EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL. (No. 118.) (Hansard, 2 May 1893)

MR. J. COLLLNGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
I thought there was an understanding that this Bill should not be taken till Thursday; I know that many hon. Members are under that impression.

§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
The Prime Minister certainly told us that at Question time.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I do not think there was any such understanding given by the Prime Minister. He said it ought to be taken when the opportunity occurred. I think the House may very well be asked to dispose of it now. It is not a Party question.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)
What I think passed at Question time was—I asked the Prime Minister what business would be taken on Thursday. He said "Supply." He was then further questioned about the Employers' Liability Bill. I understood, and the House understood, that it would be put down on Thursday, as certain gentlemen wished to speak on it.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I suggested to the Prime Minister that, if we had not got it through before, it should be put down on Thursday. It was not suggested that any discussion was necessary. I prompted the Prime Minister.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I believe that is perfectly accurate, and I do not think any prolonged discussion need take place. I know, however, that certain gentlemen desire to put before the Government the advantage of considering the questions involved in this Bill, not in a Grand Committee, but in a Select Committee, and afterwards in Committee of the whole House. There is a great deal to be said for that course of procedure. If any large section of the House are not satisfied with the proceedings in a Grand Committee it is in their power to raise on the Report all the questions that can be raised in Committee of the whole House. Therefore, if a reference to a Grand Committee does not meet with general assent as not being suited to a Bill, no real saving of 1835 time is effected in attempting to avoid the Committee stage. I am disposed to think this Bill is not one that can be properly sent before a Grand Committee, where Party considerations sometimes prevail. We are all desirous a Bill on this subject should be passed. When I remember that the Government have taken the whole time of the House for their Home Rule Bill, and that most hon. Members will desire to attend the Committee on the Bill, I think it will be almost impossible to carry on a Grand Committee simultaneously. I would, therefore, suggest to the Government whether it would not be desirable, in their own interests, to send the Bill to a Select Committee, where evidence can be taken, instead of to a Grand Committee, which has got into the habit of working on Party lines, and whose verdict, therefore, may not command general assent? To send the Bill to a Select Committee might, therefore, result in a saving of Parliamentary time. I think these arguments are not unworthy the attention of the Government.

§ SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)
said, he hoped the House would not send this Bill to the Grand Committee. Certain imputations had been made which he and other Members desired to contradict in Committee of the whole House.

§ Mr. Beith
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; "but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, saying that he thought that Motion should come from a Minister of the Crown, when he would consider it.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether the Motion for the Closure on the Order to commit the Bill to the Grand Committee does not necessarily preclude the possibility of discussing any of the Instructions to the Committee that stand on the Paper?

§ MR. SPEAKER
None of the Instructions on the Paper is in Order.