moved the rejection of Clause 27, which proposed to give the Great Eastern Railway Company power to contribute to the funds of a benefit society, ostensibly for the benefit of its workpeople. On the Second Reading of the Bill^* a long discussion took place upon the clause, and he need therefore now only summarise the objections entertained to it by working men, and especially by those who were members of trade unions, who objected to being compelled to contribute to a fund over which they had practically no control. This particular fund came under that description. Great benefit societies—such as the Foresters, the Oddfellows, and the Rechabites—had been brought into being by the working men of this country to enable them to tide over times of sickness or accident. In connection with many trade unions there were similar funds, and he had therefore to submit that there was no sufficient reason why the Great Eastern, or any other railway company, should make special provision for its workpeople in that respect. There were, however, particular reasons why the House ought to reject this clause. The provident fund managed by the Great Eastern Railway Company had been in existence since 1851. In 1888 the fund was found to be insolvent. The members agreed to contribute an additional penny per week, and the company undertook to pay a subsidy of £2,500 a year towards the fund. In 1894 the insolvency had increased, and the deficit had risen to £24,000. In 1898 it had increased to £36,000, and an actuarial valuation for the present year put it as high as £50,000. The members of the society had raised their contribution, and the directors of the company had agreed to pay another

^* See Debates, Vol. xc., page 1523.

£500 a year, but he understood that they had not paid a single penny. The directors had, in fact, made themselves responsible for a yearly contribution of £3,000, but his information was that they had not so far paid a single penny, and that if they had carried out their undertaking the society at the present moment would have been £30,000 better off. With regard to the existing society, membership was compulsory in certain grades of the service, and there was the further objection that if a man were dismissed, or left to improve his position, the service of the company, he lost all the money he had contributed to the society. One effect of the compulsory membership was that a man in receipt of the wage of 15s. or 16s. weekly, having to pay 11d. per week to the fund of the society, could not afford to keep up his membership of any outside organisation. Now he came to this particular clause. It would be observed that the Great Eastern Railway asked power to contribute to the funds of the society, composed exclusively of their workpeople. What did that mean? It meant that a man who for years had served the company well and faithfully, and who, perhaps, for ten or twenty years had contributed to the fund of the society, would, if dismissed for some trifling offence, lose the whole of his contributions, and at the same time would be too old to join any other society. That was a most dangerous position in which to place a body of working men. But there was a still more serious objection to the clause. It would be found on examination that the contribution to the funds was only to be given on the condition that the funds were not used to pay workmen who were off work in consequence of any injuries received in the course of their employment. Thus a workman injured at his work, who would under the common law be entitled to sue for and receive compensation, was made to choose between the compensation to which he was entitled under the Act and the benefit he had contributed for in the case of the society. It was only reasonable to assume that in nine cases out of ten the workman, under the circumstances, would elect to take the benefit under the fund, and so he would relieve the Great Eastern Railway Company of the responsibility which Parliament had put upon it to give compensation to its injured workmen. Surely it was most unjust to force them into such a position. He came next to what was, perhaps, the most serious blot upon the clause. There were certain words which provided that the company should make its contributions on such terms and conditions, and subject to such restrictions and reservations, as it might think expedient. On the face of it that appeared reasonable in an ordinary case, but what did it mean in this case? It meant that the Great Eastern Company would have the power to say before it contributed to the funds of the society that the men should be precluded from taking part in any public work. One employee of the company had been dismissed for allowing himself to be elected a member of the Poplar Borough Council, and other employees had been dismissed for signing a memorial in connection with the School Board. The employees could not afford to have a company doing things of this kind. The employees were bound down strictly enough in all conscience to the rules of the company. He held in his hand the book of rules issued by the company to their employees—a book containing 200 rules which were most strict—and he desired to know whether the promoters of the Bill, who had agreed to insert a clause in it that membership of the provident societies which had been established or authorised by the company should not be compulsory—were prepared to delete Rule 8 in the book of rules. By that rule employees of the company were required to join any society that might be established in accordance with the regulations of the company. If the promoters were not prepared to delete that rule, then there would be a conflict of authority between the Bill it was proposed to pass on the one hand, and the rules of the company on the other. He hoped, in the interests of the freedom of the employees, of thrift among work-people, and of encouraging working men to take an active interest in their own affairs and thereby becoming better citizens and better workmen, the House would reject Clause 27. He begged to move.

said he thought he had made perfectly clear on the last occasion his position with regard to the Bill, and he now rose to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, as he thought the proposal of the hon. Member was by far the simplest method of dealing with the Amendments contained in the Paper. The company appeared to seek power from this House to enable them to subscribe as it were to a new society yet to be formed. The objection raised by the railway men to any such proposal was that the company sought to become hon. members of such a society subject to such conditions and reservations as they deemed might be expedient. There was no objection to the Great Eastern Railway Company becoming hon. members of any society they pleased—most hon. Members of this House were hon. members of some society or other in their own constituency, but they sought no special conditions—and the opposition was only directed to preventing the company making any special conditions for themselves. He had received appeals from all parts of the Great Eastern system to use his influence to get this clause deleted. The company had in one of the clauses of the Bill which they agreed to accept before the Committee said that no scheme with regard to a benevolent fund should come into operation until it had received the sanction and come under the operation of the Friendly Societies Acts. They now proposed to vary and amend that in such a manner as to enable them to evade that obligation. As an experienced railway man, who had joined these societies and left money in them when he left the companies, he could speak with authority upon this matter, and he asked the House, by the urgent request of the Great Eastern Railway men, to delete Clause 27, and thus prevent the men of the company being interfered with simply because they were not members of the society. The Chairman of Committees had stated that a clause or paragraph to deal with this might be inserted before the Bill went into Committee, but it appeared that it was to be inserted in such a way as to be of no value to the men who were opposing the measure, as although it was not obligatory for the employees to become members of the society, it was practically compulsory for candidates for employment to join it. The experience of the employees of the Great Eastern Railway fund was such that they did not want any more societies of the kind forced upon them. In order to save the time of the House, he thought it a very reasonable request to make that until such time as the directors and employees had agreed amongst themselves as to the nature of the society, and as to a form of rule that would be suitable to both parties, this clause should be deleted. If that were done, and the company came to the House next year for powers, he would support the compromise as strongly as he had opposed this clause.

said that when the Bill was before the House last month this question had been thrashed out at very considerable length. A feeling was then strongly expressed that there should be no compulsion on the servants of the company to join the fund constituted by this clause. The company agreed that the words which were in the Lancashire and Yorkshire Act of 1897 should be inserted in the Bill, in order to make the understanding perfectly clear. These words were. "It shall not be compulsory upon any servant of the company to become a member of the society." The company thought that that would amply safeguard the employees of the Great Eastern Railway, and he was perfectly convinced that it did so. He therefore could not understand how opposition could he offered to this clause after the meeting they had had, and after this agreement had been come to.

said he had not been consulted, and had been a party to no agreement; nor had he been aware that any agreement had been come to.

said he was put in a somewhat difficult position, because he really did not know exactly how many of the employees of the Great Eastern Railway were represented by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, nor did he know for how many employees the hon. Member for Derby spoke.

For several thousands.

said that there were tens of thousands in the employment of the company, a very large number of whom were perfectly satisfied with their conditions of service, and it was scarcely possible for one man to represent all the interests of the employees. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had said that if a member of the provident fund left the employment of the company all the money which he had paid into the fund would be for ever lost to him. But Rule 35 of the Great Eastern provident fund made it absolutely clear that any member leaving the society, except for some criminal offence, should be entitled to take away with him all contributions he had made.

said he understood the hon. Member to say on the last occasion that no rules had been drafted for the new society.

said he was only endeavouring to put right that which had been advanced by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and which, if uncontradicted, would be a great stigma and slur on the Great Eastern Railway. The men were entitled to take away their contributions if they left the service of the company.

Subject to what deductions?

said there was a very small deduction for the risk incurred while the men were members of the society, and that was a perfectly fair rule. Another point the hon. Member had made was that the company had promised to make a certain payment to the society, but had not done so in fact. Well, the money was credited to the fund under a sealed agreement with the members of the fund, and if any occasion arose it would be a first charge on the company's resources. He should object to the omission of the clause.

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the company would withdraw Rule 8, under which a servant was required to join any society the company might establish.

said that that rule did not affect the proposed society at all.

pointed out that, while the regulations were handed to all the men in the employment of the company, and to the men who wanted to join the company, the Acts of Parliament which regulated the proceedings of the company were not so easy to obtain; and railway porters at 12s. or 15s. a week had no means of knowing what was in those Acts. Would the company undertake to alter Rule 8, which made it compulsory on servants to join any fund?

said he had come down to the House in order to support the Chairman of Ways and Means in the kind assistance he was pleased to give to the promoters of the Bill and those opposed to the original clause. He thought the words proposed to be introduced through the kind aid of the Chairman of Ways and Means were satisfactory. But the hon. Member for Merthyr had pointed out a very different case—the obligatory rule, No. 8, which seemed to have been long in existence, and which took him, as a railway man, a good deal by surprise. That rule said that if a benefit society was established by the company, the servants were required to join it in accordance with the regulations. Now, in his opinion, these societies must not be compulsory. If they were to work at all they must work with the full approval, and with the help of the men themselves. He used "help" advisedly, for the men and representatives of the company should work together for the benefit of both parties. They should not have a clash of interests. Therefore, it was not un reasonable to ask whether, if this Bill were passed, this rule would be taken out of the regulations. It seemed to him to be a very arbitrary rule, and one which the Great Eastern Company would, in these modern days, never think of acting upon. If the Bill were passed as amended, and if this rule were altered, then everything would have been gained which the men could fairly ask.

said he would take advantage, in the agricultural interest, of the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the differential rates demanded by the Great Eastern Railway Company.

Order, order! That would not be relevant.

said that if the Amendment suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means were carried, and Rule 8 were left intact, the company would have a stultifying code He wanted to know if the clause covered new as well as existing servants of the company.

thought they were in some confusion on this matter. The last debate on the question was whether the rule should be made compulsory or not. He was not a shareholder in the company, and had no interest in the matter except as a scheme for promoting thrift. This clause was to enable the railway company to contribute, which it was very willing to do, to practically a new fund, established to confer various benefits on the employees. It appeared that the old fund had some rules which seemed to have been of a somewhat drastic character, but this Act, with the clause inserted by agreement, would override the old rules. [Cries of "No."] He thought there could be no question about it. If an Act of Parliament said categorically that the railway company was not to compel its servants to join a certain society, then that abrogated the old rules.

said he was in some difficulty about this matter. When the Bill was introduced and the subject first debated, the Great Eastern Railway Company ought to have been the first to acknowledge that this provident fund should not be compulsory on their servants. That, however, they did not do, having thoroughly misapprehended the feeling of the House; and they only consented to make the scheme non-compulsory because they realised they would lose their Bill altogether unless they did so. But he had grave suspicion in regard to what the Great Eastern Company had in their mind on this matter. Into the hands of every servant of the company was placed a copy of the rules and regulations of the company. No. 8 of these rules said that any fund of this sort either in the past or the future should necessarily be compulsory on the servants of the company. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham had been asked twice over by different hon. Members whether the company intended to adhere to the rule or not, but he had given no reply. They wanted to know, moreover, whether the clause in the present Bill would override the rule. Unless the hon. Gentleman gave a distinct assurance that the company were going to act in spirit and in letter up to the opinion and desire of the House, and to the terms of this clause, and also that Rule 8 should be withdrawn, he certainly should vote against the clause under discussion.

appealed to the hon. Member for Lewisham to promise to withdraw Rule 8, against which the men were unanimous. A good and constant railway service could never be carried on unless the men were entirely contented with the rules by which they were governed.

said the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was under a misapprehension when he said that when a man left the service of the Great Eastern Railway he forfeited the benefits of the society. Rule 35 distinctly stated that any member of the society quitting the company's service could still remain a member of the society provided he continued to pay into it. The hon. Member for Poplar was not quite fair in his remarks about the Great Eastern Railway Company. There was nothing to justify him in saying that the company wished to evade their responsibilities. He was light in stating that they intended fully and honourably to carry out in spirit and in letter the obligations they had undertaken to this House. He understood that the hon. Member for Lewisham had assented to that. [Cries of "No."] Then he gave that assurance now.

said it might save the time of the House if he stated that the company were prepared to make an alteration in the particular regulation under discussion so as to remove obligation from any servant to join the society.

said that before going to the vote this should be made perfectly clear. It was said that this was introduced in the interest of the employees. As a matter of fact, they knew that the employees were distinctly against it. Now, the hon. Member said he would alter the new conditions under which the men joined the society, but the men objected to be bound by any conditions for joining the society. This particular clause struck at all friendly societies throughout the country. It damaged those societies in the interest of the railway companies, in order to place the men definitely in the power of their employers. This section did not apply to the new rules. The funds which were supplied by the men were invested in the company. In other words, the profits from the savings of the men, instead of going into the pockets of the men, went into the pockets of the shareholders. Then, again, it was stated that a man who cleared out of the company might continue to be a member of the society, so that he suffered no damage; but that provision did not meet the objections of the men. He hoped that all those who had the interests of the men at heart would vote for the deletion of the section.

pointed out that Clause 27 gave power to the directors of the company to subsidise the men's provident fund, provided always that certain benefits were excluded. He thought it very desirable that the directors should be able to make their contribution to the fund, even though the fund had a wider basis than was at first anticipated. The promoters of the Bill had no objection to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, and he moved accordingly.

formally seconded.

said that as the House had decided against deleting the clause in order that the company and the workpeople might come to terms, he desired to move, for the reasons he had already explained, the omission of the words from "section," in line 24, to "to," in line 25, so that if the company, under the powers conferred by the Bill, were honest in their intention, and had no other purpose than to be honorary members of the society, they would be allowed to subscribe without making terms, conditions, or reservations as they thought proper, or in any way having a veto on the acts of the men in the management of the society.

, in opposing the Amendment, said that, as the promoters of the Bill were asking for sanction to make a payment towards the fund to be set up under Clause 27, it was only right that the directors should have a certain voice in the management of the fund. No serious objection could possibly be taken to the words of the clause, and therefore he could not agree that they should be deleted.

I rise to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but I need not take up more than a few moments in explaining the point. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill stated in a most fair and honourable manner that the Great Eastern Railway Company would be willing to alter their rules in this respect. No doubt it was felt that an undertaking of that kind was given in a perfectly honourable spirit, but the matter was rather vague, and it is desirable to put it on record. It seems to me that up to a certain point we might obtain a Parliamentary record by inserting on page 26, Clause 27, in Sub-section 0, the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any rule of a railway company." Although it is perfectly true that you cannot expect working men to know the contents of the complicated sections of an Act of Parliament, so far as an Act can bring it to their notice the insertion of these words would carry out that intention as far as possible. I have no hesitation in moving this Amendment, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Member opposite in charge of the Bill, who I think is very anxious to meet us in a conciliatory spirit, will agree to accept these words.

I think my hon. friend the Member for Lewisham might accept this Amendment.

said that the clause as it stood at present only applied to servants already in the employment of the company. It would be seen that, by rule 8, servants pledged themselves to become members of the society appointed by the company, and the alteration which he asked the Committee to adopt was intended to prevent the men being compelled to join the society. With the view, therefore, of protecting those who might in the future obtain employment under the company he begged to move his Amendment.

said he did not feel justified in accepting this Amendment. The form of words in the Clause had worked smoothly and given great satisfaction since 1897 in two railway Acts now running, and he failed to see any improvement in the words suggested by the hon. Member for Derby. The second part of the Amendment provided—

"Nor shall any discrimination be made against employees who do not join."

He was a little at sea as to what that meant, and he was afraid it would only lead to trouble and cause confusion and litigation between employer and employed.

said there was one point in the Bill on which he should like to be quite clear, and that was with regard to the application of the clause as it now stood. He was disposed to think that the clause as it now stood would apply to those already in the service only; but it would not prevent the company saying to new applicants: Will you join the fund? taking one man who consented, and rejecting another who refused. He had no doubt that the Bill before them was intended to cover such a case as that, but it was doubtful indeed whether it was covered. It was not open for him to move an Amendment, as there was now one before the House. He recommended that the hon. Member for Derby might secure the incorporation of the first half of his Amendment without any injury. He was told that the directors had no idea whatever of applying such a test to applicants for employment, and, if that was so, why should they object to the introduction of words to make that clear to everyone who sought employment?

said he was rather astonished at the action the hon. Member for Derby had taken. The words the hon. Member now sought to be struck out were put in after he had seen and considered them, and with his full approval. Under these circumstances it seemed somewhat peculiar that he should now seek to strike out these words.

said he should like to put himself right on that matter. He thought he distinctly suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, to the hon. Member for Lewisham, and to the general manager of the company, two or three days after the last debate on the question, that something should be brought within the company's rides and regulations that this should not apply to new candidates for employment in the service of the company. Nothing was definitely promised, and he was not satisfied with the words after he saw them in print. He now found that the words would only apply to those already in the company's service; still, there were rules of the company which would give a preference to those who would agree to join the society on applying for occupation. It was to meet that case that he moved the Amendment.

said that, after what they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, he was glad that his hon. friend the Member for Derby had freed himself from the imputation of bad faith. The hon. Member agreed to accept a certain compromise provided the clause was retained in the Bill. He did not see the form of words proposed to be embodied.

I beg pardon. The form of words was shown to the hon. Member in print.

Subject to the alteration of the rules of the company.

There was no condition attached whatever.

said he wished to point out that this Amendment consisted of two parts, and the second part was an important one, namely, that no discrimination should be made against employees who did not join the society. He was exceedingly astonished to hear the Member for North-West Ham speak in opposition to this clause. As a trade unionist the hon. Member ought to be aware that one of the greatest difficulties in the way of organisation was the fear of punishment being meted out to employees who did or did not perform some act they were asked to do. It would be easy for the directors to refuse promotion to an employee who did not join the society. As was well known, most employees were entitled to an advance of wages periodically. It would be an easy matter to hold back an advance of wages to an employee who did not join the society. There would be nothing in the rules or the clause to prevent that being done unless the Amendment were accepted. He hoped that the hon. Member for Lewisham, who had gone so far, would not stop at going one step further, so as to make it clear to the employees that no compulsion or pressure, direct or indirect, would be brought to bear upon them to join the society, and that they would not be punished in any way if they refused to join.

appealed to the hon. Member for Lewisham to allow this Amendment to pass. The company either meant to discrimi- nate between the men or they did not. If the latter part of the Amendment was not adopted suspicion would be created against the directorate of which he thought they were not worthy. Why not adopt the Amendment? It would

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken, or are immediately to be taken, in reference to native affairs at Pretoria or Johannesburg; whether he has before him any report on the native reserves and locations in the Transvaal and Orange Colonies; whether he can yet state what measures His Majesty's Government intend to take to fulfil their pledge as to the welfare of the natives; and whether Parliament will be given an opportunity of discussing the measures proposed to be taken for the welfare of the natives in the annexed territories before such measures are finally adopted.

The only step which has been taken in this direction up to the present time is the appointment as native commissioner of Sir Godfrey Lagden, who displayed exceptional ability in the management of the natives of Basutoland before and during the war. As regards the administration of native affairs, any steps which have been taken, or may be taken in the early future, will be of a purely provisional character.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that numbers of European refugees have been permitted to return from Natal to the Transvaal and open their shops there, but that no permits have been granted to refugees being Indian British subjects; and whether he will make inquiry as to the reasons for this difference in the treatment of traders, and give such instructions as may be required.

I am awaiting a reply to a telegraphic inquiry which I have addressed to Sir Alfred Milner on the subject at the request of the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the debtors in debts due to the late Transvaal Government other than the Chartered Company are to be exempted from payment thereof; if they are not to be exempted, what is the distinction in Principle drawn between the claim against the Chartered Company and that against any other debtor; if they are to be exempted, is there any precedent known to him or to his advisers for such exemption; and, if such precedent exists, will he give it.

There is no intention of exempting debtors from the payment of debts due to the Transvaal Government which are legally enforceable The claim of the South African Republic against the Chartered Company was not an acknowledged debt, and there is no parallel between the cases stated.

In every case in which the debt is disputed will it be forgiven?'

Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a day for me to call upon him and inspect all the Papers in connection with the Jameson Raid, in order—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the bubonic plague now raging in Cape Town and its vicinity has assumed serious proportions; whether the statistics published of those who had taken this disease and of those to whom it has proved fatal are confined to cases in Cape Town itself; and whether he can state the numbers in Cape Colony who have been affected with and who have succumbed to this disease; and whether he will include the total number of the sufferers from this disease and the deaths caused by it in the published weekly returns.

The publication of statistics is a question within the province of the Government of the Cape Colony, but I am asking the Cape Government if they will supply in the weekly bulletin the additional information as to the total numbers of those affected by and of the deaths from the disease which the hon. Member desires.