, in moving the Second Reading of the Railways (Contracts) Bill, apologised to hon. Members for the Bill's not being in their hands at an earlier date, which, he said, was due to the fact that he was not acquainted with the process of bringing in private Members' Bills. The House would see that it was a modest measure, and was of a kind which ought to be brought in by a private Member on a Friday afternoon. It was not an heroic measure, nor did it propose a great change. He did not imagine it would entitle him to much glory, nor did he hope that a statue would be erected in his honour at all the principal railway stations on account of it. On the other hand, it ought not to excite much opposition. He saw there was no objection to it even by the Member for the City of London, who generally objected to a measure which was brought forward on a Friday. In introducing the Bill he thought he ought to say something on the question of law, and he had very great diffidence in approaching questions of that kind. The Bill affected the law as to carriers. There were three classes of carriers—carriers without hire, private carriers and common carriers. Carriers without hire were responsible for loss through gross negligence; private carriers also were responsible for loss arising through neglect; while common carriers were responsible for every kind of loss, except that resulting from act of God or the King's enemies. He need not deal with gratuitous carriers, except to point out that even those who carried gratuitously for others were liable to pay compensation for gross negligence. In 1830, when the Carriers Act was passed, many common carriers tried to limit their liability by publishing notices of conditions which the Law Courts said were unfair and unjust. That Act was followed up by the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts of 1854 and 1894, and under them the railway companies were by law to be regarded as common carriers. At the same time they were able to contract themselves out of their liability as common carriers. At present, under the sanction of Parliament, they were allowed to charge two rates. The first was the ordinary rate, which made them common carriers, and under which they were liable for every loss, except those occasioned by act of God or by the King's enemies. Those two exceptions were not of much practical importance in this country. The idea of danger from the King's enemies, so long as the Government kept up the Navy, was not to be apprehended. Also an Act of God under our climatic conditions was not such that they need have any fear of. He noticed, however, that a claim was made the other day on the ground that a motor-omnibus skidded on a greasy road, which was said to be an act of God. The Lord Chief Justice said it could not be considered to be an act of God, but it was open to the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff if there was negligent driving. There was also an owner's risk rate, and the question was whether the companies at the present moment, under the rates they could levy, were in an equitable condition. The Bill really dealt with the owner's risk rate, which limited the railway companies' liability as common carriers to cases of wilful misconduct, but he proposed under the Bill to make them liable for gross negligence as well. It might be said that that was dealing with contracts in an arbitrary fashion, and violated what was called the sanctity of contracts; but he would point out that railway companies were in a different position from an ordinary individual, as they enjoyed a monopoly granted by Parliament, which gave them an arbitrary position and enabled them to force contracts upon people. The conditions laid down by Act of Parliament in regard to those special contracts, and contracting out under the Common Carriers Act, were limited to cases which could be proved to be just and reasonable. He asked was it just and reasonable that a company should be able to exonerate themselves from acts caused by gross negligence on the part of their own servants? He did not think anyone would say that was a principle that ought to be enforced. The question of wilful misconduct was very difficult to prove or to deal with. Goods sent at owner's risk might be treated in a way that was grossly negligent, although there was no wilful misconduct. Damage done by a railway company's servants through gross negligence might be quite as injurious as if it were caused by wilful misconduct. He did not wish to bring before the House specific cases based on private information, because it would be difficult to discuss their merits. He would, however, take complaints laid by the Midlands Chamber of Commerce against certain railway companies, in which it was contended that the latter since 1902 had been very arbitrary in their proceedings with regard to damage to goods carried at owner's risk rates, and that traders were not treated as they should be. The railway companies replied that of the eleven cases brought forward three had reference to explosives for which they could not be expected to pay compensation, because they were carried at owner's risk. In one case, however, some cartridges were left out in the rain all night without covering. Some blunders were worse than crimes, and he said that to leave such goods out all night was gross negligence, and equally injurious as if there had been wilful misconduct. The railway companies said that traders ought not to grumble, because, after all, there were two rates—the ordinary and the owner's risk rates—and they could choose between them. But, as a matter of fact, traders had not, in certain cases, got the choice, in consequence of the keen competition existing. One case struck his attention, and that had reference to the sending of flowers from Glasgow to London. There was an extremely small difference between the two rates, but, flowers being a perishable commodity, it was essential that under stress of competition they should be got to the market early. The railway companies pointed out that a good deal of delay and injury was caused by the way in which traders sent their goods, and, no doubt, they had some ground for that complaint. He might take the case of Sandown. If the precise locality was not specified a sporting porter might send the goods to the place where races were held, while a consumptive porter would send them to Sandown, Isle of Wight. The trader, under those circumstances, must risk the idiosyncracies of the railway porters. The railway companies, he was informed, had added greatly to the number of articles which must be sent at owner's risk. Therefore, the traders were unable, in more cases than ever, to obtain compensation unless they could prove wilful misconduct. Since 1902 there had been a Joint Claims Committee to deal with claims, and cases were not considered on their merits. The companies had by combining done away with that competition which in the old days used to give some protection against arbitrary action. The companies objected to an amendment of the law in this respect. A number of substitutes for "wilful misconduct," or "gross negligence," had been proposed, but not being a lawyer he was not concerned about words. The railway companies objected to "culpable negligence," and the words "negligence of a serious character" had been suggested; but he was not caring about the form of words so long as the principle of the Bill was made manifest. Any form of words which would carry out the principle would be acceptable to him. He maintained that it was not just and reasonable to exclude gross negligence from the sphere of liability. He hoped that the House had been able to follow, to some extent, the case he had brought forward, and would give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to the Grand Committee on Trade. The Bill was not ambitious. It was brought in in the interests of traders and of the railway companies of the country. He had tried to be strictly impartial. Of course he recognised that traders never would be satisfied with rates. No one ever was satisfied with rates of any sort or taxes. He would be glad, however, if his proposals conduced to a more friendly and sociable feeling between traders and the great carrying companies. For the benefit of all it was essential to remove from the minds of the traders the suspicion that the railway companies were treating them unreasonably. He begged to move.

, in seconding the Motion, said that the first thing the House had a right to ask was that the promotion of the Bill should state the exact grievance, explain the proposed remedy, and say to what extent the trading community of the country affirmed the grievance and approved the remedy. The grievance was that in regard to merchandise carried at owner's risk the railway companies were relieved from liability for damage or detention, except it was proved that either arose from "wilful misconduct" on the part of the companies' servants. The traders said that it was practically impossible to prove that even though private detectives were sent with each consignment of goods, because, even though they might witness acts of negligence they could not diagnose the porter's mind and prove the motive controlling his actions. The railway companies, therefore, were practically immune from all liability except in a few isolated cases, no matter how careless their servants might be. Traders affirmed under those circumstances that to throw upon them the onus of proving "wilful misconduct" was harsh, unreasonable, and unfair. That shortly was the grievance. As to the remedy, they asked the House by this Bill to approve what he admitted was an important principle—that all railway companies in the handling of merchandise in course of transit should be responsible for acts of gross carelessness on the part of their servants; and that they should not have the power, under any circumstances, to contract themselves out of that obligation. The traders submitted that railway companies had had granted to them, from time to time, great privileges; that they had practically a monopoly of transit, and held in their hands the trade life of the country. They contended that with those privileges there were allied certain obligations on the part of the railway companies, one of which was that in the handling of traders' goods they should exercise reasonable care, and that power to contract out of that obligation ought to be refused. The practical effect of the Bill, if passed, would be that in the owner's risk contracts, the words "wilful misconduct" would be eliminated, and in their stead would be substituted "gross negligence." The benefit to traders of that would be this. At the present moment when a trader brought a claim in a Court of law the Judge would not allow the case to go before a jury unless wilful misconduct could be proved. It was practically impossible to prove that and in consequence it was almost impossible to get a case before a jury. If, on the other hand, the railway company were liable for acts of gross negligence, then it would follow that where an act could be proved from which it could be reasonably inferred that there had been gross negligence, the Judge would be bound to let the case go to a jury, and it would be for the jury to determine whether upon the facts proved gross negligence had been committed. He would pray in aid of that contention the Report of the Departmental Committee (appointed by the late Government) which sat to consider the fruit industry and issued its Report in 1905. That Committee took a great mass of evidence from the railway companies on the one hand, and the traders on the other, and among the many questions submitted to them for consideration was the question of the owner's risk contract with the "wilful misconduct" clause. In para- graph 64 of their Report the Committee stated—

"That the exemption of a company from liability unless 'wilful misconduct' is proved is too stringent a condition, for in hardly any case would it be possible for a consignee to obtain the necessary evidence, as that would have to be derived from the servants of the company itself. They consider that the term 'culpable negligence' should be substituted for 'wilful misconduct.—"

The Bill practically adopted that recommendation, and he thought he would receive the assent of the House when he said that the attitude of the traders in the matter could not be considered unreasonable, when they could call in aid the Report of an impartial tribunal which made that recommendation after hearing evidence both from the railway companies and from the traders. He thought he would be able to shew, by overwhelming evidence, that the traders affirmed the grievance and approved the remedy. No less than thirty-nine chambers of commerce in all parts of the country, including those of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Aberdeen, and his own constituency Dudley—representing almost all the important industrial centres of the country—had given their recognition to the principle of the Bill. In addition to that, on the 13th of October last a conference was held, at the Westminster Palace Hotel, of representatives of the chambers of commerce of the United Kingdom, for the purpose of considering the grievance and its remedy. At that conference 150 representatives of the trade of the country met, at a great sacrifice of time and money, and gave unanimous expression to the widespread nature of the grievance, and approved the remedy now before the House. Furthermore, the Associated Chambers of Commerce last week held their annual meeting under the presidency of his hon. friend the Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire. They represented about 100 chambers of commerce, and spoke in no uncertain voice as to the widespread nature of the grievance, and they also approved the remedy. Further, no less than forty Chambers of Agriculture and thirty-two trade associations, including the British Iron Trade Association, and the great trade-protection societies, had approved, by resolution or otherwise, of the principle of the Bill, and had spoken of the widespread character of the grievance. The House, therefore, would agree that behind the principle of the Bill was a great volume of trade opinion. It might be asked how was it that the question had become suddenly acute, having regard to the fact that the owner's risk rate had been in use for so many years. The answer was simple. It was, that prior to 1902 the railway companies individually settled the claim of the individual trader, and that to some extent the trader had the benefit of the competition between the railway companies. The attitude of the railway companies before 1902 in regard to the payment of these claims was that while they were protected by the "wilful misconduct" clause, and were not legally liable in any case, yet where they were satisfied that gross negligence had been committed by their servants, they would acknowledge the claim of a trader and compensate him as an act of grace while denying liability. On the whole, although there might have been some grumbling here and there, that system provided a fair working basis, and generally gave satisfaction to the traders. But in 1902 the railway companies entered into a combine which had been referred to, and, as a result, had set up a Central Claims Committee. No railway was allowed to settle the claims independently, and the Central Claims Committee had insisted more strongly on the strict legal rights of the companies, and had enforced them more rigidly than before. If therefore the Bill passed into law its practical effect would be to restore the practice which obtained up to 1902, with this exception, that traders would be enabled then to claim as a right that which prior to 1902 was given as a matter of grace. It was necessary for the information of the House, in order that they might form a judgment on the issue, that he should say one or two words on the main arguments which would be used by the railway companies in support of their position. As he understood, the railway companies said they had two rates—one the company's risk rate under which they accepted responsibility, and the other the owner's risk rate. If therefore the traders did not like the conditions attaching to owner's risk rates, why did they not send their goods under the com- pany's risk rates? On the face of it that seemed a very fair and reasonable argument; but a closer examination showed that it was fallacious. The traders said they had practically no alternative, because the companies' rate was in many cases so much higher than the owner's risk rate as to make it, owing to the exigencies of trade competition, compulsory upon them to send their goods by the lower rate, in spite of the conditions. On that point he would again refer to the Report of the Committee on the fruit industries, in paragraph 56 of which it said that the disparity existed in some cases to the extent of 50 per cent., and there were cases cited where the difference was 100 per cent. He had information from traders which showed that the difference ranged from a very small percentage up to 200 per cent. He would quote on that point the judgment of Lord Justice Lindley in the case of Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln Railway v. Brown. Lord Justice Lindley said:—

"In the case now before the Court the plaintiff was a fish merchant sending his fish to market, and practically he was compelled to send his goods at the lower rate. It is true lift was not compelled to do so by the railway company, but it is plain that unless the plaintiff sent his fish as cheaply as he could he would be undersold in the market by his competitors in trade."

That was just the traders' contention. He desired further to state that the traders of the country viewed with increasing anxiety the action of the railway companies in saying that certain classes of goods could only be carried under the owner's risk rate, and unless the traders sent them under that rate they would not carry them at all. Another argument used by the railway companies was that if traders sent their goods at company's risk, the increased rate for freight would be in excess of their losses under the owner's risk rate, and therefore, after all, the traders were the gainers. To that the traders replied that where the company's risk rate was in excess of the owner's risk rate to an extent beyond a percentage necessary to cover claims, the company's rate was fictitious and arbitrary. He could prove that by a concrete case from the evidence and report of the Departmental Committee. In paragraph 63 they found, and indeed it was admitted by the railway companies, that 5 per cent. added to the owner's risk rate would be a fair percentage to cover average losses for claims. Consequently hon. Members would naturally suppose that the company's risk rate would be owner's risk rate plus 5 per cent. to cover claims, but the Committee found in some cases the percentage was no less than 50 per cent. higher, which showed how arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair the company's risk rate was. They might be asked what quid pro quo the traders were willing to give the railway companies for the lower rate quoted to them. It was quite fair that if the railway companies undertook to carry traders' goods at lower rates they should receive a quid pro quo, and the traders said they were willing to relieve the railway companies from the common law liability as carriers and from the liability for accidents if the cause of such accidents was ordinary negligence. But where the accidents were the consequence of gross negligence the railway companies ought not to ask for any relief. The distinction between ordinary and gross negligence was well understood in law, and it would be for a jury to determine whether the facts constituted gross negligence. He ought, in fairness to the railway companies, to say that they did to-day in some extreme cases pay traders' claims, although they were not legally compelled to do so under the terms of the owner's risk contracts. They paid the claims but denied liability. But the traders said they did not wish to come cap in hand and ask as a matter of grace that to which they were entitled as of right. The railway companies made the strong assertion that the owner's risk rate was a boon to the trader in that he was enabled to pack his goods less carefully and more economically than he would be enabled to do under the company's risk rate. But that fact was taken into consideration in the classification of the goods, and an increased charge was made according to the classification. Traders, therefore, could not see that it was any argument for the railway companies to say, "If you send your goods not properly packed we are entitled to be grossly negligent." While he thought it his duty to put those arguments, he rested his case upon the broad principle that the railway companies which had now practically a monopoly ought not to be allowed under any circumstances to contract themselves out of their liability for gross negligence. He thought that to allow them to do so must produce slackness in management and be detrimental to the trading community. There was one other point. Objection had been taken to the Bill on the ground that it was another piece of grandmotherly legislation, and that it did violence to the great principle of freedom of contract between adults. He admitted, that principle and its importance, but the principle itself rested on the assumption that it operated in the interests of the community at large, and if it could be proved in any given circumstances that the principle clashed with the interests of the community, then to that extent the principle must give way and an exception be established. It was not necessary, however, for him to prove that the contractual relations between railway companies and traders constituted such an exception, for Parliament had already interfered in respect to these very contracts, saying to the railway companies,. "Thou shalt not do this," and "thou shalt not do that." Let him sketch in a few brief sentences for the information of the House what Parliament had heretofore done. Prior to 1830 the common carriers of the day sought to limit their common law liability by issuing public notices to the effect that they would not be liable under certain conditions. So prevalent did that custom become that Parliament intervened on behalf of the traders and passed the Carriers Act of 1830, which prescribed that no such notice should be valid, but at the same time gave the carrier a right to enter into special contracts with particular traders with regard to the carriage of their goods. There were several legal decisions, and it was ultimately held in the law courts that when a railway company sent a printed set of conditions to a trader, and he received it, it amounted to a special contract, although he had not agreed thereto and had even protested. It was in consequence of those legal decisions that Parliament again intervened and passed the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, Section 7 of which governed the case to-day. That section said in effect that such contracts must not only be in writing but signed, and the conditions must be such as a Judge or a Court deemed just and reasonable. Those special contracts, the owner's risk contracts with their "wilful misconduct" clause, had been taken before the Judges, who had decided in favour of the railway company; consequently the traders had come to the House, and placed their case before it as the highest tribunal. In conclusion, he would like to say that the Bill had not been conceived in any spirit hostile to the railway companies. He recognised that railway companies were trading concerns and not philanthropic institutions. But he held say that they did not stand on the same footing as ordinary trading corporations. They had had great privileges conferred upon them by Parliament, and allied to those great privileges were great responsibilities to the community at large. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him. He had endeavoured to compress his arguments as much as possible compatible with the clear elucidation of the case, and he now begged to second the Motion.

said he recognised the spirit in which the mover and seconder of the Bill had advocated its acceptance by the House, and he was glad to note the concluding words of the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, in which he disclaimed any special hostility to the railway companies. He felt also that, in rising to state the case of the railway companies, he had to appeal to the known generosity of the House towards the advocates of unpopular causes. He did not plead guilty to having a deservedly unpopular cause, but he had to recognise what had happened recently in the House when anything was demanded by the trade unions or by the chambers of commerce as against the railways. Although chambers of commerce were useful and representative bodies, yet it must be borne in mind that for the purposes of this dispute they were parties to the litigation and could not be treated as umpires, and what they said should not be taken as the last word on the subject. The findings of the chambers of commerce were very different from what they might have been if the railway companies had attended their meetings, and if the companies' voting power had been in proportion to the volume of their capital. Probably, if that had been the case, the verdict might have gone the other way. As was very well known, it had been found almost impossible to organise any shareholders so as to establish their political or economic power in anything like proportion to the tremendous interests they represented. But, after all, their money was risked in an industry, and the shareholder in a railway was entitled to at least as much consideration as all other traders whose money was risked for the benefit of the general community. Another thing was, that if it was to be a question of presuming gross negligence, and should this Bill pass it would nearly amount to presumption in some cases, where there was no evidence of negligence, it was to be borne in mind that the servants of railway companies were not more addicted to habits of gross negligence than the servants of anybody else. There was no greater reason for presuming gross negligence in their case than in that of others. He hoped that, with that initial disclaimer or declaration, he might be permitted to say what the railway companies conceived to be their case. The traders should not be allowed to be judges in their own cause. The hon. Member for Dudley had made the important admission that even at the present time, notwithstanding the existence of the Joint Claims Committee, the railway companies in a very large number of cases did stop short of insisting on the exaction of their full rights, and that they did pay in respect of claims which, under the strict terms of the owner's risk clause, they might very justly and legally repudiate. He was glad of that admission. If it was to be a question that freedom of contract must go, let them remember that railway companies themselves did not enjoy the rights of true contract. A railway company was not entitled to say, "We will get from you all the rates we can," because they were limited in respect of the amount they could take, for the reason that the State imposed a maximum rate. Again, the railway companies were obliged to charge the same rate to all traders, and could not give preference to one over another. In those initial and most important respects railway companies had been deprived of the right of entering into what was called free contract. It was not on the basis of free contract, however, that they were going to argue the question. There were other considerations which appeared to him to be the true reason why, if at all, the House should interfere. It had been attempted to be argued that owner's risk terms were so favourable to traders, or rather were so wide apart from the carriers' risk terms, that the higher rate paid under the carriers' risk terms was not really a true alternative at all. The hon Member for Dudley had quoted Lord Justice Lindley, but those who read the virile observations of Lord Bramwell in the same case would see how he, at all events, brushed aside that kind of argument. The lower rate terms, which constituted the owner's risk clause, could not at one and the same time be so intolerably unjust as to demand a remedy from the House, and also be so good that they put the alternative in the shade and altogether out of sight. If it was to be argued as a case of two alternatives, one of which might be described as altogether out of sight, and therefore of no use at all to the parties, the companies were entitled to ask which was to be the datum line? Was this a Bill to get rid by a side wind, and without avowing its real purpose, of the maximum rate created by Parliament with such gigantic labour and with the exercise of such splendid skill and judicial faculty as was involved in the inquiries of 1888 and 1892? Which was to be the datum line? It must be borne in mind that the carriers' risk rate was admittedly less than the maximum rate in practically every case, and that maximum rate was fixed, after very close inquiry by Parliament, so recently as fourteen years ago. The position was that, starting from that datum line, in the great majority of cases the railway companies had given traders the alternative of taking owner's risk rates at a diminution from the rate in their favour greater than the diminution which represented the cost of insurance. Therefore the trader was really in a position, under the owner's risk contract, even if he took the whole of the risk of the company's "gross negligence," of having got more into his pocket than the burden of insuring against that "gross negligence" would lay upon him. The traders contended that competition among themselves de- stroyed the value of the alternative rate. But how did it operate to do so? It was so good that it tempted them to keep the money in their pocket, and shirk the obligation of insurance. The result was that they did not insure; yet they came to the House and after having received from the companies the money for the premium on that insurance, claimed to be allowed to keep that money in their pockets, and still to be in the position that they would have occupied if they had effected the insurance. That was how the companies could put the case if they chose to take the extreme point of view. What the railway companies feared was the great ambiguity of the words "gross negligence." The President of the Board of Trade, being the acute man they knew him to be, was quick to seize upon that difficulty at the interview he was kind enough to give to the railway companies in one of the committee rooms of the House. As he had said, there was no necessary presumption that railway servants were more likely to be guilty of negligence than anybody else. Parliament ought not to encourage the idea that the disappointment of a trader, or the amount of damage which he suffered, was the necessary measure of the negligence of which anyone had been guilty. He could understand that the trader who sent by rail cut flowers, or strawberries or season fruit, and who lost his market by delay, would be very indignant, but his indignation was not of itself evidence, although it was indignation with which they all sympathised. They all wanted to get their goods sent at as low rates at possible and without delay, but the indignation felt when one was disappointed could not be accepted as conclusive evidence of negligence, or of anything like gross negligence by anybody. He had looked through the list of eleven cases which had been referred to, and he found that except in one or two of them there was practically no evidence available at all. In all those cases, however, it was the fact that such evidence as there was must be in the possession of the railway company itself. That was the direction, if he might respectfully point it out, where possibly something in the nature of a remedy might be found, if they looked at the consequences which flowed from that necessary state of things. He did not known what would result if the railway companies were to say that they would accept the provisions of the Bill. It must be borne in mind that the Bill, not content with abolishing the supposed freedom of contract, made it impossible for the railway companies to say, "If you do not like these conditions we will offer you others." It closed the door to any alteration at the instance of the railway companies themselves. If they withdrew the owner's risk rate, that would be an unreasonable interfering with the rates, which would bring them under the terms of the Railway and Canal Commission Act. Again, there was a similar provision against anything like altering the amount to be paid under the owner's risk rates. That made it very difficult for the railway companies to say that they would on any terms agree to the Bill. Of course it was obvious that they must leave themselves, as he had begun by saying, to the generosity of the House. He felt quite certain that they were safe in leaving themselves to the justice of the House; and anybody must be able to see that there were possible conditions upon which the issue might be equitably settled. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had himself said that it ought to be possible to find a better form of words than "gross negligence." There were other possible alternatives which he could only hint at. In truth, he thought it was better perhaps not to look at the past, for when traders said that they had suffered the railway companies replied that they had been very well paid for it. The traders, however, denied that, and inquiry into that part of the subject had now become unprofitable. There was a higher position altogether to be taken up, and that was, what did public policy require? He could quite conceive its being said, and very cogently advocated, though perhaps not in any legal sense, but still in a sense which interested legislators, that it was not in accordance with public policy that any persons in the realm should be allowed to contract themselves out of the consequences of their gross negligence. That was what they might call the extreme case at one end of the scale. The hon. Member for Dudley had talked about the unreasonable requirements of the companies about packing. That was at the other end of the scale. He did not think it would be contended that the House should artifically assist those who by imperfect packing of their goods subjected railway servants all along the line, as well as the servants of the consignees and the carting agents, to exceptional temptations. That was another object which Parliament ought not to make the subject of a special legislative effort. The railway companies submitted themselves in all respects to the sense of justice which animated the House, and they asked hon. Members to remember that although the chambers of commerce had demanded this reform there were many reasons why it should not be conceded in the way the Bill had been formulated. Although it might be true that by reason of their great wealth the railway companies were all powerful, the traders through the chambers of commerce were powerful in a way which made it practically impossible to resist their demands. After all, railway companies were traders and were entitled to justice from the House. They thought it was quite possible to find some other equitable solution of the claim, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give them the assistance of his department and experience in finding that solution.

supported the Second Reading of the Bill. They had heard the case of the traders presented by the mover of the Bill and its supporter, and the case of the railway companies presented by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with all the acumen and legal training which he possessed and in his position as a railway director. The discussion brought back old memories. The House could not be better employed on a Friday afternoon than in quietly and moderately discussing such a matter. Were the great railway systems of the country manned and worked in a manner which tended to promote the social welfare of the community? The railway companies stood in an entirely exceptional position, and that fact should never be forgotten. It had been forgotten too much in the past. Every railway company was the creation of Parliament, and had to come to the House for its powers. He had been looking into the record of the old Committees, and he found that Mr. Gladstone was Chairman of one great Railway Committee in 1844which inquired into the position of the railway companies. The Act of 1844, issued from the Report of that Committee, and the preamble of that Act ran—

"Whereas it is expedient that the concessions of new lines of railways should be subject to such conditions as are hereinafter contained for the benefit of the public."

They had heard a good deal about tractors, but he wanted to speak solely from the point of view of the public. The right hon. Member for the Hallam Division had said that traders should not be the judges in their own case. That was not exactly the position, because the House of Commons were the judges. The situation reminded him of what happened in 1892, when railway companies made an extraordinary abuse of their powers. A Committee was appointed, and in 1894 they presented a very strong Report to the House. They investigated the whole question of the manner in which railway companies had exercised the powers given them by the Acts of 1891 and 1892. Any one who read through that Report would conclude that the railway companies were then tried and found wanting. Then, as to-day, it was found that a joint committee of railway managers had been formed to promote concerted action by those great corporations, and thus to vitiate the protection given to the public by each case being decided on its own merits. The right hon. Member for the Hallam Division had said that the shareholders were badly organised, and could not present their case; but railway boards and their railway associations presented an example of most complete and powerful trade unionism. The joint committee of railway managers in 1891 arrived at certain conditions which were not disclosed when the Act of 1892 was passed, and had they been disclosed, that Act would have been framed in quite a different way. The Select Committee in 1893 reported that—

"In view, however, of the action of the railway companies, and of the alarms felt by traders as to the future, they are of opinion that matters cannot be left as they now are, and that some greater security should be provided against unreasonable increases of rates within the maximum charges fixed by recent Acts of Parliament as the minimum protection to which traders are entitled. Your Committee are also of opinion that traders should be protected against the imposition of unreasonable conditions of transport on risk notes and otherwise."

Very little had been done since 1893—during the last fourteen years—and therefore he welcomed this Bill as an instalment. It must be borne in mind that in 1865 a Royal Commission, of which the then Duke of Devonshire was head, laid down that it was the right and duty of Parliament whenever a railway company applied for increased powers to see how far it had exercised the powers it already possessed. They all acknowledged that railway companies had lights, but those rights were founded on Acts of Parliament in which certain conditions were implied and imposed, and the House must see that they were observed in a reasonable manner. In 1882 the then President of the Board of Trade put some foolish stipulations into an Act of Parliament in regard to electric lighting which delayed the development of electric lighting in this country for years. He did not wish to see unreasonable restrictions, but he held that in the matter of railways they should watch very jealously the powers which were given by Parliament and see that the conditions under which they were granted were carefully fulfilled. He gathered from the concluding sentences of the speech of the right hon. Member for the Hallam Division that there was a possibility of a modus vivendi. If they went to a division he would support the Second Reading, although he gathered from the promoters that they were not wedded to any particular form of words. If, however, some other way of carrying out the main purpose and object of the Bill could be found, he for one would support it. He hoped they would hear the view of the President of the Board of Trade on the question as speaking for the Government.

said that in view of the moderation with which the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Bill had expressed themselves it should not be impossible for the railway companies and the traders to come together and discover some modus vivendi. The object of all who represented the railway companies should be to remove suspicion from the minds of those who had dealings with them. He hoped that as time went on they would be able to prove to the House that their great object was to be of use to the community, while at the same time acting fairly to those who had entrusted them with the spending of their money. While there were two rates—one at owner's risk and the other at company's risk—the owner's risk rate was entirely voluntary. That fact was referred to by the hon. Member for Dudley, who said, "Yes, it is perfectly true that it is voluntary, but you must remember that there now sits a powerful board in London, and that they are, practically speaking, too much for the small trader who finds fault with his voluntary rate" In answer to that he would point out that in the last six months in connection with the company which he had the honour to represent there were over 3,000 claims in regard to owners' risk contracts, and only one was for over £50, county court jurisdiction now extended to cases where the amount involved was £100, so that the means of redress open to the owner who thought he was aggrieved owing to the negligent handling of his goods was cheap. The trader could take his case to the county court, and the fact that the railway companies had a joint committee in London did not really affect him at all. He was sorry that the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had gone back forty years to look for the misdeeds of railway companies. Would it be impossible in his own career to discover some little acts which could not be defended?

said the Committee of 1893 reported the misdeeds of 1892–3.

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman went back to 1865. He honestly confessed that blameless as he looked upon himself now, he would be sorry to go back forty years to the salad days of youth, and say that he never did anything wrong. Railway companies when they started their career did exercise powers which they would not attempt to exercise now in view of the present temper of the House of Commons. If these contracts were to be altered—and it was a very good thing that it was in the power of the House to alter and vary them—the House ought to remember the liabilities of the railway companies under their present contracts, and view the contracts in the light of modern times. They surely would not ask that all the onus should be put on the company and none on the trader. He could not explain that to the House better than in the words of Sir Charles Owens, a member of the deputation to the President of the Board of Trade. He said—

"We have said to the traders, if you will relieve us, the railway companies, of liabilities A, B, C, and D, we, on the other hand, will reduce your rates by the amount X. That is a business proposition. But I venture to suggest it is the reverse of a business proposition if the trader brings in a Bill to the House and suggests that while the rate is still to be reduced by X, the liabilities A, B, C, and D, or one of them, is to be transferred back from the shoulders of the trader to the shoulders of the railway company. Surely, in common justice, if a trader wishes to retire from an absolutely voluntary contract, both parties to that contract should be left free to enter into another contract, but one party to that contract should not be relieved of obligations on the one hand, while they remain on the shoulders of the company on the other."

That was what the companies felt. In regard to gross or wilful negligence, legal definitions had been given to them, but it seemed to him open to doubt whether it could be accurately defined. Words had been suggested to the Board of Trade, and in his reply the President of the Board would no doubt state whether or not his advisers thought those words sufficient. If they were sufficient, something would be gained upon which an understanding could be arrived at between the traders and the railway companies.

said he would speak on the question from the point of view of a lawyer. He represented a large constituency in which there were many traders who took one side of the question, and there were others who were interested on the other side as railway proprietors. Therefore, his interest in the question was to help in finding, if possible, a way out of the difficulty with which they were faced. The proposition in the Bill was practically to substitute "gross negligence" for "wilful misconduct" in the present contract notes employed by the railway companies. He was quite alive to the difficulty in which hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented the railway companies were placed by the necessity which had arisen for the introduction of a definition of "gross negligence." It appeared to him that the railway companies had had it in their power to avoid the necessity of any such definition at all, and yet to meet the reasonable requirements of traders who had brought forward this Bill, for the railway companies had got it declared in the Courts that a contract which in terms exonerated them from everything except "wilful misconduct" was a lawful contract which would be upheld. He believed the railway companies were very fortunate in getting such decisions. He thought it was brought about by a certain straining of the Act on the part of the Courts. If the railway companies had taken a liberal view and held that a line between "wilful misconduct" and "gross negligence" ought not to be drawn so as to exclude things which were reasonably and popularly called gross negligence, the House would not have heard of this Bill. He did not blame railway managers for protecting the interests of the companies when claims were made which could not always be justified, but he thought when they took every objection they could they threw away a grand opportunity of avoiding the difficulties of which this Bill attempted the solution. The traders who supported the Bill were really asking nothing more than that the intention of the Act of 1854 should be made a reality. Before the passing of that Act the law was to be found in the works of several writers, of whom the most noted was Mr. Story. In his definition of the law he said—

"Carriers cannot by special notice exempt themselves from responsibility for gross negligence or fraud, or by demanding exorbitant rates compel the owner to yield to unjust terms."

After the Act of 1854 was passed its intention was very fully discussed in the House of Lords in the North Staffordshire case. The Judges were summoned to state their opinions to the House of Lords. He would read some of the statements which were made as to the meaning and intention oft he Act. Mr. Justice Crompton said—

"Carriers cannot say we will not carry your goods at all unless you pay insurance, or agree that we are not to be responsible whatever negligence we may be guilty of, either by not providing proper carriages or by gross neglect or default of our servants."

Baron Martin said—

"The condition could not mean that the company should not be under the obligation to avoid actual negligence or misfeasance, as that would be contrary to the enactment."

Chief Justice Cockburn expressed an opinion to exactly the same effect. He believed that this Bill would never have been introduced if it had not been that the railway companies had attempted to draw a line to exonerate themselves from liability in case of gross negligence on the part of their employees. The offer of alternative rates at company's risk had no doubt been held in many cases under the then circumstances to remove the injustice done to traders. The question always arose as to what was a reasonable alternative rate under the circumstances and that was the question now. As a matter of fact many people had gone into business and had invested a large amount of capital on the strength of these low rates at owner's risk being maintained, and if they were not to be continued, or something like them, those people would be unable to carry on their business. He hoped that the Bill would become law, because it was reasonably required on the part of traders, and he could not see that it would do injustice to the railway companies. Any definitions required on their behalf could be suggested in Committee.

said he did not desire to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but he would like, on behalf of those whom he represented, to say that the agricultural community regarded this measure as of very great importance to them. It was idle to talk about freedom of contract in this regard. It had been pointed out by several hon. Gentlemen that the railway companies owed their very existence to the action of Parliament, which had always exercised a certain control over the arrangements and contracts which they made with their customers. The only desire of those who promoted the Bill was to see that fair terms were given to traders, and specially to agriculturists who were compelled to employ the great railway companies as carriers of their goods. It seemed to him, looking at the question not from a technical or legal point of view, but as a practical man, that it was monstrous that the railway companies should be able to contract themselves out of their responsibility for the gross negligence of those whom they employed; and he hoped, therefore, that the Bill would be given a Second Reading and any necessary Amendments of details could be made in Committee upstairs. It was a matter of special importance to the agricultural community, because they dealt in perishable articles which had to be sent to market by rail. Allusion had been made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the fruit growing industry. Those who were familiar with that trade knew that the men engaged in it attached considerable importance to the Bill. The most modern and enterprising farmers in the country who made their living by consigning their produce, such as milk and fruit, by rail to market were keenly interested in the Bill, which had been supported in a very moderate and reasonable spirit; and he hoped that the House would give it a Second Reading so that the legal questions involved could be calmly discussed in Committee in a satisfactory way.

said that some time ago certain railway companies were under the temptation, for the sake of gaining traffic from competitors, to allow to large traders claims for damages almost as if their goods had been forwarded under carrier's risk instead of under owner's risk. That was done for the larger traders, whom they wanted to propitiate, but not for the smaller, who were thus at a disadvantge. The Committee of managers who considered the matter had behaved not ungenerously to the traders, and had shown themselves to be perfectly ready in many cases, even where gross negligence was not proved, to meet the traders in the demands that they had made.

said that his constituents, who consisted largely of agriculturists, miners and working men, hundreds of whom were members of co-operative societies, would, he knew, desire him to support this Bill. Co-operative societies had suffered loss by the present unfair system of railway rates on the carriage of perishable goods, and the impossibility of getting security that their perishable goods should be carried to market except in large quantities and packed in an expensive manner. But, apart from these local reasons, another matter of great importance to the country was the competition between native fruit growers and dairymen and the same class in Denmark, Belgium, and Holland. The native farmers and fruit growers believed that they were handicapped by what they considered the favouring rates and other privileges accorded by the railway companies to foreign growers and producers, as against the unfair rates demanded by the railway companies from them. Hon. Members opposite were very much in favour of protection, and he would, therefore, invite their support to the Bill for the protection of our home products, and he hoped that the system of railway rates would be revised so as to prevent the unfairness which at present prevailed. He therefore supported the Bill and hoped it would be passed into law.

said that the reason for establishing the Joint Claims Committee was to see that justice was done to all classes of traders. His hon. friend the Member for Hertfordshire had talked about free contract, and the seconder of the Bill had also mentioned it, but the railway companies did not found their opposition to the Bill on any question of that sort. The railway companies themselves had not the power of entering into free contracts. They did not complain of that, but they were under an obligation to carry goods under certain conditions imposed by Parliament. The railway companies had, like other companies, to face a rise in price in the raw material necessary to them in order that they might carry on their business. Every other trader who had to encounter that rise of price put up his own price and so recouped himself, but the railway companies had to go on carrying goods without any increase of price. Again, there had been large increases of rates and taxes for which they could not recoup themselves, as the ordinary traders would, by putting up their prices, because they were under an obligation to Parliament. But the railway companies had said that they were prepared to meet the traders under certain conditions, if the traders would in their turn relieve them from certain obligations which Parliament had imposed upon them. They said, that if the traders would do that, they they would give them lower rates. Now the traders came and said they would accept the proposition that they should carry their goods at a lower rate, but they would not accept the other terms which the railway companies proposed. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said it would be impossible for the traders to do so in consequence of the keen competition now existing, and that traders who sent their goods now at owner's risk rate would suffer if they took the ordinary company's risk rate. Surely that was an argument against the traders and not the railway companies, because if the owner's risk rate was so onerous the traders would not have availed themselves of it. Railway companies did their best to meet the traders. The traders were the customers of the railway companies and the latter had no desire to quarrel with their customers; it would be foolish of them if they did so. The railway companies desired to be on friendly terms with their customers, but there must always be some small differences of opinion, and as his hon. friend himself had said, no rate would satisfy every trader. They must not forget the real effect of this Bill. As lately as fourteen years ago, it was enacted that the railway companies were to charge for the carriage of goods certain rates and to undertake certain liabilities to their customers. The effect of the Bill was to say that the rates which had been charged had been so excessive and had been imposed in such a manner as to render nugatory the wishes of Parliament in the bargain entered into fourteen years ago. If that was so, the proper course was to have a real and thorough inquiry. But it was now proposed to effect a change by means of a private Members' Bill introduced at the instance of an interested party. Such a course was, he thought, detrimental not only to the railway companies but to the true interests of the country. Contracts had constantly been entered into between Parliament and other people, as in this case, and if on the faith of those bargains people had invested their money in certain undertakings, the terms ought not to be altered without the consent of one party. He had never heard of cases where the companies had refused to take goods except at the owner's risk rate, and he did not think the companies had any power to do so. They were bound to accept goods if they were brought to their stations.

said that what he had stated was that it was so in a large number of cases.

said that if a trader presented to the railway companies for carrage goods which were not properly packed, he would say the companies were not bound to receive them. But, subject to that, the railway companies had no alternative but to accept the goods. It had been said that, after all, all the traders desired was to substitute the words "gross negligence" for the word "wilful misconduct." There had been very many different interpretations of the word "gross," and he believed one learned Judge had stated that "gross" meant nothing at all, and that it might just as well be called "negligence" as "gross negligence." In his judgment it was perfectly unfair for the traders, who had availed themselves of the generosity which the railway companies had shown in making reduced rates, to say they would accept what the railway companies gave but would not accept the conditions imposed. It had been said that there was in some cases a difference of 50 per cent. between owner's risk rate and the rate sanctioned by Parliament. That of course was a large difference, but there being so many rates (hundreds of thousands of them), he would not like to say off-hand that it was not possible for such a rate to be imposed, but he doubted it. Because, however, the railway companies had been so anxious to meet the traders and had over and over again reduced the rates, there was at the present moment in some cases a considerable divergence between the owner's risk rate and the ordinary Parliamentary rate. The promoters of the Bill desired to change the rate which Parliament fixed fourteen years ago and to substitute another rate which would make it impossible for railway companies to charge it with any chance of profit to themselves. It had been said that the railway companies, owing to the establishment of the Joint Claims Committee, did not meet claims in the way in which they did formerly. He knew, however, that on one particular railway in England during the last six months 3,000 claims had been met. In one case Messrs. Buggins & Co., of Birmingham, claimed £98 15s. the value of 11 tons 7 cwt. second-hand wire rope delayed and a portion wrongly converted. That consignment, which was despatched on September 17th, 1906, from Monument Lane Station, should have gone to William Harrison Ltd., Brownhills. About the same time another coil of cable weighing about 4 tons was being dealt with, which should have gone to the Wood Farm Colliery Co., at Bloxwich. The large coil weighing 11 tons 7 cwt., and measuring 4,800 yards was sent to Bloxwich in error, and although the firm there were only expecting one 1,500 yards long, they cut the amount they required off the large one, which they must have seen was not the one ordered by them. That had the effect of destroying the large coil for the purpose for which Messrs. Wm. Harrison Ltd, Brownhills, required it. The traffic was carried at owner's risk at a reduced rate, but in spite of that the Joint Claims Committee authorised settlement of the claim, although the company's servants' mistake in confusing the two consignments could not be considered "wilful misconduct." Such a case as that showed that although the railway companies had shown great consideration to the traders, in some instances traders showed no consideration for them. He hoped, although he knew it was a vain hope, that the Bill would not be carried, but if it was carried he trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would remember that the railway companies had as much right to consideration as the traders. The Chairman of Ways and Means on the previous night had stated that he would view with great apprehension the absence of any capital which was now put into railways; but it was not the best way to encourage the influx of new capital to take away powers which had been deliberately granted.

said the discussion had been of an exceedingly satisfactory character, as it had been carried on in a conciliatory spirit on both sides, and he was very glad to see the frame of mind in which the railway companies were prepared to meet the traders. He did not quarrel with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and he agreed it would be very disastrous from the point of view even of the trader if they were to put such conditions on railway companies that they frightened off capital from railway investments. It was in the interests of the railway companies to obtain more capital, in order to afford greater facilities, and it was also in the interests of labour and the traders of the country. In a discussion they had recently had, the reason assigned for the long hours of labour was that railways could not cope with the excessive traffic unless they had more facilities, and he quite agreed that nothing should be done to make railway investments so unremunerative that the companies could not get money for the purposes of development. The case under consideration was one in which the Board of Trade ought not to take a side. Railway companies were themselves traders, and it would be a mistake to regard them as if their interests were not identical with those of the general trade of the country. He was glad to see that the Second Reading was not contested at all. He assumed that there would be no division, and therefore the matter resolved itself into a question of the frame in which the Bill should ultimately pass through the House. For that reason his duty was a light one. He did not mean to say that the railway companies accepted the fairness or justice of some of the contentions put forward in the interests of the Bill, but they were not prepared to oppose the Second Reading. He had a very satisfactory interview the other day with the representatives of the railway companies, and he ventured to suggest to them that they had better turn their mind to the framing of some form of alternative words which would meet the justice of the case all round. He must say they met the suggestion very fairly, though he was not sure that their alternative words would be accepted. He did not think there had been any quite satisfactory discrimination between ordinary negligence and gross negligence, and the whole difficulty had arisen from that fact. He was not going to express any opinion upon so difficult and complicated a legal problem, and he had, therefore, taken the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government. All these questions could be discussed in Committee upstairs, and he did not despair, especially having regard to the admirable spirit which prevailed on both sides, of a reasonable arrangement being arrived at. He thought it possible the railway companies might be able to import words into their contracts which would cover the case. Admitting that in certain cases they ought to compensate for damage sustained oven by those who sent goods at owner's risk, they contended that they ought to be the sole judges of the kind and class of cases in which the compensation should be given; but that was not a claim which the general public would admit. It must be put upon a much more satisfactory basis than that. Certain arrangements which had been made between the companies themselves would have the effect, he thought, of restraining the operation of the competitive system between the railways, and would have to be vigilantly watched. At all events, up to the present, he did not think the traders had much reason to congratulate themselves upon those arrangements.

You mean the Joint Claims Board?

said he meant the Joint Claims Board to a certain extent. He thought the traders had not much reason to congratulate themselves on the result of the appointment of that Board. It had the effect of preventing competition among certain lines of railways in the country, and it was the business of the trader to encourage competition. He understood that the Bill was accepted, so far as the Second Reading was concerned, and therefore he would suggest that the best plan would be that it should be sent to one of the Standing Committees. It was very desirable that the question should be discussed purely as one of alternatives, although it had been suggested that the railway companies had done their best to find some alternative form of words. He did not find, on the other hand, that the traders were absolutely agreed about gross negligence. The traders were quite agreed as to what they wanted, and he thought the railway companies on the whole were prepared to meet them. It had been stated, on behalf of the railway companies, that the trader wanted the railway company to pay the premium, to take the risk, and also to reduce the rate. He did not think the trader made a claim of that sort. He was willing to take ordinary risks upon his own shoulder—the ordinary case of carelessness. That was as much as the trader could be expected to take upon himself. It was rather too much to say that railway companies should exercise no discretion and no care—that they should be able to shunt a truck of fish or fruit into a siding for a couple of days through sheer carelessness, and then send it forward to market after the goods had been irretrievably damaged, without any legal liability to pay for the damage. That was an utterly inequitable doctrine. He did not say they would not pay; he was merely discussing their legal liability. Fortunately, in a good many cases they had paid compensation, but only as an act of grace. Taking their pure legal liability they would not be liable, because the case assumed was not wilful misconduct. But it would be gross negligence, and it was clearly a case in which railway companies ought to compensate the trader. The trader did not contemplate risks of that character. What he contemplated was cases of accident—thethousand little careless nesses of an ordinary working day. Those he was prepared to take and to pay a premium on them. In the circumstances, he saw no object to be gained by prolonging the discussion. He thought the best plan would be to take the Second Reading now, and send the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade.

recognised that the subject had been discussed without any exhibition of Party feeling on the part of the railway companies and the traders. If some such arrangement as had been referred to could be arrived at, he believed it would be in the interest both of the companies and of the public. As one who represented a railway company and had given some study to the subject, he thought the trader had not so much ground of complaint, at all events, as had been made out by the seconder of the Resolution. The hon. Member had admitted that the owner's risk rate was not compulsory upon the trader in theory, although he sought to make out that it was in practice. He could not see, if the owner's risk rate was not forced on traders, why they could not avail themselves of the opportunity and take the companys' risk rates, which were regulated by statute. The owner's risk rates were low rates allowed in consideration of the trader's accepting all risks for damage, except damage arising from the wilful misconduct of the companies' servants. He had heard it said that the companies' servants discriminated between goods consigned at owner's risk and those consigned at company's risk. He protested against that allegation. The men who handled the goods had no means of distinguishing between them, and they were no worse than any one else's servants. He objected to Clause 1 of the Bill, because it made a railway company liable for gross negligence, although they might have expressly contracted themselves out of that liability by voluntary agreement with the trader. Then he thought Clause 2, which prevented the company from withdrawing the present owner's risk rates, was extremely unfair. He accepted the Second Reading of the Bill, trusting that some satisfactory form of words with regard to gross negligence would be found and substituted for the clauses now in the Bill.

intimated that the Government would be prepared to approve of any better form of words, if such a form could be found.

said that if an arrangement of that sort could be made he believed the Bill could be made to satisfy both the railway companies and the traders. The railway companies reluctantly accepted the proposal, because they felt the general interest of the public had to be considered. If the proposals when placed upon the Paper carried out the view which he and his right hon. friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield thought reasonable they would have a very happy solution.

said he would not have intervened had it not been for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. it appeared to him that the Board of Trade was always too anxious to arrive at a bargain between the traders and the railway companies. Today a kind of ad misericordiam appeal had been made by the railway companies, who had done what they always had done in every Act of Parliament affecting them. They had accepted the Bill and immediately proceeded to whittle away the privileges for which the traders had pressed. He considered that the gentlemen who represented railway companies had ingeniously tried to confuse the House and the President of the Board of Trade.

asked whether it was in order to say that the object of Members who had spoken was to confuse the House.

said that he understood the hon. Member to mean that the arguments used by the representatives of railway companies had the effect of confusing the House, and if so he was in order. It would not be in order to accuse Members of deliberately misrepresenting facts for the purpose of confusing the issue.

said he withdrew his observation, if it appeared to convey any personal imputation. With the usual ordinary rate, the carrier's rate, and the maximum rate, the railway companies had three independent rates. The maximum rates the railway companies never charged in ordinary practice, because they knew that if they attempted to charge them the country would revolt. As everybody knew, those rates were fixed ridiculously high. He was now talking of the comparison between the maximum, the ordinary, and the owner's risk rates. It was true that the owner's risk rates were much lower than the maximum rates, but they were not in many cases much lower than the ordinary traders' rates. What traders complained of was that the railway companies, under the owner's risk rates, wanted the traders to take the risk of the dislocation of traffic and the companies' mismanagement upon the top of all the other risks they had to take. With regard to milk and other agricultural produce, many cases had occurred where goods properly addressed and consigned had been sent to wrong destinations, and, after having been carried backward and forward between the place from which they were sent and that to which they had been consigned, were eventually delivered in a condemned state. In every such case the railway companies had refused to pay compensation. The farmers suffered most severely, because the railway companies practically refused to carry their milk at any other than owner's risk rates. He knew that legally they could not refuse, but the farmers would have to spend thousands of pounds in taking the railway companies before the Railway and Canal Commission in order to compel them to do so, and that they could not afford. In fact, he knew of one railway company that had no rate in their book save the owner's risk rate. The railway directors in the House did not appear to be particularly well acquainted with the details of their own business. They were reasonable men when they came to the House of Commons, and if they could only instil some of their reasonable spirit into their goods managers and lower officials, traders would have loss cause of complaint. That was really the point of Sub-section 2 of the Bill. It was absolutely vital. If Sub-section 2 did not remain the Bill would be valueless, and they need not have it at all. The railway companies were adopting their old practice; while they were willing to accept the Bill, they were so endeavouring to whittle down the phraseology that the Bill would be useless when passed. That sub-section had been very carefully drafted by people who had had years of experience in these particular matters, and the section was not unreasonable, because all it did was to declare that if the company raised any owner's risk rate it should be deemed unreasonable under Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, and thus would enable the traders to appeal to the Railway Commissioners. The railway companies ought to be reasonable. There could be no objection to such a sub-section, and unless the traders had some protection of that sort the Bill would be absolutely valueless. He therefore earnestly asked the promoters not to allow any form of words to be introduced which would alter that clause. If they did they would only land themselves as they did in the Private Siding Act. They were fifteen years getting that Bill, and now they had to go to the Railway Commissioners to find out what it meant. The traders and the agricultural classes of the country were determined to have this Bill whether the Board of Trade and the railway companies liked it or not. They had been told of the treatment they had received from the railway companies, but he warned hon. Gentlemen opposite that unless they wanted to see State railways in a very few years in order to save trade and agriculture from being ruined and strangled, they would be wise to accept a small measure such as that now before the House.

said he would not have intervened in the debate, but for what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. What hon. Members had said might not have been said to confuse the House, but it had confused the issue between the railway companies and the traders. What the hon. Member for the City said was perfectly true, that if a trader did not like to take the owner's risk rate he could fall back on the legal maximum rate, but the hon. Member treated the legal maximum rate as if it was a possible standard rate, whereas it was perfectly notorious that if the maximum rates were put into operation to-morrow, more than half the traders in the country would be ruined. The late chairman of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway had stated that the maximum rates had been fixed as the limit to which railways could go under circumstances of the most abnormal character, and to suggest that the companies could enforce their maximum rates as if they were applicable to the normal state of trade was absurd and calculated to mislead the country as to the position in which the controversy stood. That being so, the position in which the traders were placed was really the same as that in which a person was placed by a highwayman who put a pistol to his head and said, "Your money or your life." The form was for the railway company to say, "Take our owner's risk rate which is possible, or take our maximum rate which will ruin and destroy your trade." It was an extraordinary thing, but for the last seven years there had been a continuous increase on the part of the railway companies in the number of goods placed in the category of owner's risk. At present there were no less than 180 different classes of goods in that category, and it was time Parliament took the necessary steps to protect the traders and restricted the contracts of the railway companies in that regard. The position had been made particularly acute by the fact that quite recently the railway companies had extended the principle of combination so as to deal with the whole of the claims in regard to owner's risk rates. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for the City that the Joint Claims Committee of the railway companies had been formed in the interests of small traders. They had heard that story before. He hoped not only that the Bill would go through, but that there would be no weakening of its phraseology. A great railway director once said that, unless the State controlled the railway companies, the railway companies would soon control the State. That had been the position for many years, and was the position at the present time. There was now a great opportunity to change the whole course of things, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would grasp the situation and make a great name for himself.

remarked that the House had heard the points of view of the great railway companies and of the organised traders; he wanted to put the case of another section of the community—that section which had no railway company to grumble at. The great difficulty with regard to railways was that new ones seldom paid. If, therefore, the carrying rates of railways were compulsorily reduced, prospecting promoters of new lines would be discouraged from proceeding with them. Parliament did not want to make the position of railway companies unbearable. It had been contended that railways were monopolies, but that was no longer the case. They had competing with them other methods of transit, but they carried goods better and cheaper than any other carrier. He was not a railway shareholder. He had had nothing to do with the companies except to send an enormous amount of traffic on certain systems. He had nothing to thank them for; they had a great deal to thank him for. They had got enormous sums of money out of the work he had projected and carried through, and he hoped they would get a lot more. He did not want to discourage railway companies. Everybody who knew anything about the country knew that our great prosperity was due to the railway companies. It was futile to attempt to drive the railway companies. Such attempts had always failed in the past and would fail in the future. He ask the supporters of the Bill not to expect too much from it. He was sometimes accused of being a Radical. Had he ever said a word against the rights of property or ever threatened to deprive the owners of one fraction, of their legal and rural lights? If they attacked security of capital which was now earning only 3½ per cent., they would do great harm to the traders of the country.

said that owing to the present position of the companies and the Socialistic tendency in the House and elsewhere, everybody was in a very nervous state, and nobody would put anything into companies, industrial or otherwise. He considered the phraseology of the Bill was rather a matter of arrangement between the President of the Board of Trade and the railway companies.

moved that Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.

suggested to hon. Gentlemen opposite representing the railway companies that they should put down the words they proposed as soon as possible, as they would have to be considered by the Law Officers of the Crown. There might be alternative forms of words.

said the right hon. Gentleman had one alternative form before him.

asked whether the railway companies were officially represented in the House.

raised the question whether it was right for a Minister of the Crown to refer to representatives of railway companies in the House. He was under the impression that the House was represented by members for constituencies, and not by directors of railway companies, and that the mover of the Bill was representing the great public. To ask any hon. Member what the railway companies had to say about the matter seemed to him to be quite a new order of procedure.

I do not see anything disorderly in it. We all represent the public, but we also represent other interests at times.

said it was only suggested that those who were in a position to speak for the railway companies should, with regard to an alternative form of words proposed by them, place those words as early as possible before the Committee with the view of their consideration by the Board of Trade and others.

said the Bill of which he desired to move the Second Reading would be familiar to many Members of the House. It was introduced first in 1893 and received a Second Reading in 1897. The principle of the Bill was that roads should be rendered safe to all who used them. If the Bill became law it would affect not one class but everybody who travelled on highways. He thought that Parliament should not leave to county councils questions which affected life and limb, and that the time had come when Parliament should pass in regard to the lighting of vehicles a statute law which should be universal in its character It was quite true that county and borough councils had adopted by-laws for their areas, but those by-laws were a source of difficulty and trouble which increased year by year as the population increased. In sixty out of sixty-two counties and in 223 out of 324 boroughs there were by-laws with a total lack of uniformity, and what the promoters of the Bill asked was that all vehicles should carry a light at night so that they might be seen by everybody approaching them. It had also been suggested that vehicles should be compelled to carry a red light behind, but as they desired to go on the line of least resistance the promoters had abandoned that idea. Their great desire was to get uniformity. No doubt variety and elasticity were two excellent things, but when it came to the safety of the public the House would agree that uniformity was better. At the present time one could go from one county where a vehicle had to carry two lights into another where it had to carry only one, and pass from that into a third where it had to carry one in front and one behind. As it was in the counties so it was in boroughs. There was no uniformity whatsoever. In regard to the provision of lamps, it would be found that the expense was very little; an excellent lamp could be purchased for 2s. or 3s., and such a lamp would cast a red light behind, while the cost of maintaining it would be about 1d. per eight hours. One source of danger arose from carts which travelled by night at a walking pace. Those were the very carts which should have some light. It was said that a heavy cart going along the road at night made such a noise that people were bound to hear it and could get out of its way. But he would undertake to say that there was not a single Member of the House who had not on at least one occasion either had an accident or been threatened with one by one of those carts going along the road. One could imagine the danger of meeting such a vehicle unlighted on the road when driving along on a dark night, the roads very soft, and travelling down wind. Harvest carts and brewers' drays were in such cases absolutely noiseless until one was right upon them. Then it was urged that in summer months heavy carts should be exempted. Personally he had always regarded the darkness of summer as being quite as inconvenient as the darkness of winter. Indeed, on a cloudy night in summer, when the leaves were thick upon the trees, he thought hon. Members would agree that a country lane as even darker than in winter. It was also said that the proposal would entail cost upon farmers. No one in the House had greater sympathy with the agricultal interest than he, but he did not think that the proposal would cause any appreciable expense or annoyance to farmers. He had not heard a word against the Bill from any person connected with farmers or the agricultural interest. As a matter of fact, farmers did not send their carts along the roads at night to any great extent. The greatest offenders in that respect were heavy brewers' vans and furniture vans. Those were frequently on the road, and it was to them that the Bill would apply. There was also very great danger when carts were standing still. He had been inundated recently with harrowing details of people who had been injured by meeting at night with accidents which might easily have been prevented. He would not weary the House by reading an account of accidents brought to his notice, but there was on especially flagrant case which occurred in his own constituency about a year ago. A young man was riding home at night on his bicycle, and he was travelling downwind. A cart with no light was passing through a gateway and he crashed into the wheel of the cart. The result of the accident was that he was unable to attend business for thirty-five weeks, and he was under medical treatment for forty-six weeks. Accidents of that kind were growing more frequent every day of the week, whereas they might easily be avoided. The Bill was not brought forward in the interest of any one class of the community but in the interests of all who travelled. He was aware that it was said that the Bill was primarily in the interest of those who drove motor cars. The answer to that was that a similar Bill was introduced in 1893, before motor cars were thought of. He thought it quite possible, if the Bill were carried, to do without the monstrous and exaggerated head-lights which they now carried, for they would no longer have the excuse that they could not see what was on the road. He would only say in conclusion that he was well aware, as were most promoters of Bills, that the Bill had defects and required some amendment. If the House permitted the Bill to go upstairs its supporters would be most happy to consider any Amendment in a most sympathetic spirit, so long as it did not go against the principle of the measure. He asked the House, for the sake of all whose business or whose pleasure took them along the roads at night, or during the hours of darkness, to read the Bill a second time.

said the Bill was a very simple one, and as far as he could see, it did very little to alter the existing state of affairs. He did not quite see how the Bill was going to remedy the present state of things. The by-laws of counties differed, for in one they might have to carry two or three lights, as the case might be, while in another county only one light was required. The Bill did not remedy that. They had the existing by-laws of county councils, and, if this Bill became law, the County Council of Wiltshire, for instance, would have an opportunity of making whatever regulations it liked with regard to lights to be carried. It was only, as he understood, in the event of the county council or the borough council not making any by-laws that the provisions of the Bill would come into force. Therefore the numerous differences which existed at the present time would continue. But he did not think that that was any detriment to the Bill. The great object of head-lights was to enable one to see what was coining along the road, and one light carried on the off side would serve the purpose quite as well as two lamps ahead. There were one or two small matters in the clauses to which he would like to allude. No doubt some years ago there was considerable opposition on the part of agriculturists to proposals of this sort, but he thought that that opposition had to a certain extent died down. In most cases farmers had to carry lights on their vehicles and they had become accustomed to it. He agreed that the provision of lights was not an excessive burden. But it frequently occurred that a plough or some other agricultural implement had to be brought from the field across a road, and to require that in all such instances the farmer must provide lights would impose a burden on him. He did not suppose that the mover of the Bill intended that, but was was a Committee point which no doubt would be made. There was one other point. Clause 4 said that the Bill should not apply to Scotland or Ireland. If there was one place in the United Kingdom to which it should apply it was Scotland. In the Highlands a man might run into a cart and sustain an accident when he was twenty miles away from any place where he could obtain medical assistance, whereas if the cart carried a light the accident would be avoided. Therefore it seemed to him that Scotland ought undoubtedly to be included. He did not know anything about Ireland. If Ireland had no regulations in force, there could be no harm in extending the Bill to that country, so that she might not suffer the injustice of being treated differently from England or Scotland. With those qualifications he wished to support the Bill.

said that the County Councils Association had had this matter under their consideration on more than one occasion, and the Resolution which they passed some years ago in favour of some such legislation still stood. As the main point of the Bill was to get universality of application throughout the country, the County Councils Association, would like it to be read a second time. The important matters were that there should be further uniformity in the position and character of the lights, and that there should be no exceptions as regarded time. Those were matters which might be practically dealt with in Committee, and therefore, he hoped the Bill would be read a second time and committed.

said he in no way opposed the Bill, but he wished on behalf of the Mersey Harbour and Dock Board to point out the necessity of a little more elasticity being introduced into the Bill in Committee. There were portions of great cities, especially those contiguous to the great docks, where bicycles were certainly not the rule. He could testify that in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board the approaches to their docks were not of a character to encourage bicycles, because the thoroughfares were monopolised by heavily-laden lorries proceeding to the docks. There was no need to light them, and it must be apparent to the House that where they had inflammable goods like hay and cotton and other materials of that kind it was undesirable, in the interests of safety, that they should multiply lights. In the view of the Dock Board, and of the people of Liverpool generally, it was thought that there was sufficient light in the public streets, as well as in other directions, to make quite needless the provisions of this Bill. He understood that the mover of the Bill was prepared to accept suggestions on that point, and he hoped it would not escape the attention of the Committee. Every day they had fresh evidence of the disastrous nature of fire in one direction or another. By the use of lights in the vicinity of docks and similar places, explosions might be caused and human life endangered. He was sure that the House would desire to introduce safeguards which would as far as possible minimise the danger to human life and property caused by the use of lights in circumstances such as he had described. He suggested to his hon. friend that in Committee some such clause as the following should be inserted in the Bill: "That the Act shall not apply to well-lighted areas in towns of a larger popula-than 200,000 inhabitants, where the local authorities have already exempted slow-going vehicles proceeding at a walking pace; nor in the boroughs of Bootle, Birkenhead and Salford." That would include Manchester, which claimed to be the third or fourth seaport of the United Kingdom. [An Hon. Member: The first.] He would not go into that controversey, but Manchester claimed a place, and therefore he thought it had a right to be considered in the matter. This might appear a small point, but in great cities, with big docks, it was a very important point, and he trusted that the promoters of the Bill when in Committee would understand that, if they passed the Second Reading, they reserved to themselves the right to introduce exceptions in the public interest, where human life and property might otherwise be endangered.

pointed out that whilst the Bill as it stood compelled the owner to place a lamp on his vehicle it did not provide that anybody should keep it lighted. It was, therefore, necessary that some provision should be made for the person in charge of the vehicle to see that the lamp was kept lighted during the specified hours. In his opinion it would be difficult to make a universal rule that a red light should be placed at the back of every vehicle, but such a rule might be made in the case of timber waggons. Already in many counties there was a special regulation that timber waggons must carry a red light at the back. He did not think the exemptions should be confined to the few cities which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool.

said he would oppose the suggestion that the Bill should apply to Scotland until public opinion in Scotland was declared to be more in favour of it. He was afraid there were certain parts of Scotland where the Bill would be looked upon as inflicting a considerable hardship. Besides the difficulty of getting small vehicles to carry lights there was the difficulty which would be encountered in regard to motor cars. He did not think it would be found that there was any desire on the part of country districts to favour the acceleration of speed of motor cars. If all vehicles were compelled to carry lights he was afraid the strength of the lights on motor cars would be considerably reduced. He was not prepared to extend the Bill to Scotland, because many counties in Scotland would be found to be against it.

said a good deal of interest was taken by his constituency in the Bill, with which he thoroughly agreed. He thought it was most desirable that there should be one rule throughout the United Kingdom. It was true that there were exceptions to every rule, and the Liverpool Cart Owners Association had communicated with him, pointing out that in well-lighted thoroughfares it was almost useless to require vehicles to carry a light. He hoped that when the Bill came to be considered in Committee, provision would be made for exempting well-lighted thoroughfares in such cities as Liverpool and Manchester and other large towns. Words might be inserted enabling the local authorities to define the areas which were well-lighted, and then all other areas should come within the scope of the Bill.

said that where the streets were well-lighted the provisions of the Bill would be totally unnecessary, and would be very onerous if enforced. It would be quite impossible to carry out the proposals in regard to lorries, which were flat carts laden well over the sides, because they could not fix a lamp on them. In county council areas where such lorries had to carry lights they were nearly always placed underneath where they could not be seen. Moreover, the lamps would be dangerous in the case of large loads of cotton-waste which reached well over the sides, because they might catch fire. In Bolton he had never known an accident through the absence of lights on vehicles in the well-lighted streets.

was afraid that if they made so many exceptions the Bill would be useless, and would apply only to the North Pole. He would like some of those hon. Members who talked about no light being necessary in a well lighted street to define what they meant by a well-lighted street.

All our streets are well-lighted.

thought probably there might be a difference of opinion amongst the hon. Member's constituents upon that point. He had twice very nearly lost his life through vehicles not carrying lights, and the matter was a far more serious one than some hon. Members seemed to appreciate. Probably the greatest danger had not yet been mentioned. They had heard a good deal about the danger of carts without lights moving along at a slow pace, but in his opinion the cart which was not moving at all was the greatest danger. He thought all vehicles should carry a light so that one driver might see the position of another vehicle. The objections which had been raised were all points which could be dealt with in Committee, and he should support the Second Reading of the Bill.

said that when the Bill got into Committee he hoped the suggestion made by the Association of County Councils that there should be uniformity would be carefully considered. Unless that were secured there would be a good many difficulties in the case of carts and drays and other vehicles coming from one district to another, because they would not know which districts had adopted the by-laws with regard to lights and which had not. Those who were acquainted with, the country districts know the danger of getting about the roads on a dark winter's night, and sometimes the darkness in summer was even worse than in winter. He hoped that the Bill would receive a Second Reading in order that that danger to the public might be lessened. An objection had been raised in regard to the trouble and expense of providing lights, but such trifling things ought not to be taken into consideration when the prevention of accidents was the object to be attained. In these days of cheap illumination the provision of lamps ought not to be any hardship at all.

supported the Bill. They had had similar provisions in force in the West Riding of Yorkshire for a long time and they had worked well. He could assure those who had raised objections to the Bill that when its provisions came into force their objections would disappear. When the proposal was first made to apply similar regulations to Yorkshire he moved an Amendment to exempt various classes of agricultural produce, but his proposal was rejected. He was glad to say that the cause of his objection had now wholly disappeared, because the farmers had come to realise that if the Act was carried out fairly and with common-sense no harm would be done. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had stated that he was afraid the Bill would lead to motor cars reducing the power of their lights, and he also objected to the Bill applying to Scotland. He ventured to think that as far as the Highlands of Scotland were concerned there was not the faintest chance of the power of the motor car lights being reduced, because it was the possibility of meeting not a cart, but a pig or a donkey or a cow in the road that the motorist had to fear. He wished to emphasise the necessity of insisting upon red lights being carried behind timber waggons. They had a regulation to that effect in Yorkshire, and no objection had been raised to it. He hoped proper provision would be made in the Bill for the trimming and lighting of the lamps. It had been suggested that two lights should be insisted upon, but he thought that would be considered a grievance by agriculturists. The regulation that lorries should carry lights had been enforced in Yorkshire with very little objection, and notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Bolton he did not see why it should not be carried out in Lancashire as well. As to there being no suitable place to fix a lamp on a lorry, the light was often carried on a projecting hook which kept the light clear of the cotton or wool. The objections which had been raised did not appear to him to be very serious, and he hoped the Bill would speedily become law.

said that he heartily supported the Bill, not merely as Chairman of the Royal Automobile Club and Motor Union, representing some 15,000 motorists, but also as President of the Tramways Association. The Bill was as important to tramway traffic as to motorists and cyclists. He was glad to note that the former hostility of agriculturists was dying out. Motorists recognised that the powerful head-lights which they carried at present were a danger, but the Bill would hardly remove the necessity for them, because ordinary traffic was not to be compelled to carry tail-lights. Those head-lights blinded the drivers and the horses and he wished he could think the Bill would very largely remedy that. But he was afraid it would not, because the essential point was missed from the Bill, that there should be a light at the rear of the cart. There was the ridiculous anomaly that they forced swift-going traffic to have a light at the back but slow-going traffic, which was likely to be overtaken, was exempt. He thought the ground on which the hon. Member for Bolton asked that his constituency should be exempted was not a good one. He wished to support the Bill because he believed it would be a step in the right direction for the safety of the public and would be one of the first indications that the House realised that traffic on the road must be adapted to the road and not the road to the traffic.

said he was not going to speak against the Bill, although he had given notice of his intention to move its rejection. Having been informed by his hon. friend that it was not the Bill of last year, he had withdrawn his objection to it. He would protest against any attempt to extend the Bill further than it went at present. He hoped that its promoters would remember that its provisions represented the extreme amount of latitude that ought to be given to motorists. The roads were not made for the selfish gratification of motorists, but for the general use of the public at large. The Bill did not apply to Scotland, and it did not include the most objectionable features of last year's measure.

said the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was well-known to be a very hostile critic in regard to the deeds of motorists, and if the Bill had been brought forward in their interest, it would have in him one of its strongest opponents. His hon. friend behind him, who was well qualified to speak on behalf of the motor industry, had carefully abstained from saying anything from the motorist's point of view, and he was glad he did so. The House should consider the question not as it affected any particular class of traffic, but with the sole desire to provide for public safety on the roads. Great danger to people on foot or on horseback resulted from vehicles not being properly lighted. When a similar Bill was before the House three years ago he was inundated with correspondence pointing out the dangers arising from that cause. His hon. friend hit the nail on the head when he said that the Bill did not go quite far enough. In the case of a fast motor-car which was not easily overtaken on the road, the carrying of a light in the rear was compulsory, but agricultural carts and timber wagons were exempt from that obligation. It seemed to be an anomaly that the slow moving vehicle which was most likely to be overtaken by another should not be required to carry a light in the rear. Admirable model by-laws had been drawn up by the Home Office and issued to county councils and borough councils for adoption where it was thought advisable. The by-law with reference to vehicles carrying projecting timber might with advantage be adopted in the Bill. Some of the worst accidents had occurred through unlighted vehicles standing at the side of the road. He thought that was a matter which should receive consideration when the Bill was in Committee. Under the by-laws there was a penalty more than twice as large as that proposed by the Bill. The fact that in England sixty-two counties and 223 boroughs had adopted the by-laws, showed that there was a large consensus of opinion in favour of uniformity in the matter. The hon. Member for the City of London wondered why Scotland was not included in the Bill. Scotland was in advance of England in this as in most other matters. The Burgh Police Act of 1903 contained provisions more stringent than those in the by-laws issued by the Home Office. The regulations under the Act had been adopted by all except five burghs. Of the five, three had more stringent regulations of their own. In twenty-seven of the counties of Scotland the regulations under the Act were in force, and only six counties had no by-laws. He thought, however, that in Scotland there was room for greater uniformity. The variations in the requirements of the different by-laws with respect to lighting gave rise to a great deal of trouble to people who used the roads and had to cross the border between one county and another. That might be avoided by the adoption of a uniform system for the whole country. The Bill would provide for the enforcement of certain uniformity all over England. The provisions were not in any way oppressive or unreasonable. They were designed for the public safety and with no intention to promote the interests of those who owned motors or any other class of vehicle. For none of the offences under the Bill would the penalty exceed 40s. He did not think any more reasonable proposal could well be put before the House.

said everyone who had taken part in the debate had supported the Second Reading of the Bill, and that unanimity the Government were very glad to welcome, for the measure was one which they were anxious should be passed. It was a very necessary Bill. He supposed there was hardly any Member of the House who had not had personal knowledge either of an actual accident, or of a narrow escape from accident, owing to the absence of lights on vehicles on country roads at night. The use of lights became more and more necessary as roads became more and more frequented. The old English highways for a long time were almost deserted at night, but now they were alive with new forms of locomotion. Regulations of the kind proposed were therefore more necessary than before. In the interest of public safety a certain minimum standard of lighting of vehicles ought to be universally enforced. The hon. Member for the City of London had suggested that the local authorities had already very generally adopted by-laws, but there were seventy-seven boroughs in England and Wales where there were no by-laws at all; forty counties which did not require agricultural carts, or carts going at a walking pace, to carry any lights; and thirteen counties which required no lights to be carried during the summer months. All those exemptions seemed to the Government to be inadvisable and bad. Agricultural carts were just as dangerous as any other form of vehicle. In fact it was perhaps more dangerous to leave a small number of vehicles unlighted where people were accustomed to find lights in use, than to dispense with lamps altogether. As to the exemptions in the summer months, he would point out that in our climate a great many summer nights were dark, or foggy, or stormy, and lights were just as necessary then as at any other time of the year. There was no reason for all those local differences. He had had a map prepared showing the nature of the by-laws in force in the different counties of England and Wales. Taking a line from east to west he found that in East Suffolk the by-laws exempted agricultural carts, and there was an exemption for the summer months, while in West Suffolk there was an exemption for agricultural carts, but no exemption for the summer months; in Cambridgeshire there were both of those exemptions; in Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, and Warwickshire there were no exemptions; and in Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Radnor shire and Cardiganshire there were exemptions for agricultural carts. Those facts showed that there were marked differences in the conduct of the various local authorities. It was an absurd mistake to suppose that a measure of this sort was more in the interest of motors than of the agricultural carts with which they were likely to collide. It took two to make a collision. The regulations were required not only to save motorists running into carts, but to save carts from being run into by motorists. The Bill of 1905 included Scotland, but he thought it was perhaps wise on this occasion to omit Scotland, though not because Scotland was ahead of England in this respect, for she was not. Several of the chief counties in Scotland had no by-laws, and almost all of them exempted the summer months, and almost all exempted agricultural waggons. But the reason why it was possibly wise to exclude Scotland was because that country had separate statutes which dealt with the regulations as to lighting. An even stronger reason was that on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House it was bitterly opposed by almost all the Scottish Members who spoke, and was rejected by one vote. If the Scottish Members expressed a desire to have the Bill extended to Scotland, and if his hon. friend who had charge of the Bill could see his way to agree, that could be done in Committee. Certain drafting Amendments would be necessary when the Bill got into Committee. The point raised by the hon. Members for Liverpool and Bolton would no doubt receive consideration, although he was at a loss to understand why a regulation which was enforced in London and Manchester should be wholly impossible of enforcement in Liverpool or Bolton. That was a matter on which the Committee would decide. He hoped the House would grant the measure a Second Reading. Once the Bill was passed into law custom would very soon adapt itself to the new legislation, and soon everyone would wonder why it had been postponed so long.

said he wondered how the Under-secretary had been able to satisfy himself that an unlighted vehicle was a source of danger on an English road, but not on a Scottish road. He thought the House would be perfectly entitled to proceed in a matter of this kind on general principles, and to see that some portions of the community were not exposed to penalties from which others were exempt. As regarded the suggestion of the hon. Members for Liverpool and Bolton, he sincerely hoped the promoters of the Bill would not consent to the exemption they claimed. He had had considerable experience in the passing of by-laws, and he had found that the moment they began to exempt it was very difficult to stop. The hon. Member for Bolton had given an interesting account of the use of lorries in that town, and had stated that when the vehicles were loaded in a certain way the light underneath would be obscured. That could easily be remedied by requiring that the light should be put on the side of the lorry. He had the honour at one time to represent one of the Divisions of Liverpool, and he knew something of the way in which lorries were used in that city. He supposed that a large proportion of the carts and lorries used in Liverpool and Bolton did not traverse only the confines of these places, but that they passed in and out of the adjoining counties. If they were going to give exemptions within the borough or city the first man summoned for not complying with the regulations outside would say that his instructions were to work within the borough or city to which he belonged. By allowing exemptions they provided every sort of excuse for evading the law. He thought, however, that some consideration should be given to the agricultural aspect of the question, because, as the hon. Gentleman knew, the main difficulty which led agriculturists to ask for special provisions was not that they wanted to be put on a different footing from others who habitually used the roads, but because it frequently happened that an agricultural cart or waggon was taken out with the intention that the person in charge should be home before dark, but was prevented from doing so. It was difficult also for carts on the field to carry the necessary lamps, and that was one of the reasons which led agriculturists to ask special consideration. The opinion among agriculturists had been to his knowledge largely altered in that respect, for they realised that if there was to be a general law they must be amenable to it as much as the rest of the community. They realised that the dangers to which they were exposed at present made it desirable that they should be protected, and that if they were protected other people must be protected against them. When the Bill reached Committee it might be necessary to consider whether some special provision should be made in regard to agricultural carts which had been in use on a field. He hoped the Committee uptairs would resist further exemptions which might destroy the real value of the Bill.

said that he was very glad that agreement was so general as to the desirability of the Bill, and especially that its promoters would have the active support of the Government. He did not intend to detain the House, but he had been directly challenged by his hon. friend the Member for the City of London to answer him on one or two points. The first point that his hon. friend raised was about the inclusion of agricultural implements. He had spoken of agricultural implements as if the Bill included everything, spades, mattocks, and so on, that came under that heading.

said that there was nothing to show that it did not.

said that if the Baronet would notice it the Bill said hon. "drawn by animal traction." He did not think a spade was an implement drawn by animal traction, and it was perfectly clear to anyone who read that clause that it was intended to apply to such things as mowing and reaping machines, and those kinds of implements were a great source of danger. They were a far greater danger on the road than carts or waggons, and as an agriculturist himself, he did not think the words would inflict any hardship at all on the agricultural community. With regard to the exemption of Scotland and Ireland, they would like, if they thought it were possible or feasible, that the Bill should apply to the whole United Kingdom. There was no great opposition to the Bill, in fact there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of it in England and Wales, as far as they could make out; but there seemed to be a considerable amount of opposition in Scotland and Ireland; and they had acted on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread. It might be a bad principle, but still it was sometimes necessary in practice. He thought it was certainly better that they should lay down the principle of uniformity in the question of the lighting of vehicles through England and Wales than perhaps lose even that by asking for the principle to be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. A curious objection had been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston, and also by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, which he would not have expected from either of them. They had said that there was nothing in the Bill requiring the lamp to be lighted. All he could say was that if the lamp was not alight, how was it going to display to the front a white light visible at a reasonable distance? As long as it displayed a white light visible to the front for a reasonable distance he did not care personally whether it was alight or whether it showed a light by another means. He did not think it mattered at all. What was wanted was a light showing, and it did not matter how it was obtained.

The Bill does not say it shall display a light, but that it shall be so placed as to display a light.

said he quite agreed—

"so constructed and placed as to shove a white light for a reasonable distance."

He was not going to argue a point of legal interpretation, but he would have thought that that conveyed to the ordinary mind that the light was to be visible from a reasonable distance between the stated hours. As the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had said, however, that could be easily altered in Committee by the insertion of other words, and he was perfectly certain the hon. Member for Gainsborough would be the first to admit the Amendment. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Toxteth and the hon. Member for Bolton, had pleaded for an exemption in favour of their particular constituencies. He thought himself that that would be very undesirable. They had talked about lorries carrying cotton waste, and the danger in those cases of having a lamp. All he could say was that lorries carrying cotton waste and other inflammable materials in many parts of the country were lighted, and, as far as one could make out, without much danger. If cases of accident occurred frequently owing to the fact that they were carrying lamps, he was certain that safety lamps of some kind could be adopted. But the fact remained that lamps were carried by lorries loaded with inflammable materials without accidents in many parts of the country. Why should they not be in other parts? He thought it would be a great mistake if exceptions were made in favour of certain towns to suit the convenience of individual Members. The hon. Member for Middleton on behalf of the County Councils' Association had given the Bill very valuable support, and he entirely endorsed what he had said as to the desirability of getting absolute uniformity throughout the country. It was for that purpose that the Bill had been introduced. One or two right hon. and hon. Gentlemen had referred to the question of lights behind slow-moving vehicles. He quite agreed with them there, and he hoped it might be possible in Committee for the Home Office to support or possibly bring forward themselves the suggestion that on timber waggons and waggons carrying scaffold poles, and so on, there should be lights behind. In those cases of slow-moving vehicles, there was quite as much, or in fact more, danger to vehicles overtaking them than to vehicles meeting them. But he would not like to risk the Bill on a point of that kind, though if they could get it in in Committee it would be very desirable. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading without a division.

said that everybody who had spoken so far seemed to be in favour of the Bill, and also of extending it to Scotland as soon as possible. He did not give many pledges during his election contest, but one he did give, and that was to oppose any Bill for the lighting of vehicles in Scotland. The few roads in his constituency were used almost entirely by people who were opposed to the extension of this Bill to Scotland, and even if the law were imposed upon them there would be nobody to see that it was carried out. He did not think that the majority of his constituents wished to break any law, but if the Bill were extended to Scotland the cost of the lights would be to them a serious and unnecessary additional expense in bringing home their crops and agricultural implements from the fields. He would therefore oppose the extension of the Bill to Scotland.

hoped that when the Bill went to Committee a clause would be inserted making it clear that vehicles in the service of the Crown were bound to carry lights as well as other vehicles. Some time ago a collision occurred near Alders hot between an Army Service waggon and a farmer's cart; and the defence set up was that as the waggon was in the service of the Crown the by-laws of the county in regard to the carrying of lights did not apply to it.

said his remarks had to be brief in arguing for the advisability of passing this small measure, the object of which was to secure the closing of licensed premises on the polling day of any election under the provision of the Ballot Act. He submitted that there was a great amount of practical experience in favour of the proposed change in the law. What was proposed by the Bill was in force throughout Canada, and other British Colonies, and he was interested to read that in the Transvaal, owing to the operation of Lord Milner's law on the subject, the recent elections were conducted with a good order and decorum that were quite laudable and remarkable. In 1905 a similar law was passed in New South Wales. In fifteen States of the American Union, including all the most important ones, laws had been passed for closing licensed premises on election days; and he found that in Canada it was common ground with both political Parties that the public-houses should be shut on such occasions. He was assured by an official in Toronto that there had been a marked absence of intemperance on election days there since the passing of the law; and the President of Harvard University, the chairman of a Committee of fifty which proposed a number of moderate changes in licensing legislation, said that American opinion accepted without question the restriction of the opening of public-houses on election days. What was proposed by the Bill was that the opening of licensed premises or the selling of drink thereon on the days upon which Parliamentary or municipal elections were held should be declared an illegal practice. There was one exception which did not appear on the face of the Bill. The City of London, under the drafting of the Ballot Act, would be exempted from the Bill, and exceptions were also made in favour of persons living in hotels and travellers by railway. He believed that if the Bill became law it would improve the conduct of elections in the country. He had been told that it might cause great inconvenience; but if inconvenience arose once in every four or five years, it was no more than the inhabitants of Wales, Scotland, and almost the whole of Ireland submitted to on Sunday every week. If he were asked to give any justification for the proposed change he would refer to the facts elicited during the trial of elections petitions, although all the facts were not by any means revealed. Quite enough, however, had come out to show that in certain portions of certain constituencies there was a bribable class and that bribery took place in public-houses on election days. Not many years ago the candidates at an election had a triumphal procession going from one public-house to another, in which there was a great deal of treating and drinking. Similar practices took place in connection with municipal elections. The Attorney-General had held out hopes the other day of a measure stiffening up the law of corrupt practices, and he submitted that this point should not be overlooked. It would promote the purity of elections and check some well-known abuses. Publicans claimed that they were bound to stand by their trade irrespective of every other consideration. If that were so, he maintained that the country at large ought to be at liberty to take special precautions to prevent the improper use of public-houses at election time. He appealed to the Government to give the proposal embodied in the Bill a place in their promised licensing legislation. He begged to move.

said that the hon. Gentleman had made an extremely able speech, from his own point of view; but he had introduced an extraordinary precedent into the debates of the House. The hon. Gentleman had practically talked his own Bill out, and no one else had a chance of making any observations upon it. The hon. Gentleman had made a still more extraordinary suggestion that the Government should take up the Bill, and embody it in their promised Licensing Bill. They were promised so many Bills by the present Radical Government that if, in addition to those, they were going to take up the Bills of their supporters, he was afraid that Mr. Speaker would have to sit in his Chair without any interval until Christmas Day, and that was not a possibility which anybody in the House would look upon with any great pleasure.

said he wished to move the adjournment of the House in order to make a statement as to the course of public business. Owing to the First Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill having been obtained yesterday, the Government were able to meet the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition, and would devote a whole day to the Second Reading of the Bill. Monday would be set aside for that purpose, the Bill being made the first Order of the day. In the evening the Government hoped also to secure the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill. On Tuesday, it was proposed to introduce under the ten minutes rule a Bill to amend the Patent Laws, and the Secretary for Scotland, under the same rule, desired to introduce the Scottish Education Bill. After that, the Small Holdings (Scotland) Bill, and the Butter Bill would be introduced, and there were three small non-controversial measures of which the Home Secretary wished to obtain the Second Reading: the Probation of First Offenders' Bill, the Poisons Bill, and the Released Persons Bill. Those would all take precedence of the President of the Board of Education's Administrative Provisions Bill.

asked if it was the intention of the Government to introduce the Small Holdings (Scotland) Bill under the ten minutes rule?

replied in the negative, and asked leave to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House.

reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.