I do not wish to stop this Bill, but I wish to ask for a statement with regard to the understanding which I am told has been privately come to. I have received a telegram just now asking me to oppose this Bill, but I am informed that an arrangement has been come to to prevent the diminution of open spaces, by an undertaking on the part of the Corporation to leave aside 50 acres, which is the subject of dispute. I believe the honourable and gallant Member for East Bradford has come to some understanding with one Member upon this matter, but I believe those opposing the Bill have not been informed of it, although one Member has been told of it. If the honourable and gallant Member can state this definitely I shall not oppose the Bill.

I may say that, having informed the honourable Baronet the Member for Northwich division that the Corporation of Bradford withdrew their claim to the 50 acres in question, he has agreed to withdraw his notice of opposition to the Bill.

I rise, Sir, to move the rejection of this Bill. Whatever view the House may take of this Measure-the amalgamation which it proposes is a subject which does concern not only the whole of the county of Kent, but it is also one which all of us must consider upon national grounds. The case which I desire to put before the House in moving the rejection of this Bill is shortly this: that it is a matter of national, almost international, importance that the short sea routes between England and the Continent should not be under the control of a monopoly. Now, the conduct of the promoters of this Bill has not been such as is likely to conciliate Parliament. Their conduct is not respectful to Parliament, for they have attempted to force the hand of Parliament in a manner which I hope this House will resent. They have not waited for the decision of Parliament, but they have anticipated that decision. And now, when these two companies-are practically already amalgamated, they come to this House and ask Parliament to legalise an arrangement which is already in operation, and to condone the gross evasion of the intention of Parliament of which they have been guilty. Since January last a joint board has been managing all the traffic of these two companies, but the promoters, in the preamble of the Bill, admit that their Parliamentary powers beyond the Continental agreement only enable them to make agreements in respect of competitive traffic. Now, what is their defence? They say that by each company merely giving to the other running powers over the whole of its lines, they have made all their traffic competitive, and subject to the control of the joint board. Now, I do not hesitate to say that this is a mere quibble, and it is a contention which will not bear a moment's serious consideration. To suggest that by a mere stroke of the pen, or by a mere paper concession, you can make traffic competitive within the meaning of the Act of Parliament which is not really competitive seems to me to be childish. If it is seriously intended, then I say the prospect which is opened to Parliament and the country is alarming enough, and alarming for this reason: very many of the railway companies of this country have Parliamentary powers to make agreements among themselves with regard to competitive traffic, and if the action of the promoters of this Bill is to be allowed to pass unchallenged, the logical conclusion would be that half of the railway companies of England would be able to make "working unions," to employ the new phrase, which are practically amalgamations, and to make those amalgamations behind the back of Parliament. This is not a straightforward amalgamation. The Bill proposes to establish a "working union" between the two companies for all purposes. Now, working agreements between companies for certain purposes are familiar enough, and we know what amalgamation is, but a "working union" for all purposes I think I may say is a new departure in railway legislation. So far as the public is concerned, this undoubtedly is an amalgamation, because it is provided that the two undertakings are to be worked, maintained, managed, used, and improved as one undertaking; but, at the same time, the companies desire to retain the advantage of separate existences in their relations with each other. In other words, the companies propose to be at once amalgamated and not amalgamated. I say that they are not entitled to have it both ways, for such an arrangement is a novelty, and I think it is decidedly detrimental to the public interest. Then, in the third place, this Bill runs counter to public policy, for Parliament in previous years has opposed amalgamations which were unfavourable to competition, and the promoters have recognised this feeling in the country, and this tendency on the part of Parliament, and have endeavoured to meet it. I do not think, however, that they have met it in a satisfactory way. There is, in my opinion, a fatal inconsistency in the attitude adopted by the promoters upon this point. They say that} the action of Parliament in relation to these two companies has been such as to preclude competition between them, and yet, at the same time, the very object of this Bill is to prevent competition. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon made a speech in July last, of which he has been already, I believe, reminded, and of which probably he will be reminded again and again before -this matter is concluded, in which he said that under the arrangement prior to the formation of this company competition must ensue. As a matter of fact, this statement that the arrangement made by Parliament absolutely precluded competition is altogether contradicted by the recent history—the comparatively recent history—of the two companies. Now, what is that history only three or four year6 ago? In 1895 the late Sir George Russell became the Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company, and then there was an outbreak of energy and a change of policy. A new service was established by the South Eastern Railway Company from Liverpool and Birmingham by way of Reading and Folkestone, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company immediately responded by establishing a through service, by an arrangement with the London and North Western Railway Company, by way of Willesden and Dover. The South Eastern Company started an afternoon train by way of Folkestone, and the Chatham and Dover Company responded by establishing an afternoon service by way of Dover. The Chat-ham and Dover Company got a newspaper train to Dover by 8.15 in the morning, and then the South Eastern Company discovered that they could get a newspaper train to Dover at the same hour. The Chatham and Dover Company found that they could do the journey in two and a half hours, and, therefore, the South Eastern attempted to do the same thing. These facts are sufficient to show that under the old system sanctioned by Parliament competition was not only practical, but that competition was on precisely the same lines as exists in other parts of the country, and such competition was actually established. Now, the promoters of this Bill have started a new theory of competition. They draw a distinction between competition in the county of Kent and competition with the county of Kent. They say that other ports will still compete with Folkestone and Dover for the Continental traffic, and of course that is true. This is a certain amount of protection, and it will always prevent any monopolist company in the South of England raising those Continental rates beyond a certain point. But that is not adequate protection, for this reason: the South Eastern Company, or any company in -a similar position, start with, this enormous advantage over all other ports— that it controls the gateway of the shortest sea routes to the Continent. It must, therefore, always have a very great advantage over the other ports to which the promoters of this Bill refer. It has been suggested that there is an alternative, and that it is not. necessary to reject this Bill or to refuse permission to amalgamate. It is put forward that there is the alternative of imposing conditions upon the amalgamated company. No doubt, if the House, in its wisdom, should sanction amalgamation, a determined effort should be made to take such security in the interests of the public, and an effort must be made, for instance, to bind the company down to provide a reasonable and adequate service of workmen's trains. Some effort should also be made to bind the company down with regard to the rates which they charge for agricultural produce grown in our own country. It is said that in giving preferential rates to foreigners the London, Chatham, and Dover and the South Eastern Railway Companies do not stand alone, and that is perfectly true. I do think, however, that they are among the worst offenders in respect of granting these preferential rates to foreigners; and if the House should be disposed to permit them to amalgamate, the opportunity of binding them down in some special way ought not to be lost. What I think is this: I do not place much reliance upon the so-called safeguards which the promoters of this Measure have introduced into this Bill. A safeguard in a Bill creating a monopoly is always largely nugatory and illusive. In the first place, you can only provide, at the best, for present circumstances. As the House well knows, circumstances rapidly change and new conditions arise, for it has happened in the past, and I think it will happen again in the future—that the best intended agreement at the time may, after a while, become absolutely a barrier in the pathway of progress. Parliament has recognised that in its general legislation with regard to railways by the provision that, where it gives power to railway companies to make arrangements with other com- panies, those agreements are revisable by the Board of Trade at the end of a period of 10 years. Now, what are the safeguards which are suggested? Under pressure from the right honourable Gentleman whom I see opposite, the company has expressed its willingness to introduce a new scale of maxima fares into the Bill. I question whether the scale of maxima rates has ever conferred any real advantage or protection on the public, and such a scale of rates certainly has not protected London in the case of the London water companies, and we may expect the same result with regard to the railways, for this reason— that the scale is always fixed—and I presume must always be fixed—too high to be any real protection, whilst, at the same time, there is a constant tendency to work up to the limit thus provided. Now, what is the concession which we are promised? As I understand it, the promoters of this Bill propose to introduce a scale in regard to first, second, and third-class fares of threepence, twopence, and one penny per mile. I do not regard that as much of a concession, for it compares very unfavourably with the scales imposed upon neighbouring companies, like the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, on the one hand, and the scale of the Tilbury and Southend Company on the other. And, further, it does not touch the main grievances at all of which passengers complain—namely, it does not touch the exclusion of third-class passengers from so many of the trains; neither does it touch the failure to give a reduction upon return fares, which is a great grievance of the passengers in connection with these companies. Now, I do say that the least that Parliament can exact from these companies in return for amalgamation would be a provision that the company shall carry third-class passengers by every train. Then the arguments on behalf of the promoters of the Bill substantially come to this —and it is not very complimentary, it is true, to the companies concerned— that the two companies have served the public so badly in the past that any change must be a change for the better. That, I think, is a short-sighted policy, and it is an argument which has not prevailed in similar cases of the proposed amalgamation of railway companies. It did not prevail in 1868, when there was a proposal made to amalgamate the London and Brighton and South Coast Company, and the South Eastern Company. Precisely the same arguments were used then, for it was said that the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company was in a bad financial condition, which is just the same thing that is said now with regard to the London, Chatham, and Dover Company. The result was that the two companies were not amalgamated, and I think most people will certainly say now that it was very well that they were not amalgamated. Similar arguments were used in 1872 when a proposal was made to amalgamate the London and North Western Railway Company with another company, but such arguments did not prevail in 1872 in Parliament, and I hope they will not prevail now. But there is an alternative to this amalgamation. If the London, Chatham, and Dover Company does not amalgamated with the South Eastern Company as is proposed by this Bill, something will certainly be done to improve the position of the London, Chatham, and Dover Company; and what I should like to see, and what would probably result if the House rejected this Bill, would be that we should find one of the great railway companies running north out of London would take over the London, Chatham and Dover line, and thus you would have the South of England linked up with a northern railway system, and this would develop traffic with the South of England to a degree which would not only maintain the new line, but would also improve the prospects of the South Eastern Railway itself. I think the House must recognise that this would probably be the result of rejecting this amalgamation. An active canvass has been made on behalf of this Bill, and I notice on the back of the Bill the name of a Cabinet Minister, the right honourable Member for St. Augustine's Division of Kent; and also another Minister, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dover. Now both these Ministers are directors of the South Eastern Railway Company. I think it is very inconvenient, not to use a stronger word, that the names of two Members of the Government should appear on the back of a Bill in regard to which one of their colleagues will be expected to advise the House. The President of the Board of Trade will presently have to advise the House on this Bill, and whether he will bless or ban the Bill I do not know, but certainly the right honourable Gentleman is placed in an invidious position in either event by the fact that the names of his two colleagues appear on the back of the Measure. This, I think, is an object lesson in the disadvantages of the present system of Minister directorships. Whatever this House may think, and it appears to think lightly of Ministers of the Crown occupying directorships of railway companies, there is a growing feeling outside this House that the position of a Minister of the Crown is incompatible with that of a director of a company; and whatever this present House may do or say, I feel sure that the next House will insist that Members of the Cabinet must choose between serving the public and serving shareholders.

I rise for the purpose of joining my honourable Friend the Member for Bethnal Green in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so because there are three primary reasons upon which I base my opposition. The first is, because from the terms of the Bill, from the first word to the last, it may, with propriety and without exaggeration be called a Railway Dividend. Bill. In the second place, in substance this Bill asks the House to give its permission end protection to the railway company without giving any counterbalancing benefit to the community. In, and third place, after a careful examination of the provisions of the Bill, I cannot find either a sentence or a hint in any of its provisions that the people of this country are going to be any better off after the passing into law of this Measure-I think that for the last 50 years this House has set itself against the amalgation of railway companies, and it has done that, I presume, with the object of preventing the creation of unnecessary monopolies. In 1846 a Committee of the House fully considered that question of railway amalgamation. They recommended—

"In all instances in which railway companies propose to take powers of amalgamation, the rates and tolls of the amalgamated companies should be subject to revision."

Now, I have carefully examined the provisions of this Bill, especially clause 10, which deals with the rates and charges proposed under this Measure, and there is not a sentence which indicates that there is to be any public or popular control over the charges that are to be made in connection with this railway company. But there are other reasons on which I base my objection to this Measure. First of all—and I believe honourable Members will agree with me in this—from a public point of view it is much easier to deal with a single or in-individual company than with a large corporation such as it is proposed to create under this Measure. In the second place, I think, if this Measure passes it will kill the very spirit of healthy competition which is so essential and so necessary to the common weal. Then, again, in the third place, we may take an example by looking at the railways running north of London, where there is healthy, free competition, and where there is no amalgamation, and I think that that fact in itself has proved a boon and an unmixed blessing to the trade and travelling public of this country both in regard to tariffs and railway passes. Then I find that schemes for the amalgamation of other railways on many occasions have been rejected by this House, although in those schemes of amalgamation the same advantages were offered and precisely the flame provisions inserted as in this case. In all those previous Measures the same promises and the same conditions which are now put in this Bill were given as the reason why those amalgamations should be passed into law. Then, Sir, I find another significant omission in this Bill, and that is that it proposes no reduction of tariffs. The tariffs have to remain the same, and I question whether any honourable Member can see one atom of good that will result from the passing of this Measure into law. There is a suggestion put forward by the promoters of this Bill that in their present condition neither of the companies can offer any reduction in rates, fares, tariffs, or charges. That, I think, is an ignoble suggestion, and it is not only ignoble, but it is contrary to the fact and to precedent. Then, I find that this railway company, along with other railway companies, have granted unto them large remissions of taxation, and yet they offer no cheap workmen's trains from many of the suburbs. I venture to say that there is scarcely another railway company which runs into this City that offers less facilities and less advantages to the travelling public than the two railways which it is now proposed should be amalgamated. Let me give to the House a few facts. There is Croydon, which the right honourable Gentleman opposite, who will, no doubt, reply to this Debate, has the distinguished honour of representing in this House. That town is 10 miles from London, and the return fare from Croydon, with a population of 102,000 is is. 6d. third class. Then there is Bromley, which is 10¼ miles from London, and the single fare is l1d. There is Addiscombe Road, which is the same distance from London as Croydon, and the return fare is 1s. 6d. In the case of Beckenham, which is 10 miles from London, and has a population of 20,000, the return fare is 1s. 3d. Then, I find that on these two companies there are no cheap workmen's at all from Bickley, Clockhouse, Kenthouse, Lower Sydenham, Catford, Ladywell, Lee, Hither Green, and Shortlands. There is not a single workmen's train, I am informed, from any of these important districts'. Then the fares in the Lewisham district are very excessive, and cost the working classes about 2s. 6d. per week. Now, I would ask this House whether that is a state of things which ought to act as an inducement for honourable Members to vote for the amalgamation of these two companies, when they have refused all applications made to them to bring about a system of cheap trains. Of course, we shall be told that they do run certain cheap trains. I believe on the South Eastern Railway the total number of workmen's trains is 13, while the total on the London, Chatham, and Dover line is 25. Then I am informed that the South Eastern Railway Company is the only company which runs into the City who refuse to give a statement of their workmen's fares to the Board of Trade. It is also stated, and I am informed, that the facilities and the conveniences afforded on these lines are the very worst of any company which runs into this City. Now, what is the object for which these powers are given to railway companies? The primary object of railways is not to make dividends, but to afford facilities and conveniences to the travelling and trading public of this country, but this Bill achieves neither of these objects. Therefore, I say that the House, considering all these questions, ought to reject the Bill, and I shall give my adherence to the attempt which is being made in this House to-day to defeat the Second Reading of this Bill, and I trust that honourable Members, until they get further concessions from the companies who propose to be amamalgated, will refuse to give a Second Reading to this important Measure. I have great pleasure in seconding the proposal of my honourable Friend.

I hope this House will hesitate before it accepts the arguments addressed to it with reference to this Bill. I understand that the first argument is that this is not a Kent question, but a question for the world; but I think that is taking the matter rather wide and far afield. I say that there is no doubt that the general public have a great interest in the Continental traffic, but that traffic is not concerned by the present Bill, for it is already safeguarded by statutory enactments, which I believe are in perpetuity, and which neither company can possibly vary; therefore, the Continental traffic is to be almost entirely taken out of this Bill If we exclude that matter, then we have to consider primarily the wants of the district, and if it is found that the county of Kent, into which these two railways run, is almost practically unanimous in favour of this working union then I think it would be a very strong Measure indeed for this House to reject the Bill on the Second Reading instead of sending it to the usual Committee upstairs. The last speaker suggested that it was a question in which there were three primary arguments against it, and one was that this was a "Railway Dividends Bill," and that was rather emphasised by the Mover of the Amendment, who called the attention of the House to the fact that certain Ministers were interested in one of the companies. Now, I am absolutely indifferent to that argument, for I hold no shares in either company. I have had the good fortune to know the facilities offered by these companies, and I fear that I should suffer rather than benefit by this amalgamation. But I have satisfied myself on this point—and I am glad to find that the constituency which I represent is also satisfied—that this working union will be for the benefit of the district. In referenec to this I would say that, notwithstanding the somewhat irresponsible opposition which has been started in a certain daily newspaper, I have only had two representations from my constituency in reference to this Bill —one of them from the largest urban district council in my constituency unanimously in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill, and the other from a small rural parish council opposing the Bill. I may add that the one which supports the working union represents a town which has had the benefit of competition from the two lines, while the rural council represents a district which has never known what competition has been in reference to this matter. I do not think that we are concerned to-day with the past history of these two railway companies. It might be summed up in this way—that they have done a great many things which they ought not to have done, and left undone a great many things which they ought to have done. It is necessary that we should clear out these Augean stables, and I think we have something approaching a modern Hercules in the honourable Member for Bethnal Green. At all events, I can assure the House that the districts concerned, whether they be the urban districts or the rural districts, feel that the only chance of the reforms which we have been pressing for a very long time is in this working union which has at last come before this House for its sanction. We are satisfied that there are many difficulties in the way of these reforms until we have obtained this working union. We believe that there is a genuine desire on the part of those responsible for this working union to grant these reforms; and they have given strong pledges, which I believe they are willing to renew in this House. Therefore, I would urge this House to accept the Second Reading of the Bill, and send it in the usual course to the Committee upstairs, for I believe it is a Measure which will be for the benefit of the constituency which I represent.

Like my honourable Friend who has just sat down. I speak as a resident in Kent, and I represent a Kentish constituency, and I may say that my constituents are very nearly unanimous in favour of this Bill. Like my honourable Friend, I am rather astonished at the character of the opposition, which seems to me to be largely factitious, and is made up by a certain newspaper which I need not mention, but the absurdity of which I could show from one little quotation. This newspaper wrote the other day that the people of Tunbridge Wells were dismayed at the prospect of less competition. Now, inasmuch as the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway never came to Tunbridge Wells, it is obvious that there cannot be less competition under this Bill than there was before. The main reason why I support this Bill is this—I do not in the least support monopolies as a rule, and if I thought this Bill was going to create a dangerous monopoly, I would oppose it. But, as a matter of fact, if there be a monopoly, it already exists. The two railways are working together now, and nothing can, as I understand it, stop them working together. They are working together now under statutory powers, and no competition exists in Kent at the present moment, and all this Bill seeks to do is to enable the two companies to borrow money to give additional facilities to the public, which, I agree with honourable Members opposite, are very much needed. This Bill does not create a monopoly, and I may say that, from what I know of the history of railways in Kent, there never was any effective competition existing there as exists in the North of England. All that we have had in Kent has been two weak railways, neither of them too rich or strong, who, by a system of rivalry, were cutting each others throats, not by granting additional facilities to the public, but by building competing lines, which nearly ruined their shareholders by their having to pay an interest on such an enormous capital. So you often had duplicate trains where they were not wanted, but if you wanted to get from one part of Kent to another it was often easier to-come up to London, change stations, and then come down again. The joint companies under this Bill intend to build certain junctions at Chislehurst and Whitstable, which, I do not hesitate to say, will be a very great advantage to the public. A certain amount of these advantages have already been secured by making use of the line between the two stations at Sevenoaks, and there is no necessity now to change-stations, which involved great delay and additional cost. If there is any monopoly, I say it already exists, and the non-passing of this Bill will not put an end to it, nor will it stop these two companies from working together, because I believe their present action is perfectly legal. They are working under powers granted by certain Acts of Parliament passed in 1893 and 1894, and you cannot make them go back on the powers which have been granted them. Therefore, I say you will not put an end to this monopoly by refusing to pass this Bill, but you will clearly prevent the two companies from raising capital and carrying out necessary improvements. Therefore, I see no reason why this House should take the very strong step of refusing to allow this Bill to go to a Committee upstairs, so that we may get certain clauses inserted which, I think, will be of very great advantage to the public. And I would further point this out—you talk a great deal about monopoly, and so on, but, after all, if the whole of Kent is under one company or one joint board, the whole district so served will not be nearly so large as the whole of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, which are at the present time well served by one company. Nor will it be so large as the district at present served alone by the North Eastern Company. What I do say is, that it would be very much better both for the travelling company, traders, and agriculturists in Kent to have one strong company to deal with instead of two weak companies, who in the past devoted all their money and all their energies to try and cut each others throats, without serving the public at the same time. I do not think this is an occasion to make a long speech, and all I wish to say is, that I do not associate myself in the least with the opposition to this Bill, which comes chiefly from London, and, as a Kent Member, I shall support the Second Reading of this Measure.

I can assure the honourable Member who has just sat down that such knowledge as I have of the question respecting the proposals of this Bill is not in any way due to the newspaper to which he has referred, or to any of the issues which have been raised in the sensational press. My acquaintance with the subject is due to representations made at Conferences called by the Mansion House Association, which deals with railway rates, and in connection with the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture. I do not deny in the least the force of the arguments of the honourable Members for Tunbridge and for Ash-ford, which should have their weight with the House in dealing with this question. It is perfectly obvious that some benefits may be obtained by the amalgamation of two weak railways, and those companies may, by being placed in a stronger financial position, be enabled to provide advantages of a very considerable character for the benefit of traders and agriculturists in Kent. But the honourable Member for Tunbridge said the position of these two railways place them in a sort of cut-throat competition which has forced them to raise their rates and charges. I would ask him whether he has carefully considered the provisions of this Bill, and whether he does not think that the Bill as it stands, instead of giving any guarantee to the agriculturists and traders that there will be an adequate reduction of the rates and charges, which the honourable Member argued had to be raised in consequence of the unhealthy competition between these two railways—is there any guarantee that those rates and charges will be reduced to reasonable limits by this Bill? I have here a statement of the promoters of this Bill, which says that some sort of guarantee has been given to the Board of Trade that there will be some such reduction of rates and charges to the traders and agriculturists if this Bill is allowed to proceed further. But I must say that, having read that paragraph, I do not think that it is any guarantee whatso- ever to this House to justify them at the present moment in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, and giving these enormous powers which the Measure does give by the amalgamation of the companies, which would really place the passengers and agriculturists and traders of the Southern counties at the mercy of some joint board of directors. Now, I venture to say that these companies do not come before the House with entirely clean hands in this matter. Of course, their case is that there has been a series of agreements sanctioned by Parliament which have foreshadowed and logically led up to this present proposed amalgamation. I admit that at once, for all the circumstances point in that direction; but how have they used the powers obtained under those agreements? In the Bill of 1894, a clause was slipped in of which the companies promptly availed themselves to raise their third-class fares, and, therefore, the House must recognise due caution in extending further powers to these companies. My honourable Friend the Member for Bethnal Green has referred to the fact that this Bill has not been dealt with in an open and straightforward way by these companies. They have practically gone on with the process of amalgamation without Parliamentary powers, and have thereby tried to force the hand of the Board of Trade and to force the hand of Parliament. The present Bills give them ample authority to exercise to the full the advantages of a monopoly, and at the same time give them an opportunity of giving no guarantees to the traders, passengers, and others who use their lines that they will be protected in these matters. It seems to me that there is no real obligation, and unless the honourable Member for Wimbledon, or some other representative of the company, can give us some definite guarantee as to the proposals which will be introduced into this Bill, I think my honourable Friend will be quite justified in dividing the House against it. The 10th clause in this Bill, viewed in connection with the 3rd clause of the Bill shows absolutely that the proposals of the Bill are not straightforward proposals of amalgamation. There will be a joint board of these two companies, and the result will be that it will be perfectly possible to raise the rates of the other company con- cerned where one is higher than the other. That is taking all the advantages of a mnopoly, and giving no advantages in return to the traders and others concerned in the operations of the companies. I read to-day the speech the Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company, the Member for Wimbledon, delivered yesterday in reply to certain traders who then met him and the Board. His reply gave no guarantee whatever as to the change of rates or charges. His reply was to the effect that this Bill was amount of capital to be expended by these companies in order to carry out certain improvements and expansions of the railway systems; but there was not in the whole of that speech any indication whatsoever that this larger capital would be so utilised that it would go to reduce the rates and charges now being made against traders, agriculturists, and others who are using these railways. Now, it is perfectly well known that the whole of the rates of these companies were raised in 1893, and it is as equally well known that many of these increased rates have not subsequently been reduced. One of the conditions which ought to be laid down by this House is, that unless these increased rates are reduced to the old level, this Bill should not be allowed to go through. There is another question also in connection with the question of rates that ought to be brought to the attention of the House. The most creditable feature in the dealings of these companies has been the very high preferential rates which have been given to foreign agricultural products, as against our own agricultural products. For instance, in the case of apples and pears, the through rate which is charged to foreigners is 15s., at owner's risk. Now, when the over-sea rate has been deducted from that 15s. rate, it only leaves a rate of 1s. 8d. for the carriage of these goods into London. Now, the rate for English produce from Dover to London is not less than 12s. 6d., so that there is a very great discrepancy between the rates which are enforced for foreign and for English produce. The same remark applies to the case of onions; the rate from Dover for foreign produce, after deducting the over-sea charges, is 1s. 1d., and the rate for English produce is not less than 10s. 6d. There again is a very heavy difference in favour of the foreign producer. With regard to the maximum rate, it is claimed that there will be some sort of a reduction so far as the maximum rates are concerned in this Bill. I certainly do think that we are entitled to know what sort of reduction is contemplated. I have here a statement of the London, Chatham, and Dover and the South-Eastern Railways' maxima, and a statement of the maxima of the Northern Railway lines, and I find that the maxima of the London, Chatham, and Dover and the South Eastern Railways greatly exceed those of the North Western Railway and others. Now, I venture to say that when we have these three facts, that there are these increased rates which ought to be cut down, that we have also a very great proportion of preferential rates in favour of foreign produce, and that we have a higher standard of maxima of rates upon these two lines already than that which is prevalent on the North Western and Great Western and other lines of this country, I do not think that these companies are entitled to have any further powers conferred upon them before we have some guarantees that these abuses shall be removed before the amalgamating Act be granted. Now, I am opposed on general principles to the policy of amalgamation of railway companies. It gives an increase of power to those companies, and I think we may be creating a dangerous precedent if we assent to this amalgamation taking place. The only instance that we have of an amalgamation between two companies being granted is in the case of the Great Western and the Bristol and Exeter line—that was the only great amalgamation which has taken place; but in that case that was an amalgamation between two companies which practically divided the continuation of a trunk line. The proposed amalgamations of the Lon- don and North Western and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways in 1872, and of the South Eastern and Brighton Lines in 1868, which were similar to this, were both rejected by Parliament. I think that it is very unwise and very I think that it is very unwise and very impolitic that this amalgamation should be granted at all, and still more impolitic and unwise that it should be granted without the fullest guarantee being given as to the advantages that may be derived from such a scheme by the agriculturists, traders, passengers, and more especially the working-class passengers, who should be protected, and under those circumstances, unless those guarantees are forthcoming, I think my honourable Friend will be fully justified in dividing the House against the Motion that this Bill should be read a second time.

I rise to trespass upon the attention of the House in order to bring it back to the real matter before us, and though I wish to deal lightly, and even carelessly, with the opposition that has been brought to bear against this Bill both within and without these walls, it does seem to me, as an old campaigner both within and without this House— —whether it is by accident or not, I do not stop to inquire—that the force of the opposition which has been promulgated both inside this House and elsewhere, having regard to the interests which are involved, is the most peculiar that I have ever known. But what we want to arrive at here is business, and therefore, I put on one side altogether the points that have been made by honourable Members opposite, from whom this opposition conies—with the except on of one silly blunder, which shows the ignorance of one honourable Gentleman with regard to this matter, when he said the companies had ignored Parliament by having entered into the Continental agreement, whereas the Act for the purpose was passed in 1876.

I did not say that. I think the right honourable Gentleman was referring to me, and, is he was, he has grossly misrepresented me. I never referred to the Continental agreement at all. I said that the two companies were now claiming to work all their traffic together, and 'that their only powers outside the Continental agreement were to deal with competitive traffic.

I wish to treat the honourable Gentleman with strict fairness, and I certainly thought he said that his chief objection was against Continental traffic. But, of course, I take his explanation. But however that may be, the issue before this House is one of supreme importance to the county of Kent, and also, of course, to those who are engaged in the Continental traffic, and to all foreigners who come to our shores. And I venture to urge this much: Out of a long experience of the unfortunate state of things we have endured as regards railway mismanagement in the county of Kent, that a blunder made by this House to-day wilt be absolutely irretrievable in our day and for generations to come. So far as I am concerned, I am absolutely free, beyond the vested interest which I, in common with other English people, have of the privilege of grumbling at railway mismanagement. I have no interest in either of these companies, but as a resident landowner and a representative of one of the constituencies in the county, I have a vital interest in the proposals now before the House, and in that interest I wish to make my views known, and give the House the very fullest information in my power. The question that has been raised in this House to-day out of doors is a question of competition on the one hand and possible monopoly on the other. Now, really, Sir, competition, in the strict sense and meaning of the word, has never been obtainable as regards railways in the county of Kent. In the earlier efforts of the South Eastern Railway to obtain a Continental route, they were compelled by Parliament to run for 10 miles over another railway, and that prevented them from preserving their independence with their own traffic, and running on true competitive lines. I can understand the competition of great trunk lines, but as I understand that competition, it is between two railways whose lines run through different districts, who compete for the public patronage by lowness of fares, punctuality of trains, and cheapness of goods traffic. That is competition, no doubt, and proper competition; but in that sense these two companies have never competed at all. From 1836 to 1839—from that time to this—Parliament has given statutory sanction to schemes in the county of Kent between these two lines of railway, which has made competition, so far as it is of any benefit to the public, absolutely impossible. Sir, for years past, ever since the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway was first connected, this con- stant intermingling of traffic has gone on, and for years past, not only has competition not been possible, but there has always been entanglement, owing to mutual responsibilities which have been imposed upon the companies by this system; and so long as this state of things exists in the county, competition will be absolutely impossible. But what about this cry of monopoly? Monopolies themselves are not good things, but in this case we have to consider the outcome of a position which is more disastrous than any which has occurred in any other part of the kingdom as regards rates and fares and the treatment of the traders and agriculturists and passengers of these lines. What really has happened is, that while there has been no competition between these lines there has been a race and rivalry for the Continental traffic which has proved most disastrous, not only to the companies and the shareholders, but to the passengers and the goods traffic of the line. As regards this race for the Continental traffic, I am sorry to say that some ancestors of mine are somewhat responsible for it. In 1846, the South Eastern Company of that day offered an ancestor of mine a bonus of £40,000 if he would allow them to go through his property. He refused to allow them to go through his property, with the result that the South Eastern Railway was driven miles away, through the Weald of Kent by the Tunbridge route. When the London, Chatham, and Dover railway came along years after and brought a line close to my own home, and obtained a more direct route to the Continent, then the South Eastern Railway again comes in and claims a direct route through Sevenoaks and Tunbridge. During that time money flowed in the struggle between these two Companies in the Committee-rooms of this House like water. Not only has this rivalry been maintained with most disastrous results, but ever since that time there has been rivalry and litigation going on to an enormous extent, and the result has been swollen capital in the case of the South Eastern, and so far as the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway is concerned, the result has been very low dividends and very high fares and charges. I really ask this House to forgive me for mentioning this little history as to the way in which this disastrous rivalry has been arrived at and its results. It has been arrived at entirely in that way. In what position do we find ourselves today? For some years past a common understanding or union has been arrived at, as I believe under Parliamentary sanction, and it is therefore legal. The question is whether Parliament is ready now to send this Bill upstairs to a Committee, and make this union effective or not? That is the whole point. That is the question we have to decide; but in all cases of difficulty there may be an alternative. What is the alternative? The alternative is to throw these companies back into the wretched state of entanglement in which they were placed before. We see, on the one hand, a strong company anxious to help a weaker company; willing to make this union. Are we, with our eyes open, going to prevent it; because to prevent it is to make it absolutely impossible for the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to raise any further capital to carry out its effective working. If this Bill is passed it will result in the expenditure of a million of money for the improvement of the traffic arrangement of these lines in the first year. Are we going to throw away such a chance as that? The feeling which I have upon the matter is, that Parliament should assist us out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves; and that the only possible outcome is to support this Measure for the carrying out of these vast improvements which will not only benefit the Continental passengers, but will bring about a state of things which will enable these companies to reduce their rates on goods and agricultural products. I see much in the proposals before us, and before I sit down I think it is only right to say, that in dealing with this Bill as we are going to do, that the House, dealing as it is perhaps with a monopoly, would naturally ask what safeguards are to be provided on the question of fares, traffic, and rates. Those are very important matters, and I think before this Debate is closed, that my honourable Friend who is in charge of the Measure will show that, so far as the passengers and all rates are concerned, the promoters of this Bill will place themselves without the least reserve in the hands of the Board of Trade, and will say that no fares or rates shall be raised or dealt with without their sanction. I believe that if the House will give their assent to a union like this to help us out of our present entanglement, that under new control and new management the first outcome would be the breaking up of these old rivalries, and that working under a new system, the result would be a considerable relief to our agriculturists, to our fruit growers, and others, as regards the rates which they now pay. I thank the House for listening to me at this length, but of this I and assured, having given the utmost attention to this question, and knowing all these circumstances from my earliest years, though I have known Parliament, sometimes in ignorance, sometimes under pressure, do a hard thing to a private Bill, I would urge that this Parliament, at all events, cannot do a more cruel thing, not only to the passengers, but also to the through passengers to the Continent and the traders and agriculturists and others interested in the workings of these lines, than to refuse the passage of this Bill upstairs.

The right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has endeavoured to deny that there ever was any competition between these two companies in Kent. If I could take up the time of the House, I could show him that there was, but he went on and said that he thought that a monopoly was best.

I think I must dispute that altogether; the suggestion that I made was that the only way out of the present state of affairs was by an amalgamation of these two companies.

I am glad that the right honourable Gentleman has repudiated that suggestion; but he will not deny that the effect of this Bill, if it passes into law, will be to hand over the whole of the south-eastern comer of Britain to the operations of one company; that it will leave it in the control of a single company. That is a matter of very great importance, because it raises a question of policy. I shall only indicate this question of policy, and remind the House that there has not been for many years past any case in which such a proposal has been made to us and allowed. In 1872, the amalgamation of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company with the London and North-Western Railway was proposed, but was rejected. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Company was a weak company, and could not give a proper and effective service, and the stronger company proposed to help them. Since then that company has become a strong company, and is able to compete with the London and North-Western Railway. In the same manner the proposed amalgamation between the North British Railway and another adjacent railway was also rejected. The case presented to our consideration today is of special importance, for this reason: in the case of these two lines, the South-Eastern Railway and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, in the main, the traffic is passenger traffic; it is three-fourths passenger and one-fourth goods traffic; whereas, on the Great Northern lines, it is three-fourths goods and one-fourth passenger traffic. Now, the House will recognise that traders are far more able to combine among themselves, where it is a case in which their goods are concerned, and to organise themselves into a far more effective body than passengers, who are at the best scattered creatures. Therefore, a railway company whose profit is mainly derived from passenger traffic requires a very much greater amount of care at the hands of this House, and the passenger requires a great deal more protection than in the case of the trader, because they cannot protect themselves. Now, the two companies with which we are dealing, hold what is practically a monopoly of Continental traffic, but the honourable Gentlemen who have spoken upon this Debate have all spoken about Kent, as though they looked upon this matter as concerning Kent alone. But it concerns us all; it concerns London, which contributes a larger amount of traffic than Kent itself; it also concerns the Continental routes; and the fact that these two railways hold the two great Continental routes is in itself quite sufficient for this Measure to be considered by this House in a special manner. The Bill therefore comes before the House with a prima facie case against it, and no one will say that either company has so good a record that they ought to be indulged. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Ashford went further than I should go, when he likened these companies to the Augean stables. I will not recapitulate what has been said by my honourable Friend on this side of the House, but will come at once to the pith of the case made by the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. He said that competition, so far as we have had it, has not been a success; that Kent and Sussex have been very badly served, that rates are high and that passenger fares are very high; that the service is bad, and therefore there must be a strong case to meet them. His case is, that as competition has failed, and that it is impossible to meet it by a small expenditure of capital, that by a union of the companies a much better service, lower fares, and lower rates, would be obtained, and that the House may be fairly asked to take this step and to make a new departure and intervene to obtain by monopoly what competition has been unable to do. I think there is a great deal of force in that case, and I am inclined, therefore, despite the arguments that have been brought to bear against the Bill with great force, to think that this Bill should go before a Committee; but if it goes before a Committee certain conditions should be attached to it. The Committee should be an exceedingly strong Committee, and this Committee should have much freedom in its methods. It should not be restricted by the ordinary rules of procedure which govern the Railway Committee, but should be allowed to conduct its deliberations into this question as if it was, what it really is, a question of great public policy. I hope before the end of the Debate we shall receive some assurance from the Board of Trade and those responsible for the Bill that no objection will be raised to two proposals, namely, that the Committee shall be one of exceptional strength, and shall have a perfectly free hand in inquiring into all the questions which they may deem necessary to investigate for the purpose of solving this difficulty. I would further suggest that the Committee should have power to impose very stringent conditions as to the price of this Act of Parliament—to require the reduction of rates and fares, and the giving of additional facilities to the travelling public, especially in connection with workmen's trains. The Committee should also have power to consider whether some proviso should not be added dealing with a future revision of rates and charges, and enabling, if the scheme be not successful, some other company to come into the district. Those who are inclined to oppose the Second Reading will not part with all their powers over the Bill by sending it to a Committee. If their demands are not satisfied, questions can still be raised on the Third Reading, and, if necessary, the Bill can be rejected. I hope and trust, however, that that step will not be necessary; but it will depend upon the view which the Committee takes, and the freedom which it is allowed.

Sir, the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has arrived at a conclusion to which I was the first to ask the House to come, namely, that the Bill be read a second time, and then referred to a Committee. No doubt, an amalgamation of the kind proposed is one of large public interest, and no one can be surprised that Parliament has been asked to consider the important principle involved in the Measure. The service of the two companies concerned has been such as has not hitherto proved very satisfactory to the travelling public. But that is not an argument, in my opinion, against the Second Reading, but is one altogether in favour of it. The alternatives before the House are two. The one is whether or not, by rejecting the Bill, you are to allow the present unsatisfactory state of things to continue without taking some steps to remedy it; and the other is, whether you will give assent to the continuance of a private arrangement between the two companies, instead of an amalgamation on terms which may be examined by a Committee of the House that can insist, if it chooses, as a condition of amalgamation, that certain privileges shall be given. To reject this proposal for amalgamation on some shadowy idea that, in the remote future, some northern company might purchase the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway would be a course not in accord with the public interest. I must here repudiate, on my own behalf and on that of my right honourable Friend, the statement of the honourable Member opposite (Mr. Pickersgill) to the effect that the name of the Member for East Kent (Mr. Akers Douglas) appearing on the back of the Bill has in the smallest degree, either intentionally by him or with regard to mvself, had any influence on any proceeding—

I never suggested anything of the kind.

The honourable Gentleman did not say so, but he suggested it. Why did he mention the fact at all, then, if it was not to convey some reflection on my right honourable Friend? Such reflections are much worse than actual statements. My right honourable Friend has never mentioned the subject —neither of the two right honourable Gentlemen whose names appear on the back of the Bill, nor any colleague interested in railways has made any representations to me either for or against any proposals connected with railways which have been under my consideration since I have been President of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have, as the House knows, had some communications in the public interest with the railway companies in regard to some proposals in the Bill, and the railway companies concerned have shown the greatest inclination to meet the views which the Board of Trade have placed before them, and to make such alterations in their Bill as will, in our opinion, protect the public interest. The Board of Trade have insisted on the reduction of the maximum charges in the Bill; in this instance those charges may be reduced, and do not suppose the public will express any keen regret if that course be adopted. But that is not any reason why the Bill should not go before a Committee. There is one fear to which the public are justified in giving expression. Where at present there are competitive rates, in the amalgamation care shall be taken that there is no power, on their own initiative, to increase those competitive rates; and we have secured a clause in the Bill providing that at all competitive points there shall be no increase of passenger charges without the consent of the Railway Commission—a provision which adequately protects the public—and so with regard to goods. The Board of Trade will have to make a Report to Parliament on the Bill, and I hope when that Report is made we may have more concessions to record; but we shall, in any case, take care to consider any points where we think the public may be more efficiently protected than under the Bill. If passed, I believe the Bill will have the effect which my right honourable Friend the Member for Kent desires—it will place in the hands of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company a sum of money which they could not by any other means obtain for the purpose of improving their rolling stock, and for giving facilities to the public which they have long been demanding in vain. I believe the Bill will give great facilities to the public not at present existing for travelling between one system and the other. I look to the Committee to take such securities as shall prevent the amalgamation from being prejudicial to the public interest. I agree that the Bill should go before a Hybrid Committee. An ordinary Committee would, no doubt, deal satisfactorily with the question, but, having regard to the general interests expressed with reference to that question, it would be wise for the House, when the proper time comes, to refer the Bill to a strong Hybrid Committee. As to reducing fares and rates, insisting on workmen's trains, and other matters of that kind, my conviction is that without any instruction from the House the Committee would have full power to consider all such proposals. I am bound to say, with regard to workmen's trains, these companies have been more liberal than any other company running to London. In this connection, I think I am right in pointing out that these companies propose to give workmen tickets by every train up to eight o'clock in the morning. Sir, I hope the honourable Gentleman will not divide the House on this occasion, for I am certain that the general sense of the House is in favour of the Second Reading, all of us hoping that the Bill may emerge from the Committee in a condition which will be acceptable to all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, some criticisms were made by a number of Members on the other side as to the character and the legality of the opposition against the Second Reading of this Bill. Well, Sir, the right honourable Baronet the Member for Kent cannot direct such criticism against myself. I have the misfortune to ride in the railway carriages of one of the companies mentioned in this Bill, and I represent a district that has the greater misfortune of having one of these railways running through it. Consequently, my locus standi in this Debate is certainly as good as that of the provincial Gentlemen who represent Kent, and who look upon London simply as a means of providing the working expenses of a railway. Now, Sir, I want to say that I am extremely dissatisfied with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He has talked about public safeguards, and certain changes in the Bill, and indicated that the Chatham and Dover and South Eastern Railway Companies will give the 3d., 2d., and 1d. scale. Well, upon that I say, "Thank you for nothing," because nearly every other railway gives that, and considerably more already, and, consequently, the concession is hardly worth taking. I believe, Sir, that the President of the Board of Trade might have gone further and said that this company had no power to increase competitive rates, and neither would the Board of Trade allow it. What about the reduction of existing competitive rates? What about rates and fares that ought to be gradually reduced to follow the prospective reductions that other companies are sure to make, and which many companies carry out at the present moment? I believe that much good has been done to Kent and London by the Motion to reject this Bill, because without this discussion we should not have heard the highly interesting reminiscences of the right honourable Baronet the Member for Dart-ford, who told us that 40 or 80 years ago, or at some archaic date, an ancestor of his made a blunder in opposing the Chatham and Dover Bill. Well, Sir, what guarantee have we that his grandson 50 years hence in the House of Commons will not say a similar thing about the honourable Baronet supporting this Motion in his present unconditional manner? I have no desire, however, to go into the ancient history of the right honourable Baronet's family and the prospective decision of his grandson. I prefer to take the businesslike attitude of a London Member, and say that so far the President of the Board of Trade has neither pledged, promised, or guaranteed conditions that will satisfy the great railway traffic of London. And what is more, Sir, I have only got to go to Kent to prove my argument. The honourable Member who first spoke in support of the Bill was under the impression that London Members were trespassing upon this Tom Tiddler's ground that they represent, but he ought to know that of the 75 per cent. of the traffic of these two railways (i.e., passenger traffic) over 60 per cent is practically dependent upon London, and 50 per cent. of that 60 per cent. is London traffic pure and simple. You cannot, therefore, talk of the Chatham and Dover or South Eastern Railway Companies and leave London out of consideration. The honourable Member also said Continental traffic had been safeguarded. Yes, on present charges that may be so; but what we want is to regulate the Continental rates that produce-growers in the beautiful county of Kent will not have to pay from 5s. to 10s. 6d. for onions, carrots, and turnips, as against 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d. charged on these articles from Belgium and Germany. But that concession cannot be granted so long as we have Conservative Members theoretically looking after agriculture but taking the side of a railway company that has not considered the interests of Kent to anything like the extent it should have done. Then we are twitted with being irresponsible. Well, Sir, I am prepared to admit that my interest in this Bill is not dividends, and my concern in it is not directors' fees, and in that sense we are both irresponsible and independent. Honourable Members from Kent have talked about this being a local matter, and said that London Members should not intervene. But I venture to say that we suffer considerably by the blundering of these two companies, and our past experience of them is no guarantee that we shall not be similarly treated in the future unless the President of the Board of Trade and the Committee go further in the direction of keeping these companies under popular and effective control. An honourable Member has also said that practically there has been no effective competition, and that effective competition had never existed in Kent. Sir, where is the pledge of the honourable Member for Wimbledon? where is the pledge of the President of the Board of Trade?—that these two theoretical rival companies, who, in their desire to get Continental traffic, have ignored London and shamefully treated agriculturists in Kent, will do in the future any better than they have done in the past? Not one word in this Debate to lead us to form that view. Then we are told that concessions are being made. Well, what is the kind of concession? I have heard of one. The London, Chatham, and Dover Company have knocked off the 9.5 p.m. train from Victoria to Dover, and also the 3.45 a.m. Dover to Victoria, and, as a "concession," they substitute for these two trains, one starting at 10.30 from Victoria, going through Tunbridge Wells, and thence on the other line to Hastings and Seven-oaks, where no one wants to go or could go by the previous train. Well, if that is the kind of concession they are going to give, the fewer we have of them the better. I have received from season ticket holders representations to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I intend to do so simply because there has been no promise, pledge, or guarantee worthy the name from any supporter of the Bill. Now, Sir, I know from season ticket holders that the accommodation is bad, the time tables worse, and punctuality very indifferent. But there is one section of this traffic which I am much interested in, namely, workmen's train accommodation. The President of the Board of Trade has never ridden from Victoria to Ludgate Hill by the 4.30 or 5.30 on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. If he had he would have been reminded of what the Via Dolorosa is. But I will give the President of the Board of Trade an illustration: 12 to 16 workmen in a compartment to hold 10 on a foggy morning in November, with half of them smoking, and overcrowded to the most scandalous extent. Minor accidents frequently happen, although the Chatham and Dover, we are told, is an exceedingly good line. Well, as one who has 'travelled on this system, I cannot appreciate the eulogy pronounced by the President of the Board of Trade. It is not true. I do not believe it myself, and I believe the rest of London agree with me upon that point. With regard to the South Eastern, the company only run 13 workmen's trains, and this is the way in which some of the workmen employed by the Government at Woolwich Arsenal are treated—in consequence of having only short spells of work many of them are unable to leave London to permanently live at Woolwich, and very frequently these men have to pay 6s. or 7s. a week to go from Charing Cross to Woolwich and back out of 35s. and 38s. a week, the fares on the South Eastern being 1s. 2d. from Woolwich to Charing Cross, and 1s. 1d. from Woolwich to Spa Road. Well, Sir, I do believe that London will never be able to solve the housing problem, to destroy one-room tenements, and to mitigate the frightful poverty which exists in this large city, until Parliament compels the suburban and metropolitan railways to help the local authorities in London by a big system of cheap and frequent workmen's trains. The contribution towards the housing problem by the South Eastern Railway is practically nil. The contribution of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company is not worth anything. Their general treatment of the second-class and first-class passenger is equally shabby and disreputable, and it is to the credit of the workmen that the prevalent overcrowding has not been carried further. But with regard to rates on produce, with regard to workmen's fares, either in number or price, not a word from a responsible person in this Debate. As representing one of the South London constituencies which is served by both of these two railways, I trust that the House will not be influenced by the proposed safeguards of the President of the Board of Trade. I want to see them before we vote for the Second Reading. I sincerely trust that Members on this side will not be too much influenced by the suggestion that the appointment of a Committee is the right way to dispose of this Bill. I believe that the best thing that could happen both to the Chatham and Dover and South Eastern Railway Companies is for this Second Reading to be rejected by an overwhelming majority. If that were done it would teach the directors, and especially the embryonic Hercules who is going to clear out this Augean stable, that to carry out this tremendous task they must have a stronger, sounder public opinion behind them than at present exists. If this House rejects the Second Reading of this Bill the directors of both companies would come together, and they would submit to the London public and to the Kent district a scheme of fares, rates, and tariffs, with suggestions for improvements that would be popular beyond doubt, and then they would get a Second Reading with practically no opposition at all. The only way in which you can convert the South Eastern is to apply the toe of the boot. The only way in which the Chatham and Dover Company can be influenced is for the House of Commons to say, "Too long they mismanaged the public duty that Parliament entrusted them with fears and years ago." I believe that the best thing in the interests of these two companies—I ought really, Sir, to receive a substantial solatium for making these excellent suggestions—is for the House of Commons to put its foot down and say—"We have stood your blundering and plundering too long; you must know what you are going to do, and must be certain of it, the public must be satisfied as to your capacity to discharge your obligations, and Parliament will then devise means by which it can be done. It is about time that is done. I trust the House of Commons will defeat this Bill, and turn it out, as it deserves, by a large majority.

Perhaps the honourable Gentleman who has just spoken is right in saying that the blundering policy of the South Eastern Railway in the past has reached its climax. I thought for a moment that he was going to suggest that he should be the general manager of the company in future, because he seemed to be absolutely conversant with all the facts of the case. He seemed to know the rates for agricultural produce, the fares of passengers, and the allowances made to foreigners. I felt he had studied the subject so thoroughly that he was prepared to suggest that possibly he might be general manager, or, perhaps, that the London County Council should take over the railways. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into the details of this Debate, because I am perfectly well aware that anyone who is considered to have been, or is about to be, connected with the policy of a Private Bill is not supposed to use his influence or his vote for or against that Bill. But I do not think the House should divide on this occasion on anything like false representations. My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen laid out a policy for the guidance of the proposed Committee, which I for one, speaking in behalf of the shareholders of the South Eastern Company, cannot for one moment accept. I wish this House to thoroughly understand that I cannot agree to the reference which the right honourable Gentleman wished to make to the Committee to which the Bill will be sent. I would rather lose the Bill. There is nothing in the present Bill which is exceptional. But there is this to be said, that no Private Bill has come before the House of Commons upon which greater publicity has been thrown. Everyone interested in the matter knows that for quite nine months the policy of the two companies was to be proposed in Parliament, and that policy has been before the country and before the passengers and customers of these companies, and with all that publicity there have been only seven petitions presented against the Bill. Two out of those seven petitions were presented by great railway companies, who naturally did not oppose the principle of the Measure, but merely opposed is on the ground that they have already agreements with one of the two companies, and they wish these agreements to be protected in the Bill. One petition was from the commercial travellers of Great Britain. Another petition was from the town and corporation of Canterbury, possibly the only representative authority, the only local authority, or county council or district council in the district which we serve which has petitioned against the Bill. And since I came into the House I have been informed that that petition has been withdrawn. Beyond that petition there is absolutely nothing left except the petition of the London County Council. The promoters of the Bill were advised that they might have objected to the appearance of the London County Council before the Committee of this House on the ground that the London County Council had no locus standi. But I think we were well advised in saying that the policy we proposed was a big policy, and that we should shut out no one from the discussion of the provisions we were going to place in our Act. We, therefore, welcomed the London County Council as the protective genius of the various bodies and authorities who wished to protest against the Bill, or who wished to get advantage from it. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman intends to move for the Committee which he has selected, but in the interests of share-holders, if he does, I shall oppose it. I feel as confident as possible that this, Bill is really in the interests of the public first, and in the interests of the shareholders afterwards; and I am perfectly confident that the clauses which have been agreed to with the Board of Trade will be an absolute protection against any undue use of the monopoly we possess. We bind ourselves absolutely not to increase any rate, fare, or charge which is at present in existence. And we go one step further, and say that it is our absolute intention to go through the whole of the tariff of charges, fares, and the rates, and to remove anomalies, and do our best to make the interests of the company and the interests of our customers identical as they ought to be.

As representative of a constituency which is more closely interested in this question than that of any other Member of the House, I would like to say a few words. I did not gather from my honourable Friend behind me whether he accepted the suggestion made by the President of the Board of Trade. I understand my Friend accepts the modification of the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman opposite.

Yes.

I would like to say this, that my constituents, until a few days ago, afforded me no indication whatever of what their opinions were. But during the last 10 days I lave had a great many representations on this subject. Those representations differed very widely one from the other; but among those who favoured me with representations I did not find that enthusiasm in favour of the Bill which my Friend indicated. On the other hand, I did not find any important section of them who were prepared to suggest that the Bill should be rejected. What I found was suggested was that all local interests should have a fair opportunity of being heard before the Committee— not a rambling inquiry on the part of persons who had no business whatever in the locality—but that all local interests should be fairly heard. There was one opinion which I found largely prevailed: that was that if there had been any hope or chance of getting one of the Northern lines to acquire one of these companies in order to come into Kent that would have been welcomed with open arms. But when it was found that that was impossible the present Bill was acquiesced in by them as a disagreeable alternative. I feel bound to say this, as I told my constituents yesterday, because the whole of England for railway purposes is already parcelled out very much in the same way as China is just now by the European Powers. It has been divided into spheres of interest and influence. But unlike the European Powers in China, the railway companies agree not to encroach upon each other's provinces. This is done by a boná fide agreement which makes it impossible for any of the Northern lines to invade Kent. My honourable Friend near me says it is not so; but all I can say is that hitherto none of the Northern lines have come forward to fill the void. I, for one, cannot take upon myself the responsibility of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. I fully accept the promises of my honourable Friend behind me. I feel sure that which he has promised to carry out he will see carried out. Under these circumstances I trust the House will accept the reference of the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, so that all interested in it may be heard.

Do I understand that the suggestion that has been thrown out by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen has been accepted by the President of the Board of Trade?

I propose a reference to a Hybrid Committee.

I do not understand the position taken up by the honourable Member for Wimbledon. He says that he agrees with the President of the Board of Trade, but does not accept the position taken up by the right honour-able Member for Aberdeen.

I willingly accept a Hybrid Committee, and the stronger it is made the better I will be pleased. But I accept it with the limitations imposed on it by the President of the Board of Trade.

There is no great difference, to my mind. The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear why he recommends that Committee. The object I have in rising is not to discuss the provisions of the Bill. As far as I can understand, all have admitted that we have had a wretched state of affairs on these two lines, and that something must be done to mend it. My honourable Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill has not been able to put into very practical shape before the House the reforms he wishes introduced. The honourable Member for Battersea has said that the best thing that could happen to the Bill would be its rejection by a great majority, and that then the companies should state the concessions they are prepared to make, and make these the basis of a Bill which would be passed next year unanimously. That sounds very well, but it is not practical. I do not think that next Session the House would be willing to pass a Bill which it has unanimously rejected this year. I have a little information which I wish to give to the House The action of the honourable Member for Battersea, like the action of the London County Council as far as London is concerned, was almost confined to the question of workmen's trains. I happened last year to have something to do with these two lines, as well as with other lines with which I have relations: and I am bound to state that these companies, from whatever motive, have adopted the very suggestions which the honourable Gentleman has thrown out in regard to workmen's trains.

When?

They have taken the means of making public larger facilities for workmen's trains than have ever been given by any other lines coming into London.

They made it public five weeks ago, but I knew it over three months ago, when I had occasion to approach the two companies as president of a society with which I am connected. And I hold in my hand the advertisements announcing these new arrangements in regard to workmen's trains. The question is whether these new arrangements are of a satisfactory nature. I do not wish to enter into details; I will only say that we were told by the honourable Member for Walthamstow that the Chatham and Dover Company ran only 13 workmen's trains, and the South-Eastern only 25. It was pointed out to the society with which I am connected that the reason why more workmen's trains were not given was because of the physical difficulty of getting in and out of the termini of the lines. But the company said that, to meet this difficulty, they would allow workmen to travel by any train on their system and give tickets at greatly reduced fares, even after eight o'clock in the morning. These companies have done more, I think, to carry into effect the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act than any other company coming into London. I do not say that this is all that ought to be given. My honourable Friend has mentioned—and thought he had a good right to do so in the interest of those he represents—certain stations, eight or nine in number, where the workmen's trains did not stop. But the companies have been approached, and I think it is not impossible that the Board of Trade will get some reasonable arrangement made for these stations. But the new concession I have mentioned is not the only one to which public attention has been drawn. There have been concessions in regard to Continental traffic and other matters. In fact, the very course recommended by the honourable Member for Battersea has been, to a large extent, adopted. I believe the President of the Board of Trade has been in communication with the companies, and that many further concessions have been promised. The question is, what we have got to do at the present moment. We have received very good advice from the right honourable Member for Aberdeen, and no one can say that that right honourable Gentleman's criticism, both of the companies and of the Bill, was not sufficiently severe. He was not, however, opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill, but demanded that it be remitted to a strong Committee, and that that

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, as a matter of order, any part of the Motion which I have here that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee which is opposed cannot be taken to-day, but I hope that will not preclude me from moving, at any rate, the first part, and I suppose I may move that now, though the latter part is opposed by the Amendment in the name of the right honourable Gentleman opposite.

Sir, I hope the fact that the House has been engaged now for some time on the consideration of private business will not prevent the House giving its attention to the question which now comes before it upon this Bill. I would have hesitated to intervene in this matter at all upon this occasion were it not that this Bill raises issues of the widest possible character affecting the public in Ireland —issues so large and wide that I feel it is the duty of Irish Members to have them discussed and considered on Second Reading. I suppose the majority of Members who are in the House probably know little or nothing about this matter, but I would ask their permission to state in a few words what exactly it is that the Bill proposes. Sir, this is a Measure for placing in the hands of one railway company in Ireland—namely, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company—practically speaking, all the railway lines in the south of Ireland. Although this scheme does not touch the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford, or some small lines west of Cork, it can broadly be said that this Measure will put into the hands of one railway company all the railways south of a line drawn from Dublin to Galway. The Measure proposes to enable the Great Southern and Western Railway to amalgamate the Waterford and Limerick Railway, the Central Ireland Railway, the Tuam and Claremorris Railway, Claremorris and Swinford Railway, Swinford and Collooney Railway, and the Limerick, Kerry, and Thurles Railway, and by the Act of last Session the Great Southern and Western Railway has obtained possession of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Fermoy Railway, and, in conjunction with the Great Western Railway of England, the new railway to be built from Rosslare to Waterford, and thence on through Mayo to Cork. So, Sir, I say that this Bill is, so far as Ireland is concerned, of far more importance than the Bill we have just been discussing was with regard to England. Under this Bill, every railway line coming into the city of Waterford, every railway line coming into the city of Limerick, practically every railway line coming into the city of Cork, if you except these little West Cork lines which cannot compete, every line of railway coming into the city of Ennis, every line of railway coming into the town of Tralee, and every line coming into the city of Kilkenny, will in the future be all in the hands of one railway, and this railway will have, in this way, complete control of the ports of Water-ford, Cork, Limerick, and Tralee. Mr. Speaker, to show how wide a Measure this is, 13 counties are affected by it—the counties of West Meath, King's County, Queen's County, Galway, Water-ford, Cork, Tipperary, Limerick, Kerry, Mayo, Galway, Roscommon, and Sligo. I mention this fact in order to try and press upon the House that this is indeed an enormous proposal, one that for good or ill will affect the future of Ireland, and, therefore, a proposal that the House of Commons ought most carefully to consider upon every side. The first question, Mr. Speaker, which would, I think, be asked is—what do the inhabitants of these 13 counties and these cities that I have mentioned say about this Bill? I do not believe any Private Bill was ever more vigorously opposed, or so nearly unanimously opposed, by the people concerned as this Measure. Some little time ago a deputation waited upon the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon this question. That deputation certainly was one of the most representative that ever waited upon an English Minister in this country. I think that every one of the 13 counties was represented in that deputation. The Mayors of all the chief cities concerned were there—the Mayors of Waterford, Limerick, Kilkenny, and Sligo, the Town Commissions from all the towns in this area were present; and altogether, as was admitted by the Chief Secretary when speaking in answer to the deputation, it was a gathering most representative of the populations affected by this Bill. Sir, I do not know exactly what course the Debate will take here, but I may express my own opinion. Unless, perhaps, the Members for Mayo support this Measure, I do not believe that the Members for any of the other thirteen counties affected are likely to do so. Certainly, as for the counties of West Meath and Queen's County, Kilkenny, Waterford, Tipperary, and Limerick, the counties which are most concerned, and Kerry also, no single representative of theirs, I venture to say, will be found supporting this Bill. Sir, may I advert for one moment from this question to the possibility of the Members for Mayo supporting this Bill. I think they are supporting the Bill from the narrow Mayo point of view. If they support the Bill, it will be for the same reasons that we oppose it, because they desire that there-should be competition in their county, that the Great Southern and Western: should come in there and be in competition with the Midland. That is a most reasonable view, and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the view that influences the other counties in opposing the Bill. Now, what is the reason of this almost unanimous opposition from the counties affected? The reason is perfectly plain. It is a dread on the part of the cities and counties of a monopoly in the hands of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, whose history in the past makes, it feared and disliked in Ireland. At present the lines that under this amalgamation scheme are to be bought up by the Great Southern and Western are in active competition with it, and I am the first to admit that that competition, as it stands, is altogether inadequate; but still, the result of that competition has been extraordinary. I have a statement here which was circulated among Members of the House this morning, showing what the result of that inadequate competition has been in the past, and I find that where competition sprung up to the Great Southern and Western Railway, either by the Claremorris extension, or the Waterford and Limerick, or by the Southern Railway from Clonmel to Thurles—in all these cases the reduction has been enormous. The rates from Limerick to Claremorris on grain and food stuffs were reduced by competition on the Great Southern and the Claremorris extension from 12B. 6d. a ton to 7s. From Limerick to Tuam the rates were reduced from 12s. to 6s.; from Limerick to Thurles, 12s. to 5s.; from Limerick to Tralee, 12s. 6d. to 6s.; from Tipperary, 4s. 6d. to 3s. The Limerick and Fergus brought the rates from 30s. a ton to 16s. 8d.; flour from 20s. to 14s., fruit from 40s. to 23s. 6d. per ton, and so on; so that the competition which has been in existence, inadequate as it undoubtedly is, has had the result of reducing the freight of grain and food stuffs about one half, and the inhabitants of these districts, who, before these competing lines came into existence, had to pay the larger freights, naturally enough look forward with dread to amalgamation which will put them absolutely in the power of the Great Southern and Western Railway once again. No one need wonder under these circumstances that the people of these counties view the passage of this Act with dread. Last year there was a Hybrid Committee appointed to consider the Rosslare and Fishguard line, and the House of Commons directed that Hybrid Committee to inquire into the whole question of competition among the railway systems in the South of Ireland. This question of amalgamation, which is now before Parliament in this Bill, and which then was the subject of a grievance between the companies, came under consideration. Now, on this question, let me say a word. I have heard it stated as a reason why this Bill should be allowed to pass that if this amalgamation be not carried the Great Western Railway of England, which is concerned with the Great Southern and the Rosslare scheme of last year, would in some way back out of its engagements, and the Rosslare and Fishguard scheme would be in danger. That has been very freely stated in Ireland, and if it were believed, Mr. Speaker, I think we could quite understand many men's minds being influenced by it, because there are many people in Ireland who are entirely against this proposed amalgamation, but who desire to see the Rosslare and Fishguard line, as sanctioned last year, carried out. I took the trouble to-day to look over the Report of the evidence before the Hybrid Committee upon this point, because it is a most serious one, and I know these threats have been used towards men in Ireland who are hostile to this amalgamation, and I find that the Committee unanimously submitted to the promoters of the Bill two questions upon this point,: and after taking a night to consider then-answer, on the following day their leading counsel said—

"Before the Committee resumes its labours, I desire to state that I am now in a position, with the authority of the Boards of the two companies, to reply distinctly to the questions."

And his reply was as follows—

"Whether the amalgamation of the Water-ford and Limerick and Central Ireland Railways be ultimately sanctioned by Parliament at any future time or not, this scheme will be bond fide persisted with, in the spirit in which it has been introduced, and whether this next year, or any subsequent year, Parliament does or does not sanction the amalgamation of the Waterford and Limerick, this scheme will be persisted with perfectly bonâ fide, independent of any such result."

So that, I think, disposes altogether of this argument which has been freely used in some quarters. It has been used, in many quarters; it has been used even with myself. Therefore that may be left entirely out of the question. The Great Western Railway are bound by solemn pledges, whatever happens, not to attempt to recede from their position with regard to the Rosslare and Fishguard Railway. The Hybrid Committee to which I referred had this instruction given to them—

"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do inquire and report whether the adoption of any or all the proposals would prevent or prejudice adequate competition in the railway systems of the South of Ireland."

And in pursuance of that instruction the Hybrid Committee, having considered the matter, unanimously—and it was a very representative Committee, representing the whole of the South of Ireland —declared as follows—

"Although Parliament cannot in the present Session deal finally with the two proposed amalgamations, because they are not yet embodied in a Bill, your Committee are unable, after the evidence they have heard, to withhold the expression of their unanimous opinion that in the interests of the South of Ireland they will regard with grave apprehension the absorption of these two companies' undertakings by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; and should either of these two companies become too weak to stand alone, an amalgamation with some railway system other than the Great Southern and Western would be preferable in the interests of such competition."

Now, Sir, I say that in the face of that declaration, that unanimous declaration by the Hybrid Committee of last year, it is a strong order to expect that Parliament will pass this Amalgamation Bill into law. The concluding paragraph which I have read contemplates the possibility of these small railway companies becoming too weak to stand alone, and it says that in that case they ought to be amalgamated with some other system rather than the Great Southern. Well, now, I do not know— I hare yet to hear it established, at any rate—that these companies are too weak to stand alone. I do not profess to know much about the position of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, but I am within the truth, I think, when I say that they have improved their position of late; their lines have improved, their rolling stock has improved, their income has increased, and so far as their capital is concerned, by paying four or five per cent. to their debenture holders and to their preference shareholders they have actually paid away ever since they have been in existence, or for a great number of years at any rate, a sum annually which would amount to about three per cent. on their entire capital. If that be so, certainly one would think that the Waterford and Limerick Railway was not so bad a concern as it is represented to be, or that it is impossible for it to stand alone. But, Mr. Speaker, even if it were established that the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company could not stand alone, then the position which I and others take up on this matter is this. There are other combinations which were clearly hinted at in the Report of the Hybrid Committee last year—there are other combinations which would enable the Waterford and Limerick Railway to be amalgamated with a stronger company, and yet not introduce a monopoly into the railway system of the South of Ireland, and to leave it with some sort of adequate competition. I do not think that I am called upon to say what these other combinations may be, but one of them has appeared recently in the public newspapers, because the Midland of Ireland, through their general manager, declared in a published letter the other day that if this amalgamation scheme fell through his company would be prepared to make an offer for the purchase of a part of the whole of the Waterford and Limerick system.

Would you read that letter?

Yes. It is dated the 16th February this year, and it is a letter in which Mr. Tatlow said—

"In the event of the proposed amalgamation scheme not being carried, and an amalgamation of the Waterford and Limerick Company with any other company becoming necessary, this company would favourably consider any proposal for the acquisition of a part of or the entire system by agreement with the Great Western Railway."

That is a very different thing from making an offer.

No doubt no offer has been made, but—

May I point out there is a great deal of difference in a railway company undertaking to follow the offers of others and making an offer itself.

I am only quoting that to show that other combinations are possible. Surely I am not pushing my argument beyond that. I am not prepared to say whether that would be the best solution or not, but I quote that as an indication that there is at least one other combination possible, and that is with the Midland. There are other combinations which are freely mentioned.

Will the honourable Member say what combination is possible for the Waterford and Central Ireland?

The Midland also. There are other companies besides the Midland which have been mentioned more than once. I read a most interesting article on the whole railway system of Ireland, written evidently by a skilled expert, in which it was suggested, as a possible combination of the future, a combination of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford. This is only separated from the Waterford and Limerick by 14 miles between Now Ross and Waterford, a connection which ought to have been made long ago, and which I hope will soon be made. There are other combinations possible, and these combinations were clearly in the mind of the Hybrid Committee when last year they unanimously declared that if it became necessary for the Waterford and Limerick to amalgamate with a stronger company, it should be an amalgamation with some other system rather than the Great Southern and Western. Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable and learned Friend opposite referred to the Central Ireland Railway. There is a point con- nected with the Central Ireland Railway of great importance in this connection. That railway ends at present at Mount Mellick. Powers were obtained by the company to extend their line to Mullingar, and then, by running powers over existing lines from Cavan, they can get direct running to Belfast, and in this way there would be direct communication between the north and south of Ireland through the centre of the island, instead of at present only communication round by Dublin. Admittedly this scheme of amalgamation does not contemplate anything of the kind, and the witnesses that we had before us in the Hybrid Committee last year distinctly declined to give any undertaking that if an amalgamation were carried this line would be extended. I believe myself that if this amalgamation scheme as it now stands be carried into law, all possibility will be at an end of this connection being made between the north and south of Ireland through the centre of the island. There are two other considerations which I would like to address to the House—considerations of distinctly Second Reading importance. The first is this: There are very many people in Ireland who believe that this railway problem can only be finally and satisfactorily settled by something in the nature of State control or State purchase. There are differences of opinion upon that point, but there is a large volume of opinion in Ireland of that view. Well, it seems to me that if that is a possibility of the future, it ought to be carefully considered by the Government before the passage of a Measure of amalgamation such as this. I believe that Measures of this kind would render more difficult and more costly by far any such change in the general railway system of Ireland in the future, and the suggestion has been made that the whole of this railway problem ought again to be submitted to a Royal Commission before the passage of any further amalgamation Bills of this kind, and that suggestion is one which certainly has my approval. But, Sir, there is a second consideration of a general character which ought, I think, to be absolutely fatal in the House of Commons to the passage of the Second Reading of this Bill. I have said that there are 13 counties intimately concerned in this matter. Last year the Local Government Act conferred on the county councils of Ireland the right of petitioning and appearing in opposition to Bills of this character. The county councils have not yet been elected. The ime for petitioning is past, and they cannot appear, and in this way, if this Bill goes through, the county councils of these 13 counties will be deprived of all voice. Mr. Speaker, the case is even stronger than that, because there are four or five of these counties that have actually guaranteed about half a million of money towards the creation of some of these small lines that are going to be amalgamated. And is it not a monstrous thing to say that they shall be deprived of voice in this matter after right to appear has been conferred upon them by Act of Parliament. The suggestion has been made, I am aware, that this matter should be postponed until some convenient date, until the county councils have come into existence, and that the time for petitioning should be extended, so as to enable them to appear. Well, Sir, the county councils will have a good deal of business to do when they come into existence, and I say it is unfair and absurd to suppose that these county councils, the moment they are created, will be able to investigate this matter fully, and to come to a determination as to what course they shall take in opposition to this Bill, and to instruct counsel, and so on. It would be impossible for that to be done in the course of a few weeks, and I say the proper course for the House of Commons to take would be to say that, under these circumstances, even apart altogether from the merits which the scheme might have—which are matters for the Committee—they will refuse to sanction the Second Reading of a Bill which deprives! the county councils of a proper opportunity of appearing and making their voice known. In conclusion, I will make an appeal to the Irish Government and to the House. Whatever view the Chief Secretary individually may take about the merits of this Bill, he must recognise that this is a matter upon which the persons concerned and their representatives have a right to speak and to have their views carefully weighed. It would be a very strong thing for the right honourable Gentleman, even in his individual capacity, to go against the almost unanimous voice of these 13 counties. I say it would be a much stronger thing, and, if I may be allowed to use the word, a most improper thing if he were to use his position in the Government to make this a Government question, and, therefore, to call upon his followers, not upon the merits, but simply because he made it a Government question, to go and vote in his favour. I therefore appeal to him respectfully to leave this matter free to the House of Commons, and the free and unbiassed and independent judgment of those Members who may have taken an interest in it, and I appeal to the House generally to decide this matter not upon Party lines, but upon their judgment of the merits of the case, and if they do that, I am quite convinced that they will defeat the Second Reading of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Motion which has just been moved. It is now proposed to rush this Bill through the House before the local authorities created under the Act of last year have had time to take up the business which has fallen from the hands of the Grand Juries, and without affording them any proper opportunity of explaining their views. That seems to me an argument which is simply unanswerable. Then I come to the question of the wishes of the people who live in the districts affected. I believe the House will be addressed by Members of great weight, and with their usual ability and knowledge, in favour of this Bill, but I would remind the House that nothing is cheaper than good advice, except, perhaps, disinterested advice. The House will receive plenty of that this evening. But I am here, living as I do in the district, to represent those towns on the Waterford and Limerick Railway which will be affected by this Bill, and I say that the feeling is very strong in Tipperary, in Clonmel, in Waterford, and all the principal towns on that line, against it. The reason is that the people dread that you are going to establish a gigantic monopoly—a perfect millenium of monopoly -a The scheme contemplates the absorption of almost the whole of the railway system of the South of Ireland, as well as that passing along to the North. It includes no less than six ports, four of great importance and two of minor importance, and it is a serious thing if the House is going to prevent a man sending his produce by any route he pleases. I would also ask the House to consider in whose favour they are about to take this most exceptional step—a step which I believe is contrary to the traditions of Parliament. The House is asked to take it in favour of a company which has pursued a grasping, unsympathetic course. The business of the Great Southern and Western Railway has been increasing in spite of itself, and in spite of the policy of its directors. We have never received from the company any consideration of our views with reference to the transit of produce. We approached them, and complained to them regarding the state in which our butter arrived at market, while Danish butter came into the Manchester market in perfect condition. It is a serious matter that butter producers should have no proper care taken of their butter in transit. When we brought our views before the company they always turned a deaf ear to us; and this is the railway to whom we are asked to extend exceptional facilities! I now come to a larger question. You have been lowering rents and taking steps in one direction or another to benefit the cultivators of the soil in Ireland. Are you now going to pile up shilling by shilling in railway rates what you have taken off the rents? That seems to me to be a question of the greatest importance. A friend of mine, perhaps the greatest financial authority in Ireland, made a careful examination of railway rates in Canada, and he found that the rates had been lowered to a farthing per ton per mile, whereas the average rate in Ireland is no less than five farthings per ton per mile, and in towns on the Great Southern and Western Railway which have no option or competition the rates are as much as 3¼d., and even 5d. per mile. I think that is a matter which ought to receive the most careful consideration of the House. With reference to the guaranteed lines interest is guaranteed in two was. Under recent legislation the Treasury has to pay 2 per cent., and the local authorities have to pay either 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., making it 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. altogether. There is such a thing as giving these local lines fair play, but you cannot expect a board of directors to be angels, and they, having no interest in them, will show them neither mercy nor fair play, and the Treasury and the guaranteeing districts will be bound to make good the interest. That is a very strong point, well worthy the attention of the House. Again, I would ask why it is proposed to refer this Bill to a Hybrid Committee. That would mean a great deal of additional expense. I have not been here long enough to know much about Parliamentary tactics, but it strikes me as most objectionable to appoint a Hybrid Committee—

The honourable Member cannot discuss the Committee on the Second Reading.

If the Government take no exceptional line as to this Bill, but leave it to the ordinary consideration of the House, a proper and cautious line will be taken, in view of the recommendations of last year. The only object in sending the Bill to another Committee is to obtain sufficient authority to override those recommendations. This is all I wish to say. What I ask the House to do is to refuse to consent to this amalgamation, unless there is a total revision of rates throughout the South of Ireland. If that were done we might fairly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the honourable Member who has just addressed the House, or the honourable and learned Member who has moved the rejection of this Bill, into questions which properly belong to the Committee stage, in whatever way that may be brought about. But, Sir, I think that the honourable and learned Member who brought forward the Motion to reject the Bill and who asked the House to take the exceptional course of rejecting it on the Second Reading might at least have informed the House that the promoters of this Bill have brought it forward in pursuance of a pledge they gave to the Hybrid Committee on the passage of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Bill last year. What is more, not only for reasons which I shall shortly state, why this Bill should be promoted, but so careful were the Committee that it should be promoted that they put that pledge into a section of the Act of Parliament relating to the Fishguard and Rosslare scheme. And what the House is now solemnly asked to do is—although an Act of Parliament passed last year expressly enacts that this Bill should be introduced this Session—to reject it on. Second Reading. Any such proceeding on the part of the House would be really stultifying the whole proceeding which took place last year. It would really render it impossible for promoters to know how they could possibly conduct their business if they are put under terms by Act of Parliament to do a certain thing, and, having gone to expense, are not to be given an opportunity of having their scheme inquired into.

The honourable and learned Member must be aware that what the Committee desired to do was to prevent these companies carrying out the object of an amalgamation without a Bill by a pooling arrangement. They pledged the companies, they compelled them by inserting a provision in the Act of Parliament not to attempt an amalgamation without introducing a Bill. In that way they did direct them to introduce the proposal, with a declaration that they were unanimously against it.

I think the Committee of which the honourable and learned Member was a distinguished ornament had a great deal more common sense than he gives them credit for. I can hardly imagine that they had solemnly inserted in an Act of Parliament a provision that this Bill was to be introduced into this House, for the purpose of turning it out. That is the character he gives to the Committee, but I think I can satisfy the House in a few minutes that the honourable and learned Member is under a misapprehension of what is really the effect of what the Committee did. He says that the Committee introduced this clause to prevent what would really be an amalgamation by agreement or a pooling arrangement. Yes, Sir; but for how long? For one year, until this Bill could be brought in. What the honourable and learned Member says, in effect, is—"Let the House reject this Bill, and then, under the Act of Parliament which my Committee enacted last year, the companies will be able to effect a practical amalgamation which will bring about practically the same results." Really, an argument of that kind has only to be stated to show its absurdity. How did this matter stand, as I understand it, with reference to the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway? The Waterford and Limerick Railway were, under an Act passed in 1886, enabled to enter into a working arrangement with the Great Southern and Western, the present promoters, and the Great Western of England, and the result of the investigation last year was that it was evident to the Committee that those arrangements must come to an end. One result was that the Great Western of England would withdraw a rebate they pay for an interchange of traffic with the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, which last year amounted to £10,000 or £12,000. In that event the Great Southern and Western Railway would no longer be dependent to the same extent on the Waterford and Limerick. They would modify their arrangements, and the Waterford and Limerick would then become too weak to stand on its own legs. It specially provided in the section to which I have referred that neither the Great Western of England nor the Great Southern and Western should in any way modify the arrangements with the Waterford and Limerick Railway for fear it should become so weak that it would be unable to supply the public with a service, so they were put upon terms to carry out their existing arrangement with the Waterford and Limerick until they could get the sanction of that company to the present Bill. Now, let us face this question. What will happen if we reject this Bill? The whole arrangement made by the Hybrid Committee of last year falls to the ground. The Great Western Railway will have a perfect right to terminate their arrangement by which they gave £10,000 or £12,000 a year to the Waterford and Limerick, and the Great Southern, which now wants to amalgamate, will have the power to enter into the working arrangement which the Committee did not wish them to have. They would have a virtual amalgamation without the responsibility for it. In other words, the Waterford and Limerick would in reality be worked by the Great Southern and Western, whereas the Great Southern and Western would not be at liberty to improve the rolling stock or the stations, or to do the other things which the capital at their command would enable them to do. Apart altogether from the evidence that may be given, it seems to me that it is an argument in favour of passing the Second Reading that, while the Committee were opposed to the amalgamation if they could see any better scheme, they thought it necessary and proper to put the promoters under the necessity and expense of introducing this Bill. All we ask is that the Bill should be inquired into before a Committee. A great deal has been said about the amalgamation of these small lines, many of which probably some Members have never heard of. My own individual opinion is that, so far as the management of railway companies in Ireland is concerned, it is a great pity there is not a great deal more amalgamation. I was very much struck with one fact mentioned by the honourable Member for Dublin, namely, that while they had about 3,000 miles of railways in Ireland they had about 300 directors, or about one director for every ten miles, and that at any time we propose to amalgamate with the great companies, such as the Great Southern and Western, we are told that we are going to build up monopolies, and, as a result, the interests of the country will be ruined. It is not the interests of the country that would be ruined, but the interests of a few directors. Another argument of the honourable and learned Member for Waterford is that he hopes that the Government will in the future purchase the Irish railways. But does he think because some of these small railways have been amalgamated with larger ones that that is any the less reason why the Government should be induced to purchase? One other matter was mentioned by the honourable Member for Derry. He stated that it was an unanswerable argument against the Second Reading that the county councils, which have not yet been called into existence, have not had an opportunity of expressing their views on this Measure. As I understand, there is at the present moment upon the Paper a Motion by my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant which provides that the county councils shall have the fullest opportunity of appearing before the Committee, and, therefore, the argument of the honourable Member for Deny falls to the ground. Of course, everybody knows that the country ought to get a hearing. It is said that this Bill is being rushed through the House. One would think we were on the Third Reading. We are not asking anything of the kind. All we ask for is that a Bill which has been brought forward in pursuance of a statutory obligation should be sent to a Committee to investigate it. Let the matter be so arranged as regards time that the county councils shall have the fullest opportunity of appearing, and let the Bill, if it be rejected at all, be rejected only after the fullest consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the honourable and learned Member for Waterford intends to press his Motion to a division. For my part I trust that he does not, and I entertain that hope principally in the interest of the very district whose rights he takes upon himself to champion and protect. In making that observation I do not at all suggest that the Debate which the honourable and learned Member has originated is other than quite proper and necessary. It would be little to the credit of Irish Members if they let a Measure of this kind pass without a full and ample discussion. I agree with every word that has been said as regards the importance of this Bill, as regards the large nature of its proposals, and as regards the vital manner in which it may, if carried into law, ultimately affect many districts in Ireland. But while admitting its importance, and having no quarrel with a great deal that the honourable and learned Member for Waterford has said, I ask the House to take the opposite course to that proposed by him. I can conceive that the Committee which would consider this Bill might for good reasons reject it. I can conceive also that the Committee might for good reasons entertain the Bill and pass it into law; but one course I cannot conceive, and that is that this House should refuse to consider it when it is put forward in the manner in which it is now submitted. That is all we are asking the House to do in proposing that it be read a second time, and that is all I will contend for in the speech I am about to make. I am not here as a partisan of the Great Southern and Western Railway. The honourable and learned Member for Waterford has said some strong things in condemnation of that railway, and in that line of comment he has been followed by the honourable Member for Derry. With what they have said I cannot bring myself publicly to dissent. I took myself last year some small part in a railway struggle in which that company was interested, and I have no doubt that in the course of that contest I said about the Great Southern and Western many things quite as severe as have been said by either of the honourable Members who have spoken; and I was glad to read the other day a remark of the Chief Secretary which I trust the directors will take to heart, reminding them that the fierce opposition which they have encountered in the railway discussions of the last two years was the inevitable Nemesis overtaking them for the narrow policy they have pursued in the past. That observation was perfectly justified. I will not say that what the honourable and learned Member for Waterford has said here to-night is not also perfectly justified, and I trust the directors of that line will learn by the experience of the last two years that by the course of conduct they have pursued in the past they have not served either the interests of the company or of the shareholders. But I refuse to consider this Bill as if it were to be finally judged by the conduct of the Great Southern and Western Railway in the past. Be the action of the directors right or wrong in the past, the company now comes before us to put forward a large scheme affecting Irish interests for good or evil in an important manner, and I say they are entitled to claim from us, and we are bound to give them, a consideration of their scheme on its merits. A great deal has been said about monopoly, and justly; but when we have exhausted that topic, and painted in the most vivid colours all the evils which monopoly brings in its train, we have not said the last word to be said on this Bill or on the question of railway interests and railway development in Ireland. It is quite true that monopoly is objectionable. It is also quite true that if this Bill is carried it will confer a monopoly on the Great Southern and Western Railway. It is also quite true that if there is any means open to Parliament of securing the object to be secured by this Bill which will not create a monopoly at the same time, Parliament should take that course, but those who are best acquainted with railway matters in Ireland and those who have taken some humble part in those railway struggles in the past know, unfortunately, that in Ireland it is not possible to combat monopoly by the same means which can be employed for the purpose in England or any other country. How do you combat monopoly in England? You combat it by competition, and if in Ireland it were possible to combat monopoly by competition I would be a warm opponent of these Bills. But, unfortunately, Ireland is not rich enough to support two efficient rival systems between any two important points. We cannot support two lines between Dublin and Cork, Dublin and Belfast, or Dublin and Galway. I challenge anyone to say that it is possible to get in Ireland competition by means of two trunk lines between any two even of the most important centres such as those I have mentioned. Now, of course, between Waterford and Limerick two competitive lines exist, but the honourable Member for Waterford frankly admitted that the service which that competition gave was an inadequate one, and the issue now arises whether it can continue to exist at all. It is not, therefore, enough to pronounce the word "monopoly" in order to decide the question. It is necessary to go a step further and tell the House and the country how it is possible to get rid of the evils which monopoly create. We last year made a desperate fight with a view to create a great competitive trunk system between Cork and the South of England, but in that struggle we were beaten. The force of circumstances was too strong for us, and we were ultimately obliged to take the Great Western and Southern Railway as partners in a scheme which was intended to create a rival system, and that will be the history of railway enterprise in Ireland so long as Ireland remains a poor country without the resources necessary to create two rival railway systems. For us in Ireland, therefore, I am forced with regret to the conclusion that the remedy for the evils of railway monopoly is not competition, which we can hardly hope for, but the effective and continuous interference of the State in the management and control of Irish railways to prevent abuse of the great privileges conferred on railway companies. Will the House allow me to say a single word as regards the history of the project which is now before the House) How does it come that we are to-day discussing this proposal? The honourable Member for Waterford has confined himself to describing in strong language the desperate things which would happen if this scheme passes into law. I wish he had addressed himself to the question—what is to happen if the Bill is rejected? I undertake to say that none of the evils predicted will follow from the passing of the Bill, and that all the evils prophesied will occur if the Bill is rejected. Last year the House witnessed a very important development in the history of the Irish railway world. Hitherto Ireland had practically only one port of communication with England—namely, the City of Dublin—and all effective traffic between the two countries, whether from Belfast in the north, Galway in the west, or Cork in the south, had to pass through the port of Dublin; but last year, for the first time, the Great Western made a bold bid for some of the Irish traffic, and it proposed to set up in the South of Ireland a line of through communication between the two countries, which would do for the South of Ireland that which had hitherto been done only through Dublin. It joined hands, as counsel used to say, with a strong railway company, the Great Southern and Western, and invited that company to come into the port of Waterford and open through that port a system of railway communication which would be an effective rival to the Dublin route. It succeeded in that project, and induced the Great Southern and Western of Ireland to come to Waterford, and then the struggle originated which eventuated in an alternative route being established, having as its port not Water-ford, but Rosslare, in county Wexford. Until this new movement in the Irish railway system the companies sending traffic to the Great Western of England were solely the Waterford and Limerick and the Central Ireland lines. Both were weak lines with single rails nearly throughout their whole length, without through express trains, and unable to give a through and effective route from Ireland to England. Such, however, as their through traffic was, it was worth the while of the Great Western of England to pay them a handsome subsidy for it. The Waterford and Limerick received £10,000 a year, and the Central a subsidy less in amount but equal in importance. The effect of the combination between the Great Southern of Ireland and the Great Western of England is that the interest of the Great Western in paying these subsidies has come entirely to an end. It is under no sort of obligation to continue them, and the evidence taken before the Hybrid Committee last year went to show that it was in the power of the Great Western to terminate its arrangement with the Waterford and Limerick in 12 months. Now, what I want to ask is this: Has the honourable Member for Waterford faced the situation which would arise in the South of Ireland if this Bill is rejected, and if the Great Southern and Western of England withdrew that subsidy from the Waterford and Limerick? If that happened it would be impossible for the Waterford and Limerick to pay dividends even on its preference shares, and it has never lately paid dividends on its ordinary shares. If the subsidy is withdrawn all dividends will disappear. The same observation applies to the Central Ireland, and I ask the honourable Member for Waterford to face the problem which will arise if this Bill is rejected, and tell us what he considers will then happen to those lines. The only suggestion which he has to make throwing light on that contingency is a letter from the Midland Company of Ireland which suggests that they might, under certain conditions and contingencies, buy up the Waterford and Limerick line. Now, the South of Ireland, taking it as a whole, would not welcome the Midland as a purchaser in preference to the Great Southern and Western, in spite of the hard things which have been said of the latter company, and if it had to choose, would not accept it in preference. But I do not believe that the Midland Company is a possible purchaser for the whole line. The Great Southern of Ireland, taken as a whole, is the richest railway company in Ireland. It has the largest mileage of lines, the largest receipts, and, though not paying quite the largest dividends, is the strongest railway company in the whole of Ireland. Now, what has been the effect upon that company of this proposed amalgamation? Its shares fell in value to the extent of half a million. The general manager of the Midland and Great Western, therefore, may, for the purpose of this controversy, and without engaging his company in any real responsibility, write in a jaunty strain about the purchase of those two lines, but the day that his directors dare to make such a proposal in the face of the shareholders would, I venture to say, be the last day that they would hold their position as directors. I do not, therefore, believe that if this Bill is rejected some other company would undertake that purchase. No company will buy the Waterford and Limerick or the Central Ireland Railway. They will remain in their present position, absolutely depending upon the Great Western of England, and as that company is now in alliance with the Great Southern of Ireland, these unhappy companies will be surrounded by a ring of fire, so to speak, and will be driven to do by ft pooling arrangement what they are trying to do by amalgamation. Where, then, is the assurance that the rejection of this Bill will secure to Limerick and the other competitive points the competitive rates which they at present enjoy? A pooling arrangement which can be effected without Parliamentary sanction will most certainly deprive them of them. An amalgamation with proper safeguards can as certainly secure them to them. It is not, then, the interests of all the districts concerned to send this Bill to a Committee, which can hear their case and decide upon what terms the Bill can be allowed to pass? If I find, when this Bill returns to the House, that by this amalgamation the districts interested will be deprived of the low rates which competition has given them; if I find that the Committee have not taken precautions to preserve on all competitive points the rights which the public have hitherto enjoyed, I will reserve to myself perfect freedom as to my future action. If, however, the Bill is now rejected, the competitive rates will not remain for a day beyond the good pleasure of the Great Western and the Great Southern. That is the explanation of the clause in the Report of the Hybrid Committee on the Rosslare Bill to which reference has been made. That Committee did view with apprehension the possibility of amalgamation, and for that reason the clause referred to was introduced, I believe, at the instance of the honourable Member for Waterford. It was the honourable Member for Waterford who last year was apprehensive that what the present Bill proposes would be effected outside the walls of Parliament by a pooling arrangement, and it was he who suggested that the amalgamation scheme should be submitted to Parliament. I regret to have troubled the House at such length, but we are under the difficulty of having to deal with this most important Irish matter in an English House of Parliament. This is a Measure dealing with vital interests for our country, which we are compelled to discuss as a petty Private Bill, when, if it were debated in an Irish Parliament, the fate of a Government might depend upon the decision on the Measure. I do not believe that the opposition to this Bill is universal, as stated by the honourable Member for Waterford.

I did not say the Bill was universally opposed. What I said was that I did not think more than one or two of the Members for the localities concerned would support it.

I do not know how that is. At any rate I speak for Cork, which favours the scheme, though no doubt its interests are not so nearly concerned as those of the other localities concerned. Two public bodies, representing the trade and commerce of Cork —namely, the Harbour Board and the Chamber of Shipping and Commerce, have declared in favour of the Bill. I consider this is not a case for a summary rejection on Second Reading. I consider this to be a case for inquiry and examination. Last year we had a Bill before us which excited most conflicting views in Ireland. It brought forward opponents from all parts. It was referred to the Hybrid Committee, and that Committee, after hearing all the interests concerned, were able to come to a unanimous conclusion. The history of that Bill is a good augury of the possibilities before this Bill. A similar course is now proposed by the Government. I invite the House to take that course, and I must say that in my opinion the honourable Member for Waterford will be imperilling the very interests which he wishes to defend, and which I am sure he has at heart, if he presses his Motion to a Division.

I was a member of last year's Committee—we found that there was no competitive route from Cork to Dublin, though one could easily be made—the Committee put a clause into the Bill to prevent any amalgamation of the companies without the consent of the House of Commons. Speaking for myself, I venture to say that unless all competition in the South of Ireland is to be done away with this Bill should be opposed.

I do not intend to follow honourable Members who have already addressed the House into large questions touching the interests of the South of Ireland involved in the Measure. I speak only for my own constituency in the county of Mayo. My constituents have requested me to give expression to their feelings, and to voice their interests in connection with this Bill. From that point of view I appeal to the House to read the Bill a second time, and send it to a Select Committee. The honourable Member for Waterford, knowing what the feeling of Mayo is, alluded to the fact that the Members for Mayo would probably take up that position. I do not express any opinion as to the effect of this Bill on the traffic of the South of Ireland. That question has been studied by the honourable Members for Waterford and Cork with a thoroughness to which I can lay no claim. On the contrary, I abstained from attempting to get upon the Hybrid Committee last year, or from suggesting that any Member from the West should go upon it, because I did not consider that the West of Ireland was so closely concerned in the matter. But in the proposal now before the House the county of Mayo, and, indeed, the province of Connaught, is deeply concerned, because, while it is true that this Bill affects the traffic of the South, it is a large Measure concerning the interests of Connaught as well as those of the South and Centre, if in a less degree. I would direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to the letter of the manager of the Midland and Great Western, which has already been referred to by the honourable Member for Water-ford, because, so far as I am instructed by my constituents, it is mainly because of this suggested alternative scheme that they are prepared to support this Bill. The Midland and Great Western would probably absorb the portion of the Limerick and Waterford line if the present system fell through. What our people are afraid of is that if this scheme is defeated by Parliament, the Waterford and Limerick system will collapse, and portions of it will be picked up by other companies, and that the portion between Athenry and Sligo will come into the hands of the Midland and Great Western. That would be a great disaster to the people of Mayo and Connaught generally, who now have the means of having their produce brought down to Waterford in competition with the Southern and Great Western. In this instance one is compelled to speak frankly. I am speaking simply for my constituents. This is a question of great perplexity and difficulty, but I hope the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, and that a representative of the province of Connaught will have a seat upon the Committee. I agree with the honourable Member for Cork that it is necessary that there should be proper protection afforded the public against any increase in the fares and goods rates, and, in the belief that this can be done, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

At this late hour of the evening I have no desire to intervene at any great length in this Debate. I have always interested myself in railway affairs generally, while the general disposition of honourable Members is to take a personal, a narrow, or a constituents' view of any railway scheme brought before the House. It appears to me that the proposed amalgamation means practical ruin to trade in the South-west of Ireland. When amalgamation of railway lines is proposed in England there is the Board of Trade to protect trade interests. But there is no branch of the Board of Trade in Ireland. The Railway Commissioners also protect the English public, but the name of the Railway Commission is almost unknown in Ireland, and Ireland has not the same safeguards against the railway rates and charges with respect to amalgamation which exist, and which are easily obtainable, in England. To my mind any process of amalgamation which is granted in Ireland will make it more difficult to obtain what is really the cure for the situation, and that is the nationalisation of the Irish railways. In Ireland the state of the railway system is absolutely exceptional, for they are neither State-owned nor State-managed, nor is there any competition. We are in a different position economically to that of the railways in England, and I entirely agree with what the honourable Member for Cork said, that there is no room for two parallel lines of railways from one city to another. But if this amalgamation is passed our position will be worse than it was before. The right honourable Member for the University said the Great Southern and Western were paying from £7,000 to £10,000 a year for the sake of keeping up a second railway. Will any Gentleman tell me, if this amalgamation takes place, that this process of giving a certain amount of money to obtain traffic will cease? I think, as far as I am acquainted with the commercial ways of the English people, they never give away anything without they are paid for it; and I do not think these companies will give anything to the Irish people unless they have a quid pro quo. I hold no narrow view upon this question from my constituents, but what I want is to have this railway question brought before public opinion, and public attention focussed upon it, and if the course suggested by the honourable Member for Mayo is correct, then I have no objection whatever. This idea of the amalgamation of railways in Ireland should be closely watched, because our experience of Irish railways is that they are the most expensive, the worst managed, and the dearest to travel upon in the world. Under these circumstances, I would beseech this House to be very careful in any amalgamation scheme which is introduced, and it must be remembered that we have no competition in Ireland. There has been a good den said in the course of this Debate with respect to the different districts through which these railways pass. The honourable Member for Cork, who represents a very large amount of public opinion, expressed certain views, and I am not in a position to differ from his assertion; but I do say that the vast majority of this House are against railway amalgamation. I have myself received letters from various merchants in different parts of Ireland, and I do say unhesitatingly, and without fear of contradiction, that unless this amalgamation is carried out in a proper way we ought to vote against it. If we are to have amalgamation, it should be public, and it should be responsible, and it should not be left to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company alone, but public opinion should have some share in the management. I want to know from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or from those promoting this Bill, are we going to establish a system of trusts, monopolies, and "corners" such as exist in America? In America they have competition, but in Ireland you have no such thing. If you go to any of the great cities in America you find parallel lines, brought five or six times over, from one great city to another. The result is that there is a very keen competition. Of course, I know that in Ireland you must accommodate yourself to circumstances that exist, and we do not want in Ireland either "railway kings" or great corporations in the shape of trusts, which can squeeze the vitals out of the commerce altogether in the districts through which these railways run. I do not wish to detain the House, but I think this is a matter which should be discussed at greater length than the House can afford time at present; but I would appeal to those honourable Members who are so much in favour of amalgamation to remember the different circumstances which exist in Ireland to what exist in England. As I have said before, we have no competition, and there is very little State control, and if the powerful Irish railway company gets hold of these 13 counties out of the 32 counties in Ireland, when the benefits promised come to be analysed they will be found to be very different. I have had a great deal of experience in my capacity as president of a large trading association of the Irish railways, and I know how they treat that branch of the trade with which I am connected. And now I would address myself more particularly to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I know that the right honourable Gentleman is doing his best, but if he places too much reliance upon railway directors and grants them amalgamation, without having proper guarantees, the condition of things will be made worse than it is. There are only two ways of managing railways, and they are either by amalgamation or competition. Now we have no competition, and, if we are to have amalgamation, there must be certain conditions introduced with regard to the reduction of rates. Soma honourable Members may say that this new company will not be allowed to raise the rates. Well, the rates are too high now, and we want a reduction of rates and proper facilities for carrying it out. We want the trains, and especially the third-class carriage accommodation, improved. I have drawn attention to this matter before in this House, and I take this opportunity of again appealing to honourable Members, and I say that there is no country in Europe where the accommodation provided for third-class passengers is so wretched as in Ireland. I travelled up-to-day from Liverpool to London in a third-class carriage, and—

I would remind the honourable Member that the condition of Irish and English railway carriages is not the subject of this Debate.

Then I will obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I would impress upon the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he intends to press his Motion, to be very careful about the manner in which this amalgamation is brought about, because, as I said before, if amalgamation is to be carried out, it must be public, and it must be responsible. It must study the community, and not give too much power to the railway companies, and, until I have heard what the right honourable Gentleman has to say, and what he proposes to exact in the way of security, I cannot say at the present time how I shall vote. I am, at the same time, entirely opposed to amalgamation,' because I think it makes it more difficult to accomplish the nationalisation of the Irish railways, which is the only real cure for the disease which exists in Ireland.

This question was raised in an indirect way last year, and I do not, therefore, propose to go over the whole ground. In view of the action of the Hybrid Committee in reference to the Great Southern and Western Railway, I could not agree that we should throw out this Bill. For there was a clause inserted in the Bill which made it a condition that, until Parliament had disposed of their application for this Bill, the state of things which this Measure was introduced to deal with was to continue in the meantime. Therefore, I do not see that we should be justified in rejecting the Bill, but, on the other hand, I see no reason why we should not postpone it. It has been suggested, and will be suggested, that arrangements can be made by which the matter might be postponed till a later period of this Session, when the county councils will have met; but anybody who knows Ireland knows that it will be perfectly impossible for the county councils—which have only just been called into being, and which meet for the first time on the 1st of April— to be in a position for months to come to deal with such a difficult and critical matter. And, therefore, it all comes to this—that, while I agree with my right honourable and learned Friend that it is desirable that this Bill should go upstairs to a Committee where all matters can be inquired into, my contention is that, under the circumstances, until the county councils have come into existence in April next, you cannot have the matter thoroughly inquired into this Session upstairs, because the county councils cannot arrange to consider it before. We must remember that this Bill affects 13 counties out of 32 in Ireland where the ratepayers are under an obligation to pay guarantees out of rates, and I do not think Parliament will be right in sending this Bill to a Committee to be inquired into until the county councils are in full working order and are able to give the matter full consideration. The county councils meet, I believe, on the 6th of April, and they have to elect their chairmen, their officers, and form their committees, and settle down to business of which they have had no experience whatever. Now, if anything is likely to upset the fair start of the Local Government Bill in Ireland, it will be, I think, for the House now to send this Bill upstairs to be dealt with just as the county councils have assembled, for that would be like putting a bombshell amongst them. Anybody who understands the condition of Ireland at the present time, and remembers the fact that these new bodies have had no experience at all, will see that this proposal will be putting upon them an unfair burden. In my opinion the proper course to pursue will be simply to adjourn this Debate.

I think, on a Bill of this kind, the House should generally be very much guided by the advice and the opinions of the Members of this House who represent the districts which are specially affected by the Bill, and, therefore, the views of the Members from Ireland ought to have very great weight. But not only have the Members from Ireland spoken with a divided voice, but Members who formed the Committee over which I presided last Session on the Rosslare and Fishguard Railway have also spoken with an uncertain voice upon this question. Under these circumstances, I shall detain the House a few moments, because I have had occasion to consider this matter in all its parts during the last Session of Parliament, and, therefore, I may be permitted to say a very few words. I still hold the view which the Committee expressed last Session—namely, that this proposed amalgamation of the railways in the South of Ireland should be regarded with grave apprehension. What the Committee did was this: we had an instruction from the House which obliged us to consider carefully the whole question of competition, of adequate competition, in the railway system in the South of Ireland, and almost immediately after the Committee commenced its sittings we were made aware of this agreement between the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, who were one of the promoters of the Bill, and the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company. There was this agreement to enter into amalgamation, and we were bound to consider, what would be its effect upon the condition of the South of Ireland. After a very careful consideration of the matter, we came to the conclusion which has already been quoted to the House—

"Your Committee are unable, after the evidence which they have heard, to withhold an expression of their unanimous opinion that, in the interests of the South of Ireland, they would regard with grave apprehension the absorption of these two companies' undertakings by the Great Southern and Western Railway."

Well, we were unable to deal effectively with the question, because the Bill now before the House was not then before the Committee, but the intention was to introduce it. It was pointed out, and brought to our notice, that what has been done in the South-east of England in the way of virtual amalgamation, without the consent of Parliament, might be done in the South of Ireland, and that, without coming to Parliament, those companies might amalgamate; and I believe the Committee did the right thing, and took the only course open to them, when they bound the companies not to pool or amalgamate, or alter their rates against the interests of the public, until Parliament had disposed of their Bill, and that Bill is now before the House. Something has been said as to what members of the Committee ought to do and ought not to do under these circumstances. I will, however, venture to give my opinion. I think members of the Committee are perfectly at liberty to dispose of the Bill on the Second Reading, or, if they prefer it, to send the Bill up to the Committee, so that it may be further considered. If the second course were taken, it would still be open to Members on the Third Reading of the Bill to deal with it. I will venture to give my own individual opinion to the House, and it is this: It seems to me that a Committee is absolutely necessary unless that is to happen which the Committee of last Session carefully guarded against. What is there to pre vent the Great Southern and Western Railway Company from entering into an arrangement which will be a virtual amalgamation if this Bill is disposed of by its rejection upon the Second Rending, and thus the companies would be released from the binding effect of clause 72, which was introduced by us last year in the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Bill? Under these circumstances, I would suggest that the Bill be sent to a Committee, and I hope that that Committee will most carefully consider, supposing they are inclined to reject the Bill, whether some special report should not be made to Parliament to enable the House again to guard against the danger of an amalgamation which is not desired by that Committee, by an agreement between the companies resulting in an amalgamation behind the back of Parliament. My honourable Friend the Member for Cork, whose valuable assistance on that Committee I should be very ungrateful if I did not acknowledge, argued just now that competition was practically impossible in Ireland, and said that you could not have two competing lines between Limerick and Waterford.

What I meant to say was, between the three principal lines in Ireland.

I was quite sure the honourable Member had made a slip of the tongue, but let me just take that point. What is the existing state of things between Limerick and Waterford? There is a direct line, and another indirect line, in the hands of the Great Southern and Western Railway, and what is the effect of their existence? In those parts of the country where this competition exists the rates give great satisfaction to the agriculturists and others, and they would be very sorry indeed to have amalgamation take place unless their interests were properly safeguarded. It is absolutely necessary, either by this Bill or by some general legislation in the interests of those parts of Ireland which now enjoy the benefits of competition, low rates, and extended facilities, that those benefits should be safeguarded. If the Committee should make some such interim report as that which I have suggested, whilst the companies are still bound by the undertaking given to Parliament and by the clause existing in the present Act, Parliament would intervene, the Government would legislate, and steps would be taken to safeguard the interests of the public. That leads me to say just-one word upon the general question of amalgamation. I was very much impressed during the inquiry to which I have referred by the fact that the Irish railway system is too much divided among different companies, some of them very small indeed, and the Report of the Commission of 1888 draws attention to that fact. But there is a very great danger if you allow amalgamation to take place that certain districts will be deprived of that competition to which I have already alluded; and the precautions which should be taken by Parliament were pointed out by the Royal Commission. One of them is that there should be some external controlling authority, with powers to inquire into and remedy grievances. For various reasons the Railway Commissioners are not often appealed to from Ireland, and there is a great need of some authority to which the traders and those interested can easily have access, and before which they can place their grievances. Another necessary precaution would be that clauses should be introduced, preserving the existing privileges of such districts as I have mentioned. There is one other point. Allusion has already been made to the necessity for the county councils considering this matter. In a few days we shall have the election of these Irish county councils, and I would strongly urge that it is of immense importance that sufficient time should be given to enable the county councils to thoroughly consider the Bill before the House and to be heard by the Committee.

The House will no doubt expect me to say a few words before this discussion comes to a close. First of all, I may respond to the appeal of the honourable Member for Water-ford, by saying that it is not my intention to make this in any sense a Party question. I have formed an opinion, but it is my desire not to bring any Party pressure to bear on this side of the House, and I would rather leave honourable Members perfectly free to judge this Measure upon its merits. The honourable Member for Waterford described it as an enormous proposal, and said it was a proposal which Parliament should most carefully consider at every stage. Well, I have no occasion to quarrel with an argument of that description. This is a proposal with momentous issues, and it is undoubtedly the largest amalgamation proposal which has ever been made in Ireland; but I observed that when the right honourable Member went on to say that because this is; so enormous a proposal Parliament should most carefully consider it at every stage, if the Motion which the honourable Member has now made were carried, there would be no further stage at which it would be open to the House to consider it at all. Now, what is the question which lies before us at the present time? It is not whether this scheme of railway amalgamation should be passed by Parliament, but the question is whether it should be summarily and unceremoniously rejected, without any opportunity being given for that examination and consideration which it would receive from a Committee upstairs. There is this difference between a private Bill and a public Bill—when the House passes a public Bill it accepts the principle; but when it passes the Second Reading of a private Bill it does not exactly accept the principle, but it lays down that there is a prima facie case for inquiry, and therefore the adoption of the Second Reading of this Measure is not exactly an acceptation of its principle. I shall certainly vote myself for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I claim, as strongly as was claimed by the hon- ourable Member for Cork, full freedom in my action with regard to any proposals in the Bill which do not seem to pay full regard to public interests in Ireland. Therefore, what the House is now called upon to decide is whether there is a prima facie case for inquiry. Personally, I think there is a prima facie case, and a very strong one. I will not go at length into the arguments which have been so ably set forth by previous speakers, but I would just like to say what I think their case consisted of. In the first place, I do not think it would be altogether fair to the companies concerned if this Bill was summarily rejected upon the Second Reading; for, as he has pointed out by my right honourable Friend the Member for Dublin University, this Bill was introduced under statutory compulsion, and the company had no choice in the matter. With regard to what the honourable Member for Waterford has said upon this point, so far as the company is concerned, it only makes their case much stronger still. The two companies are not only bound by statute to bring in this Bill, but coupled with that obligation there are conditions imposed upon them that in the meantime they are not to do things which might be to their advantage, and if under the circumstances Parliament was to summarily reject this Bill without going to the length of considering it by a Committee it would not only be prejudicial to the public, but it might be also somewhat hard upon the companies. That is one reason why I think this Bill should go before the Committee. But, in addition to that. I think it is in the interest of the railway companies in Ireland also that the Second Reading should be adopted, because, as the honourable Member for Cork has justly pointed out, we have to consider what will be the result in this respect if the Bill is rejected. The first result will be that the hands of the Great Southern and Western Railway and the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company will be free, and they will be able to enter into a traffic arrangement which may be very prejudicial to the interests of the public without any of the advantages which might accompany amalgamation. My honourable Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth suggested that we should get over this difficulty by adjourning the Debate, and in that way we should not come in opposition to the Bill. I cannot help saying that that would be an evasion of the intention of Parliament, and I think if we are to deprive the company of this power we should not do it by resorting to a device of this kind, because that really is equivalent in effect, though not in form, to a rejection of the Bill, if by an adjournment it means that it should never come on again. That course would practically be considering the Bill this day six months, and I do not think that that is a proposal which the House ought to sanction. But, supposing no traffic arrangement is arrived at between the Great Southern and Western and the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies in consequence of the rejection of this Bill on the Second Reading, even then the position would still be a most unsatisfactory one. The honourable Member for Cork has pointed out with great force that in the event of this Bill being rejected the natural position of one of the companies will still further be weakened, because they have already received notice that their arrangement with the other company will bo brought to a conclusion on the completion of the Rosslare and Fishguard line, and that will still further damage the financial position of the Waterford and Limerick lines. The Waterford and Limerick lines at present suffer from insufficiency of capital, and if some change is not made it would be impossible for this company to maintain its present condition, and the last state of affairs would be worse than the first. There is a third reason which occurs to me why the House should pass the Second Reading of this Bill, and it is this: that the House up to the present to a very large extent has been working in the dark. We have only got the Bill before us in the form in which it is printed, but we do not know in what form it will emerge from the Committee, if, indeed, it emerges at all: but we may be quite sure that it will not emerge from the Committee without the introduction of a great many safeguards. Do not let the House imagine that it will not be in the power of the Hybrid Committee, should this Bill be sent to one, to introduce changes of a wide and far-reaching character. If any honourable Member is prepared to look at the changes made in the Rosslare Bill by the Hybrid Committee, they will at once see how great the power of such a Committee really is. I Should just like to say one word in reference to the point which has been referred to by several speakers, and by the right honourable Gentleman opposite. It has been said that the county councils will not have an adequate opportunity of expressing their views should this Bill be sent to a Committee during the present year. I understand that the promoters of the Bill are ready to consent to the postponement of the Committee stage, and to agree that it should not be taken before the 15th of May. That arrangement would give the county councils a whole month to consider what action they would take. It has been said that a month is too little, but I do not think it is too little for county councils to take such action as county councils should take in matters of this kind. I do not think it would be wise that county councils should expend their money in fighting subjects of this kind. It appears to me that they would be doing a very foolish thing if they were to take upon themselves at the present time a burden which is being undertaken for them. But, in addition to this, I am bound to say that I do not think any expression of opinion which the county councils may make will affect my judgment as to whether this Bill should or should not be read a second time. It might affect my judgment as to what should be ultimately done, but not as to whether it should be read a second time or not, for this reason: the county council can only judge of the Bill as it has been presented to us, for it cannot be expected to go into questions of a hybrid, difficult, and complex character, and they cannot be expected to be in a position to consider the various changes which it is possible to introduce, and they will certainly not be in a position to adequately judge as to the full effects of such changes which may be made by the Committee. In any case, I am sure of this, that I must feel more or less in the dark as to what my ultimate judgment may be. It requires a considerable amount of study, and I do not think the judgment of any county council is likely in their present condition of enlightenment upon this question to be very much better than my own. My opinion is that in order to have a final judgment on the Bill that it is desirable that it should be referred to a Committee, for I can hardly think that the county councils can be expected to form a judgment without the assistance which is only to be derived from an inquiry before the Committee. And just one word more. The honourable Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin referred strongly to the necessity of adopting safeguards, but I am not in a position, to say what safeguards may be considered wise to introduce, because that is a matter for the Committee upstairs. Therefore, to sum up—although I do-not wish to make it in any sense a Party question—my own private view is that it would be most unwise and most inexpedient that the House should not pass the Second Heading of this Bill.

I should just like to ask whether it is proposed to send this Bill to the Select Committee which is already appointed, many members of which have already pronounced an opinion against the principle of amalgamation. It appears to me that it is absolutely essential that this Bill should go to an absolutely new Committee, the members of which have not pronounced their opinion upon the question. The honourable Gentleman opposite is a member of that Committee, but although I have the greatest possible respect for him I should very strongly object to any Committee on which he sat considering this question if I were one of the promoters of this Bill, because I should be inclined to say, "You have already pronounced against this amalgamation."

The honourable Member is now dealing with the nomination of the Committee—a question which is not before the House.

I understand that with regard to the exclusion of a gentleman who sat last year on this Committee it might be invidious to move such a Motion, although I think it would be competent to do so. I would suggest that we should have some expression of opinion from the Government as to the manner in which this Committee is to be formed. I have no opinion as to how it should be formed, but all I desire that it should be a fair Committee to consider the interests of the country as well as the interests of the railway company. My right honourable Friend, who was chairman of the Committee last year, and who sacrificed so much time in the interests of Ireland, I, for one, should not object to.

There is just one point I should like to impress upon the Chief Secretary, and it is this—I trust that he will not take the same course with regard to the appointing of this Committee as was the case in the House of Lords with regard to the questions that might arise, for I really think that it would not be fair to this House.

As regards the members of this Committee I can only say that my object and aim as far as I am concerned will be to get that Committee as fair and equal as possible, and my own feeling in the matter it this: The Committee that sat on the Rosslare and Fishguard line was a Committee of great ability and competence, and I would ask the honourable Member whether we should commit ourselves to a proposition at this moment that the honourable Member for Cork and the honourable Member for Waterford should he shut out.

I should propose both.

If the honourable Member will only enter into communication with the various sections of the House there will be no difficulty. There was no difficulty last year, and there will be no difficulty this year. I agree that it would be better to have no members of the old Committee, and certainly, as a member of that Committee, I distinctly object to serve.

In asking leave to introduce "a Bill to empower local authorities to advance money for enabling persons to acquire the ownership of small houses in which they reside," I should perhaps take notice of an observation made in my absence by the Leader of the Opposition, who, in stating that this Bill was one of the most important in the programme of the Government, maintained that we did not give the House what is called an opportunity for a full-dress Debate at this stage of our proceedings. I think the right honourable Gentleman could not have made that observation if he had followed the course of proceedings in this matter, and had been aware of the nature of the Bill I propose to introduce. The subject of the Bill, and, generally speaking, its provisions, have been again and again before the House, they have been discussed and approved in the House of Commons, and the Measure certainly cannot be called one of Party controversy. In 1893 a Bill similar in its object was introduced to the House of Commons by Mr. Wright-son, then Member for Stockton-on-Tees. On that occasion the principle of the Bill was approved by the colleague of the right honourable Gentleman opposite—-the right honourable Member for East Wolverhampton, and the Second Reading was carried by a very large majority. In 1896, and again in 1898, similar Bills were introduced to this House by my honourable Friends the Members for Central Sheffield and West Wolverhampton; and on these occasions also—altogether three times—the principle of the Bill has received the assent of the House of Commons. In the House of Lords a similar Bill has been introduced by Lord Londonderry, and there it passed through all its stages, including a reference to a Standing Committee, both in 1896 and 1898, and on these occasions the Bill was warmly approved by Lord Rosebery and Lord Kimberley. Under such circumstances, it can hardly be expected we should think it necessary to trouble the House with a special discussion at this early and formal stage of the proceedings. Now the present Bill has exactly the same objects as those Bills to which I have referred. It is intended to extend to the occupiers of small houses the same facility to become the owners of their houses that has already been extended by legislation to the owners of small farms in Ireland and to small holders of tenancies in this country; and we believe that legislation of this kind is equally applicable to the towns and to the occupation of houses as it is to the country and to the occupation of land, and that to assist occupiers to become owners will have a tendency to make them better citizens, to give them a larger stake in the country, and to provide for them a popular and favourite form of thrift, and will,. in addition, do, perhaps, more than any other legislation, if it is largely availed of, to secure healthy and comfortable homes, because it is perfectly clear that the working classes and people who live in these houses cannot be expected to take a great interest in their condition or expend money or give time and labour to improve them as long as they are working only for the benefit of their landlords, and because the class of persons who now own these small properties are not men from whom you can expect any lavish expenditure in improving the houses. We believe this result will follow, that if this Bill is taken advantage of to any considerable extent the occupiers of small dwellings will become the owners of them. The provisions are substantially the same as those of the Bills to which I have referred. The Bill is a voluntary one. It is voluntary upon the working man whether he will offer to become the owner of his house, it is voluntary upon the present landlord r owner of the house whether he will sell, and it is voluntary upon the local authority whether or not they will advance the money. But, subject to those assents, which we believe it will not be difficult to obtain in a great number of cases, the operation of the Bill will proceed upon the lines of the Bills to which I have already referred. In the Debates which took place on those Bills certain practical objections were made to the details. I do not think there was much objection taken in any quarter of the House to the principle of the Measures, but certain objections were made to points of detail, and those objections we have endeavoured to meet. In the first place it was said the Bills had too limited an application, and only a very email section of the population would be able to take advantage of the facilities. We have endeavoured to extend very largely the operation of the Bill by certain changes. In the first place, we have altered the definition of the persons to be benefited. In the previous Bills it was intended that the operation of the Measures should be extended chiefly to artisans. We do not define those who are to take advantage of this Measure by any reference to their class or employment; the fact of them occupying a house below a certain value will bring them within the purview of the Bill whatever be their occupation or position in life. We have increased the value of the house, which is to be a qualifying condition, from £200 to £300, and thereby we hope to include practically the working classes and others who occupy small houses of the kind we desire to deal with in the suburbs of London and other large towns.

Scotland.

Certainly; it applies exactly to Scotland as to England. Then we have also increased the limit of advance which may be made by the local authority from three-fourths to four-fifths, so that the maximum amount which may be advanced will be £240 upon a house of the value of £300; and, lastly, with the same object, we have made a change in the limit which has hitherto been placed upon the operations of the local authorities. Personally, I think it is unnecessary in cases where the action of the local authority is voluntary to put any limit at all on their discretion. I think they would be perfectly well able to take care of themselves and their constituents. At the same time, as there is always a fear that legislation of this kind will add largely to the rates, the Government have come to the conclusion that some limitation should be imposed. The limitation proposed in Mr. Wrightson's Bill was one-eighth of the rateable value, and it was pointed out that in many cases that would only allow a very small number of applicants to be provided for in particular localities. We have thought that the proper limit is the limit of expense and not of rateable value. It does not matter how much money is advanced provided no cost is put in the rates, and the limit we propose on that whenever the expense under the Bill rises to above a rate of 1d. in the pound the operation of the Bill shall cease until such time as the expense sinks below that limit. In my opinion that will leave a wide field for the operation of the Bill, because we do not anticipate that any expense, or any but the most trivial expense, will be thrown on the local authorities, as we believe the terms on which they lend and the securities they will hold will be quite sufficient to ensure them from loss. There is another point to which we have directed attention in the hope of improving the character of the Bill. It was said that the Bill would interfere with what is called the mobility of labour. My belief is that the mobility of labour has been considerably exaggerated by those who have spoken on the subject. My experience of a large manufacturing town is that a large number—indeed, probably by far the larger proportion—of the working classes are not more mobile than other classes. On the other hand, it is perfectly true there are certain trades which change in their situation, and the workmen have to follow them. Although, as I say, the difficulty is exaggerated, we feel that it is desirable that a workman who becomes the owner of his house should be able to transfer his holding with the greatest possible ease and facility, and we have done what we can to make it more possible for him to do so. In the first place, we propose that ownerships of this kind should be specially registered by the local authority, and that transfer shall be freely made upon payment of a fee which in no case shall exceed 10s. The owner of a dwelling will have full power to transfer, and we have provided that, in cases in which an owner of a property ceases to reside in it, as he may in consequence of change of situation, and where he is himself unable to transfer, the local authority may take over the dwelling at a price to be fixed by arbitration, the abitration to be carried out by the county court judge or by on arbitrator appointed by him. Of course, in cases in which the other statutory conditions are violated—that is to say, the condition that a man shall pay his instalments regularly, that he shall keep the house insured, and keep it in proper condition—if those conditions are violated, then the local authority has power to at once enter upon possession of the house and to sell it, paying to the workman anything that may accrue from the sale over and above the debt. But he have thought a forced sale entailing possibly some sacrifice would be too hard a condition in cases in which the workman has only given up residence, and, therefore, in these cases we have made it much easier for him to obtain the value of his house by an arrangement which will give him the appreciation in value of the house, if it has appreciated in the course of his occupancy, while the local authority will be secured from loss by paying only fair value if it happens that the house has depreciated. I have only to add that there are provisions in the Bill for applying it to Ireland and to Scotland, and I hope that when it comes before the House on a Second Reading it may receive, at all events, as favourable a reception from all sides of the House as has been given to those other Measures to which I have referred.

The right honourable Gentleman must be congratulated on having assumed responsibility for this Measure, of which he has given us a lucid explanation, but I think he cannot have been aware of the facts when he says that previous Bills of this character had not been objected to. I think the moment is most inopportune for the introduction of this Bill, seeing that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation is now sitting, and has had before it a vast body of evidence dealing with the question of the taxation of ground values. If it should report in favour of such taxation the prospects of this Bill would be seriously affected, and it would lose the charm it now possesses for possible purchasers. A fatal objection to the Bill is that the local rates, which press so hardly upon the poorest of the poor and the struggling tradesmen, are to be used for the purpose of creating freeholds for the benefit of particular classes who have already shown themselves fully capable through building societies of providing for their own needs. If the freehold increases in value, the gain will go to the individual; if it declines, the loss will fall upon the ratepayers. The Bill will only affect a small and limited class, and the burden will largely fall on the very poorest of the community. For these reasons, which I think go to the principle of the Bill—because it is inopportune and partial—I hope it will not be given a First Reading. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, and it was read a first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 125.)