THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL. (Hansard, 2 May 1893)

§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)
complained that the course taken by the Government with regard to the Employers' Liability Bill shut out several hon. Members who had intended to move Amendments. The hon. Member for the Partick Division (Mr. Parker Smith), who had an Amendment on the Paper, had gone home under the impression and according to the promise made that the Bill would not come on before Thursday. The right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings) had an Amendment proposing that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade instead of the Standing Committee on Law, and the hon. Gentleman who was on his feet speaking when the Closure was moved had an Amendment to the same effect. Under those circumstances, it seemed to him that the action of the Government in closuring the Debate——

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The Closure was the act of the House, and the hon. Member is not in Order in going back on that.

§ SIR T. LEA
contended that in reading the Bill before 12 o'clock the Government had contravened the arrangement arrived at early in the evening.

§ MR. SPEAKER
As I have said, the hon. Member is not in Order in going back. That is contrary to all Order.

§ SIR T. LEA
asked what chance they would have of making any remarks on the Bill after the action taken by the Government? He had an Instruction down on going into Committee, but he should have no chance of saying a word on the Bill now.

§ MR. J. COLLINGS
said, this was a very serious matter, as it affected a largo number of his constituents. He would like to have the evidence of his constituents on the point whether contracting 1840 out was good or bad. If the Amendment which the hon. Member for Wigan was moving—and which he (Mr. Collings) had also put on the Paper in order that he might move it in case the hon. Member were absent—had been adopted, such evidence could have been taken, and the House would have been informed of the feeling of the great bulk of the employés in the matter. It seemed to him that they were now shut out from giving evidence. He should like to get from the Government some indication of the manner in which they could now get that information.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order!

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, they were given to understand by the Prime Minister himself at Question time that the Bill would be taken on Thursday next. Was that not so?

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.
No; this Bill was the third Order, and the pledge given by the Prime Minister was that if they did not reach the Bill to-night it would be taken on Thursday.

§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, this was simply a question of breach of faith by the Government in regard to the Bill. What took place was this: A question was asked as to what would be the course of the Employers' Liability Bill. ["No, no!"] Yes; the question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and the answer was that the Bill would be put down for Thursday. The hon. Member for Partick, who had an Amendment on the Paper, and several other hon. Members, went home under the impression that that course would have been followed. He desired to say that it was a piece of very sharp practice indeed on the part of the Government.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is out of Order in using that language. The House has taken the matter into its own hands, and it ought now to be allowed to drop.