Sitting of 6 March 1901

Preamble
Another Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MORTON CARR DRAINAGE BILL.
  "For amending certain provisions in force with respect to the Morton Carr Drainage, in the county of Lincoln; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.

    CRAWLEY GAS BILL.
    DUBLIN ST.JAMES' GATE BREWERY TRAMWAYS BILL.
    GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    GRAVESEND GAS BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL
    HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    LEATHERHEAD GAS BILL.
    LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
    SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
    WELLS WATER BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

  PETITION.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Petitions for alteration of Law, from Bromley; Reading; Sunderland; Gravesend; Hebden Bridge; Halifax; Ply-mouth; Burslem; Holyhead; Normanby; and Ashton-under-Lyne; to be upon the Table.
    POOR LAW OFFICERS SUPERANNUA- TION ACT, 1896.
    Petitions for alteration of Law, from Levenshulme; Hammersmith; Coventry; and Barton Regis; to he upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TOCHILDREN BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Manchester; Doncaster; York; West Ham; Tem-
    698
    perance Union of the Society of Friends; Glasgow (two); Greenock: Millom; and Driffield; to be upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Greenock; Ayr; and Fraserburgh; to be upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for the year 1900 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS (EXCESSES), 1899–1900.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses on certain Grants for the year ended on the 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.[No. 77.]

  SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS (5TH MARCH).
  MR JOHN REDMOND: I desire. Mr. Speaker, to bring under the notice of the House a question of privilege arising out of the painful scene which took place here last night. It will. Mr. Speaker, be within the recollection of the House and yourself that a number of hon. Members of this House were reported to you by name by the Chairman of Committees as having disregarded the authority of the Chair by refusing to take part in a division. In this report to you by the Chairman of Committees certain hon. Members were named and were subsequently suspended from the service of the House, and they were removed by force. The question of privilege which I desire to raise is that several of those hon. Members were reported to you. Mr. Speaker, by the Chairman of Committees as having disregarded the authority of the Chair, without proper steps having been taken to identify them, and in the removal of those hon. Members violence was used of a character—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not a question of privilege which the hon.

  699
  Member is raising; it is purely a question of order. If the hon. Member has any definite point of order to raise, or has any question to put as to something that was out of order, I will answer him. This is not a question of privilege upon which he can base a motion nor upon which he can make a speech.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am very sorry that, unfortunately, I was not in my place last night when the scene took place, but I have noticed by the report in the papers of what took place that you. Mr. Speaker, stated—if you are correctly reported—that a protest against what had taken place could subsequently be made. What I desire to bring under the attention of the House is that, as a matter of order as well as a matter of privilege, although I would claim it as a matter of privilege—[Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"] The question I rose to ask is in regard to the names reported to you of certain Members who were reported to you without proper steps having been taken to identify hon. Members. As a matter of fact, I have satisfied myself that some of the hon. Members who have been suspended had actually gone into the division lobby to take part in the division before the scene arose in the House. This is a matter of such grave importance affecting the right and privileges of the Members who have been suspended that I think an opportunity ought to be given to me of raising the question now.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is clearly not a matter of privilege as it stands at present, but a question of order. If there is any instance of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member in which any hon. Member has been reported to me wrongly, and if there has been a mistake, then the proper course would be for the hon. Member to communicate with me—and I regret he did not take that course last night—and inform me that, in point of fact, he did not refuse to leave the House and take part in the division. I am quite certain that the House will not desire to proceed with this matter at the present moment until the hon. Members alluded to have communicated with me. I am quite sure that the House will at once remedy the mistake if it has occurred.
  MR. DILLON: With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I beg to submit that this is really of very vital importance. I will put this question. I am speaking of two concrete instances of two colleagues who are known to myself. I an hon. Member of this House is removed by violence from this House—
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no question of privilege at present before the House. The hon. Member is now proceeding to comment again upon the proceedings in the House, and he is out of order.
  MR. DILLON: Surely I am entitled, as any hon. Member of this House is entitled, to submit to you a question on a point of order, which is a question of privilege. If you rule that it is not in order. I shall accept your ruling without question, but I think I am entitled to submit my case.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have already said that it is not a question of privilege. If, after I have given a ruling on the point, I allow this question to be raised a nun by the hon. Member, I do not know where it will end.
  MR. DILLON: I may be stupid in this matter, but it does seem to me that the question which I wish to raise has not been accurately raised by the hon. Member for Waterford, who spoke before me; and I think the House of Commons might, in a case of this kind, listen to me for a few minutes. The particular case I want to raise is not the case of the bon. Members who refused to leave the House last night, but the case of two hon. Members who stopped me when I was coming into the House and asked me to bring their case under the notice of the Chair. They inform me that they went into the lobby, and were afterwards forcibly removed with violence by the police. I am not in the least desirous of questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I am entitled to a clear ruling upon this point. My point is this: if an hon. Member of this House who has not in any way infringed the rules of order, by error on the part of the Clerk of the House who has wrongfully reported his name to you and to the Chairman, is removed by violence by the officials of the House and debarred from taking part in the debate,

  701
  is that not a question of privilege which may be raised by a colleague when the hon. Member alluded to is debarred from attending here to state his own case before the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not know what are the facts which the hon. Member states. Does the hon. Member say that two of those hon. Members who sit on those benches, whom I requested to leave and who refused to leave, were removed by violence? Is he speaking of their case?
  MR. DILLON: No, Mr. Speaker. My complaint is that two hon. Members stopped me when I was coming into the House to-day, and stated that yesterday when the division was called on they went into the lobby to vote, but when the doors were unlocked and the names reported one of the Clerks of the House look their names down as having disobeyed the ruling of the Chair, and reported them to the Chairman. I there fore put it to you, Sir, whether that is not a question of privilege, and whether I am not entitled to raise the case of these two hon. Members, who are now wrongfully debarred from coming into the House, as a question of privilege?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No; for this reason: the Chairman of Committees reported to me that those hon. Gentlemen were present, and refused to go into the lobby, and the House has ordered their suspension. They are prevented from coming here. If they Mill communicate with me and state to me what the facts are, then the matter may he brought before the House. At the present moment it does not seem to me that it is in a position to inquire into this matter unless the hon. Members themselves make these allegations.
  MR. DILLON: With all due respect. Mr. Speaker, the two hon. Members I allude to have commissioned me to make this application on their behalf, for they stopped me at the outer door as I was coming down to the House. I have always understood that a question of privilege must be raised immediately. What are these two hon. Members to do? May I communicate with them again, and, if they authorise me with a written communication to raise this question.
  702
  shall I be allowed to deal with it as a question of privilege? I understand that if you do not raise a question of privilege immediately, you are then debarred from raising your point. This is one of the most serious questions of privilege.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Members referred to will communicate to me their precise statements upon the matter, then the House will deal with it.
  AN HON. MEMBER: How can they communicate?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Under the circumstances of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I do not desire to question. I will ask the permission of the House to move the adjournment of the House "to call attention to a matter of definite and urgent public importance—namely, the action the Chairman of Committees in reporting to you certain Members of this House as refusing to take part in a division and disregarding the ruling of the Chair, without proper steps having been taken to identity them, and the application of violence to certain Members of this House."
  *MR. SPEAKER: That resolution cannot be moved now, because it has been held over and over again that any question affecting the ruling of the Chair, or calling into question the action of the Chair, must be raised upon a substantive motion of which notice has been given, and it cannot be done upon a motion for the adjournment of the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That means precluding any possibility of raising this question at all this session, unless the Government see their way to give us an opportunity. I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the grave importance of the question which affects the rights of Members who allege that they wire wrongfully treated in the matter, whether he will give the House an opportunity to discuss it.
  THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The ruling, Mr. Speaker, which you have just given practically amounts to this: that the House will have an opportunity of discussing this question as a

  703
  matter of privilege as soon as the hon. Members who think themselves aggrieved have communicated with yourself in a proper manner, and the facts are laid before the House; then the House may discuss it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If that be, as is intimated to me from the Chair, an accurate statement of Mr. Speaker's ruling, it is clear that the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman desires will be given without the intervention of the Government as soon as the facts are laid before Mr. Speaker, and it will then be open to discussion.
  MR. DILLON: It is exceedingly important that we should know where we are. Your ruling, as I understand it, is that when you have received a communication from the two hon. Members to whom I have referred it will be competent for ns to discuss a question of privilege; but will that only be a question of privilege as applied to those two hon. Members?
  *MR. SPEAKERassented.
  MR. DILLON: I understand that to be your ruling. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he considers that a full discussion of the whole incident? Anybody who has had any experience in this House of debates on questions of privilege knows that the rules of order are very tightly drawn, and we shall be absolutely confined to the discussion of the grievances of those two hon. Members, in regard to whom the question of privilege is raised, and we shall not be in a position to discuss the whole incident.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand from the question of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Waterford that what he desires is an opportunity of discussing the case of these two hon. Members who regard themselves as being aggrieved. That opportunity will be granted as a matter of privilege as soon as the hon. Members have communicated with Mr. Speaker. Now the hon. Gentleman desires that an opportunity should be given for discussing what has occurred to the other hon. Members who were
  704
  suspended. I am considering that, and also what means may be taken to prevent its recurrence. I think it is possible—but I make no statement at present—that I shall be able to make a statement within a few hours regarding an opportunity being given to discuss both questions.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Perhaps I ought to read again the terms of my motion, for the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The motion I asked leave to make had reference to the action of the Chairman of Committees, in reporting to you, Sir, certain Members of this House as refusing to take part in a division without taking proper steps to identify them, and the application of violence to certain Members of this House. I hope that if we do get an opportunity of considering the possibility of preventing the recurrence of these scenes in the future, the right hon. Gentleman will take into account in that connection the inadvisability of attempting to closure after one night's debate a Vote of £17,000,000.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
  MR. POWER: On the point of order, Sir—
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is too late.
  MR. POWER: It is on a point of order Mr. Speaker.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have already called on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We did not hear what you did call.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. JOHN WILSON: The Bill which I have the honour to introduce is intended to remedy what has been felt ever since the passing of the Police Act of 1890 to have been an injustice and an anomaly so far as the police force of Scotland is concerned. In that year the then Lord Advocate

705
brought in a measure for the superannuation of constables in Scotland, and in introducing it he laid great stress upon the arduous nature of their duties, and upon the importance of attracting to the force a good class of men and pointed out that the prospect of a suitable retiring allowance, depending as it did upon good conduct and on a good record, would undoubtedly have the desired effect. So far so good, but unfortunately this Act, though a step in the right direction, placed the Scottish police in a position of considerable inequality as compared with their English brethren. The English Bill passed with very little alteration, whereas the Scottish Bill was very much changed, to the serious disadvantage of the Scottish police.
And now I must ask the patience of the House while I endeavour to explain the difference between the two Police Acts. The English Act gives very large discretionary power to the local authorities in determining the qualifying periods of service and the rates of pension. It gives the option of adopting any scale of pension between the maximum and the minimum scales fixed by the Act, and it gives the option of adopting an age qualification for a pension. The result is that the police authorities in connection with the larger forces, where many years experience had been acquired in the working of superannuation funds, have adopted the maximum scale of pensions without an age limit, and the authorities which had adopted an age limit and a medium scale of pensions gradually abandoned that position, so that at present the maximum scale of pensions in the English Act, without an age limit, is the rule generally throughout England. What is now proposed for Scotland by this Bill is that the conditions of service and rate of pension should be the same as in England. The English Act gives power to a police authority to fix an age limit and also any scale of pensions between the following minimum and maximum limits. If a constable has completed fifteen, but less than twenty-one, years approved service he gets, in ease of infirmity of mind or body, an annual sum of not less than one-sixtieth nor more than one-fiftieth of his annual pay for every completed year of approved service; from twenty-one to twenty-five years
706
service, a pension of not less than twenty-sixtieths nor more than twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay, with an addition of not less than two-sixtieths nor more than two-fiftieths for each completed year of service, above twenty, always, of course, upon a medical certificate of infirmity; above twenty-five years an annual sum of not less than thirty-sixtieths nor more than thirty-one-fiftieths of his annual pay, with an addition of not less than one-sixtieth nor more than three-fiftieths for every year above twenty-five years service, so that the pension shall not exceed two-thirds of his annual pay. But in the Scottish Bill these discretionary powers were deleted, and the period of service when a constable could retire on pension on a medical certificate was fixed at twenty years, and the fixed scale of pensions war reduced below the minimum in the English Act, and an age and length of service limit fixed, which make the prospect of a pension so remote as materially to lessen its value, seeing that only a small proportion of the men are likely to earn the maximum pension. Previously to the passing of the Act the police authorities, in many cases, granted better ex gratia allowances to men who were forced to retire through infirmity than the pensions under the Act. In England a constable is entitled, under a medical certificate, if incapacitated for the performance of his duty by infirmity of mind or body, to a pension after fifteen years service. In Scotland no pension can be granted under twenty years service. In England, after twenty-five years service, a constable may, without a medical certificate, retire and claim his pension; bur m Scotland he can only do so on condition that he is fifty-five years of age, or sixty years if above the rank of a sergeant. The English constable, on completing twenty-six years service, may receive two-thirds of his annual pay, while the Scottish constable, after the same service, only receives twenty-six-sixtieths, or considerably less than half pay. For instance, an English constable, whose weekly pay is 27s. would receive, after twenty-six years service, 18s. per week, while a Scottish constable with the same service would receive only 11s. 8d. per week, making a difference of 6s. 4d., and he would only

707
receive, that if incapacitated for duty, or if he had attained fifty-five years of age. The English constable has thus the advantage not only of receiving a higher rate of pension, but of having a shorter period to contribute to the fund, notwithstanding the fact that the rateable deduction from the pay of both for the pension scheme is the same—namely, 2½ per cent. per annum. Nor does the difference end here. The Scottish constable is tied down by the age limit. He must commence the service before he is twenty-five years of age, and cannot retire under fifty-five years of age, and consequently he must serve thirty years before he is entitled to even a limited proportion of his pension. Compare this with the English constable's twenty-six years of service, which enables him to obtain a pension five years before the Scottish constable can claim one. The Scottish constable can only earn the maximum pension of two-thirds of his annual pay on completing thirty-four years service.
Such, briefly stated, are some of the inequalities and anomalies to which the police force of Scotland is subjected as compared with England, and the Bill now before the House would put an end to this state of matters, and is a measure of justice to which they are fully entitled. As a mere question of policy, and apart altogether from the merits of the case, it would be wise on the part of the Government to take up the question and to give facilities for the passing of the Bill. The duties of the police in Scotland are as onerous and exacting as are those of England, and the difference of treatment in respect of pensions is tending, and will tend more and more, to weaken the efficiency of the Scottish police by inducing the most energetic and promising men to seek the better treatment and pay existing in England, and also in preventing the retiral of officers who have met with injury, or who have reached an age when they are unable satisfactorily to perform the arduous duties imposed upon them.
Now, I am at a loss to understand why such an assimilation of the law of Scotland to England should not take place, and why the Scottish police should not be placed upon the same level. No further contribution is asked from the imperial funds (I am sure the Chancellor of
708
the Exchequer would smile at that), nor is it at all likely, judging from the past experience of all the most important centres of police authority in Scotland, that anything will be required from the local rates. I say that it is not at all, likely, as the House will see from the published and official statements of the amount of accumulated funds arising from the Exchequer grant, and from the deductions from the pay of the constables and other sources. From the published official statement of the Corporation of Glasgow Police Department, employing one-fourth of the whole police of Scotland, I find that no less a sum than £11,037 6s. has been added to the fund in the one year ending 15th, March. 1900, and to show that this is no solitary year, there has been since the passing of the Act in 1890 an accumulation of no less than £117,993 17s. 3d. Edinburgh has an accumulated fund of £15,305; Dundee, of £18,973; Aberdeen, of £12,207; Ayr, of £2,394 is. 3d.; Hawick, of £1,370; Hamilton, of £1,879; Stirlingshire, of £7,040; Ayrshire, of £13,841; Aberdeenshire, of'£7,847. I need not go through every police fund in Scotland, but I make the statement that not a single police authority in Scotland has ever had to put its hand in its pocket in connection with the fund, nor is it likely that, if the Bill passes, they will require to do so. It is, of course, impossible to calculate exactly what may be the additional burden thrown upon the fund if the terms of the English Act are given to Scotland, as it has to be borne in mind that the Bill is so permissive that the police authority may give anything above the minimum; but assuming that they give an average between the maximum and minimum. I do not anticipate that it would involve a very large additional sum, probably not more than 25 per cent. For instance, the amount of pension paid by Glasgow for the year ending 15th March, 1900, was £5,474 19s. 5d., and, if this Bill pass, probably the additional cost might be estimated at £1,400 to £1,500 per annum, still leaving a very large surplus of not less than £4,000 per annum. It has now been seen that nothing is asked from the imperial Exchequer, nor yet is it likely that anything will be required from the local rates. This is,

709
perhaps, the most important point, but in addition the terms of the Bill are heartily approved of by almost all the best authorities on the subject. His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland has for many years past urged the desirability of the amendment proposed. The Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland, consisting of ninety-four burghs, having 187 representatives, almost entirely provosts and other members of their respective town councils, and having lengthened municipal experience in the administration of the police force, are in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bill. Last, but not least, three-fourths of the Scottish Members of Parliament support the principles of the Bill, and no doubt many of them will take an opportunity to-day of saying so.
In conclusion I would ask the kindly co-operation of the English and Irish representatives, seeing that tin Bill imposes no new burden upon the taxpayers, and only seeks to have the law established in England assimilated to that of Scotland. For these reasons I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. DALZIEL: I only rise formally to second the motion of my hon. friend. It seems time that the case has been put forward so fully I that really there is nothing more to be said. The case for the Bill is that we only ask for Scotland what the English have in their own local authorities, and which, so far as I know, has worked very well up to the present time. I do not think that in this country there has been a single complaint by any of the local authorities. I would further point out that ill this matter Scotch opinion is almost unanimous, so far as this Bill is concerned. I think we are entitled to a dash of Home Rule in proposing this measure, this afternoon. I think that three-fourths of the Scotch Members at least on both sides of the House are pledged to vote for it, and I appeal to Irish Members that that is a strong reason why tiny should give us their support on the present occasion. I notice on the Paper a motion by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark to the effect that this Bill he read a second time this day six months. I am nearly always glad to follow the leadership of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, but I am sorry
710
that I cannot do so on this occasion. I cannot conceive, myself, why any Scottish Liberal or Member should oppose this Bill. In Scotland we believe in decentralisation, and in giving local bodies charge of their own affairs, and surely we ought to be in favour upon a question of this kind of safely trusting to their good judgment and their good sense. It seems to me that the mere fact that we are proposing to give them this power does not necessarily mean that they are going to exercise it. They can deal with the question, as they think best, and the ratepayers will he the masters of the situation, for they can elect men who will carry this question out in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers. It seems to me that we are advised to take a very safe step this afternoon, for we are asked to endorse a certain permissive principle which they will have power to exercise it they wish it. Many of the local authorities even in, England have not exercised this power. We say that the Scottish policeman is as good as the English policeman, and he ought to have the same benefits given to him if the local authorities consider he deserves them. I have much pleasure in seconding this proposal.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
MR. CALDWELL: It is perfectly true, as has been stated by the mover and seconder of this motion, that over three-fourths of the Scotch Members are pledged in favour of this Bill; but that fact makes it all the more necessary that this House should be made aware of the merits of the Bill which the Scotch Members have so suspiciously pledged themselves to support. The police are an organised body in Scotland, and at the last election they took the precaution of using their influence by putting certain questions to the different candidates, pointing out that it was simply a matter of putting them on an equality with England, and they got promises of support from Scotch Members who did not then sufficiently understand the merits of this case. I am perfectly willing that the hon. Members from Scotland who are pledged in favour of this Bill should get whatever benefit they may de-

711
rive from their support of it, but I think that they should at least give an opportunity for the ease against the Bill to be presented to the House. What I object to is that, at an election, people with private and personal interests of their own should take advantage of that opportunity to force certain subjects upon their Members and exact pledges from them. I have always taken up the position that I will never give any pledge upon a matter which personally concerns any of the voters. I consider that it is downright bribery to say that you will vote for a Bill by which certain people will get certain pecuniary advantages. The hon. Member who moved this Bill said that Glasgow contained one-fourth of the whole police of Scotland. I may point out that the Corporation of the City of Glasgow are unanimously opposed to this Bill.
MR. JOHN WILSON: Question!
MR. CALDWELL: You may question it, but it is a fact. This Bill is supported mainly by officers who are at the age of retirement, and they are more interested in the retiring allowance than the rank and file, who are more interested in the matter of pay than in pensions. It is obvious that in considering pensions you must also consider the question of pay. An increase of pay is better for the rank and file of the constabulary, because it is an immediate advantage, while the pension is deferred, and might never be reached; and even if it were reached it I would always be improved by an increase in the pay. With regard to the question of the efficiency of the police, I maintain that it will be best promoted by having a moderate pension scheme, such as will enable the local authorities to give the largest possible pay, and in that respect there is no room whatever for complaint with regard to the local authorities in Scotland. The rate of pay varies in different localities, and if the local authorities think it is too little they can make it up in regard to the pay in such a way that the remuneration of the police would not be affected one iota in Scotland any more than in England. I intend to show that it is absolutely necessary that the pension fund for Scotland should not be interfered with, and that this matter
712
of pay is one which is always open for a local authority to undermine.
We are told that the sole reason for this Bill is that England has got certain things, and that Scotland also should have them. That seems to represent the whole argument in favour of the Bill, and scarcely any other argument has been introduced. It has not been maintained that the system in England is superior to the system in Scotland. Now what is the difference between the two Acts of Parliament in the case of England and Scotland? In 1890 both these Acts passed through the House at the same time, based upon the same lines, except in regard to the variation of the power given to the local authority. The age at which a policeman may retire in Scotland is fifty-five, and he can retire with two-thirds of his salary after thirty-five years service. So far as that pension is concerned, it is better than is now given to civil servants as a rule. What is the difference in the case of England? In England the pension is rather less favourable than in Scotland. The hon. Member told us that there were a great many cases in England where they did not take advantage of the latitude given by the Act. According to the English scale they are required to serve up to the age of fifty-five before they can claim two-thirds of their pay. The only difference in England is that a certain latitude is allowed to local authorities in the adoption of the maximum scale. I notice that there was no attempt made to defend this power of variation in the case of local authorities in England as regards the pension fund. What is the result in England? In Manchester and some other places a man can retire after twenty-six years service.
We talk about removing grievances. Are there not grievances in England at the present moment as regards the powers of the local authorities to create differences?—and yet the contention is that Scotland should be put on an equal footing with England, although England is not on an equal footing itself, one part with another. That is a contention which is, of course, overlooked altogether. England has got the power—and this is the whole point of the Bill—to let its local authorities give whatever sum they think proper

713
within certain fixed lines. What you I want to do now is to give Scotland the same power of varying the pension fund, to which every man has an equal and moral right. The public money belongs to one man as well as to another, and they all pay equally into the fund, and yet you want to give the local authorities power to vary the rights of men which are absolutely and morally equal. We know why it is that you want this power of variation. This Bill is an example of it. We know perfectly well that the influence of the police on Members of Parliament has been such that they have practically got a unanimity in their favour which I venture to say would not he displayed towards any other proposal. What would be the result if this Bill were passed? The police would begin to squeeze the local authorities, if they were allowed variation in this matter, on the subject of pensions, and the result would be that one local authority would give way and the others would follow like a flock of sheep through a hole in the hedge. The principle of the Scottish Act is that the pension fund is a fund to which each policeman pays equally. He has an equal right to the, public money, and of course he is entitled to an equal share corresponding to his pay. Yet we are told that this Bill is to create equal rights in Scotland; that is to say, equal rights to the local authorities to produce variations and grievances. If this Bill were passed, local authorities would begin to be squeezed in the same way that Members of Parliament have been squeezed, and there would probably he difficulty with the working classes, who have no pensions themselves and who would feel aggrieved if the local authorities granted pensions to the police. If there is any subject on which there is no room for local fighting at nil, that subject is the subject of the police, and for this reason—that unless the police have got the goodwill of the public at their hack their usefulness is gone. Once raise questions of conflict between the workers on one hand and the police, on the other, and you destroy the usefulness of the police force. Why was a fixed scheme provided in the Scotch Act? For the very reason that there should be no variation between the different localities; and yet we are
714
now told that because England has the power of variation. Scotland should necessarily follow her example. Have we anything else in Scotland that England has not got? I think we pay school teachers in Scotland better than teachers are paid in England. Undoubtedly they are entitled to it, and no one proposes to bring down their salaries to the level of English salaries. The answer always given in connection with this Bill is that we are doing an injustice to the policemen of Scotland. Before the Act of 1890 they had no pension fund at all. In that year they got that Act without paying a penny into the pension fund, so that there is no room for the contention so far as the police are concerned that they have really any grievance. Reference has been made to the case of Birmingham, where the local authorities have adopted to the full extent the powers of the. Act. I have got excerpts to show that in all eases where, local authorities have gone to the full extent of the Act, the effect has been to create a deficit in the, funds. A man retires on his pension whenever he is qualified, because it he continues to serve he may commit some fault and lose his pension, and the result is that in some places not more than ten per cent. of the men remain in the service after twenty-six years service. Will anyone say that a man of forty-seven or forty-eight years of age, after twenty-six years service, is a man who ought to he compulsorily pensioned at two-thirds of the highest pay he has ever earned? So far as the Scotch Act is concerned, we have always treated the police as a purely local matter, because we have divided our police fund into localities, and we look to the police as purely local. But there is no variation as regards pensions. If you give power to exercise an option, and if it is exercised, it is this House that will he responsible, and ratepayers will look into the question as to whether they were protected by their representatives when the local authorities I were given such a power. Of course it may not be compulsory, but that is the evil of it, because you will have in each district any amount of variation, and you will destroy the efficacy of your police force.

715
I daresay the Lord Advocate knows perfectly well the Act of 1890, and it is with reference to that that I wish to point out some circumstances to show why it was that this Act for Scotland was deliberately made different from the English Act. The House of Commons had the English Act before it, and yet they deliberately, and for reasons which shall give, made the Scotch Act different. In Scotland, of course, no pension fund practically existed, and there was no power to get compulsory pensions before the Act of 1890. Various attempts were made by both Liberal and Conservative Governments to establish a pension fund which would fall upon the rates. These Bills were opposed, and the result was that neither a Liberal nor a Conservative Government could create a pension fund which would fall upon the rates. In 1890 an opportunity was offered, and the Government created a pension fund which does not fall upon the rates at all. That pension fund consisted of £40,000 taken out of the Custom and Excise grant which was given to Scotland, and of course if that money had not been given for police pensions it would have been available for some other Scotch purpose. It is Scotch money, to which all Scotchmen have practically an equal right, and it was devoted to this pension fund. Then there was some other money handed over for the fund, such as fines from the police and the proceeds from the sale of old clothing; and in addition each policeman was to contribute two and a half per cent. of his salary. The portion contributed by the police themselves to the fund amounted to about £10,000 a year out of £64,000, or a little less than one-sixth, so that I take it over five-sixths has been practically contributed out of public money, which belongs to the ratepayers of Scotland, and which if not applied to the pension fund would at least be available for the benefit of the rates. The object of the Government was, and it was stated at the time, to create a pension fund from which the police would be able to draw their superannuation without there being any possibility of a claim on the local rates. And it was on that footing that the Bill was carried through. To show how carefully the scheme was prepared, I may say that the Bill was submitted to a
716
Select Committee of the House, and that the Committee had before them Mr. Finlaison, actuary to the National Debt Commissioners, secretary to the Commutation Board of the Metropolitan Police, and the best expert actuary in the country. After careful investigation he gave it as his opinion that the pension scheme would so work out that for thirty years at least there would be no possible chance of any burden, falling on the rates, and that after that provision should be made in some other way. The hon. Member who moved the Second Beading of the Bill gave us his calculations. The facts stated by the hon. Member were right, but his deductions were absolutely wrong. The actuary's argument was that when the pension fund was begun there would be very few pensions at first; but when you brought in a number of men to the force with the idea of pensions they would remain in the service, and gradually the scheme would work out in such a way that in thirty years it would begin to come down the hill. The capital sums to the credit of the local authorities are getting on every year, but it must be borne in mind that according to the best expert authority in the country the pension fund would certainly remain solvent for thirty years, but after that it would probably be a burden on the rates. So far matters have gone much worse than when the scheme was actually propounded. What, the actuary told the Committee was that he based his figures upon a force of 4,055 men he did not make any allowance for an increase, because he said if they got rid of a lot of old men a few younger men would be able to do the work, and that therefore the force would not be likely to increase. He took the average pay at £71 5s. 9d., whereas the average pay now is £72 10s. He did not allow for that increase in pay, or for the increase in the number of men from four thousand to five thousand. What insurance company at the present moment would say that the pension fund was in a solvent state? The actuary also based his calculations on the assumption that fifty-five years was to be the age at which a policeman was to be retired, and that he should serve thirty-five years before he got his pension. But now a policeman need not wait for thirty-five years to get his

717
pension, because if he is incapacitated in body or mind he can be pensioned after twenty years service. If, therefore, were to introduce a new pension scheme that will enable men to be retired after twenty-six years instead of thirty-five years, after only having made twenty-six instead of thirty-five years contributions to the fund, it will soon be absolutely insolvent. I would therefore point out to the Lord Advocate that it we are going to introduce variations into the pension scheme, and if we are going to keep it on the lines of the Act of 1890. We will require to introduce some new source of revenue to meet the increased burden which will be imposed. Where are we to get this increased revenue? The money cannot be obtained from Imperial funds, and where therefore, is it to come from? The Bill states that any deficit in the money is to be paid out of the local rate. That is where the money is to come from.
The Government scheme of 1890 was dealt with in a most careful manner. It was submitted to a Select Committee, evidence was taken from experts, and the Bill was afterwards discussed on Report, and also on the Third Reading. It was a most carefully prepared Government measure, but now it is proposed to sanction a Bill which will upset that scheme, but which makes no provision whatever for the additional money which the new obligations will require. It is most important that as regards the question of policeman's pensions there should be no possible risk of criticism on the part of the ratepayers. In this Bill you are going to open the door to criticism, not only because yon propose to provide a new burden of taxation, but because vim propose to allow the local authorities to exercise an option which, as I have pointed out, they have no right to exercise, as regards a fund to which each man contributes his share, and to which every man has an equal right.
It will be seen that this subject is not quite as simple as hon. Members think. It is not a matter in which we in Scotland should do what England does. That is no answer at all. We do our own business according to our own ideas, and it is no answer to say that because England does a thing therefore we should do it also. That argument is brought forward because it suits this particular
718
case. I am interested in this matter because I am a county Member. To whom is entrusted this power of making a variation in the pension scheme? The power is entrusted to the police authorities. Who are the police authorities in Scotland? They are the standing joint committees, only a minority of whom are representatives of the ratepayers who will have to pay this burthen of taxation. In the ease of poor rates in Scotland, half is paid by the owner and half by the occupier, but in the case of the police rate the whole is paid fry the occupier.
MR. RENSHAW: I should like to correct the hon. Member. Half the police rate is paid by the occupier and half by the owner.
MR. CALDWELL: I may be wrong as regards the rate, but I am not wrong as regards the joint committees, so that the principle for which I contend is exactly the same. Why should we give this power to bodies which are not fully representative of the ratepayers? Why should we entrust to them the power of putting an increased burden on the local rates. We have always objected to the standing joint committees. We have always contended that in the county districts the ratepayers should have tin same opportunity of dealing with the police as they have in the boroughs. To my mind, that is a sufficient objection for county Members to take as regards this Bill. If this Bill passes you will throw into a vortex the police on the one hand and the ratepayers on the other. There is a working class population in my own county. They work harder than the police, and they have been tempted by the prospect of old-age pensions. All that is, it appears, in the distance, and yet this House is now asked to increase the pensions of the police. If this Bill is passed. I venture to say it will succeed in creating irritation, and that the effect will be most disastrous as far as the efficiency of the police force is concerned. The promoters of the Bill say that they have got the opinion of the Convention of Royal Burghs. Who imagines for a moment that the Convention of Royal Burghs has any weight in Scotland? It is more susceptible of being got at by

719
the police than any other body. It is not said that the promoters have the consent of the trades unions in Scotland. Why, it was the power of the trades unions in 1885 that prevented a Liberal Government from introducing a pension scheme. Have the trades unions been consulted, and have they given their consent to this Bill?
MR. JOHN WILSON: May I ask the hon. Member if the trades unions have objected?
MR. CALDWELL: Why, they are the parties who have always objected. The police are organised, and they have been able to capture the Scotch Members in favour of this Bill. Do you imagine that this matter will rest at this stage? What has become of the Municipal Workers' Association in Glasgow? Did the promoters of the Bill get the consent of that association, which has influence enough to return members on the town council? Hon. Members know many of the leaders of that association—one if the greatest being Mr. John Ferguson. He is opposed to the Bill; the Corporation of Glasgow and the Police Board are opposed to it. I candidly confess that I have been unable to get any Scotch Member to second my motion for the rejection of the Bill, so completely has the situation been got at. At the same time. I am not alarmed, and even alone I will stand up against this Bill, and hon. Members will find that greater interest is taken in the question than they imagine when they again come before the people of Scotland. I am not in a position to move my Amendment, though at the end of the discussion I will challenge a division. I acknowledge the poverty of the situation, but I may say that I shall be astonished if the Government accept this Bill. Mark you, this Bill is either a good Bill or it is not, and therefore should be accepted or rejected in its entirety. Its object is to assimilate the law in Scotland to the law in England, and there is no room for any compromise. Why not therefore pass the Bill in its entirety or reject it?
MR. PARKER SMITH: I disagree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, after a full and interesting examination of
720
the question, is saying that there is no room for compromise. I think—and many Scotch Members will agree with me—thatis the reason why the hon. Members has not been able to find a seconder for his not been able to find a seconder for his motion. The question undoubtedly is one which wants looking into, but at the same time I am by no means ready to accept all that my hon. friend behind me has advanced. No question is involved of any charge on Imperial funds. It is simply a question of what we are to do with our own money, which ten years ago was devoted to this special purpose of police pensions, and also whether money is to be taken out of the rates in order to assist the fund. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill said he did not anticipate that the Bill would include any charge on the rates. I do not agree with that, but I think in any case it would he absolutely necessary to have full actuarial evidence on the subject, and I confess I would be extremely astonished if Mr. Finlaison, or any other actuary, would endorse the view of the hon. Member. No one nowadays—whatever may have been the case ten years ago—grudges the provision of pensions for the police in Scotland. The bulk of the fund is mainly made up out of £40,000 a year, which was the Scotch grant under the Act of 1890, the deductions from the men's salaries forming a very small part of it. The question is one between the ratepayers and the police. Hitherto hon. Members have only heard the police, who, I believe, approached every Scotch Member at the last election, and did so with so much propriety and modesty, and in such a more reasonable spirit than other bodies of civil servants are in the habit of doing, that they found hon. Members very willing to listen to them. Still, I think there is a very great danger likely to arise from the fact of such a large number of civil servants having the franchise and approaching Members. It is calculated to lead to the exercise of unfair and undue pressure. In the grosser eases, of course, such pressure is rightly resented. But there are so many shapes of it that it is impossible to draw the line firmly. There are so many shapes of the desire to use influence on behalf of a man for improving his posi-

721
tion, that when that position depends on what he receives from the Government there is, I repeat, very great danger to individual Members for the intervention in electoral proceedings of civil servants, But with regard to the police, I certainly think they have put forward a prima facie case. Of course, there is no question whatever that there is a considerable difference between their position in England and Scotland. The only question is, whether there is a conclusive argument for making the position the same in the two countries.
I will turn for a moment to the history of the Act of 1890. I take especial interest in that Act. Because it happened to come before the first Committee on which I had the honour of sitting—the first Committee composed exclusively of Scotch Members. The proposals of the Bill were fully and thoroughly discussed by that Committee. It will be remembered that in that year two Bills were brought in at once—one for England and the other for Scotland. The terms of the two Bills were, I think, identical, and the view of the Government in bringing them in was that there should be uniformity in the two countries. But what happened in the two Committees? The Scotch Bill was referred to a Scotch Committee and the English Bill to an English Committee. The views of the English Committee were pretty liberal and generous, and were very favourable to policemen; in fact, the Bill was extended in one direction and another so as to benefit the police more than was proposed in the original scheme. But in regard to the Scotch Committee, its anxiety was to produce a solvent scheme. We took, evidence from Glasgow and other places, in addition to listening to the police witnesses. We restricted the scheme in various ways, and we took the strongest precautions to ensure that it should be solvent. Of course, there are two ways of looking at this matter. The English scheme undoubtedly involved dipping into the pockets of the ratepayers. You have a fixed Exchequer contribution both in England and Scotland, and. Of course, there is no question of applying to the Exchequer for an enlargement of that contribution. Then you have other sources of revenue, and both in England
722
and Scotland the balance is guaranteed by the Police Fund. If there is any deficiency it has to be made up by tin local ratepayer. Ten years ago the view of Scotch public opinion undoubtedly was in favour of a solvent scheme, and while a guarantee was given to make up any deficit in cases of accident, it was insisted that the scheme should be one in which the risk under the guarantee should be infinitesimal. They got such a scheme. But in England it was not, so, and the English ratepayers have to make good the deficiencies of their scheme. They will presently have to make good a great deal more than the do now. In England, as things stand at present, each county and borough has its separate fund. Some pay their way, others do not; and the deficiencies in many cases of the annual income is very considerable. The whole income at present, however, is £363,000. The expenditure is £370,000, and thus there is a deficiency at the present moment for the English counties and boroughs of £7,000. Of course, the charge is an increasing one and it will continue to increase enormously. While the capital is increasing but slightly, the income almost stationary, and the English ratepayers will have consequently to make good a very considerable deficiency in coming years. In London the case is a much stronger one. The deficiency each year is very large. It is increasing with what seems to he alarming rapidity. In the year 1896–97 the deficiency was £80,000, in the following year it was £93,000, in 1898–99 it was £109,000, and in the next twelve months it rose to nearly £121,000. I have not tin slightest idea for how many years that rate of increase is going to continue, but it certainly will for some time. In Scotland our position is quite different. There we have an Exchequer contribution of £40,000, and in the last ten years the funds for the counties and boroughs have accumulated so that we get an in come of £9,400 by way of dividend. The stoppages from the men's pay come to about £10,300 and the income from other sources to about £4,500. In only one or two instances—thoseof small authorities—has there been any deficiency; indeed, the total amount which has to be made up from the rates

723
is less than £500, and that will, of course, be repaid in a short time. We have an income at the present time of £64,500, while our expenditure is only about £22,500; therefore a large fund is being laid by from year to year. As the result of nine years working we have accumulated a sum of £388,000 for the benefit of the pension scheme. That does not in the least prove that we can afford to pay away a large part of that £388,000, because, as has been pointed out already, year by year the expenses are increasing, and the maximum outgoing will not be reached for at least another thirty years. By that time it will be necessary to have a very much larger fund laid up than we have at present. These questions were gone into most carefully by the actuary whose name has been several times mentioned in the course of this debate. But, on the whole, our position, I think, is rather better now than it was anticipated it would be. We thought that after eight years working we should have accumulated £318,000; we have, in fact, accumulated a great deal more. But, on the other hand, we anticipated that at the end of that period our expenses would be £18,000, whereas they are now £22,500. I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that the actuarial position, on account of the circumstances he mentioned, is necessarily worse than it was when Mr. Finlaison drew out his estimate. But it must be borne in mind that various changes favourable to the fund were made in the Bill when it was before, the Committee, although I cannot say exactly to what extent those changes improved its actuarial position. On the other hand, other changes were made which involved greater expense. I think it would be perfectly reasonable, after ten years experience of the fund, that we should set Mr. Finlaison, or some equally competent actuary, to examine the position, and tell us how we stand in regard to it. If we are able, with financial safety, to give any better terms to the police. I am sure there will not be the slightest opposition to our doing so for we have no desire to heap up money for the benefit of posterity. But I confess I do not think there is room for very much alteration in that respect.
Other questions must, of course, be considered. Hon. Members, in dealing
724
with this matter, ought to have properly before them the question whether they can, with safety, give any further advantage to the police out of the fund as it at present stands. Can we modify the terms on which the police receive pensions? Beyond that, there is a further question on which, for my part, I confess I have as yet quite an open mind, and that is: do the ratepayers consider the advantages of a fund on a similar scale for Scotland as that which prevails in England are so great that they are willing to incur some expenditure for the sake of getting it? It is clear that the greater temptations in England do, to a certain extent, injure the Scotch police force and its power of getting thoroughly good men. We do not pay the same rate of wages in Scotland, as in England. But we have to consider whether the ratepayers and local authorities believe that the effect of paying a different scale of wages does injure them to an extent which can be appreciated in money. Are they willing, in order to get rid of that damage to the police force, to undertake certain further liabilities, and to give a more generous scale of pension to the police, with the knowledge that in future years there may be a call on the ratepayers' purse? That is a question which the police cannot be expected to consider. But we do want to have the views of the local authorities upon it. Again, I very much desire to have the views of the different local authorities upon the question whether they wish that we here should establish a uniform scale, or whether they desire that there should be that local option which is given to the English police authorities. Of course, if they tell us that they desire the amount of choice which the English authorities have, I should feel absolutely prepared to support the change. But my belief is that they would rather not have it. I think we should find they would say that it is for this House to lay down what it thinks is right, and that there should not be an opening for local pressure from people who have the work to do, and for whom one may have the greatest liking and respect, because if there were such an opening it would produce on each locality exactly the same difficulty that my hon. friend was so cautious about in regard to the views of Members

725
of this House. These are the questions which have to Be decided before we can either pass or reject this measure. They cannot possibly be decided on the floor of this House. They cannot possibly be decided without hearing evidence, and therefore, I hope that the inclination of the Government will be to accept the Second Heading of the Bill, and then to refer it to a Select Committee upstairs, which can take full evidence. That Committee, of course, should be mainly Scotch. But I confess that I would rather it was not purely a Scotch Committee, as was the case ten years ago. We have got an alternative system, and there are in this House a good many gentlemen familiar with the merits and disadvantages of that system. I think that on our Committee we should be very much benefited by having the assistance of two or three English gentlemen who would be willing to give attention to that subject; and therefore, under the circumstances, I hope the Bill will be allowed to pass its Second Heading, and will be sent to a Committee upstairs for consideration.
*MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he desired to associate himself with the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark in regard to the peculiar danger of public civil servants or police or constables banding themselves together to intimidate timid and nervous candidates for Parliamentary honours. But he supported the Second Reading of the Bill on account of the experience he had gained as the chief magistrate of one of the Scotch cities. It was of the very greatest importance for the efficiency of the police force that the law of Scotland should be assimilated to that of England, because of the constant drain of the best men from Scotland to England for the sake of the benefits which they received in the latter country. He did not see why a Scotch policeman in Glasgow should work under different conditions from a Scotch policeman in Liverpool or Manchester. He was one of those who thought that a Scotchman should not get worse treatment than an Englishman, even if he were a policeman, and he saw no reason why a Scotch policeman should be better paid or better pensioned in an English city or county than in a Scotch city or
726
county. In the interests of the police force it was absolutely necessary that the law of England and Scotland should be assimilated, because in Scotland under present conditions they did not get or retain the best class of men. He believed that last year there had been no fewer than 390 resignations of good and efficient policemen who were dissatisfied with the conditions of service in Scotland, and a very large proportion of them had, he believed, come to England and joined the police force here. The Bill had been supported by the great majority of the Scotch constituencies, although it had been opposed by the Glasgow Town Council—whether unanimously or not he could not say. It had also been supported by the Convention of Royal Burghs. He did not associate himself with what had been said by an hon. Member regarding the Convention of Royal Burghs. The hon. Member had declared that that was a body that was held up to ridicule; but some people laughed at Parliament, and even some Members of Parliament were held up to public ridicule. It should be remembered that the Convention of Royal Burghs was composed of representative magistrates and councillors of the burghs all over Scotland, and surely their wishes should be respected. He supported the Bill also because it was permissive, and the local authorities could adopt it or reject it as they liked.
SIR WALTER THORBURNsupported the Bill as a simple matter of justice to a very deserving class, than whom, morally and physically, a better could not be found either in England or Scotland. He could not understand the objection of his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Lanark, who suggested that hon. Members on both sides of the House had been pressed or influenced to support this measure from some political motive. He could say for himself that, with the exception of a sergeant, not a single policeman had ever mentioned the Bill to him. He supported the Bill simply because it was just and fair to the police force of Scotland. It was a purely permissive Bill, and if any local authority objected to its provisions it need not adopt it. The Bill was supported by many of the public bodies in Scotland, and undoubtedly by the vast majority

727
of the Members for Scotch constituencies. The only exception was the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, and he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his objection and allow the Bill to be read a second time without a division. He also hoped that the right hon. the Lord Advocate would show a friendly interest in the Bill, so that it might become law during the present session.
*MR.THOMAS SHAWsaid that, while he supported the Second Reading of the Bill, he was not to be held committed to the style of drafting its varied provisions, which indeed were very complicated and involved. He did not think that the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark in his emphatic and somewhat diffuse argument had really touched the main principle which underlay the provisions of the Bill. That principle was that the police force in Scotland, which was not inferior in ability, character, or efficiency in discharging their duties, should be put, on the point of emoluments, and, quoad pension, on the same footing as the English police. Who could object to that? A good deal had been said in the course of the debate as to the application of the screw; but a practice of that hind required two parties. They might have the screw applied, but the person to whom it was applied must be considered; and be was slow to think that his colleagues in Scotland were so soft as to be squeezable in that particular. Surely experience was that if a man took his stand in opposition to a demand, whether of a political or religious kind, and gave a reasoned explanation for his dissent to his constituents, these did not undervalue him on account of the manly attitude he had taken up. His reasons for supporting the Bill were slightly different from those given by hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him. He had had experience in regard to the working of the police in Scotland from an official point of view. For some years he had had a share in superintending the whole system of public prosecution in that country, and nothing during his entire term of office struck him more than the manner in which the Scotch police discharged the delicate duties committed to their supervision. Under the system of public prosecution in Scotland, the police were to a large extent, and of
728
necessity, the agents in advance of the Crown in all criminal prosecutions. The Crown officials had, therefore, daily reports from the police in regard to their responsible duties, and these showed most vividly the extreme tact and great efficiency with which the constables discharged their duty. Why, then, should these men not be put on a footing of equal right in point of emolument with their colleagues south of the Tweed?
There was one other point in regard to the police in Scotland which he wished to emphasise. He did not believe that there was any part of His Majesty's dominions, certainly no part of the United Kingdom, in which the police were more truly peace officers than in Scotland. The law in Scotland was so administered that it was only in the rarest instances that the policeman was looked upon as an oppressor of the people; he was uniformly regarded as a protector. The policeman was truly a guardian of the peace, and considered himself better employed in the prevention of crime than in its detection after being committed. These were his reasons for supporting on principle the Second Beading of the Bill. But the House ought to be grateful to the hon. Members for Mid-Lanark and Partick for making allusion to the actuarial considerations which should be kept in view, although in regard to these he felt no great alarm. The measure was, after all, permissive. He hoped his hon. friend opposite, in indicating his assent to this application of the principle of local option, would not object to its being adopted in another department which was closely allied to police administration—namely, the liquor traffic. There would be two considerable advantages in the appointment of a Select Committee to consider this Bill. In the first place the members of the Glasgow Corporation, the ablest and most powerful in the kingdom, would be able to show to the Select Committee what was their view of the finance of the measure, and if their view was supported actuarially it would serve to emasculate or to extinguish the Bill altogether. He himself had no fear of such a result. His other point was that the Select Committee would be useful in furnishing a guide to the local authorities in adopting tin-option conferred upon them by the

729
Bill. In conclusion, he hoped that the which Select Committee would not protract their investigations so long as to kill the Bill, but that their efforts would he directed to making it, from an actuarial point of view, a sound measure.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Perhaps it will be convenient to the House, as the subject has been fully debated, that I should state now I he view of His Majesty s Government on t he Bill. We are entirely in sympathy with the object proposed by the Bill. I have certainly great pleasure in corroborating from an even longer official experience than the hon. and learned Member for Hawick Burghs what he said in regard to the conduct of the police in Scotland. I can only say that I do not think I ever had to make a complaint about the police in Scotland. The peculiarities of the police force and the services required of them make them undoubtedly proper subjects of a pension, because it is quite obvious that a policeman to be efficient must be in the full vigour of life, and it would be unfair to turn him adrift the moment that vigour ceased as the result of the faithful discharge of his arduous duties, although he had still many years to live, and was too old to enter into another employment. But the question of superannuation ought also to he looked at from the point of view of economy. A policeman is much more valuable after he has had a certain amount of training; but the body which pays for the training should have the advantage, of the trained article. Undoubtedly it is the case that, under the present system, Scotland is to a great extent used as a training ground for the English police; and I entirely corroborate, from what I myself know, the statement made in that respect by the hon. Member for Inverness, on whose first intervention in the debates of this House I may be allowed to congratulate him. Holding these views. I am entirely favourable to the objects sought to be effected by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, in one of his least impassioned utterances his morning, asked me if I did not wish to pass this Bill. I am personally quite willing that the Bill should pass, but I must give the reasons for an attitude
730
which I am almost sorry to take up—namely, that the Bill should not go I through the ordinary procedure, but should be remitted to a Select Committee. It is all very well to say that the change proposed to be imposed by the Bill is merely permissive, and that consequently no burden is necessarily put upon the rates. That is an argument which may be carried too far. It has not been the practice of Parliament to give unlimited powers to local authorities without knowing at least what is the worst that a local authority can do. This is a burden which, if I may use the expression, is a very insidious one, because if the authorities in any locality adopt the higher scale and put on the burden, they may do so with the very comfortable feeling that that burden will not fall on their shoulders in their own time. It is rather straining the consciences of some people to ask them to adopt a measure which will impose a burden, when they know perfectly well that the burden will fall only on their successors.
It is absolutely necessary from a business point of view to remember how this movement for police superannuation originated. In 1890 two parallel Bills wore brought in by the Government dealing with police superannuation in England and Scotland. In England police superannuation was an old story. It began with an Act as long ago as 1840 for the counties. There was a borough Act in 1848; and then both boroughs and counties were put on an identical footing in 1859. Accordingly there was an actual system in England which had been running for fifty years, and to a certain extent for a longer period. From a practical point of view let us see, then, what was the state of affairs in which Parliament legislated in 1890? I hold in my hand a Return of the Home Office relating to police superannuation, dated 20th May, 1890. In that Return I find that there was practically a capital fund available for police superannuation purposes in England of £1,172,969. At the same time there were available resources statutorily ear-marked for the same purpose amounting to over £80,000 odd per annum. So that the problem to be faced in England at that time was to put these various police funds upon a thorough working footing in order to

731
give the constables an absolute right to a pension. That object was effected by an Imperial contribution of £300,000 a year. In 1888 the deficiency which had to be met out of the rates was £ 182, 460, and in 1898–09 I find that the deficiency to be met out of the rates was £154,000. That is, I think, evidence that the scheme which was started in England was a sound one. But what had you to do in Scotland? You had to inaugurate an absolutely new system. There was not a pension fund in Scotland at all, except that the burgh of Greenock redeemed the reproach by the possession of a fund with the modest capital of £800. Therefore there had to be a creation of the fund in 1890. May I remind the House what the creation of the fund really means? If you start a fund for the first time with a contribution of £40,000 a year you will have plain sailing at the beginning, because the great body of the men will not have served their time for a pension. But the stress and burden will come in the future. The purpose of the Bill is the assimilation of Scotland to England in the matter of police, superannuation; but it is to be noticed that although the English Act is textually copied in the matter of scale, nothing is said of the ear-marked funds which appear in the English Act. In 1890 the Government felt that it would be necessary to make an investigation as to what was needed to establish a fund for Scotland, and the matter was remitted to a Select Committee. What the Select Committee did was to take the funds as they found them. They took £40,000 of an Imperial contribution, and the contributions statutorily devoted under the amended Section 16 to the police force, and they arranged a scale on a proper actuarial basis in which there would be a state of equilibrium. In this they were assisted by Mr. Finlaison. In the course of his evidence that gentleman assumed that the retirement from the police force would take place at the age of fifty-five, that the average salary would be £80, and that the pension would be £46 13s. 4d. He also assumed that the capital would be invested and accumulated at two and a half per cent. per annum. On these assumptions he found that up to the thirtieth year
732
there would be no stress; that in the period between the thirtieth and forty-fifth year there would be a certain call on the rates; and after the forty-fifth year the number of new pensions would he exactly balanced by the number of deaths of pensioners, and that the fund would reach a proper state of equilibrium. Mr. Finlaison assumed that the force would number 4,100, which was modified to 4,278, that the ultimate number on the pension list would be 1,730, and that the ultimate charge would he £80,750 a year. But take the returns of last year. The police force was then not 4,278, but 5,114. If you take 5,114, that would involve an extra ultimate pension charge of £16,000. Without saying that Mr. Finlaison was wrong, I think I have shown enough to make it clear that there have been such increases that we cannot count too much upon the safety of a margin.
What would happen if you introduce the new scale under this Bill? It is said that not only is its adoption optional, but that it may fluctuate between the minimum and maximum; but if there was a fluctuating scale the last state would not be much better than the first. From the paper issued by the chief constables of Scotland, I find that in 1895, in England, 166 police forces adopted the maximum scale, twenty the inter mediate scale, and only one the minimum scale. In other words, practically the whole police force of England adopted the maximum scale. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark said that some local authorities would adopt the maximum scale, and that the others would follow like a flock of sheep through a hole in a hedge. The hon. Member might have put it in a more Parliamentary way—like Radical Members following him into the division lobby. Well, if the maximum scale were adopted, and the eon-stables retired at forty-seven years of age, that would increase the number on the pension list from 1,730 to 3,300 or more, and the pensions would he increased from £46 13s. 4d. to £53 6s. 8d., which would make the ultimate pension charge More than double the pension charge calculated by Mr. Finlaison.
I think I have said enough to show that really we cannot adopt this Bill, as it stands, in the dark, without further

733
inquiry. We cannot ask the Scotch local authorities to accept the Bill unless we show them what the ultimate charge is to be. I do not agree with the anticipations of the hon. Member who moved the. Second Reading of the Bill, that there would be no charge on the rates; but I do not myself see why the rates should not he called upon to assist this very proper fund. The local authorities, however, should know how much they have to he called upon to pay. If you take the English figures (including the metropolis) you find that, so far as the rates are concerned, they bear 11·2 of the total expenditure; but if you take the Scotch figures—of course we know we have not yet reached the period of stress—the rates only bear·7 of the total expenditure. Taking the English figures, the Exchequer grant—I give merely the percentages—was 39·7; the total revenue of the pension funds, dividends and interest, 13·5; deductions and stoppages from pay, 14·8; other receipts, 20·8; rates. 11·2; Taking the corresponding percentages in Scotland they are: Exchequer grants, 61·8; dividends and interest, 14·6; deductions and stoppages from pay, 16·1; other receipts, 6·8; rates 7. I have now shown that the Scottish ratepayers would not pay very much if called upon to the same extent as their English brothers; in other words, I do not adopt what was said by the hon. Member for Partick when he indicated he did not think the scheme should go on unless it was in that state of financial solvency that an insurance company would consider it. From the speech of the hon. Member I gather that the scheme should be financed from sources other than the rates.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid his statement was that the ratepayers should be made acquainted with the financial position of the scheme, so that they should know where they were.
*MR. A.GRAHAM MURRAY: I entirely agree with that. Holding these views. I propose, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Second Reading of the Bill upon the understanding that it will be sent to a, Select Committee. When it gets there, the Government will be willing to give such assistance as they can, so that the precise actuarial position may
734
be ascertained, and then if, in the full light of day, the Scottish Members wish to pass the Bill, the Government will offer no objections.
*SIR LEWIS M'IVERwished to remind the House that the question before them was the granting of a permissive power—a discretionary power—to local bodies in Scotland equal to the power enjoyed by corresponding bodies in England. But it was most important on a Second Reading for the Hon e to know with what it was dealing. He viewed with alarm the ready acquiescence of the Government on condition that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, as he had always understood that in this House such a proposal was a polite form of infanticide What he wanted to understand from the Lord Advocate was whether the Government were in earnest about giving the Bill all reasonable facilities. If they were to understand the Select Committee to which the Bill was to be referred would be appointed with no loss of time, and that facilities would be afforded to get through the necessary work that would put the House in possession of the actuarial facts, he would advise the promoters of the Bill to accept the offer of the Government.
MR. RENSHAWsaid the debate had been of very great interest, and the matter which was under discussion was a very important one to the local bodies of Scotland. The question had been discussed mainly from the police point of view, rather than from the point of view of those who had charge of the police arrangements. It was a matter of satisfaction to him that the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had commenced to have more confidence in these authorities than he appeared to have in the past. He was aware that the local authorities in Scotland had realised that the differences in the system of pensions in England and Scotland militated against their retaining the best of their forces in Scotland. From that point of view, he thought every local authority in Scotland would welcome the opportunity of redressing any real grievance, that could be proved to exist at the present time. He hoped, however, they would not fall into the evil that accompanied the existing

735
English system, because the permissive and optional system appeared to him to he a very dangerous one. The Lord Advocate, in his figures, slated that something like 16·6 per cent. of the English force, had adopted the maximum principle under the provisions of the English Bill. His opinion was that they should take great care to avoid the evils in the English Bill, and have one uniform system; and he hoped the result of the consideration of the Bill in Committee would be to produce a useful measure that would enable them to give the police that to which they were entitled—namely, quite as good a pension as was given to the police in England.
*MR. WALLACEsaid that he only rose to ask whether he properly understood what the Lord Advocate put before the House. Hon. Members were perfectly disposed to see this Bill sent to a Select Committee, if such a course did not mean the death of the Bill. If he understood the hon. Gentleman to mean that if, after examination before the Select Committee, it was found that the Bill was a working Bill, the Government would assist the House in passing it, not merely by abstaining from any active opposition, but by giving the assistance by which alone a Bill could be carried through the House—if that was a part of the proposal, there would be no objection to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.
MR. WYLIEthought that the mover of the Second Reading of this Bill had acted wisely in bringing this question before the House. English police enjoyed superior advantages not because they were a superior body of men, but because it was the custom in England to pay larger salaries than were usual in Scotland. Small salaries were a relic of the old times when Scotland was poor, but in late years the prosperity of Scotland had been progressing by leaps and bounds. He quite concurred with the remarks of the Lord Advocate that even if there should be a small addition to the rates, the people of Scotland were quite able to afford such an increase. Therefore that should not be any hindrance to their acceptance of the Bill. He repudiated the accusation which had been made as to bribery of the Scotch Members
736
by the police; he at any rate had heard nothing of such a thing.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid this which all Scotch Members, with the distinguished exception of the Member for Mid-Lanark, took the same view, and they did not want a nominal Second Reading which would be equivalent to the extinction of all hopes of further procedure. He ventured to ask the Lord Advocate to tell them whether, if the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred approved of it, the Government would give such facilities as would enable the sense of the House to be taken on the measure.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: "My intentions are strictly honourable." There is no idea of shelving the Bill. I distinctly undertake, so far as in me lies, to see to it that the Committee is properly appointed, and that the Report of that Committee shall be submitted, if possible, to the House. Of course, it must be understood that I am not master of the time of the, House, and cannot give an absolute guarantee. The, starring of a Bill, while exempting it from the operation of any Order which cuts down all but Government business, does not give a guarantee that sufficient time to pass that Bill against any obstruction which might arise in the House, would be, afforded. If hon. Members will look after obstruction, I shall be able to look after the starring of the Bill.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid, though it might not be thought in good taste for an English Member to intervene in a Scotch debate, he, thought he was justified in doing so in order to draw attention to two or three matters which the mover of the Bill might take into consideration when the Bill made its appearance before the Select Committee. They would have to be prepared for a very large increase of the pension fund, and there was also the question of the waste of men which took place under the English system. Many men of thirty-five years of age who were entitled to a pension, but who could go on well to the age of fifty, took their pensions at that age to protect them, because if they staved longer in

737
the service the pension might be lost, possibly through some breach of discipline. The promoters of the Bill would also do well to put in some additional sum for extra pay. Those were a few questions which they would do well to consider when the Bill got before the Select Committee.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSdeclared that the people of Scotland wanted an efficient police force. They could not have it if the best men were taken away by the competition of English counties and boroughs. This Bill would tend to check that competition, and it was for that very purpose that this Bill was introduced.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a, second time.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that, in view of the attitude taken by the Ford Advocate, he proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He trusted that the Government would do all they could to help the measure.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he was astonished that the mover of the Bill should be I asked to have it referred to a Select Committee. He saw no reason for such a course being adopted; the Bill had better be passed at once. It had I passed the Second Reading unanimously, and had he been one of its promoters he would have advised that the opportunity should be seized to pass it into law. Let it be sent to a Grand Committee, pass it through Grand Committee, put it down as the first Order after Whitsuntide, and the Bill would certainly pass. He warned the mover that he was adopting a dangerous course and, as he thought, a wrong one, and if the Bill failed to pass he hoped he would I not be blamed.
Bill committed to a Select Committee.

COMPENSATION FOE DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC., RILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HUDSON: The Bill which I desire
738
the House to read to-day is a very short one, containing only one clause of five lines, but it is a Bill which will do away with the hardships from which all those who farm land by the side of railways suffer; who now see their crops damaged by fire caused through sparks or cinders emitted by railway engines, and are unable to claim compensation, the railway companies claiming to be protected by statute. All that is asked by this Bill is that railway engines should be put on the same footing as locomotives which travel upon the roads, and made liable for any damage they do. It will probably be said by the representatives of railway companies that the railways have adopted the best known methods for preventing the emission of sparks from the engines, and no doubt the different lines vary materially in this respect, thousands being seen on some lines and very few upon others. What is the secret? That on some lines a spark catcher is inserted in the funnel of the engine. If that was done with all engines very little damage would result.
In support of this motion I might read an anonymous letter which I received a few days ago with the intimation that it might suit my business. Not knowing what my business might be, I opened the letter and read—
"If fire break out in the shocks or standing corn, and it he destroyed, he that kindleth the fire should surely make restitution."
That is really the principle which is embodied in this Bill. I notice that no Amendment to the Bill has been put down. I suppose that the railway directors who occupy seats in the House either admit the justice of the measure or think that the Bill is of such small importance that it is not worth their while to oppose it. Without detaining the House further, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MR. JEFFREYSspeaking in support of the Bill, said the object of the Bill was to put railway locomotives upon the same footing as road locomotives. It was only fair that if through the emission of sparks

739
from the engines they damaged the crops of the farmers whose land lay by the side of the railway, the company should be made liable. In the previous session this question had been brought to the attention of the Board of Trade, and questions were asked as to whether the President of the Board of Trade was aware that the railway engines did not carry spark arresters, or in any ease whether any inspector had looked into the engines to see if they did carry spark arresters, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was No; that the Board of Trade, although they were supposed to see to the spark arresters, were not in a position to do so. A great many of these so-called sparks, were not sparks at all, but cinders varying in size from a quarter of an inch in length to an inch and a half, and it was only reasonable to suppose that if these were thrown into a held of growing corn they would do a great deal of damage. It was almost impossible to trace the engines which emitted these sparks, but in the case of Twinch v. Great Western Railway a man actually saw the fire begin, and he was able to trace the train and the locomotive. The case went to trial afterwards, and damages were assessed against the railway company. There was another case, against the Midland Railway Company. In that ease the sparks were seen coming out of the engine. But these cases were notable exceptions, and generally nobody could trace the sparks when they came from an engine. Very often the damage was done in the dark, and in the ease of an express train it was almost impossible to trace the engine. If the railway companies took reasonable precautions, and had their engines fitted with spark guards, that damage would not be done. The guards were taken out of the engines in order that the speed might be greater. Last year he asked a, question of the First Ford of the. Treasury about the bringing forward of This Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that the President of the Board of Agriculture hail not had notice that a great deal of damage had been done. The Central Chamber of Agriculture in a very short time afterwards gathered information with respect
740
to the serious and widespread injuries inflicted on agriculturists throughout the country on account of fires caused by sparks from engines. The Return related to seventy-five separate fires in eleven different counties.
The law had been laid down that railway companies had a statutory Tight to run locomotives along their own lines, and so long as they took reasonable precautions and were not guilty of negligence they might do what they liked on their own lines. They were not liable to pay compensation for damage unless tiny failed to take reasonable precautions. He thought he had shown that they dill not take reasonable precautions in this matter. In order to attain a high late of speed they took out the spark protectors or arresters which were intended to prevent the fire and cinders from coming out. In dry summers there were many farmers whose crops were; liable to he set on fire by sparks from engines, and it appealed to him that this was especially so in the ease of the southern railways. Crops might be absolutely destroyed by fire and yet no compensation was allowed. Surely he had made out a good case. If the railway companies obtained statutory powers which gave them a great monopoly, they certainly were supposed to run their railways without causing loss or damage to their neighbours. Surely when they did great damage to the property of men who were in many cases small farmers, it was not unreasonable that they should pay for it.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The damage complained of in Scotland from this nuisance is more in respect of woods than crops, and the excellent measure which is now before the House could not have been introduced I at a more appropriate period of the year, because it is during the month of March that in Scotland at all events, most damage is done to plantations. A plantation of my own was set on fire by sparks from engines no fewer than eleven times in the course of one month, but, although the particulars were taken down at the time by witnesses, was advised by my legal agent that it would be useless to bring the matter before the courts, because it was hopeless to expect any compensation.

741
Last year, when various questions were being asked the President of the Board of Trade on the matter, I asked whether the increase in the number of fires in recent years, which I think is indisputable, I was not due to the great increase in the number of rapid trains, and the President of the Board of Trade said he had no information on the subject. The Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society sent out circulars, with schedules, which were tilled up. I think a copy of the Returns was sent to the Board of Trade, but at any rate thirty-one examples of fires were given, twenty-one of which related to woods and plantations. The damage done in the twenty-one cases of woods and plantations amounted to £2,300, and in only nine of these was application made to the railway company for compensation, and in one of the nine only was the claim (of £4) paid. The feeling is that it is useless to go to the court, because it is impossible to obtain any compensation. The damage to the agricultural crops is also considerable. It is estimated at about £830. This Hill is called the "Sparks Bill." I think it should be called the "Live Coals Bill," for the size of the sparks is anything between one and two inches. I remember once on a journey between Stranraer and Ayr watching the coals as they were ejected from, the engine, and the size of the coals was enough to sot any place on fire. It would be impossible under these circumstances to keep any plantation free from the risk of fire.
It should surely be possible to prevent this state of things. I believe it is stated that there is a remedy before the law, but that is not our experience, and it has been laid down by high legal authority on the law of railways that there is no such remedy. An example is given in the case of the owners of a flax store near a railway line. The place was set on tire by a spark from a passing engine, and the proprietors brought an action for damages, on the ground that the engine was improperly constructed, in respect that it had no spark arrester. In reference to that case. "Deas on the Law of Railways" contains the following:
"The defenders maintained that in the more modern engines the use of spark arresters had been given up, both because they impaired the efficiency of the engine and because other means as efficacious to prevent the issue of sparks were adopted. The House of Fords held, affirming the First Division, that
742
no negligence had been proved against the company; and the observation was made by Ford M'Laren, that railway companies are not under a legal disability to improve the efficiency of their engines merely because such improvement may tend in some degree to increase the risk of setting fire to adjacent property."
In delivering judgment in the case referred to, the Ford Chancellor said—
"It is now well-settled law that in order to establish a case of liability against a railway company, under such circumstances it is essential for the pursuers to establish negligence. The railway company having the statutory power of running along the line with locomotive engines, which in the course of their running are apt to discharge sparks, no liability rests upon the company, merely because the sparks emitted by an engine have set lire to adjoining property. Hut the defenders, although possessing the statutory power, are undoubtedly bound to exercise it reasonably and properly, and the test whether they exercise the power reasonably and properly appears to me to he this. They are aware that locomotive engines running along the line are apt to emit sparks. Knowing this, they are bound to use the best practicable means, according to the then state of knowledge, to avoid the emission of sparks, which may be dangerous to adjoining property; and if they, knowing that the engines are liable thus to discharge sparks, do not adopt that reasonable precaution, they are guilty of negligence, and cannot defend themselves by relying upon the statutory power. About the law as I have thus expressed it, I do not think there is any controversy between the parties to this litigation."
What we maintain is that reasonable precaution has not been adopted, and that serious damage is done for which at present there is no remedy. I beg cordially to support the Bill.
MR. SPEAR: As a farmer coming from a constituency where fires have occurred through sparks from railway engines, I desire to express gratitude to the hon. Members who are moving and supporting this Bill, and to express the hope that it will pass, as it surely is most reasonable to provide that where damage is done by fire from engines compensation should be paid by the owners of those engines. As has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, locomotive engines used on the road are already liable for compensation for damage caused by fire, and it cannot be anything but reasonable that the same principle should apply to fire caused by railway engines. It is needless for me to assure the House that agriculturists do not fail to appreciate the advan-

743
tage of railway communication in their districts, but at the same time we feel, as has been proved, I think, by the hon. Member, that these fires occur largely from the lack of precaution and care on the part of the railway companies. We think that if the railway companies in case of neglect had to pay for that neglect, they would be far more careful to avoid causing fires. I would say this further—farmers find it difficult enough already to carry on their industry with a fair degree of success, without having unnecessary difficulties of this kind placed in their way; and I venture to say that the present moment is most opportune for this Hill. If it is passed it will do considerable good to agriculturists, and to the owners of plantations arid fences, and will not cast an unreasonable burden on the railway companies themselves.
MR. BANBURY: There is undoubtedly a good deal to be said for this Bill. There is a good deal of hardship caused, especially in dry summers, by sparks from engines, and undoubtedly both in England and Scotland a good deal of damage is done, not only to plantations, but also to the various crops close to the railway. But I do not think that the matter is quite so simple as my hon. friends who moved and seconded the Second Beading seem to think. They founded their arguments in favour of the Bill on the fact that locomotives on highways are obliged to pay for any damage that they may cause. It seemed to me that they have totally forgotten that in the one case the locomotive passes along the highway which is provided by the county council or the nation, or whoever it may be, at no expense to the owner of the locomotive unless he happens to live in that particular parish; but the railway company have paid considerable sums for the land on which their engines travel. They have not only paid the owners for the land, but they have caused a considerable improvement in the value of the adjoining land by bringing railway communication into the districts in question. My hon. and learned friend the Member for the Hitchin Division says that compensation has been paid above the market value of the land which is purchased. I think I have shown that a railway company
744
is in a very different position from the owner of a road locomotive A railway company, after having spent large sums in buying the land and making the line, must surely be allowed to carry on its business. If damage is done through the negligence of the, company, then undoubtedly compensation should be paid. My hon. friend who seconded the Bill spoke of the coals which came from the engines. Did he photograph the coals when they came out, or how did he know that they came out?
MR. JEFFREYS: I can answer that. They were seen to fall out of the engines.
MR. BANBURY: My hon. friend says there are no Amendments put down. I do not think we can put Amendments down at this stage. Amendments are put down on the Committee stage, and I certainly intend to put down an Amendment, which I hope will be carried. In remedying what is perhaps a, hardship we must take care that we do not create another hardship. It seems to me that the Bill is very carelessly drawn, for this reason—the Bill says "where damage is caused to crops, hedges, or plantations." Supposing that the crops, hedges, and plantations are there, they cannot be moved away; but I think it ought to be carefully indicated that the Bill should apply only to growing crops, and not to crops left carelessly by the side of the railway. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a man having a damaged crop from collecting it and putting it in an exposed place by the side of the railway, where it would be exposed to the sparks from passing trains, and then coining and saying, "This has been burned by the railway company. It was an excellent crop at the time it was gathered in." We know that such things are done, and they will be done in future. Therefore, before this Bill passes into law I think it should be carefully safeguarded by words which will show that it is only to apply practically to growing crops. The Amendment? put on the Paper last year was to insert the word "growing" in front of the word "crops." I do not know whether that is a proper Amendment, which would carry out my object, but there are lawyers in the House, and if it is wrong they will correct me. I should think that it is very important that in safeguarding the interests of the

745
farmers it should be borne in mind that railways are of great importance to the country, and that a sum equal to nearly double the amount of the National Debt is invested in them. We should not allow ourselves to be actuated too much by sentiment.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he was not quite sure that he could not rest the case against the Bill on the speeches of the mover and seconder. They limited their arguments to cases where it could be shown that there was negligence on the part of the railway companies. In such cases the law of England applied, and no Bill such as this was necessary. If his hon. friend had shown any case in which the existing law would not really suffice to punish a railway company for negligence, he could understand the bringing forward of the measure. If these cases of damage arose from the failure to use proper spark arresters, the owners of the crop, or plantations had their action at law. They had chosen the wrong remedy by coming to Parliament with this Bill.
He was not acquainted with the procedure before Scotch sheriffs, and he did not know why proof was more difficult in Scotland than in England. So far as Scotland was concerned, the remedy should be so to amend the procedure under the Scotch law as to obtain the result that, where negligence had been shown, the consequence of that negligence should be visited on those liable for it, and who the law said already should suffer for it. It was no use appealing to the analogy of the road locomotive. By the law applicable to road locomotives, if negligence was proved, but was shown to be the negligence only of the driver or stoker of the locomotive, the owner of the locomotive got off altogether. In the case of railway locomotives, although the company's servants might be guilty of negligence, the railway company alone was liable. If the Bill passed, the law would revert to the provisions of the ordinary common law of nuisance, and if sparks from engines were a nuisance, railway companies would be liable. If they were not they would possibly not be made liable even if this Bill passed. He found from reference to the best-known text-book on the law of torts, that in order to prove nuisance it
746
was necessary to prove that the property was used in a manner not necessary to the ordinary enjoyment of the property. Therefore it they passed this bill they would find themselves no better off. Parliament had as clearly as possible laid down that the property railway companies had to be used for a specific purpose—the running of trains; and that purpose could not be carried on without a certain amount of risk. That risk had been fully discounted by compensation, and was more than set off by the fact that in many of the parishes the railway companies paid as much as 75 per cent. of the rates. In the case of some parishes the railway companies paid the whole of the rates. If they passed this Bill, not merely would they make a new departure in the fundamental principles of our law, but a great injustice would be done. He submitted that the grievance was one of procedure and proof, and not of the substantive law of the case. The substantial justice of the case did not require that railway companies should be made liable for this particular kind of damage. He respectfully asked the House to reject the Bill.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the hon. Member for Peckham had urged that the Bill ought not to pass because the owners of the railways had spent a lot of money buying the land and constructing the lines, that was perfectly true, but they had not bought the adjoining land. If in the conduct of their business they did injury to property on that land, and were guilty of negligence, they should pay compensation. His right hon. friend the Member for the Hallam Division said that Parliament had conferred certain definite rights on railway companies, and that there was no reason now why they should go back on that.
*MR. STUART WORTLEY: I said that Parliament had conferred certain rights and laid certain duties on them.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the locomotives were now provided with forced draught. It was quite likely that the conditions had so changed that it was perfectly right the law should be amended. Railway companies naturally objected to this Bill, and would like to throw agriculturists back on all the legal technicalities involved in proving

747
negligence in order that it might be impossible for them to obtain compensation. What agriculturists wanted was a simple Bill by which they could get rid of these technicalities. They felt they had a legitimate grievance, and asked Parliament to deal with it.
SIR E. DURNING - LAWRENCE Rillsaid he had several times suffered from fires, one of which destroyed nearly 100 acres of trees. Many thousands of pounds would not have repaid him for that damage. Compensation was nothing to him; what he wanted was prevention. The House might not he aware that quite recently the chimneys of nearly all the locomotives had been lowered to the smallest possible level. The railway companies should he compelled to adopt means to prevent the emission of sparks, so that fires could not take place.
MR. BELL: I just want to say a few words as to how this Bill affects the employees of the railway companies. What has hitherto been said has had reference to the effect on other people, and I desire to intervene from another standpoint. I have had considerable personal knowledge of railway working, and I am not with out experience of fires caused by sparks from engines. I have witnessed such fires, and I have know ledge of eases where compensation has been paid by railway companies for damage done in that way; and I have known cases where damage has occurred by reason of arson having been committed—cases in which the crops alongside the railway have been set on fire, not accidentally by sparks from an engine, but willfully by some persons or persons unknown.
As to this Bill, I do not say for a moment that I am going to oppose it but I am bound to declare that, as it stands, it is not framed in a manner that satisfies me. It seems to me to leave too much scope for evildoers—that is to say it seems to me to make railway companies responsible for the acts of ill-disposed persons. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading said there were many cases of fires in which they could not trace the engines from which the sparks had come. If such is the case, I fail to see how you can rely upon the Bill to bring home responsibility against the railway company and
748
show that it was the railway engine which set fire to the crop or the wood. Where proof is forthcoming, I certainly hold that the railway company should be responsible. To my mind, it is desirable that a provision should be inserted in the Bill requiring railway companies to adopt protectors or spark arresters to their locomotive boilers. I happen to know that the absence of such things very often operates to the detriment of the employees themselves, who are perfectly innocent of offence in the matter. II the Bill passes in its present form, the companies might issue instructions to their employees, ordering that they should not allow sparks to be emitted from the engines. The case would be similar to that of the emission of smoke from locomotives. The London County Council, in a large number of instances, prosecute railway companies for allowing smoke to be emitted from their locomotives. When these prosecutions take place the companies punish their employees by fine or suspension. Hon. Members here will agree with me that it is a matter of great difficulty, nay, that it is a matter of impossibility, to work engines with coal without some smoke being emitted, therefore I say that the companies in inflicting punishment inflict it for what their men cannot help. That is why I have risen to say a few words on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to railway companies making their engine chimneys lower than usual. I deny the accuracy of that statement. It is not that the chimneys are lower than usual, lint that the boilers are getting higher than usual. The height of the chimneys is exactly the same as it was when the boilers were much smaller. We know that the public demand greater speed—they want to get from one point to another in much, less time—and the result of all this is that the engines have to be worked much harder, and the difficulty of working the trains is much greater for the employees. Therefore there is some danger of their being subjected to fines and suspensions if the Bill passes as it is in its present form. If in Committee the Bill can be so amended that the object in view can be attained without injuring the railway companies in cases in which they are not

749
guilty and without injuring the employees in eases where they are not guilty, even though the company may have been negligent in not providing against the emission of sparks from their engines, I shall be glad to see it amended. I hope those in charge of the Bill will bear in mind the few remarks I have made on these particular points, and so make the Bill easier to pass from the employees' point of view, the companies' point of view, and also in the interest of those who suffer through these fires.
MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid the hon. Member seemed to be afraid that the Bill would have the effect of punishing the railway companies for the burning of crops with which the companies had nothing whatever to do. He was quite sure that those who were introducing this Bill had no such desire. The object was that the companies should be made liable when negligence had been proved against them in the construction of their engines. It was all very well to tell poor farmers that they had their remedy at law. At present, even if they were fortunate enough to detect the particular engine that caused the fire, the duty was cast on the farmers of proving that that particular engine was negligently constructed. If this Bill became law, all they would have to show was that sparks came from ail engine running on the company's line. Ho hoped the House would recognise that that was a very reasonable and proper distinction in the interest of those who had crops growing in the neighbourhood of a railway. His hon. Friend the Member for Beckham sat for a constituency which could hardly be described as an agricultural one. The "crops and growing timber" in Beckham were almost a negligible quantity. His contention that a farmer might collect damaged crops and pile them up in the neighbourhood of a railway was ridiculous. Prevention was much better than compensation. If the onus was cast on the railway companies of paying for damage when it was proved that they had caused it, they were perfectly capable of preventing that damage, and they would prevent it.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: Some of the arguments adduced this afternoon in support of the Bill are not likely to commend them-
750
selves to the House. We have had Moses instanced as a legislator. An hon. Member said he was going to follow Moses. But will he accept Moses as an authority in dealing with the land question? Is he prepared every fifty years (I think it was) to redistribute the whole of the land of the country, and to resettle the land system? Another hon. Member said he should support this Bill because he had had his wood burned. There is no argument which this House resents, and rightly resents, more than a personal argument—the demand for a change in legislation because of a personal injury. I would not support the Bill for a moment, if a hundred different crops had been injured, unless there was a general grievance. What I complain of is that the Bill has been supported on both sides because of personal injury suffered. Such an argument ought not to have been put forward in support of the measure at all. The question the House has to consider is a very simple one. Is there a hardship made out in the present state of the law? Does the present law put the onus in the right place? If it does not, ought it to be changed? Perhaps hon. Members who support the Bill have not brought forward as many cases of injury received as might be found, but I think it is the experience of every Member who has been before an agricultural constituency, that if one matter is mentioned to him by the farmers who have railway lines running through their farms it is that they are suffering from this grievance, and at the present time have no adequate remedy.
The hon. Member for the Hallam Division opposed the Bill first of all because, I think he said, he was a railway director. That is not a reason likely to commend itself to the House. He opposed it secondly because railway companies in some parishes paid 75 per cent. of the rates. What about the parishes in which they pay only 5 per cent. I Are they to pay damages where they pay 5 per cent. of the rates, and no damages where they pay 75 per cent? What have the rates imposed upon the railway companies to do with this grievance of the farmers? All the advocates of the measure are called upon to prove on this motion for Second Reading is that a grievance exists. I submit that the fact

751
that farmers have constantly suffered from this damage is not met by the answer that the railway companies are unfairly rated in other parishes. I think the hon. Member for Derby made a lair criticism of the Bill when he said the language is not as accurate as it ought to be. That, however, is a reason for not rejecting the Second Reading, but for amending the Bill in Committee, and if the Bill gets into Committee, as I hope it will, the hon. Members responsible have already made an offer to make the Bill as thorough, as simple, and as effective as possible, and it will have to be all those things if it is to work with any measure of success.
COLONEL MILWARD: Nobody who travels a great deal by railway can doubt that there is a, case for some Bill of this kind. Every summer there are crops destroyed by sparks from engines. The advocates of the railway companies appear to be rather frightened as to the injury this measure will inflict upon the companies. I do not believe this House would ever pass a measure which was unjust to railway companies; the railway companies are far too largely represented and have far too many spokesmen for that to happen. I do not like to quote America, but the fact remains that this pamphlet by Professor Shaw, who was employed by the Royal Agricultural Society to visit America, and see what was done there, will have to he answered by the companies. There is no doubt that in America year after year improvements have been made; these arresters become more and more scientific; they do not stop the draught, or prevent the engines attaining a, very high rate of speed, but they do prevent the emitting of these hot cinders or sparks which set fire to the crops. What is done in America can certainly be done in this country. I admit that the railway companies ought to have a considerable allowance of time, perhaps a couple of years, in which to adapt these arresters to their engines, but it is perfectly evident that it can be done, and is done, without any great expense to the companies. Therefore, in the interests of the farmers I think this Bill should be allowed to go to Second Beading in order to be considered in Committee, and the interests of the railway companies can then be safeguarded as far as is necessary.
MR. PERKS: I am the representative of an agricultural Division, and also, to some extent, a railway director. I can therefore take a perfectly dispassionate view of this little Bill. It seems to me that the grievance is not so serious a one as has been represented, It is practically a question of who is to bear the expense of the insurance. It is unquestionably the fact—and the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division would have known it if he had been at a familiar with compensation cases—that a landowner in selling his land to a railway company or the construction of a line receives very considerable compensation for those very dangers to which allusion has been made. Therefore, if the railway company is now to bear the whole onus of compensating the farmer or landowner or tenant for loss by fire, it will practically pay twice over for the same thing. But the grievance is of much smaller dimensions than one would suppose from the exertions of this professor who has been travelling the country photographing cinders at the expense of the Royal Agricultural Society. Looking at the matter as a comparatively small one, and believing that as soon as the law has been accurately ascertained it will be the duty and well within the power of either the farmer or the railway proprietor to pay the small insurance necessary for protector against this danger, I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. BRYCE: As a representative of an urban constituency I bring an open mind to this matter. I want to put one point to the House which has not yet been much dealt with. This evil, and it is an undoubted evil, arises very largely from the omission of the railway companies to take proper steps to secure those improvements in engines which would prevent sparks and cinders being scattered. I am afraid the difficulty of proving negligence under the existing law is practically deterrent, and makes it really impossible for the farmers to obtain, compensation. As between the two interested parties, the railway company, whoso plea is that they have done all they can to avoid negligence, and the farmer, who is entirely passive in the matter, I am inclined to think, on the principle of abstract justice,

753
that the onus of proof ought rather to attach to the railway company than to the farmer. But I do not think it necessary to go quite so far as that. I believe the grievance of the whole question arises from the, fact that the companies rely on the difficulty of proving negligence, and do not take the proper precautions which are taken in other countries. I believe they will not do this unless the liability is thrown upon them, and therefore, although I do not at all deny that there is some difficulty in the matter, I think we should find, if this Bill is passed, the first tiling the companies would do would be to use those inventions which are used in other countries, and by way of prevention more than by way of providing for damages we should get rid of this grievance.
*SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I think the House ought to realise that the claim made on behalf of the railway companies is nothing less than that the companies have an inherent right to burn other people's property. I admit frankly that in the result this Bill will probably go further than appears on the surface, and perhaps further than is indicated in the Memorandum attached to the measure, but I am quite prepared to join issue upon the general principle that these companies have the right to burn other people's property. It is quite obvious that railway companies do acquire land in order that their trains may run to the benefit of the public, that their engines must work in all seasons of the year, and that accidents must occasionally arise from sparks; but the question is, whether the expense of those accidents ought to be borne by the railway companies, or by the unfortunate people through whose property they run. I have no doubt whatever that the expense ought to be a, charge on the railway companies. The question of woodlands raised by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs has not been much touched upon. In the case of woodlands the crop is of much greater value than ordinary agricultural produce, because it is of longer growth. The interpretation of the law as it at present stands is a great discouragement to the increase of woodlands in parts of the country where woodlands ought to be increased. No one who knows the highlands of Scotland, or the waste-lands in the north of England
754
or in Ireland, can doubt that it would be a great advantage to the country if those districts were afforested, and no one who knows anything about the economy of forestry can doubt that such plantations are most profitable when they are in the neighbourhood of cheap transit for the wood that is grown. That is precisely where it is most dangerous to grow wood. A person wishing to make a plantation in, the neighbourhood of a railway must face the fact that on each side of the line a waste space of eighty yards must be left, then a deep trench provided to stop the surface-fire of heather or other inflammable, materials on the ground, and a, strong hedge planted. I know that those circumstances have been a strong deterrent. The question of the course taken by railway companies to prevent the escape of sparks has been raised. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the construction of engines, but I do know that whether or not, railway companies take precautions they certainly expect their engines to create fires during dry weather, because on such occasions the lines are patrolled, so that the possibility of fire is in the minds of the directors. Under these circumstances, I sincerely hope that this Bill will not only pass its Second Reading, but will be carried into law.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: This very innocent measure proposes to introduce a very grave legal anomaly. The general law is supposed to be infringed in regard to a class of cases of negligence extremely limited in character, and to the detriment of an industry which, though sufficiently large in its scope, is only one of many industries carried on in immediate contact with our railway systems.
I submit to the House that the existing law under which the railway companies have to conduct their enterprises is quite a sufficient protection to private property. It is the duty of a railway company to take all due care in the construction of their engines, in the provision of their appliances, and in the actual working of their locomotives. This Bill docs not propose to infringe that general rule; it introduces an exception not applicable even to all the machinery in connection with the locomotives on our railway systems, but in connection only with that very small department of its mechanical appliances which has

755
relation to the emission of sparks. I ask the House if they will pass a measure of legislation, in regard to which the rule applicable to the imposition of liability upon a railway company remains the same in regard to all their mechanical appliances, except when you conic down to such details as are concerned in the emission of sparks, in regard to which subordinate class of mechanical appliances there is to be a, liability tin the railway company, although it may be that they have used the utmost degree of care to prevent any accident occurring. I submit that that is a very grave anomaly. Under the law as it now exists, if a farmer suffers injury to his crops or hay stacks by the emission of sparks, he has only to show that there is a spark-catcher well known which might be introduced by the railway company in connection with the construction of their engines. He certainly does not, suffer from lack of sympathy on the part of the jury, and if a sympathetic agricultural jury come to the conclusion that a spark-catcher might easily have been obtained by the railway company and ought to have been attached to the engine, the farmer is entitled to compensation. It is said that the law has become unworkable because negligence can never be proved. I entirely dissent from that proposition. In my own experience I have known many cases in which negligence has been proved, and I have known many more cases which the railway companies have settled out of court, because they knew that with an agricultural jury the farmer would have had all the chances in his favour. What is graver still is that this is a protective measure in the interests of a particular industry. The farmer, and the farmer alone, is to be protected, and he is to be protected not in regard to all his property, but in regard only to a very narrow class of property. His crops, haystacks, hedges, and perhaps woodlands, are to he protected, lint if his house is burned down, from exactly the same cause and under the same circumstances, this measure gives him no protection whatever. And what is to happen to other industries than agriculture? If I am the proprietor of a mill, and the roof of my mill is fired by a spark, I am to be ruined without compensation,
756
but the fortunate farmer whoso crop close by is consumed by fire, caused by I perhaps the same engine, is to be in the happy position of being provided by the railway company with a complete indemnity. Under this measure there is to be one law for the farmers and another law for the rest of the community; one rule applicable to agricultural property and an entirely different rule, enforced on different principles, applicable to other portions of the community. This would but render confusion worse confounded, and for these reasons I ask the House to reject this unprincipled measure.
MR. JACKSON: I desire to say a few words against this Bill. I am quite willing to accept the challenge of the hon. Member who desired to place before the House the issue that the railway companies claimed the liberty to burn other people's property without compensation. I think the hon. Member did not do justice to his own knowledge of the present law.
SIR J. STIRLING MAXWELL: I frankly admit the railway companies have the right under the existing law—
MR. JACKSON: I will endeavour to make good my proposition, if you will permit me. What is the procedure by which a railway company obtains power to make its railway in the first place? My hon. friend appears to ignore altogether the fact that the railway company, when it takes lard for the purpose of making a railway, pays compensation not only for the value of the land, but also for all consequential and future damage it may do. ["No."] I am not surprised that hon. Members dissent from this view, because it shows that they are really not aware of the law as it stands at present. It is open to the landowner, and the landowner exercises his option, to make a claim not only for the value of the land, hut for all incidental and consequential damage to the remainder of his property. He is at liberty to set up a specific claim before the arbitrator if there is a risk of damage to his property, and he has therefore to let the land to the farmer at less rent, and the arbitrator will give him compensation for that. ["No."] Somebody says "No." Several cases have come within my own recoflection—
*MR. HEMPHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the owner of the land can get compensated for the contingent risk of having his woodlands burned by sparks?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, I do.
*MR. HEMPHILL: There is no instance of it in the books.
MR. JACKSON: I mean if his land is taken. If a railway is made through a district for the first time, some land must he taken along the whole length of the line. Of course it is possible, but very improbable, that the limit of the land the company wished to take might just extend to the boundary of the land of that particular owner, and in that extremely improbable case the rule to which I have referred would not apply. It applies only when a portion of a man's property or land is taken. I may put it in this way. If a landowner has 100 acres of land, of which twenty are taken for the purpose of a railway, he has it within his power, as regards the remaining eighty acres, to set up a specific claim. If he can prove to the arbitrator that there is any danger of his suffering loss from sparks emitted on the railway, he can substantiate his claim for compensation. What the railway companies desire in all fairness is, not to be at liberty to burn other people's property, but to be protected from having to pay twice for the same risks.
The case which has been made out for this Bill is insufficient, I think, for this House to act upon in setting up the anomaly in law to which the hon. and learned Member opposite has so clearly called attention.
Let me point out what the position of the railway companies is. A railway company exercises its powers under statutory authority, and it has at the same time a statutory obligation. The company is liable for all cases of damage where either the engine has been improperly constructed or negligence in using it has been proved. The company therefore has compensated the landowner for his land; it has paid compensation for the risk of injury as regards the future; it has a statutory obligation to run its trains by means of these engines, and there is no known method by which this danger can be escaped. In that case Parliament has said, and I think fairly, that unless you
758
can show that it is within the power of the railway companies to take adequate precaution against this danger, they ought not to be called upon to do that I which is an impossibility. Therefore I venture to say that so far as the railway companies are concerned they are entitled to ask the House to reject this Bill. There is a perfect and perfectly simple remedy, which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman for the Louth Division. It is in the power of the farmer to insure his crops against this I risk for an almost infinitesimal charge. If there is the slightest proof of negligence the law is open to the farmer, and he can get compensation, so that it is not a fail position in which this Bill seeks to place railway companies. I think the case for the Bill has not been made out, and I hope the House will reject the measure. I have been hoping that we should hear from the President of the Board of Trade the views of the Government on this matter, so that the House should have their guidance in coming to a decision.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): In the few words I shall address to the House on the subject of this Bill it must be clearly understood that I am expressing not the opinion of the Government as a whole, but only my personal view.
This is a measure which has really more to do with the Department of my right hon. friend the Minister for Agriculture than with that over which I preside. It is essentially a Bill in the interests of agriculture. I notice that if the Bill was passed it would apply only to crops, hedges, or plantations, so that if by a spark from an engine an accident occurred to a store of any sort the owner of such store would be obliged to have recourse to the existing law, whereas the change in the law now proposed would apply to farmers, and farmers alone. As has been pointed out, the measure would not apply to all damage done even to the property of farmers, but it is an undoubtedly important change of law in regard to principle. If only the question of value were at issue, I do not think the amount of damage would be very great; but, as I say, the Bill if passed would introduce a very important alteration of principle into the law.
The present law governing the liability of railway companies has been very

759
clearly stated by more than one speaker this afternoon. What is proposed by the Bill is, in a very limited number of cases, to change the whole, principle of the law, and to say that a railway company should he liable, although no negligence whatever has been brought home to them. In the Memorandum affixed to the Bill the analogy of road locomotives is invoked. I would point out, however, that the cases of road and railway locomotives are entirely different, because the former are not confined to a single road, nor do the proprietors own the roads over which they travel, and no compensation has been paid in respect of adjacent lands.
If we once admit an important change of principle of this kind, will it be possible to resist further changes in the same direction should they be proposed? Suppose, for example, that a horse harnessed to a carriage were frightened by the passing of a railway train, and ran away; if the principle of the Bill is accepted, it appears to me it would be impossible to resist a claim for compensation in such and other cases.
These, in my opinion, are the objections to the present proposal. I do not deny that there may he difficulty in certain cases in proving negligence. At all events, it is possible that railway companies have not taken sufficient care in
every instance to secure that their locomotives are provided with spark-preventing appliances. I do not know what my right lion, friend behind me may have to say to this, but I would earnestly suggest to him that his company, in concert with other railway companies, should look into this matter, and ascertain what are the best appliances used in other countries for the prevention of sparks. If they did that, and it was shown that the companies had adopted the best possible appliances, then the present law would probably be held to be sufficient to meet the evil. Speaking for myself, I shall vote against the Bill.
MR. RENSHAWrose to continue the debate.
MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
*MR. SPEAKER: Although the Bill has been under discussion but a comparatively short time, it appeared to me before the hon. Member rose that the debate was almost exhausted. I shall therefore, under the circumstances, accept the motion.
Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 40.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Craig, Robert Hunter

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Ambrose, Robert

Bull, William James

Crombie, John William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burt, Thomas

Cust, Henry John C.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Butcher, John George

Dalziel, James Henry

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Caine, William Sproston

Delany, William

Baird, John George Alexander

Caldwell, James

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Balfour, Maj K. R.(Christch'rch

Cameron, Robert

Dillon, John

Banes, Major George Edward

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Barlow, John Emmott

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hartley, George C. T.

Carew, James Laurence

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore

Bell, Richard

Causton, Richard Knight

Duffy, William J.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cavendish, K. E. (N. Lancs.)

Duncan, James H.

Bigwood, James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dunn, Sir William

Black, Alexander William

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Boland, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Bond, Edward

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Charrington, Spencer

Elibank, Master of

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Boyle, James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Ellis, John Edward

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Colville, John

Emmott, Alfred

Broadhurst, Henry

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Faber, George Denison

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Redmond. John E. (Waterford

Fenwick, Charles

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Rentoul, James Alexander

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Richards, Henry Charles

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Crae, George

Roche, John

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Dermott, Patrick

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Forster, Henry William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinbro, W.

Russell, T. W.

Carlit, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

Sackville, Col. S. M. Stopford

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Malcolm, Ian

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

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

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Schwann, Charles E.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Massey Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Graham, Henry Robert

Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

Grant, Corrie

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'y)

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Edm

Milton, Viscount

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Griffith, Ellis J.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Groves, James Grimble

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Gurdon, sir W. Brampton

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hall, Edward Marshall

Moon. Edward Robert Paey

Spear, John Ward

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Mooney, John J.

Spencer, E. (West Bromwich)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G.(Midx

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Hamilton, Marq. of(Londond'y

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hammnond, John

Morrison. James Archibald

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Motion. Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th.

Mount, William Arthur

Stroyan, John

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murphy, J.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Sullivan, Donal

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Ox. Univ.

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Nicholson, William Graham

Taylor, The dore Cooke

Heath, James(Staffords, N. W.)

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

Tennant, Harold John

Heaton, John Henniker

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

Helder, Augustus

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, David Alfred(Merth'r

Helme, Norval Watson

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, F. Freeman Hastings

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

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

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Tollemache, Henry James

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tomkinson, James

Holland, William Henry

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

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

Tully, Jasper

Hoult, Joseph

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo. N.)

Valentia, Viscount

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Wallace, Robert.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

O'Malley, William

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Mara, James

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Warner, Thomas C. T.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Palmer, George Wm.(Reading

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

Joyce, Michael

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

White, George (Norfolk)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Partington, Oswald

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Peel, Hon. William Robert W.

Willougbby de Eresby, Lord

Lambert, George

Pemberton, John S. G.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lawson, John Grant

Percy, Earl

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Perks, Robert William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Pilkington, Richard

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Plannner, Walter R

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

Leighton, Stanley

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Leng, Sir John

Price, Robert John

Wylie, Alexander

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Young, Commander (Berks, E)

Lloyd-George, David

Pym, C. Guy

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Randles, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Jeffreys and Mr. Munro Ferguson.

Lough, Thomas

Rankin, Sir James

Lowe, Francis William

Reddy, M.

762

763

NOES.

Aird, Sir John

doubling, Edward Alfred

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Anstruther, H. T.

Cray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arrol, Sir William

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Balcarres, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Parker, Gilbert

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Harwood, George

Penn, John

Banbury, Frederick George

Henderson, Alexander

Platt Higgins, Frederick

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

Higginbottom, S. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Horner, Frederick William

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Brigg, John

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Cawley, Frederick

Joicey, Sir James

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Rutherford, John

Chapman, Edward

Kimber, Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Coddington, Sir William

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kitson, Sir James

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

knowles, Lees

Thornton, Percy M.

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Laws, Andrew Bonar

Mason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lawrence, William F.

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

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

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

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Fielden, Edwd. Brocklehurst

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Yoxall, James Henry

Fison, Frederick William

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lawson Walton and Mr. Cohen.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES)
Bill to extend the privileges of the Graduates of the University of Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Kenyon, and Colonel Pryce-Jones.
UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
"To extend the privileges of the Graduates of the University of Wales," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 8.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up and read; to be upon the Table, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should now announce that we do not propose to-morrow to take the appointment of the Committee on the Civil List as was originally intended, but that the first Order of the Day to-morrow will be an amendment of Standing Order No. 21. The Amendment will read as follows—
"Provided also, that if any Member, or Members acting jointly, who have been suspended under this tinier from the service of the House, shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his direction, and the Member or Members who have refused to obey his direction shall thereupon, and without further question put, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the Session."
I give no notice with regard to the Gentlemen who did, unfortunately, refuse to obey your riding, as it is evidently impossible to deal with persons during their enforced absence from this House. I also beg to give notice that I shall suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule to-morrow for the purpose of carrying the amendment of the Standing Order.
Adjourned at five minutes before Six of the clock.