from the Government of £150,000 for | had been indicated than were charged conveying the mails, they charged four upon the rest of the line, but those rates times as much in respect of the traffic had been already sanctioned by Parliaover this portion of the line than they ment, and it was not proposed to indid with regard to traffic over the rest crease them, but merely to continue them. of their line. The hon. Member for The hon. Gentleman opposite had said Reading had said that this was a matter that it was impossible for traders to of detail that could easily be settled appear upon equal terms with a railway before a Parliamentary Committee. The company before a Parliamentary Comhon. Member must, however, know how mittee, but as far as the Board of Trade difficult it would be for a few weak slate and he himself were concerned, they had quarry companies to fight a wealthy shown their view with regard to the railway company like the London and question of rates by the representations North Western before a Parliamentary they had made to the different railway Committee. Even if those slate quarry companies, which representations, he was companies could be got to combine, glad to say, had not been without effect. which was a most difficult matter to do, Without expressing any opinion as to the companies between them would be whether these particular rates were or unable to get together the £20,000 that were not fair, he could only say that if would be necessary to enable them to hon. Members who were interested in the enter upon such a contest upon anything subject would lay their views with regard like equal terms. They knew what had to it before the Board of Trade, that happened in 1891, when the Board of Department would consider those views, Trade ought to have offered them assist- and if they thought it right to do so, ance. The fact was that in 1891 the would make representations to the Board of Trade was completely captured London and North Western Railway by the London and North Western Company, who would, no doubt, receive Railway Company, and the latter com- those representations in the same spirit pany employed the first Parliamentary in which, he was glad to say, all railway Counsel to fight their case. In such companies received them. circumstances, what could a few weak traders effect against this great company. It was simply idle therefore to say that all these matters could easily be settled before a Parliamentary Committee. He MR. FIELD pointed out that the hon. Baronet had not met in the smallest way his statement with respect to the rates and charges for passengers. challenged contradiction of his statement that the passenger rate from Dublin to London was the dearest in the world. Unless he could give some explanation regarding their grievances he should press the matter to a Division. THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon) said, that he thought that this subject was absolutely exhausted. As far as the Board of Trade were concerned, they saw no reason whatever why this MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, Bill should not be read a second time. S.) declared that the policy of exclusion The Bill was a Measure which was of third class passengers on the part of brought in for the purpose of enabling the line between Chester and Holyhead the London and North Western Railway was devised in order to compel persons Company to widen particular sections of who, by reason of straitened means or their line, and it was as important to the otherwise, wished to travel third, to public as it was to the railway company travel second class, and that that policy that that should be done. It was of exclusion was possible only because objected against the Bill that the rates the London and North Western Comsome parts of the company's line pany had no other company in competiwere not as favourable to traders as they tion with them. This company exerwere on other parts of the line, but that cised their rights in a cowardly manner; was no reason why facilities for traffic in a cowardly manner they trampled on on particular sections of the line should the interests of the poor, because they not be given, seeing that they would ran third class carriages where they had conduce to the public convenience. No competition. The company must be doubt higher rates were charged upon taught that monopolists had their duties the particular portion of the line which as well as their rights. [Cheers.] He Mr. Lloyd-George. on MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, rising to a would venture to tell the House his own experience. In the discharge of his point of order, intimated that" he induties he Parliamentary travelled tended to move that the vote of the hon. between his home in Ireland and London Member for North-West Manchester When should be disallowed on the ground that on the average 16 times a year. he commenced he travelled first class; the hon. Baronet had a direct personal now he conscientiously travelled third and pecuniary interest in the Bill. He [Cheers.] He desired to know whether whenever he could. [Laughter.] induced all his friends around to travel he should make the Motion now or tothird, and he did so partly in the in- morrow, when the hon. Baronet's name terests of economy, but also to deal a would appear in the printed Votes. *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member slight blow at a monopolist company. [Cheers.] [Laughter.] If he saved a couple of is entitled to move it now. pounds on a journey he felt a happier man for the rest of the week. [Laughter.] In 1893-for reasons which he need not go into for six weeks he left this House on Friday evenings, travelled to Dublin and was back in his place on Monday. If he had wished to travel third under these circumstances he could not. Why? Because he had to leave Dublin on the Sunday evening, and because there were no third class carriages attached to the How satismail on Sunday evening. factory this was to the Directors! They kept the Sabbath and raised the dividend. [Laughter.] He hoped he had raised the tone of this Debate. [Laughter.] *SIR W. HOULDSWORTH rose in "That his place, and claimed to the Question be now put." move, MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.): On the point of order, Sir, I should like to ask what that pecuniary interest was, [Opposition cries of and whetherOrder!"] *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise a point of order. [Cheers.] MR. KNOWLES: And whether any Member who has a pecuniary interest as a shareholder in this particular railway company is in the same position as the hon. Member for Manchester. *MR. SPEAKER: The question is always one for the House to decide whether an hon. Member has such a direct personal pecuniary interest as to dismoved, entitle him to vote. MR. LLOYD GEORGE "That the vote of Sir William Houldsworth be disallowed." By the Standing Question put, "That the Question be Orders of the House it was explicitly laid now put." The House divided:- Ayes, 221; Noes, 107.-(Division List, No. 96.) Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now'stand part of the Question." The House divided :-Ayes, 207; Noes, 130.-(Division List, No. 97.) Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.) rising to address the House, *SIR W. HOULDSWORTH claimed, "That the Main Question be now put." Main Question put accordingly. The House divided:-Ayes, 203; Noes, 124.-(Division List, No. 98.) Bill read 2o, and committed. down that no Member was entitled to the Speaker declining to accept it on the to the release by the late Governfirst occasion. ["Hear, hear!"] He ment of prisoners connected with the was not criticising either the action of alleged murder of District - Inspector the hon. Baronet himself, who was not Martin in Donegal. He called Mr. merely anxious to vote down Members Speaker Peel's attention to the fact that on the other side of the House who Mr. Ross had himself been the prosewanted to get equal advantages from cuting counsel in the case, and, therefore these great monopolies, but actually had had at one time an interest in the went the length of trying to prevent case. Mr. Speaker Peel instantly dehon. Members raising their voices against clared that that being the state of the irregularities resulting from these mono- facts the hon. Member for Derry had no polies. business to move such a Motion. *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ["Hear, hear!"] But here the case is not entitled to refer to the Closure was much stronger. The hon. Baronet in that way after it has been applied was not only a director of the company, by the vote of the House. It would be but was largely interested in the quesimpossible to carry out the Standing tion. Over and over again complaint Order if, immediately after the decision was made that men got into the House of the House had been taken, reflections as capitalists, and when they joined to were to be made either upon the Mem- the power that large capital had in that ber proposing the Closure, or the Chair House the right of directorships, and in assenting to it. The two are so allied voted on questions such as these, then together that it is impossible to separate he said they had reached a stage when them. [Cheers.] the House ought to put down its foot. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE disclaimed ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member the slightest intention of reflecting upon for Salford had raised a point as to a the action of the Chair. He proceeded shareholder not being disabled from to point out that the House had always voting. There was a great distinction been scrupulously careful of its honour in between the two, for whereas a sharecases of this kind. In the matter of the holder merely got his dividends, a Uganda Railway it was laid down that director got his fees. It was not only in three hon. Members, who were not railway matters that these points arose, directors of the railway at all, but who were interested in the country that was going to be surveyed, ought not to vote on the question. Here the interest of the hon. Baronet was much more direct, he being both a large shareholder and a director of the company concerned. He made no imputation of corrupt motive against the hon. Baronet, but a general principle having been laid down that Members ought not to vote on questions in which they were pecuniarily interested the House ought to adhere to it, whether the subject on which the vote was given referred to Central Africa, Wales, or Ireland. [Cheers.] out they also came up in water com- *SIR W.HOULDSWORTH understood that when a question of this sort was MR. T. M. HEALY seconded the raised with regard to the vote of any Motion, contending that this was a hon. Member it was usual for such hon. matter on which they were entitled to Member to withdraw, and if that was guidance from the Government. It the case he was prepared to follow that ought not to be made a Party question, course. ["Hear, hear!"] for it affected the honour and purity of *MR. SPEAKER: The course taken the House as a whole. In the case of by Mr. Speaker Peel on a somewhat Judge Ross the late Speaker (Mr. similar occasion was to call upon the hon. Peel) took this remarkable action. Mr. Member whose vote was in question-as Ross, who was then a Member of I have now called upon the bon. Baronet the House, proposed to call attention and, after he had made a statement to Mr. Lloyd-George. the House which he desired, he was re- that such vote should not be disallowed. quested to withdraw. He thought the action of the House in *SIR W. HOULDSWORTH said, he only desired to say that he left this matter entirely in the hands of the House. Undoubtedly the fact was that If there was anything more than corruphe was a director of the London and tion he did not know what it was-corNorth Western Railway Company, ruption or the suspicion of corruption. though not for a very long time, and as["Hear, hear!"'] terest. a director in charge of the Bill which MR. T. M. HEALY: Personal inhad been before the House he was bound to do his duty in endeavouring to get it THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREApassed. His pecuniary interest in the SURY said, that personal interest, if it company was not a very large one, and influenced an hon. Member's vote in a it dated back to a time long before he public matter, was corruption, and he became a director. With reference to knew of nothing more, clearly corrupt the remark of the hon. Gentleman the than that a man who was sent to the Member for Carnarvon as to his moving House to do public duties should allow the Closure, he wished to assure the his vote to be influenced by those private House that he did not take that step interests. [Cheers.] It was not relevant with any desire to shut out any com- whether an hon. Member was or was plaints which might be made, but because not a director of a company. [Cries of he thought the question had been "Oh !"] How could it be relevant? thoroughly exhausted, and in the in- An hon. Member who was a director of terests of the business of the House. a company got fees as a director, and his [Cheers and counter cheers.] If by his fees were not increased in prosperous action he had interfered with the right times, nor were they diminished if the of any hon. Gentleman to bring any company was not prosperous. [Cries of question in connection with this Bill "Oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Gentlebefore the House, he could only express men opposite had a larger acquaintance his regret. He would, however, venture["Hear, hear!" and laughter]-with to say that he did not think a discussion questions connected with directorships on the Second Reading of a Bill of this than he had, for he had never had the sort was at all a convenient time for advantage to serve upon a boardbringing forward questions of detail-[cheers] and he might, therefore, have [ "Oh !' ]—which he would be very glad readily fallen into some error as to the to consider in an impartial and even method in which directors' fees were conciliatory spirit if the opportunity arranged. But surely he was not wrong arose, either at the board of the London in saying that the emoluments of a and North-Western Company or else- director of the London and Northwhere. He now placed himself entirely Western Railway Company would not in the hands of the House. be increased if this Bill passed, and would not be diminished if the Bill were thrown out. ["Hear, hear!"] Under these circumstances it was perfectly clear THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-that if the vote of his hon. Friend were SURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manches- attacked, it ought not to be attacked ter, E.) rising immediately afterwards, because he was a director of the comsaid, the question which the hon. Mem-pany, but because he was a shareholder. ber for Carnarvon had started in connec-["Hear, hear!"] If that was adtion with the vote given by his hon. mitted, were they going to cross-examine Friend was not new to the House. all the gentlemen who took part in the From time to time it occurred to hon. Gentlemen to raise the question of whether a director of a company should or should not be allowed to record his vote in connection with a private Bill in which his company was interested, and the House had decided almost uniformly The hon. Baronet then withdrew. late Division as to whether or not they had got shares in the company? Evidently, the House of Commons would be taking upon itself a task which it was incapable of performing if it drove the doctrine of private interest in industrial concerns to the extent of saying that no MR. LOUGH: It would be better if he did not. man, however little interested in any the Motion which had been made from industrial concern, was to give any vote the opposite side of the House. [Cheers.] in this House by which the fortunes of *MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington) that concern might be influenced. Was said, he could not help thinking that the a Member for a Lancashire town, who question which came before the House, happened to be a cotton spinner, to give not for the first time, was one of a larger no vote on the question of the Indian general interest than that which was inimport duties? ["Hear, hear!"] volved in the mere question of whether the hon. Baronet ought to have voted. Of the hon. Baronet, he must say at THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA- once that, knowing him as he did, and SURY asked, was a Member who was having a high respect for his personal either a mortgagee or an owner of land character, he did not for a moment benever to give a vote on anything touch- lieve that he would have voted if he had ing land? Was a solicitor never to give in the least conceived that it was wrong a vote on any subject by which the in- to do so. But the question which the terests of the great body of solicitors House had to decide was the question might be affected directly or indirectly? which was raised upon this action, and Was no lawyer ever to give a vote upon he did think it would be well if they any Bill which, if it passed, might in- could come to some distinct understandcrease litigation—[laughter]—or which ing as to what their course was to be might be so modified, as, perhaps, under upon future occasions. As he undersome circumstances, to diminish the stood the rule, it was simply this, that emoluments which might be legitimately no Member was to vote on any matter expected by that honourable profession in which he had a direct personal by their appearance in Court? They pecuniary interest, and what that meant, could not drive this doctrine of personal and whether in a particular case he had interest to the extent which the hon. such an interest, was a question which Member who moved the Motion, or the was left to be decided by the House. hon. and learned Gentleman who Obviously, in that state of things, the seconded it, attempted to do. Let the House had to consider each case, and House remember that this had nothing the House had to determine whether the to do with directorships. It had simply case It had simply case was one in which it was desirable to do with the holding of shares, and, that hon. Members should give their unless the House was prepared to lay vote. This question had come before down the doctrine that the holding of them more than once, and it had always shares was to preclude any Gentleman been left to the House to determine from voting on a Bill which directly or whether, having regard to the circum indirectly might affect the business in stances of the case, it was one within the which he had shares, then he thought the rule. In the present instance they had vote of his hon. Friend ought to be the bare proposition put before the allowed. It was not necessary for him House by the First Lord of the Treato weary the House by dealing with sury that the mere fact of being a precedents, but it did so happen that director, and that having an admitted there was almost an exactly similar ques- interest as a shareholder besides, was not tion raised with regard to another director a sufficient reason for disqualification. of the same company Mr. David Plunket, He wanted to know whether the right as he then was, under almost exactly hon. Gentleman put that as an abstract similar circumstances. His vote was proposition. Take the case of a comchallenged as his hon. Friend's vote pany in which a director, who was a had been, and the House, having listened Member of this House, had got a very to the arguments on both sides, decided large pecuniary interest-a very large numby a large majority that Mr. David ber of the shares, it might be almost the Plunket's vote should be allowed. whole of the shares. Would he, in that Under these circumstances it appeared case, coming here as a director, be a perto him they had both reason and prece- son whom the House would say had no dent on their side, and he hoped the pecuniary interest in the matter? It House would not consent to disallow the was obvious that in all cases it was one vote, and would not, therefore, agree to of degree, and, if one of degree, it surely First Lord of the Treasury. |