was called upon by Mr. SPEAKER to move the following Instruction of which he had given notice:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Glasgow and South Western and North British Railway Companies Bill to inquire, if they think fit, into the present mode of rating of the City of Glasgow Union Railway to all school, poor, and other local rates, and whether it may be necessary or expedient to provide that the undertaking now known as the City of Glasgow Union Railway shall, in the event of the partition thereof between the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company and the North British Railway Company, continue to he rated as a separate undertaking as at present for all school, poor, and other rates in Glasgow.

"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) whether order has been completely restored in Zanzibar since the recent riot; (2) whether there is any foundation for the suggestion in a letter which appeared in The Times of Tuesday last, containing a protest against slavery in the Protectorate from the clergy residing within it or in its neighbourhood, that the Consul General has recommended a Commission on the question of Zanzibar slavery; and, (3) whether the Government adhere to their intention to discuss with the Consul General only the mode of immediate abolition, so that when he returns to Zanzibar abolition may forth-with be carried out?

There was no riot in Zanzibar. The armed slaves of Hilal, an Arab whoso deportation had been decreed by the Sultan, resisted his arrest by the Sultan's soldiers, and attacked Captain Raikes, who was in command, with drawn swords. Sir Lloyd Mathews was compelled to fire his revolver in defence of Captain Raikes. The arrest was then effected, and no disturbance has since ensued. The memorial to which the hon. Baronet alludes in the second paragraph did not emanate from the clergy of the East African, but from those of the Uganda Protectorate. Mr. Hardinge in one of his Dispatches discussed, among other solutions, an investigation of the slavery question by a Commission. The Government intend to discuss the method of abolition with Mr. Hardinge on his return, in accordance with the pledges which they have given to Parliament.

I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether there is any and, if so what, difference between the law as to lapse and escheat in British India and Native India; (2) what are the conditions required to constitute respectively a lapse or escheat in India such as to vest the territory so lapsing or escheating in the British Government; and, (3) whether, in the event of any of the present ruling Princes and Chiefs in India dying without male issue the law of lapse and escheat as prevailing in India or this country would apply?

The law as to lapse and escheat in British India rests upon the law administered by the British Courts of Judicature established by legislative enactment. The law in the native States depends upon the native State law and the will of its Prince or chief, and it varies in almost every State. As regards the second and third questions, to answer them would require a legal treatise on the law of escheat, and which I am quite unable to deliver.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, how soon he expects to receive the information, which he has requested the Government of India to furnish, with reference to the Return relating to lapsed estates in India, moved on the 19th instant?

My reference to the Government of India on the subject of the notice put down by the hon. Member on the 18th June went by last week's mail, but I do not expect to receive a reply before the end of August.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to apply the money provided in this year's Budget for the purposes of the Education Bill, which, in consequence of the withdrawal of that Bill, will not now be required?

If the hon. Member will refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the occasion of the withdrawal of the Education Bill, he will see that Her Majesty's Government anticipate that the amount in question may still be required.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether three of the telegraphists recently sent from England to Stornoway responded to the circular issued by the Department inviting application from sickly clerks who required a change of air; (2) whether a female clerk also applied, and was to have proceeded to Stornoway, but it was found that no suitable accommodation was available, and a male clerk was substituted; (3) whether the female clerk was afterwards sent to Pitlochry, but Scottish female clerks were not offered the appointment; and, (4) whether there is any intention to offer appointments in England to Scottish telegraph clerks, male and female, for the benefit of their health?

As I stated in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member on the 27th April, the plan is being tried experimentally of inviting applications to act as relief clerks from established officers who, though fit for work, are regarded by the Post Office Medical Officers as likely to benefit by change of air. In accordance with this decision, notices were recently issued by the Postmaster of Liverpool inviting candidates for work at Stornoway. The other facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. The main object of the temporary transfer of officers from England to Scotland is to meet pressure of work during the season in Scotland; and incidentally, the Department is glad to afford such officers as are not in robust health the opportunity of a change of duty under favourable conditions. In like circumstances the same policy will be pursued, should occasion arise, to transfer officers from Scotland to England to meet emergencies. The Postmaster General very much regrets that some members of the Service appear to resent an arrangement which is calculated to promote the health and comfort of such of their colleagues as are certified to be in need of change of air.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Canisbay Parish Council sent to the Secretary for Scotland, on 30th March, proposing regulations for the letting of allotments, and that the Parish Council, on 22nd April, again asked for confirmation of the regulations; and, could he state why no decision has been given in the matter?

The regulations referred to by the hon. Member were amongst the first of the kind transmitted to the Secretary for Scotland for confirmation, in pursuance of the 26th Section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, and as the case will form a precedent, the terms of the regulations had to be specially considered. The regulations, as proposed to be modified, are now ready, and are being sent in draft to the Canisbay Parish Council.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the invitations for tenders for the new contracts respecting the conveyance of the Indian and Australian mails have been, or will shortly be, published; and whether he will state the new conditions as to time, speed required, &c.; whether he is aware that, owing to the depreciation of the rupee, large numbers of officers serving in India are either unable to visit England, or find it necessary to travel second class, in company with the soldiers from the ranks; whether he is aware that the French Government has made special arrangements with the Messageries Maritimes Company for a reduction in the fares of French officers serving in the French Colonies; and, whether he will take steps for the inclusion in the new contracts for the conveyance of mails to India and the East of provisions for the transport of officers on active service at reduced fares?

As stated in this House in reply to a Question asked on April 17 by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Blackfriars), advertisements for tenders for new contracts for the Indian and Australian mail services were published on and after April 8 last. Among others, tenders have been invited for the conveyance of the mails between Brindisi or some other European port and Bombay in 322 hours, 312 hours, or 302 hours; and between Brindisi, Naples, or some other port in Europe and Adelaide via Colombo and Albany or Fremantle in 720 hours or 672 hours—the Australian service to be performed by steamers starting from and returning to this country, but not at fixed speed. The Postmaster General is not aware that, owing to the depreciation of the rupee, large numbers of officers serving in India are either unable to visit England or find it necessary to travel second class in company with the soldiers from the ranks. He understands that arrangements have been made between the French Government and the Messageries Maritimes Company for a reduction in the fares of French officers serving in French Colonies. He has no intention of initiating any provision such as that suggested by the hon. Member with the view, as it would seem, of affording pecuniary relief to officers in India at the expense of the Post Office revenue.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have given attention to the repeated allegations in the Constantinople newspapers (and especially to the allegations in the Oriental Advertiser of 4th June 1896) as to the asserted existence of grave scandals in Her Britannic Majesty's Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople; whether he has made any inquiry of and received any information from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople since his attention was called to this subject by a Question in this House; and, whether he can state if it is intended to hold any and, if so, what kind of Inquiry into this matter?

Our attention having been called by the Question of the hon. Member on March 26th, to the alleged existence of gravescandals in the Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople, Her Majesty's Ambassador in that capital was communicated with. It appears that certain law suits arising out of the matters in question are still pending before the Court, and it must depend upon their result what action, if any, will require to be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if his attention has been called to the clause in the charter given to the British South Africa Company, wherein the gentlemen applying for the charter, express their belief that the condition of the natives in the Company's territory will be materially improved; (2) whether the Inquiry promised in the Queen's Speech will include all the actions performed by the Chartered Company (from the commencement of its operations) to carry out this clause, and protect the lives and properties of the aforesaid natives and, (3) what action, if any, has been taken by the Chartered Company materially to improve the condition of the natives?

I am aware of the recital (not clause) quoted in the charter referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. I have already stated on Thursday last in answer to the hon. Member for North Cork, that the Government are quite willing that the reference shall be wide enough to cover an investigation into the facts connected with the present rising; and that will, no doubt, include the investigation of any accusations of ill-treatment of the natives. In reply to the third paragraph of the Question, I have to say that by the establishment of medical aid, by the maintenance of a police force, by covering the country with a network of magistrates and commissionerships, by the enforcement of civil and criminal law, and by the making of roads and general development of the country, the British South Africa Company, up to the outbreak of the rebellion, had undoubtedly improved the condition of the natives to a material extent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether the attention of the India Office has been called to the desirability of preventing the extinction of the African wild elephant in Somali-land by the establishment of a reserve or sanctuary for those animals within the British Somaliland Protectorate; (2) whether he has received a memorial on the subject from Mr. Edward N. Buxton, who lately visited Somaliland and examined the question; and (3) whether it is intended to take steps for the prevention of the slaughter of elephants in the districts indicated, having regard to the probability that in default of such steps the wild elephants now to be found in the Somaliland Protectorate will very soon be either driven out or extirpated?

The answer to the right hon. Member's first and second Questions is in the affirmative. I have invited an expression of opinion of the Government of Bombay as to any modifications that may be required in the rules in order to prevent the extermination of wild elephants; and upon the receipt of their reply I shall be glad to consider what steps it may be advisable and possible to take to secure this object.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretery to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that Mr. John Higgins, of Carrigrickane, Lisacul, County Roscommon, with his wife, his son aged 14 years, and his daughter aged 13 years, have, since September 1894, been subjected to no less than 15 terms of imprisonment for alleged trespass on the holding from which they were evicted on the estate of Mr. John C. Murphy, of Naas, County Kildare; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Higgins' offer of a year's rent, which he stated was all he could get together, was refused, and that eight summonses have recently been issued against Mr. Higgins, his son, and his daughter, on similar charges; and (3) whether pending the passing of the Land Bill, he would consider it advisable to represent to the landlord the desirability of staying the proeeedings, or making a reasonable settlement, or in the alternative withholding the assistance of the forces of the Crown in aiding the prosecutions?

The statements contained in the first and second paragraphs have been generally confirmed by police inquiry, though it is not the fact that any of the daughters of Higgins have so far undergone imprisonment. It is not within the province of the Government to make representations as suggested to the landlord; but from the information supplied to me I am led to believe that he would be willing to settle with Higgins if a better offer were made by the latter. The amount for which Higgins was decreed at the date of his eviction was equivalent to twelve years' rental, together with the usual costs, and he has offered to settle by payment of a year's rent which the landlord has not accepted. I do not quite understand the suggestion that the forces of the Crown in aiding the prosecutions should be withhold. These prosecutions have been at the suit of the landlord, who has taken proceedings in the exercise of a legal right.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that the clerk to the justices of the Andover Petty Sessional Division is also clerk to the guardians of the poor within the same district, and advises both bodies in regard to prosecutions for non-compliance with the Vaccination Law; whether such a combination is legal; and, if he will, under the circumstances, cause the remission of the fines imposed on a number of defendants in vaccination cases heard at that Court on Friday last, and particularly that of a widow who is to be imprisoned for six days in default of payment of fine or goods to distrain upon?

The clerk to the justices of the Andover Division is also, I am informed, the clerk to the guardians within the same district. The combination is, I believe, perfectly legal. The clerk is reported, however, as saying in the newspaper extract, which the hon. Member was good enough to send me, that he had not advised the guardians in regard to any of these cases. Costs only, not fines, were imposed in each case, and these I have no power to remit.

I beg to ask the Secretary of Stats; for the Colonies whether, owing to the serious state of affairs in South Africa, he will deem it advisable to accept the aid offered by the Cape Government in the shape of volunteers used to native warfare; and, whether the resources of the Imperial Government will be applied for the protection of the lives of our fellow countrymen?

Both the Cape and the Natal Governments have offered assistance, but up to the present time the authorities on the spot have not advised their acceptance. Full discretion has been left with Sir F. Carrington and the High Commissioner, and Her Majesty's Government are prepared to send whatever forces are considered necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether there is a system of free insurance, the benefits of which are extended to seamen while serving in Shipping Federation vessels, and from which the relatives of victims of maritime catastrophes would be assured of compensation, independently of any compassionate fund?

I have not the information necessary to enable me to answer the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I shall be happy to communicate with the Shipping Federation and to state the result, if the question be repeated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Dispatch from the Government of India, received last week, and any reply made thereto by the India Office, will be laid upon the Table of the House in time to be considered by Members before the Debate on the pay of Indian troops sent out to Suakin takes place?

I will lay Papers to-day on the Table of the House, relating to the Dispatch of Indian troops in 1885 to Suakin, together with telegrams and Dispatches relating to the present expedition, and I hope that they will be distributed on Thursday next.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state what is the total number of Imperial troops now serving in South Africa, and what proportion is available for service in the field?

The general officer commanding in South Africa, has at present the full disposal, for any duty he may think desirable, of 5,230 Imperial troops of all ranks. This figure does not include a battalion now under orders for South Africa from Malta.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the Ballygawley Loan Fund Office, county Tyrone, is held in a public house; and (2), if he is now in a position to state how many, and what, loan funds operating in the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, and Tyrone, have their business transacted in places prohibited by the 38th section of the Loan Fund Act?

The Loan Fund Office at Ballygawley is, I am informed, situated on licensed premises. The information referred to in the second paragraph has not yet been supplied to me, but every effort, I understand, is being made to expedite it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretery to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been directed to the judgment delivered by His Honour Judge Webb, the County Court Judge of Donegal, on the 23rd June, in a case of Lindsay and Orrs v. Gallagher and M'Grener, brought by the trustees and treasurers of the Bundoran Loan Fund against their secretary, who joined in making a promissory note to secure the repayment of a loan of £10 made by the society to one Thompson; and to the strictures passed by the learned Judge, in dismissing the case with costs, on the impropriety of bringing a case of this nature before a County Court when special machinery was provided for its adjudication before a Court of Petty Sessions, which had previously made "no rule" on the subject; and (2) whether, having regard to the numerous charges brought against the Loan Fund Board of mismanagement and maladministration of public moneys, he will be now able to say what will be the form of the proposed investigation into the affairs of this Board, and when it will be likely to be instituted?

It has not been possible to obtain a report in reference to the first paragraph of this Question to enable me to reply to it today, and I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to defer the Question until Thursday or Friday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the Commandant of the 2nd Royal Berkshire Regiment, now stationed at Devonport, has recently issued an order that the practice of surreptitiously raising money for the defence of non-commissioned officers who are brought to trial by court-martial for breaches of discipline is entirely subversive of discipline, and is forbidden; and that any non-commissioned officer infringing this order will be severely dealt with; whether he is aware that the effect of this Order must be to deprive all noncommissioned officers who are brought to trial by court-martial of all chance of receiving legal assistance at their trials; and, whether the War Office will order the withdrawal of the Order?

Any surreptitious combination, or any combination except under direction of constituted authority, is subversive of discipline, and if the officer commanding the 2nd Battalion of the Berkshire Regiment issued the Order referred to he would appear to have acted rightly. If any man wishes individually to contribute to a comrade's defence, he can, of course, do so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statements, circulated in Continental newspapers, respecting the behaviour of British blue-jackets at Rome some days ago; whether he has inquired into this matter; and whether he can make a statement to the House?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to certain statements circulating in Continental newspapers with reference to the conduct of British bluejackets in Rome during their recent visit to that city. These statements were utterly mendacious and absurd on the face of them. [Cheers.] But I have made inquiries into the matter. The Italian Government generously placed special trains at the disposal of our sailors, and 1,000 men were conveyed from Civita Vecchia to Rome for four consecutive days. Our Ambassador at Rome has written that "nothing could have exceeded the quiet and orderly behaviour of the British sailors, who visited Romein batches of considerable numbers," and the Commander-in-chief wrote that "about 1,000 went up every day for four days, and there has not been a single absentee." If there were any cases of drunkenness they must have been quite isolated. The people of Rome were struck by the very orderly conduct of the men of the fleet. [Cheers.]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether equally mendacious statements were not made in regard to the visit of bluejackets to Cork Harbour recently?

I cannot answer that; but there were rumours to that effect.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was with his advice that the directors of the Chartered Company accepted the resignation of Mr. Cecil Rhodes; whether the Colonial Office have received a petition, signed by the vast majority of the British residents in Rhodesia, begging that Mr. Rhodes should be maintained in his position there; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the present crisis to reassure the British Colonists in Rhodesia for the loss of the founder of that dependency?

On the 24th inst. the directors informed me that they considered that the resignation of Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Beit should be accepted. I expressed agreement with their opinion. I have received from the Company a petition signed by about 700 persons in the Chartered territory, but it is not exactly in the terms indicated in the Question, and I am informed that there is some division of opinion on the subject. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any special steps in the matter, and it appears hardly accurate to say that the settlers have lost Mr. Rhodes, as he has declared his desire to live in the country and devote himself to its development.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is true that a mishap took place at the execution of Fowler, Milsom, and Seaman at Newgate, on the 9th instant?

I am glad the hon. Member has afforded me this opportunity of publicly giving an unqualified denial to the rumours which have been circulated in certain papers that the execution of the convict Milsom was not properly carried out. The pinioning of Milsom was completed before the drop fell, and death, which was caused by dislocation of the nock, was instantaneous. It is a mistake to suppose that the signal for execution depends in any way on the reading of the burial service; it is not given by the sheriff until everything is ready. The incident which is at the foundation of the story is as follows: the assistant executioner had not stepped back as promptly as he should when the lover was pulled, and he fell into the pit, 9 ft. 8 ins. deep. He fell, however, clear of Milsom's body; and it is perfectly untrue that he clutched at Milsom's legs, or in the slightest degree impeded the proper execution of the sentence.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the latest printed Annual Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) are for 1892–3; and, if so, when the Returns for 1893–4 will be printed: and whether these Returns can be printed and published earlier in each year?

The Returns for 1892–3 are the latest issued; but those for 1893–4 are almost entirely in type and will be issued as soon as possible. I regret the delay which has occurred in publishing these Returns, it has been due to a variety of unavoidable causes, but after the current year it is hoped that the Returns will be issued at an earlier date.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when it is intended to bring forward the Agricultural Rating Bill for Scotland?

It will be brought in on Thursday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the recent increase in the London School Board Rate, which burden presses so heavily on the small householders of the East End of London, the Government intend to introduce next Session any Measure for the reduction or limitation of the expenses of the London School Board?

As my hon. Friend is aware, there was a provision in the Education Bill which, under certain circumstances, would have given control over the expenditure of the School Board to the London County Council, but I do not know that that particular provision was received with great favour by hon. Gentlemen representing London on this side of the House. [Opposition cheers.]

asked whether it was the intention of the Government that copies of the Agricultural Rating Bill, as amended on Report, should be in the hands of hon. Members before the Third Reading was taken?

I am informed that the Bill, reprinted, will be in the Votes Office this afternoon.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give an undertaking that the Post Office Bill, which was a complicated Measure, and which had only just reached the hands of Members, should not be brought on that day, nor until four or five days bad been given for its consideration?

Yes, Sir.

asked whether the Agricultural Rating Bill would be taken on Wednesday?

Yes, Sir. The first Order.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to conclude the Third Reading stage in one day?

Oh, I should hope that the mere Third Reading of a Bill so thoroughly discussed—[laughter]—would not take more than one day. [Cheers.]

asked what Business would be taken on Friday?

Supply. I threw out to the House the suggestion that, in consequence of the demands made upon both sides of the House, the Supply taken should be in connection with the Foreign Office Vote. No indication has reached me that that course would be disagreeable to the House; and, therefore, we had better make it final.

asked when the Uganda Railway would be taken?

On Thursday.

asked when the Irish Bating Bill would be introduced?

There will be no great delay, but I cannot fix a day.

rose to call the Speaker's attention to a personal matter. About 1 o'clock on the previous evening he had moved the adjournment of the House, but the Motion had been ruled out of order. He found the Journals recorded the fact with the statement that the Speaker was of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House. He hardly thought that that was the opinion of the Speaker at the time, and he urged that he was entitled to a fairer and more accurate record of the incident.

The entry appears to be in order. I am entitled to refuse a Motion if I think it is an abuse of the Rules of the House. That refusal does not reflect any personal discredit on the hon. Member who moves. But it was my opinion at the time that, after an Order of the House suspending the 12 o'clock Rule, that suspension became one of the Rules of the House for the night, and that it would be an abuse of that Rule to move the adjournment of the House at so early an hour.

seconded the Amendment, because he regarded the principle of the Bill as a very bad one. He objected strongly to subventions and doles, but if they were given at all they ought to be given with the object of drawing from the locality an effort on its own behalf. That was what this Bill failed to do. He opposed the Bill because if the Light Railways Bill now before the House were passed it would provide Scotland with facilities for getting railways on far more equitable terms to the country than it could under this Bill. He was also opposed to the Bill because the scheme of it was not the one recommended by the Royal Commission which inquired into the matter. He objected to it, further, because the estimates of the cost were of an extremely doubtful character, and because the way in which the promoters of the Measure had endeavoured to induce the Government to alter their plan of giving grants was extremely unsatisfactory. This was a Bill which would benefit the landowners along the line and the railway company who would get the traffic, far more than the fishermen and crofters in whose interest it was nominally brought in. The recommendation of the Royal Commissioners was that there should be a guarantee for four years only. That was a very different thing from one of 30 years, as proposed in this Bill. Besides the recommendations to which his hon. Friend had called attention, the Commissioners in their Report stated that, in their judgment, coasting steamers were the natural and preferable mode of conveying the produce of the fishermen to the markets, and they recommended as an experiment the subsidising of a fleet of steamboats for the purpose at a cost of £10,000 a year for four years. No notice was taken of that suggestion, however, in the Bill, though he thought it was a much better and less costly proposal than the construction of a light railway on the terms now submitted to the House. Further, a Committee of experts, appointed by the Treasury in 1891, investigated the matter, and they reported distinctly that they were of opinion that the estimate of £260,000 for the construction of this railway was largely inadequate for the purpose, and they further pointed out that the scheme possessed no commercial basis or element of success as an ordinary railway undertaking. ["Hear, hear!"] He was confident that the proposed line would never be remunerative commercially. If there had been any prospects of its becoming so, and if there had been any business demand for it, the railway companies and the landowners interested would have constructed it. [" Hear, hear!"] It was clear that the line would not be constructed for the sum set down, and he feared that in the end the result would be that the Government would be called upon to give a yet further guarantee. Having complained that the attitude of the promoters in the course they had adopted with regard to obtaining the guarantee, and with regard to the details of the scheme, was extremely unsatisfactory, the hon. Member called the attention of the House to the fact that the landowners, the districts, and the railway companies would not contribute anything towards the cost of constructing the line. They even wished their own fees as directors to be a prior charge on the receipts of the line to the interest guaranteed by the Government. Moreover, the guarantee of 3 per cent.—which he believed the Government would have to pay—was absurd, considering the present price of Consols and the low rate at which money could be borrowed in the city of London. In his judgment, 2 per cent. would have been sufficient. Two-and-a-half per cent. was ample, and 3 per cent. was extravagant. The conditions to be applied to the construction of this line were very different from those which were attached to the construction of light railways in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] In the first place, it was made a condition in the case of Ireland that the counties, the districts, or any railway company interested, should contribute towards the cost of the construction of the light railway, but in this case no such assistance was proffered or exacted. Again, the light railway lines in Ireland embraced several sources of traffic over a large part of their distance, but no such advantage attached to the proposed line in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] Yet most of the light railways in Ireland had proved a failure, and many of them were not paying their expenses. In presence of these facts, what success could be expected to attend the proposed line in Scotland? He had no confidence whatever in the scheme, and he did not think it was the best way of developing the fishing interests of the locality. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, the Royal Commissioners recommended that grants of public money in such cases should only be made when the counties, or other bodies, were prepared to contribute, and they added that in every case in which they had suggested the grant of assistance from public funds they had endeavoured to couple with it conditions which should have the effect of stimulating local effort and encouraging local enterprise. But there was no condition whatever in connection with the present large grant that would tend to stimulate local, effort and enterprise. ["Hear, hear!"] The Commissioners distinctly stated that in every case in which they had suggested assistance they had endeavoured to couple with it conditions which should have the effect of stimulating local effort and encouraging local enterprise. In that respect, too, the Government was going altogether away from the conditions which the Commissioners appointed by their own Party distinctly recommended. The Light Railways Bill provided conditions very distinct, and although, in his judgment, that Bill was bad enough, it was infinitely better than the present Measure. This line was to be 40 miles long, and, of that, so far as he had been able to make out, only four miles of the land was required to be given. For the remainder they had got to buy it from those very men who were to benefit from the line when it was constructed—who were the promoters practically. Yet in the Light Railways Bill it was a condition of the special grant being given that the land- owners were to make a free grant of the land that was required. It seemed to him that the Light Railways Bill would provide the locality with exceptional facilities for getting such a railway as was suggested was wanted, and, whatever might have been the case a few years ago, there was now no necessity for the passing of the present Bill and the making of this special arrangement. But why should this arrangement be confined exclusively to Inverness-shire? Why should it not be available for all parts of the country? He could not help thinking that every fishing district in Scotland and elsewhere which was to be competed with by the fishermen in this part of the country, would feel it a very great hardship that they were placed on a very different footing, and that their fish was not to be carried on easy terms by railways specially constructed under Government guarantee. He was very much struck in reading the Report of the Commission of 1889 with what was said of the character of the people in this district. They needed stimulating. From the nature of the circumstances in which they lived they had become inert and unenterprising, and they wanted stimulating to help themselves, and the best way to do that was to meet them in their own efforts and to make the grant conditional upon their doing something themselves. The Commissioners spoke very strongly upon this point, and pointed out that where the fishing industry was successful on this west coast it was carried on by east coast fishermen. The Commissioners also pointed out that it was not desirable to increase the population in the district, and said—

"that whatever development of the fishing industry there may be, if there is to he substantial improvement in the material prosperity of the population a considerable reduction of their numbers is urgently required."

said they had heard some very remarkable opinions with regard to the conditions of the Highlands and of the Western Islands of Scotland from the hon. Members who had spoken. The hon. Member for Somerset seemed to think that the people were as comfortable and as well able to help themselves in those districts as they were in any part of his own constituency. The hon. Member grudged that Parliament should give them in their position any more help than it was willing to give for the construction of light railways in Somerset. The hon. Member who had last spoken suggested that the population had better be decreased by way of improving their condition, and the very idea that it was possible that the laud of one landowner should be benefited by the construction of this railway was quite enough to excite his wrath against any scheme of the kind. He must call the attention of the House to the fact that years ago, he thought, Parliament was practically unanimous in the opinion that something was necessary to be done in order to develop the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and that it was impossible to treat them on the principles of political economy which they could properly and rightly apply to more populous and more well-to-do parts of the kingdom. Therefore a Commission was appointed in 1890, which carefully investigated many schemes for improving the communications in the western parts of Scotland, and reported upon them at considerable length. This was one of the schemes they recommended. The hon. Member said that the Bill made proposals which were contrary to their recommendations. He denied that altogether, because they recommended that this line should be constructed. No doubt it might be the fact, as had been stated, that in their opinion that result might have been obtained by a lower guarantee on a smaller sum and a less grant for the harbour. But, as a matter of fact, it was found that those terms were insufficient to elicit the necessary aid from any railway company or from the district to enable the work to be done. Therefore when the Government of that day came to consider the question, it was decided that an offer might be made which was embodied in the agreement concluded by their predecessors with this company, and which was proposed to be carried into effect by the Bill now before the House. The hon. Member for Somerset appeared to think that he had attributed to the late Government the origination of this scheme. He never intended to do so. What he had always said was that he considered himself absolutely bound by the agreement which the late Government entered into. That agreement was entered into because, in their opinion, they were bound to implement a promise made by the previous Government. They entered into an agreement in May 1895 with the promoters of this undertaking, and when he came into office he found that agreement binding upon the Government, and it was impossible for him to do anything else but bring it before Parliament with a view of passing it into law. The hon. Member said that if a district was to be aided in this way it should be done by the Light Railways Bill now before the House and not in the manner proposed. His first answer to that was that they were bound by agreement, and his second that this was one of those special cases to which the President of the Board of Trade and he himself had always admitted that the provisions of the Light Railways Bill could not possibly be applied. Here they had a proposed railway 40 miles in length, running through a poor district, at the end of which a harbour was to be constructed. It was not the fact that the district had done nothing to help itself. Poor as it was it had actually supplied £40,000 for this purpose, including some land taken in shares, and also four miles of land, and the necessary land for the construction of the harbour had been given free. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been said that no other aid had been given. Very material aid had been given by the West Highland Railway Company and the North British Railway Company, and especially the latter, in undertaking such engagements as, in the first place, would secure the completion of the line by the pro- vision of any necessary capital in addition to that now proposed to be guaranteed; and, secondly, by providing for the future maintenance and working of the line in perpetuity. It was said that the proposed guarantee was too expensive. What were the terms of that guarantee? It was proposed that Parliament should guarantee the payment of 3 per cent. interest on a capital of £260,000 for a term of 30 years, and the hon. Member opposite said that in these days, when money could he raised at 2½ per cent. by some of their largest municipalities, that was too high a rate. The hon. Member had forgotten that this was no guarantee of capital. It was merely a guarantee of interest, and anyone investing money on the faith of a guarantee of interest must necessarily provide himself with a sinking fund, in order to be certain of replacing his capital at the end of 30 years. It was not, therefore, to be compared with an ordinary guarantee of a municipality or railway company or Government, which not only guaranteed the interest, but also the capital. It was purely a guarantee of interest, and imposed no further liability. What was that liability likely to amount to? The North British Railway Company undertook to maintain and work the line in perpetuity for 50 per cent. of the gross receipts. The other 50 per cent., with the exception of the Government duty, which, of course, would be a small sum, and certain rates and taxes, also of small amount, was to go towards this 3 per cent. guarantee. Assuming that after a few years the line earned as, looking to the receipts of the West Highland Railway and other Scotch lines in the same position, it might earn, £7 gross traffic per mile per week, half of that would go towards the fulfilment of the guarantee of 3 per cent., and the result would be that not more than £520 a year would be paid by the Treasury towards the fulfilment of the guarantee. [" Hear, hear!"] He confessed he was rather astonished at the importance which hon. Gentlemen who had spoken seemed to attach to the extent of the obligations into which the Government were proposing to enter. It had been said that the estimates were doubtful, and that the line would probably cost more than the £260,000, He had no doubt it would, but the North British Railway Company and the West Highland Railway Company had undertaken to construct it, and the Government and Parliament would not be liable for one single penny under this Bill until the railway was actually open for traffic, from which date the guarantee would begin. They had, therefore, one very powerful railway company practically pledged to construct, maintain, and work the line, and the liability on the country was no more than he had stated. ["Hear, hear!"] The Seconder of the Motion had referred to the proposal as if it was one for the interest solely of landlords. In his belief, though no doubt some landlords might be benefited by the line, it was not a proposal that could be said to be mainly in the interest of landlords. It was with a view to developing the fishing industry of the West of Scotland, to opening up communication with a part of the West of Scotland that had no railway communication at all at present, and with the southern parts of the Island of Skye, that this proposal was made. He could not tell whether the view of Parliament might be changed in this matter, whether they thought these were objects worth attempting to achieve at so small a risk. In his judgment they were, and seeing that this was a proposal which, owing to its magnitude, could not possibly be carried out under the provisions of the Light Railways Bill, seeing it was a proposal to open up a large district which had no railway communication at all now, and would result in great benefits to a population that were extremely poor, and perhaps enable them to provide for themselves in future, he hoped the House would sanction the proposal that had been made by the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]

remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained with great clearness the financial position of the question, and must have reassured the House that the bargain made was of a much more favourable character to the Treasury than many bargains which they had made under the same motive of desiring to assist a district that stood in need of special assistance. He trusted hon. Members would look upon this matter as an inheritance of the Government and of the late Government, and he thought also of the House of Commons, from a state of feeling on the part of Parliament that might or might not have passed away, but that most undoubtedly did exist to a very strong degree. It was a state of feeling under which the strong sense of the duty they owed to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland influenced Parliament to that degree that first of all a Royal Commission was appointed and then the recommendations of that Commission were largely adopted, with such modifications as the superior judgment of the Ministry pointed out. One of these proposals was a railway of this character, and it was quite true that the assistance that was to be given to the railway was of a different nature to that ultimately given. But he thought the Government of the day were justified in thinking it was better to take one or two schemes and do these thoroughly, and not give any partial assistance in many quarters, which might have led to no good results. He did not consider himself bound to argue whether Parliament or the Government were right in thinking the Highlands ought to be assisted in this matter, but he could show as strong a chain of promises and pledges as could possibly bind the successive Ministries of the hour. On the 16th June 1892, the then existing Government went so far as to say they would be prepared next Session of Parliament to introduce a Measure guaranteeing from public funds a dividend of 3 per cent. for 30 years on a capital sum of £260,000, the estimated cost of the railway, and intimated that they would also at the proper time ask Parliament to vote the sum of £30,000 towards the cost of a harbour to be constructed at Mallaig, the contribution to become payable on the completion of the work. There was a distinct pledge and promise from which he thought the Imperial Government had never been able to go back. The gentlemen with whom they were then acting found themselves unable to provide a sufficient sum to meet the construction of the line, and accordingly on the 29th July the Gov- ernment regretted they were unable to make good their promise until the necessary money was provided. The then Government went out, and the Liberal Government succeeded, and the gentlemen to whom he had referred came forward once more and again renewed negotiations with the Treasury. On that occasion the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. Hibbert) said that the Government could entertain no modification of the conditions laid down by their predecessors, and asked that this decision should be communicated to the directors of the West Highland Hallway. Then the directors—the same body of men, essentially—came forward and said they had found themselves in a position not only to do that which the Government had demanded, but to secure that the railway should be made through the medium of an extremely powerful, trustworthy, and great railway company, and under these circumstances the late Government felt they had absolutely no choice but to supplement the promises of their predecessors. He thought they would have been deeply to blame if they had come to any other conclusion. To decide whether pledges were binding on successors they had to look at the circumstances to whom the pledge was made, and when it was made. If the pledge of a grant of public money had been made to a class interest or creed, no Government was bound to fulfil the pledges and promises of their predecessors. Then it became a political question and not a business question. But it was a very difficult question when a promise was made to a particular body of individuals or a particular locality. In that case Governments were solidaire, and absolutely bound to take up the pledges and promises of their predecessors. But if personal interests were no longer the same, if the circumstances were changed, it would be quixotic to say that the Government were bound by the pledges of remote Governments that preceded them. But in this instance a pledge was given to a special body of individuals and to a special locality, quite recently under circumstances which had not altered, and so far from thinking it was forbidden on grounds of broad public policy he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer went too far in saying it was recommended on grounds of public policy, and accepted on these grounds by Parliament and the Government seven or eight years ago. Hon. Friends who had spoken from that side had said they must not only implement all the promises of the Government, but the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He did not feel that at all. Only a certain amount of public assistance was due. The Government gave £45,000 to improve communication at an important point and the late Government promised to give a larger sum for the purpose of the railway. These two sums together constituted a considerable grant for the advantage of the Highlands, and he did not think they were bound to take up any other scheme of this nature. But with regard to the present scheme they were bound by the previous Government.

said this Bill was intended to carry out the pledge of the Conservative Government of 1889. He did not agree with the reasons that had been urged for rejecting the Bill, though he hoped in Committee to obtain some of the alterations asked for in the Amendment. If he could not obtain them, they must consider on the Third Reading whether they would oppose the Bill or not. Two proposals were made by the Royal Commission on this subject. One was to give a subsidy of £115,000 to extend the Highland Railway from Strome Ferry to Hyle, a distance of 10 miles alongside a lough where sea and railway ran only 20 yards apart. The other proposal was that £200,000 should be guaranteed to make a competing line down to the coast. This would open a new route for tourists which would bring money into the country. It was thought there would be competition between these railways, but a few facts would show the absurdity of this. From Strome Ferry to Glasgow by rail was 278 miles, from Mallaig to Glasgow was 165 miles. By the one line there would be 100 miles less for fish traffic to travel from the sea to market. Certain landlords, one of whom was formerly a Member of the House, Mr. Cameron of Lochiel, also Mr. Baird, tried to form a company; they were practically the promoters of the Bill before Parliament. Their object was to improve their property. A deputation of Scotch Tory magnates waited on Lord Lothian, then Secretary for Scotland, and asked that the proposal of the Royal Commission, which was only for four years, should be extended to 30 years or £100,000 should be given as a free grant. The Scotch Office recommended that 3 per cent. on £260,000 should be voted by Parliament, and £45,000 as a direct grant. But Mr. Cameron and his friends wanted £340,000, and when the Treasury desired that one half of the money should be used to pay the 3 per cent. guarantee they said they were prepared to sell their lands, they would act as trustees for the Treasury and become directors of the company, receiving fees. Three and a half per cent. had been guaranteed for the rest of the money to construct the line and the cost of getting the Bill had been defrayed by the promoters of the company. Now, the House had to determine whether the money should be given or not. Even if it benefited the district, he would not vote for a single penny. There were few people in the district which would be traversed by the railway, and most of those were merely the servants of sporting gentlemen, and if railways were to be made through a district of the kind they should not be at the public cost. There was the Highland Railway Company and also the Oban Railway Company. Undoubtedly the Caledonian Company built the Oban branch for the tourist traffic, but it might be used for the fish traffic as well. He was not sure whether the money might not be bett spent by having a better service of steamers from Mallaig to Oban. He thought the money would be well spent in the development in the steamship traffic to the islands, in making roads on the islands. He thought this would be better for the Highlands. He was under the impression that there would be very little risk incurred by the Government. They would have a considerable amount of tourist traffic, sufficient he thought to pay for the Government guarantee. It might not pay in the first or the second year, but he thought it would soon pay. Still, if the public credit was used, they ought to get a return as they did in connection with the railways in India, and he thought if this plan were carried out they would be able to recoup themselves the loss sustained at the outset. He did not think, however, that there would be any loss incurred. In two or three years the railway ought to pay 3 per cent. The North British Railway Company would gain by an increase of the general traffic, so that as far as public money was concerned he did not think there was much risk taken by them. As to the formation of a harbour, that was another matter. It was almost impossible to form a harbour there which would be properly protected, and he thought that more money would be required before the great breakwater was constructed. However, looking at the matter from every standpoint, the Treasury was protected against Cameron of Lochiel and his friends. He was not going to oppose the Bill but he should try to amend it in Committee.

said the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was remarkable for one admission, that this line would be able to pay 3 per cent. He regretted that the hon. Member had not been able to convince the directors of the North British Railway Company on this point, because if they had been convinced that the company would pay 3 per cent. they would not be engaged in discussing the Bill. The directors of the North British Railway Company had not the remotest idea of such a thing. So far as the Debate had gone he had not heard any speaker declare that he was prepared to take a small portion of responsibility for the Bill. The Members on the Front Benches cast the responsibility for the Bill on their predecessors. What was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He did not take any responsibility; he said that he regarded himself bound by the pledge given by a previous Administration. They had the assurance, however, that this would be the last Bill of this character. He was not so sure that it would be the last. Since last year they had an important alteration in the Bill, and he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the increased security obtained for the Imperial Exchequer. He had never been an out-and-out opponent of the Bill, but what were the points brought forward in its support? They had in the first place a proposal to present to a railway company and a number of local landlords in the Highlands a sum of £290,000. If the money was going to Scotland and to the Scottish people he should not vote against the Bill, but it was not voted to Scotland at all. It was a Vote to a locality where there was practically no population. They had references to the population that this Bill was going to benefit, would the House believe that from beginning to end of this route there were not more than 400 or 500 people? So far as they knew there had not even been a suggestion that they were to have a station at any period of the route. It was the landlords who were going to gain if the Bill was passed, and yet the principal promoter of the Bill, Cameron of Lochiel, would not give one single inch of his land without being paid for it. Advantage would be derived by the local landlords, for the immediate effect of the railway would be that land would almost double in value in that particular locality, and estates which could not let before would now be let freely. Shooting estates, he had no doubt, would be in considerable demand, where at present there was some difficulty in finding tenants. He had listened to the Debates, and read the evidence, but he had failed to be convinced that there was any case made out for the interests of the population in the locality. There had been rival proposals, and the whole balance of opinion was against rather than in favour of this particular line. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH: "No."] That was his opinion after reading the whole of the Report. This particular line was proposed to be carried out in such a way as practically to give no inconvenience to anyone of any influence along the line of route. He could give a very important case with regard to a house on the line of route, where it was actually proposed to have a tunnel in order that the trains might not be seen from the windows of a certain eminent gentleman, who was not unknown in that House. It was the general taxpayer who was to pay for this, and who was not to have any representative on the Board, or any voice in the management of this Company. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept the suggestion he made last year that some provision should be inserted in the Bill to give them some representation on this Board. He cited the case of the Caledonian Canal, where representation was provided for. He thought there was no Scotch Secretary who could look back on his connection with the promotion of this Measure with any satisfaction. For at least 6 or 8 years deputations had been organised in order to bring pressure to bear on the Government to bring forward a proposal of this kind. On the very eve of the Election in this particular county, in 1892, a letter was read from the right hon. Gentleman himself—he knew perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman never intended it to be used as it was—in which he said he would do his best to carry through this Bill in the succeeding Session. Not only financial, but political capital was made out of this undertaking. It was impossible to allow this Bill to go through without a very searching examination. As the Scheme stood at present, there was every inducement on the part of the Board to prevent the railway from being successful. If they did, they would have the possibility before them that the Government grant would be materially lessened. But if the line were a success the money would not be paid back, as it might be, at the end of 30 years. In short, they were making a present of this money to the Board of the North British Company and the landlords interested in the Scheme. He did not think a case had been made out for the Bill. If it had been really in the interests of the poor people, he, at any rate, would never have raised his voice against it; but it was because this Bill was brought forward simply to carry out pledges which no one had desired, and as the result of certain pressure, the character of which he would not inquire into, and because it would not be to the interests of the people in the locality, that he would not give his vote in favour of the Bill.

said the hon. Member had said that nobody had spoken in favour of the Bill, and that no Member would take the responsibility for it, but private Members in the House were not asked to assume responsibility for railway undertakings. Surely it went without saying that any Government who undertook a guarantee of this sort could only do so on one consideration, viz., that they approved of the Measure and thought it would be useful to the country. The Government offered this guarantee because they thought the Scheme was good on its own merits. The very fact that a harbour was going to be made on this hostile coast, and that money would be advanced for the purposes of the Bill, would stir up the fishing population to greater industry. It had been said that the Bill was a bad one, because the monetary terms which the Government had assented to were onerous. That contention had, however, been completely disposed of by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had told them that the terms were the very best that could be secured. Successive Governments were pledged to this Measure, and he was surprised that any hon. Member should advocate a course involving a public breach of faith with the parties concerned.

said that he would be very sorry if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was discouraged by any thing that had been said from proposing further guarantees such as that which was to be given under this Bill. The policy upon which this transaction was founded was similar to that initiated for Ireland by the present Leader of the House when he was Chief Secretary. The condition of the Highlands was analogous to the condition of the congested districts in Ireland, and railways were wanted in the West of Scotland to improve the position of the people. The object of the Bill was to supply railway communication in the congested districts on the west coast. It was impossible to run a railway straight along the coast, and so communication must be made between the inland line and certain points on the coast like Oban, Mallaig and Strome Ferry. The fishing population of the West would derive considerable benefit from this new railway communication. This scheme he could assure the House had not originated with the landlords. Nor was it the scheme of the North British Railway Company. That company was, in fact, pressed to join in it. The new railway would enable crofters to send their produce to market, would promote a tourist traffic, and would aid in developing the Highlands. The Bill had, therefore, his hearty support. He might add that under the provisions of the Light Railways Bill it would be possible to obtain the land which would be required for the purposes of this Measure upon very reasonable terms.

, in moving the Second Heading of this Bill, said he was glad to think that so far as the principle of the Bill was concerned there was little or no controversy. The principle of the Bill was to endeavour to establish a system of settling disputes between employers and employed by conciliation. It was not necessary for him to dwell at any length on that proposal, because the question had been before the House more than once, both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffieild and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen having introduced Bills on the subject on previous occasions. His hon. Friend the Member for Islington had already obtained a Second Reading for a Bill on this subject without a Division, and with the unanimous approval of the House, and that Bill was now awaiting consideration before the Grand Committee. He now proposed to ask the House to give a Second Heading to the Government Bill—which differed in some respects to that of his hon. Friend—in order that both Bills might be considered together by the Grand Committee, in the hope that something of a satisfactory nature might be the outcome of the two Bills. His hon. Friend the Member for Oldham had upon the Paper a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, but he did not think his hon. Friend was opposed to the principle of conciliation. He knew that in Oldham there was already a very satisfactory mode of dealing with disputes between employers and their workmen; but he hoped that his hon. Friend did not imagine that if this Bill was carried it would in the slightest degree interfere with the working of that system—indeed, there was nothing to prevent his hon. Friend from endeavouring to persuade the Committee that the Oldham system was the best system, and should be adopted. This Bill dealt with the matter from two points of view, conciliation and arbitration. So far as conciliation was concerned, there was no desire to interfere in any way with existing Boards of Conciliation, but the Bill gave them the opportunity of establishing themselves on rather a better basis by means of registration at the Board of Trade. The Bill proposed that where Boards did not at present exist, the Board of Trade might take steps to create them. There was another provision in Bill to which the Government attached considerable importance, and that was, that the Board of Trade was empowered to intervene on their own initiative with a view of bringing the parties together under a chairman mutually agreed upon, or failing that, appointed by the Board of Trade. It might be said that an Act of Parliament was not necessary to enable the Board of Trade to intervene, but it was considered that the Board of Trade would be in a better position if they obtained a recognition of those powers by Act of Parliament. It was also provided that the Board of Trade might intervene on the application of either party to a dispute, and might appoint a conciliator ad hoc, or make use of the existing Boards of Arbitration. With regard to the portion of the Bill which dealt with arbitration, arbitration was, of course, made quite voluntary. There was no attempt to force either party to resort to arbitration. There must be an agreement in writing between the parties, and in that case the Board of Trade could appoint an arbitrator. It had been objected that almost every-thing that the Bill gave power to do could be done by the Board of Trade under the existing law, and that, therefore there was no necessity for this legislation. The Board of Trade, however, would stand in a very different position in relation to this question if this Bill were passed, because its footing would be much firmer if the proposed powers were conferred upon it with the consequence that these disputes would be brought to a more speedy end. If the House would show their approval of the principle of the Bill by reading it a Second time there would be a full opportunity of considering all objections to its details when it came before the Grand Committee to which he hoped the House would be willing to refer it. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

said that the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by remarking that everybody in that House was in favour of the principle of conciliation. That might be true with regard to every hon. Member except himself; but out side of that House there were numbers of people who objected to the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had praised the strong points of the Bill, but he had forgotten to explain that they had been taken bodily out of the Bill of last year. What did the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, say with regard to the Measure of 1895? The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, in referring to the former Bill, had said that the Measure did nothing more than confer upon the Board of Trade powers which they were already possessed of, and that he preferred that the powers should be exercised by the Home Office, which was already in touch with the working classes, rather than by the Board of Trade, which was alleged by some persons to be the most unpopular Department of the State, an assertion in which he certainly did not concur. The fact was that this Bill was one of those Party Measures which most people thought would do no harm—in fact, it was a good sort of shop front Bill, which would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to assert that they had carried out the pledges which they had given to the working classes. He did not propose to divide the House upon the question whether or not the Bill should be read a Second time, but he asked hon. Members to reflect before they held out by its means false hopes to the working classes. It had been said with considerable truth that such a Measure as this might not only be useless, but might be absolutely dangerous to the working classes. He had in some degree come to that conclusion himself, because he thought that such a Bill as this was unnecessary where there were powerful Trade Unions who were in a position to negotiate for themselves, and would only be made use of in the case of weak Unions. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he had no desire to criticise the Bill in a hostile spirit. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said, the disease still existed, and the sooner they found a solution by which a remedy could be applied to strikes and lock-outs the better it would be for the working classes and the capitalists of the country. He believed that this was an honest attempt on the part of the Government to deal with the subject; but, in his judgment, the present Bill, as well as all the previous schemes, had failed in this respect—that they did not go straight to the true cause; they attempted to deal with conciliation and arbitration, but not one had attempted to begin at the beginning—namely, prevention. They had a perfect right to say to the working classes and the employers:—

"You shall not subsidise members of your respective associations until you have met together and discussed the question with a view to formulate some scheme of settlement."

joined with the hon. Member in bearing testimony to the utility of the organisation in Lancashire for bringing workmen and employers together in the settlement of trade disputes. But, after all, this was nothing but conciliation. This method of adjustment should be carried further even in Lancashire so as to prevent disputes from arising. The representatives of the employers and the workmen should meet periodically to discuss all trade questions and to prevent any disputes which might arise from culminating in strikes. In the trade with which he had been connected, he had been President of the Board of Arbitration for 16 years; he drew up the first rules of the body, whose aim was to bring masters and men together once a month to consider all questions in dispute. During those 16 years no strike had occurred. But before that time anarchy almost reigned. He dissented from the views expressed by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who, he was glad to think, recognised that he was alone in his opposition to this principle. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to cite a single instance where conciliation, ending sometimes in arbitration, had oppressed the working classes. The better the trades were organised the more likely they were to agree. Nothing conduced so much to peaceful settlements between capital and labour than that both masters and workmen should be well organised, and that they should be willing to meet each other. When employers and workmen could sit down together and argue their business round a table, they would find out how much good there was in each other, and how much of their animosity was due to prejudice. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean was very adroit in reading the speeches of the Colonial Secretary and the Vice President of the Council last year. But the right hon. Gentleman knew that Government Measures were sometimes opposed, lest the Government should obtain some sort of popularity by passing them. But this was too grave and too serious a question to be treated in that way. The Bill might not accomplish all they hoped for, but if they could narrow the area of strife even to a very moderate extent, they would do great service to the community. The trade of this country had to encounter great and increasing competition, and the more employers and workmen recognised the necessity for coming to an agreement with each other the better it would be for trade. The Colonial Secretary had opposed the former Bill because it had no compulsion in it. He did not believe in compulsory conciliation, or compulsory arbitration; and he was sure it would be resented by the representatives of the working classes. The only way in which they could bring about a good understanding between master and workman was by establishing healthy mutual relations. This Bill even went too far in his judgment. He objected to anything like a court in connection with arbitration, and he believed in letting the parties formulate their own methods. He believed the Board of Trade was the best authority to deal with this matter. In the Labour Department they had many of the ablest men in the country, men like Mr. Llewellyn Smith, Mr. Burnett, and their assistants, some of whom had been among the most intelligent of the Trade Union leaders. Every one of these men, he was sure, would repudiate the idea of a compulsory court, either for conciliation or for arbitration. What they could do was to formulate a scheme under which the Board of Trade might take the initiative, not in settling disputes after they had arisen, but in preventing them by bringing the parties together immediately any tendency was shown to make unreasonable demands. Without some such authority as the Bill gave, the Board of Trade could not intervene without the danger of being snubbed. During the time he was at the Board of Trade, some very important disputes were settled through the intervention of the officials. But they had no authority, and had to proceed in a very delicate way. This Bill would enable them to say to the parties: "The legislature thinks it is our duty to place the matter fairly before you." The publication of the Annual Report, showing the methods employed and how far they had succeeded, would tend to bring about a good result. He mentioned that in 1894 the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, when President of the Board of Trade, appointed him arbitrator in a dispute in the Potteries. He met the parties and found that they approached so near to each other that he urged them to come to terms without his aid. They did come to an agreement, and he was heartily thanked by them for his good offices in the matter. What they wanted to do was to impress upon employers and workmen, the labour question should be settled without the ultimate resort to a strike. He was sorry that the Second Reading of the Bill had been so long deferred and was afraid that its chances of passing this Session were meagre. Everything he could do to facilitate its progress he would be delighted to do, and he hoped the House would not grudge time or labour in carrying it into law.

said he was glad that the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, to whom they listened with great respect on social matters, did not rely so much upon his own criticisms of the Bill as upon the quotations he made from the speeches of other Members. The first of these quotations was from a speech of the Vice President of the Council, who said that everything that the Bill authorised could be done without it. He shared the view that it was a most difficult and delicate matter for the Board of Trade to intervene—although they had intervened in some cases with very great advantage—without being armed with the authority of an Act of Parliament. The dispute might be aggravated rather than prevented or ended by their doing so. But the Bill would give advantages to the Board of Trade in the way of settling disputes which were not hitherto at their disposal. Then the right hon. Gentleman quoted the Secretary for the Colonies in favour of compulsion. But the impossibility of the principle of compulsion was recognised by Lord Cross's Act of 1875. Masters could not be compelled to give work, nor could employés be compelled to work under certain specific terms. The Act of 1875 recognised that fact, and it was to the recognition of that fact that the benefits which the Measure had conferred on the working classes were largely due. The preceding Conciliation Act of 1867 had been ineffective chiefly because it was based upon the principle of compulsion. Disputes were to be compulsorily settled, and the Justices of the Peace had powers to enforce their awards by distress, by the sale of goods, and even by imprisonment. That Act of 1867 had been founded on an Act of 1824. It contained provisions similar to the provisions of the Act of 1824, the drastic compulsory powers of which also rendered it inoperative, and if those compulsory powers were introduced into the present Bill they would be certain to destroy any efficiency it might possess. He quite shared the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean in regard to the value of Trades Union organisations. But he did not agree with his right hon. Friend that the existence of those organisations dispensed with the necessity of conciliation. On the contrary, he thought it was a very great recommendation of conciliation. His experience on the London Conciliation Board was that conciliation was most effective when it had behind it an organisation that would insure the carrying out of its awards; and it was possible to take, in the case of organised trades, with recognised leaders, conciliatory steps which were impossible in the case of unorganised labour of which there were no responsible leaders. His right hon. Friend referred to the fact that Mr. Mawdesley, the well-known Trades Union leader, was against the Bill. But his right hon. Friend would admit that there was a large amount of Trades Union opinion on the other side: for instance, on the Bill Mr. Fenwick, M.P.; and at the London Conciliation Board, Mr. Harford (of the Railway Workers' Society), Mr. G. Howell (the Amalgamated Society of Engineers), and many other great Trades Unions. [Sir C. DILKE: "Hear, hear!"] When the Conciliation Bill, which he had introduced, had passed the House unanimously—and it now awaited the present Bill in the Standing Committee—the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress was strongly opposed to it. The promoters of the Bill felt that it was opposed perhaps for reasons that were not conclusive, so they asked the Parliamentary Committee to meet them, to talk the matter over, and the result of the interview was that they formally withdrew their opposition to the Bill. Therefore, the feeling in Trades Union circles seemed to be in favour of trying this form of conciliation. He had had a letter from a leading Trades Unionist in Hull expressing a hope that the Bill might pass, and stating a most significant fact, which showed what might be the value of the Measure: "There cent London building trades strike," he wrote, "cost for four weeks, upwards of £150,000." He hoped the Bill would pass its Second Reading, so that it might be referred, with the Bill which he had introduced, to the Grand Committee, and that they might have, as a result of the deliberations of the Committee, one good effective Act of Parliament for industrial conciliation and arbitration purposes. There were some minor points of the Bill with which he might not agree; for instance, the appointment of a single arbitrator instead of a representative board of employers and employed equally; the reference to the Arbitration Act 1889, which was a mercantile Measure; and great as was the value and pressure of public opinion, he questioned the results of ex parte conciliation and reports. But the great value of the Bill would be that it would establish an open and accessible mediatory tribunal to which parties in a trade dispute might appeal for assistance to arrange matters, and thus prevent strikes, which were so injurious to, and which dislocated and often diverted, the trade of the country, and which were the cause of such extreme hardship to the working classes.

said he was glad that the hon. Member for Oldham did not intend to divide the House against the Bill, because it was desirable that the unanimous authority of the House should go with the Bill to the Grand Committee, in order to enable them, so far as they could, to work out a practical scheme of conciliation. He shared the feeling expressed by several Members that too much must not be expected from legislation of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was only an experiment, but it was an experiment that was well worth trying. ["Hear, hear!"] The balance of opinion of weight on the subject was that the existing law did not go far enough, and that it was well to try the further experiment of extending it. During the time he filled the office of President of the Board of Trade, he had an experience of the helplessness of the Board of Trade to bring about settlements of disputes under the present law. A coal strike occurred in the West of Scotland, and the men appealed to the Board of Trade to try to settle the dispute. He then endeavoured several times to approach the employers in a tentative way, feeling, as there was no statutory authority behind him, that he could only do so in a semi-official sort of way. He endeavoured to bring the employers and the men together, but the most powerful section of the employers rejected the overtures, and the Board of Trade came to the conclusion that there would not be much use in going further. He felt sure that if the Board of trade had been able to say that it was by the authority of Parliament that this action was taken by them, the employers would have accepted their advances, the strike would have been considerably abridged, and the great hardships whch the working people endured would have been avoided to a large extent. There was, therefore, some justification for the demand that some Government Department should have the power of intervention on those disputes, and he agreed that the Board of Trade, with its Labour Department, which kept it informed of what was going on in the labour world year after year, was in a position of being able to act with greater advantage in such cases than the Home Office. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that the merit of the Bill before the House lay in its conciliation clauses. Indeed, he thought the arbitration clauses might well be left out altogether. Strikes were due in most cases to misconceptions between the parties; and what was wanted was not that the parties should call in an arbitrator, but that they should allow themselves to be approached by an impartial person, who would bring them together and act as chairman for them at their meetings, and who, in the last resort might be allowed by them to settle points on which they could not come to an agreement themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] That was the way by which Lord Rosebery settled the coal strike, and by which Sir Courtenay Boyle, acting on behalf of the Board of Trade, settled the boot and shoe strike. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was a pity the Bill did not contain a provision for an ex parte report being made. There were cases in which it was desirable that the weight of public opinion should be thrown on the side in the dispute which was willing to conciliate, and against the side which absolutely refused to listen to reason. Of course, there could be nothing in the way of forcing terms. But as soon as the Report was published, public opinion would be so strong against the recalcitrant side that they would be compelled to reconsider their position. He hoped the Bill would come out of the Grand Committee embodying the feelings of employers and working men leaders, who knew more of the matter than Members of the House, and that, therefore care would be taken to have their views laid before the Committee.

rose to express as briefly as possible his most hearty welcome to this attempt to settle disputes between employer and employed in an amicable manner. Speaking as a large employer of labour, he could assure the House that if an honest attempt was not made to pass this Bill it would cause great disappointment. They would remember the severe fight which they had in England, where they had highly organised Trades Unions, and surely if highly organised Trades Unions could settle these disputes they would have been settled before now. They did not expect the millenium, but they did expect that they should be provided with the machinery for bringing employer and employed together, and great would be the responsibility of those who did not use all their endeavours to avoid strikes. He believed that the Bill would be instrumental in bringing about a settlement of these disputes, and therefore he hoped the hon. Member for Oldham would give them his assistance when the Bill came before the Grand Committee. He had no doubt they would be able to feel their way out of the difficulty. The need of these Conciliation Boards was far greater than in former times, as the managing partners of great companies did not come in such close contact with their employés as was the case in times past.

said the principle of conciliation had been associated with workmen's organisations for 30 or 40 years, and he should advise the right hon. Gentleman not to be goaded into any attempt to go too fast. He should advise him not to bind himself too closely to the provisions of a Conciliation Bill this Session. It was a Measure which should not be passed without great consideration. He suggested that if they had half an hour at the Board of Trade with some of the leading Trade Unionists from the northern and midland counties, they would be able practically to agree on the details of their scheme before it was submitted to the House of Commons. That would save a lot of time, and would enable them to speak armed with an authority which Ministers seldom had in introducing Measures of this kind. He would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in a friendly spririt to Sub-section 3 of Clause 2, and would suggest to him that if he went to excited parties to a trade dispute with this power of impounding certain sums of money and retaining them as a fine, as it were, it would not be attractive to the workpeople of this country. He believed his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield drew attention to Subsection 3, which referred to the Arbitration Act of 1889, which was passed for commercial purposes, a different class of disputes altogether to what this Bill dealt with. He wished there was no reference whatever in this Bill to that Act or any other Acts, because the people on reading it would be suspicious and would not understand it. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman not to be in a hurry with this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had used a rather unfortunate phrase when he said that if they passed a Bill like this the Board of Trade would enter a conference room or a Conciliation. Court with a greater status. He did not care a farthing about their status as long as they had common sense, honesty, and a desire to assist the people.

said he thought perhaps "status" was an unfortunate word, and was not what he meant so far' as position was concerned. What he meant was that they would go with some justification, and some authority, if the clauses of this Bill were enacted. They had always been open to the remark, "What business have you got here?" but if the Bill were passed they would be able to say, "We are charged by Parliament with the duty of endeavouring to assist you."

said his right hon. Friend was in a dangerous state of mind. He was not in any way opposed to the great principle of the Bill, but he would say this, that if the Board of Trade had 500 Acts of Parliament with regard to the matter they would not be a bit more respected than they were today. Nothing could increase the regard and confidence which the Board of Trade had won for itself, and he attributed some of that regard to their absolutely voluntary action. He was not going to advocate the delay of this Bill, but he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to send it to a Committee of exhausted legislators—for they did become exhausted in July. Let them approach the consideration of this Bill in an invigorated state of mind and body, and let the Bill go forth as a well-considered and well-threshed-out Measure, calculated to do great good to the industrial communities of this country, whether workmen or employers. He was sure his right hon. Friend would recognise that his criticism was offered in the interests of the Bill, to the principle of which he was devoted. He had always had a great regard for his right hon. Friend, and it was a very old friendship. [Mr. RITCHIE: "Hear, hear!"] His desire was to help him, to the best of his ability, to produce a Measure worthy of himself and his Department, which was so nobly associated with peaceful proceedings, which would redound to the credit of that House, and which would be in the interests of peace and prosperity.

believed this was a good Bill, which, however, might be made better. He entirely agreed that arbitration was not good unless it proceeded from conciliation. If a Conciliation Board met and could not come to terms, but were very near it, it was better for them to refer the matter to arbitration. They wanted the public of this country, whether employers or employed, to understand that before ever there was a strike or lock-out, there should be an attempt to settle matters by conciliation if possible. This Bill would do much to diminish the animus of strikes. If the first fort-night of a dispute could be got over without a collision taking place between the parties the animus largely diminished, and if an actual collision did take place the public ought to know what the issue between the parties was. Ill-feeling was often generated by exaggeration of their cases on both sides. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the Bill, and he was convinced that there was a strong opinion in its favour held among the working classes of the country. When the Measure got into Committee they could turn it into a most excellent Bill which would have the desirable effect of diminishing and mitigating strikes.

said that in his opinion the Bill would do no good at all, and that, like all Bills interfering with the wages of workmen, it was doomed to failure. In his opinion, the time that would be spent upon this Measure would be wasted. He opposed this Bill because his constituents objected to it on the ground that it would unduly interfere with the wages of working men. He should not oppose the Bill if it followed the example of the Belgian Parliament and fixed a minimum rate of wages. It was said that the main object of the Measure was to prevent strikes, but how could it accomplish that object unless it was compulsory? How would this Bill affect trade competition? Was it intended that it should stop all business until the millenium had arrived? He opposed the Bill also on the ground that its operation would be in favour of the employers and against the working men, and because it would interfere with the standard rate of wages. No legislation could ever compel employers to keep their pits open if they did not choose to do so. It was, in his view, better that there should be mutual concessions between employers and their men. When the parties were brought together they very soon settled their disputes, which they would not do by force, or any Act of Parliament that could be passed. In 1894 both employers and their workmen agreed that they could settle their disputes without the intervention of any third parties sitting as umpires between them. They then entered into an agreement that was to last two years, and which would expire in July next, but it was now settled that that agreement was to last for two or three years longer. Such a Bill as this would have no effect whatever unless it was made compulsory; and he did not think any Government dare go the length of making it compulsory on workmen, if they did not agree to the decision of the umpire, to pay the cost of the arbitration out of their wages. He could only hope the Government would withdraw the Bill and would let the matter rest until they found out what the feeling of the workmen was. They would then see the futility of introducing any Measure affecting the wages of the workmen.

expressed satisfaction that the Government had found time for the Second Reading of this Bill, which had been looked forward to by many of the working classes. If, as had been suggested by the hon. Member who had just sat down, the Bill introduced any interference by the Government with wages, it would have been opposed by Members sitting on both sides of the House. But it would have no such effect. The point of the Bill was that it could not be put into operation except by mutual agreement between the parties to disputes. It had been said that previous legislation of the kind had failed, but he did not see that that was any reason why a Bill should not be brought which would avoid the mistakes of former Bills. There was one important difference between this Bill and that of the late Government. There was nothing in the Bill of 1895 to prevent the compulsory enforcement by the Court of the award of an arbitrator. That Bill embodied the provisions of the Arbitration, Act of 1889, which contained a provision by which the award of an arbitrator could be enforced by an order of the Court, and that was a fatal blot. This Bill provided that whatever award was made, it should not be subject to enforcement by a Court of law. Another difference between this Bill and the Bill of 1895 was that the latter contained an unworkable provision by which the County Councils were empowered to create Boards of Conciliation. He believed the County Councils did not want that power, and he was glad to see that that provision was omitted from the present Bill. The provisions in reference to conciliation included a clause under which, where Boards of Conciliation already existed, the Bill recognised those Boards and gave them a new status and a new authority. Where there were no Boards of Conciliation in existence, the Bill proposed two things. First of all, it gave the Board of Trade power to intervene; and secondly, it gave the Board power to promote the creation of new Boards. He wished the Government could have gone a little further and created machinery by which Boards of Conciliation could be set up all over the country—permanent tribunals to which employers and employed might bring their differences when they arose. He looked upon the Bill as a start at any rate. He believed it would do some good in checking industrial warfare, but it would be for this or some other Government in the future to follow up this legislation and insure that there should be Boards of Conciliation in all districts. He believed the Bill, so far as it went, was a thoroughly sound and good Bill.

said that notwithstanding the many benevolent platitudes that had been uttered with reference to this Bill, he doubted very much whether, had it not been for the force of circumstances over which the President of the Board of Trade had no control, the House would have been discussing the Bill at all. The House had not heard one solitary argument in support of the Bill. The whole Bill was nothing more nor less than a recital of the powers which may be exercised by any body of workmen or employers in the country at the present moment. There was not a single additional power given to Boards of Conciliation beyond the powers which already were at their disposal under the common law of the land. Could the President of the Board of Trade point to a single case in which an existing Conciliation Board had asked for the powers which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to confer? The Bill was positively mischievous. He could conceive no more invidious or odious task to impose upon. Government officials than would be imposed upon them by this Bill. By Members of the present Ministry and of the late Ministry the power of intervention in trade disputes had been exercised with the greatest success, but the secret of that success lay in the fact that the intervention was voluntary. Unsolicited interference by the Board of Trade would be highly unpopular. There was no more delicate task than that of intervening in disputes between employers and employed, and the essential condition of successful intervention was that the intervener should be acceptable to both parties. It would be a lamentable thing if this Bill were to pass into law, because it would engender a disinclination among the working classes for conciliatory methods. Under this Bill the attention of employers and workmen would be directed to the power that was given them to enforce an award. They would be invited practically to use that power. But did not the President of the Board of Trade know that it would be hopeless to attempt to enforce an award against workmen? It would be impossible to compel them to abide by an award. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and that the result would be to prevent this pernicious and pretentious Measure from being added to the Statute-book.

did not agree with hon. Members who recommended the Government to take things easy. He held that as regarded the class of Bills now before the House, they had taken things easy a great deal too long; he trusted, therefore, that the Session would not pass without some step being taken in support of the policy of conciliation. He had been surprised to hear the observations made on the other side of the House as to the intervention of Lord Rosebery in the Midland coal strike. He knew all the misery and evil caused by that strike, as it was his painful duty as representing Wigan to be often in that town and neighbourhood during the dispute. Remembering that experience, he did feel that Parliament had delayed too long before passing legislation to put an end to such melancholy scenes. It was true that Lord Rosebery intervened in this strike, but he intervened too late, for the wretchedness and misery that were caused had already lasted too long when he interfered. Parliament had been remiss because it had not passed, long before this, a Bill which would render such a state of things as then existed improbable—he feared he could not say impossible. The history of their efforts in legislation as regarded conciliation had, no doubt, not been encouraging, but experience taught them that they ought never to give up in despair their endeavours to amend the law. He agreed with preceding speakers that compulsion in these matters was impossible. No one who knew the characters of the miners in Lancashire and of the operatives engaged in the textile industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire, would say that they could be coerced. It was the same with the employers of labour in these districts. If, however, coercion was not practicable, conciliation was. From his experience he knew that public opinion exercised a potent influence upon those who were parties to these trade antagonisms. He believed that public opinion was prompt to pronounce on one side or the other in these trade disputes, and that the side on which public opinion pronounced must succeed. Though the Bill might not accomplish all the desires of its benevolent promoters, he was sure that it was a step in the right direction, and that it would bring in its train abundant blessings to those in whose interest the Measure had been produced.

welcomed the Bill, and was convinced that it would have a wholesome effect on workmen and employers. There were districts in the country where the feeling between the two classes was still of the old-fashioned kind. In these districts employers still refused to meet the representatives of the workmen, with the result that the employers had a somewhat uneasy conscience, and the employed and their representatives a feeling of irritation in all matters of dispute between them and the employers. He had spoken several times on the necessity of framing Bills which were to be handled by workmen, and which were to influence their lives hereafter in an intelligible fashion. Bills should be drawn in such a way as to be easily understood by workmen. Legislation by reference should be avoided. In the first clause of this Bill he found that the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1889 set forth in the Schedule should apply, and accordingly the Schedule of the Act of 1889 was printed in full as the Schedule to this Bill. Everyone who wanted to understand the Bill had to read first of all the Schedule, and then turn back to the first clause and find out the qualifications. Why not embody the whole of the Schedule of the Act of 1889, altered as the right hon. Gentleman wished it to be? Then the Bill would be complete, and the workmen would understand it.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He remarked that the object of the Measure was to facilitate the use and construction of what were called in the Bill light locomotives, which were designed to afford the public a convenient and cheap mode of transport. This mode of transport was largely made use of in America and in various countries on the Continent of Europe, especially in France, but, owing to the existing law, it was not available to the people of this country. There was no doubt that in this matter England was greatly behind other countries, and it was a singular commentary upon our backwardness in this respect that, as he was informed, the chief patents for the manufacture of vehicles of this description were entirely in the hands of foreigners. The object of the Bill was to remove what he could not help regarding as a great reproach against themselves, and to afford the people of this country the opportunity of enjoying the same facilities in this respect as were at present enjoyed by their Continental neighbours. The Measure, he ventured to think, could not be regarded as contentious, and in this respect it differed very remarkably from the Bill with which he had been so recently connected. [Laughter and cheers.] A Bill for this purpose was introduced into the last Parliament in a somewhat different form, and this fact encouraged him to hope that the present Measure might pass speedily into law. The Bill was designed to facilitate the use of light locomotives in this country, and it proposed to relieve them of all the disabilities by exempting them from the provisions of all the existing laws to which they were subject at the present moment. A light locomotive, as described in the Bill, was a vehicle which was propelled by mechanical power, which was to be under four tons in weight unladen, which was to be so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour was to be emitted from it, which was not to draw more than one vehicle and their united weights were to be under four tons unladen. Some of the restrictions which prohibited their use at present were as follow: It, was required under the existing law that three persons should always be in attendance to drive and to conduct a locomotive; one of those persons was always to precede it on foot by at least 20 yards, waving a red flag in his hand. The speed was under no circumstances to be more than four miles an hour, and in towns it was never to exceed two miles; and the wheels were in no case to be less than three inches in width. This was not all. These locomotives were at present subject to the bye-laws which were made by County Councils and the Councils of county boroughs, but with regard to their use upon highways, the hours during the day in which they might be on the highways, which were not to be more than eight during the whole 24, and also with regard to their use of, and passage over bridges. In addition to this they had to pay a licence of £10. They proposed to relieve them of all these disabilities, by exempting them from the provisions of the existing laws on the subject. It would be provided that in the future these locomotives should be under Sub-section B of the present Bill, which provided that a light locomotive shall be deemed to be a carriage within the meaning of any Act of Parliament, whether public, general, or local, and of any rule or regulation or bye-law made under any Act of Parliament; and if used as a carriage of any particular class shall be deemed to be a carriage of that class, and the law relating to carriages of that class shall apply accordingly. They were also to be subject to Section 26 of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878, as extended by Section 41 of the Local Government Act, 1888. In addition, he might explain that Section 3 of this Bill provided that the Local Government Board should be empowered to make regulations with respect to the use of these light locomotive? on highways, and that any breach of these regulations should be subject to a fine. These regulations would enable the Local Government Board to deal with the question of the speed at which they were to be driven, either in towns or in the country; the question of the carrying of lights and other matters connected with their use. There was also the question of taxation, which would have to be considered, and upon which, as upon all the other questions to which he had alluded, he need not say that, as they were dealing with an entirely new question, the Government were perfectly open and anxious to consider any suggestions which might be made from any quarter of the House, by those conversant with the subject, and which might tend to improve the character of the Measure. He believed himself that this was calculated to be an eminently useful Measure—one which, if carried into law, would give great satisfaction in many quarters, and, among others, many whom he happened to know were waiting the progress of this question with great interest and anxiety. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Bill became law during the present Session, he believed it would undoubtedly develop a very great, and, having regard to their experience in connection with bicycles, quite possibly an enormous trade, and give a vast amount of employment to the people of this country. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was even possible that these motor cars might become a rival to light railways—[laughter]—and that they were not at all unlikely to tend to decrease railway fares. He was convinced that they would be a great advantage and boon to the agricultural interest, in that they would enable the farmers to transport their produce wherever they wished to send it at much less cost than they were able to do at present. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not help thinking the House would agree with him that this Measure was one which would be generally advantageous to the public at large, and he would conclude by saying if it were read a Second time that night, in order that it might be duly considered in all its details and thoroughly thrashed out by gentlemen competent to deal with the subject, he should move to refer it to the Standing Committee on Law. Under these circumstances he sincerely hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a Second time. ["Hear, hear!"]

ridiculed the idea that the Bill would do anything to benefit the poor agriculturists, seeing that the cost of one of these machines was £250 and it was bound to break down in a fortnight. He regretted that the right hon. Gentlemen, whom he had looked upon all his life as his idol, and as the soul of English sport, should have fallen to such a degree as to become a tout for these non-sporting machines. What was the opinion of foreign authorities as to auto-cars? In all the places where they had been introduced they were absolutely found to have become a nuisance. In Paris they were trying to put a stop to their use in the streets, in Vienna they were not at all popular, and as far as he could understand they had even tried to exclude them from Jerusalem, although everybody knew it was a good old Semitic craze. They were called light locomotives, he supposed, because they weighed four tons, and he was told that their weight was sufficient to do £500 damage to a fairly good road in a very brief space of time if the weather happened to be moist. That was, the damage done would be twice as much as the cost of the machine. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman had he paid any attention to these points or considered the opinion of foreign countries in which the machines had been introduced? Driving down to the House that morning he could not help overhearing a conversation that took place, when he alighted downstairs in the yard, between the cabby who drove him down and one of the constables who was on duty. The cabby turned round to the constable and said "Don't let him vote for those blessed autos." He was fulfilling his duty in taking the action he was doing. These cabmen were very good and decent men like plenty of other Englishmen, and some regard should be shown to their opinions and interests. By this Bill they were invited to pass from the known to the unknown, from the ordinary London gondola to the right hon. Gentleman's auto. For his own part he sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman was not building up for himself an auto-da-fé. In his time and generation he had for long followed one whom he had always regarded as very wise, and notably so on the subject of horses, but he regretted to find that his idol was shattered and that the right hon. Gentleman was introducing a Bill for the popularising of machines which were antagonistic to horseflesh and therefore to genuine sport.

said he could not help thinking the President of the Local Government Board had overstepped the limits of prudence in this Bill. He proposed to give power to the Local Government Board to regulate the use of engines of this kind by means of regulations to be framed by them. These would not quite meet the difficulties of the case. It was perfectly certain that in many districts engines of this character would be largely used. They would be used by a large section of the ratepayers, and the necessary payment for keeping up the roads would be no serious burden upon the public. But there were many counties in which these conditions did not obtain. In many cases the farms were small, the roads narrow, and the traffic light. In such counties one or two traction engines used under unfavourable circumstances of weight might completely cut up a road and throw on the ratepayers an extremely heavy burden which would have to be borne by agriculture for the benefit of other industries. Another point on which the Bill was faulty was that it entirely abolished the power of imposing a licence duty. At present if the owner of a traction engine used the roads and cut them up severely, and imposed on the ratepayers the necessity of spending larger sums on the roads than would be necessary for the ordinary traffic, there was some chance of the highway authority recouping itself by a licence duty. But under this Bill there would be no such chance. On that point they ought to have some assurance that it would be considered in Committee. Then there was no limit to the weight that loaded traction engines might carry. The engine and car themselves were not to exceed four tons. If traction engines were to be any use, the car would carry eight tons, and they would have, allowing four tons for the engine and car, a load of 12 tons going over our country roads. Hon. Members could imagine what would be the condition of a country road after a few loads of 12 tons had been taken over it and without any limitation as to speed. In that respect there was no protection given to the general public. They ought to have a maximum limit of speed and a second person in charge of the engine, at all events in cases of large and heavy locomotives. For all these reasons, although he would not oppose the Second Reading, he thought the Bill would require careful consideration by a Standing Committee and he hoped it would be considered in the light of the remarks he had made.

said this was a Bill of great practical importance, and the Government were to be congratulated on having brought it forward even at a late period of the Session with the intention of passing it into law. While they all wished to remove restrictions in the law which at the present time unduly fettered enterprise and invention in this country, they must be careful in removing those restrictions that they did not at the same time remove proper safeguards for the safety of the public and the ratepayers who maintained the roads. There were several points in the Bill which would require careful attention. The question of limiting the weight to be carried was most important. The weight mentioned in the Bill as originally introduced both by the late and the present Government was two tons. That weight the Executive of the County Councils Association saw no objection to, but the weight had been doubled in another place and that put the Bill in a different light, because it would bring under the category of light locomotives what were undoubtedly heavy vehicles, which, allowing for the motor power, would be able to carry four or five tons. The Select Committee on Traction Engines, which was about to conclude its inquiries, had taken sufficient evidence to convince its members that heavy locomotives, which as a rule weighed about 10 tons, might often, at a slow rate of speed, do a great deal of damage to country roads and bridges. There was, therefore, every reason to fear that the Bill, if it passed as it now stood, might throw very serious burdens on the ratepayers, especially in the country districts. He thought it would be wiser to restore the Measure to its original shape and let experiments be carried out on a small scale at first. With regard to the construction of the wheels, the Bill gave the local authority of every county power to pass bye-laws with regard to the width of wheels. That, he submitted, would be an extremely inconvenient arrangement, and it would be well to consider in Committee whether there should not be some general statutory enactment on this subject. Such a matter as the question of speed would also have been better dealt with in the statute itself, rather than by regulations of the Local Government Board. He hoped the Bill would pass this Session in such a form that it would cause no alarm to the public or injury to the ratepayers.

said he objected to the Bill because it left the regulations with regard to locomotives in the hands of that hide-bound body, the Local Government Board. It was admitted that those locomotives would do great injury to the road, and in Ireland the damage would have to be repaired at the expense of the cesspayers, who had no voice whatever in the expenditure of the money. If those auto-cars were introduced and became popular, he feared that the result would be to do away with one of the industries of Ireland, that of horse breeding.

said that, as chairman of the Scottish County Councils Association, he must say that some of the provisions of the Bill were regarded with some apprehension. The weight of the unladen car had been increased from two to four tons and that would be serious for the roads. If the central authorities had the power of fixing the regulations great consideration ought to be paid to the obligation of the local authorities in respect of maintaining the roads. He feared that the Bill as it stood made it impossible for the local authority to exact a licence fee from these auto-cars.

supported the Measure, which he thought would be of great advantage in the long run. But there were objections, one of which was that powers were conferred on too many central authorities. It would be much better to concentrate those powers on one or two Departments instead of three or four. The width of the wheels was almost as important a consideration as the speed of the cars, from the point of view of the maintenance of the roads, and with that point the Bill failed to deal. Any powers given in respect of these auto-cars ought to be elastic, because the Measure was tentative.

thought the Bill would be of the greatest use in towns. In London especially a reform was needed which would secure an economic and safe mode of locomotion through the streets. Another important consideration was that those auto-cars would probably give as great an impetus to English manufacturers as bicycles had done. The only serious agricultural objection to the Bill was that the auto-cars might interfere with the breeding of horses. But he was told that the introduction of automatic traction would improve the breed of horses. As regarded the difficulty that the bridges in country districts would not stand the weight of these locomotives, the bridges must be made to carry the traffic and not the traffic be accommodated to the bridges. It was nonsense to say that farmers and country people should be handicapped in getting their produce to market by the most economical methods because County Councils did not build bridges to support the traffic.

said that unless Parliament was able to maintain the prohibition in the use and manufacture of these vehicles in England, they must pass a Bill of this kind. [Ministerial cheers.] He presided over the Petroleum Committee, and it was quite clear that the regulations which existed in the sale and use of petroleum spirit in this country were such that, even without the use of petroleum as a motive power, it was of the utmost importance they should at once pass a Bill giving some power of regulation. We had handicapped ourselves by legislation too much already, and that was the reason we were so much behind in regard to electricity and the telephone. He had seen these auto-cars working with the greatest facility and freedom from accident in the South and West of Prance. He believed there was in the future a vast industry in auto-motor cars, and the least we ought to do was to give it a fair chance. If it was to have a fair chance the regulation of it must not be in different departments; there must be one uniform system of regulation. [Ministerial cheers.] And he hoped Members would not attempt to make it statutory what the width of the wheels or the pace should be; all this should be made elastic so that the regulations might be changed or adapted according to the development of the invention.

hoped that the House would now agree to the Second Reading. Another Motion must be made in order that the Bill might be sent to a Grand Committee. There were the stages of other Measures which might be taken without discussion, and then, he thought, in view of their labours last night they might adjourn.

said he would not offer any opposition if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to take Ireland into consideration in the matter of auto-cars.

hoped that this Motion would not be persisted in. Many Members who were absent never expected that the Bill would be taken on this occasion.