§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April], "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ *SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)said, that when on a previous night he desired to say a few words on this subject, he was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in a manner of which, as a Member of the House of much longer standing than the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, if he desired to be critical, he might well complain. But he would not introduce controversial matter calculated to prolong the discussion. He was desirous that the Bill, in an amended form, should pass this Session. He objected to discussing this Bill before a Standing Committee. His experience of Standing Committees and also of Committees of the whole House convinced him that, although a Standing Committee might be fitting for the discussion of the details or of the points of law, it was not the proper tribunal for dealing with the broad principles that were involved in this Bill. He felt that he was entitled to refer to the fragmentary character of the Second Reading Debate, which had extended over four evenings, and in the course of which only 17 Members had spoken.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!The Question before the House is as to what Committee the Bill shall be referred.
§ SIR F. S. POWELLI was going to argue that point, Sir. I want this Bill to pass, but I think I have a duty to my constituents to point out what has occurred in these Debates.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!The question of how many speeches were delivered on the Second Reading cannot be discussed on a Resolution for referring a Bill to the Grand Committee.
§ SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he would entirely accept the ruling of the Chair, 209 although he had a strong desire to explain his reasons for the complaint that the Second Reading Debate was a very disjointed one. Hon. Members felt that they had not had the opportunity they were entitled to enjoy of rebutting the accusation which had been made against employers of labour. They desired to do so before the full House, and not before a Standing Committee. Another reason why the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the full House was that the 3rd clause, as it now stood, was of a somewhat nebulous character. A clause of such great importance ought to he debated before a Committee of the whole House, instead of being discussed in the imperfect manner and under the difficult circumstances which attended consideration by a Standing Committee. The 5th clause also dealt with a matter of a very large character in reference to compensation, and was certainly worthy of being considered by the whole House.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick) moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, instead of to the Standing Committee on Law. He said he did not think that in making this proposition he was doing anything hostile to the progress of the Bill. There was, he believed, a universal desire that the measure should pass; but, at the same time, a strong feeling existed that the proposals of the Government wore inadequate. There was also a considerable divergence of opinion amongst various sections of the community as to the matters of principle involved in the Bill, and it was evident that there must be a very long and animated discussion upon those points. He did not think that Members who were not Members of the Standing Committee would be satisfied to leave those questions of principle to the consideration of the Committee. It must also be borne in mind that the Standing Committee would sit concurrently with the Committee of the House on the Government of Ireland Bill. The consideration of the Government of Ireland Bill in Committee would be a very great strain upon those who took an active part in it, and a great many of those who were especially interested in the Government of Ireland Bill would be unable to attend at the Sittings of the Standing 210 Committee. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would be much more advantageous to send the Bill to a Select Committee than to refer it to the Standing Committee. One advantage of referring the measure to a Select Committee would be that it would be possible to hear evidence which might throw a most valuable light upon the proposal of the Government, and might greatly increase the usefulness and success of the Bill. The obvious objection to a Select Committee was that it did not avoid the Committee stage in the House; but it seemed to him that the measure was eminently one for compromises and arrangements which could be carried out infinitely better in a Select Committee than in the House itself or in a Standing Committee.f
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "the Standing Committee on Law, &c," and insert the words "a Select Committee."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)I wish, in the first place, to recognise the kindness and promptness with which the First Lord of the Treasury met my appeal yesterday, and acceded to the advice of many Members to say a few words on this measure, and I hope I shall not abuse his kindness. I feel that in this matter we are entirely in the hands of the Government. They are the masters, and, if I may be allowed to do so, I would advise my hon. Friend not to trouble the House with a Division on the Amendment if it be not accepted. I wish, however, to put before the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) the reasons why I believe it will be to the interests of the Government and, above all, to the interests of this Bill, that he should reconsider his decision to send the Bill to a Grand Committee. May I, in one sentence, protest against the charges which have been made in the organ of the Government against my hon. Friends and myself on account of our action on the Bill. IT was said that I brought forward a sham Amendment. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not concur in that view. The Amendment gave rise to a most serious 211 and instructive Debate, and, though it was not carried to a Division, it was only because, had it been carried, the Bill would have been destroyed. I intend, however, to raise the question later on, when it can be decided without danger to the Bill itself. As regards my hon. Friends who were accused of obstruction on Tuesday, of course it is difficult to convince those who believe that every!Liberal Unionist has a double dose of original sin; but that was not their intention. We believe that this is a non-Party question. We believe that the Government have a great opportunity of settling a very vexed and difficult question to the great advantage of all classes concerned; and if they will take the opportunity we offer them our most cordial and hearty assistance in the task. I do not blame the Government for bringing in the Bill in its present form, because it would naturally appear to them to be the simplest and most practical way of dealing with the question to embody in a measure the proposals of an important body of Trade Unionists. The Government might well have thought that that was as far as public opinion would allow them to go. But the Debate has shown that on both sides of the House there was an inclination to go further; that public opinion has greatly developed; and that there is an inclination once for all to find a settlement for this question. There can be no doubt that there are two great defects in the Bill. The first is that it only deals with less than one-half of the accidents for which we want it to provide. It is necessarily, therefore, an incomplete measure. In the second place, it has the serious and fatal defect of interfering with the present system of arrangements between employers and employed by which workmen are secured against all kinds of accidents. The right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary has said that he has no desire to interfere in any way with these most advantageous arrangements, although he refused to receive a deputation representing some 12,000 miners on the subject. I would say, without intending to be unduly critical, that I never knew a Government which had such a horror of deputations. My right hon. Friend was, I believe, in favour of the view taken by that deputation, because he has expressed himself in writing, and also in 212 the House, to the effect that the Government do not desire to prevent or in any way discourage these arrangements. It must, however, have been proved to my right hon. Friend beyond dispute that if the Bill is carried in its present condition it will probably destroy these arrangements. [Mr. ASQUITH dissented.] I know more about it, if I may say so, than my right hon. Friend does. I know the question from a commercial point of view; I have conversed both with the employers who make these arrangements and the workmen; who accept them, and I say there is a feeling of great alarm that this Bill will prevent arrangements of the kind being entered into in the future. It stands to reason that the object of the employers in making large contributions to funds of the kind is to prevent litigation and quarrels with their workmen. Is it likely that they will continue to-make contributions if, under the provisions of this Bill, they are to continue liable to be involved in litigation? These are the two important points on which I say it has been proved, in the course of the Debate, that the Bill is defective. There has been evidence on all sides of the House of a desire to carry the measure much further than it goes at present, and to apply its provisions to all classes of accidents. That would, of course, entail practical transformation of the Bill, and I submit to my right hon. Friend that it is impossible, even with the greatest good-will on the part of everybody, to carry out such a transformation in a Grand Committee. Such a Committee, in the first place, is too numerous; and, in the second place, it cannot do that which is essential to a proper arrangement—take some evidence. In order that a proper scheme should be formulated, it is desirable that any Committee before which the Bill is sent should hear the evidence of at least one Representative of each of the great trades, and so obtain the views of the employers in the shipbuilding, the railway, and the mining interests on the subject, while the workmen's interests should be put forward by a representative of the Trades Unions. I believe that would be enough, and that a small Committee would be able to come to a more satisfactory conclusion in respect of this question than a large 213 Committee could. Such a Committee would be able to act as a council of advice to my right hon. Friend, and enable him to produce ft Bill which would meet with the general assent of the House. In the event of my right hon. Friend accepting this proposal, I entertain no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would join me in giving an assurance that every assistance would he given to enable the Government to carry the Bill through its future stages, with only such reasonable discussion of its provisions as my right hon. Friend himself would not object to. My view is that my right hon. Friend, by accepting this proposal, would save time, would make the Bill a better one, and would connect his own name and the name of his Government with a really useful and valuable measure. It may be that my right hon. Friend is not touched by my arguments. He may say that he does not believe he will save time, or that he is not prepared to accept any considerable changes. In that case, my second point is that the Bill ought to go to a Committee of the Whole House. On this point I would refer my right hon. Friend to the speeches made by the Prime Minister when these Grand Committees were first constituted; and he will find that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated a reference to them of special Bills, which interested only a portion of the House; and of course he meant, comparatively speaking, not a very large portion of the House, for when it was proposed by the other side to add agriculture to the subjects that were to be dealt with by the Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman at once objected. He said that agriculture was such an extensive subject, and interested so many hon. Members of the House, that it was not a fit subject to be sent before a Grand Committee. Well, this Bill has reference to a subject that interests almost everybody in the House, It interests every hon. Member who employs a servant, or has a constituent who employs a servant. It applies to all who are interested in agriculture, and all who are interested in manufactures, and all who are interested in commerce. I do not believe a single person can say that his interests are not affected more or less by this Bill. Under these circumstances, it is not 214 fair to take it to a Grand Committee, and it is not for such purposes that Grand Committees were appointed. If my right hon. Friend still insists that it must go there I warn him that he will not save time. This is not only not a proper Bill, but this is not a proper Session for a Grand Committee. We have such a collection of Bills of very vast importance before the House as the House has probably never known in its history, and consequently every Member interested in them is simply bound to give daily and constant attention. It is, therefore, simply impossible and unfair to call on us to take part in complicated discussions in Grand Committees; and, for myself, I can say it will be absolutely impossible for me to serve. If that course is adopted, the in-evitable result will be that we shall have to reserve the whole discussion for the Report stage, and thereby one of the great objects of the Grand Committee will be lost. The right hon. Gentleman will find that he has not advanced his object in the slightest degree. Now, I said when I began that this is not in any sense a Party measure. If I regarded it from a Party point of view and considered only Party interests, I should wish that it would pass as at present framed. There has been an agitation got up in its favour, which is always the case with a new proposal; but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, from my knowledge of what is going on, that if the measure passes it will be unpopular with a large number of those who are now the supporters of the Government. I do not believe it is necessary to treat it as a Party measure. It is the general desire that some Bill shall be passed which will prove a permanent settlement, and I do not hesitate to say that!if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the suggestion I have made to him, there is not the least doubt that such a Bill would be passed during the present Session.
§ *MR. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)sincerely hoped that the Government would adhere to their own proposal, and not allow their plans to be upset by the appeal made to them. In the first place, he would remind the House that when this subject was dealt with by the late Government in 1888 they referred the Bill —the Employers' Liability Bill —to the Grand Committee on Law, 215 although they now stigmatised that Committee as an unsuitable place for the consideration of such a measure, and notwithstanding that the Debate on the Second Beading had been shorter than it had been on the present Bill. Many hon. Members would corroborate what he said when he stated that the discussion of the Bill in the Grand Committee in 1888 was thoroughly satisfactory, much more so than it would have been either in Select Committee or Committee of the Whole House. What was the alternative that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham proposed? He did not say that if his proposal were accepted he would help them to pass the Bill through. He said the Bill was a bad one, and would become an unpopular one, and he suggested as an alternative for it a scheme of industrial assurance which had little or no connection with the Bill, and with regard to which, for his part, as at present advised, if incorporated in the measure when it came up for Third Beading, he should vote against it. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been thoroughly considered by the House, and the House had given a decision against it, and if it were brought forward again it would only be as an engine of obstruction. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would pursue the same course in regard to it as that adopted by the late Government.
MR. LAWBENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)said, he did not in the least desire to introduce Party considerations into the Debate. He thought the House was determined to carry the Bill to a successful issue; but he wished to support the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Glasgow (Mr. Parker Smith) in his desire to have it referred to a Select Committee, so that the case of employment at sea should be thoroughly thrashed out. The Home Secretary had introduced a most important principle into the Bill, of including seamen in the same way as those who were employed on land, and he thought it was only appropriate that this matter should be fully considered in a Select Committee. He thought they ought to be clear on the facts before they proceeded to legislate. Employment at sea was of a very special 216 character, and what they wanted to know before the Bill went into Committee was the extent and nature of negligence which the Home Secretary intended to include in his Bill, and what were the acts he intended to exclude. Before the Select Committee in 1886, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough stated that all his wants were expressed in the formula which he laid before the Committee; but the Home Secretary had introduced a formula of liability which was probably about as imperfect as any Home Secretary ever introduced.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not now discussing the tribunal before which the Bill should be sent, which is the Question before the House.
§ MR. LAWRENCE, said he was showing the difference between the formula of liability of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. J. Havelock Wilson) and that of the Home Secretary. They wanted a clearer definition of the claims of accident for which owners were to be rendered liable before they went into Committee on this Bill, and the only way to find out the facts was to send the Bill to a Select Committee. There seemed to be such a hopeless disparity——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the question.
MR. LAWBENCEI was endeavouring to show why the Bill should go before a Select Committee, and not to the Standing Committee. [Cries of " Order, order!"]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot agree that the course now recommended to the Government is inconsistent with that pursued by the late Government on the Bill which they introduced. The Bill of the late Government was actually framed on the recommendations of a Select Committee. The peculiarity of the present Bill is that, not only is it not based on the recommendations of a Select Committee, but it directly traverses the recommendations of the Select Committee, which dealt with the question of employers' liability to seamen. Therefore, there is perfect harmony between the course which the late Government pursued and that which is now recommended. I rise to make only this further observation. It would be perfectly impossible for Members of the Opposition to attend both Grand Committee and 217 Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill. I am, therefore, obliged to advise any hon. Friends —so far as they will take my advice —to devote their attention to the more important subject, the Government of Ireland Bill, and to leave the Grand Committee on the Employers' Liability Bill —concentrating their attention on the latter measure when it reaches the Report stage.
§ *MR. ASQUITHThe Government will adhere to their proposal. I have listened with considerable astonishment to some of the arguments used on both sides of the House in opposition to our proposal. The late Government introduced an Employers' Liability Bill in 1888, and that proposal was discussed at very much shorter length on the Second Reading than the present Bill, though, of course, the Bill of 1888 was, as we think, less adequate and less complete than the measure now under consideration. Though discussed at much shorter length, the Bill of 1888 was referred, with the general consent of the House, to the Grand Committee on Law. I confess I cannot see what change there has been in circumstances to lead the right hon. Gentleman opposite to his altered view.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the right hon. Gentleman cannot have done me the honour to listen to my observations, in which I pointed out that the Bill of 1888 was framed on the recommendations of a Select Committee, whereas the present measure traverses the recommendations of that Select Committee.
§ MR. ASQUITHI do not at all admit the justice of the right hon. Gentleman's description, and, if I did, it is wholly irrelevant to the point I am discussing —namely, as to what tribunal the Bill should be referred to. It is quite true that the Bill of 1888 followed the recommendations of the Select Committee as to the inclusion of seamen, while the present Bill does not do so; but what possible bearing has that on the question of the tribunal to which this Bill shall be referred? If the Bill went to a Select Committee evidence would be taken, and a largo amount of time would be spent; and then when the Bill has been transformed to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) desires —for that is the real object —the right hon. Gentleman does not want the 218 present Bill carried at all; he wants an entirely different Bill, of which he may claim the authorship —then the Bill will have to go through the ordeal of a Committee of the Whole House. It is very curious that the Bill should be smothered by the attentions of those who are anxious to see it passed. It is suggested that hon. Members cannot attend both Grand Committee and Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill. But I would point out that the Grand Committee only sits two days a week, meeting at 12 o'clock and adjourning at half-past 2 or 3 o'clock. There is no reason why it should sit after the House meets.
§ LORD R. CHURCHILLI would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Grand Committee often sits after the House has met.
§ *MR. ASQUITHThat is not my experience. My object, and the object of the Government, is to get the Bill through. We desire the fullest and freest possible discussion of every one of its details. We are perfectly prepared to consider in a non-Party and friendly spirit every suggestion for its improvement, honestly believing that we can best and most effectually attain that end by referring the Bill to a Grand Committee, and leaving the House the fullest opportunity on Report to revise the decisions of the Grand Committee. We adhere to the proposition we have made.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)I should like to ask what opportunities the House will have for expressing its decision on the important point as to whether Government employés shall be brought within the scope of the Bill? A Select Committee could have taken evidence on this subject; they had before them the heads of the Admiralty and War Office. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester has put an Instruction upon the Paper which Mr. Speaker has ruled out of Order. Any Amendment in Committee or on the Report would be equally out of Order; and unless the right hon. Gentleman will afford some opportunity, the Bill will go through without any opportunity for hon. Members to raise, or for the House to decide, this question. I took some pains when the Bill of 1880 was under consideration to get a decision of the House upon this point; and I have 219 no hesitation in saying that, had the House at that time been able to express an opinion, the Government would have been made liable to the provisions of the Act in force. But, owing to the Forms of the House, it is not competent for a private Member to bring forward any Motion which directly or indirectly imposes a charge upon the Public Revenue; and hence I was precluded getting a decision on that occasion. I am, therefore, anxious that we shall not now be placed in the same position.
§ MR. ASQUITHBy the indulgence of the House I will reply to this. The request of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly reasonable. I wish to state that the Government intend, when the Bill gets to Committee, to propose clauses dealing with this matter. The proposal will be that workmen in the employ of the Government, as, for instance, in the Dockyards and Arsenals, shall be put on the same footing —in principle upon the same footing —[Cries of "Oh!"] —as men in private employment. Hon. Members say "Oh!" but the point is one which requires a considerable amount of adjustment in its details.
§ LORD R. CHURCHILLI should like to say a few words as to the position in which we have been placed by the Government, who have, apparently, decided to force this Bill on to the Standing Committee on Law. In adopting this course, is not the First Lord of the Treasury deliberately breaking down the only foundation upon which Standing Committees can possibly be carried on? Bills coming back from ordinary Select Committees have to go before the Committee of the Whole House; but when a Bill comes back from the Standing Committee the Committee stage is avoided, and it immediately comes before the House on Report. To avoid the inconvenience which formerly arose, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister with much wisdom proposed the system of Standing Committees, in which Parties were to be fairly represented, and before whom Bills were to be much more thoroughly discussed than before a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman admitted at the time —and he will no doubt admit now —that as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham pointed out, Bills which concern large and universal interests are not entirely 220 suited to go before a Grand Committee. What will happen if the right hon. Gentleman presses this proposal? He will break down the operation of Standing Committees. A new practice will be introduced —the Opposition will have to introduce it, and I say this with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition —the practice of refusing, as an Opposition, to take part in the proceedings of the Committee. That is a serious step to announce; and what becomes of Standing Committees if that, course is taken by a large Opposition in the House of Commons? What becomes of the system if, in order to emphasise a great difference of opinion, nearly half the House of Commons refuses to take part in a Standing Committee? How shall we ever get a Standing Committee formed again? We shall take this course on what we hold to be solid ground; we think this Bill ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. The Leader of the Opposition is in agreement with me, and authorises me to say that we do not press that the Bill should go before a Select Committee; but we must insist, by the use of all the legitimate Parliamentary weapons we can bring to bear, that a Bill of this magnitude and importance shall be kept within the cognisance of the House during the Committee stage. I do appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury —have we not got enough subjects of difference at this time? Why add this to them? It must effect most unfortunately a great reform of procedure that the Prime Minister carried with great advantage to this House. The right hon. Gentleman is straining his own form of procedure by trying to force a very large Opposition against their will to go before a Standing Committee and forego the discussion of a great measure in Committee of the Whole House; he is adding a most bitter controversy to the many which now, unfortunately, exist. From what I know of the opinion of hon. Gentlemen behind me and from the knowledge I have of the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, I believe it is their determination to disregard most of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. Certainly to send the Bill there must lead to a tremendous addition to the labours of Parliament as a whole, for it must lengthen the proceedings on the Report, 221 and by so doing destroy one of the greatest implements of usefulness which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into the procedure of the House.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI do not want to prolong the Debate more than a very few minutes. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham will join with me in melancholy reflection on the fate of the promise which he made. I must say he had a better reason for that promise, if it was founded upon a fair consideration of the exigencies and merits of the case, than there has been for the remarkable speech we have just had from the noble Lord.
§ LORD R. CHURCHILLI stated that if the Bill remained in Committee of the Whole House we would not press for its reference to a Select Committee at all.
§ MR. W.E. GLADSTONEThe case is before us. I am not going to impute to the noble Lord or to anyone who has spoken the smallest evil intention. Let that be understood. He has formed his opinion as to the best mode of pushing forward the Bill, and we have formed ours. I am bound to say that the Government have arrived at the conclusion that the mode recommended by the noble Lord —and now, as I understand, by the right hon. Gentleman sitting near him, the Leader of the Opposition —is a mode which, in our view, would render it totally impossible to pass the Bill into law during the present Session, and would lead unnecessarily to the postponement of a most valuable reform. The noble Lord has spoken with great solemnity of tone, bearing evidence to his deep sincerity, of the use, on this particular occasion, of all the means of Constitutional opposition which the Forms of the House provide in the event of our persevering with our proposal. Well, Sir, that is a threat which I admit is, under extraordinary circumstances, however inconvenient, yet possibly justifiable; but what are the circumstances under which the threat is made? In a matter admitted to be one not of Party contention and one of deep interest to the working men of this country, working under those who are described as employers, we are to be met with this resort to the extremest method of Parliamentary opposition. For what? For adopting exactly the same method of proceeding 222 which the late Government adopted in 1888. I appeal to the fairness of the noble Lord. Is this a suitable occasion? I do not want to compel the noble Lord to make another speech; I leave it to the internal operations of his own mind, which are always conducted in a spirit of candour and with a desire for the public good. Is it a fair proceeding, with respect to the immediate proposition before the House, to resort to the menace of the use of this extreme weapon, when we are going to refer the Bill to a Committee in exactly the same manner as the late Government referred their Bill upon the same subject? I am convinced that the Opposition will not decline in a body to serve upon a Grand Committee under the circumstances in which the Grand Committee is proposed —precisely the same as it was proposed upon a Bill on the same subject by the Government which they supported a few years ago.
§ MR. MACINNES (Northumberland, Hexham)said, he desired to point out that this question had already been considered by a Select Committee which sat in the year 1886, and he was bound to remark that very little use had been made of the evidence given before that Select Committee by hon. Gentlemen who were now anxious to relegate this question once more to a Select Committee. Many hon. Members regretted that they would not be able to take part in the discussion of the Bill by a Grand Committee; but they hoped that those who might be nominated to sit on the Committee would not justify the noble Lord's outburst. Let them remember that this was not a Party question; that it was a matter which every class of the community wished to see settled, and in regard to which a vast amount of information was stored in Blue Books in the evidence taken by the Select Committee, upon which the late Mr. Brad-laugh took such a conspicuous and useful part.
§ *MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said, that some who, like himself, had the honour of sitting in the last Parliament, must have listened with surprise to the arguments which had been urged by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and by Members of the Opposition. It would be well within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the last Parliament Mr. Broad- 223 hurst, standing at the Front Opposition Bench, made a passionate appeal to the Leader of the Conservative Party, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, considering the importance of the Bill of the late Government, and the wide interests affected by it, that the Bill should not be sent to a Grand Committee, but should be considered in Committee of the Whole House. The Government at that time refused to listen to the appeal which was made by Mr. Broadhurst, and supported by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition had let them into the secret why the Opposition was so anxious that this Bill should not be considered by a Grand Committee, but that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The effect of sending such a Bill to a Select Committee would be to defeat the progress and the passing of the Bill this Session.
MR. A., T. BALFOURPerhaps the hon. Member is not aware that my noble Friend said he was prepared to accept as a compromise that the Bill should not go to a Select Committee, but that it should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.
§ *MR. FENWICKsaid, he was pleased to have that assurance, because it marked a wonderful change of opinion since 1888, when the Government absolutely refused to lend an ear to the appeal, although the Debate on the Second Reading had occupied less than five hours, whereas this Bill had been debated 12 hours on the Second Reading. What was the opinion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in 1880, when a similar Motion was made by Mr. Knowles, who was then Member for Wigan? The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, said —
A Select Committee is the natural resource of a Government that does not want to legislate and of a Parliament that does not want to legislate. This Government and this Parliament is not yet tired of legislating.The suggestion to send a Bill like that to a Select Committee was the natural resource of individuals, as well as of Governments, that did not wish to legislate, because the effect of such a course would be to prevent the passage of the Bill through this Parliament. He did not say that to prevent the progress of 224 the measure was the object with which the Motion had been moved; but that, undoubtedly, would be its effect if it was accepted by the Government. ["No!"] He had given the law and testimony as delivered by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was becoming less and less pleasant to the people with whom he came in contact. He did not know the people with whom the right hon. Gentleman came in contact, and who were less and less enamoured of the Bill. Did he know the opinion of the working men of Birmingham?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINYes, I do.
§ MR. FENWICKsaid, he had received a Memorial from the Trades Council of Birmingham in favour of the Bill.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThey do not represent one tithe of the workmen of Birmingham.
§ MR. FENWICKI can only say that the Memorial signed——
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The opinion of the Trades Council of Birmingham has nothing to do with the question whether the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
§ *MR. FENWICKapologised for being led from the strict line of the Debate by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to hear from the Home Secretary that it was the intention of the Government to adhere to their proposal to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee. All the questions raised by the Bill could be considered fully before the Grand Committee, and there would be a reasonable hope that the Bill would be carried through this Session, thereby realising the desire of: numbers of working men who were deeply interested in the measure.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)said, he had served, young Member though he was, on four Grand Committees, and he found that they were not at all suitable for discussing any Bill on which there were great differences of opinion. The Rules and Procedure of Grand Committees were very unsettled. There was no Closure, but there was an arbitrary power in the bauds of the Chairman to put an end to a discussion. That would not be a satisfactory way of discussing a Bill of this importance, and he thought it should be left to the Committee of the Whole House.
§ SIR EDWARD HILL (Bristol, S.)hoped the Government would give way, and submit the Bill to a Select Committee, or to the Committee of the whole House, in order that the important questions involved in it might be fully thrashed out. He was not opposed to employers' liability. On the contrary, he thought that employers should be held liable for accidents to the workmen and servants, and all those over whom they had actual moral and legal control; but there were circumstances that required to be fully gone into, and he thought that in the interest of the Bill, and in order to save time, the course suggested in the Amendment should be adopted.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on' stand part of the Question."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)said, that after the observations of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, who had also expressed the opinion held by the Leader of the Opposition that the Bill ought not to go to a Standing Committee at all, he did not intend to move his Amendment that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
MR. TOMLLNSON (Preston)said, the only Bills referred to the Standing Committee on Law were Bills dealing with questions of law and procedure. The Bill before the House came strictly under the Rule regulating the referring of Bills to the Standing Committee on Trade. But he did not mean to move any Amendment, and would content himself with entering a protest against the action of the Government.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.