asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the restaurant understood to have been opened for the use of the staff of the National Health Insurance Commission in London is furnished with leadless-glaze crockery; and whether, in any similar restaurants or refreshment rooms to be established else where in connection with the Commission, provision will be made that such ware only shall be used, following the example of the Government Departments and the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Pottery Trade?

The original purchase of crockery for the restaurant in question comprised some non-leadless glaze. Leadless glaze will be purchased in future.

asked whether, for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, he will define what is meant by "whole-time service, "whether a person having an income of say £300 a year, who accepts a position as secretary, the hours of service being from ten to four, at a salary of £150 a year, is compelled to insure; and whether, in that case, a medical practitioner, having agreed to take service under the Act, is required regularly to attend such person when ill for the sum of 7s. a year?

The question of the correct interpretation of "whole-time service" in paragraph (g) of Part II. of the First Schedule of the Act rests primarily in any specific case with the Commission acting judicially and upon consideration of evidence. Any person or his employer may apply for a formal decision of the Insurance Commissioners under Section 66 of the Act upon this point, and it would be impossible to give an answer in the case referred to by the hon. Member with any certainty except on a fuller statement of the facts than is possible within the limits of a reply to a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is in a position to announce to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to promise any medical benefit under the Act?

This question has nothing whatever to do with medical benefit.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the person named in the question was in fact an insured person, he would be entitled to medical treatment in the circumstances?

I could not say that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question on the Paper?

I cannot without knowing the circumstances as to the first part of the question.

asked the President of the Local 'Government Board if he will state in how many districts he has sanctioned the compulsory notification of ophthalmia of the newly-born, and what is the population of the districts; whether he proposes to make the disease compulsorily notifiable throughout the country; whether, having regard to the number of infants whose sight is lost or impaired through neglect of the disease, he is taking steps, under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, to extend sanatorium benefit to the disease; if not, whether he will consider the desirability of doing so; and whether it is proposed to make any Government Grant to assist local authorities in making adequate provision for the treatment of the disease in the families of uninsured as well as of insured persons?

I have sanctioned the compulsory notification of ophthalmia of the newly-born in 216 districts with a population of 11,497,277, and I am considering the question of extending the requirement of compulsory notification of this disease to the whole country. There is no present intention of extending sanatorium benefit to this disease under the National Insurance Act, or of making a Grant in respect of treatment.

asked the Prime Minister whether, if the Government of Ireland Bill becomes Law, the Irish Parliament will have power to alter or repeal the Factory and Workshop Acts as regards purely Irish matters; and whether it will have power to abrogate the international conventions concerning the prohibition of white phosphorus in match manufacturing, and night work by women in industrial occupations?

The Irish Parliament will have power to repeal or amend the Factory and Workshops Acts as regards purely Irish matters, but not to abrogate conventions with foreign States.

In the event of the Home Rule Bill being passed into law, will what a British representative says in connection with any future International Convention be binding on the Irish Government, or will the Irish Government have power to go beyond what is stated by the British representative?

An International Convention would, of course, be binding on the Government.

asked the Chief Secretary (l) whether he is aware that the division of Members of the Irish House of Commons between urban and rural constituencies has given rise to considerable criticism in Ireland; that many of the smaller towns desire direct representation in the Irish House of Commons; that resolutions have been passed asking for an amendment of the Bill in the direction of increased representation for urban centres; and whether the Government propose to amend the Government of Ireland Bill to meet these wishes; (2) whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the executive committee of the Joint Tenants' League, of which the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, is chairman, expressing the opinion, as representing the urban population of Ireland, that the schedule of constituencies contained in the Government of Ireland Bill should be amended so as to give adequate and direct representation to the towns people; and whether it is proposed so to amend the Bill as to meet the opinions expressed by the executive committee of the Joint Tenants' League; and (3) whether he is aware that at the nineteenth annual Irish Trades Congress at Clonmell, on 28th May, 1912, a resolution was passed protesting against the arrangements contained in the Government of Ireland Bill whereby the constituencies are so arranged that the industrial workers in the towns are practically left without representation, and demanding that, in all cases where borough members were returned before the redistribution of seats, such borough representation should be restored; and whether the Government propose to take-any steps to meet the wishes of the Irish Trades Congress?

I have seen the resolutions of the Irish Trades Congress and the Town Tenants' League and others to the same effect. Under the scheme in the Bill, the boroughs will have a representation in the Irish House of Commons slightly in excess of what they are entitled to on a basis of population, which no one of the smaller towns referred to in the resolution of the Irish Trades Congress has anything like the population which would give it a claim to be represented by a single member. It will be open to the Irish Parliament to deal with the matter after three years from the passing of the Act.

With your permission, Sir, I desire to raise a matter in reference to the order of Debate, because it very nearly concerns the dignity and reputation of this House. I beg to say at the outset that no one recognises more than I do the difficulty of acting under certain circumstances in the office which you hold, and that just as I appreciate the case with which it is possible to criticise actions in your office, so also I appreciate how difficult it is to carry them out under such circumstances a; arose in this House on Wednesday last. To make the matter quite clear to which I wish to refer I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT: —

"Sir. E. Carson: No more business in this House.

"Hon. Members: So more business.

"Viscount Helmsley again rose—[Interruption.]

"Mr. Speaker: It is quite obvious to the House that it is useless to continue. If lion. Members confine themselves to Parliamentary cries. I have no power to treat them as creating disorder. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is quite obvious that the Opposition having determined not to allow further business. I am compelled to say that a state of grave disorder has arisen, and, under the Standing Order. I must adjourn the House until To-morrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th November, 1012, col. 2054, Vol. XLIII.]

Upon this, I submit these considerations. In the first place, if it is not disorderly for a Member or any number of Members to utter such cries as "Divide," or "Adjourn," in such manner as to prevent Debate, the House cannot be in a state of disorder, and therefore you have no power to exercise the Standing Order which rules that in case of grave disorder you may Adjourn the House without Question put. In other words, I submit that the action of certain Members on Wednesday last was either orderly or disorderly. If it was orderly, there was no disorder, and you had no right to Adjourn the House. If, on the other hand, you were right in Adjourning the House, the Members in question must have been guilty of grave disorder, and they would have been amenable to your discipline—that is to say, they might each or all of them have been suspended from the service of the House. I submit, in reference to the apparent discrepancy to which I refer as having crept into your ruling, that it could not possibly be tolerated in any deliberative assembly for Members to drown debate by the continued utterance of cries of any kind whatsoever, and that therefore, if your ruling on the point is to stand, it becomes necessary for the House to protect itself. I confess that on reading the Standing Order I cannot find that any new Standing Order is necessary. I have fortified myself on this matter by reference to so great an authority as Erskine May—

Before the hon. Member goes further; I did not know he was going to make a long speech on the subject. If he desires to ask me any question on the ruling which I gave, I am quite ready to hear it. If he is anxious to criticise my ruling on that occasion and to condemn it, there is a proper course for him to take, and that is to put a Motion down.

May I ask you, Sir, if you will be good enough to reconsider your ruling of Wednesday last on the subject of using ordinary Parliamentary cries in such a manner as to drown Debate, and in such a manner as is condemned by Erskine May in the passage to which I have referred—and which might have been written with special reference to what occurred on Wednesday last? To continue the question Erskine May observes—and I desire respectfully to put this: that in such circumstances it becomes the duty of Mr. Speaker to suspend a Member or Members—I think it is put in the plural—who are guilty of that disorder? Fortified with that authority, I very respectfully ask you whether in the interval you have reconsidered the important ruling that you gave, and whether Members of this House may feel themselves under the protection of the Chair when they desire to address the House?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have reconsidered my decision, and I still think I was perfectly right. It may be that the words used were not quite as clear as I should have liked to make them, or as the House perhaps thinks they ought to have been on that occasion. But the House will remember that that particular moment was not one on which it was easy or possible to express one's self as clearly or as fully as might be desirable. I think, however, the general meaning of what I said is quite clear, and it is this: that if hon. Members individually indulge in certain cries which are quite Parliamentary, such as "Divide," "Adjourn," "Oh," "No, no," and so forth, that that is not acting in a disorderly way. If, on the other hand, hon. Members combine together for the purpose of interrupting and destroying Debate, then, in my judgment, a position of grave disorder does arise, and it rests with me to consider in each case how best to deal with the situation. If the hon. Member suggests that I should have dealt with the situation on Wednesday last in a way different to that which I did, it is open to him to put down a Motion to condemn my conduct and to condemn the course I took. In my judgment I was right in taking the course I did. Indeed, any other course, such as that suggested by the hon. Member, would not have led to peace, but would have led to even worse disorder than that which occurred.

May I venture, Sir, to ask for a ruling on one question of my hon. Friend, and to which you have not alluded in your answer. It was this: Is it possible for a state of "grave disorder" to arise in the House without some Members being disorderly, and without there being the possibility therefore of dealing with the matter in another way to that which you in your wisdom dealt with it?

I think the Speaker or the Chairman must be guided by the circumstances of the case. It is well known, I think, that certain interruptions which are perfectly legal in themselves if made by individuals become illegal if made by a combination of individuals. If the hon. Member applies the common law of this country by analogy to the procedure of this House, he will see that certain things which are perfectly orderly in themselves when done in combination and unison by a considerable body become disorderly.

Arising out of that may I ask if there is any remedy under Standing Orders other than which you applied on Wednesday by adjourning the debate for dealing with the conspiracy of the nature which you have just described?

I did not describe it as conspiracy in that sense. That is the gloss the hon. Member puts upon my words. I have applied the general law by analogy to what occurred last Wednesday. The hon. Member is well acquainted with the Standing Orders, and he knows what is the remedy. Whether that remedy should or should not be applied in any particular case must I think rest with the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be.

May I ask another question, Sir? Have you considered whether or not the circumstances of Wednesday last constitute, to use the term of my hon. Friend, a "conspiracy, and may I ask if it is not the case that the ruling and dictum of Erskine May, in which he refers not to a Member, but to Members, does not apply precisely to the circumstances which arose last Wednesday, and should obviously have led to the suspension of the ringleaders?

I can only repeat what I have already said twice. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances and of these the Speaker or the Chairman roust be the judge. I say again if the hon. Member is dissatisfied with the decision to which I came there is an obvious-course open to him to take.

I beg to move, "That the Order be discharged."

I think it will be the general opinion that I should take the earliest opportunity afforded by the position of the Orders on the Paper to make a very brief statement. Before the adjournment on Thursday last, you, Sir, made an appeal from the Chair that the interval between the adjournment and our meeting to-day should be given to discovering some other and, if possible, some less contentious solution than that proposed last week by the Government to what you described as a Parliamentary difficulty. The Government at once responded to that appeal. I am about to state very briefly the proposal which they will make with a view to giving effect to your suggesstion. I must, however, first remind the House—and I will try to do so in as uncontroversial a manner as I can—the exact nature and dimensions of the difficulty to which you referred A week ago to-day the House, by a majority of twenty-one, inserted an Amendment into the Financial Resolution of the Irish Government Bill which on the previous Thursday had been carried unamended in Committee by a majority of 121. It is not disputed in any quarter that the Amendment made upon Report is fatal to the whole finance of the scheme. If it remains the Government could not proceed with their Bill. In face of such a, misadventure—I purposely use a colourless expression—as was pointed out last week, there are precedents for Governments resigning, and there are precedents for Governments not resigning. We came to the conclusion, for reasons which I went into fully last Wednesday, and which I need not repeat, that it was not our duty to resign. But we could not, having come to that conclusion, as has sometimes been the case—as was the case, for instance, with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) opposite in 1905—we could not simply ignore the adverse decision of the House. If we were to remain in office and continue to prosecute the Bill, to which that decision was fatal, that decision must in some way or another be got rid of. There must, in other words, be some means discovered to determine which of two inconsistent and indeed contradictory decisions recorded within a few days of one another represented the considerate judgment of the House of Commons. We thought, and we have not changed our opinion, that the simplest and the most direct way of dealing with the matter was to ask the House to rescind the second vote. I do not, naturally, in the circumstances in which we are placed, reargue that question; I only wish to make our position perfectly clear. The circumstances were peculiar, if not unique, and in our view the course we proposed, if not within the letter, was certainly, as I endeavoured to show, within the spirit of the Parliamentary precedents. If, therefore to-day, we now suggest another course, as I am about to do, it is partly from a repugnance which, so far as I personally am concerned, is almost invincible, and which. I believe, is universally felt, to the possible recurrence of disorder, but still more, because we do not feel it consistent with our duty to ignore such an invitation as has been extended from the Chair.

Briefly, therefore, Sir, what we should, in these circumstances and for these reasons, suggest to the House is this: In the first place, looking at the Order Paper on the question of the further consideration of the Money Resolution, we propose to negative to-night the whole of the Financial Resolution, as amended, and to set up again the Committee on the finances of the Bill. That is the first step. The next is that to-morrow, Tuesday—not, of course, treating it as an allotted day within the meaning of the Closure Resolution—we propose to take in the Committee; then set up the next stage of the new Financial Resolution, which, as regards the second and third paragraphs of the old Resolution will be the same, but as regards the one to which the Amendment was made last Monday, will be substantially varied by limiting the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the Irish Exchequer in three distinct ways, all of which, however, are practically provided for in the text of Clauses 14 and 17 of the Bill as it stands. The limitations will be: first, limiting the payment to fixed sums based upon the present cost of the branches of government to be administerel by the Irish Government, and in the case of future transfer of any other branches, further sums based upon the saving to the Exchequer resulting from the transfer; and, next, the sum of £500,000, diminishing in each year, after the third year of payment by a sum of £50,000, and, lastly, sums equal to the proceeds of any tax imposed by the Irish Parliament in pursuance of the powers given by the Act. There is nothing new in any of these limitations, for they all appear, I think I am right in saying, in either the fourteenth or seventeenth Clauses of the Bill.

The Resolution, so amended, will, of course, substantially differ from the Resolution carried in Committee the other day because under the powers of the Resolution carried in Committee it would be open to the Committee upon the Bill here to vary and to increase, at any rate, to disregard, the limits contained in the Bill itself. It would be within their powers—whether they were exercised or not—and would be perfectly open to the Committee to do that. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), whatever may be said of the merits or demerits of his Amendment introduced the other night, I am bound to admit, as a very long opponent and victim of his criticism, has always been perfectly consistent in this—he has always thought to introduce into all our Financial Resolutions, whether in Committee or on Report, some limiting of the total amount to be expended or authorised. I do not think, if he will forgive me for saying so, that he was very happy in the precise figure in this instance. That, however, is merely a question of the application. As regards the principle itself, he has always been perfectly consistent, and he will, therefore, I am sure, be the first to agree with me that if we introduce into our new Resolution an upper limit we are doing homage to the principle he has so long and so constantly advocated, and at the same time we are presenting to the House a substantially different Resolution to that which was amended last Monday. That Resolution we propose to take in Committee tomorrow.

On Wednesday—which we shall again treat as being an unallotted day—we shall take the Report stage of the Resolution in whatever shape it is passed. Then on Thursday we propose to go on with the Committee of the Bill as the next allotted day, namely, the 17th, and shall take the fourteenth Clause. And here I may anticipate criticism, which, I daresay, will be made. Under the Closure Resolution, if the misadventure to which I referred had not happened, the Report stage of the Resolution would be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 last Monday, and there would have been three hours, from 7.30 to 10.30, for the discussion of the fourteenth Clause in addition to the time allotted on the seventeenth day. That, I agree, did not happen. But let me note, in regard to it, that, in the first place, weave giving a good deal more time—one full day, if not more—than is proposed by the Closure Resolution for the discussion of the finance of the Bill; and, in the next place, by limiting the Committee Resolution in the manner in which I have indicated, we make it conform precisely to the provisions of Clause 14, and therefore raising upon the discussion of that Resolution identically the same questions which will have to be discussed when Clause 14 itself comes up as a separate and independent subject of discussion.

And, thirdly, if it is the wish of the Opposition to bring to a conclusion on Wednesday night at 7.30 the discussion of the Report stage of the Resolution, we can devote the remaining three hours exactly in the same way as we should have applied those three hours last Monday—that is, to a preliminary discussion of Clause 14. So that on all these grounds, not only is there no curtailment, but under the plan I am proposing there is really an enlargement of the time which, under the Closure Resolution, would have been given to the discussion of that question. That, briefly stated, is the alternative suggestion the Government make, and I hope it may commend itself as a reasonable alternative to the proposition which the Government made last week. Of course, it involves what were deeply regret, the loss of valuable time, and the prolongation of the discussion upon these Clauses beyond the term which was originally fixed under the Resolution of the House. That, I acknowledge to be, in the circumstances, an inevitable result of the vote given last Monday. I do not think—and we have, Mr. Speaker, looked at the matter with the most honest and sincere disposition to carry out your suggestion and act fairly to both sides of the House—that the proposal I now submit can be regarded in any sense as unjust, or even ungenerous, and therefore I will now conclude by moving to discharge the first Order of the Day.

I do not move.

Order read for further consideration of Resolution [7th November] as amended [11th November], "That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland (a) to authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sums for the payment of which into the Irish Exchequer, or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer, provision may be made under that Act, provided that the total payment shall not exceed in any one year the sum of £2,500,000, exclusive of the proceeds in that year of Irish taxes and of the saving to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in respect of any reserved services transferred to the Government of Ireland after the appointed day; and (b) to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into Great Britain from Ireland or into Ireland from Great Britain, and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles, as may be provided for by that Act, in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied it; Great Britain; and (c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or existing Irish officers, or officers of constables of the Royal Irish constabulary or of the Dublin Metropolian Police Force, provision may be made in pursuance of that Act."

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I desire to explain the first Amendment in regard to the Report stage of the Bill now before the House. In Committee an Amendment was carried which was resisted by the Government. The avowed object of that Amendment was to provide that in the case of the trackless trolley scheme being established, it would be possible to make the promoters liable to pay for any damage done to the road by the scheme. That Amendment was carried in Committee, and we then attempted by way of carrying out the declared will of the Committee to frame a more guarded Amendment, which would provide for the charging of such damage when it actually look place, but should not make it possible, as the original Amendment did, to mulct the promoters of the trackless trolley scheme in expenses when no damage had been caused. Even this new Amendment proposed to replace the Amendment carried in Committee was regarded by those connected with the trackless trolley schemes as being in itself an evil so great that they would rather have no provision made on behalf of trackless trolleys in the Bill, and they desired that we should restore the Bill to its original form. That would have been a direct negative to the finding of the Committee, and we were not prepared to take such a course. The tramways chiefly concerned in trackless trolleys informed us that so far as they were concerned they would rather be under the existing procedure, under which any trackless trolley scheme simply comes to the House of Commons, and they preferred the system which has hitherto been followed. As this Clause had been framed originally for facilitating trackless trolley schemes, it appeared to the Government that it was not desirable or reasonable to persist with the amended Clause when all those who were supposed to be benefited declared that it would confer no benefit upon them. In the original discussion his question had been made a ground for dispute, and we took the view that, as the amended Clause was not desired by those concerned, the course of least friction and responsibility for the Government was to drop the Clause altogether, and leave all trackless trolley questions as they stand at present. There is this to be said for this course. The tramway companies urged upon us the desirability of the question of responsibility for road maintenance being dealt with in a general comprehensive and systematic manner, rather than in a piecemeal fashion, which was all that could be done under such a measure as this one. For these reasons I move the omission of this Clause.

I am glad that the lion. Gentleman has moved this Amendment, because there is a strong feeling amongst municipal tramway owners with regard to this Clause. I have had myself most serious and strong representations made to me against this Clause. As I understand the matter the trackless trolley system promoters nearly always succeeded in preventing this obligation being placed upon them, and they very naturally resent this attempt which is being made to put it upon then in this Bill. I am very glad indeed the hon. Gentleman is taking this course.

I want to ask the sole representative of the Government present, what further Orders are going to be taken after this Bill, if any, and in order to put myself in order I will move that the further consideration of this Bill be adjourned.

The hon. Member had better wait until the Amendment before the House has been disposed of.

I should like to know whether I have correctly interpreted the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The effect of the Motion to leave Clause 2 out of the Bill would, I understand, be to leave, the law in exactly the same position as it is now. There is a feeling shared by a large number of Members on both sides of the House that the promoters of these trackless trolleys ought not to be allowed to use the roads free at all times, but that they should in some way contribute towards the maintenance of the roads. There can be no doubt whatever that these heavy vehicles must tend to cause more frequent repairs to the road than would be necessary if they were not running. If the hon. Gentleman can assure me the law will remain in exactly the same position as it is, I do not know that I have any great opposition to offer.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman in going into the question of the track less trolley system will appreciate the difficulties the promoters have in competition with other means of communication, such, for instance, as the heavy motor omnibus. I may say the London County Council have in mind the question of installing a system of trackless trolleys, and we want to be careful they are not placed in a worse position than other users of the road, such as the owners of motor omnibuses and traffic of that description. After all, a trackless trolley tram is practically a motor omnibus, but instead of being propelled by steam or petrol, it is simply propelled by two overhead wires. Surely the fact of having a direct negative and positive wire overhead, should not place them in the same position as trams running on metals. They can move from one side of the road to the other with the same ease as the ordinarily propelled vehicle, and it would be absolutely unfair, because they have two wires overhead, to say they are to be liable to rates. If the hon. Gentleman says he is going to consider this the same as the question of the motor omnibuses, then. I say, on behalf of the London County Council, they will be perfectly satisfied; but I do submit no decision should be come to until the matter has been thoroughly sifted, and that the trackless trolley system should not be handicapped in comparison with other means of communication.

Surely the trackless trolley system has no wire overhead. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes, it has."]. Then I do not understand, and it may be others are in the same position. I think the matter should be cleared up as to what is really meant by the trackless trolley system.

The trackless trolley system is one which has wires overhead but no rails below, and, as the effect of the Amendment would be to leave the trackless trolley system out of the Bill altogether, I do not think we need go into it.

I am very glad to hear it. If we got back to the old system under which vehicles paid towards the maintenance of the road in proportion to the damage they did it would be a good thing.

I am very sorry to hear my hon. Friend has dropped this Clause. Trackless trolleys are very necessary for extending the present tramways further into the country. You are throwing back a large development, and one which must come, in the trackless trolley system for the conveyance of people from the suburbs of most towns to which the tramway cannot be extended owing to the initial expense of laying the rails. You might very well, by means of this system, get a small solution of the smallholders' difficulty of getting their goods to market, whilst providing means of conveyance for the smallholders themselves to the market. It is a very great pity you are throwing people back upon the awful expense of coming to this House and fighting a Bill. The initial expense would effectually bar them from extending this very beneficial thing. I hope some promise will be given that this subject will not be neglected. It is absolutely impossible for anybody to come to this House and get a Bill passed for a country tramway with the various oppositions to be fought in the Committee upstairs. The initial expense would cripple and paralyse the industry altogether, and, if this experiment is to be made, you will have to meet it in some way.

I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. As far as I understand it, he proposes that the whole question of trackless trolleys shall be struck out of the Bill. We spent a good many days in Committee upstairs in discussing this question, and now we are told that all our deliberations are to be negatived, and the Bill is to be treated as if it did not deal with trackless trolleys at all. It would seem as if it is of not much use sitting in Committee upstairs if we are to find that, when decisions are come to which are not acceptable to the Minister in charge of the Bill, he is to be in a position to come down to this House and get that negatived.

I am a little bit at sea as to how this matter stands. The observations of the hon. Member in charge of this Bill were very indistinctly heard. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire that it is a pity that persons desirous of promoting the trackless trolley system should be compelled to come to this House and go to the expense of getting a measure through. Everyone knows the enormous expense of getting a Bill passed upstairs, and the charges for counsel and so on. But I have really risen to ask what the position is now. What will be the result of the deletion of Clause 2? How will the trackless trolleys be affected in regard to the upkeep of the roads? Everyone is aware that when tramway systems are permitted to run along the roads they have to pay for the upkeep, and everyone is also aware that motor 'buses are not called upon to pay anything towards those expenses. I desire to know what the Board of Trade propose with regard to the question of upkeep of roads used by trackless trolleys.

I think the House should be given further information on this subject. I can quite understand that, on the part of the road authorities, there may be considerable anxiety in regard to this matter. They desire that these proposals should be carefully gone into before any scheme of this kind is approved. My own feeling is that for the purposes of daily life it is absolutely essential in this country that there should be every convenience of communication, and I think it would be most unfortunate to throw out any proposal which would add to the public convenience in that respect, especially after it had been carefully considered by a Committee upstairs. I sincerely hope that before it is decided to exclude this proposal from the Bill we shall be given further information on the subject. I would like to point out that from the point of view of the competition of railways, anything which tends to increase industrial development must largely add to the profit of the railway system.

I cannot understand the attitude taken up by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade today. We very carefully considered this Clause upstairs, yet the hon. Gentleman comes here to-day and asks us to drop it, simply owing to the fact that he disagreed with the Amendment put in upstairs—Amendments against which he voted and which, in fact, were defeated owing to the fact that supporters of the Government, as usual failed to attend. When we were discussing a similar provision in connection with the Keighley Corporation Bill, the hon. Gentleman intimated that the Light Railways Bill would be put back into its original form. Now trackless trolleys have only been tried for a few years in this country. I quite agree that when they were new, and before they had been tried, it was quite right that each proposal should go before a Special Committee upstairs, and the promoters should be called upon to get a private Bill through Parlia- ment. But now that they have been tried and found to be a success, I submit it is unreasonable to ask the companies promoting them to go to the very large expense of promoting a private Bill. I was on a Committee this year which had to consider a proposal of this sort to establish trackless trolleys. I believe we sat ten days to consider the proposal, and I do hope now that something will be done to do away with the necessity of promoting private Bills simply in order to get a trackless trolley system established. I hope that the House will not agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and that it will divide against the Amendment.

This matter was very carefully debated upstairs, and there was a prolonged discussion upon this very Clause. I did not hear the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but I believe that the real reason for the withdrawal of the Clause is that it was so very drastically amended upstairs by the insertion of words at the end of Sub-section (1) to the effect that companies which promoted the trackless trolley system in any district should bear the cost of any alteration or widening of streets, and also of maintaining the road or street through which the trackless system was running. Now that point was fought very strenuously upstairs, and it was decided that it was only right that where a company promoted a trackless trolley system, if there was very much addition to the cost of maintaining the roads, the company should bear some proportion of it. We understood there were a very large number of companies which were anxious to promote the trackless trolley system. We had no idea of objecting to their doing so, but those who represented the municipalities and road authorities thought they had a right to claim that while tramway companies and tramway authorities were under compulsion to maintain the roads along which the trams ran, it was only right that the trackless trolley company should also contribute towards the cost of the maintenance of those roads. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether it is on account of the introduction of this principle into this Clause that it is proposed to delete it. Is it the fact that the promoters of trackless trolleys have in consequence decided not to proceed with their applications in the present year? We understood there were a very large number who were anxious to bring forward schemes of this nature, and, that being so, I fail to see any justification for the withdrawal of the Clause.

I am a hearty supporter of all improved forms of locomotion. There is, no doubt, a strong feeling in many parts of the country with regard to allocating the cost of the roads among those who carry on heavy traffic. I think it would be very much better to accept the suggestion of the Local Government Board that this Clause should be omitted in order that this, very grave question may come up sooner or later of allocating the cost of maintaining the road between the promoters of modern forms of locomotion. If the trackless trolleys, for which I hold no brief, are called upon to pay something for the use of the roads surely the motor omnibuses, the traction engines and the motor cars, as well as the heavy wagons drawn by horses, should be equally called upon to pay, and then we shall be setting up again the old turnpike system, although in another form. Under our existing system the cost of road management has to be provided by the ratepayers at large. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong. What I do suggest is that it is wrong to alter the existing system by a single Clause applying to a single form of traction in an Act of Parliament which does not apply to the whole traffic of this country. This whole question is bound to come up for consideration in the very near future. It may be necessary to have a Royal Commission or a Select Committee to carefully consider it, and I therefore hope the House will agree with the Government in deleting this Clause in order that the decision of Parliament on this point may not be hampered in the future.

May I appeal as strongly as I can to the Government not to excise this Clause for these reasons: The Clause was considered at very great length and in considerable detail in Committee upstairs, and, as a result of that discussion, is was decided to put into the Clause provisions protecting the rights of local authorities and others interested in the maintenance of roads. As I understand it, the Government in the end accepted that protection, and the Clause as it now comes before the House contains that protection. That is not all, because, when the Bill was put down for further consideration by this House, the Noble Lord the Member for Cardiff (Lord N. Crichton- Stuart) and I put down Amendments for the protection of bridges belonging to local authorities, companies, and other bodies, giving the same protection to bridges as had been given in Committee upstairs to roads. I understand that the Government were prepared to deal out equal justice to bridges as they did to roads, and that they were consequently prepared to accept the Amendments of my Noble Friend and myself with regard to bridges. If the Clause had gone through in that amended form, with protection for both bridges and roads, it would have constituted, so far as it went, a code for all Provisional Orders and Private Bills that might be applied for by companies interested in promoting trolley traction. If the Clause is left out, the result will be that every road authority throughout the country, and every bridge authority and every private company or body interested in the maintenance of roads and bridges, will have to oppose the Private Bill or the Provisional Order when it comes up for consideration, and will have to seek to get inserted appropriate Clauses for the protection of their roads and bridges. I conceive that that would not only be inconvenient, but a very costly result for the public at large, for after all the public are the persons who in the long run are interested in the maintenance of roads and bridges. I would urge upon the Government that it is far better in the interests of trackless trolley undertakings themselves and in the interests of those concerned in the maintenance of roads and bridges to leave this Clause in the Bill, because it would be a kind of basis or substratum upon which any further Private Bills or Provisional Orders might be founded. I trust that the Government, now that the matter has been debated, will insist upon the Clause, and so prevent in the future very great difficulty and" expense.

I have no knowledge of the controversy which took place upon this Bill in Committee, but I entirely agree with the action of the Board of Trade in excising this Clause. Without doubt, the system of trackless trolleys is likely to be very largely adopted in the near future. It has many merits, one of which is that it is a very cheap form of conveying passengers from point to point. It would be a very serious blow for this form of enterprise if the Government, or the House, were to allow a new system of rating to be adopted for this class of locomotion and to exclude other and competing systems from it. We know very well that motor 'buses running over the roads do just as much harm as a trackless trolley system. What will do a great deal more harm still is the light locomotive that travels up and down our country roads. I think it would be a very great mistake if this House were suddenly to adopt a policy which would put a charge on one system of locomotion and not place the same burden upon other and competing systems. In these circumstances I think the Board of Trade are well advised in the course they have adopted. I thought the statement of the case made by the hon. Member for Brentford Mr. Joynson-Hicks) was very strong, and I think the House ought to respond to it.

:I feel sure that if the local authorities had been fully aware of the intention of the Government to move the omission of this Clause they would have had a say on the matter through their representatives in this House. This is a matter which very closely concerns all the local road authorities throughout the United Kingdom. It is contemplated by this Bill to give very wide powers to promoters of undertakings which desire to run these trackless trolleys over very large areas, rural as well as urban, throughout the country. This proviso, which I understand is inserted in the Bill in Committee, would protect the local authorities against having an unfair burden of expense thrown upon those whom they represent in local matters. If, as I understand, the hon. Gentleman is moving the omission of this Clause in consequence of the proviso for the security and protection of local ratepayers, which was inserted in Committee as a part of this Clause, then I think it is putting a most unfair prospective burden upon those who have to fight in another way Bills for promoting this kind of traffic in a piecemeal fashion hereafter. We all know what the procedure of a Private Bill Committee is. We all know the very great expense that it involves to those who have to employ counsel in order to protect their interests. Without the protection which is afforded by this proviso, not merely the large authorities, the county councils, but the small urban authorities in country districts will have to go through the expensive machinery of fighting sundry private Bills which are promoted with this object hereafter. For these reasons I ask the House, in the interests of the local authorities and in the true interests of those who now have to bear a quite undue proportion of the expense of maintaining the roads, not to allow this Clause with this very necessary proviso to be cut out of the Bill.

I should like to say a few words upon this matter because the city I represent in this House was the first city to run trackless trolleys on its roads, and I know something of the damage it does to the roads, and what expense is necessary to keep up the roads. I can assure the House that the trackless trolleys, as we understand them to-day are not wearing the roads in anything like the degree which is the case with the large wagons used in commerce in Yorkshire at the present moment. If you begin to tax these trackless trolleys at the outset for the upkeep of the roads, you are doing something to them which you are not doing to the people who use the roads the most. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) thought that money ought to be subscribed by the authorities towards this system, but you have at the present time the North-Eastern Railway Company using petrol and steam omnibuses to carry their passengers about the East Riding. They are paying nothing. Why should you make these trackless trolleys pay at the present time? I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that this matter ought to be gone into as a whole. If you are going to tax a certain vehicle which travels on the road, you ought to tax every vehicle. This is a question for the Road Board. If you do not deal with the question as a whole, and if you allow this Clause to go through, the result will undoubtedly be that in a very short time you will have to establish once again all the old toll bars. If you take the two roads between Leeds and Bradford, and between Leeds and Keighley, the heavy traffic going along those roads, mainly carrying machinery, does far more damage than the trackless trolleys we have at the present time. I should like to ask the House to support the Government and to allow the matter to be threshed out from a national and road point of view.

:I hope the House will agree with the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. On the contrary to what we have heard, I believe the proposal made will meet the views of the promoters of trackless trolleys. I have in my hand a letter from the tramway department of the Manchester Corporation, which I represent here, which suggests that they would be very pleased indeed to have Clause 2 deleted on the ground that the whole question of maintenance of roads is one of much greater importance than can be settled by means of this Bill. The question of the maintenance of roads is one which must be discussed in a large measure, and not in detail, as is done in this Bill. I heartily support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) to the House that they should support the Government on this occasion, and should delete the Clause.

As I gather that a number of Members were either not present when I made my explanation of my Motion, or unable to hear what I said, perhaps it will be reasonable, in the circumstances, that I should repeat in substance the explanation I then made. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler) represented that this Clause was being dropped because the man in charge of the Bill is displeased with an Amendment made against his wishes in Committee. The hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith) made the accusation, as I understood him—although the proposition was hardly intelligible—that I told the House I would restore the Clause to its original form. I do not see how I could have told the House that, seeing that the matter has never been before the House until the Report stage.

I said that the hon. Gentleman made that statement when a similar proposal was discussed in the case of the Keighley Corporation Bill, which was before the House. He referred to the matter fully, and I have his statement here.

I could not possibly have said that I proposed to restore the Bill to its original form, for as soon as the Bill had passed through Committee we prepared a further Amendment, the object of which was to give effect loyally to the Amendment that had been carried in Committee, only safeguarding it by some exact phrasing, which the draftsman held to be necessary in the circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Jonathan Samuel), if he looks at the Order Papers of this House, will see that for many days I had on the Paper an Amendment to the Clause as it had been altered, the whole effect of which was simply to do what the Committee had asked, only putting in certain safeguarding words. It gave effect to the wish of the Committee, which was that trackless trolley schemes should be amenable to payment in any case in which they caused expense by their scheme. So far from throwing over the Committee or exhibiting any displeasure with what they had done, I by that Amendment made a loyal attempt to give effect to its wishes. The reason why the Clause has been dropped is that the very persons and interests' to be safeguarded by my Amendment came forward and stated that, although the Amendment I had on the Paper did guard them against some of the worst dangers they apprehended from the Clause, they considered that even thus amended it was one that would rather injure than protect their undertakings. I think the Municipal Tramways Association expressly requested that if we saw fit we should rather drop the whole question of trackless trolleys and leave the trackless trolley system as it is at present, leave the promoters to have to come before Parliament for powers and at the same time, incidentally, leave the matter of road maintenance to be dealt with in a more systematic manner than was possible in a mere Amendment to a Bill like this.

I presume that would apply to bridges as well as loads? They were going to be treated by the Government on the same footing.

Yes; but, of course, I am not to be understood, in the present state of public business, to promise any measure on the subject. The whole question of these responsibilities requires systematic dealing with. For that reason, and because the persons on whose behalf we proposed to put trackless trolleys into the Light Railways Bill unanimously desired that we should simply drop the subject from our Bill, we saw that there was really no other reasonable course open to us. But the hon. Member is not in the least justified in suggesting that there was any animosity on my part to the finding of the Committee, since I endeavoured to give effect to the finding of the Committee.

My point was more this. The Committee discussed the Clause at great length, and went into every cir- cumstance connected with it, and we think it is rather hard that our time should be wasted.

That is another matter. My own labour has been thrown away also, and it is extremely regrettable that labour of that kind should ever be thrown away. I think the hon. Member will recognise that it is no fault of mine that that has taken place, and in the circumstances, with such an appeal made to us by all the persons concerned and with such a general recognition on both sides of the House that the passing of the Clause against the wishes of the trackless trolley people would have been highly undesirable, the hon. Member will admit that the hardship he indicates is not one which can be laid at my door. It was over this Clause that most of the controversy took place, and, of course, that is only another reason for thinking that, as that was the most controversial part of the Bill and as the Bill, after all, is first and last a Light Railways Bill, and because it is designed to promote the cause of light railways, the desirable course under all these circumstances is to drop the matter of friction and controversy and so secure, as we hope to do, the essential and avowed purpose of the Bill, which is to facilitate light railways in general.

As I was not on the Committee upstairs I can entertain no personal grievance against the hon. Gentleman in his proposal in regard to this Clause. The hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) suggested that the Government was proposing shortly to hold an inquiry, and he suggested that that inquiry should either be by Select Committee or by Royal Commission, and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill nodded his head.

I cannot be understood as having assented to the suggestion.

I certainly thought the hon. Gentleman did, and if I could have understood that this question was going to be considered from a wider aspect very shortly, I should have been prepared fully to support him. As it seems to me, there art two points of view and two interests. The point of view and the interest of the local authorities and the ratepayers was ably put, amongst others, by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst). Then, of course, there is the view which has, in my opinion, a great deal of weight, that we should do nothing to discourage the promotion and the devolopment of new forms of traction. These two views seem to me in this particular instance to be rather pulling one against the other, and if I could have had an assurance that the whole question of the user of the roads and protection for roads and bridges would have been shortly considered by the Government, I quite think I should have seen my way to support the hon. Gentleman. But under these circumstances I am quite clear that my duty is by my vote to see, as far as possible, that protection shall be secured for the local authorities and for the ratepayers. It will be much more satisfactory that the whole question should be dealt with at once, but as that cannot be promised and as the hon. Gentleman cannot even promise to inquire into it at once, I see no other course open to me than to vote against the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will it be necessary for those interested in roads and bridges to be represented before Committees on private Bills promoted by persons interested in trackless trolleys?

If they saw fit; they would be exactly in the position in which they are at present.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to give us some real assurance that the Government do not desire that state of things to be permanent. I concur in what the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) has said. It is extremely undesirable that permanently, year after year, a small rateable value should be put to the great expense of coming here and discussing what, after all, is a matter of principle, and not a matter of detail. I quite agree that in the present congestion of business a measure cannot be promised at the moment, but we might have an assurance that the Government will keep the matter in mind so that an inquiry of some kind, not necessarily by Commission or Committee, will be set on foot, so that at an early period the matter may be gone into, and it may not be necessary year after year and Session after Session for the matter to be debated, with great expense to local authorities and to those interested.

I cannot promise an inquiry. The hon. Member must put down a question.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out from the word "shall" ["the order shall cease"] to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words "be amended by the substitution of the words 'such amount as the Board of Trade think fit under the circumstances,' for the words 'such amount as will, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, bear due proportion to the benefit which may be expected to accrue to their area from the construction or working of the railway.'"

This Amendment is practically one of drafting. A fear was expressed in the Standing Committee that the provision in the Clause as it stands in the Bill might involve danger, and we propose to drop certain words in the original Act as being practically meaningless. The fear was that the local authorities would be under no check whatever in regard to the schemes they might project for lines going beyond their own areas. We had no such fear of the Clause as originally framed, but as considerable uneasiness was expressed in the Committee on the subject we propose to put in the words which are given in the Amendment I now propose in order to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Trade will have to be satisfied in regard to any scheme which is put forward. That, I trust, will meet the difficulty which is felt by hon. Members.

I, for one remain wholly unconvinced after the somewhat superficial explanation the hon. Gentleman has given for this particular Amendment. The principal Act which he seeks now to amend provides, in Section 3, that the council of a county, borough, or district may, in conjunction with the council of another county, borough, or district, take steps to promote a light railway which will supply the requirements of all the districts jointly. What the original Act provides is that the expenditure of each council respectively shall be decided by the Board of Trade by what appears to be the fairest possible method of arriving at the due proportion each ought to pay. The words are that such—

"expenditure shall be so limited by the order as not to exceed such amount as will, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, bear due proportion to the benefit which may be expected to accrue to their area from the construction or working of the railway."

You could not possibly compile any form of words which would operate more fairly, or which could more clearly express the proper basis on which the Board should adjudicate in this matter between one council and another. What does the hon. Gentleman desire to do? He desires to leave out words which specify the method and the basis on which this allocation of expense shall be made, and simply to substitute the somewhat bald phrase "such amount as the Board of Trade think fit under the circumstances." After carefully reading the words proposed to be omitted, and the words proposed to be inserted, and after listening to the explanation of the hon. Gentleman I cannot see what advantage is going to be gained by the local authorities as the result of this Amendment. After all, it is a matter for the ratepayers of each area as to the burden these ratepayers should bear in order to provide this improvement in their district, and surely if the Board of Trade is to be arbitrator in the matter as between two local authorities, it is only fair to state what shall be the consideration which the Board shall entertain in order to arrive at a fair estimate of the proportion of expense as between the one local authority and the other.

I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. I have only to say that the alteration proposed to be made by the Amendment is entirely in the direction of substituting the will of the Board of Trade for the law, and to that I, for my part, have a most strenuous objection. The words of the principal Act lay down the principles which should guide the Board of Trade in dealing with this matter. What can be the reason for eliminating the words laid down in the principal Act and substituting others which give the Board of Trade arbitrary-authority, and provide that they should act as they think fit under the circumstances. It is another illustration of what is continually happening, namely, the substitution of the will of the Executive for the will of the law. It really is rather a flagrant case, and it is somewhat extraordinary that the matter should be treated in such a perfunctory manner as if the House was making no alteration at all. The Board of Trade has done nothing recently to give the public that greater confidence in it which would justify the House in substituting words which leave everything to their arbitrary will.