposes to take any steps to place some check on the expenditure in the Listowel Union.
*MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this £380 are the landlord friends of the hon. Member paying in North Kerry?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order Order!
MR. WYNDHAM: The Inspector of the Local Government Board has called the attention of the Listowel Guardians to the excessive expenditure on outdoor relief, with the result that the relief lists have been revised and a reduction ordered.
*MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Member for North Fermanagh is looking for a more friendly constituency than his own?
[No answer was returned.]

ARDAGH BURIAL GROUND:
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of the Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland in changing the area of charge for Ardagh burial ground from a dispensary district into a union charge and excluding the urban district of Longford, the provisions of an Order confirmed by Parliament to provide a new burial ground at Ardagh have not been carried into effect; and whether, in view of the effect of this exemption of urban districts on the relations between the bodies in Ireland, he will direct the Local Government Board to re-issue the Order including the urban district and fixing the area to be the Longford dispensary district.
MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the delay in providing the new burial ground at Ardagh is chiefly due to the alteration in the area of charge, to which

273
the district council takes exception. But, as I explained last Friday, that alteration is not consequent on any action of the Local Government Board, but on the terms of the Local Government Act of 1898. I am therefore unable to comply with the request in the second paragraph of the question.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he has promised to look into the matter in connection with the area of charge under the new Provisional Order?
MR. WYNDHAM: I am quite aware of what I have said on the subject.

LAND PURCHASE IN QUEEN'S COUNTY.
MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when introducing the promised ad interim Purchase Bill for county Wexford, he will consider the advisability of including therein a provision to compel the landlords of Queen's County to come to terms of purchase with their tenants, so that the £160,000 stock available under the existing Land Purchase Acts for that county may be utilised.
MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not use pressure?
[No answer was returned.]

FERMOY POST OFFICE—MEDICAL OFFICERSHIP.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now state the precise disqualifications of the candidates who applied for the post of medical officer to the post office at Fermoy in June last; and if the medical gentlemen who so applied accepted the conditions of appointment required by the Postmaster General, namely, to give attendance and medicine to all the employees residing within a three-mile radius (except the postmaster), the authorised remuneration being a capitation allowance at the rate of 8s. 6d. per
274
annum for each officer on the list; whether some of the officials have been receiving medical aid for years under the Medical Charities Acts, to which aid they were not entitled; and will he cause further inquiries to be made into all the circumstances, and appoint a medical officer to Fermoy post office.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not, in the Postmaster General's opinion, advisable to state the specific reasons which led him to believe that it was not desirable to appoint, as medical officer at Fermoy, either of the candidates who in the first instance applied for the post. Both of these candidates were willing to accept the appointment under the ordinary conditions. A suitable candidate has now offered himself, and will be appointed. The Postmaster General is not aware that any post office servants at Fermoy have received, under the Medical Charities Act, aid to which they were not entitled.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Is it not a matter of fact that during thirteen years the post office employees at Fermoy have been receiving medical aid from one of the gentlemen who has applied for the position of medical officer to the post office?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It must be obvious to the hon. Member that I cannot answer that question without notice.

FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAY.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when the term for the completion of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway expires, and whether he is aware that no steps have been taken by the company for the construction of the direct section between Fermoy and Cork; and if he will make representations to the company with regard to their undertaking in this matter.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The term fixed for the completion of the new works by the Act of 1898 was August, 1903. This was extended to August, 1904, by the Act of 1899 as regards the Fermoy and Cork line. I believe that no steps have as yet been taken for the construction

275
of that line. I am in communication with the Irish Government and the company on the subject.

IRISH POSTAL STAFFS—RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the respective number of Protestants and Roman Catholics employed in the different surveyor staffs of the Post Office in Ireland, according to their districts, and what is the system for filling such positions.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has no knowledge as to the religious beliefs of members of the Post Office surveying staff or other servants of the Department. The surveying staff is recruited either by the selection of persons already in the service of the Department who have shown the requisite qualifications, or by the appointment through open competition of candidates from outside the service.

IRISH LOAN FUND BOARD.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed in the last report of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland that during the year 1900 the expenditure of the board exceeded its income by £430; can he state the cause of the excessive expenditure, and has he seen in the report the statement that the lapse of a series of years without efficient general loan fund legislation tends to perpetuate abuses which the Board are powerless to check except by withdrawing the certificate of each offending loan fund society; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation that would prevent the practices referred to.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this question. The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The excess is due to the fact that, pending the passing of the, Act of last session, the sale of forms to the several societies—the main source of income of the Board—was greatly
276
checked. I have seen in the report the statements mentioned. I agree that the loan fund system is in a most unsatisfactory condition, but cannot undertake to introduce a measure on the subject this session.
MR. DILLON: Seeing that the board has been begging for legislation since 1853, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a promise that a Bill shall be introduced next session?
MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.
It being seven of the clock, the questions remaining unanswered stood over till Thursday next.

EVENING SITTING.

  IRISH RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
  *MR. HAYDENrose to call attention to the subject of Irish railways, and to move, "That the present Railway Rates and Charges in Ireland constitute an intolerable grievance to the Irish people, and that measures should be adopted this session for the remedy thereof either by amalgamation of the management under State control, or by State purchase of Irish Railways, so as to reduce the tariffs, and further to increase facility of transit by utilising and developing the waterways, and canalising certain rivers in Ireland," said: This subject is one of great importance to the country we represent. There can be no doubt that the commercial and social prosperity and progress of any country are greatly affected by the nature and extent of the carrying powers which the country possesses. In Ireland the carrying powers are the railway companies, and these have been granted to them by this House. Therefore it is but right that this House should now and again, anyway, have something to say as to the manner in which they carry out these powers. As the representatives of the people from whom they derive their powers, it is essential that an examination should be made by us as to the manner in which the railway companies carry out the promises which they make

  277
  to Parliament when they get these great powers and privileges. Now, in Ireland we contend that the railway companies do not serve the public in the manner which they professed they intended to do when they came before this House for these powers. We have in Ireland, exclusive of the light railways, seventeen railway companies, and we hold that they are worked extravagantly, that much of the revenue derived from the public is devoted to the payment of huge numbers of directors and general managers. These companies in Ireland possess no fewer than 135 directors, all of them deriving large salaries—most of them, anyway—or fees, which are of course extracted from the general public who use these lines. Now, the total length of the Irish Railways is about 3,000 miles, and for their management there are 135 directors; while in England one company alone—the Great Western—has a mileage of close on 2,500 miles with only nineteen directors. That one fact alone, of course, shows that there must be extravagance in, the working. Another great hardship on the public who use these lines is that there are so many different companies. There are many points of contact where different lines meet, and practically at all these places there is great friction in regard to both goods and passengers. Travellers by one line often find themselves arriving too late at a junction to catch the train on the other line. So great is the rivalry and jealousy between the companies that the trains of the one will not wait on the trains of the other for even a minute. Indeed, the only punctual time kept is the time of starting; so that travellers have often to take a whole day to go a comparatively short distance. I know myself of a case between Mullingar and Enniskillen—a distance of between fifty-five and fifty-six miles. You have to travel over the lines of two companies, and you can never do the double journey and transact a little business in one day, although there is a great deal of trade between the two towns.
  Another evil is the existence of preferential rates for both passengers and goods to towns where lines meet, and where there is, therefore, competition. Goods are sent from Dublin to
  278
  these towns at a cheaper rate than to towns half the distance, where there is no competition. That is a point that ought to be regulated by the Board of Trade. But one of the greatest hardships from which the country has to suffer is that these railways give a preference to goods coming from foreign countries over the produce of Ireland, or even different districts of Ireland. Goods coming from England, Europe, and America are sent through Ireland at a cheaper rate than goods produced in Ireland itself. Now, certainly one of the first essentials of railways, after protecting the interests of the shareholders, should be to develop the country in which they are situated. When England grabs a new country the first thing she does is to start a railway for the purpose of developing the country; but the Irish railways give a preference to through rates from other countries. In going long distances from one part of Ireland to another there may be some chance of through rates, but for intermediate distances the people have to pay as much as the long-distance travellers; and it is the same with the freights for goods. I think there ought to be some regulations made by this House, or by some railway authority, by which the same treatment should be meted out to all portions of the country; and that there should be a regular mileage rate, without any preference to foreigners or long-distance people. Everybody in the country complains of the high railway rates in Ireland as compared with other countries. The rates in Ireland are 20 per cent. per mile more than those in England or Scotland. That is a matter to which I would claim the attention of the Irish Government. In neither rates nor fares has any progress whatever been made in Irish railway management since railways were first started in the country. In fact, the only progress made has been in adding to the mileage, though even there the progress has not been sufficient.
  The case against the Irish railway companies has been brought before the House over and over again, before Royal Commissions, and Select Committees. There may be differences of opinion as to the methods of improvement. Many of us think that the ideal way of dealing with the question would be the State purchase

  279
  of the railways, although some of my colleagues are doubtful as to that method under existing circumstances. Because they believe that the State purchase of the railways should be carried out by an Irish Government. This is one of the drawbacks we suffer from our connection with this country. There can scarcely be a doubt but that if there was in Ireland a Parliament representing and legislating for the people of Ireland, one of the first things that Parliament would do would be to nationalise the railways—as has happened in other countries—without any injustice being inflicted on those who had put their money into the railways. The State ownership of railways has been profitable and successful in Belgium, and that system was recommended to be adopted in Ireland as far back as 1868. This matter has been the subject of investigation from time to time since railways were started in Ireland, and Royal Commissions have reported on it. The Royal Commission of 1868 recommended that there should be greater State control than at present exists. Upon that point there could not possibly be any difference of opinion. Those interested in the companies—directors and shareholders—possibly might not like State control, but I think the interests of the shareholders would not suffer if there was a more up-to-date method forced upon the directors.
  During the proceedings of the Irish Financial Relations Commission a very interesting proposal was made by Mr. Challoner Smith, the President of the Institute of Engineers in Ireland. Mr. Challoner Smith, who is an expert in railway work, preferred the proposal which he made to State ownership. His proposal was that there should be something in the nature of a Commission to look after the working of the railways without interference at all with the management by directors. He wished to unify the working of them, and make them work as one company. He further proposed that the rates and fares of the railways in Ireland should be reduced at one fell stroke by 50 per cent., and he endeavoured to show from experience that the effect of the reduction would be such an increase in the traffic as to more than counterbalance the effect of the reduction. He also suggested that, as of
  280
  course the shareholders would not be prepared to take so great a risk at once, it was the duty of the State to offer to guarantee to the shareholders any loss that might accrue from such reduction of rates and fares. He was able to show that, even supposing that the State had to pay something upon the guarantee, from the result of working such a system elsewhere at the moment, that the guarantee would be a diminishing quantity, and that at the very most, supposing there was no absolute increase whatever in the traffic of the country at the reduced fares and rates, which could not be the case, the total loss would only be £1,250,000. He showed pretty conclusively that the result would be that traffic, both passenger and goods, would at once double in amount, and that would almost wipe out any guarantee that might be given. There would, of course, be some increased expenses in working the increased traffic, but I would commend the suggestion of Mr. Challoner Smith to the Chief Secretary of Ireland, and I think it is one worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Two years ago this House thought it necessary to include in an Act, called the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act, some clauses relating to the railways of Ireland. Sections 5 and 17 of that Act gave certain authority to the Agricultural Department which was to be set up in Ireland. Section 5 gave the Department authority to make inquiry as to agricultural and rural industries, and how they could be benefited, having especial regard to the carrying arrangements of Ireland; Section 17 gave the Agricultural Department authority to appear before the Board of Trade and the, Railway Commission as plaintiffs. These clauses were resisted very strongly and very bitterly at the time by the railway interests in the House, but they were carried; but though that Act had been for a considerable time in operation there had been no results. The Department has done nothing, but I do not think that is the fault of the Department. A few days ago I asked a question upon this subject, I asked whether the Department had applied to the Treasury for any money. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary declined to answer the question, and from that I am inclined

  281
  to think the Department did apply to the Treasury for money, and their application was not listened to, and that these clauses of that Act are not operating in the country because there is no money, and the Agricultural Department is consequently unable to give the country any little advantage that may be derived from this Act, passed a few years ago by this House.
  About twelve months ago one of the most representative and important Irish deputations which ever waited on any Department waited on the vice-President of the Department in this House, and asked him to have a viceregal Commission appointed to examine into the question. That deputation consisted of every Irish Member in the House, and leading counsel and business men, including the Lord Mayors of Dublin and Belfast and other towns, and a number of Irish peers, and Mr. Plunket, the vice-President, gave a most sympathetic reply. We are accustomed to sympathetic replies. That is all we are able to obtain, although, perhaps, we ought to be thankful for the change upon the part of the Government. A little while afterwards an hon. Member, representing one of the northern constituencies of Ireland, asked the Chief Secretary whether he would recommend the appointment of a viceregal Commission, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that it would be premature to appoint a Commission until it was seen how the clauses of the new Act worked. That was in the middle of May last year. A year has gone by, and we find that those clauses have not worked at all, because, as we say, the Government have deliberately kept back the means of working from the Agricultural Department, which has charge of them.
  This is a very serious matter. No one will assert that the railways are giving the satisfaction that they ought, and few will defend the extravagant method of working the lines, and by which men with very little experience of railways are appointed directors, simply because they are country gentlemen. Originally the idea of the companies in selecting these gentlemen as directors was because of their influence on grand juries, to which the companies had to go for sanction when they had to pass over roads and so forth in various parts of the country.
  282
  Everybody knows that these gentlemen were made directors because of their influence on the grand juries. The grand juries no longer control the country, but it is hard to get rid of the old system in a moment. Business men should be appointed. There are not five business men among the whole 135 railway directors in Ireland. A few months ago a series of articles appeared in one of the London papers, entitled "Fifty Years of Irish Railway Working," and as an instance of method and progress it was stated that in fifty years the time of the train from Galway to Dublin had been accelerated by five minutes, whilst the fares had been increased 20 per cent. I think if no other fact than that could be deduced, it would be sufficient to justify this House in interfering in the railway management of Ireland, and I would strongly impress upon the Irish Government the necessity of either interfering or of giving the Agricultural Department the means of putting into force the clauses of the Agricultural Act.
  The request put forward by the representative deputation to which I have allnded was the appointment of some board, such as a permanent railway commission, to exercise control over the companies, and try and make them work as one service, and destroy that friction which exists, and, above all, to abolish all those preferential rates, especially those giving preference to the foreigners over native producers. I will not trouble the House further, as the time is limited, and as I think it is scarcely necessary, considering the long history of this question and the way it has been dealt with over and over again by Royal Commissions, the Reports that have been brought in, and the recommendations which have been made and have never been acted on. I therefore beg to move the motion standing in my name.
  MR. MURPHYsaid he felt great pleasure in seconding the motion of his hon. friend. He did not propose to inflict upon the House a mass of detail in connection with the motion, although there would be no difficulty in his producing fact after fact and Report after Report showing how bad the whole system of railway management was in

  283
  Ireland; how unjust the rates and charges of every description were, and what little attention was paid by railway companies in Ireland to doing anything on the ground that it would convenience the public or develop the resources of the country. But he did not propose to do so, for the simple reason that it was a generally admitted fact that Irish railways were animated solely by a desire to make profit for themselves, and it never occurred to them to do anything merely because it would result in advantage to the people, who, after all, should have the controlling power in the regulation of matters of such importance to the prosperity of a country. He would, however, illustrate by a few facts the present position of affairs, and he believed that when he had done so it would be clear enough to all who wished to see that in this matter of railway and canal traffic in Ireland there was a great and crying grievance which called for an immediate remedy. It was a question which belonged to no class or condition of the people of Ireland. It was one that touched all. On the one side they had the directors and salaried officials, who, of course, were quite satisfied with things as they were. On the other, they had the people, north and south and everywhere, asking with one voice for relief from a system that was crushing out the very life of Ireland by reason of the way in which it was maintained and conducted. Truly, if Nature hated monopolies, it was reasonable that the Irish people should hate railway companies. From beginning to end they were one horrid, dreadful monopoly. Their every effort was to crush out all competition. If a canal or alternative route were present anywhere, they decided right away to buy up the one or amalgamate with the other. They generally promised many good things during the progress of the negotiations, but when the end came the result was always the same—competition was destroyed, monopoly was restored—and the complaints of the people in regard to any matters could be safely ignored as their remedy was gone. This was not a matter of to-day or yesterday. It had practically prevailed since the introduction of railways into Ireland, and though Commission and
  284
  Committees and experts had time after time pointed out the evil results of the system, successive Governments remained inactive and did nothing to remedy the state of affairs; and the more closely the question was inquired into the more deeply sensible one became of the ridiculous regulations that existed in every shape and form. If one looked at the average rates for the other countries one would find that in England it was 5s. 6d. per ton, in Scotland 5s. 2d. per ton, and in Ireland 6s. 8d. per ton. How this inequality could be explained passed comprehension, when we were told that the average cost of railways in England was £53,000 per mile, in Scotland £33,000 per mile, and in Ireland only £12,500 per mile. The explanation, however, was not far to seek. The profits went into the pockets of the directors and shareholders, and the public and the industries of the country had to pay the piper. Irish railway officials would no doubt say that the traffic was not in the country, but he contended that the actions of the officials themselves had contributed to that result as largely as any other cause, If a comparison was made with Scotland, which had practically the same length of line, it would be found that the receipts in Scotland were £10,000,000, whilst in Ireland they had dropped to £3,000,000, and the same result would be obtained by comparing the working results with any other country. In Ireland railways could be constructed so much cheaper than in other and more prosperous countries, and their working expenses were so much less, that the reverse should be the case. But in Ireland charges were prohibitive and not competitive.
  Nobody in Ireland thought of using, railways except in a case of absolute necessity, and while such was the case the receipts would be low; nevertheless they managed to pay as large a dividend and to have as many directors as any railway system in the world. In Belgium an article would be carried for 7s. a ton, while in Ireland it cost 22s. per ton. Indeed, the fact is that you could bring some articles from Belgium to Ireland at a cheaper rate than you could from Mayo to Dublin. In the matter of passenger traffic the same fact is observed. A third

  285
  class passenger could travel in Hungary for one-fifth of the rate he could travel in Ireland. Then, in addition to all this, the country had to put up with every possible inconvenience in the matter of transit. The convenience for live stock was as bad and costly as it could be. Passengers had to travel in uncomfortable and unsightly carriages, at inconvenient times. The connections were so arranged that if one wanted to get to Galway from Kerry, for instance, they might as well go up to Dublin first, and so on. If there was a waterway of any description the railway company bought it up, and left the grass to grow upon its bank, and made its own terms. In the result it was often found cheaper to take goods from Dublin to Tralee, for instance, than from Dublin to Killarney, though the first mentioned place was twenty miles further. Even more glaring and unjust charges could be cited, but there surely could be no necessity. The President of the Board of Trade stated two years ago that he sympathised with the complaints made on a similar motion. In reference to his own town of Killarney, he might say he acknowledged the improvement in the service that had been made, still the preferential rates given by the railway company to their own hotels, for instance, over the same charges to other hotels, and in other ways, did away with the few advantages given to the people. A great railway authority once declared that the present railway system could be better managed for the benefit of the country by one director in Dublin, at the head of a single system, than by the present arrangement of having hundreds of directors and several companies. That mode was, he believed, the proper one. At present Ireland was the worst served country in railway matters in the world. He believed that the Transvaal had been stated to be worse, but the statesmanship of the Colonial Secretary had managed to have most of that railway system mostly blown up, so at present Ireland stood alone. The system of Government which had been planted in Ireland was as a rotten tree, and railway monopoly was one of its worst branches. That monopoly had been maintained by Ministers and Governments until it had become intolerable.
  286
  The Government asked for the remedy, but the duty of finding a remedy lay upon the Government. All the facts he had given indicated in the clearest and most convincing way the justice of the motion. It was not the function of those who supported this motion to provide a remedy. If the Irish people had their own Parliament they would soon alter the conditions of affairs, but as long as this country undertook to consider and deal with Irish grievances it was its duty to provide a remedy for all these matters. Irish Ministers and Chief Secretaries in the past had shown an utter disregard of the feelings of Irishmen in reference to railway rates. At the present moment they had a gentleman as Chief Secretary who affected, at any rate, to be sympathetic towards the Irish people. He (the hon. Member), at the opening of Parliament, looked upon the sunny smile which appeared on that gentleman's countenance, and hoped it was the outward expression of the inward desire to do something to improve the material condition of Ireland. There was a splendid opportunity for the hon. Gentleman. Every class in Ireland were in agreement as to the ruinous system on which Irish railways were conducted. On the one side were the directors and the officials and some of the shareholders; on the other side were the people. The Chief Secretary ought to be on the side of the people. The hon. Gentleman had no objection to being reminded of his connection with Ireland. If, from one reason or another, he did not care to lead a revolution for the realisation of Ireland's hopes, et him inaugurate a railway reform in Ireland, and he would do something which would cause his name to be remembered in that country in a pleasanter and more affectionate way than were the names of some of his predecessors. He begged to second the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the present Railway Rates and Charges in Ireland constitute an intolerable grievance to the Irish people, and that measures should be adopted this session for the remedy thereof, either by amalgamation of the management under State control, or by State purchase of Irish Railways, so as to reduce the tariffs,

  287
  and further to increase facility of transit by utilising and developing the waterways, and canalising certain rivers in Ireland."—(Mr. Hayden.)
  *MR. BANBURY: I rise to move the following Amendment—
  "In line 12, to leave out all words after 'That,' in order to insert 'whilst admitting the importance of developing the facilities of transit in Ireland, the time is not opportune for taking any steps which might act as a check to private enterprise, and place a burden upon public funds.'"
  Although I do not agree with the arguments of the hon. Member who moved the resolution, I desire to congratulate him upon the moderate and sensible manner in which he has stated his case. We must all admit that it is extremely necessary for the prosperity of any country that means of locomotion should be given to it, and it is extremely probable that the facilities of locomotion in Ireland are not as good as they might be. But the question before us to-night is as to how those facilities can be improved. The mover and seconder of the resolution advocated two courses—first, the control of the railways by the State, and, secondly, the purchase of the railways by the State. Before dealing with these two courses in detail, I would remind the House that it has always been accepted as a broad principle, at any rate, that the object of the State is to govern, and not to trade, but if we passed this resolution, in the form either of control or of purchase, we should be admitting the principle that it is the duty of the State not to govern, but to trade.
  MR. FIELD: How about the colonies?
  *ME. BANBURY: If the State purchases a railway it is evident that it enters into a trading transaction. If, on the other hand, the State controls a railway it must control it in the interests of trade, otherwise there would be no object in its controlling the railway.
  I will deal first with the question of control by the State. The hon. Member who moved the resolution suggested that the rates should be reduced by one half, and that the State should pay the difference. He then went on to say that a certain Mr. Challoner Smith had said
  288
  that if this was done the result would be a very great profit to the railway. I do not quite understand the hon. Member's position, because I heard him say that the shareholders and the directors were rather to be blamed, and that they ought not to be considered. To whom is the profit to go? The shareholder, the person whom he blames. Who is to bear the loss? The State. That seems to be a most extraordinary argument to be advanced by a gentleman who is opposed to the director and the shareholder. If the shareholder came down and proposed that if there was a loss the State should bear it, but if there was a profit he should take it, I should not be surprised, but I do not quite see the force of the argument from the point of view of the hon. Member. The hon. Member who seconded the resolution said that a certain amount of money had been advanced in times gone by to the railways in Ireland, but that, in his experience, there were many Irishmen who preferred to ride on their donkeys rather than travel on a State-aided railway. I should say that that was an argument in favour of leaving the railways to private enterprise. There are several reasons why State control is not a good thing. For one thing it is the money of other people which the State is to control. The money is put into the concern by private people in order that they may obtain a certain return for their capital. The ordinary investor is not a philanthropist; he goes into a business in the hope that he will make a profit. My experience is that the majority of shareholders in a railway are not the rich, but the poor, the trustee who has invested a small amount of money for a widow, or the man who, perhaps, has been a worker on the railway, and has invested a portion of his earnings as a provision against old age. It is quite a wrong idea to suppose that in attacking a railway company you are attacking the richer classes; you are attacking the backbone of the nation—the lower middle classes, who have worked hard, saved a certain amount of money, and invested it in their own country. It does seem to me that it would be rather hard that a railway, started and carried on by the money of these people, should be controlled by the State, not in the interests of these people, but apparently for the purpose of providing

  289
  cheap facilities for traders and other similar purposes.
  Then comes the question of State purchase. I have not attempted to deny that in all probability there is a good deal to be said on the part of the Irish people against the working of Irish railways, but the question is, Is the only remedy for that the purchase of the railways by the State? I do not believe that is so, and I am inclined to think that, even if it was so, the evils which would be inaugurated by State purchase would outweigh any possible advantages. One of the great evils entailed by such purchase would be that it would probably be extended to England.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We have not the same mismanagement in England.
  *MR. BANBURY: My hon. friend says we have not the same mismanagement in England that they have in Ireland, but it was only two or three hours ago that an hon. Member opposite alluded to the directors of the London and North Western Railway as "ornamental guinea-pigs." I do not know of anything worse for a railway or any other commercial undertaking than that it should be managed by "ornamental guinea-pigs." Therefore, the view that we have not the same mismanagement here is not shared on the other side of the House, and it is quite conceivable that, if the policy of State purchase of railways were adopted in Ireland, we should at once have hon. Members urging the adoption of the same policy in England. What would that involve? We have lately had a long discussion upon the raising of a loan of £60,000,000. Hon. Members opposite have held up their hands in amazement at the iniquity of the Government in suggesting that that amount of money should be borrowed, but do they know how much money is invested in English railways? The amount is £1,200,000,000 If hon. Members think an addition of £60,000,000 to the National Debt is a serious matter, what would they think of an addition of £1,200,000,000?
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It would be a good investment.
  *MR. BANBURY: That remains to be seen. It will have to be shown that the management of an industry, such as a
  290
  railway, by the State is as good as the management of the same industry by private enterprise. I think I shall be able to show later on that it is not as good, and certainly that in the result it is not so remunerative. One great argument for the motion is that the rates would be at once reduced and the facilities for both passengers and goods traffic increased. But the increasing of facilities means money for additional expenditure on rolling stock and other things. I do not at all say that a reduc ion of rates, provided the rates have been excessive, necessarily means a loss to the railway. It may mean a profit, but, of course, the reduction must be a reasonable one.
  But supposing the railways of Ireland were in the hands of the State, what would happen? Immediately, hon. Gentlemen opposite would come down and say that it was the duty of the State to give them every facility for travelling as passengers, and the employees also would at once say that as they were employed by the State they expected a rise in wages. It would be extremely difficult to resist the pressure of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and perhaps on this side, if their constituents told them that one of the conditions of their return at the next General Election was that they voted in favour of increased wages to the employees on the State railways, and reduced rates to merchants and traders. That that is not an impossible contingency is, I think, shown by a recent speech of my hon. friend the Member for Mid Herts. In the course of that speech the hon. Member drew attention to the great pressure which is put upon Members on both sides of the House by the Civil servants of the State. If you were to increase the patronage of the Government I do not know what would happen. If the enormous number of men employed on the English railways were brought under the control of the State, the control of the railways by the State would vanish, and would rest in the hands of the employees. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil probably would not regard that as an unmixed evil.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: No.
  *MR. BANBURY: I thought not, but possibly other people would. It is quite a fallacy to suppose that the State has an inexhaustible chest of gold into which it can put its hand and draw out any amount of money for making the conditions of life easier. All money spent by the State must be provided from somewhere, and I think I have shown that the purchase of the railways would result in a loss to the State.
  But the purchase of railways is not the only State purchase which hon. Gentlemen opposite are advocating. Only a few weeks ago it was proposed that £120,000,000 should be spent on Irish land, and it seems to me that, if we were to comply with all their requests, in a very short time there would be nothing in Ireland except the State, and that the Socialist Commonwealth suggested by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, would be established there, but whether for the advantage of Ireland or of England I do not know. The question of increased wages and increased facilities is a very great one, and one which cannot be passed over. If the method proposed in the resolution is the only way in which the grievance complained of by hon. Gentlemen opposite can be obviated, I think we should pause before we assent to it. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have a good instance afforded us in the case of the Australian colonies and of America. In the Australian colonies the railways are managed by the State. I have not been able to get the whole figures, but I looked up the Australian Handbook this afternoon. I take New South Wales and victoria because I think it will be recognised that New South Wales and victoria are the most prosperous of the Australian colonies. I take the year 1900, because it is the most prosperous year the Australian colonies have had for some time. I find that the deficit on the working of the New South Wales railway is £6,138. Of course, that is not a very large amount, but it shows that the result of the State working of the railway was a deficit. In the case of victoria about £40,000,000 is employed in State railways, and the losses amount to about £100,000 a year. That is the result of State management, and these Australian railways practically only earn about 3 per cent. interest on the capital advanced.
  292
  In the case of America the railways have never been managed by the State, and I do not think anybody will say that American railways do not give every facility both to passenger and to traders. I have heard it advanced over and over again that English railways should take a lesson from the American railways, and that similar charges should be introduced over here because they are very much lower. The manner in which American railways have been built is different to any other railways. When we build a railway in England we borrow a certain amount of money and the ordinary, preference, and debenture stock contribute equally to the, making of the railway. But in America the general principle is that the bonded debt makes the railway. In looking at American railway results, therefore, you must not look simply at the interest paid upon ordinary shares but also the interest paid on the bonded debt. I ask any hon. Member in this House to look at the price of American railway ordinary shares. Most of them are at £100, and some of them are over, and that is all profit which has accrued from the private management of the railways. The profit of the American railways has not been gained by exorbitant rates but by affording the public every facility and charging low rates, and the result is far more advantageous than in the case of the state owned railways in Australia. The first thing you have to consider in this matter is how to make the enterprise profitable. I do not know why the State should come forward and act as a philanthropist. The State should not make exorbitant profits, but it should act on business lines. If the State is to take moneys out of the pockets of one class of the community in order to put it into the pockets of another class, then I say that the days of the prosperity of that State are numbered, and commercial prosperity can no longer exist in the future. I said at the commencement of my remarks that the province of the State was for government and not for trade. It may be contended that by holding the Post Office and telegraphs the Government have violated that maxim, but I do not think that is an argument which will hold water.
  There are exceptions to every argument, and it is possible that it is necessary

  293
  to make an exception in this particular instance. I have not looked up the history of the Post Office, but I believe it has never been managed by private enterprise. The telegraph department was managed by private individuals, but it was merely an off-shoot of the Post Office. But we must draw the line somewhere. If we are to have the State trading in railways why should the State not take over the docks and shipping, and other matters, and engage in other commercial enterprises. A good many hon. Members on this side of the House have advocated the subsidising of shipping companies. If we purchase the Irish railways on the other side of the Channel we may be asked on this side to purchase the ships of the country. If we once go into these enterprises there is no knowing when we shall stop. It was only yesterday that an hon. Member said he objected to the loan of £60,000,000 proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he thought it would be better employed if it was lent to the working men of Ireland. I instance that to show hon. Members opposite see the necessity of encouraging capital to remain and to be employed in the country. I believe that one of the great evils from which Ireland suffers is want of capital, and if hon. Members would do all they could to encourage the investment of capital in Ireland they would be advancing the real prosperity of the country far more than by asking the State to purchase the railways. I believe that the real solution of this question is to be found in the amalgamation of the different Irish railways. It is almost impossible for certain small railway companies to give proper facilities to the public because they have not got the money to do it with; whereas, if they amalgamated with other companies they might be able to give the facilities desired. It was in the interest of the shareholders that a company should give the public proper facilities. I was rather astonished about a fortnight ago, when an Irish railway Bill came up for the Second Reading in this House to see it thrown out on the ground that this railway which could not be built because the company had not got the money was going to be built by another company. I think that Bill should have gone before a Committee,
  294
  because it would have been a step in the direction of amalgamation which the hon. Gentleman who moved this resolution advocated. I beg to move.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg leave to second this Amendment, and in doing so I venture to say a few words on the subject—not because I have suffered upon Irish railways and want a change, nor because I am a director and want no change—but because the true solution of the government of Ireland according to Unionist principles seems to me to rest upon our capacity to show that in dealing with the material problems which obtain in that country we are offering as a contribution—not an invitation to plunge into a flood of theoretical controversy of a revolutionary nature, but the practical assistance of the long commercial experience of this country, and at times the guarantee of our unrivalled credit. Such a question we are discussing to-night, and I agree with the hon. Member that there is none more important or more fraught with possibilities for the advancement of prosperity in Ireland. For, as in a diagnosis of the human frame it must be necessary to assume that the veins and arteries are in a healthy condition for the passage of our blood, so in examinations of the Irish body politic nothing can be more necessary than to insist upon the vigour of those veins and arteries of transit—the railway and canal systems of that country. I am very glad to find, in a sense, that this Amendment has been put before the House, for the drawback to the original motion was that it took no cognisance of the time and season in which it is brought forward. Who could have imagined that such a proposal would be forthcoming, involving as it does large State expenditure if either of its suggestions be adopted, at the end of a period of Estimates which has been spent, by the party proposing it, in voting against every item of expenditure that has come up for discussion?
  No, the time is far from opportune—and upon that ground, more than any other. I shall vote for the, Amendment. As for the merits of the original resolution, I confess I see a great deal to be said for the amalgamation

  295
  of Irish railways, with a strong Railway Commission to safeguard the interests of the public. From all I can read in the Reports of Commissions and debates, the feeling of those who live in Ireland and of those who take evidence is unanimous in favour of some such operation. And yet it has become the inveterate custom of this House to maintain a non possumus attitude in the face of all Commissions. By such an attitude the reputation of this House is impaired, and the people of Ireland suffer. For who can doubt, reading the Reports of the various bodies that have sat to inquire into the many branches of this question, but that from the very beginning the Irish railways have left much to be desired? One has only to consult comparative statistics to see how absurdly high are their fares and their rates, when laid parallel to those of similar railways in this country—how expensive their administration, and how unsatisfactory their speed. I, for one, am driven to the conclusion that some organic change is necessary if the Irish people are to enjoy the ordinary facilities of twentieth century railway travelling. And this organic change must, I think, work in the direction of amalgamation rather than purchase, for the same experience which teaches us that State purchase is not always a profitable investment for the public, teaches us also that amalgamation is generally fraught with reduction of expenditure and increase of convenience. If I may say so, Ireland is not the only country which would be the better of an over hauling by Government of its railway system from time to time. Ideas seem to riot in the minds of directors that the public is their servant and not their master, and one consequence is the intolerable rates of which many of us complain. I am, in my sanguine moments, averse to giving preferential tariffs to our own goods for export over imported goods, that might be unfair to the consumer. But, I do confess, living in and representing an agricultural constituency, that I resent the preferential and hostile rates which, whatever may be said as to their fairness, make it cheaper, speaking roughly, to buy a hog from Chicago in London than to
  296
  buy one from Suffolk. I should indeed like to see the railway rate tariff so regulated as to protect the home products a little more. And what I should ask for myself I ask now for my Irish friends inside and outside this House. There is a patent grievance, which the interference of this House can perhaps mitigate or demolish. It will not be removed by adherence to this non-possumus attitude—nor do I expect such an answer from the Chief Secretary. There is, in Ireland, a state of things which can be altered for the better by a wise Unionist Government; non possumus never governed a country and never will; but close and sympathetic attention to this question of amalgamation will go far to increase material prosperity in that country and to remove a grievance which is in no sense a party question.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'whilst admitting the importance of developing the facilities of transit in Ireland, the time is not opportune for taking any steps which might act as a check to private enterprise, and place a burden upon public funds.'"—(Mr. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. McCANN: I have during many years past given much time and study to the Irish Railway and Canal question, and their working in relation to the industrial life of Ireland. I have also given much consideration to the part our railways play and the dominant influence they exercise on the economies of the Irish problem. I have had many years practical experience as a railway director. I may say, however, that the chief insight which I have obtained in the working of the Irish carrying trade has been acquired as chairman of the Grand Canal Company. I have occupied this position for the past ten or eleven years, and still continue to do so. I may say here that it is my belief that our waterways, our canals, navigable rivers and canalised rivers, which cover so large an extent of the country, and which are fed by such an abundant

  297
  and never-failing supply of water, could be made to play a most important part in the industrial life of Ireland, and for the great benefit of the whole people. These waterways are now for the most part practically useless and derelict. Those of them such as the Grand Canal Company are so much hampered and conditioned as to render their public utility of little or no use. There seems to be high Government influence utterly opposed and hostile to the proper utilisation of these waterways for the public good. This would appear to have been always the view more or less of our Irish Government officials. It is one of the official traditions of Irish Government. This tradition, I regret to say, is rather more than less pursued by our Government to-day towards our waterways. For what reason only Heaven and Irish Government officials can tell.
  Be this as it may respecting our waterways, with regard to our railways, however, I will say without hesitation, and under the sense of the responsibility which attaches to the statement, that as they have been worked from their start to the present day it would be much better for the country, from every point of view, that a railway had never been constructed in Ireland. The railways were permitted to buy up the canals, the only possible source of continuous and lasting competition with them; and those waterways they did not buy, the railways were permitted to reduce their rates for carrying so low to the competitive canal station as to render the canal trading unprofitable, and so cripple the waterways as to put them off trading, or, if allowed to continue, only to such an extent as the railway would permit, and then the rates of carrying were put to their normal level, if not beyond it. The public thus lost the only lasting source of competition they had with the railways, and fell at once under their grinding monopoly, This would not be the time or place to consider what are the malign influences and agencies that make everything that can be made available for the general good in other countries work exactly in the opposite direction in Ireland. Certainly railways work in this perverted direction towards the general good in Ireland, whilst in other countries they are made the instruments of immense
  298
  benefit to the people. This is particularly the case when the railways are made to work harmoniously with the waterways of other countries, each doing its part of the traffic which naturally suits it. It must appear that everything in Ireland, as well as railways, works automatically from its wrong end. No matter how plain this inverted working may be to the ordinary observer, once commenced there seems to be no force or influence amongst us capable of being called into existence to rectify the evil effects of its wrong start. Things must then muddle on in their perverted grooves. Our fate seems inexorable in this respect.
  But to come to the immediate question before the House, the effect of the present high railway rates and charges on the industrial life of Ireland, and the possibility of effecting a remedy, if there be injustice, I think I cannot make myself intelligible unless I am permitted to quote a few facts and figures which lie at the base of the Irish economic problem, if, indeed, they do not constitute the entire base itself, and go to make up the whole crux in the question. Last November I delivered before the Bankers' Institute in Ireland the inaugural address for the year, the subject being "The Economics of the Irish Problem." I first showed, what we all know, but what is not always kept steadily in view, that all of us in Ireland derive our existence and well-being directly and indirectly from the land, and that the two exceptions, which are generally supposed to constitute exceptions to this statement, are not really so. These are the great brewing and distillery trades in Dublin, and to a lesser extent the same trades in the provinces, and then the great manufacturing industries of Belfast and its neighbourhood. Inasmuch as about three-quarters of the porter and whisky manufactured in Ireland is consumed in the country, and that the industries of Belfast and its neighbourhood were started, and are largely sustained by, the credit supplied by the Irish bank deposits, which are directly and indirectly the produce of the land, I cannot see that these two interests are exceptions to the general statement. But the economic state of things to which I wish to draw attention is this: our land, 15,300,000 acres in all, is cultivated by 486,000 occupying

  299
  tenants or holders, about 400,000 of whom, five-sixths of the whole, are operative occupying tenants, whose holdings are valued for taxation purposes at a maximum of a little over £20 valuation, and coming down to £1. The average rent paid by this class is about £7 to £8 a year, and their average incomes cannot be above £40 to £50 a year each, out of which rent and taxes have to be paid. Allowing five to each family, this class of operative farmers, who with assistance from their families do the entire work of their farms, constitute about 2,000,000 in all, nearly half our population. The incomes derivable from the land would not work out at more than £5 a head yearly for the maintenance of each individual comprised in this large class of the people. The facts and figures now shortly stated were given fully in the bankers' address. As far as I know they have not been substantially controverted, although there are many people who do not like such issues raised; I would be willing to contradict them if they were inaccurate. But I should also mention that these small incomes are only attainable in the good years, but when the rainy day comes round, which it inevitably does in Ireland, then the standard of living of this class, being so low and incapable of being pared down when the potatoes fail and the turf is wet, the people are starving, or next door to it.
  The Irish question, which is always more, or less simmering, owing in reality to the economic condition of this class, when at starvation point it becomes acute and seething. At present it may be said to be in the gentle summer stage, but let a wet year come, with the potatoes and turf absent, and with the other evil concomitants of the Irish rainy day, it will be then seen that the seething stage has once more arrived, and the pot will boil over, and any fat there is will go into the fire as of old.
  I want to show the part the Irish railways play in the economics of these two millions of people, whom, if possible, we should preserve in the best interests of Ireland, and indeed in the best interests of the Empire also. The rates charged by the Irish railway companies are, as far as I know, the highest in the world. Agricultural produce is charged about six farthings per ton per mile. All
  300
  goods carried by railway sare, as is well known, charged by weight, the ton being the unit. In the United States and Canada their railway rates for same agricultural produce are now well under one farthing per ton per mile, and these countries now claim to be able to carry by their rivers and canals at rates very much under this farthing per ton per mile. The continental rates in the chief prosperous countries are about, I think, two farthings per ton per mile. All these countries make a profit out of their railways charging these low rates. Prussia makes a profit of about £22,000,000 available for State purposes out of the receipts of the railways, after paying all working charges and interest and sinking fund on capital borrowed to make and buy the railways. It will be seen at once how Ireland is handicapped by the exorbitant rates charged by her railways, as compared with other countries I have named, which are in so keen competition with her in her own special products in her own markets. The stage may now be said to have arrived when Ireland can compete no longer. She is now almost completely crushed out of her own markets for her own produce. But this is not half the story; I will tell the remainder as shortly as possible. The Irish railway companies make through rates for the foreigner, the mileage proportion of which will be very much lower than their local rates for the same mileage to the Irish producer. But the rates for what are technically called smalls are absolutely prohibitive in enabling the small producers to market their produce direct, without the crushing charges of intermediaries, who collect the small into large parcels. Take eggs, which could, and should, be made such a source of profit to the Irish people. The course of the egg trade is this at present. The small farmers' wives or children take the eggs—a dozen or two—to the nearest little shop in the country, or in the town or village nearest them; they exchange these eggs at the lowest price for their tea, sugar, tobacco, etc., which are usually sold to them at the highest price. The price fixed by the shopkeepers for these eggs will generally be found to be the price for addled or stale eggs in, say, an English

  301
  manufacturing town, less by railway and steamship rates and the tolls of the various intermediaries through whose hands they pass. That is to say, to market Irish eggs, which are fresh at the start, they must become stale, and, in order to get them to this condition, they must be passed through the hands of various expensive intermediaries, and pay large rates to railways and steamers. As with eggs so with everything else that a small farmer has to sell in a small way. This in a country where five-sixths of the whole are small farmers, and who number roundly 2,000,000 people.
  It is a sad story from beginning to end. One of the saddest sights to be seen in Ireland to-day, next to the flight of the people, whom you meet with on every road and at every railway station on their way to America, is the large number of flour and oatmeal mills all over the country now idle and dismantled. These mills formerly ground the farmers' wheat and oats grown in their vicinity, and supplied the people with the home-grown flour and oats, and gave much employment in their neighbourhood. The action of the railways is much responsible for this particular state of things by the low through rates they will make for the foreigner for his flour, charging at same, time their full high local rates for his flour to the home miller, and also by the fact that the railways put wheat and flour in the same classification, charging the same rate on the manufactured and unmanufactured article. We have heard the Irish landlords described as bloodsuckers. I am an Irish landlord, and I fear must own to this soft impeachment towards the class, but they never were in it with the railways. But we have heard of good landlords in Ireland, and there have been many, but no one ever knew or heard of a good railway, nor can there ever be such.
  I will not weary the House longer with the misdeeds of the Irish railways, or the sinister part they play in the economics of the Irish problem. The question is, can anything be done to remedy this state of affairs. I am not hopeful. The Government and Government officials in Ireland will not stir to seek a remedy. Putting a remedy in operation would be to a certain extent an
  302
  acknowledgment of their want of appreciation previously of the position, and then if the railway remedy succeeded, people would begin to say that there were other economic wrongs beside the railways requiring to be looked into, and if they were probed, as we say, the whole discovery might then be found out. People who govern us would not like this, so it is safe to say that nothing will be done in this or any other direction. But I will say shortly what could be done and ought to be done, even if what I say be considered in only an academic and Pickwickian sense. I have long ago formed the conclusion that until 50 per cent. at least to start with is taken off all existing railway rates in Ireland, passengers, goods, agricultural produce, cattle, etc., that there is no use in trying to do any good in any shape or form in the country. I would also stipulate that all through rates should cease, or at least that the railway portion of the through rates, if made, should never be lower than the local rate charged on the same produce for the same distance. Equal mileage rates should be charged for all goods carried. It should also be stipulated that no reduction or rebates be given—20 or 50 tons should be charged full ton rates. There is no more effectual means of crushing out the small trader or farmer than by the present system of charging lower rates for large quantities. All rebates and allowances of whatsoever character should be at once discontinued, and no differential rates or treatment, direct or indirect, in favour of towns, cities, or ports should be allowed to continue. There are many other matters in this connection which would reveal themselves, and where operation should be reversed in the interests of the whole community, but particularly in the interests of the small farmers and traders. But there is another recommendation which I am about to make. It will not require much consideration to grasp its consequences and effect, which anyone can work out for themselves. If the Irish railway manager has not already pronounced me a revolutionist, I know he will do so now. I mean the introduction of the penny Irish railway 14 lb. basket or hamper. I mean that a basket or hamper containing up to 14 pounds weight of anything the sender wishes to

  303
  have conveyed in it be carried from any railway station in Ireland to any other station, irrespective of distance, at a charge of ½d. for carriage and ½d. for delivery in any city, town, or village in Ireland. This hamper to be carried by all trains and to be delivered within one hour of its arrival at the station for which it is booked, no restriction whatsoever or limitation of any kind to be imposed as to what goods or materials the hamper may contain up to one stone or 14 pounds in weight. I have thought out for a long time the consequences, domestic, commercial, political, and social, which would follow on the introduction of this penny railway hamper in our midst. Of course, the other changes which I have indicated to be made simultaneously.
  MR. SACKvILLE: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of order, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to read his speech?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order to read a speech, but reference to very full notes is frequently permitted.
  MR. McCANN: The reason I am reading is that I want to be accurate. I have a great number of facts to state, and I could not, I am sorry to say, give them all from memory. I am not so gifted with eloquence as a great many of my fellow-countrymen. I will read as little as possible. I have particularly thought out the effect of all these alterations, or rather reversals, in our railway system on the numerous class of small operative cultivators in Ireland, and the many others who would be induced to become operative cultivators by the reversal of all existing railway methods and charges. I believe that the railway companies, with proper organisation, could carry, even at present without loss, these penny hampers. A half penny for fourteen pounds weight for a distance of about sixty miles, which I calculate would be the average run on these hampers, would work out at 6s. 8d. a ton, which would be about the present carriage rate. Consider what these hampers would do for the Irish egg trade, the present condition of which I have already outlined. The congested districts, as well as all other districts in Ireland, could have the fresh eggs which
  304
  are laid the day before delivered in any town in Ireland the following day. The best market for these eggs would of course be the large towns at the ports, where they could be used for consumption in these towns or shipped off at once fresh to England and Scotland. It must be remembered that foreign fresh eggs—Russian, French, Dutch, Danish, etc.—are now imported largely for consumption in our own towns, as well as butter, and many other commodities grown by ourselves. I think that the introduction of the penny hamper would give an immediate additional value to all the eggs produced in Ireland at present of from 50 to 75 per cent., and this additional value would accrue simultaneously to every single producer of an egg in the country. We might reasonably expect that under these influences the production of eggs would be doubled in a few years. As with eggs, so with butter and all our other productions; the penny hamper would work more or less for all in the same way. Under its operation the entire washing of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork might be done in the congested districts of Ireland. This would appeal to a very numerous class in England, as well as in Ireland, who never wash their dirty linen at home.
  I will leave you to consider how much could be done, and in how many ways, under the influence of the penny Irish railway basket, for the benefit of the Irish peasant. It goes without saying that I would recommend the nationalisation of all our waterways, our canals, canalised rivers and navigable rivers, making them to be free for ever for the people. These waterways could then be made to work in and in with the railways. I would recommend the local nationalisation of all the Irish railways. We do not want English nationalisation at all. Should views such as these ever come to be considered, and tenders and plans advertised for, I would claim to be permitted to put in one with specifications. I will undertake to charge no commission. I may mention that it would he the first business transaction of my life where I charged no commission. I may in conclusion say that my ideas are not revolutionary, although they may appear so to some people; they are

  305
  the result of forty years experience and thought. I beg to thank the House for the patient hearing that has been given me.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): We have had a most interesting debate on many matters of the greatest importance. I believe that this is the first occasion on which the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green has addressed the House. He comes before us as an Irish landlord and commercial magnate, and he is a monument of what can be achieved even in Ireland by private enterprise. That makes his advocacy of some sort of State intervention all the more interesting and forcible. I am not prepared at a moment's notice to follow in detail the suggestions which the hon. Member has made; for example, the proposition that a penny railway hamper would revolutionise the economic condition of Ireland. But I am certain that when we read and study the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech we shall find in it much matter for consideration, In spite of the eloquent appeal made to me not to imitate my predecessors by adopting a non possumus attitude on these questions. I am not ashamed to avow that I am not prepared this evening with a cut-and-dried, exhaustive, and final pronouncement of the attitude of this and of all succeeding Governments upon the question of giving facilities for transit in Ireland. Although the words of the resolution do seem to invite not only a Government proposal as to the proper remedy, but a Government pledge that time will be found this session for giving effect to that remedy, the able and temperate speech of the hon. Member for South Roscommon was couched in very different terms from his resolution. He merely pressed these alternatives and the importance of the subject on my own consideration and the consideration of the Government. Indeed, I think it is admitted that debates after nine o'clock, though important, are academic, and it is impossible to allocate the Government time to measure in the course of such discussions. Perhaps I may point out that an argument in favour of the Amendment—namely, that it is inopportune now to proceed with legislation on the
  306
  lines suggested—may be found in the fact that the drama of this evening has been prefaced by a curtain-raiser in the afternoon, a lever de rideau, directed by that mercurial impresario the hon. Member for South Donegal. With that in my mind, I should say not only that the time is inopportune, but that it is non-existent.
  In conformity with precedent, passing from any direct argument based on the direct terms of the resolution, and coming to the subject matter of the resolution, it has been the practice on previous occasions to balance the merits of the rival remedies suggested—State control or State purchase, and then to say something in favour of each and something against each. It is easy to postulate in that manner during the rest of the time that remains at our disposal. One can point out that amalgamation would reduce the cost of working the lines, but that it would also reduce competition. But after what has fallen from several speakers on the subject of railway competition, and notably from the hon. Member who introduced the resolution, who pointed out that the multiplicity of small railways in Ireland did not lead to any real competition—the only competition being not to waste fuel in order to catch connections at junctions, where the other train was eager to get off—and who further showed that the only real competition existed at places tapped by both lines—it will be admitted that all that discounts a good deal of the argument based on competition. I confess I would be very glad if some practical proposal were laid before the House; and hon. Members will remember that I would not oppose any reasonable and practical scheme of amalgamation on the ground that multiplicity of companies leads to healthy competition in Ireland. If Parliament were ever to consider the question of fostering or forcing amalgamation, or of demanding some form of State control as a set-off to amalgamation, we should have to recollect that so recently as 1892 considerable concessions were wrung by the House from railways in Ireland. Maximum charges for classified goods were imposed on the railways in Ireland, and it might not be right to impose a further reduction of rate upon cattle, goods or merchandise unless such

  307
  imposition wore accompanied by a guarantee. That has been done by many of our colonies, notably in Canada, where the State insists upon railway companies providing refrigerating cars and other apparatus necessary to the safe carriage of perishable goods, such as eggs, butter, and the like. Since that involved a great outlay of capital, the State gave a guarantee against reduction of profits, and I believe that in Canada this has worked out in such a way as to impose little or no loss on the State. It may be said, Why should not the companies do this without the aid of the State? The answer is, because in new or poor countries there is not available capital, as in England or Scotland.
  Incidentally I may mention that the new Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland has not been so remiss as may be supposed from references in speeches made during the discussion. The department made careful inquiry into the carriage of perishable goods during the summer, and has issued minute recommendations in a circular as to the steps which should be taken when the hot weather approcahes, and I am glad to say the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have adopted a system of refrigerating cars, and a Cork shipping company is following in the same useful direction. I do not believe that the hon. Member who introduced the resolution pressed very strongly for the State purchase of railways in Ireland, and very few arguments have been put forward in support of that object. I am opposed to such a policy, and do not treat it as within the range of practical politics. But it does not stand on all fours with the State purchase of British railways, which would involve an outlay of 1,200 millions, whilst in Ireland it would only cost 29 millions. In considering the problem of Irish railways we ought to recollect that the State has already given or guaranteed six millions in Ireland—a large concession in relation to the whole capital invested—in order to remedy the effects of the Irish railway system. There are many other arguments against State purchase, and to create a new State department would exhibit a broader target to the attacks that have been made upon Irish administration, and
  308
  such attacks would be encouraged by the hope that some of the shots might ricochet against the Act of Union itself. There is another difficulty, showing how closely social questions are interlocked in Ireland, and that is the difficulty of obtaining a properly trained staff for any large Government department in Ireland without appearing to ignore the claims of Irishmen. I say that in no offensive sense. This question of Irish railways is interlocked with the question of Irish education, and if you do not make progress with Irish education you cannot find the technically trained men for the administration of the Irish railways. Again, I say I do not think I have said that in any offensive sense. [Cries of "No, no."]
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is a reflection on your own Government, that is all.
  MR. WYNDHAM: While, in order to be perfectly candid in my attitude towards the difficulties of the Irish problem, I do not omit those present in my own mind, I think it will be easy to show that much has been done by this and preceding Governments for Ireland. We have free grants of a million and a half, and have guaranteed 4½ millions. We passed in 1888 the Railways and Canals Traffic Act, and in 1892 the Railway Rates and Charges Act. I desire in the short time at my disposal to pick out the salient features from what has passed before on this question. In 1874 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, speaking as I am doing to-night on a very similar motion, said—
  "Parliament might beneficially lend assistance to promote amalgamation of Irish railways, and possibly facilities might he given by the Government by which it would he rendered easier and cheaper than at present."
  I am well aware that two years ago the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, in one of his impassioned speeches, dilated at some length on the quotation from my right hon. friend's speech. I may say that the rest of my right hon. friend's speech was not in the same terms, but embodied a most earnest protest against any idea of State purchase of railways;

  309
  and the hon, and learned Member for North Louth omitted to mention that the passage he quoted was only the gilding of the pill, and did not represent all that could be said on the question.
  The next document of real importance in this, to my mind, most important question, is the second Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Works—Sir James Allport's Report. That Report was published in the year 1888, and I would invite the attention of hon. Members to a few short passages in it. There had, it said, been a general agreement at all times and in all quarters that the railways in Ireland might be and ought to be treated separately from those in Great Britain. That had been the case because the Government had given money to Ireland, and had lent money to Ireland in a proportion never asked for or conceded in Great Britain. The Report went on to say, speaking of the Irish railway system, that capital took a too narrow view of its own interests.
  "We consider," the Report proceeded, "that the present position is far from satisfactory, and we now proceed to discuss the remedy. The remedy we propose is two fold. On the one hand is centralisation, and on the other a universal controlling authority with power to inquire into and to remedy grievances. We would not recommend the first without the second, and at the same time we would not recommend the second without the first as a complete remedy for the evils that exist."
  The Commission differentiated Irish from British railways, and advocated extensive and even universal amalgamation; that that was, at any rate, to be fostered in every possible way, and accompanied by control in the interest of Ireland, which was purely an agricultural country. It is to be noted that this Commission was appointed in 1886, and reported in the year 1888, that is to say at a date when the Members of the Government and hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies were both pre-occupied with questions of other than those of an economic interest. And so it fell out in 1892, when the Railway Charges Act was passed. At that time most of us were absorbed in a great political struggle, and it is one of the difficulties of Irish administration that whenever economic problems come to a head some political or constitutional
  310
  storm appears on the horizon, and all these deliberations are blown away. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: "Not to-night,"] I trust it may not be so; but it was so in 1888. Nothing happened from 1888 until recent years, when we had again to approach these economic problems without having our attention diverted away from them. We had the interesting debate of 1899, in which many interesting speeches were made, and largely in consequence of that debate a new Department was established, and endowed with special powers for dealing with this question of transit facilities in Ireland. Hon. Members opposite have expressed a good deal of disappointment in respect of the practical effect of that Act, but it is a new Act, and I am able to inform the House that the Department is earnestly engaged on this very problem. I, for one, shall not despair of its labours without much stronger evidence of failure than any hon. Member has so far been able to adduce.
  I am very glad we have had this debate. The subject is one which deserves the consideration of all parties in the House, but I cannot disguise the fact that it is interlocked with other economic questions in Ireland. It is interlocked with the land question, and so long as that question is in an unsettled state, and so long as we do not get from either the landlords or the tenants, and still less from both combined, the pressure which we would get from England or Scotland on other economic questions, it is difficult to make progress with these other economic questions. Again, it is interlocked with the education question, and it is difficult to expect further and useful developments of transit facilities until you have in Ireland a higher standard of education, and particularly of technical education. These economic problems would emerge, whatever the Government of the country might be. The hon. Member who seconded the resolution said: "You insist on governing us; give us Home Rule and we will settle all these problems." I believe that anyone who has listened to this debate, or who has given a moment's consideration to the other two subjects to which I have referred, will feel that there must be a common exchequer if

  311
  re toawie a del ether with the question of transit facilities, or with the land question, or with the education question. Therefore I am confronted with the very difficulty which hon. Members from Ireland would have to meet.
  I need not discuss as to whether we owe, or do not owe, some large sum of money to Ireland. There are some people who hold that under the Act of Union we are under a special obligation to give economic assistance to Ireland in this matter, and have not done so; and there are some who hold the view that we have more than done our duty in that respect. I can leave these recriminations on one side. As a Unionist, and above all as an Imperialist, I may point out that Ireland is one of three ancient kingdoms, with a large, though I regret to say, a diminishing population. It is an agricultural and a poor country, which demands development at our hands, even more than, say, Cyprus or the West Indies, because of its very proximity to our shores, and its close historic associations with Great Britain. Although it is not necessary to enter into any argument as to the financial relations of the two countries in considering this question, it still remains that any economic question brought forward such as this deserves, and will always obtain, careful and sympathetic consideration from any Unionist Government.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, and the Chief Secretary, had declared that we were in the same position as in 1888. So far as he could make out, the only important point brought forward by the Chief Secretary was that this was not an opportune time to go into the question of Irish economic grievances. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman waited until such time as he considered it opportune to raise these questions and to deal with them, the Government would find that there were no traders left in the country, because the Irish railways were killing Irish trade and stifling Irish industry as fast as they could. It had been found that many articles could be produced far cheaper in Ireland than in England, but the English manufacturers, in consequence of preferential railway and steamboat rates,
  312
  could introduce their goods into Ireland at a lower rate than Irish goods could be forwarded from towns only twenty miles away. The firm of Guinness, the brewers, did a large trade with England and the North of Ireland, but they found it far cheaper to ship their goods from the North of Ireland to England, and reship them to Derry, than to send them direct there from Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman said that they should wait for the development of the new Agricultural and Technical Instruction Department, and he referred to the new powers that Department had taken to appear before the Railway Commissioners. The Railway Commissioners were very little known in Ireland, and were a body which was very hard to get at, and the result was that the unfortunate trader, knowing little or nothing about the Railway Commissioners, preferred to lose his money rather than engage in a futile and costly attempt to get redress at the hands of the Railway Commissioners. It was disappointing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, while stating that the time was not opportune to deal with this question, gave no indication whatever when this important question would receive consideration.
  *Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: We have had a very remarkable and suggestive debate, but I think that before it closes someone ought to stroke the t's and dot the i's. In the first place, I think it is very remarkable that no Irishman on this side of the House could be found willing to move the Amendment, which I understand His Majesty's Government are going to support. That duty has devolved upon my hon. friend the Member for Peckham. My hon. friend does his work well, and is always ready to step into the gap; and I am delighted to find that although he does not pretend to know anything about Ireland or Irish Railways, he was able to fill up three-quarters of an hour of the valuable time of the House. The first thing I wish to have noted is that, so far as Ireland is concerned, on both sides of the House there is absolute unanimity as regards its railway system. Now, we had, I say it frankly, a very sympathetic and suggestive speech from my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. One thing is to be noted

  313
  in regard to that speech. I once heard a previous Chief Secretary say that in distributing the patronage of Ireland he was often unable to give appointments to a certain class of the community because of their lack of fitness owing to the want of education. That was said some years ago in this House; and now we have, eight years after that statement was made, another Chief Secretary coming forward and offering as an objection to the motion before the House that the question of education is involved in it, and that Ireland cannot produce the people to manage her railways. Why, that is an extraordinary statement to come from the representative of the Irish Government. I ask why then do not the Government face this educational problem, and why cannot the Government put aside all those feelings that stand against a settlement of the education question, and see that the Irish people should have just the education to enable them to carry out the duties which other people have to be imported to do? My hon. friend the Member for Peckham said another extraordinary thing. He knows a great deal more about finance than I do; he is constantly engaged upon it, and I am not, He likened the expenditure upon the proposed State purchase of the Irish railways to the loan of sixty millions for the South African war. He went further, because he hinted that the proposed expenditure of £120,000,000 on the purchase of Irish land was open to the same objection. I cannot understand it. In the one case there is no proposal to spend money at all. There is a proposal to ask the Imperial credit for the purchase of the railways or the land, whereas the sixty millions for South Africa has been spent in the coin of the realm and is gone. From my standpoint, it is rightly spent; I can say that. [Cries from the Irish benches of "No."] Yes. That sixty millions is gone; it has been added to the National Debt, and there it will remain until it is paid off by the British taxpayer. Although the money for the land purchase would be added to the National Debt, it would be paid off by instalments every year, and the State would receive as good interest for the loan as it receives for any other loan. What, then, is the
  314
  use of comparing the two things? It is the same with the Irish railways. If the Government resolved to advance forty millions for the purchase of these railways the State would have an asset. I have heard the greatest railway expert in Ireland—a man who was until quite recently in the Government service—say that he would give a clear four per cent. on the Irish railways. These things ought to be known.
  As I have said, this has been a most remarkable debate. Let me sum up. Where do we stand after this debate? I ask the House and the Chief Secretary to note that nobody has ventured to defend the present Irish railway system. It is admitted to have all the vices and very few of the benefits a railway system ought to confer upon a country. It is also admitted—at any rate the charge has been made, and it has not been denied—that it has done as much as any agency or influence in Ireland to discourage trade and to handicap and hamper industry. Now what is the remedy? Is the remedy to sit down under this vicious system and to do nothing at all? That is the first question I press on the Government. I do not altogether blame the Government for not taking up the question. The Chief Secretary was perfectly right when he said that for fifteen years we have had great constitutional questions before us, and that economic questions have had to be set aside, and that, too, with the consent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cries from the Irish benches of "No."] I say I do not blame the Government for inaction in the past. It is quite true that the Government have done a great deal for the Irish railways. I admit at once the service done by building light railways free of expense. But are we to do nothing as the result of this debate? Is the result to be a non possumus for the encouragement of the present system? The hon. Member for South Roscommon put forward three alternative ideas. I would advise him to drop Mr. Challoner Smith, whose plan was that the fares and rates should be reduced one-half, and that the British taxpayer should pay the difference. The British taxpayer is a patient animal; he would do a great deal for Ireland, but he could not be expected to do that. Another principle is that of State control

  315
  in the management of the Irish railways. I am sure something of the kind is needed, but I would like to see a plan that would work of State control over private trading concerns. We come to the third proposal, that of State purchase. Now I admit that that is a large question, and I would not expect the Government to give any reply to a proposition such as that right away, but I did expect—I say it fairly now—that before my right hon. friend sat down he would have held out some hope that, in a time of profound peace in Ireland, when there is room for all these economic questions to be discussed, and when the people are anxious to discuss them, and are ready to listen to reasonable considerations, that some undertaking would have come from the Government on this question, and that the House would have had some future opportunity of considering it.
  MR. LOUGH: Everyone who has listened to the debate with profound interest must have been greatly disappointed at the speech of the Chief Secretary. He seems to have gathered the worst features of his predecessors in office. He spoke of a speech of a predecessor in 1874, and quoted from it words of sympathy to Ireland; but then he said that was only the gilding of the pill. That was true. No Chief Secretary ever meant anything. That was twenty-seven years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman was only humbugging Ireland. Then he came to the year 1888, and quoted from Sir James Allport's Report, but, said he, there were riots in Ireland, and again nothing could be done. Then in 1893 there were riots in Ireland, and again nothing could be done. But what are we waiting for now? There is no political revolution going on
  now. We are in a period of peaceful Unionist Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say, or if he has, he has lost his opportunity. If any proof were wanted, here it is, of the total incapacity of the House to deal with the problems of Ireland. We have had the education question, the financial relations question, and the land question, and the Government have put them all off. And now there is the old question of the Irish railways, which has been before the House in the same form for sixty years, waiting for settlement, in the same shameful manner. The Chief Secretary, after only three mouths experience of office, said that if we nationalised the railways in Ireland, we could not get Irishmen to work them. I say that is a shameful statement to make. There are as able railway managers in Ireland as in this country.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My object was to show that the education question was of importance in relation to the railway question.
  MR. LOUGH: I take the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He said that you could not find men in Ireland to administer the railways if they were nationalised. I say that there are most excellent men. I could mention six men who could manage all the railways, and the right hon. Gentleman was only trifling with the subject. The question of the Irish railways is a very simple one, and could be dealt with as easily as any other, if the House were only serious about it.
  Question put.
  The House divided.
  Ayes, 90; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 166.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Doogan, P. C.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dully, William J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bell, Richard

  Colville, John

  Field, William

  Boland, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boyle, James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Brigg, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Burke, K. Haviland-

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hammond, John

  Burns, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Havdie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Rigg, Richard

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murphy, J.

  Roche, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

  Russell, T. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan Gow.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  O'Doherty, William

  Tully, Jasper

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  London, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  M'Cann, James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, E. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  M'Crae, George

  O'Mara, James

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  Reddy, M.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederi'k

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml's)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Arrol, Sir William

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbu'y

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, R Hn A Graham (Bute

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'ry)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bill, Charles

  Haslett, Sir James Homer

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Black, Alexander William

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

  Pym, C. Guy

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Helder, Augustus

  Randles, John S.

  Brassey, Albert

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Renwick, George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Cavendish, v. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rolleston, Sir John P. L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, John (Kent Faversh.

  Round, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birin.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)

  Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lawson, John Grant

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. Evesham

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

  Valentia, viscount

  Cranborne, viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Davies Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton u. Lyne)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E).

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. E. (Bath

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, George H.

  Massey Wainwaring, Hn W F.

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfries-sh.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Banbury and Mr. Malcolm.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Milton, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Question proposed, "That those words be there added:"—Debate arising. Objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

  BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of Bankruptcy Cases closed by each of the Official Assignees in Ireland for the year ended the 31st day of December 1900, showing (1) number of cases; (2) class, gross assets; (3) gross receipts; (4) payments to secured creditors; (5) preferential payments for rent, taxes, salaries, and allowance to Bankrupt; (6) legal and other charges; (7) remuneration to Official Assignee; (8) dividends; (9) balance; Bankrupt's statement; (10) gross assets; (11) liabilities; (12) amount of proofs admitted."—(Mr. Field.)
NEW BILLS.
  ULSTER CUSTOM (No. 2).
  Bill for the better enforcement of the Ulster Custom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. T. L. Corbett, and Dr. Thompson.
  ULSTER CUSTOM (No. 2) BILL.
  "For the better enforcement of the Ulster Custom," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
  LAND RATING (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Bill to provide for the separate assessment of Land and the rating for local purposes of Land values in boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. William Jones.
  LAND RATING (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To provide for the separate assessment of Land and the rating for local purposes of Land values in boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 15th May, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED, WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to the legalizing of marriage with a deceased wife's niece."
  *MR. SPEAKER: When the Committee stage of a Bill is called I am bound to leave the chair unless there is a valid Instruction on the Paper, and in my opinion the Instruction of the noble Lord is not a valid one.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: On a point of order, Sir, may I point out that my Instruction extends the scope of the Bill? It enables the Committee to enter upon a cognate subject. Would it not therefore be in order?
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Is the noble Lord in order in arguing a point of order?
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is a Bill to remedy a specific alleged defect in the Mining Law. It has been treated as a separate and distinct grievance for many years. If this Instruction is to be allowed I do not see what there is to prevent other hon. Members moving Instructions with regard to every kind of relationship. There are sixty forbidden degrees of relationship mentioned in the Table in the Book of Common Prayer. There would be nothing to prevent fifty-eight other hon. Members moving fifty-eight other Instructions. This is a Bill to deal with one specific question, and the Instruction is therefore out of order.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday 5th June.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the Clock.

Preamble
An Asterisk (v) at the commencement of a Speech indicates revision by the Member.
LORD FARNHAM.
Petition of Arthur Kenlis, Baron Farnham of Farnham, in the County of Cavan, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
EARL OF DONOUGHMORE.
Petition of Richard Walter John, Earl of Donoughmore, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Petersfield and Selsey Gas.

Leatherhead Gas.

Midland Railway.

Taff vale Railway.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ELLAND GAS BILL.
  Examiner's certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CANADA DOCK WORKS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOvER RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  Reported with Amendments.

  WEST AND SOUTH LONDON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  CITY AND NORTHEAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Committed:—The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  NEATH HARBOUR BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  WOLVERHAMPTON AND CANNOCK CHASE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed:—The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Moved that Standing Order No. 92 be dispensed with; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against the Bill be extended to Tuesday next (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to.

  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTHPORT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.].
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL [H L.].
  BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.].
  CHESTERFIELD IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.].
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.].
  BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [H.L.].
  BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

  E. Jersey (chairman),

  E. Lathom,

  v. Halifax,

  L. Aberdare,

  L. Farrer;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on

  175
  Monday next, at Twelve o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  HENRY DIAPER AND COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  PAISLEY GAS PROvISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the subject of the London Underground Railways do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room B on Thursday next at Two o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the various charitable agencies now in operation, and the funds available for relieving widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors, with a view to insuring that the funds subscribed by local and private benevolence are applied to the best advantage in supplementing a scheme of Government Pensions for widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors who have lost their lives in war, do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room A on Thursday next, at Three o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.

  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the
  176
  Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Friday next, at Three o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GOLD COAST.
  Laws and Regulations affecting lands and mines and the labour of Natives, 1901.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 319. Christmas Island: Report for 1900; No. 320. British Solomon Islands: Report for 1899–1900.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  Agricultural returns for Great Britain, showing the acreage and produce of crops, prices of corn, and number of live stock, with agricultural statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1900; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (ACCOUNTS).
  Accounts showing the sums received and expended for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police, and Police Pension Funds, during the year ended 31st March, 1901.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 to 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Lucy Jane Simons, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Lucy Jane Simons to be at large on condition that she enter the St. John the Baptist's Home, London.
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Account of all moneys received on account of contracts for the grant of deferred life annuities, and for payments on death, under the provisions of the Acts 27th and 28th victoria, chap. 43, 45th and 46th victoria, chap. 51, and 50th and 51st victoria, chap. 40, and of the disposal thereof, and of the contracts made, for the year ended 31st December, 1900; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  TRAMWAYS (CONSENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition against the amendment of Standing Order No. 22; of the Corporations of Hammersmith and Holborn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSING SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of, of British Temperance League; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of, of British Temperance League; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 45.)

  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.].
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3 on Thursday next.

  SOLICITORS' BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I have introduced this Bill at the request of my learned friend the Master of the Rolls. A difficulty has arisen as to the granting or renewing of certificates to solicitors who are undischarged bankrupts. The law at present is not only unsatisfactory, but doubtful. The object of the Bill is to remove these doubts, and it is proposed that the registrar of solicitors—the Incorporated Law Society—shall have the right of refusing the renewal of a certificate to an undischarged
  178
  bankrupt; but there will be a right of appeal to the Master of the Rolls, who may make such order as he thinks fit. This is a necessary amendment of law, and I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Alverstone.)
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.