I rise for the purpose of moving an Instruction to the Committee

"That, in order that the public shall derive some definite advantage in return for the right to tunnel under the public streets proposed to be conferred by the Bill, that they (the Committee) do insert clauses in the Bill providing either (1) for payment to the Local Authority of a royalty or share of earnings after interest on capital and working expenses; or (2) for specially reduced fares on certain trains between hours most convenient for the working classes and for clerks and others engaged in business, the Railway Company being required to run a specified number of such trains daily."

I must apologise for again calling the attention of the House to the subject of the Tunnel Railways. In the discussion which took place in this House on the 11th of last month there appeared to be a general feeling that there are important interests connected with the making of these railways; and I do not think that I unduly trespassed upon the time of the House in calling attention to the rights of the public, so far as the subsoil of the roads in the Metropolis is concerned, seeing that private individuals are applying for Acts of Parliament empowering them to take that subsoil without compensation or charge. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees did me the honour to acknowledge the propriety of the course I took as a Metropolitan Member, and he suggested that as the discussion had practically answered the object I had in view in calling public attention to the matter, in all probability not only the promoters of the Bill, but the Committee to whom it was about to be referred, would seriously consider the large and important question I had raised. I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman thought some practical result might come from the discussion. I suggested two ways of compensating the public—either by giving a royalty to the Local Authorities or by devoting to the public a share of the earnings, after payment of interest on the capital and working expenses. The right hon. Gentleman suggested a third way in which the public rights might be recognised, and that was by establishing cheap fares, having special regard to the fact that the land was to be appropriated without payment, or that a free permanent way was proposed to be acquired under Parliamentary authority. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman, and being satisfied with the feeling which appeared to prevail in the House upon the question, I withdrew the Instruction, and I certainly had the impression that the subject would be considered by the Committee to which the Bill was referred. I attended the meeting of the Committee, under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury); but, to my surprise, the counsel for the promoters, for all practical purposes, ignored all that had taken place in this House. He did, in a few words, refer to the Motion I had brought forward, but only to treat the matter with indifference, and to insinuate—for he did not state so in distinct terms—that I had withdrawn the Instruction because it had been unfavourably received, and because I had no chance whatever of carrying it. Now, that was not the spirit in which the Resolution was either received, discussed, or withdrawn. There was an understanding that the matter should be considered, and I was much surprised to find that the promoters, through their counsel, dealt with the question in this way. The Chairman said that the Committee knew nothing about the Instruction, and that they could only take cognisance of the Bill as it was placed before them by the counsel who appeared in their legal capacity in the Committee Room. I also ascertained that the promoters did not intend to do anything in the way of conceding a royalty, or share earnings, or specially cheap fares. Of course, the company are bound to give the working class trains which ordinary Railway Companies are required to give, but I do not gather that they propose to give any special cheap trains as a consideration for the free permanent way they are to acquire under the Bill. I do not propose now to re-argue the claims of the public, because it is generally admitted that the public have a substantial interest in the matter; and although the landowners on each side may have some shadowy claim, that claim is of no practical value. The only substantial interest in the roadway rests in the public. I ask the House to look at the question from a larger point of view, namely, the right of the people of London to the land over which the public streets run. This is one of the earliest of those railways which, in the end, will inevitably run like a net-work underneath London—not only small railways for the conveyance of passengers, but tubular railways to connect great lines on either side for the carriage of goods traffic. It may be satisfactory to the House to know that the promoters of these Bills take a most sanguine view of their prospects. In fact, the syndicate promoting these Bills have assured the Committee that they are prepared to give a guarantee to find the whole of the capital—some £3,600,000 for one of the railways alone. I propose to discuss the three Bills which appear on the Paper at the same time, seeing that the decision upon one of them will settle the fate of all.

There may be a little difficulty in reference to the third Bill.

I am advised that the promoters of the third Bill are prepared to say that the matter shall be mentioned in the Committee, and that it needs no Instruction.

I was mentioning that the promoters take a most sanguine view of the prospects of these tunnel railways, and expect the undertaking to he enormously profitable. One of the companies proposes to provide facilities for carrying as many as 350,000 persons a day, and the railway which is already in operation from London Bridge to Stockwell, and which is admittedly not in a perfect condition, with unsatisfactory stations and approaches, has carried in a little over two months, 900,000 passengers. At a recent meeting the company owning that railway expressed the greatest satisfaction at the financial as well as the engineering results of the undertaking. Therefore, from actual experience in connection with the experiment of the South London Railway, there is conclusive evidence that the privilege asked for is one of enormous value. That being so, I think it is the duty of the House to take care that the public interests are very well looked after. The other night, in a discussion which occurred here, there was a general consensus of opinion as to the desirability of legislation in reference to providing cheap trains at convenient hours for the working classes. When the Railway Passenger Duty was partially remitted, in the interests of the public the House insisted on compensation being given in the shape of an increased number of workmen's trains, and now, when a far more valuable concession is about to be handed over to a Private Company, it is time to give practical effect to our opinions, and to extend a policy which has been recognised and affirmed over and over again. The people promoting these railways are a syndicate of financiers. I believe they call themselves "The Exploration Company, Limited," and they want to get a concession out of which they expect to make money.

The hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the facts in regard to the syndicate. The evidence before the Committee shows that some of these gentlemen are prepared to put in very large sums, and to retain their holdings.

That fact rather strengthens my case. The fact that the financiers who form the syndicate propose to retain their shares shows the value of the concession, and makes it more necessary that we should secure to the public full compensation the rights granted. I have no wish to throw cold water on the efforts of the promoters, and I move this Instruction without any hostility whatever to these railways. I have no interest in the matter except the public interest, and I have no wish to impose conditions which would prevent the railways from being made, or seriously embarrass the promoters. It is, however, such a good thing that I think they can well afford to give the public some substantial return for the large powers they are asking for. I beg to move the Instruction which I have placed on the Paper.

The proper form would be to instruct the Committee to insert clauses to carry out the views of the hon. Member. The first part of the Instruction, which explains the reasons for submitting it, is unusual.

I shall be most happy to move the Instruction in the form suggested by you, Sir.

I supported the hon. Member on the last occasion, and I very much regret that he did not carry the Motion to a Division. What has occurred since shows, I think, that it does not altogether answer to leave these matters to the chapter of accidents, and that it is better, as we cannot always trust a Committee to do what we wish, to give a definite Instruction. I agree that these railways will rapidly increase in the Metropolis, and that, therefore, the subject is one calling for serious consideration. For all practical purposes the roads are public property, and as these new companies are asking for important rights it is only fair that they should pay for them. One of the great difficulties of London is the ever-increasing burden of the rates. They are growing by leaps and bounds, and the proposal in the Instruction seems to me to be a reasonable way of getting some relief for the ratepayers by making the promoters of these lines pay a royalty, after a fair dividend is paid to shareholders, to the Local Authorities. I trust that the Instruction will be passed and that it will be understood, in future, that when these companies make use of the subsoil of the public streets they shall pay the locality some distinct and definite sum for the privilege.

I rise for the purpose of opposing the Instruction. I took the liberty of saying, when the subject was under discussion before, that I thought the raising of the question was not in the interest of the London County Council. I now understand that the Committee have decided that, although there may be value in the subsoil, that value belongs by law to the frontagers. The view I take of the matter is that there is no value at all in the subsoil at such a depth, and therefore that no payment is due to anybody. Whatever the traffic may be, either under or over the roadways, the public gets the full benefit of it. The principle that the travelling public should pay towards the taxation of London is, to my mind, an utterly wrong one. It would be better for the public interests that the Local Authorities should maintain all the highways in order that the people should be able to travel cheaply. We have lately been dealing with the question of market rights and tolls, whereby provisions brought in for the consumption of the community are made to pay taxes. That is a vicious and exploded fallacy, and certainly ought not to be applied to railways and subways. What we want is that the localities should take national undertakings of this kind into their own hands, make the subways, and derive all the profit that can be obtained from them. It is right that they should be maintained by the public money, but not as a legislative source of taxation. What was said by the Chairman of Committees on the last occasion possesses great weight and authority, namely, that in granting a monopoly the Committee should see that the fares were as low as possible, and that the public should receive some benefit when the railway was successful.

The Instruction only directs the Committee to make provision for cheap fares.

I have no doubt that without any Instruction at all the; Committee would do its duty and provide minimum fares for the working classes.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) speaks with some weight and authority, having been a member of the Committee which had this subject before them last year.

I have had the subject before me on three occasions.

Then still greater importance attaches to the remarks of the hon. Member. The first question before the Committee is whether it is desirable that additional means of locomotion shall be established under the sanction of this House. That principle being affirmed, it is necessary to provide such increased means of locomotion, without giving an undue advantage to anybody. This Instruction commands the Committee to insert these special clauses; but a Committee now sitting upstairs have already arrived at a different decision, with full knowledge of the discussion which occurred the other day. If the Instruction is passed, it becomes an absolute command.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the difficulty of the Committee was in having no official knowledge of anything that had taken place in the House on the matter. That is why no attention has been devoted to it. But it is not too late to look into the question; and if the Instruction is forced upon us, we must consider the matter.

I think that without laying down a hard and fast line, the Committee might be able to take cognisance of this discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) supports the Instruction, and yet he knows that, in reference to cheap fares, it may be practically impossible to carry it out and to divide a penny into fractional parts. At the same time, he proposes to make it obligatory.

I merely said that I preferred one alternative to another.

The Instruction, if passed, will practically command the Committee upstairs to insert these provisions, and I am afraid the result would be to throttle an important enterprise.

The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has expressed disappointment that more good has not resulted from the previous discussion of this subject. My difficulty is in knowing what the Committee have done in the matter.

The Committee have not practically reached this question yet. It can only come up upon the clauses of the Bill, and we have only just begun to consider them.

That is what I anticipated, and in view of that fact I consider the Instruction premature. I would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to wait until the Committee have finished their labours, and then when the Bill comes again before the House, if no notice has been taken of his suggestion, he can once more raise the point. I certainly deprecate the interpretation which the hon. Member for North St. Pancras has put upon the remarks which fell from me the other day. I said that the subject was an important one, and that it deserved full consideration, but I do not think I anticipated in any degree what the result of that consideration would be. All I expressed was my own view that if it was desired to make a revenue out of the undertaking the proper thing would be to provide some sliding scale in respect of rates, so that the fares might be reduced as the profits of the undertaking increased. I had no intention of speaking of the working classes alone; I had everybody in view. As the matter is still before a Committee I should strongly deprecate the giving of a mandatory Instruction or doing anything that would interfere with the deliberation of the Committee.

I am afraid that I must take a Division upon the Instruction.

I rise for the purpose of moving,

"That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of a scheme for the revision of Railway Rates which is based upon the full recognition of the legality of Station Terminal Charges, with respect to which the Standing Committee on Trade expressly refrained from formulating any opinion."

I have placed the Motion on the Payer because it is the only opportunity the House will have of dealing with the important question of the rates and charges of Railway Companies. I hope, with the indulgence of the House, that, in a certain measure, I may be allowed to deal with the question in a general spirit, and that my remarks may not be limited to this particular Bill. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated—not in this House, but in answer to a deputation—his belief that this House is not a very suitable place for discussion of the complicated details involved in these Provisional Orders, I quite admit that this is so, and that it is desirable that all these technical questions should be submitted to the investigation of an ordinary Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman himself proposes after the Second Reading of this Bill and of others of a similar character which appear upon the Paper to refer them to the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think it would have been a more satisfactory course if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to submit them to the Standing Committee on Trade which dealt with the original Railway and Canal Traffic Bill of 1888, of which Bill these Provisional Orders are the result. I believe that that Committee would be able to deal with these measures in a much more satisfactory manner than a Joint Committee; but if they are to go before a Joint Committee of both Houses, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the Committee will be a representative Committee, comprising Members who have some knowledge of the question, and who can be trusted to do justice as between the Railway Companies and the traders of the country. I believe there is a disposition to appoint what are called unprejudiced gentlemen, which really means gentlemen who know nothing about the matter. Personally, I am of opinion that it is of the utmost importance that the subject should be dealt with by a tribunal possessing special knowledge. Perhaps I may be allowed to call to the recollection of the House the exact circumstances under which these Provisional Orders come before them. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 threw upon the Board of Trade the duty of drawing up a scheme for the classification of railway rates and charges, which, when completed, was to be submitted to the consideration of the House. In the Standing Committee on Trade there was a divergence of opinion as to whether the Board of Trade was the best tribunal to deal with the matter. Some of us thought that a special tribunal would more satisfactorily deal with it, and that it would be wiser to appoint a special tribunal unconnected with any Governmental Department. I am quite ready, however, to bear my testimony to the skill, ability, and zeal with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle, the representatives of the Board of Trade, conducted the investigation, although I am unfortunately compelled to differ from them in regard to the results at which they arrived. A long and careful inquiry was held in the Westminster Town Hall. Many able counsel were engaged to represent the interests of the Railway Companies and the great traders of the country; but, unfortunately, the small traders were not at all, or at all events quite insufficiently, represented. My contention is that the compromise effected as between the Railway Companies and the larger traders and manufacturers will be the cause of serious detriment to the small traders. The basis of the compromise is (1) concessions in regard to private sidings; (2) the principle of a graduated mileage rate for long distances; and (3) special rates for tram loads and truck loads. I, of course, am glad that the large traders and manufacturers have been able to wring some concessions from the Railway Companies; but the small traders have just reason to complain that the maximum rate should be charged on small consignments and for short distances. With respect to "smalls," the term by which small consignments are technically known, the Board of Trade-tribunal has not investigated the matter, or, at any rate, have made no alteration in favour of the public. The maximum rates for small distances have been enormously increased, and, if this Bill becomes law, the position of the small trader would be immensely damaged or irretrievably ruined. The special question dealt with in the Amendment is station terminal charges. To terminal charges for services, such as loading, unloading, and delivery, the traders take no exception, provided they are not paid for where not performed. The Railway Companies allege that the station does not form part of the railway system, that it is provided in excess of that system as a whole, and consequently that the extra charge ought to be allowed. But that station accommodation is provided as much for passengers as for goods, and I never heard of a terminal charge being made upon a passenger. The legal position is somewhat difficult to describe. The Board of Trade tribunal say they find that the law on the subject was carefully set forth in the case of "Hall v. The Brighton Railway Company," in the Court of Queen's Bench, and that the Court allowed a terminal station charge. But that is not an absolute and definite expression of the law. The Railway Commission dissented entirely from the view of Mr. Justice Wills, and the Court of Session in Scotland took an entirely contrary view. I am told that the question will be brought before a higher Court as a test question upon an appeal in a case in which the Great Northern Company are concerned. The Board of Trade, however, accepted the decision in the case referred to. The railway system of this country has been built up by various Acts of Parliament, but many of them contain no reference to terminal station charges. The London and North-Western Company have 1,800 miles of system, but only 800 miles of it are, by the Act, to carry these terminal charges. Of the Great Western, out of over 2,000, about 900 miles only could claim power to charge terminal station charges under the decision in Hall's case. The Board of Trade tribunal in this matter have taken it upon themselves to decide what the law has not decided, and to make it universal over the whole railway system, and it will place upon the traders of the country a, binding and absolute obligation for all time which would add immensely to their charges. To show how it would affect small agriculturists and traders, I will read a letter from a well-known trader of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who says—

"I think it may be of service to point out that the Board of Trade proposals would be most unfair. Take Class C, in which grain of or over two tons' loads would be carried. The station terminals proposed are 2s. per ton—result, two tons would pay 4s., while eight tons would pay 16s. The cost to the Railway Company for the station terminals would be the same whether the load was two tons or eight tons, yet, while 4s. would be earned by the companies in one case, they would receive four times as much in the latter. To propose to give a Railway Company 16s. for placing a truck in position for loading and unloading with the value of the ground for the time allowed for each consignment seems to me to be absurd, and I am surprised that such a monstrous proposal should be dreamed of by the Board of Trade. There are many instances on the North-Eastern Railway where the grain rate for four-ton lots does not exceed 2s. per ton altogether. No short-distance traffic would be possible if the companies get and exercise the powers proposed. If the companies could nut charge them for short distances they do not require them for long distances. Having, along with another trader, had the North-Eastern Rail-way Company before the Railway Commissioners on the question of their bay rates, and having got the total terminal service charges fixed at 1s. 6d. per ton as a maximum, and as they gave up their claim to station terminals, we are at present in the position of getting hay carried at 1s. 6d. nominally, but really only 1s. 3d. per ton, while, under the powers sought, hay is put into Class 3, where station and service terminals together will be 4s. 8d. per ton, or more than three times the present rate or charge."

That is what a very practical trader says and probably other hon. Members may be able to give instances quite as striking. The President of the Board of Trade took a leading part in the consideration of the Railway and Canal Act of 1888 in the Standing Committee, and on this question of terminal charges, which some of us endeavoured to remove entirely from the purview of any tribunal that might be fixed hereafter, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"That there seemed to he an apprehension that Railway Companies would be able to make not only their existing rates and charges, but terminals plus those rates and charges, thus putting an additional burden upon traders."

The right hon. Gentleman added—

"That was not his intention, and if there was any danger of that he would accept words to deal with the matter."

I wish that the Committee had accepted that suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and that words to that effect had been inserted. In that case I should not be asking the Board now to express an opinion upon this most important issue. The Board of Trade has come to the conclusion that terminal charges are to be accepted as a legal charge, because Lord Balfour of Burleigh said in Westminster Town Hall—

"That it remains the law until it is upset; it remained the law when Parliament was legislating in 1888."

Therefore, as the Grand Committee did not strike out the terminal charges altogether, it was taken by the Board of Trade as constituting a right on the part of the Railway Companies to make those charges. If the House of Commons was to do any good it surely ought to protect the interests of the smaller traders who were not represented in the inquiry that took place. The Railway Companies have raised a cry of alarm in the matter. Sir Richard Moon at a recent meeting of the London and North Western Company predicted the ruin of the company if terminal charges are disallowed, and said it would he necessary to withdraw all proposals for the application of new capital. I hope that the House of Commons will not for a moment allow a threat of that kind to affect their decision. On the contrary, it is the duty of the House to do justice to the interests of the small traders who were not represented in the inquiry. I believe that the Railway Companies, who have always in the matter of rates pursued a most conservative course, would have been wise if in this matter they had taken a new departure and profited by the experience of the railways in America or Hungary where the zone system is in force, and had endeavoured to revive waning industries at a distance from the seaboard by encouragement in the way of low rates. The result would have been such a development of industry as would in the end have largely recouped the companies granting such facilities. I believe that the Railway Companies are conducted as a great monopoly in much too rigid and conservative a spirit, and it is only by the pressure of the House of Commons that they can be induced to make that reasonable progress in the matter of charges which the public have every right to demand. It is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.

In seconding the Resolution, I have only a few words to add to the able remarks with which my hon. Friend has introduced the sub- ject. I do not intend to speak on behalf of the large manufacturers and traders, who are perfectly able to look after themselves, but I think that this opportunity, the only one which will be given to the House, ought to be taken, to let the Government know that there exists a very widespread feeling of anxiety throughout the country amongst agriculturists and small traders with reference to these Provisional Orders. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade thinks that he has had already a fair quantity of Petitions and deputations on the subject, and that he has had a very troublesome question to deal with as between the great Railway Companies and the interests of the industries. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he must only consider those appeals as a small sample representing the deep and widespread anxiety which prevails throughout the country concerning this question. I think that the reason why the Board of Trade has not received far more remonstrances has been principally owing to three causes. First of all, there is hardly an hon. Member who has not had his attention called during the last few years to the unfair railway charges and the unequal railway rates, and has not given his constituents serious and solemn pledges to obtain justice. Secondly, the careful and exhaustive examination which took place in 1888 went a long way to reassure the country, particularly the declaration of the President of the Board of Trade that in any classification of the rates the Companies should not be allowed to have maximum rates and, in addition to them, terminal charges. Thirdly (and speaking on behalf of the County of Gloucester) there has been a feeling of personal confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, which his well-spent political life in the county naturally inspired in all classes. It was felt that the interests, at all events, of agriculture were in good hands, and that we might safely, and with some confidence, await the result of the Board of Trade's proceedings. Prom time to time, too, the country has been assured by the right hon. Gentleman in speeches that these maximum rates were not, after all, anything to be greatly alarmed about—that, although they were put down as "paper" rates, which might legally be charged, they were not rates that were intended to be charged! But the anxiety in the country is very great indeed. The Railway Companies are exceedingly strong and exceedingly able. They are an enormously powerful corporation, which is making a great outcry, and protesting that the new Schedule of Rates are going to bring on them ruin, devastation, and confiscation! We have heard this outcry before from other monopolists in days past. We know something of the rates of the Railway Companies in the west, but studying the figures of these Provisional Orders I can for the life of me see no reason for anxiety on the part of railway shareholders as to their dividends. I cannot see where the ruin comes in. The agriculturists are anxious specially about the milk rates. Every one will agree that this is a most important question from the point of view not only of the agriculturist, but of our great and dense populations that there should be a cheap and plentiful supply of pure milk. The rates originally proposed by the Great Western system were simply scandalous, and they have been reduced since last bummer 30 per cent. A farmer who now sends his milk 40 miles, pays 9d. for a tin holding 12 Imperial gallons, and 2d. for the returned empty tin, making 11d., or something under 1d. per gallon. A farmer sending his milk under the new maximum rates this same distance of 40 miles the charge will be 10½d., terminal charge 4½d., and return carriage 2d.—or a total 1s. 5d., instead of 11d., or an increase of 50 per cent. On distances not exceeding 100 miles, the present total charge of 14d. will be increased to 20½, or 50 per cent. It is the terminals that so largely increase the rates. They make all the difference. The milk trade has been growing steadily for the last 40 years, and we wish to know why these terminal charges have been introduced when they have never been charged hitherto P These are not the times when anything ought to be done to discourage agricultural enterprise by legislation of this kind. A reasonable limit of 10 per cent. over the present charges might have been left to the companies; but I protest against giving them such a limit as 50 per cent. in order to increase their charges on what is one of the necessaries of life for the people. There is also the question of perishable articles, such as fruit, vegetables, butter, &c, to be considered. In future it is proposed, in the case of such perishable articles, to charge any quantity below 2 cwt. as 2 cwt.! I think that that is a most monstrous proposal, so far as the small farmer is concerned. We are looking forward to the development of allotments and small holdings as means of providing the country with increased supplies of milk, butter, vegetables and fruit; but it is proposed to put this block in the way, and to say, "Unless you send 2 cwt. you shall not be charged a reasonable rate." I am much interested in the question of how we are going to feed our growing population, and I cannot help thinking that the profits of the Railway Companies have been enormously increased in the past, and will be in the future, by the growing trade of the country, which they are really as interested as anybody in seeing developed. I hope, apart from political differences, the House will express such an opinion that the Committee will have courage to fix the rates and charges of the Railway Companies in a manner which shall be fair to the trading and agricultural interests.

In the year 1888 Parliament thought fit to impose a very severe and arduous responsibility on the Board of Trade. It is not possible to exaggerate the difficulty of the task imposed on the Board of Trade by Section 24 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of that year. I am, of course, responsible for proposing it to Parliament; but I have very frankly to admit that if I had known what I know now of the extreme difficulty of the work I should have hesitated before I made such a proposal. It imposed not only the task—which in itself would have been sufficient—of codifying the railway rates and charges authorised by something like 900 different Acts of Parliament, and for 970 different Railway Companies; and of reducing chaos to order by enabling the trader and the agriculturist to know what services the rates were charged for, and whether they were legally charged—a thing which no man without the most careful legal assistance and search can possibly tell under the law as it stands. This would itself have been a sufficient task for any Government Department; and that was really the original proposal of Government to Parliament. But in the course of the discussion on this matter in the Standing Committee, that Committee decided that the Board of Trade should do much more than that—that it should not merely codify the law; not merely, in plain language, deal with the existing powers of the Railway Companies under many Acts, but should also decide for the future what rates should be just and reasonable as between the companies and the public. Although I attempted to induce the Standing Committee to lay down some definite directions upon which the Board of Trade should act, though I saw at that time the extreme difficulty of the task imposed upon us, yet they were unwilling to do so, and both the Railway Companies and the traders, after consideration, preferred to leave to the Board of Trade the unlimited discretion conferred, and the Act was passed in that form. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) has referred in just terms to the work done by Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in this matter. Nothing could exceed the patience and ability which these two gentlemen displayed in the conduct of the inquiry entrusted to them, which lasted for 85 days, and they have had the matter under further consideration since that time. The result is the Provisional Orders now proposed to be read a second time. Of course, I was aware from the beginning, as I suppose everybody must have been, that it would be quite impossible that the decisions of the Board of Trade in such a matter would satisfy both the contending parties. We have been assailed, on the one hand, by those who have spoken on behalf of the greatest of our Railway Companies, as having confiscated their property. We are assailed to-day by the two hon. Members who have addressed the House as if we had done hardly anything for the traders of this country. Is it not obvious that the truth must lie somewhere between those extremes? We have endeavoured to act not as an administrative body, but as a judicial body, between these conflicting interests. We have acted as a Court of First Instance in a matter, the gravity and importance of which it would be impossible to exaggerate. And now the decisions at which we have arrived, after the most careful inquiry, after hearing and re-hearing and considering and re-considering all that could be alleged, are before the House, and will, I hope, be referred to the only tribunal that can properly consider them—a Committee of both Houses. The hon. Member for Wednesbury has given us some credit. He has admitted that the large traders, and I think he might have admitted that all traders, will obtain in future very considerable advantages under this classification and schedule now proposed. He has admitted that with regard to service terminals he has no objection to our proposals. But he says that we have failed to deal properly with the question of "smalls," and that we have not lowered the maximum rates for short distances. I contest both of those statements. We have conferred upon traders this very considerable advantage in the matter of "smalls." At present, under the existing law, to which we have been bound to give consideration, the Railway Companies are entitled to charge whatever they think reasonable. We have limited that power in a very great degree; and with regard to maximum rates for short distances, or for any distances, if hon. Members will but give their consideration to the classification and the schedules, I am quite sure that they will see that the existing maximum rates have been very considerably limited in a long list of articles such as I cannot now detail to the House. That is the simple fact.

In a small minority of articles.

No, in a large number. But the main point of the hon. Member's objection is that we have allowed the principle of station terminals. In the hon. Member for Cirencester's (Mr. Winterbotham's) remarks upon station terminals for milk and other perishable articles, he entirely omitted—as many others have done—to consider that actual rates ought not to be compared with maximum rates. That is a very elementary part of this problem, which does not even seem to have presented itself to the hon. Member's mind. But more than this; he does not seem to have the least idea that at the present moment the Railway Companies are not compelled by law to carry milk or perishable articles at all by these quick trains, by which it is necessary in the public interest that they should be carried. The companies may refuse to carry them if they like; and they may charge whatever they choose for carrying them. What have we done? We have imposed upon them the obligation of carrying this species of traffic by these quick trains, often, no doubt, to the considerable derangement of their passenger traffic. We have imposed also the further obligation of carrying that traffic at moderate maximum rates—at rates which are admitted by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to have been considerably lowered since our proposals of last summer. This body says that the reduction on these rates ranges from 25 to 35 per cent. on full cans, and from 25 to 30 per cent. on empties; and the total amount of service station charges on each can has been reduced 32 per cent.

From the proposals of last summer.

Quite so. The Chamber considers the rate still excessive. But in this matter it seems to represent the views of those persons who, like the hon. Member, wish to take the lowest rate at which milk is carried at present, and to compel the Railway Companies to carry it at that rate, with a small addition of 5 or 10 per cent. as a maximum. Who can say that the price of milk will not be very considerably raised in future? Milk is not an article—and I do not think it will be—which is the subject of competition from abroad. Who can say that the cost of conveyance may not be very materially increased as compared with what it is at the present moment? We have taken these matters into consideration; and in fixing a maximum we have adopted the figures named in the schedule, believing that the companies will work within that maximum, as they have hitherto done, for the advantage of the farmers and the public in building up a trade which they have established without any maximum at all. They will not be so foolish as to hinder or to stop the development of such a trade, which they need not have established at all unless they had chosen. That is our view as to milk; but we are merely a tribunal of First Instance, and if hon. Members interested in the agricultural districts think we have not gone far enough in this matter, and that the milk rate should be still further reduced, their obvious remedy is to formulate their complaints on behalf of those who are concerned and petition this House, and these Petitions will be referred to the Committee, who will act as a final tribunal in deciding this matter; and if our proposals are too high they will reduce them. But the hon. Member for Wednesbury is not contented with that. He deals with the question of station terminals as one which ought not to be left to the Committee; and because we have admitted one principle to which he is opposed, though in other matters of equal importance we have done what he admits to be of great advantage to the trading public, he moves an Instruction which would kill this Bill. It could not be proceeded with if this Instruction were carried. What is the position with regard to station terminals? First of all, let me explain what they are. Station terminals are charges made for the use of accommodation at the stations and duties undertaken thereat before or after conveyance. The Standing Committee, I quite agree, did not express an opinion upon the legality of these station terminal charges. They left it open in the Bill to the Board of Trade to authorise them or not; but they distinctly pointed to their being authorised by directing the Board of Trade in determining them to have regard only to the expenditure reasonably necessary to provide the accommodation in respect of which the charges were to be made. But although they did not decide whether these terminals should be charged in all cases or not—they were perfectly clear that, if authorised, they should be specified and not included in conveyance rates. I do not think the hon. Member will deny that. There was a long discussion on this point in the Standing Committee. The hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester (Sir W. Houldsworth) proposed that

"In every case the maximum rates and charges should be deemed to include all terminal charges of every description other than service terminals."

It was pointed out that if station terminals were mixed up, as now, with conveyance rates, it would be very injurious to the interests of traders—first, because long-distance traffic would be compelled to pay a far larger proportion of charge for station accommodation than short-distance traffic; and, secondly, because traders who have provided their own sidings at considerable expense to themselves would be called upon to pay for stations in the shape of conveyance rates though they do not use the stations. Now, those two reasons induced the Committee to reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester by a majority of 45 to 12; but, while they took this view, there certainly was in the Committee a strong feeling that the law should not give the companies both station terminals in all cases, and also their existing maximum rates. The hon. Member for Wednesbury has quoted some words of mine. What did I say? I said—

"It appeared there was an apprehension that the Railway Companies would be enabled to make not only their existing maximum rates and charges but terminals, plus their maximum rates and charges, thus putting an additional burden on the traders. That is not my intention, and if there was any danger in that respect I would accept words to amend it."

No words were inserted; but I think I have acted up both to the spirit and the letter of the words I used in the Standing Committee. No doubt station terminal charges have been inserted in the Provisional Orders; but what are the facts? As far as legal decisions have gone, the law has decided that the Railway Companies are entitled to make these charges.

Not in Scotland.

I think any one who examines the different Acts on the subject will see that—if it be admitted that the decisions which have already been given were right—in the great majority of cases, at any rate, the law will enable the companies to make these charges. They do make them at present, and they are paid by the traders. Those were the facts with which I had to deal. I felt that, although for this reason it was just to accept the principle of station terminals, yet, as the matter had not been decided by the highest Court in the land, there was a possibility that the legal decisions might be reversed. Therefore, I reduced the maximum conveyance rates in exchange for the advantage given to the companies by setting at rest any doubts which exist as to their right to make station terminal charges to such a large extent that I have been charged with confiscation by those who have not thought fit to see that by allowing station terminals I give them something in return. I maintain that it is to the interest of traders to have station terminals separated from conveyance rates. Very well, then, what is the way to deal with this matter? If I have not gone far enough in lowering the conveyance rates in exchange for the concession of station terminals, let the Committee go farther. The hon. Member for Wednesbury would debar the Committee from revising these rates at all. He has said, and said rightly, that this is no Party question. This is a question affecting the interests of the whole country, irrespective of political Parties. The Board of Trade and I myself have, in regard to these companies, discharged the work imposed upon us by the Act of 1888. I do not ask the House to read the Bills a second time from a personal or a Party feeling in the matter; but I do ask them to proceed with the measures in the interest of all the parties concerned—the traders, the Railway Companies, and the general public. I can conceive nothing worse than that after an exhaustive inquiry the question should still be hung up for consideration by some future Parliament. In the interests of the traders themselves, who are at present under a law which they cannot ascertain, and who are subjected to charges as to which nobody can tell them whether they are legal or not, it is highly desirable to have the law put in a plain and concise form. I should like to give the House an ocular demonstration of what has been done. In these two Bills there is a classification and schedule of rates of the whole of the Great Western and North Western Railways. Such a classification at present does not exist, and the rates are scattered through about 70 different Acts in each case. It must be desirable that such a simplification of the law as that now proposed should be carried out. If the House does not approve the specific proposals of the Board of Trade in detail, cannot they trust to a Joint Committee of both Houses? I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a Division.

The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech, referred to the question of the rates for the carriage of milk. I should like to say a few words on that subject, because I have been for the last year Chairman of the Special Committee of the British Dairy Farmers' Association, which has carried on almost entirely the agitation on this particular branch of the subject, and has obtained no fewer than four modifications of the proposed rates and charges—a much greater amount of success than any other trading company has achieved. We have devoted a great deal of attention to this matter, and have come to the conclusion that not merely are the rates proposed by the Board of Trade excessive, but that the whole method of charging is cumbersome and unworkable in the extreme as far as milk is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment had not taken into account the fact that the actual rates cannot be compared with the maximum rates. I do not think the hon. Member could have overlooked so obvious a fact. We all know that we are dealing with maximum rates, and we remember that they are at the company's and not at the owner's risk. But I dispute the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that he has obtained important concessions on the point, because he has only proposed to lay upon these companies a statutory obligation to do what they are now voluntarily doing; and although it is true that the Central Chamber of Agriculture admit a reduction of 33 to 40 per cent. in maximum rates, which were put at 150 per cent. above existing actual rates, the fact is that the proposed maximum rates are still 100 per cent. above these actual rates. It is computed that 2 per cent. will cover the difference between owners and companies' risk, so that this point is not really worth considering. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if we object to his proposal we can formulate our complaints, and can Petition Parlia- ment. Well, we have recently Petitioned and Memorialised the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Dairy Farmers' Association and several Chambers of Agriculture, especially the one in Cheshire, have offered to be satisfied if the present actual rates are increased by 25 per cent. and made the maximum, for we believe that will give an ample margin for contingencies, especially as some of the existing charges are considered too high. For the conveyance of 12 gallons of milk 25 miles the Railway Companies asked to be allowed to charge 2s. 8d. The Board of Trade said they must charge 2s. 3d., but they have now reduced that to 1s. 4½d.; but the present actual charge is 9d., so that there is an immense margin for further reduction. We specially objected to the method of terminal charges for the carriage of milk. The companies were at one time willing to abandon them, and proposed a system of charging by cans at an inclusive rate, and, therefore, I think they may now be reasonably expected to have a, rate per gallon which will include everything. By the present proposals there are no fewer than eight separate charges upon every gallon of milk conveyed by railway. There are the station terminals at either end—1½d. each, loading 1d., unloading 1d., loading of the empty can id., unloading ½d., the carriage of the full can and the carriage of the empty can. Every separate gallon of milk a farmer sends to market has these eight separate charges made upon it. These minute charges make the reckoning of the cost per gallon almost impossible, especially as some cans may be full and others half full. There is the terminal charge made per can, the charge per mile and the charge per gallon, two or three different ways of charging. Then in the Bill there is a most extraordinary provision under the head of perishable articles. Where a consignment is less than 2 cwt. the company is to charge as for 2 cwt., and the charge applies to milk as to other perishable articles. So that for sending a churn of milk the company may charge as if the weight were 2 cwt., they may charge per gallon by mileage, and there are certain terminals per can. It is impossible for the seller to reckon out the cost of the carriage of milk per gallon when charged under two different, rates, to say nothing of three different charges sometimes. The station terminals are upon the can full or half full, large or small. Where the milk dealer or farmer has been in the habit of charging per gallon, he is now to be involved in arithmetical difficulties. The terminal charges will amount to 6d.; that is to say 1½d. at either end, 1d. at each end for service, and ½d. at each end for empty cans. At Paddington Station where the Great Western Company receive 2,000 cans of milk daily, the company will receive £3,000 a year for service that will not cost them more than £350, and for station terminals the charge is proportionally extravagant. There is this additional difficulty for service charges that loading a can of milk requires two men, and one of these is almost always the farmer's man, at the roadside station, the other man being a railway porter; so that while the farmer provides half the labour he pays the company for the whole. Practically this is what it comes to, for although it is urged by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that service terminals are optional in practice, that is not so, because the farmer cannot keep his man waiting about the station to load, or waiting for the cans to arrive, he is dependent on the services of the railway servants, and for these the whole charge is exorbitant. Of course these are the maximum rates, and I do not for a moment forget that, but if they are to be reduced, as possibly they might be in every day working, then the farmer is landed in a complicated system of fractions and decimals, with which his arithmetical knowledge is unable to grapple, and there will be an endless source of irritation to all concerned. It is exceedingly important that whether the rates are reduced or raised there should be cheap carriage for such a necessary article as milk. Nothing is more important in agricultural produce to the health of people in large towns than that there should be a cheap supply of good milk available; but I know in large towns like Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, the average supply of milk per head of the population gives an incredibly small quantity, and it is evident that thousands of people never use milk or know what pure milk is. We ought to do all we can to help them to obtain from the farmers a good supply; but these rates the company are to charge, and if they charge anything approaching them, as I have little doubt but they will, will be almost prohibitive to the supply of milk to the poorer classes in our towns. I do not know why the charge on milk and perishables should be so greatly increased. The Railway Companies have raised objections to the Provisional Order that their charges are reduced, and various companies have had meetings of their shareholders and losses of thousands of pounds have been suggested; but if there is a general reduction in the carriage of other classes of goods why this excessive increase in the rate for the carriage of milk when this is an article upon which it is far more necessary that the rate should be reduced? I hope it may be found possible for me to move the Instruction which stands in my name when the Bills have been read a second time. It is—

"That with regard to the carriage of milk, the proposed rates shall be simplified, and shall be made a rate per gallon varying according to distance, which shall cover charges of every kind, including the return of the empty can."

You have been good enough to tell me, Sir, that there is some doubt from a technical point of view, but I trust that when the Bills are read you will allow me to submit the point for your consideration, for I believe if I were allowed to move the Instruction it would be received with general assent. I do not wish unduly to tie the hands of the Committee but I do think we ought, in view of the importance of the subject to the population of our large towns, to indicate that whatever may be done in regard to maximum rates, the rates upon perishable articles, like dairy produce, should not be materially increased.

I regard this as the most important question that has come before the House this Session. A question which deals so intimately with the conduct of the trade in the agricultural produce of the whole of the United Kingdom is a question which may well be described as of the greatest importance. Hon. Members who have to deal with matters upon a large scale may not have brought their minds to appreciate the vast importance of the slightest detail of railway rates when it has to be considered in connection with an industry struggling for existence. It is not easy to exaggerate the importance of this Bill, it is not easy to master the intricacies of the points raised. Let hon. Members take up the Bill and attempt to master its contents. Let them go through the clauses of the Bill itself, pass on to the Schedules, the different parts, the close and long array of various articles by the thousands, allotted to the different classes, and they will see the Bill deals with matters the difficulties in connection with which can scarcely be overrated. I was not at all surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade announce to the House frankly that had he realised for a moment the difficulties he was about to encounter in undertaking for the Board of Trade to settle this question of Railway Bates he would have shrunk from that duty. I had the honour of serving on that Committee to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and I have the strongest impression of the difficulty and delicacy of a duty which ought to have been referred to a Commission, or to have been placed before the Railway Commission. I am glad to add my testimony to the zeal and care with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle have conducted a difficult duty, but it is obvious, and if they were here to speak for themselves they would admit this, that at the commencement of their task they knew very little of what they were undertaking, but they learnt their work as they went. Their first suggestions though falling far short of the extravagant proposals of the Railway Companies were still, on subsequent consideration, largely modified, and now we have the last revise in this Bill. We have the opinion of the Board of Trade, and we are asked to decide whether we agree in that opinion or not. I think it would be more convenient if we had the evidence upon which that opinion was formed. As a matter of fact, however, no part of the evidence given during 85 days has been laid before the House. The public prints no doubt contained from day to day certain information connected with the inquiry, but still it is the fact that we are asked to accept the conclusions upon the evidence, not having that evidence before us. In station terminals we are asked to accept a conclusion embodying a new principle; and upon what are we asked to do this? So far as my memory serves me in the course of those 85 days no open evidence was taken, no published evidence sent forth to the world, on the question of the method of arriving at these charges. I believe that a gentleman of great ability was asked to make a special valuation of the buildings at the railway station, but I have never heard of anyone having had the opportunity of seeing his Report. The evidence on which this conclusion is based has never been laid before the House. It will be convenient that we should be told what principle was adopted by this Committee of the Board of Trade in arriving at their conclusion. I was under the impression, derived from the President of the Board of Trade, that the endeavour was to approximate the maximum rates to the actual rates, and we have now before us certain proposals in the Schedules of a graduated mileage system for short distances and small consignments, and for long distances and large consignments, and all these we adopt. But I am bound to come to the conclusion on reviewing the result of the decision of this tribunal, that they do appear to me to have been more largely influenced by the large traders and large consignors over Long distances, and that the interests of small traders for short distances and for small consignments have met with much less favour at the hands of the Committee. I judge this not only from the clauses which have been alluded to dealing with the question of "smalls" and "perishables," but from the fixing of the minimum at 2 cwt. That is fixed as the smallest amount to be charged, so that a trader will be charged for 2 cwt., though his goods may weigh only 2lbs., and I notice the same thing under other heads. The Schedule as it stands is directly hostile to the interests of the small traders. Now these are the days when the yeomen farmers of England have a right to be heard. Quite recently I had the opportunity of hearing what their views are, as expressed at a meeting of a highly-representative character, attended by yeomen and other farmers. I found among them men of great intelligence who had taken the trouble to go into the details of these proposals as they affected their industry, and the general opinion was, and I do not wonder at it, that which I have expressed. Looking around them what do they see? They see these great Railway Companies, the creatures of the State, with a great monopoly and a great success, with the value of their shares mounting from day to day, so that on the leading lines a £100 share is worth £150. They look at these things and then they look at home, and contemplate the difficulties with which their own industry is struggling, and they find those difficulties enhanced by the imposition of unreasonable rates of railway carriage, I say the small farmer has a right to be heard. It is a fact that the Railway Companies will not deny, that these companies possess at many rural districts an absolute monopoly, and when they have no station of any other company to enter into competition with them, a company can do what it chooses—the trader is at its mercy, and it is then that these maximum rates will be put in force. The maximum rates over long distances may be accepted, for as a fact that maximum has not been approached, but it is on the flow of trade from small holders, from small village or roadside stations, that these station terminals and these short distance clauses will press so heavily—will impose the power of charging rates which if charged in their entirety will bring ruin on the industry of the small farmer. It is urged the Railway Companies will not charge these excessive rates, but I am not assured of that. The late Mr. Grierson was one of the ablest of railway managers, a fair, and honest, and honourable man; but he distinctly announced as the guiding principle for railway rates was this, "Let the traffic pay as much as it will bear." This being the acknowledged guiding principle, what have we at these wayside stations in rural districts where there is no competition for the traffic? We have the maximum rates, plus the short distance clauses, plus the station terminals, the service terminals, and everything else, altogether amounting to a rate the company will have the power to enforce and will enforce if in their view the traffic will boar it. The principle of station terminals about which so much has been said, is one that is indefensible in its present shape. I pass by for the moment the larger aspect of the question, taking note of what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade that the decision of what is practically an inferior Court—a decision not accepted by the traders—is naturally the only decision that now is recognised, and I ask how has the figure of 1s. 6d. been reached as the fixed terminals applicable to every station for every distance and for all sorts of traffic? We have not yet been afforded any statement showing how this was arrived at, and I can only surmise that it is following the practice of the Railway Clearing House, where the companies adopt a station terminal of 1s. 6d. in their arrangements inter se for their own convenience, and that this has been blindly taken by the Board of Trade as an easy way out of the difficulty. But see how it works in large consignments of hundreds of tons and in small consignments, to have this 1s. 6d. terminal on either end. In addition to the maximum short distance clauses is it not obvious that 1s. 6d. terminal imposed on agricultural produce, butter, eggs, milk, going from station to station for short distances, that this terminal charge will lead in many cases—

The hon. Baronet is mistaken as to the charge in such cases.

I am glad to be corrected as to these terminals; but there are cases where for comparatively short distances the 1s. 6d. will be imposed as for long distances, and we have not been told the reason for this. There is a certain sweet simplicity about the arrangement that no doubt has been attractive. The farmers are strongly of opinion that the infliction of the terminal is in many cases the imposition of a new charge. This question has been so largely dealt with that I will not follow it up beyond saying that one of the objections taken the other day was this: that if Parliament passes the Bill in its present form it will seem to be a sort of indication to the Railway Companies of this kind—"You have not hitherto made charges for terminals, for return of empties, or for loading or unloading, and now these are set out as indicating charges you Lave a right to make." What farmers fuel is that practically a change is introduced, and that which was not legal before is made legal now, and may militate against the agricultural interest. There are one or two other points upon which the views of farmers are entitled to be heard. There is the question of the detention of trucks or demurrage. It has been stated as within the experience of a, farmer that he was charged a 2s. rate on this account for detaining trucks a couple of days with hay or fodder, while hay coming from Holland is allowed to remain 14 days without such charge. Now, if this can be substantiated, I think there is reason to complain. I do not know if this is considered undue preference, but I should like the Attorney General to turn his attention to this with a view of getting more clearly at the law of demurrage; it is by no means so clear as traders desire it should be. The rates on perishables by passenger trains are directly against the interests of small traders, and then there is another point upon which the farming interest complain, that there is no distinction made in the carriage of fat and lean cattle, the rate being the same for both. They also complain of the charge for the cleaning of trucks. It has never been paid before, and they contend that there is no reason because Parliament has for the sake of preventing the spread of disease imposed upon Railway Companies the duty of keeping cattle trucks white and clean, that the charge should straightway be shifted on to the shoulders of the farmer. On the carriage of manure much might be said. Owing to the peculiar arrangement of the Schedule, large classes of manure which it is to the public interest—for everything that contributes to fertilising and improving the cultivation of the soil is of public interest—large classes of manure will be subject to an excssive rate. As a matter of public policy, everything that has to do with the cultivation and distribution of food should be considered and rates should be imposed to improve distribution, and a good case has been made out for asking the Railway Companies to make further modifications. Speaking on behalf of the agricultural classes, we have no desire to despoil the Railway Companies, nor do we believe in the possibility of that despoilment. There was an article in the Economist the other day, in which the writer, after setting out the estimate of the companies that they would be subjected to an enormous loss, divided among eight or nine leading companies, of £380,000, proved by the clearest figures, and taking their own basis for calculation, that the loss could not be more than a quarter per cent on their dividend. This upon their own figures, upon which they are not likely to have erred. I do not deny for a moment that in many particulars this proposed legislation is very acceptable. It is the outcome of prolonged inquiry, and it effects a compromise between the traders on the one hand and the companies on the other. I, for one, should be most glad that differences should be put an end to, provided always we could secure such modifications as we have a right to ask. I should like to have heard a little more from the right hon. Gentleman as to the details of the concessions. He stated that the companies were in many cases being allowed the benefit of station terminals in return for largely reduced conveyance rates. But the trades of England wish to know the instances in which the rates have been reduced, and to whom the benefit has been given of being allowed to charge station terminals. The Joint Committee to whom the Bill is to be referred has before it a task of great difficulty. They have to act as a Court of Appeal from the opinion expressed by the Board of Trade after a prolonged inquiry of 85 days. I trust that, to prevent undue labour, the Committee may come to an agreement with regard to the points that are to be fought. I know that on some points the interests of the agriculturists and traders will be clearly defined and will be well placed before the Committee of both Houses. But I do trust, in the interests of all concerned, that we are approaching the time when this question may come to an end; but that can only be by those who go before the Committee determining to bring it to an end. If, however, they go with the intention of re-opening every question discussed before the Committee of Inquiry and the Board of Trade, then it will be hopeless and endless. I sin- cerely hope that the points will be confined within the narrowest possible compass. It is a misfortune that the appeal in the case of Hall has not yet been decided, for it would possibly reverse the decision of the Queen's Bench. I regret, too, that the Returns promised by the President of the Board of Trade, of the actual rates of Railway Companies, have not yet been presented, for I think they would have been useful to us in this discussion. Altogether the case is one of extraordinary intricacy and importance, and those on whose behalf I have spoken think they have a right to have their objections heard and considered.

Sir, I think the House will arrive at a just conclusion as to the proper mode of dealing with this Bill and other Bills now before the House, by recalling the circumstances which led to their introduction. The Railway Rates Committee of 1881, appointed to investigate the complaints of traders, and especially of farmers, who alleged that they were overcharged for short distances on noncompetitive lines, ascertained that those complaints were well founded. In defence, the Railway Companies asserted that they were entitled to make an indefinite charge for station terminals. It was clearly shown before the Committee that in respect of long distance and non-competitive traffic the companies were not exceeding their maximum rates; and that the maximum rates in such cases were practically valueless. The Railway Companies could not charge anything like the maximum rates. The addition of station terminals provided by the Bill will have the effect of making maximum rates for short distance traffic equally valueless.

The hon. Member does not understand the Bill. It reduces the maximum rates for short distances in respect of non-competitive traffic.

I am quite willing to admit the rates may be lower, but it has been shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury that with the addition of station terminals the maximum for hay would be higher than it was before. And in regard to milk, the hon. Member for Crewe has shown that no benefit would result. Looking at the tables I find that the maximum rates for the lower kinds of fish, irrespective of station terminals, is £8 a ton from Forfarshire to London, while the existing rate for salmon is £4 a ton. I put it to anyone whether advantage will result from fixing maximum rates which the Railway Companies find it impossible to charge. These proposals, instead of redressing the grievances of the farmers, will have the effect of binding the burden on their shoulders. I do not think that this House intended by the Railway and Canal Act, 1888, to give the Railway Companies power to exact higher rates, but cases have been instanced in this Debate showing that farmers and others interested in short-distance traffic will not be in the least benefited by this Bill, but will have the grievances of which they complain imposed upon them under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. The question of station terminals in past times has been decided by the Courts of Law in favour of the traders. But the companies depend upon the recent decision in the case of "Hall." Traders are anxious to have a decision upon the point, because it is the keystone of the whole position with regard to short-distance traffic. The case of "Hall" was decided against the companies by the Railway Commissioners—a common sense tribunal, appointed by this House to consider railway questions. The traders carried that case to a division of the Court of Queen's Bench, hoping ultimately to carry it to the Court of Appeal so as to obtain an authoritative decision of the law, but a technical defect in the Judicature Act prevented the appeal. But so certain were they that the point at issue was an essential element in the question that they raised another case, that of "Sowerby v. The Great Northern Railway Company." The Railway Commissioners considered themselves bound by the decision given in the case of "Hall," and decided accordingly. An appeal has been taken against that decision of the Railway Commissioners, to the High Court of Appeal, and I am informed by the solicitor in charge of the case that it may be heard next Monday week. It seems to me that it is of the greatest importance that the House should have before it an authoritative decision on the question of terminals by the Court of Appeal before it pronounces a definite opinion on these Bills. I do not suppose that the President of the Board of Trade desires to increase the legal powers of the Railway Companies. When the decision of the Court of Appeal has been given the House will be in a better position to judge whether the proposals embodied in this Schedule and in the various Provisional Order Bills before it ought to receive its approval. In any case, the Committee cannot sit on these Bills until after Easter, when, as I have already said, a decision in the case of "Sowerby v. the Great Northern Railway Company" may be expected. Therefore, I submit that we ought to defer these Bills for further consideration after Easter. If the decision is against the traders, we shall have to try and make the best of the Bills; but if in their favour it would be a very extraordinary circumstance that this House, which has been appealed to to protect the farmers, should, previous to the anticipated decision, legalise the grievance of which they complain I therefore respectfully move that this Debate be now adjourned for the purpose I have indicated, and I think it would onle be a fair and considerate mode of treating the representations of the farmers on this subject if Her Majesty's Government would assent to this course.

I beg. Sir, to second the Motion.

If the object of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was merely to move the Adjournment of the Debate, I would suggest, with all deference, that he might have made that proposal without speaking at the length he has; but, as the Motion has been made, I would ask the House to consider the position in which the matter now stands. It is obvious that the Joint Committee of the two Houses to which these Bills are to be referred, and to which the Act of Parliament says we should refer them, will have a very long and difficult task before them. If they are able to complete their task, and if the Bills to be sent to them are to become law within the limits of the present Session, that is about as much as will be possible. I submit to the House that if the course suggested by the hon. Member be adopted it would be doing its best to render it utterly impossible that these Bills, whether the House may approve of them or not, should become law this Session. I would further submit to those who object to the Bills that they will have ample opportunity when the Bills have been reported by the Joint Committee of discussing the present question over again, and of pressing their objections to the point of opposing their further progress. The hon. Member opposite has told us that in a fortnight or so he expects a certain decision will be given by the Court of Appeal on this question. All I can say is that he is a very sanguine man. He seems to forget that the law is full of delays, and that the decision he anticipates may be deferred beyond Easter; but, at any rate, if that decision is not given by the time the Bills are returned to us by the Joint Committee, it is still possible that the statements made to-night can be repeated. Therefore, I submit that hon. Members will be in no worse position than they are in at present if they allow us to proceed with the Bills at once. If they decline to do this they certainly will prevent our being able to pass these Bills into law, and thus may defeat the very object which they themselves have in view.

I will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) not to press his Motion for Adjournment. I have listened to a considerable part of this Debate. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, but was unable to hear that of the President of the Board of Trade in consequence of my being engaged elsewhere. I may, however, say that while I agree with a good deal of what has been said, I think that the question under discussion is essentially one for the consideration of the Committee. I know of no question more difficult or more complicated, or which requires more careful investigation and judgment than that which it is now proposed to submit to the Joint Committee, and I can only express the hope that these Bills will be sent before the Committee as soon as possible. After all, this is only a preliminary stage, and not the final one. The Committee will have power to deal with all the questions that have been raised as to terminals and maximum rates, and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken will be able to appear before the Committee and give evidence, as was the case in 1881. It is most important that the work should be begun as soon as possible, as the inquiry is likely to be a long, laborious, and anxious inquiry. With regard to the legal decision spoken of by the hon Member (Mr. Barclay), if that is given in a week or even in a month, or at almost any time this Session, it will be in sufficient time for the Committee. Complaints have been made as to the way in which the work has been done; but I must say that I give the utmost credit to the noble Lord who presided over the Inquiry, and to Mr. Courtenay Boyle, of the Board of Trade, for the very admirable manner in which they performed their task. I never knew a case in which a heavy and laborious inquiry such as that in which they were engaged was conducted with greater skill, knowledge, and ability, than the inquiry conducted by those two gentlemen. I ask the House to let these Bills go into Committee as soon as possible, because the whole of the questions affecting the interests of farmers and small traders—questions of station terminals and other terminals and maximum charges—can be dealt with by the Joint Committee. That Committee will doubtless be a strong Joint Committee of the two Houses, and this House should bear in mind that it is not likely to appoint on its Committee a number of gentlemen who are more favourable to one interest than the other. It will, doubtless, be a Committee that will do justice to all parties, and I think it is to the interests of this House and of all who care about the subject that these Bills should be sent to that Committee as soon as possible. I would point out, further, with regard to the question of rates—

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that this is a Motion for Adjournment.

I was only pointing out that the Board of Trade exercise a very important influence in these matters. I hope the House will let the Bills go to a Committee as soon as possible.

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion?

No, Sir; I press the Adjournment.

This is a very important question, and it seems to me that we are in danger of not being able adequately to discuss it by the intervention of this Motion for Adjournment. As you, Sir, pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, he was unable to deal with points having a most important bearing on the questions at issue. I am in the same position. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Motion for Adjournment; but if he does, teat it will not meet with support, and we shall be able to resume the discussion after the Division.

I was strongly impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Forfarshire, and agreed with him that there was good reason for the Adjournment of the Debate; but after the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. I feel convinced the more desirable course to pursue would be to send the Bills quickly to a Committee. Therefore, I hope the Motion for an adjournment will be withdrawn.

After the expressions of opinion to which I have listened, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

I am obliged to trouble the House with a very few words. I represent a constituency where the agricultural depression has reached its lowest depth. There the farmers manage to eke out a pre-carious existence by sending milk to the London markets. If this Bill passes into law that trade will be knocked on the head. An hon. Member opposite has rather understated the case. Now, a 12- gallon tin of milk can be sent from Essex to London for 6d., but this Bill will make the charge 1s. 5d.

No.

The Great Eastern Bill will enable the charge to be raised 140 per cent., to say nothing of the cost of returning empties. At the present moment there are absolutely no terminal charges, but if the Bill becomes law there will be a terminal charge of 6d. for each 12-gallon tin. The result will be ruinous to the Essex farmers, and London will be supplied with iced milk from Holland or else will have to depend on London milk produced under the most adverse and deleterious circumstances. The Essex farmers may be divided into two categories: those who are ruined and those who will be ruined by the passing of this Bill, for it will prove the last straw on the back of the agricultural camel. No doubt we shall have the usual procession of railway directors who will tell us that these charges are only a matter of form. But the President of the Board of Trade, in the Debate on the Cheap Freights Bill, admitted that the tendency of Railway Companies was, in course of time, to reach the maximum charges; and if such rates as these are put into the Bill my constituents will refuse to look on them as a matter of form.

I do not rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, nor to detain the House, except for a few minutes. We have heard a great deal about injury to the agricultural interest, but little has been said with reference to the hardships that will be inflicted on commercial interests. Looking to the district which I represent, I fail to see the justice of the proposals made by the Board of Trade. The Great Western Railway Company will be enabled, if they are carried, to charge on the South Wales portion of its system 35 per cent more than it charges on any other portion of its system. Why should that be allowed? It may be said the maximum rates were originally fixed so high because the railway was made at a time when the district was not so fully developed as it has since become; it is now one of the most important portions of the Great Western system, and there is no longer any justification for continuing an exceptional rate. I admit that these details might be better discussed in Committee, but it must be borne in mind that if this Bill goes to a Committee upstairs as proposed the only other opportunity the House itself will have of discussing it will be on the Report and Third Reading stages, and it, therefore, behoves us now to bring forward those points which we deem to be of first importance. We all desire to acknowledge the great industry and ability displayed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in the conduct of this most onerous inquiry; but, at the same time, human beings sometimes form opinions which the great majority of their fellows cannot agree with, and some such decisions have, I believe, been come to by those gentlemen. Reference has been made to the hardships likely to be entailed by the short-distance clause. In my district that clause will have most serious effects. I know of several instances in which not only a six-mile, but a 12-mile limit will be imposed. I could name a case in which the Railway Companies would be able to charge 12 miles for a 3½ mile journey. These are matters which will have to be thorougly sifted, and I, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. If he should press it to a Division and fail to carry it he would, I hold, defeat the very object he has in view.

I will not detain the House by going into the various points which have been raised; I wish to enter my protest in the firmest way I am able against that part of the Bill which deals with terminals. I am disappointed to find anything of the sort in the Bill. I had thought that after what occurred two years ago that question was dead and buried. But there is one detail in the Bill of some importance. The Railway Companies ask to be enabled to charge 1s. for every truck that is lime-washed or cleaned. I believe that that is an innovation.

It is included in the ordinary charges now.

The same reply might be given to every criticism. I entirely disagree with the proposal to enable the companies to make it a special charge. It might just as reasonably be said that a person who rides in an omnibus or in a railway carriage ought to contribute to the dusting and cleaning of those vehicles. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade, who is in charge of this Bill, contained advances of a conciliatory nature, but my experience has taught me that, after speeches of this kind, when the Committee stage is reached, the right hon. Gentlemen who seem so conciliatory on the Second Reading, stiffen their backs against pressure, and we cannot induce them to bend to any extent to our wishes.

My hon. Friend forgets that the tribunal to which this question will be referred is entirely beyond my control.

That is what I was coming to. I have to decide whether I will vote with my Party or with the hon. Member opposite. If the Government will give me an assurance that they, as a Government, will use no undue influence in the Committee, then I will vote for the Second Reading with great pleasure. If Government influence is to be used in respect to the question of terminals and other charges, the traders and agriculturists will have very little chance of getting their way. If, however, the Committee are to deal with these questions with a free hand, then I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

It is an important point that the hon. Member should know that the Committee will be distinctly a judicial tribunal, absolutely free from any influence on the part of the Government. My sole duty, when the Provisional Orders come back from the Committee, will be to carry out the decisions of the Committee.

I should like to draw attention to the milk question. The present policy is to get rid of the system of keeping cows in the cellars of London and other large towns—a system very apt to produce disease, for not only does it make the place unhealthy but the milk produced under such cir- cumstances is far from good. Yet the effect of the passing of this Bill would be to encourage that system by making it impossible for farmers to supply London or other large cities with milk at a profit. I never in my life heard of terminals being charged for returned empties. I call that quite a new phase of railway extortion. I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture will give us his views on this subject.

I only wish before a decision is taken to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whose fairness and anxious attention to this Bill we all desire to acknowledge, that the question of terminals will go up to the Committee with his strongly expressed opinion in favour of terminals. I believe that those who represent agricultural constituencies have no objection to the recognition of the principle of some extra payment in respect of short distances, but we strongly object to the companies getting besides an additional allowance for such distances the power of charging terminals. Our complaint is that small traders in isolated districts are taken advantage of by the Railway Companies, and therefore the maximum ought to be kept so low as to protect these traders. I join with the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea in hoping that the Amendment will be withdrawn, as a Division would prejudice our case before the Committee

I think that the sooner these Bills are sent to the Joint Committee the better it will be for all concerned. I can only say, with regard to the high rates contained in the Schedules, that hitherto traders in the South of Scotland have escaped these very high rates. We now send milk to London at 1½d. a gallon without any terminal charges. It is most important that these advantages should be continued, as, according to the charges in the Schedule, the cost of carriage will be 1s. 3d. a gallon—a considerable difference for the London consumer to sustain. I am in no way antagonistic to the interests of the Railway Companies. I know that theirs are enormous undertakings in which many persons have embarked their savings. But still justice ought to be done, and therefore I advocate the sending of these Bills to a Joint Committee as soon as possible.

I rise to express my views in response to the appeals which have been addressed to me from the other side of the House. Hon. members representing agricultural constituencies seem to be under a misapprehension. It is said that no terminals are charged at the present time; but it is forgotten that Railway Companies can charge anything they like for the carriage of milk, and they need not carry milk at all unless they like to to do so. Now it is proposed to make it obligatory to carry the milk, and the charges are limited to a certain maximum. As far as the Government proposals go, they are clearly a gain to the farmer. There may be objections of detail; but those who have such objections to urge, should make their voices heard in the Committee. I hope that they will do so, and their representations will receive every consideration. Expressing my opinion as an individual, I think it to their interest to send these Bills to a Committee.

Must those who wish to raise these points appear at their own expense by counsel before the Select Committee, or will it be at the expense of the Government?

Arrangements will be made whereby all Petitions presented within live clear days of the sitting of the Committee will be heard. Further arrangements are already in progress between the Chambers of Agriculture and other bodies that all these interests shall be represented.

With the permission of the House I will state the reasons why I think I may now withdraw the Amendment. I would, first, ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that he will give us an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Committee on some favourable opportunity, and before any decision is taken in the matter. I understand from the assurances which have been given to the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. Gray) that the Government is going to give an absolutely free hand to the Joint Committee, which will not only have an opportunity of discussing the amount of the maximum rates, and of the terminals, but will also be able to say whether terminals shall be charged or not. I hope the fact of my withdrawing the Amendment now will not be taken by the House as indicating any abandonment of the position I have taken up on the question, and that it will not be supposed that the House of Commons has come to a decision in favour of terminals, when, on the contrary, there is a great disposition to vote against them—a disposition of which we do not avail ourselves because we prefer to let the Committee have a free hand in dealing with the question.

I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether petitioners will be heard individually by the Committee, or whether they will have to appear by counsel?

In the ordinary way.

Why should not a petitioner be entitled to state his own case? An individual trader would have to incur enormous expense if he appeared by counsel.

Petitioners will have precisely the same right as they have before an ordinary private Committee of this House.

This is an important matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether individual traders will be able to state their ease before the Committee or not?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever sat on a Private Bill Committee, but the same course will be pursued before this Committee as before an ordinary Private Bill Committee.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to do anything, and, if so, what, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Forestry?

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

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board why there was no "Index to the Population Tables" compiled for the Census of 1881, similar to that for 1871, as comprised in Parliamentary Return [C. 676 II]; and whether in view of the great utility of such an Index to all persons having occasion to consult the Population Tables, he will give instructions that such an Index shall be prepared on the lines of such Return for the approaching Census?

I have made inquiry on the subject, and the Index referred to was, I am informed, omitted on the ground of time and cost. I agree as to the great utility of a full Index, and I will arrange that such an Index shall be prepared in connection with the next Census Returns.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether the Charity Commissioners have yet received a Report from the accountant who was to inquire into matters connected with the Lambeth Charities; and, if so, whether the Local Authorities and others interested in the Charities can have a copy of the Report?

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

In the absence of my hon. Friend (Mr. DEASY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government engineers have approved of the making of certain projected roads, and the completion and construction of piers in Achill Island; and why the works have not been commenced? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the distress alleged to exist in Achill; that many of the inhabitants are on the brink of starvation; whether he is aware that only a small proportion of the Islanders have had relief work given them, these being obliged, in numerous instances, to travel very long-distances to and from work; that the supply of seed potatoes has run short; that many of them have been found to be rotten, and that in many cases the good ones have been consumed for food; and whether any steps will be taken to remedy the alleged faults in relief of distress in Achill?

With regard to these two questions, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday to a similar question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Darlington.

What piers are being-made in connection with the Island of Achill?

None.

None! The people are to be allowed to starve and die.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that a recent Fiar's Court for Wigtownshire fixed the supposed price for Bore (or Bear) for crop and year 1890, although this variety of barley has for a considerable period ceased to be grown in the county; whether it is lawful for the Fiar's Court to fix a price for Bere where no Bere is grown in the county; and whether the parish minister is entitled to claim the price of barley instead?

It is the case that a Court for Wigtownshire struck a price for Bere for the crop 1890, thus following the practice in that county for many years, with the exception of the year 1889. I am informed that the quantity of Bere grown in this county is very small, but that it is not known to have altogether ceased. The question of whether or not to include a product in the Fiar's prices appears to be one for the Jury, who return their verdict on the evidence or their own proper knowledge. If Bere is an inferior quality of barley, the minister would, I think, be entitled to claim the highest Fiars prices for that article.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the claims of those Inland Revenue officers who are employed in such extra departmental duties as the collection of agricultural statistics for the Board of Trade to some remuneration for their services, in addition to their salaries received for their services in the Department in which they are regularly employed?

From the 1st of September last an increase in the scale of salaries was granted to the Excise Service, involving an additional annual cost of over £30,000, and on maximum salaries such cost would amount to something like £50,000. Prior to this a sum of about £11,000 was annually paid for the work connected with the agricultural statistics; but when suggesting the grant of the new scale the Board of Inland Revenue recommended that this amount should no longer be paid to the officers, and that no extra remuneration whatever (except expenses out of pocket) should be granted to them for the Agricultural Returns work, which was to be regarded as forming part of their ordinary duties. In some cases no doubt the change will, in the first year or two, involve a relatively small loss to some officers, but such loss can bear no comparison with the gain, for the new scale gives larger increments and improved prospects. The increase in salaries, moreover, counts towards superannuation, whereas the awards for Agricultural Returns work did not. It must also be borne in mind that, in as far as it can be shown that the collection of Returns caused an increase of expense in travelling or for subsistence during prolonged absence from home, it will be met by a corresponding increase of payment on these accounts, whereas formerly the increased cost was paid by the officer out of his award. The Government regret that after the position of the Excise officers has been so generously dealt with a leaflet, such as probably prompted the present question, has been issued by members of the Service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the employment of unskilled labour on that part of the Collooney and Claremorris Railway, in the Swynford Union, is about to cease; and what further provision the Government intend to make with a view to provide work for the destitute in this the most congested district in Ireland?

On some parts of the line of the railway mentioned, the earthworks are being gradually completed. On other parts, however, of it there is still a good deal to be done, and arrangements are in progress for concentrating the labour at these points. In this way it is hoped that consider- able employment will be given for another month or so. Should the necessity arise, it is proposed to start other relief works in the district.

May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has in no way answered the first paragraph of the question, which is, whether the employment of unskilled labour is about to cease?

I answered the question quite fully.

I really regret to have to meet these impertinent answers——

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Postmaster General on what grounds is payment in full for Sunday duty in the Dublin Post Office withheld from hall porters, bag officers, yard officers, postmen, and labourers, and only paid to sorters; if it is the fact that a Treasury Minute was issued last July, 1890, for payment in full for all grades performing Sunday duty; and will he have an order made to the Dublin authorities to likewise pay the officers referred to above, the same as has been granted to sorters dating from last July?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that by Treasury Minute of July last, payment for Sunday duty was authorised in the case of sorting clerks and telegraphists. No such authority has been granted as regards other classes of Post Office servants, whose case is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction is felt, both in Melbourne (Australia) and this country, at the frequent miscarriage of letters to and fro; whether complaints have been made to him from time to time on the subject; and whether he can assure the House that measures are being taken to ensure the regular and safe despatch and delivery of letters in the future?

Beyond the occasional isolated cases of loss or delay which necessarily occur when a large mass of correspondence has to be dealt with, I have received no complaints of the miscarriage of letters between this country and Melbourne. But if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will cause inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the serious disturbances which are reported by telegraph to have occurred quite recently near Van, and the attack which is said to have been made upon the British Consulate in that city?

No information has been received of these reports.

Have the Foreign Office made any inquiry?

As I have already explained to the House, while a newspaper correspondent telegraphs home news of this kind, Her Majesty's Representative will, in ordinary course, inquire into the facts, but does not telegraph the occurrence unless immediate action is required. If anything extraordinary occurs we shall hear of it in due course.

But the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Are not the Foreign Office in the habit, when reports of this kind are made, of inquiring whether our Representative has received information?

No, Sir; when sensational telegrams appear we do not necessarily make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain from the Coroner for Westminster, and state whether the name "Francis Charles Hastings Russell" was or was not used in administering the oath to the jury at the inquest upon the late Duke of Bedford; and, if not, what name or names were used?

I can add nothing to the answer which I gave last night, and which is perfectly clear and explicit—that the jury were sworn to the full name and title of the deceased person.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the name I gave yesterday was not what was commonly called the full name?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is a much greater master of English than I am. I cannot conceive that the full name "Francis Charles Hastings Russell" can mean anything but "Francis Charles Hastings Russell."

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that that is not the name of the deceased?

That is a totally different question, which the hon. Member has not yet put to me.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that the sacks in which the supply of seed potatoes, which are to be sold at 1s. a stone, sent to Ballinore were found to contain a considerable quantity of clay, and that many of the potatoes were utterly unfit for seed; and, whether, in view of the poverty of the district, and the absolute necessity of the potato crop being sown this month, the Government will take immediate steps to ensure that a sufficient supply of sound potato seed is supplied to the people, and at a price they can afford to pay?

The district named cannot be identified.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the resolution forwarded to him by the Grand Jury of the County Clare, strongly recommending the making and maintenance of a light railway between Ennis and Scariff, has been received, and whether any steps will be taken to carry out the recommendation?

The resolution referred to has not been received. I may, however, say that, having regard to the large sum of money already provided by Parliament for the construction of railways in Ireland, I do not consider this a case in which. Government could ask for a special grant from Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what relief works are intended to be instituted in the Kanturk Union for the relief of labourers in the district?

The condition of Kanturk Union is receiving careful attention. It has not so far been found necessary to open relief works there.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentlemen who are under the Poor Law Board have made repeated visits and reported unfavourably upon the condition of the labourers in this district?

I have said the condition of the Union is receiving attention.

If it is clearly shown that the people are in a very bad condition—starving condition—will something be done?

If relief works are necessary they will be started.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what alterations have recently been made in the system of payment by the War Office to Army agents, and what are the precise duties which Army agents will in future perform for the War Office, and on what terms their remuneration is to be fixed?

The alterations which will take effect from the 1st of January next are that the firms now acting as Army agents will issue the pay of officers without any charge upon the public for their commission. Messrs. Cox pay the regiments of Guards and distribute the estates of deceased soldiers. These duties it is proposed, for the public convenience, to leave in their hands. The remuneration has not yet been fixed, but it will probably amount to about £1,800 a year, as against £21,000 paid to the agents for their present services.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the project of a ship canal, connecting the Forth and Clyde, as proposed by Mr. Charles John Wilson, of Hawick, at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce; whether he has seen the Report of Messrs. Crouch and Hogg, of Glasgow, on a direct route from Yoker to Grangemouth, through a rich mineral district; and whether the Board of Trade can give any facilities for testing the practicability of the scheme, its probable cost, the prospects of traffic, and the likelihood of its commercial success?

I have seen the pamphlet to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not know what facilities could be afforded by the Government which are not at the disposal of those who are interested in such a scheme.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is intended to give effect this year to the oft-repeated assurances made to the officers of the Scottish Fishery Board that some increase would be made to their salaries in view of the greatly increased duties which have been laid upon them of recent years?

The Secretary for Scotland has been in communication with the Scottish Fishery Board on the question of the salaries of the fishery officers. The final letter from the Board was received on the 26th February last, and the Secretary for Scotland is now in a position to lay his proposals before the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the information in his possession on which he bases his statement in the Return on On-Licences, "that in many cases, for which the Magistrates' clerks are not responsible, the registers do not contain accurate records as to the ownership of licensed houses;" who are the persons who are responsible for the alleged defects in the existing registers; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure that in future the registers shall be properly kept?

The headnote was prefixed to the Return in consequence of my having reason to believe that the provisions of Section 36 of the Licensing Acts, 1874, are not strictly observed. It often happens that changes of ownership, after a licence is first granted, are not stated either by the applicants for renewal or by the new owners, and that the name of a person who has ceased to be the owner continues on the register. I propose to issue a circular to the Licensing Justices calling their attention to the matter.

The Act of 1872?

I think it is 1874.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if his attention has been called to the seizure of Mrs. Mary Cathcart, of Wootton Hall, Stafford; if he will disclose the name of the Magistrate who with Drs. Bond and Savage are alleged to have signed a certificate for her confinement in a private lunatic asylum; if he will state when and where the doctors examined Mrs. Cathcart; and if he will call upon the Lunacy Commissions to disclose the name of the person or persons by whose authority they made such examination and signed such certificate?

I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that no Magistrate signed a certificate in this case; but Mr. Pennington, a Justice for London, appointed under the Lunacy Act, 1890, made an order on February 28 for the confinement in the Priory, a private asylum, upon certificates signed by Drs. Bond and Savage, who examined the lady at the asylum on the 25th inst., by authority of her husband, under whose urgency order she had been taken there on the 24th inst.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what relief works have been started in the famine-stricken district of South Castlehaven and Toehead; how many people have been employed, and what sum of money has been disbursed in such relief; and how much of this money is being paid to relief agents, and how much to the people requiring relief?

Relief works, consisting of road making, have been proceeding in the district mentioned since 10th February last. Between that date and 28th February the daily average number of persons employed on those works was 72. The amount paid in wages was £68 1s. 11d. On 28th February the number of persons employed bad increased to 94.

Can the Chief Secretary say how much of this money has been paid to relief agents, and how much to the persons requiring relief?

I am peculiarly unfortunate this evening in my endeavour to make myself understood by the hon. Gentleman. I believe all this money has been given to persons to whom it is intended relief should be given.

How soon can I get an answer?

Order, order!

I will put it down for Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the works under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act will be commenced in the Tuam Union, and if he can now name the works to be executed, or else the parishes or districts in which they will be undertaken?

To correct some possible misunderstanding on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, I would point out that there is no Statute-such as that mentioned in the question. Works will very shortly be commenced in the Tuam Union. They will serve the Electoral Divisions of Dunmore, Addergoole, Milltown, Kiltenan, Foxhall, Kilshanny, Belclare, and part of Clare-Tuam.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps have been taken for selecting and nominating a member of the Royal Commission on Vaccination in the place of Mr. Brad-laugh; and whether, having regard to the importance of securing throughout the inquiry, so far as may be, an adequate representation of those out of whose complaint the Commission has arisen, he will advise the immediate nomination of a suitable parson to fill the vacancy holding the general opinions on the question held by the late Mr. Bradlaugh?

I do not know what opinions Mr. Bradlaugh held on the subject of vaccination at the time of his death, but I had confidence in his independence and judgment, and felt he might be relied upon to give full weight to the evidence produced before the Commission. I have been in communication with more than one gentleman recently with a view to filling the vacancy caused by Mr. Bradlaugh's death, but am not yet in a position to make any announcement to the House on the subject.

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. Bradlaugh was accepted as a representative of those who are opposed to compulsory vaccination?

Yes; I am aware it was the case, and I feel that in selecting some one in his place I am bound to give weight to that consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in neighbourhoods where the post offices are closed at or about 8 o'clock in the evening many licensed victuallers are in the habit of obliging their customers by selling them postage stamps; and whether the licensed victuallers are liable to a penalty for selling postage stamps to their customers after the post offices are closed, or, in cases where there is no post offices in the immediate neighbourhood, at any time during the day?

My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General has asked me to answer this question. He is not aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers. No one is entitled to sell stamps without first taking out a licence.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a Bill to extend "The Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884," so as to make its provisions applicable to elections of Vestry Clerks and other parochial officials who are elected by open Parochial Vestry or poll of a parish?

I am not prepared to introduce such a Bill. As far as my information goes, there is no demand for it. In the event of a District Councils Bill being introduced, the matter will necessarily receive consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Copyright Bill has actually passed the Congress of the United States, and whether it contains the provision that American copyright shall only be granted to books deposited before publication with the Librarian of Congress, printed from type set within the limits of the United States, or from plates made there from, and that, during the existence of such copyright, the importation of any such book or edition thereof not made from type set within the limits of the United States is prohibited; and, in such case, bearing in mind the renewed declaration of the Prime Minister on 4th March on the Associated Chambers of Commerce that English remonstrance on foreign commercial policy pre- Judicial to British trade at home and abroad is wholly futile under the present fiscal system, as we have no means of supporting the remonstrance, for giving any advantage in return for favourable concessions—what definite domestic action, as distinguished from remonstrance with a foreign Power Her Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent injury being done to industry and labour in the United Kingdom, and the probable disemployment of many workpeople concerned in the book trade, to restrain the transfer to America of the productions of the works of British authors desirous of securing American copyright by the use in the United States of American type or plates, and simultaneously enjoying copyright in Great Britain and Ireland?

We have no official knowledge of the measure, and only know from the newspapers that it has been passed. It is quite impossible for me to express any opinion respecting its provisions until we see them. I do not know what changes may have been made in the Bill during its passage through Congress, and I am, therefore, quite unable to indicate what would be the policy or action of the Government with respect to it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Motion will be made for the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Town Holdings?

I hope to put a notice as to the re-appointment of the Town Holdings Committee on the Paper within the next few days.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that out of 1,084,361 persons employed in mills and factories in the United Kingdom as many as 656,549 are females, the Government will consider the advisability of appoint- ing one or more women members of the Royal Commission on Labour?

I have no knowledge as to the accuracy of the figures the hon. Gentleman quotes in his question, but I have to say the Government will carefully consider all suggestions that may be made to them as to the constitution of the Royal Commission on Labour.

The figures, I may mention, are to be found in the Blue Book.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the jurisdiction at Quarter Sessions of the existing Middlesex Magistrates is reserved to them by "The Local Government Act, 1888," as fully as if resident in that county, though they may be residing actually in the county of London?

I am advised that Middlesex Justices are not disqualified from acting as Justices in that county merely by the fact that they reside not in Middlesex, but in the county of London. If any reasonable legal doubt exists on the point, the matter can be tested in the Courts of Law.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business he proposes to take on Monday and next week?

I think we shall begin with the Irish Supplementary Vote on Monday. I hope we may get the Navy Supplementary Votes to-night, but if not we shall proceed with them on Monday following with the Irish Supplementary Vote—or, as my right hon. Friend suggests, if the Navy Votes take any considerable time, it might be well to postpone the Irish Vote until Thursday. But Supply-Supplementary Votes will be the business next week.

The right hon. Gentleman will permit me to remind him that there was rather an understanding that due notice should be given as to when the Irish Vote was intended to be taken; many Irish Members are interested.

Well, we will say definitely that Irish Supplementary Estimates will be taken on Thursday.

This I think is an opportune time to ask the House to consider the present system of administration and legislation for the different parts of the Empire, and to consider, not in a Party spirit, a possible solution of the problem of devolution. I think the subject ought to be considered and might be considered outside the spirit of Party, and in that view I find the leaders of different Parties agree. The noble Lord the leader of the Tory Party especially I may mention. He, in his speech at Newport five years ago, claimed that it had always been the contention of the Tory Party that people in their own localities should govern themselves, and that they should be encouraged to take an active interest in the administration of their own affairs. He pointed out that there might be weaknesses in the Local Authorities, but the wisdom of a largo Central Authority would correct the failures and mistakes of each. It was the sort of speech we might expect from an advocate of federalism. Three years ago the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Lord Hartington) spoke upon the subject, and said that in addition to County Boards perhaps some larger authorities—perhaps National Local Authorities—should be erected for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) proposed a scheme at the same time very much on the same lines. I think under these circumstances, since all parties in the House have expressed themselves more or less favourably towards the principle of Home Rule, we might be able to consider the question on its merits and quite apart from Party feeling. I will try to do so, and more from the standpoint of Scotland and Ireland, because there it may be said to be a burning question, and the people are not satisfied with things as they are. There may be satisfaction in England or not, but here it depends upon the English representatives themselves. Out of some 670 members there are only about 200 representatives from outside England, so that England has more than two-thirds of the entire representation in the House, and any particular question can be determined by English Members. That there is discontent in Ireland I suppose everyone will admit. You have Ireland governed and administered from Dublin Castle, and the great bulk of the people of Ireland detest Dublin Castle rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham at the time when he proposed his scheme of Home Rule all round talked of the administration of Dublin Castle as similar to the rule of the Austrians in Italy, or the Russians in Poland; but I will not go so far as that, I will content myself with saying that the great bulk of the Irish people detest the kind of administration they get from Dublin Castle. In Scotland we are, perhaps, the most democratic nation in Europe. Thanks to John Knox we have had national education for centuries, and our Presbyterian form of religion tends to democracy, yet in this democratic country we are governed by Boards continually, and by the irresponsibility of Parliament House. Now, I think the Scottish people are tired of Parliament House and this administration by Boards. I hope, from what I have heard from the First Lord of the Treasury, that we shall be saved from the crowning indignity of not only having our administration conducted by these Boards, but our Local Legislation proceeding from them also. There is not much feeling in favour of Parliament House, it has ceased to be popular—from being Presbyterian it has become Episcopalian; it used to be Liberal, it has now become Unionist and Tory. I think the Scottish people are no more in favour of Parliament House administration than the Irish people are in favour of the rule of Dublin Castle. The discontent in Ireland is of old standing, but the Scottish discontent is a thing of yesterday. There has been discontent for the last 20 years to my knowledge, and a disposition towards Home Rule for the purpose of compelling the Imperial Parliament to consider Scottish matters, and seeing that time is given for proper attention to Scottish business. There was a time when Scottish Members thought if they had a Secretary for Scotland to take charge of Scottish business, as the Home Secretary has charge of English internal matters, and the Irish Secretary of Irish affairs, they might have more attention paid to the claims of Scotland. The agitation was then for a Secretary of State for Scotland, and now that we have such a Minister, and after experience of some four or five—some in the Cabinet and some outside, some in this House and some in the House of Lords—we find that things are just as bad as when we had to depend upon the Lord Advocate; and those who thought they would be content with that small reform are now compelled by the facts of the case to go much further in the direction of Home Rule. Both in Scotland and Ireland legislation is very much in sympathy with administration. The voice of Scotland and Ireland as expressed by the great bulk of the people is not considered by the Government in this House, and not considered by the great English majority by whose assistance measures are thrust upon Scotland and Ireland against the public opinion in those countries. So you have a condition of affairs that should make even right hon. Gentlemen opposite reconsider their position. With a democracy the only sound basis of law and administration is the will of the people, but where you have laws passed and administered contrary to the desires of the people, there you have a condition of things tending either to the development of anarchy, or returning to an autocratic form of Government. It is a condition of affairs utterly incompatible with democracy. But apart from any questions of this kind, in this House you have a state of congestion in public business, and we are unable to carry through the business we take upon ourselves. It is physically impossible, without sitting all the year round, for Members to find an opportunity to invite the attention of the House to subjects of the deepest interest to their constituents. Out of 200 or more notices of Private Members at the beginning of the Session some dozen find an opportunity for Second Readings on Wednesdays, and these are determined, not by their relative importance, but by the accident of the ballot, and some of the important matters are never submitted for consideration. For nine years my hon. Friend has attempted to secure some sort of right of way to the health resorts of our country, our mountains, and moors. These mountains and moors during the last 15 years have become more precious in the eyes of proprietors than arable land; they would prefer to have their crops destroyed rather than have their game disturbed. It is eight or nine years since we have tried to get a decision upon a Permissive Bill for Scotland. I do not wish to multiply illustrations; I only wish to indicate the difficulties. Irish Members have the habit of urging their claims with a persistency that has hitherto secured them an advantage as between Scotland and Ireland, and altogether the state of affairs is such that Members of all Parties are coming round to the opinion that there must be some system of devolution of business into the hands of people who know how to carry it out. We are trying Grand Committees, and there are some who are prepared to go further and establish National Committees; but I think we are practically all agreed there should be some system of devolution of business. On this side we are prepared to support a measure of Home Rule for Ireland, and I am in favour of the proposal. But the question is, what kind of Home Rule is to be given? and this is a question that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench should consider, and then say something that will shed a little more light on their proposals. We have had a Bill before us, but this the country has rejected. We hear of a modified proposal, but I think we ought to know more about it, and how the difficulties are proposed to be met. I do not think any measure for Ireland will be considered, unless those responsible for the preparation make everything clear. This vis inertiœ will never carry through any system of devolution. Upon this question of Home Rule for Ireland I think that the country has determined that, so far as it may be granted, it will not be on the lines of the 24th clause of the Home Rule Bill; that whatever may be done, Irish Members, or a portion of them, will require to remain here to take part in Imperial work. If that is the case—if they have the control of their own domestic affairs—the question naturally arises, shall they have a voice in the control of ours? If so, then probably, being a Celtic race, they will keep together and sell their vote to either side for what they can get for it; and I think nobody can object, under the circumstances, to their doing anything of the kind. We may be able to modify this; but, so far, I have not yet heard from either side any scheme that would not be anomalous. But we are not anxious about anomalies. If an anomaly is of old standing and works well, we keep it in existence; but I do not think we can create new ones. Even Conservatives will not go so far as that, although they support old anomalies. Some hon. Gentlemen say they are not prepared to put the Constitution into the melting pot; but it seems to me we are doing that; we are melting down this old Parliament and re-casting it; and the only question is, what form are we going to give to the new castings? You must see that they are suitable to the State machinery. We are told that Scotland ought not to stand in the way; that we ought to do all we can to get the Bill passed for Ireland granting Irish Home Rule; and that then it will be far easier, for the first step will be taken, to give Home Rule to Scotland. But I think it would be much easier to give Home Rule all round than to proceed by different Bills for one fraction after another. The difficulties you have to meet are such that they may be more readily met by devolving local privileges to each section of the country. So far as Scotland is concerned the difficulties are greater to English Members, for they do not understand our laws and our administration. In England and Wales you have English laws and English modes of administra- tion; in Scotland we retain our old laws, our old methods of administration, and our old terminology is much more foreign to Englishmen than is the case of Wales or Ireland. They cannot understand these things, so they run away and only return when the Whip calls them to vote against our desires. Now the question is, are we to have a form of Federal Home Rule or of Colonial Home Rule? Shall the tendency be towards federation rather than dualism, and will Ireland accept it? So far as I understand the conditions laid down Ireland would accept it. Ireland wants the control of her own domestic affairs, and I think she can get that as well under the Federal tie as under the dual system. Leading Irishmen, too, have been in favour of federalism as against the dual system. The father of the popular movement, Daniel O'Connell, began as a repealer, and fought the battle of repeal for many long years, but he died a Federalist. In one of the last letters of his published correspondence, and dated October 12, 1844, he balanced the advantages of repeal and federation. He wrote—

"Simple repealers are of opinion that a reconstituted Irish Parliament should have precisely the same power and authority as the former Irish Parliament had. Federalists, on the contrary, appear to me to require more for Ireland than simple repealers do, for besides a local Parliament having full practical local authority, Federalists require that for the consideration of Imperial questions, colonial, military, and naval questions, and the lines of foreign policy in a Federal Parliament, Ireland should have a fair share of representative power. It is but right and just to confess that in that respect Federalists would give Ireland more weight and importance in Imperial concerns than would be acquired by a policy of simple repeal. For my own part I own"—

and this is from the father of the Repeal movement—

"that since I have come to contemplate the specific differences, such as they are, between simple repeal and Federalism, I do at present feel a preference for the Federal plan, as tending more to the utility of the Irish connection with England than simple repeal."

O'Connell, then, was a Federalist. Isaac Butt, who succeeded him, was a Federalist, and the living leaders are Federalists. Mr. Parnell is a Federalist, or else he got £10,000 from Mr. Rhodes under false pretences.

Order, order!

Mr. Davitt is undoubtedly a Federalist. This is a question that depends as much upon Irish opinion in America as upon Irish opinion at home. I think that all the active members of the Irish Party, all the prominent leaders in America, are quite satisfied that Federalism is the proper solution of the Irish difficulty. In the States recently I saw some of the extreme men, and I have known some of them for the last 20 years. I met them during the Fenian times, and among those of the extreme men I met in America last year, and who have been Fenians, there was not one who would not be content with a Federal system for Ireland, that country having the management of her own affairs in a manner similar to that enjoyed by each State under the American Union. I take it, then, that a form of Federal devolution would be acceptable to Ireland, while the Imperial Parliament would be relieved to give attention to important Imperial concerns. Undoubtedly any Government that takes this question in hand will meet with strong support from Irishmen. There will be a strong Irish agitation in the next Parliament, and if there are fewer Home Rule Members returned for Ireland there will be more Scotch Home Rule Members. We can get rid of agitation if we proceed to dispassionately consider a system of devolution. I have put my Resolution in a somewhat vague form advisedly. It may be that the Welsh people do not require what the Scotch and Irish people require. Scotland and Ireland have had Parliaments in the past, but the Welsh difficulty may be solved by means of a Grand Committee. There are some English Members who think that the Imperial Parliament should remain as at present, and that Scotch and Irish Members should devote themselves to local matters in their own countries, while English Members occupy the first part of the Session here with English matters, all subsequently meeting for Imperial work. I have no objection to such a system being tried, but I think the only method of meeting our difficulties is to devolve a portion of our work upon National Assemblies, Parliaments, or Councils, such as the States of America have, or as different parts of the Canadian Dominion have, with an Imperial Parliament for Imperial purposes only. I think we are coming to that. Any other system may be tried, but the only system that will give us what we want—time to consider our domestic affairs, and the time we ought to give to Imperial matters—will be by devolving these powers upon National Assemblies. We have three-quarters of the population of the globe, more or less, under Imperial control, and a quarter of the whole territory. Within the Empire young nationalities are growing up, and we have to consider how we may bind all these together with a Federal tie in a really Imperial Parliament, where all parts of the Empire shall have representation. We have not got that now. I think right hon. Gentlemen on the other side should carefully weigh what is taking place in Canada and Australia. In Canada you have a Party in some of the Provinces actually agitating for secession, for separation from the Empire, in order to be united to the great American Republic. There is a strong agitation going on in Nova Scotia in favour of union with the United States, and throughout Canada there is a Party asking for a fiscal tie with the United States. Such a tie would soon be followed by another and still closer tie. It has been said that Canada must either have representation in Westminster or in Washington. You have representatives sitting in Australia for the purpose of discussing the binding together of the various colonies in an Australian Dominion with an Army, a Navy, and a Supreme Court, and they are considering whether they will permit the Privy Council to be a final Court of Appeal. In Canada the Queen has more Subjects than in Ireland, and more in Australia than in Scotland, and those rising nationalities have a much greater future than either Scotland or Ireland possibly can have. I think the Party opposite, who are doing nothing to solve this problem, are the real separationists, and may bring about the separation of the various portions of the British Empire. The first step necessary to prevent this is for the House to devolve its purely local affairs, and be an Imperial Parliament in reality. How supremely ridiculous it is that this Imperial Parliament should have to decide whether Belfast shall have a main drain, or a monument shall be erected in a certain street in Dublin, or Edinburgh shall have an hotel at the Railway Station, or Glasgow shall have a special bridge or dock! The remedy of federation has been a success wherever it has been tried. Canada has tried it for nearly a score of years; America for a century, and Switzerland for 500 years, whilst Germany has given it a trial and it has been successful. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is going about objecting to any right of veto to the Imperial Parliament, but, in my opinion, that is one of the best things possible. The Supreme Court has been one of the evils of the Federal system, as it has occasionally declared some Act which has been in force for some time in a particular State to be contrary to the Constitution. The only Supreme Court in our case would be Parliament, which would determine whether the Local Bodies had gone beyond their powers I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing this question again before the House, and giving an opportunity for its discussion. I think opinion is moving in favour of the Federal system, and that it is the only system by which we can keep together this great and mighty Empire, and bring to pass the state of things foreshowed by the Poet Laureate—

"—the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furled.

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretiul realm in awe,

And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law."

I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend has referred in his speech more particularly to Ireland and Scotland; he has not made many references to Wales, and, indeed he was not very happy in those he has made—thereby it seems to me adding an argument to the many he has used in favour of the principle of the Amendment. The Principality is the smallest of the nationalities mentioned in the Resolution, but I do not think it is the least interesting, and I do not think it is less capable of self-government than England, Scotland, or Ireland. Whatever will tend to increase the efficiency and vigour of Parliament ought to commend itself to every Member of this House. There seems to be a consensus of opinion that the Parliamentary machine is clogged with the arrears of legislation we have to deal with. There are many small questions coming before this House which ought not to come before it all. It is not a dignified thing for an Imperial Parliament to have to trouble itself with small questions similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend. The second part of the Amendment deals with the principle of devolution. I do not see any danger at all in that principle, and I venture to join my hon. Friend in the appeal he has made that the discussion should not be carried on in a Party spirit, but with the object of seeing what can be done to increase the efficiency of this House by devolving upon the different nationalities the management of their own affairs. There has been a great access of national feeling in Wales during the last few years. I think everyone will admit that the comparatively greater attention paid to Welsh matters in this House is due to the fact that there has been an increase in the strength of the feeling of Welsh nationality. Up to a short time ago it would have been quite unnecessary and superfluous to argue the question that the Welsh had a separate nationality; but the Welsh oracle of the Government, the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), said the other night that the Welsh people were not a nation at all, that we had no right to say we had any national feeling, and that we were only a small and obscure population pursuing a pseudonational chimera. I fear it would not be in accordance with Parliamentary usage to describe the right hon. Gentleman a "malignant censurer," but that is what other traducers of our nation were called in Henry VIII.'s time. I was interested the other day with the Petition of the Welsh people to Henry VIII., in whom the Welsh people took some interest because he had Welsh blood in his veins. They said—

"So that we crave pardon, Sir, if we say it was fit for the honour of your dominions, that some part of it should never be conquered.… To your Highness, therefore, we offer all obedience, desiring only that we may be defended against the insults of our malignant censurers. For we are not the offspring of the runaway Britains (as they term us), but natives of a country, which, besides defending itself, received all those who came to us for succour.… As for our language, though it stems harsh, it is that yet which was spoken anciently, not only in this island, but in France. Some dialects whereof remain still amongst the Bas-Bretons there, and here in Cornwall. Nor shall it be a disparagement (we hope) that it is spoken so much in the throat, since the Florentine and Spaniard affect this kind of pronounciation, as believing words that sound so deep proceed from the heart.… We doubt not, but as in all countries the mountains have afforded as eminent wits and spirits as any other part, so ours, also, by your Highness's good favour and employment may receive that esteem."

That may be said to be somewhat an ancient authority, but there is one authority which may be regarded as the highest by the Postmaster General. Lord Salisbury, the head of Her Majesty's Government, speaking at Carnarvon in 1888, and speaking as the head of Her Majesty's Government, used these very striking words—

"If ever there was a people who were a separate nationality, it is the Welsh. They are a people of very ancient extraction, they have their own language. They have up to a certain point a separate history: and yet there is no people, I believe, who are more firmly convinced that their own political, commercial, and industrial, security depends upon their close political union with the larger country by whose side they live."

Although the Postmaster General has a summer house in Wales, I think that on this matter the Prime Minister is a better authority than the Postmaster General; and, therefore, as Wales is one of the nationalities, the question arises whether the claims and interests of the Principality, and her separate desires and aspirations, have been sufficiently attended to by the Imperial Parliament. I should like to call attention to the words used the other day by the greatest authority on all sides of the House as to the way in which the business of the House has been conducted for a great many years past. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, on Tuesday evening, spoke as follows with regard to the Principality:—

"And, as to Wales, what attention was ever given to any Welsh question or interest in this House by this mass of English Representatives until within the last five or six years?"

He also said—

"In Welsh, Irish, and Scotch questions—in matters where they are entitled to decide for themselves—the other partners are borne down, overruled, and cast out of the precincts of this House by the enormous preponderance of the English vote."

That is absolutely and strictly true, if I may venture to say so, and we had an illustration of it only a few days ago. I have taken the trouble to analyze the vote on the majority side upon the Motion for Disestablishing the English Church in Wales, and I find—and this will show how Welsh opinion is weighed down by the opinion of English Representatives—that out of 235 Members there were only 2 Welsh Members who voted in that majority; 12 Irish Members were to be found in it, 15 Scotch Members, a good number of them being Unionists, and 206 English Members, If I may be allowed to put it the other way, of the Welsh Members you had only 1 out of 14 voting against the disestablishment of the Church; of the Irish Members you had 1 out of 8, of the Scotch Members you had 1 out of 5, and of English Members you had 1 out of every 2 voting against it. That shows the consideration given to Welsh desires in this House. It is an attention which we would rather not have, which does away with the effect our voices ought to have in Parliament in regard to our domestic legislation. Another circumstance illustrating the neglect of Welsh interests in the House occurred during the last Session, when the Welsh Members, after repeated appeals and great effort, and although the Motion for a Committee was kept standing on the Order Book of the House for weeks, were refused the request that the Financial Relations Committee should inquire whether the Principality was or was not unnecessarily oppressed by an unfair incidence of taxation. This is not the time for discussing that question, but it could easily be proved that Wales is suffering from considerable injustice in this respect. I simply mention the matter to illustrate my point, that we do not have the attention paid to exclusively Welsh affairs in this House that we ought to have. It may be asked by the Government or by our opponents what plan we have for applying and carrying out the principle we advocate. My hon. Friend did not produce a plan. I do not know that it is necessary to lay down a plan in dealing with an abstract principle of this kind. The principle involved is clear enough, and if the House agrees to it, it is for the Government of the day, who have all the necessary materials at hand, to find out a way to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend said that we do not want self-government so much in Wales as they do in Scotland, or as they do in Ireland. But in regard to this matter, it does not seem to me to be necessary to give identical powers to every part of the United Kingdom. So long as Wales has an assembly to govern her own affairs, it will matter very little whether it is called a Parliament, a National Council, or anything else. We are not at all wedded to the Norman name "Parliament." Wales, as far back as the time of Henry VIII., had a National Council of her own, which was abolished in the reign of William and Mary; and I may point out that there is already a kernel for such a Council in the provisions of the Local Government Act recently passed, for by the 81st section of that Act it is provided that the County Councils of several counties may combine together for one purpose. They may so combine, but there is no reason why they should until you increase the powers of the body. There is no reason why that Act might not be so enlarged as to enable the people to deal with their own local affairs to a very extended degree. But what do we propose? There is the matter of Private Bill legislation. The Government have already prepared a plan for dealing locally with Scotch Private Bill legislation; why should they not apply the same principle to Wales? I see there are now 183 Private Bills on the Orders of the House, and 16 of them are Welsh. The proportion of the Welsh Representatives in the House is 1 out of 24; but the number of Welsh Private Bills is 1 out of 12, all of them relating to local matters, which could be much better dealt with, and at much less expense and inconvenience, in Wales than in this House. On inquiry the other day, I ascertained that for one of the public undertakings in South Wales the immense sum of £88,388 0s. 4d. has been spent in getting Acts of Parliament up to December last. Then there is the question of administration, and in this work the English people have not been very happy; they have made many errors, and none greater than in the policy of repressing the Welsh language. By the 27th of Henry VIII., Act 26, after enacting that all Courts should be held, and all evidence given, in the English tongue, it was provided by Section 2:—

"And also that from henceforth no person or persons that use the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner office or fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's dominion, upon pain of forfeiting the same offices or fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English speech or language."

It may be said that that is an old enactment, but it is now in force, and, moreover, it is the keynote of the administration of affairs by the English Government in Wales. ["No, no!"] Oh! but it is. I did not intend to pursue that matter closely, but I could give instances to prove my contention. By this policy you have destroyed your Church in Wales. You have always appointed English Bishops there until the last few years. You do not do so now, perhaps, because of the strong national feeling that has arisen; but I say that administration in this spirit has practically destroyed the influence of your Church in the Principality. I doubt if there is more than one Lord Lieutenant in any county in Wales who understands the Welsh language. They are all, I am afraid, members of the Tory class, save one, who has become degraded from Liberalism to Liberal Unionism. Nearly all the Justices are English-speaking people, and, speaking broadly, most offices in the Principality are filled in that way. Next as to domestic legislation. There are already instances of separate domestic legislation for Wales in the matters of Sunday closing and intermediate education. But if Wales had had an Assembly of its own it would have settled those questions, including the subject of higher education, much more satisfactorily than at present. The Welsh people are nothing if not educational. They are great lovers of education. There is a strong feeling among the people that there ought to be a degree-conferring University in the Principality, and those especially are matters which the Welsh people wish to settle, and could well settle, for themselves. Again, take the question of burials, and the Act passed through the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan). At present that Act is worthless. We have endeavoured to amend it, but have found it impossible to do so. Without going into details many domestic questions of a local or national character might be dealt with much more satisfactorily by an Assembly of our own than in this Parliament. As to public works, some friends of mine think that important works in the Principality ought not to be decided upon by a local tribunal; but however that may be, I think that many of the public works that are dealt with in Private Bill Committees might be dealt with in the Principality. It may be asked whether Wales is capable of wise self-government. Well, I do not want to flatter the Welsh, but I think Wales is quite as capable of governing itself as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, both of which have separate legislative powers. The latter has gone in advance of England by extending the suffrage to women. It is an interesting fact that the oldest code of laws existing in a living language is a code prepared by the Welshman, Howell the Good. These laws were changed at the time of the Union in the reign of Henry VIII. You improved these laws in some particulars, but in others you did not. For instance, under the law of Howell the Good we had no primogeniture. Land in the Principality, according to the old Welsh laws, descended equally upon all the children of the family, and I think it was not an improvement to do away with that law. If you had had the same law in England, and had allowed us to retain ours, we should not be suffering now from the evils of the feudal system. But if we are capable of self-government, are we fit to be entrusted with it? An argument used against giving self-government to Ireland is this: "You are a parcel of people unfit to be entrusted with Government; we are afraid to entrust the interests of the Irish people into the hands of the class who would be in power in Ireland if the Home Rule Bill were carried." Can that be said of Wales? No one can say that the Welsh are a criminal people, or disloyal, or anything of that kind. Mr. Justice Wright, on the North Wales Circuit the other day, said he had gone through three counties and had only had four prisoners to try. Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, who is going the South Wales Circuit, has had white gloves presented to him in three counties and in two county boroughs. If we are capable of governing ourselves, then we ought to be entrusted with self-government. Experience shows in all quarters of the globe that the more people are entrusted with responsible self-Government the more they prove equal to the demands made upon them. By granting Home Rule to the Welsh people you would not be weakening the Empire. The Welsh people are proud of belonging to the great British Empire. Our loyalty would not be weakened, but our attachment would be strengthened; and assuredly, the day will be a happy one for the great British Empire when we shall have a domestic Legislature for each of the four Nationalities which constitute the United Kingdom. (8.2.)

It appears to me that the sting of the Motion now before the House is in its tail. There has been some discussion as to who is responsible for the alteration from its original form, but I think I can trace in it the hand of the hon. Member for Hanley. The Motion says—

"It is desirable to devolve upon the Representatives of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales respectively the management and control of their domestic affairs."

Well, Sir, since the day our first Mother, with the assistance of the Serpent, got the better of Adam that has been the problem which has puzzled mankind, and if Parliamentary Representatives are only to be elected because they undertake to manage and control their domestic affairs, I fear that not many men will be found to possess the qualification, and that the restriction as to sin will have to be abolished. Passing from the amended and expurgated edition to the original Motion, I find— Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,