Commons Sitting of 5 July 1897

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Roscommon(South), v. Luke Patrick Hayden, Esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MERSEY DOCK AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland) moved to leave out the words "now Read the Third time," and to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee." He said he was glad to state that, as the promoters had intimated their willingness to withdraw the clauses to which objection was taken, the Debate on this Motion would be greatly curtailed. The Bill had been petitioned against by the Corporation of Liverpool and by several important bodies whose interests would be affected if it passed into law in its present shape. Last year a Bill was, in spite of the protests of Irish Members, passed, called the Liverpool Cattle Market Act, and one of its conditions was that the Stanley Market should not be closed until two years after the completion of -the new market at

  1085
  Bootle, and of the new landing stage in connection with that market. What he complained of was that the Dock Board did not carry out this proviso in the way indicated by Parliament. He did not wish to cast any blame whatever on the Dock Board, who acted, he was sure, according to their best judgment in the public interests of Liverpool, but he did complain that they adopted a somewhat one-sided attitude in the course of the discussion on the Bill. There was no desire on his part to oppose the Bill, except in so far as it proposed the erecting of the new landing stage, which would inflict serious injury on the Irish cattle trade. In the statement which had been circulated on behalf of the promoters, he thought they did not sufficiently recognise the importance of that trade. Their statement was that they were compelled to take the course they had followed, because it was their business to consider not the interests of any particular trade, but the interests of trades as a whole. As a general statement, that was quite incontestable, but it in this case showed an entirely disproportionate sense of the vast importance of the Irish trade, not only to Ireland, but to the commerce and prosperity of Liverpool. As a matter of fact, of the 200,000 cattle, sheep, and pigs sent to England every year from Ireland, no less than 40 per cent. passed through Liverpool, and the Port of Liverpool was just as deeply interested in the preservation of that Irish cattle trade as were the people engaged in it. He complained that by this Bill the Dock Board not only put the cart before the horse, but put the wrong cart before the wrong horse. The cattle traders maintained that the condition in the Liverpool Cattle Market Act of last year, which had been quoted, meant that the new market should be completed, and not the stage, for two years before the Stanley Market was closed; but what was proposed by this Bill was that the money should be expended on the completion of the landing place before the market was taken in hand. He must say he agreed with the objection to a cattle market such as that at Liverpool was being put in private hands. Everybody knew that a syndicate of influential and wealthy citizens in Liverpool had been formed for the purpose of financing the market. He thought the House
  1086
  would be very unwise to depart from the principle that market accommodation should be in the hands of a community. The whole tendency of opinion in Liverpool was, instead of increasing the hold of private enterprise over market accommodation, to withdraw it from private hands, and to put it in the hands of the municipality; and he held that the Dock Board were taking a retrograde step in recognising a market under private control. Furthermore, he held that if a new market and new landing place were to be erected the very last place to be selected for a landing place was that proposed, as it would involve the Irish steamers landing their cattle at one stage and their passengers and their perishable goods at another, whereas both were now done at the Prince's floating stage much more conveniently and more expeditiously and with less suffering to cattle. He was not concerned to deny that the Third Reading Stage of the Bill was not the most convenient point at which to raise objections, but the Corporation of Liverpool did its best in the House of Lords to get a locus standi, and its claim was denied, while the steamship companies could get a locus only on the question of tolls. He was glad to know that the Dock Board were willing to withdraw the objectionable parts, and as he lied no desire to delay the rest of the Bill he would subsequently move that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.
  MR. W. FIELDseconded the Amendment. His principal reason for opposing the Bill was that he could not understand why the House should allow a private syndicate to introduce a monopolist system—the curse of every country, especially in regard to its food supply—into Liverpool. Had that fact been known to the House the Bill of last year would never have passed its Second Reading. The parties with whom he had acted in this matter had no desire to interfere in any way with the Dock Board's management, but they thought they had a right to interfere when that board interfered with the Irish trade. He thanked the President of the Board of Agriculture for his timely intervention, and he was glad that the Corporation of Liverpool had at the last hour helped them. Had they taken the proper steps in due time, the

  1087
  Bill would never have reached its present stage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,)supported the Amendment. He said that in doing so he did not in the smallest degree fail to realise the undesirability-, as a general rule, on the part of the House as a whole offering opposition to Measures that had fome from the Committees; but he had celt, whether he had approached that question from an Imperial point of view as President of the Board of Agriculture, or from the local point of view as one of the Members for Liverpool, that this was a Bill distinct altogether from the general cases. The previous speakers had omitted to refer to one fact which he thought was of sufficient importance to be brought under the notice of the House—viz., that when the Bill was brought before the Committee of the House of Lords applications were made for a locus standi in order that evidence in opposition to the proposal might be heard, but these applications were declined. When the Bill came down to this House the opponents thought it would be waste of time to repeat the application. He confessed he regretted that they did not try their fortunes a second time—["hear, hear!]—for he could not help thinking that they would have had an opportunity of stating their views in opposition to the proposal. It was quite true that the powers possessed by the Liverpool New Cattle Market Company were conferred upon them by the Act of 1896, and that by this Bill the Board proposed to carry out an obligation which the board believed that Act of 1896 created on their part, on which they were not consulted. Circumstances bad materially altered since the Act of 1896. There was no doubt that the proviso about two years, to which reference had been made, was inserted to secure protection of the interests of the cattle trade of Ireland by preventing the old market being closed until not only the new market had been opened, but proper access provided in the form of a convenient landing place. No steps, however, had been taken since then to create the new market, though application was made by this Bill to provide the new landing place, and it was urged by the opponents
  1088
  that this proposal would give the proprietors of the new market an unfair advantage. The Corporation of Liverpool—whether they ought or ought not to have moved earlier in the matter—now offered a strenuous opposition to the Bill. He hoped they would make it their business to provide a suitable market, both from the trading and the humanitarian points of view, in the city of Liverpool. ["Hear, hear!"] Certainly the House had times without number affirmed the cardinal principle that such institutions should be vested in municipal authorities, who were responsible for the prosperity of the community. Therefore if the Corporation were prepared, as he hoped they were, themselves to make proper provision—although he admitted that this might involve some hardship to those connected with the original Act—in the interests of the whole community he hoped the House would accept the amendment, which had been accepted by the promoters.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENthought there ought to be some assurance given by some representatives of the city of Liverpool—or by Sir Arthur Forwood, who he understood, was connected with the syndicate in question—that the syndicate was willing to accept the arrangement which had been arrived at between the opponents of the Bill and the Dock Board.
  SIR A. FORWOOD, assured the House that he had no interest, directly or indirectly, in the syndicate referred to. He would like to assure the House that the Corporation of Liverpool and the Dock Board had given proper consideration to the subject now before the House. There were very good reasons for the Dock Board endeavouring to carry out the proposal in the Bill. It was true that there was one convenient landing stage for the purpose of ocean traffic, but it was also true that that stage was now largely used for landing steamers from Atlantic and other ocean-going steamers, and he could conceive nothing more objectionable than three or four hundred passengers landing from an Atlantic steamer in conjunction with pigs, sheep, and cattle from Ireland. It was particularly to avoid that that the Dock Board proposed this new landing place. Then

  1089
  the House also should know that the new market would have been only half the distance from the landing stage that the present market was. As to another point which had been raised—that of monopoly—the existing market was a monopoly in private hands, and had never been in the hands of the Corporation.
  *MR. WARR, on behalf of the promoters, said that they were willing to accept the Amendment. The Dock Board, in seeking by this Bill to obtain powers for the construction of the landing stage at Bootle, thought that they were merely carrying out a condition which had been imposed by Parliament in passing the Bill of the preceding Session. They thought that Parliament then sanctioned the principle of the establishment of the cattle market tit Bootle after having made full inquiries by Committee of both Houses, without, so far as he knew, an expression of disapproval by the Corporation of Liverpool, and after the trailers, who now raised objections to this Bill, had been heard; in fact, the Dock Board thought they would have been open to sonic censure if they had not taken measures to carry out what they believed Parliament had in principle approved. However, now that it appeared that the Corporation of Liverpool, the traders, and particularly the Board of Agriculture were opposed to the Bill, the Dock Board thought that their proper course was to withdraw the clauses objected to. In carrying out what they thought was the intention of Parliament, they were only actuated by one consideration, and that was what was best for the commerce of the country and the port of Liverpool. ["Hear, hear!"] He was quite satisfied that if an opportunity had been given to the Corporation of Liverpool and to the Irish traders to appear before the Committee they would have had no doubt whatever on the subject, and would have been convinced that the Dock Board had no idea of interfering with the Irish Cattle Trade.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONsaid that he wished it to be clearly understood that the Corporation of Liverpool had made no application whatever for a locus standi in the House of Commons. The only petition before the Court of
  1090
  Referees was from the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. The Corporation of Liverpool therefore were not refused a hearing on the Bill, because they did not apply for one. They could not claim that they were unjustly treated in being refused a hearing for which they never applied.
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland) moved:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do strike out of the Bill all powers in relation to the proposed pier or jetty and other works described in Clause 3. Subsection (c), of the Bill, awl to the passage or runway described in Clause 5 of the Bill, and to the taking of lands and the raising of money for those purposes."
  Motion agreed to.
  Further ordered, That the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

LOCHEARNHEAD, ST. FILLANS, AND COMRIE RAILWAY BILL.
DR. FARQUHARSONhad on the Order Paper a Motion that Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.
MR. F. A. CHANNING MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.) moved that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER (CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS)appealed to the hon. Member not to delay the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member, he was sure, wished to act in a fair, straightforward way towards the promoters. It was not the fault of the promoters that the Bill came to the House at its present stage so late in the Session. The promoters had not been in fault. The Committee to Whom the Bill was recommitted reported unanimously in favour of it. He thought, therefore, it would be fair to give them an opportunity of getting their Bill through. Under the circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he would move that the Bill be postponed until tomorrow only.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER (CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS)MR. J. W. LOWTHER (CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS) moved:—
"That all petitions against the Pilotage Provisional Order Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee on the Bill be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill."
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Motion imposed upon the Board of Trade the duty of reconsidering their position in regard to the Bill. This Bill appeared with the name of the President of the Board of Trade, and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury upon it, and they consented to the Bill on the understanding that it was practically unopposed. Now it appeared, and very properly so, as an opposed Bill, by the action of the Chairman of Ways and Means himself. He would therefore put it to the President of the Board of Trade whether they would persist in going on with the Bill, which proposed to enable another body to enter the Port of Rosslare without paying the pilotage fees they had always paid, and thus take away from the Wexford pilots the rights to pilotage duties for vessels entering Rosslare Harbour, which they had established to them by the Act of 1874. No doubt when the Board of Trade made this Provisional Order they thought it was practically unopposed. Now it turned out there was keen opposition, and he thought it was really too bad that the Provisional Order system should be prostituted to take away the rights which had never previously been taken away except by a public or private Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means had put down a Motion to enable these pilots to be heard by counsel; but he contended that the procedure was an entire change of the system of Provisional Orders to put these poor men to that enormous expense, and set them to oppose the wealthy people who owned the Rosslare Harbour, who, he believed,
1092
were the London and North-Western Railway Company. It was against the very principle of a Provisional Order, which was that it should be practically unopposed. If it had been brought in as a Private Bill, notices would have had to be issued, and the Committee would, as a matter of course, have had to bear the opposition of the pilots, who were having the bread taken out of their mouths by a powerful syndicate. He thought the time had conic when the House should consider as a whole the means by which wealthy syndicates were able to prevail to bear down important interests that were only precariously protected by the action of individual private representatives in that House, and that the Board of Trade should never have allowed this Bill. It was a scandal, and an illustration once more of the way in which Irish private business was dealt with on this side. Yet they wondered why Irishmen wanted Home Rule! He wished the President of the Board of Trade to withdraw this Bill, and not to give his sanction to the action of his Department in regard to it.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said the hon. Member, in language by no means moderate, characterised the action of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter as being altogether upprecedented, and he had given them an entirely novel version of the system of Provisional Orders. He seemed to think that system was intended solely for Bills which were practically agreed; but in that he was entirely wrong. If it was not common that these Bills should have to go before a Committee, it was not an infrequent thing, and it was not to be held that because separate interests could not be reconciled—
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote an example?
MR. RITCHIEsaid the examples were not comparatively numerous.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman name a single one?
MR. RITCHIErepeated that the hon. Member showed great ignorance of the Provisional Order system. It was not intended solely for agreed Bills, but to make it easier to get passed through the House Measures of general utility where there was no great matter of public

1093
interest concerned. In this case there was no compensation proposed for the pilots, and he (Mr. Ritchie) agreed to an Instruction proposed by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that the question of compensation should be considered. The Chairman of Committees endeavoured to reconcile the two parties, but he could not do so, mid the Bill had therefore to go before his Select Committee, where the objections could be considered. he saw no reason Why in regard to this Bill any but the usual course should be taken, and why the Motion should not pass.
Motion agreed to.

FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read the First time; to be read the Second time upon Thursday, and to be be printed.—[Bill 297.]
QUESTIONS.

  MAGISTRACY (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the reason for which Lord Rossmore was dismissed from the Commission of the Peace for the county Monaghan in 1883 was publicly stated to be that Lord Rossmore had headed a band of armed Orange rioters in that county in an organised attempt to break up a Nationalist meeting, and broke through the ranks of the Queen's troops; also, that in November 1893, after the reinstatement of Lord Rossmore in the Commission of the Peace, his conduct was brought under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in connection with his action in a case before the Land Commission, in which a tenant of Lord Rossmore's had been induced by the agent of that nobleman to sign an agreement excluding himself from all proprietary rights in his own improvements, a transaction for which NI r. Justice Bewley stated from the Judicial Bench no censure could be too strong; and (2) whether, having regard
  1094
  to these circumstances, the Government will reconsider their decision in appointing Lord Rossmore to the Lieutenancy of Monaghan?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The circumstances under which Lord Rossmore was superseded in the Commission of the Peace in November 1883, are fully detailed in the correspondence which was presented to Parliament in the following year. It has already been pointed out that this super session did not extend to the office of Deputy Lieutenant which Lord Rossmore has held for 23 years. The second part of the first paragraph formed the subject-matter of a question addressed to my predecessor in office on the 10th November 1893, and the conclusion arrived at by the late Lord Chancellor was that Lord Rossmore had no personal knowledge of or connection with the act of his agent, and that there was no ground whatever for taking any action against hint as a Magistrate. He has been appointed to the Lieutenancy of the County, and there is no intention to reconsider the appointment.

  FACTORY ACTS (FISHING INDUSTRY).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, there being now no chance of discussion during the present Session of the suggested further relaxation of the law relating to the application of the Factory Acts to the fish industry, nor of the strengthening of the law on that subject, it may be understood that the law as it stands will now be applied, and prosecutions in the case of the working of hours beyond those named in the Factory Acts be allowed to proceed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): There would be great difficulties in the way of adopting the course which the right hon. Baronet suggests. The law is not absolutely free from doubt, anti the practice of the last 20 years has been to allow the exemption, the right to which the Bill now before the House is intended to make clear. Further, the enforcement of the stricter view of the Act which the right hon. Baronet takes

  1095
  would have the effect of injuring the smaller men employed in the trade to the benefit of the large employers who can afford to put their fish in ice. I do not see my way therefore at present to putting a more stringent construction on the Act than my predecessors have done.
  SIR C. DILKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the law officers?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am not at all sure that the opinion of the law officers has not been already taken, but of course the highest opinion will be taken.

  LOCHMADDY WATER SCHEME.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether he has received from the North Uist District Committee of the Inverness County Council a resolution deploring a public insult offered by Sir John Orde to the sheriff substitute of the district; (2) whether he is aware that the insulting language used arose out of some question as to the sheriff's residence as a tenant under Sir John Orde, and that the sheriff has since felt constrained to quit the island:(3) and whether, seeing that Sir John Orde is a J.P. and D.L. of the county, the Scotch Office will bring the matter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of the county.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. As information was laid before the Procurator Fiscal, the incident referred to was investigated and reported upon by Crown Counsel who have come to the conclusion—with which I agree—that, though the language used was insulting and offensive the facts do not amount to a breach of the peace. It is not the fact that the sheriff's absence from the island is due to the incident in question. In view of the determination of Crown Counsel that no proceedings should be taken, the Scottish Office do not propose to take any steps in the direction indicated in the last paragraph of the Question.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the North Uist District
  1096
  Committee of the Inverness County Council on 26th June, the statements therein put forward that owing to the refusal of Sir John Orde to sanction a scheme for the proper supply of water to Lochmaddy, the water supply of that place was filthy and unfit for human use, and the resolution agreed to by the District Committee to prosecute Sir John Orde under the Public Health Acts; and whether, considering the danger to public health entailed by a continuance of the state of matters described, the Local Government Board can intervene and compel its remedy?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Local Government Board are aware that the water supply of Lochmaddy has long been in an unsatisfactory condition and repeated efforts have been made by the Board to bring about improvement. A Special Water Supply District has been formed but as the proprietor saw reason to disapprove the proposed direction of the pipe-track, the Board, looking to the urgency of the situation, took the somewhat unusual course of remitting to a Special Engineering Commissioner to report on the whole matter in order to be in a position to advise the Local Authority; that gentleman accompanied by the medical member of the Board visited Lochmaddy recently and his report is understood to be nearly ready. The Local Government believe it is the case that the Local Authority have resolved to prosecute the proprietor. I am not aware that the Local Government Board can do anything further till their Commissioner's report is before them.

  MUZZLING ORDER (SHEEP DOGS).
  MR. POWLETT MILBANK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, taking into consideration that sheep dogs will not work over mountainous land in muzzles, he will exempt such dogs when in work, and treat them in the same manner as sporting dogs?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have caused further inquiries to be made into this matter, and the results go to show that if owners of sheep dogs will be good enough to take steps to provide their

  1097
  dogs with well-fitting muzzles of a good pattern, and to accustom them to their use, the work of the dogs will not be materially interfered with. I am most anxious to avoid taking any step which would seriously impair the efficiency of the Orders which have been issued and render it necessary to continue them in force for a longer period than would otherwise be the case, and I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

  AGRICULTURAL RATING ACT, 1896.
  *MR. EDWARD MONCKTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state to the House whether, in the event of a spending authority ceasing to be the spending authority over part of its area, it could under any circumstances continue to receive the grant under the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, for the area over which it has ceased to be the spending authority; and whether, considering that Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, provided against the grant due to one area of a spending authority being used to the advantage of the remainder, can a spending authority use the proportion of a grant paid for an area which has ceased to belong to it in the reduction of the rates of the area over which it retains authority?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): When there has been a change in the spending authority of a district or in the area under the jurisdiction of a spending authority the grant originally assigned to the district would be continued to that district unless the certificate as to the grant was altered. But the Act contemplates that under those circumstances the certificate shall be varied, and it would be the practice of the Local Government Board, in such a case, to alter it. The sum assigned under the original certificate would be reduced by the amended certificate, and, therefore, would not be payable to the spending authority.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether £74,969 is the whole
  1098
  amount due to Ireland for one year or the amount due to Ireland for half a year, under the Agricaltural Rating Act?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The sum named is the whole amount due in 1896–7, representing one-half of the annual "equivalent grant," in accordance with the English Agricultural Rates Act. The amount payable in 1897–8 will be for 12 months, and therefore double the amount payable in 1896–97.

  BANGOR TOWN COMMISSIONERS (CO. DOWN).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what date has been appointed by the Local Government Board or their auditor for the purpose of auditing the accounts of the Town Commissioners of Bangor, county Down, for the year ending 31st December 1896; what is the cause of delay in this audit; and will arrangements be made to have it proceeded with and completed forthwith?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No date has yet been fixed for the audit of the accounts of the town referred to. The reason attributed for the delay is illness of the town clerk. Arrangements will be made for proceeding with the audit as soon as the accounts are completed and the balance-sheets ready for the auditor.

  NILE EXPEDITION.
  SIR BEVAN EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have decided to continue the advance lip the valley of the Nile; and, if so, what troops are to be employed; and, if the command is to be given to a distinguished general as stated in the newspapers; in that case, is it intended that he should supersede Sir Herbert Kitchener, now commanding the troops on the Nile?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Any operations on the Nile would be conducted by the

  1099
  Government of Egypt. There is no intention of superseding Sir Herbert Kitchener in his command.

  PETTY OFFICERS (NAVAL) DROWNED.
  MR. J. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what provision will be made by the Government for the maintenance of the families of the six petty officers of H.M.S. Collingwood, who were recently drowned in Bantry Bay?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Under the regulations, pensions and allowances to the widows and children of petty officers and men can only be granted in cases where the men have been killed or drowned on duty. The petty officers referred to were on leave at the time of the accident which caused their death, and their families are not therefore eligible for pecuniary assistance. Children can, however, be maintained at the expense of Greenwich Hospital in schools or homes, and any application to the Admiralty with this object in view will be considered.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked whether there was any Jubilee fund available for this purpose?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, sir; I am very sorry to say there is not.

  FAIRS AND MARKET TOLLS (BANTRY, CO. CORK).
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the collection of tolls and customs at fairs and markets in the town of Bantry, Co. Cork; whether he is aware that the agents of the Bantry Estate charge tolls on the sale of cattle, sheep, horses, &c., at fairs held in the streets of the town, and can he state whether it is by charter or letters patent that the said tolls are levied; and whether schedules of the tolls demanded are published?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that tolls are levied at the fairs and markets held at Bantry, and that it is believed these charges are made under the authority of letters patent. I am not aware whether schedules of the tolls are published.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS (SOMERSET).
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what alterations, if any, are contemplated in the postal arrangements of the parishes of Exford, Winsford, and Exton, in the county of Somerset?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The hon. Member's Question, no doubt, has reference to an application which he recently forwarded to the Postmaster General, and which is still under consideration. As soon as a decision is arrived at, the hon. Member shall receive a reply.

  PARCEL POST FACILITIES.
  MR. WALTER HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the system in operation in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and India, whereby the Post Office collects the purchase money for goods sent by parcel post and remits it to the sender less a small commission; and, whether, in view of the expected development of the parcel post, consequent upon reduced charges, he will consider the advisability of introducing the system into this country?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware of the system in operation in many countries abroad, whereby the Post Office collects the purchase money for goods sent by parcel post and remits it to the sender less a small commission. The question of introducing the system into the postal service of this country has been for many years before the Department, but hitherto there has not appeared to be throughout the community any strong or widespread desire for its adoption, while retail traders are much opposed to it. It is significant that a resolution in favour of its introduction brought forward at the last autumn meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce was lost by a large majority. While public opinion remains so greatly divided, the Postmaster General would not feel justified in taking any action in the matter.

  COLONIAL TROOPS IN ENGLAND.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to afford the Colonial troops now in the Mother Country, themselves mostly volunteers, as well as the Indian chiefs and officers, any opportunity of seeing the unpaid Military reserve possessed by Great Britain in her 230,000 Volunteers, now that they have seen both the Royal Navy and regular Army, as well as some brigades of Militia?
  MR. BRODRICK: The great number of functions, including three military displays, which have taken place in connection with the Jubilee, have rendered it impossible to arrange a special Volunteer review. Our colonial visitors had, however, some opportunity of seeing the picked bodies of volunteers who paraded on the jubilee day.

  COMMISSION TO PROFESSIONS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it will he practicable to invite the Colonial Premiers while visiting London to consider the desirability of bringing before the respective governments the need for making the conditions of admission into the various professions uniform throughout the Empire, so that a person entering a profession in any part of it may practise it in any other part without more difficulty than if he remained in the country in which he originally qualified?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I shall be glad to see progress made in this direction, and hoped to see the Colonial Solicitors Bill passed this Session, but there are so many subjects of pressing importance to be discussed that I fear it will be impossible to consider the details of this question with the Premiers.

  DELAGOA BAY.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge of certain additional privileges with respect to Delegoa Bay recently accorded by the Portugese Government to the Mozambique Company: and, whether he
  1102
  has any confirmation of the statement telegraphed from Berlin to the Daily Mail that negotiations are pending for acquisition of the control of the Mozambique Company by a Foreign syndicate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, (Mr. G. CURZON,). The concession held by the Mozambique Company has recently been extended from 25 to 50 years: but we have no knowledge of any privileges with respect to Delagoa Bay; and have received a formal assurance that there is no truth in the report. Neither have we any confirmation of the statement that negotiations are pending for the acquisition of the control of the Mozambique Company by a Foreign syndicate.

  RED SEA LIGHTS
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government, in assenting to a certain increase in the customs tariff of Egypt, obtained an undertaking that £40,000 a year of the lighthouse dues would be surrendered, out of which the cost of additional lights in the Red Sea and of a light in the Gulf of Aden would be defrayed; whether that sum has now been reduced to £30,000, and whether that reduction was understood to omit the provision for the latter light; whether the Board of Trade were informed of such omission; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence between the two Departments on the subject?
  MR. CURZON: In 1889 the Egyptian Government undertook to surrender £40,000 per annum of the light dues when the new tariff should come into force. No arrangement was made as to the disposal of that sum, but Her Majesty's Government had in view the construction of new lights in the Red Sea. No mention appears to have been made in any of the dispatches of a light in the Gulf of Aden. The new tariff has not come into force, nor has it been possible to see when it will do so. Nevertheless the Egyptian Government agreed to relinquish £40,000 of the light dues from January 1st 1894; and out of this sum about £65,000 has already been

  1103
  encashed for the construction of new lights in the Red Sea. From and after September 1st next the clues will be reduced by amounts per ton equal to about £32,000 per annum; but this figure has nothing to do with the omission of a light in the Gulf of Aden, which as I have said has never been provided for; the balance being devoted to expenses of the Quarantine Board, so as to avoid an extra tax on shipping. The Egyptian Decree respecting the reduction of the Dues will be published, but there is no correspondence of a character to be laid.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONasked whether the provision of a light in the Gulf of Aden was not contemplated at the Fame time as were the additional lights in the Red Sea?
  MR. CURZON: I have had all the dispatches looked into, and there is no mention of it at all.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REPORT (SCHOOL MAINTENANCE).
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what is the definition of "maintenance," for the purposes of Table G on page 52 of the Report of the Committee of Council on Education for 1895–6?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The payments included under the head of maintenance are those tabulated in the specimen account page given on page 49 of the Revised Instructions for this year, and those mentioned in the small print to Article 90 of the Code.

  CATTLE CARRYING REGULATIONS.
  SIR ARTHUR FOR WOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether British steamers which call at Havre to receive cargo on their outward voyage for America are precluded from conveying from America to England live cattle for slaughter on landing, unless a period of 21 days has elapsed between the time of call at the French port and their arrival at the English port, on the ground that infection from the cargo received in France but landed in America
  1104
  may be conveyed to the beasts subsequently received on the vessel in America and landed in England; and, whether, as there is no restriction on the direct importation and distribution of merchandise from France into England, he will re-consider the regulations of the Board as regards vessels?
  MR. LONG: The landing of foreign animals has for very many years Fast been subject to the requirement that the vessel in which they are brought should not before taking them on board have touched within a specified period at a port in a country from which the importation of animals is entirely prohibited. This requirement is rendered necessary by the fact that some of the diseases against which we legislate can be transmitted not only directly from animal to animal, but also through the medium of persons, substances, and things, and actual experience has shown that the danger is a very real one. I regret, therefore, that I am tillable to withdraw the requirement, and with regard to the particular period to be prescribed, I would say that some years ago it was reduced from 28 to 21 days, and t hat I do not think it could be further reduced consistently with safety.
  SIR A. FORWOODasked whether it was not the fact that goods and persons coming directly from France, only a few hours distant, Came into England without any restriction?
  MR. LONGsaid it certainly was the fact, but if his right hon. Friend desired to assume that they regarded it as entirely free from danger, he should be obliged to say that they reserved their opinion.

  CHARITY LANDS TRUSTEES.
  MR. A. BALDWIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as representing the Charity Commissioners (1) whether after a local inquiry held at Upton Snodsbury, in the county of Worcester, it has been decided fiat the only trustees of the charity lands are the vicar and churchwardens of the parish; (2) whether this decision has been made on the sole authority of an inclosure award, notwithstanding that the parish hooks appear to show that the administration of the charity was always under the control of

  1105
  the parishioners; and (3) if any authority exists for treating an inclosure award as a declaration of trusts?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The decision was arrived at after an examination (If an the available evidence in the case, including the parish books, which show a usage only whereby the trustees allowed the parishioners a voice in the administration of the charity. Charitable trusts are frequently declared by an enclosure award which, being established by the authority of Parliament, constitutes in these eases a declaration of trust of an exceptionally permanent, character.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the English mails have been twice late in the last week of their delivery at Tralee, not arriving on the 29th instant until 4.15 p.m.; and whether in view of the continual inconvenience caused by the late delivery of these mails and the repeated representation which have been made to the postal authorities by the inhabitants of the Tralee district., he will cause immediate steps to be taken to remedy the grievance?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that on the dates referred to the English mails failed to effect a connection with the day mail train from Limerick junction to Tralee owing to delays from fog on the passage from Holyhead to Kingstown. When failures of this kind occur the Department takes the only steps which are open to it to remedy the inconvenience, that is to say, the route viâ Mallow is resorted to, by which means the bags for Tralee arrive at their destination about, 4.15 p.m. or several hours earlier than if they were kept for the next Train from Limerick junction to Tralee viâ Limerick.

  JUBILEE MEDALS.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Jubilee medals will be ready for issue; and whether he is aware that many ordered a, month before, the 22nd June have not yet been issued?
  MR. HANBURY: The issue of the Jubilee Commemoration medals commenced on June 16. They are being supplied through the Banks of England, Ireland, and Scotland and their various branches. The demand for gold and silver medals is being dealt with in the first instance. As soon as the supply of the large gold medal approaches completion, the large silver modals will be proceeded with more rapidly, and the bronze medals will be commenced. It is not, however, anticipated that the issue of the latter will begin before next month. Up to Saturday afternoon 36,600 medals had been issued. At the last jubilee no issue of medals took place before July 18, and the distribution lasted over a period of eighteen months.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether a medal has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman himself? [Laughter.]

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that in London up to the time of the recent Commission the number of hours per week was fixed for sorters at 48, and that they were entirely exempt from sunday work, in marked contrast with the provincial sorting staff, and also with both the London and provincial telegraph staff, Sunday work being a portion of their duty; whether the Postmaster General in ally changes he intends to follow in the interests of the service will direct that, the vested interests of the London permanent Sunday force are not interfered with; will he explain why the Sunday rates fixed by the Treasury Minute years ago for the London sorting staff have, contrary to all precedent, been considerably reduced even for officers over 20 years on the duty; whether the Postmaster General has received two petitions from the London permanent sorting staff protesting against this, and will the Postmaster General receive a deputation of two or more of the officers concerned before conning to a decision; and, whether he will supply those men who are already chosen in anticipation with the reasons why the authorities little interfered.
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that the hours of work for sorters were, and are fixed at 48 irrespective of Sunday work. This applies both to Lyndon and the Provinces. No change has been made in this respect by the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee. Sunday work, both in London and the Provinces, is separately paid for, and up to time time of the report of the Tweedmouth Committee was paid for at higher rates in London than the Provinces. In view of the very great advantages conferred on the London sorting staff in the shape of higher rate of pay, and higher rates for some classes of overtime, it is understood that the Tweedmouth Committee considered that it was reasonable and desirable that the exceptionally high allowance paid for Sunday work in London should cease and the Committee made a distinct recommendation that it should be assimilated to the rate paid in the Provinces. If the staff, or any portion of the Stall prefer to recur to their old scale of pay and retain their old allowance, their application shall receive careful consideration from the Postmaster General. But they must distinctly understand that they cannot have the advantages which the Tweedmouth Committee secured for them without surrendering the other privileges which they had before and which the concession of these advantages was intended to cover. The memorials referred to have been received, and if—after this answer the Staff should still desire to see the Postmaster General he will have pleasure in following His usual practice of receiving deputations of officers of the Department who may wish to see him.

  DISTRIBUTING OFFENSIVE LEAFLETS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 20th June, a police officer apprehended two men (named respectively Nicoll and Low), who were addressing a public audience at the corner of Beckton Road, Canning Town, without any warrant or other legal authority, and that these men were kept in custody for several hours; that, on two Town Councillors presenting themselves at the police station to offer bail, they were told that there was no charge against
  1108
  the men, the police officer admitting that he had no charge against the men; whether it is legal for a police officer to apprehend persons addressing public meetings without any warrant or other legal authority; and whether he will cause a strict investigation to be made into the conduct of the police officer in question, with a view of seeing that justice and fair play is meted out in cases of this kind?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I understand that Nicoll, who was accompanied by Low, was found to be distributing leaflets of a scandalous character, containing a most offensive description of the Queen; and that the two men were, in accordance with instructions, taken to the nearest station. Nicoll, however, expressed regret for his conduct, and promised not to repeat it, and, as he kept his promise, no proceedings have hitherto been taken. The action taken by the police in the case of these men had no connection whatever with their addressing a public meeting.

  IRISH JUDICIARY.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the 6th Section of the Irish Judicature Act (40 and 41 Vict., c. 57), which provided that the the number of the then existing Common Law Judges in Ireland should be reduced from 12 to 10 in certain events, which have since happened, thus by implication fixing the number for the future at 10; and whether, seeing that since the death of the late Mr. Justice Harrison nearly two years ago, there has been only nine such Judges, and since the recent promotion of Mr. Justice Holmes only eight, he will explain what legal authorisation there is for the delay in filling up the vacancy so created nearly two years ago?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statute referred to did not make it imperative on the Government to appoint a Judge immediately on the occurrence of the vacancy in the Judicial Bench. The vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Justice Harrison was not filled up in view of the intention of the Government to legislate on the subject of the Judicial Bench in Ireland.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that no one in Ireland is opposed to the reduction in the number of Judges except the lawyers?
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he his aware that during the present law sittings in Dublin the Court of Queen's Bench and the Nisi Prius Court have had on more than one occasion to adjourn their Courts for want of Judges, to the great inconvenience and delay of the suitors, also in consequence of both the Lords that, in consequence of both the Lords Justices of Appeal in Ordinary having to go circuit, the sittings of the Court of appeal in Ireland will be practically suspended during the month of July, thereby necessitating the postponement of important appeal cases to the next November sittings; and, whether he can now be good enough to state On what day the Bill for reducing the Trish Justiciary will be introduced into this House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the statements of the learned Judges in reference to the matters mentioned in the Question. I am not aware that any similar complaints have been previously made. It is proposed to introduce the Bill under the Standing Order at the commencement of public business on Monday next.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been brought to his notice that the constables of the Metropolitan Police Force did nearly four days' duty in overtime during the period of the Diamond Jubilee; whether it is proposed to give only ordinary pay for the extra time worked, whereas it is customary with workmen to receive at least a time and a-half rate for extra service of this kind, which was most arduous and exhausting, some item having had only a few hours' sleep out, of 24; whether be will consider the, advisability of a least granting extra leave, pay going on, to added to the annual leave, as is have been done upon three previous occasions, and on a far more generous seale than in the
  1110
  present case, considering the severity of the service rendered; and whether members of the Force, in possession of the 1887 Jubilee medal, will receive the 1897 medal, and not a clasp, to which they do not attach the same value?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have already informed the House of the manner in which the services of the police on Jubilee Day are to be recognised, and I have nothing to add to lay previous statement except that I ascertained that tin; men preferred extra pay to extra leave, and that I made my decision in accordance with their wishes.
  ME. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Inspector Brewster, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who was in charge of the police in Rutland Square, Dublin, on the 22nd of June, Her Majesty's Jubilee Day, swore at the inquest of Mrs. Fitzsimmons, whose death resulted from injuries received in a baton charge, that he did not order the charge, and would not have done so under the circumstances; whether he is aware that the charge was ordered by a subordinate officer, Inspector Lynam, without consulting or obtaining the sanction of his superior officer, Inspector Brewster, who was within three yards of him at the time; and whether the Government propose to hold a sworn Inquiry into the conduct of the police in connection with the occurrence in. Rutland Square?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The substance of Inspector Brewster's evidence before the Coroner in this case is not correctly given in the Question. Before the police used their truncheons there was a consultation between Inspector Brewster and Inspector Lynam, and shortly after the consultation, when the Inspectors were separated by a surging crowd, a shower of stones fell and Inspector Lynam's men were driven back. It was at this juncture that the police were ordered by Inspector Lynam to disperse the mob, and Inspector Brewster stated in evidence that if he had been in Inspector Lynam's position he would have done what the latter did, as he believed every policeman's life was at the moment in danger. The Inspectors were separated, as I have stated, by a surging crowd and each had to act

  1111
  independently and on his own responsibility; they are of the same rank and inspector Brewster, though senior, was not Inspector Lynam's superior officer. The action of the police was fully gone into at the inquest, and the Government see no reason to hold a sworn Inquiry as suggested.
  SIR ELLIOT LEES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State will convey to those responsible for the transport of Members to and from the Review Ground at Aldershot, on 'Thursday, and for their comfort on the ground, the satisfaction which was generally felt at the excellence of the arrangements?
  MR. BRODRICK: It has been a great gratification to the Secretary of State to know that the arrangements for the review, which entailed very heavy labour on the War Department, have proved satisfactory to the guests, and Lord Lansdowne will have much pleasure in conveying to the Quartermaster General at headquarters and to the Staff Officers at Aldershot charged with the arrangements referred to the very gratifying remarks contained in the hon. Member's Question. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and what, public recognition is to be made of a bony of men who have done valuable services during the Jubilee, namely, the Metropolitan Fire, Brigade?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am afraid I am unable to answer the Question of my hon. Friend. The control of the Fire Brigade rests with the London County Council, not with me.

  FRANCHISE (IRELAND.)
  MR. PATRICK. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to deal with the question of the equalisation of the municipal and the parliamentary franchise in Ireland in connection with the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, proposed to be introduced next Session?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As has already been said by the First Lord in inner to previous questions, the Government do not think it advisable to enter
  1112
  into any details with regard to the Bill of next Session. The hon. Gentleman will probably himself be in a position to judge how far it is possible to deal with the subject of local government without at the same time touching the question of the municipal franchise.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsubsequently asked whether, in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary in regard to municipal franchise that franchise will apply to incorporate as well as corporate towns?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think it would be very inexpedient to go into any details as to what it is proposed to introduce into our Bill of next year, and I think it is hardly a fair Question to put. We shall hope to make the scheme of the Government as complete as possible.

  ARREST BY VENEZUELAN AUTHORITIES.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest and imprisonment by the Venezuelan authorities at Ciudad Bolivar, in November last, of Mr. James Gibson, a British subject, engineer on board the steamship Caura on the alleged ground that the owners of that vessel had refused to pay a fine imposed in respect of a violation of the rules of the port; whether it is true, as alleged by Mr. Gibson, that he was forcibly taken from his steamer and lodged in prison without any of the formalities enjoyed by Venezuelan law; whether he has sent in a claim for compensation for the suffering and injury to health caused by this illegal treatment; and whether her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to support his claim?
  *MR. CURZON: We have heard nothing of the case and have received no claim. If the hon. Baronet cares to place any information before me, I shall be happy to give it attention.

  CRETE.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in connection with the recent raid made by Mahomedan Bashi Bazouks and the report of Colonel Chernside on tile plundering of the houses of Christians in Candia, whether

  1113
  the Candian delegates have petitioned the admirals and complained of the inaction of the authorities?
  *MR. VURZON: No official information has reached us of any such action on the part of the Candian Delegates.

  TOKAT MASSACRE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now state what has been the result of the trials of these concerned in the massacre of Armenians at Tokat: and, what punishment, if any, has deen dealt out to those found guilty of being implicated in the massacre?
  *MR. CURZON: The Tokat Commission tried 115 prisoners, of whom 61 were condemned; 15 to death, five to 15 years imprisonment for murder; seven to ten years imprisonment for pillage or as accomplices of murder, and the remainder to various shorter terms of imprisonment for complicity in the massacres. As regards the death sentences they have been confirmed by the Council of Ministers at Constantinople, but the Sultan's Trade for their execution has not yet been obtained.
  Mr. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any actual punishment has been yet inflicted beyond the, sentences decreed?
  *MR. CURZON: I believe all those who have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment are in prison.

  BOARD SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND.)
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will agree to the Return as to grants to board schools in Scotland in respect of evening school attendances, which stands on the Paper this day?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot undertake to give a return with reference to the first head in the form asked for. With reference to the second the return is already in the printer's hands and will be issued at once.

  CHITPUR DISTURBANCES.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to the
  1114
  recent disturbances at Chitpur, and especially as to the losses among the police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have received the following telegrams from the Government of India:—
  "From Viceroy, July 1, 1897."
  "Riot in Calcutta due to possession being taken by estate of Hindu, under orders of Court, of land alleged, it is said falsely, to contain mosque. Monday, police assisted in giving possession. Tuesday, 2,000 low class Mahomedans assembled to rebuild building alleged to be mosque dispersed by police, and 70 arrests made on Wednesday morning. Midday Wednesday rioters re-assembled and attacked municipal pumping station in the neighbourhood; dispersed by police and military. Encounters between police and mobs in different places on Thursday, in which eight rioters reported killed and many wounded. Europeans attacked in places by rioters and some reported injured. No shots tired by military. Rioters quiet Friday and Saturday, and leading Mahomedans reported to be desirous effecting compromise about land."
  From Viceroy, July 5, 1897.—"Calcutta quiet Sunday."
  Mr. Stevens, the Acting Lieutenant Governor, who was in Behar at the time of the outbreak, returned to Calcutta yesterday evening. The Government of India are of opinion that Mr. James, the new Commissioner of Police, acted "with promptitude and judgment." The Government consider the outbreak purely local, and the accounts of it are exaggerated. [Cheers.]

  ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH, SKELLIG MICHAEL (CO. KERRY.)
  MR. LECKY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the ancient, ruin of St. Michael's Church on Skellig Michael, in the county of Kerry, is and has been for some time past in a very dangerous condition owing to the fall of the castle', or enclosing wall; whether the attention of the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, in whom this monument is vested under section 25 of The Irish Church Act, 1869, has been called to this fact, without any attempts having been made to repair the damage; and whether some steps will he taken (luring the present summer to save this primitive church from complete destruction?
  *MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that, owing to the fall of part of the enclosing wall, St. Michael's church has been for some tune in danger of injury. When information of the fall of the enclosing wall reached the Board of -Works in 1895, orders were immediately issued for inspection by the superintendent of national monuments with a view to repairs. Owing, however, principally to the difficulty of access to the island on account of storms, the inspection was not, carried out at the time. A report has lately been made by Mr. Cochrane, one of the Board's Surveyors, on the subject, from which it appears that the fall of the enclosing wall has not as yet caused any actual damage to the walls of the Church as they stood immediately before the fall of the enclosing wall in 1895. Directions were given immediately on receipt of the report for the execution of works for the repair of the enclosing wall and fur restoring support to the Church wall. These works will be carried out in the present summer without delay under proper supervision.

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  MR. W. WOODALL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the Report of the City of London Livery Companies Commission of 1884 does not afford full information as to tine bye-laws or ordinances of the Plumbers' Company, a copy of the charter and of the bye-laws, and a statement as to tine present resources of the Company could be laid upon the Table of the House prior to the further consideration of the Plumbers' Registration Bill?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I stated in reply to a Question on the 21st June that I had no doubt that if it were desired, the Company would cause to be furnished a brief statement of the constitution and resources of the Company which might, if it were moved for, be laid on the Table of the House. But no motion for any such return has been made. I do not know if it would be possible to obtain it now, before Wednesday, when the Plumbers' Registration Bill is to be considered.

  POSTAL FACILITIES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to tine Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how many telegraph offices have been established under guarantee in the crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland within the last three years; and whether any, and, if so, how many of these offices now pay expenses.
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how many telegraph offices have been established without guarantee in the crating counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland within the last three years?
  *MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to answer the two Questions together. It will take some time to prepare the particulars asked for, but the Postmaster General will be happy to combine the further information with that already promised on the 4th ultimo.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether £5 per annum is the guarantee usually demanded for the establishment of a money order office when a guarantee is requisite, and whether any money order offices have been established in the Crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland under guarantee during the last three years; and, if so, how many; and will he state how many money order offices have been established in these counties during the last three years without guarantee?
  MR. HANBURY: The guarantee demanded in the case of money order offices is always £5 per annum, but in future, in view of the arrangements announced in the Budget, the Department will share any deficiency that may accrue with the guarantors, so that the maximum liability under a guarantee will be £2 10s. only. During the last three years ten Money Order Offices have been opened in the Crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, nine of which were opened without a guarantee.
  MR WEIR: I beg to ask tine Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether he is aware

  1117
  that the £1,000, hitherto placed at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland for providing telegraph extensions in the Highlands and islands of Scotland, has been eliminated from this year's Estimates; and (2) whether, in view Of the difficulty experienced by the people of the Highlands in providing guarantees for telegraph' extensions, will he place himself in communication with the Treasury and the Scottish Office with a view to earmark for guarantees for telegraph extensions in the Highlands a portion of this year's Post Office Telegraph Extension Vote of £18,000, so that extensions may be guaranteed to such places in the Highlands of Scotland, as the Secretary for Scotland may designate?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; the Postmaster General is aware that the amount referred to is not included in this year's Estimates. The Postmaster General is nut sure that he understands the second paragraph of the hen. Member's Question; but the sum of £18,000 referred to will be available for any extensions in the Highlands for which guarantees may be forthcoming, and extensions on guarantee will, of course, be granted in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, as elsewhere, on the easier terms announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year's Budget. There does not in the circumstances appear to be any necessity for the Postmaster General to communicate with the Treasury and Scottish Office on the subject.

  BRENNAN TORPEDOES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Brennan torpedoes have been manufactured since 1887; and, how many of these torpedoes have been supplied to each of the Naval stations in the United Kingdom?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,): No, Sir. It would net be for the good of the public service that I should answer either part of the Question. The hon. Member has been already informed that the supply of these torpedoes is satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.

  MACHINE GUNS (ROYALTIES).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the Government are paying any royalties on the Gardner, Hotchkiss, Nordenfeldt, and Gatling guns; and, if so, will he state how much royalty is paid on each of the respective guns and when the royalties will cease?
  MR POWELL- WILLIAMS: The War office is not paying royalties on any of the guns mooed in the Question.

  OUTRAGES AT POONA.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the grave state of affairs in India, he will advise the immediate return of the Government from Simla to Calcutta; and will he also make such arrangements for the future as will secure the presence of the employés at all seasons (save when on leave) in Calcutta, and thus obviate the necessity for the large annual expenditure involved in moving them to and from Simla?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have no intention of offering advice on this subject to the Government of India as I have complete confidence in their judgment as to the necessities of the situation. The question of the annual migration to and from Simla was carefully considered by one of my predecessors in office about nine years ago, and I see no reason for altering the arrangements which were then sanctioned.

  PLAGUE IN INDIA.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will provide facilities fur the discussion of the present critical condition of affairs in Poona?
  SIR L. McIVER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him a Question of which I have given him private notice? It is this—whether the Government have received any such information from Bombay as will enable the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary a State for India, to express an authoritative opinion upon the contents of the memorial relating to the measures adopted for the suppression of the plague which was mentioned by

  1119
  the hon. Member for Banffshire last week in connection with the recent murders in Poona?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer the Question, which will take precedence of that upon the Paper. The House will recollect that on Thursday last the hon. Member for Banffshire put to me a series of Questions, in connection with the Poona murders, upon the contents of a memorial addressed to the Bombay Government as to the methods adopted at Poona for the suppression of the plague. The memorial contained also allegations of gross misconduct against the search parties employed by the Government. The memorial was sent to me by the hon. Baronet the day before he put the Question, and it was unaccompanied by any statement supporting its allegations. I was unable then to express any opinion as to the credibility of its assertions, but I at once telegraphed to Lord Sandhurst asking him to send me a categorical reply to each series of accusations. In the meantime the memorial has been published, no doubt in good faith, by certain newspapers, and strong expressions of opinion have been given in the belief that these allegations and others even stronger by anonymous writers could not in the main be false. I have now a full reply from the Bombay Government, which I will read to the House. [Cheers.] It is of considerable length, but in the circumstances the House will feel that I am justified. ["Hear, hear!"] The reply is divided into several heads, and therefore each will be prefaced by a statement of the allegations to which it refers:—
  "From Governor, Bombay, July 4, 1897. Deccan Subha Memorial, dated May 10, and petition were not received till May 21., by which time the search, lime washing, and disinfecting parties had been discontinued and military camp broken up. Statements in petition grossly misleading."
  Allegation A:—
  "People are often sent to the plague hospital without a proper medical examination being previously made to satisfy the authorities that the persons removed are suffering from plague."
  Reply:—
  "People only sent to hospital after careful medical examination, and if showing symptoms indicative of possible plague."
  1120
  Allegation B:—
  "Relatives and neighbours of plague patients, and even passers-by, are at once hurried to the segregation camp, without being allowed time to make proper arrangements for the custody of the property in their houses."
  Reply:—
  "Greatest care was taken not to remove to segregation camp any but those necessary to keep under observation. Time was allowed for preparation, and one member of household was allowed to stay behind to look after property."
  Allegation C:—
  "In the inspection of inmates of houses sometimes persons are subjected to the indignity of being forced to remove all the clothes from their bodies in the presence of the members of the search parties and other people."
  Reply:—
  "I have not yet heard any allegations of indignity being substantiated. I know that genlteness and consideration were shown."
  [Cheers.] Allegation D:—
  "The native gentlemen who volunteered to accompany search parties, and were appointed by the committee to that duty, are slighted, and their suggestions are disregarded. In support of this we beg that reference may be made to these gentlemen, who, feeling that they are not properly trusted, decline to accompany the search parties."
  Reply:—
  "Native gentlemen were asked to accompany search parties, and did so to the very end. They were specialty desired to bring to notice all complaints which reached them and to mark down any offending soldier and report to officers."
  Allegation E:—
  "In the inspection of houses no respect is shown to the religious sentiments of natives. in regard to the sanctity of the kitchen and of rooms where worship is offered. In some cases the idols in the Hindoo temples have been polluted."
  Reply:—
  "Search parties were instructed to have regard to religious feelings. Possibility of abuse of those feelings minimised by the presence of native gentlemen."
  Allegation F:—
  "Notwithstanding the injunctions of the committee in that behalf, much mischief is done in regard of property in burning or destroying, though the rules of the committee require that only the bedding and the clothing of the deceased should be burnt."

  1121
  Reply:—
  "Special care was taken to avoid needless destruction of property, and compensation given for property destroyed."
  Allegation G:—
  "Persons occupying houses are threatened, and in some cases assaulted, When they remonstrate against the procedure followed by the search parties in the matter of forcibly opening locks and destroying property."
  Reply:—
  "No unnecessary violence was used in entering houses."
  Allegation H:—
  "In a few cases the modesty of native ladies has not been respected.''
  Reply:—
  "I do not believe the possibility of indignity to native women, owing to presence of lady doctors and other ladies with the search parties."
  ["Hear, hear!"] Allegation I:—
  "Complaints were made to the committee, but the persons injured have failed to obtain redress. The parties injured have no means of finding out the names of the soldiers who misbehave, and who thus bring discredit on the whole body."
  Reply:—
  "Officers were in plentiful attendance, and it was made known that complaints should be made to them. See also D as to agency employed. English soldiers amounted to little more than one-third of total number, remainder being natives. English soldiers employed mainly for search parties, and their employment certainly not more calculated to cause annoyance than employment of natives, and experience showed for this work the necessity for European agency where procurable. In Poona the only European agency obtainable on a large scale was military. Results show the great efficiency of system adopted."
  With respect to himself Lord Sandhurst says:—
  "I went to Poona to see about ladies and native gentlemen accompanying search parties; called together leaders of communities and explained what must be done, and that all regard would be paid to religious and other feelings, and asked their aid. I visited Poona twice during operations for inquiry and discussion with Rand and others; never could I find serious complaints substantiated. I kept close touch. hearing from Rand daily. No specific charge of misconduct was made to me during
  1122
  progress of the operations. I give strongest and most emphatic contradiction to the statement, that search parties exceeded instructions and grossly misconducted themselves. [Cheers.] The search parties when at work were under commissioned and non-commissioned officers. One of the ladies, Miss Bernard, having 20 years' experience zenana work, and most sympathetic to natives, authorises me to say that she was much struck by the gentleness of the officers and the control of the soldiers, that the officers impressed on the Men the delicate nature of the duties, that after the first day or two when there was some little apprehension which was easily allayed by the ladies and native gentlemen accompanying the search parties, they were met with cheerfulness; that Rand listened to all complaints and suggestions, and was kind and courteous to all. In Rand the Civil Service loses a most able and devoted officer. From inquiries made from various sources I am convinced that Poona owes gratitude to officers and men, English and natives, for the duties so well and so considerately performed."
  [Cheers.] I would only wish to add an expression of my own opinion on two matters. I would wish to endorse the high opinion entertained by Lord Sandhurst of the late Mr. Rand and his work ["Hear, hear!"] He was a most capable and promising public servant, who carried out with rare success the terrible trying duty of stamping out the plague in Poona. During the whole time he wits thus engaged he was subject to the most violent personal denunciation and defamation by a certain section of the Press and community. He has fallen a victim in the successful discharge of a great public duty, and I am sure that, under these circumstances, both Members of this House and the Press of this country will exercise great caution before they put into circulation statements calculated to defame his character and work, unless they are personally convinced of the accuracy of any charge they publish. [Cheers.] This caution will, I am sure, be observed also in reference to the more grave charges that, without one iota of evidence, are being made about military officers and their men. As to Lord Sandhurst, he has from the first outbreak of plague personally supervised and controlled the measures of its suppression. Whenever any hitch occurred either at Poona or Bombay he has personally visited the locality, and by his consideration, tact, and forethought reassured and carried with him the natives whom he has met. He emphatically repudiates these charges, and I unhesitatingly

  1123
  endorse his repudiation. [Cheers.] Lord Sandhurst's conduct throughout the whole period of these plague difficulties has been such as to merit and obtain the complete confidence of Her Majesty's Government, and I think I may add of his late political colleagues and associates. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): After what has fallen from my noble Friend, it is only necessary for me to say, in answer to the Question on the Paper, that, in the opinion of the Government, it is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interests that the discussion which the hon. Baronet desires should take place. [Cheers.]
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked whether the memorial referred to did not contain specific statements in proof or attempted proof of the different heads of complaint, and whether the reply contained any explicit explanation or denial of those statements?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In no single case has any serious charge of misconduct been substantiated.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether it was true, as reported in certain newspapers, that negotiations had been entered into by the police authorities with the rioters?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONdid not understand that there was any intention on the part of the Government that any compromise whatever should be come to between the police and the rioters.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether he was to take it that the statement in The Times was in error?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: So far as I know, you may take it that it is so.

  CASTLEBAR POST OFFICE.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the want of sanitary accommodation in the Castlebar Post Office, where the work has to be done by 12 officials in a room 12 feet square, without the slightest regard to ordinary sanitation, and will he see that proper sanitary accommodation is provided; is he aware
  1124
  that, with a population of 4,000, Castlebar is supplied with only one postman, and that it is impossible for one man to deliver letters in a town of that size in sufficient time for the replies to catch the Dublin mail train; and will he remedy such inconvenience by the appointment of another postman?
  MR. HANBURY: The room in which the main business of the Post Office at Castlebar is conducted measures 20 feet 9 inches by 14 feet 6 inches. The accommodation is inadequate, and for some time past the Postmaster General has been looking out for larger premises; but, although several proposals have been under consideration, nothing suitable has been as yet found at a cost which the amount of business would justify. The inquiry is still continuing. As regards the sanitary accommodation in the present office, it is reported to be the kind usually found in houses of that class. Two postmen are already employed at Castlebar, and inquiry is now being made to see whether the services of both these men cannot be utilised in the delivery of letters.

  WALLACE BEQUEST.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the decision arrived at by the Government with reference to the permanent housing of the Wallace Bequest?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As the House is aware, a Committee was appointed to consider the question dealt with by the hon. Gentleman in the interrogatory which he has addressed to me. That Committee has reported almost unanimously in favour of the purchase of Hertford House for the retention of the Wallace collection at Hertford House. The report of the Committee will be laid before Parliament very shortly. The Government propose to follow the advice given by the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

  KILKENNY WATER WORKS.
  MR. PATRIC O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can say why the Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill (No. 1), which relates to the

  1125
  Kilkenny Waterworks, and which got the Royal Assent on the 3rd ultimo, is not yet printed; whether he is aware that such delays in the printing of such Bills is usual, and causes much loss of time and inconvenience to those interested in carrying out the works authorised by such bills; what is the cause of the delay in this case; and, can he say when it will be issued? The hon. Member added that he did not propose to ask the first paragraph of the question, as the Bill referred to had now been issued.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not thoroughly understand, myself, the whole process that has to he gone through, but I am told that some delay is unavoidable, in order to get the statutes when passed into their proper order on the Statute-book, I am also informed that had the printers known that this was a matter of urgency the Bill would have been in the hands of the public at a somewhat earlier day than that at which it was offered for sale.

  DESTRUCTION OF CROPS (ESSEX).
  MAJOR RASCHasked the President of the board of Agriculture whether he could give any information as to the extent of the disaster occasioned by the recent storm in Essex?
  MR. LONGsaid he was unable at that moment to give any exact information as to the area affected by the recent storm in Essex, but he would endeavour to obtain it as speedily as possible from his inspector on the spot.

  INDIAN BUDGET.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether under present circumstances, he will fix the Debate on the Indian Budget for an early date?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think that there is any reason for giving a different answer than that which I have already given the hon. Gentleman in answer to the same Question in the course of the present Session. I am, of course, anxious to consult the convenience of the House in regard to this matter, but I doubt whether it would be desirable to make any, alteration in the ordinary date fixed.

  NAVAL WORKS [MONEY].
  MR. T. LOUGHasked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed this afternoon with the first Order on the Paper, the Naval Works (Committee).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he put down that Order on the Paper in deference to a wish expressed by the Leader of the Opposition last Friday, and he still thought that if the House would be content to take this stage sub silentio, as they did last year, and defer the discussion till the Second Reading of the Bill, it would be the most convenient course. He could not afford time to-night for this discussion, and if hon. Gentlemen desired such discussion at the present stage he should of course put off the Order.
  Considere din Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient—

  (a) to make provision for the construction of works and acquisition of land in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy;

  (b) to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £654,000, as may be required for such purposes; and

  (c) to authorise the application of the surplus set apart, under Section four of the the Naval Works Act 1896, to the payment of the expenses of such works." —(Mr. Austen Chamberlam.)

  MR. LLOYD GEORGEsubmitted that it was unreasonable that money should be voted without any explanation on the part of the department concerned. The Committee had only a vague general idea as to what the money was for. He thought there ought to be some explanation, otherwise it would be his duty to move to report progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUERsaid the Bill did not authorise the raising of any new money at all. What happened last year was that the surplus of 1895–96 Was voted by Parliament for the purposes of naval works, and the proposed Bill would simply increase the power of the

  1127
  Admiralty to spend the money which had been already provided by Parliament for that very purpose.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE MR. LLOYD GEORGE moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Clause 4.

  COMPENSATION TO WORKMEN IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF EMPLOYER.
  Where any employer becomes liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman or his representatives in respect of any accident and is entitled to any sum from insurers in respect of such liability, then in the event of the bankruptcy or liquidation of such employer such workman or representative shall have a charge upon the sum aforesaid for the payment of the money so due to him.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool) moved to insert after Clause 4 the following clause:—

  RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM STRANGER.
  "Where the injury was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof the workman may, at his option, proceed either at law against that person to recover damages or against his employer for compensation under this Act, but not against both, and if compensation be paid under this Act the employer shall be entitled to be indemnified by the said other person."
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsupported the clause as being a distinct improvement on the original clause.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSrose to move the rejection of the clause on the ground that the principle involved in it was one which ought not to be adopted. The principle was that it was not right to make an employer liable for the act of a stranger over whom he had no control, either direct or indirect. It would be a novel principle to incorporate not only in a Bill of this kind, but in respect of a liability between citizen and citizen. The Home Secretary pointed out that if this clause was adopted he would have to amend the form of Clause 1; but that remark raised the question whether the House of Commons was to introduce for the first time a principle hitherto unknown in English law, and utterly inconsistent with justice. If the Committee were discussing the matter, not as between employer and employed, but as between citizen and citizen, he did not believe that any hon. Member would suggest that it would be consonant with natural justice to make one man liable for the wrong brought about by another, and in respect of whose act the employer had no control either direct or indirect. It was suggested that the point might be met by the principle of insurance. The answer to that was that they could not remedy an injustice which was created by making an employer insure in respect of a liability under which he ought never to have been placed. In the case of the smaller employer it was doubtful whether the principle of insurance would apply at all. Take the case of a small employer who employed workmen almost as well-off as himself, and assume that a workman was injured by the act of some stranger for whom the employer was not liable directly or indirectly. If the workman was injured, or if death was caused, the full responsibility for the act of the stranger would, in the first case, be transferred to the shoulders of the employer. What could be more unjust than the case of a small employer who was being ruined by a liability of that kind in order that they might give this special form of remedy to the employé against his employer? If a workman had a liability to impose on any one let him impose it on the person who had caused the injury. Suppose, again, the man who had caused the injury was a mere man of straw, or a man against whom the

  1129
  employer could not proceed. The Committee threw the responsibility on the employer; they made one citizen responsible for the act of another; and he challenged any hon. Member to show an instance where up to this moment such a principle had been adopted. The Committee had been told that at certain stages of this Bill they had to throw logic on one side and justice was to be disregarded. If they attempted to bury the phantom of logic he thought it would arise in the form of a convincing deity before long. He heard the Colonial Secretary say that justice was to be disregarded because the Committee were dealing with a question of expediency. But in matters of legislation they could not disregard justice except on one principle—and that was when they sacrificed a less justice in order to obtain a greater; and if on any other principle they sacrificed logic and justice they obtained a cynical opportunism which ought not to be taken as the basis of any legislation. [Cheers.]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that his hon. and learned Friend had misunderstood the point of the Amendment. The House had decided by Clause I. that there should be compensation for injury by accident; and then, that where such injury should he caused by the act of a stranger a workman might have the option ion of suing either at law or against his employer for compensation. That having been the result of the decision of the House he had undertaken to put the matter in a better form, and the whole effect of the clause against which such strong language had been used was to give the indemnity over to the employer against the third person.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that it was obviously the intention of some hon. Gentlemen to discuss the principle underlying the Bill. But that was not the most convenient time to select for the purpose. The time to select was when the first clause had to be dealt with. This clause gave the employer an indemnity over and against any stranger who might have caused an accident.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERcould not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was not the proper occasion to discuss a question of principle. He observed that those who
  1130
  supported the Bill always thought that criticism ought to be deferred to a more convenient season, though it was seldom pointed out when that season should arrive. It was urged that criticism on this clause ought to be reserved until the Committee was asked to discuss another clause of the Bill; but if that advice were taken hon. Members would then be told that the Committee already affirmed the principle, and that it was too late to reopen the question. The Attorney General upbraided his hon. and learned Friend for speaking at great length; but he thought that his hon. Friend had condensed his remarks within very narrow compass. The House was now a Court of Appeal. It was their duty to review the decisions of the Committee, and he hoped they would reverse a great deal of what the Committee did, for they had played fast and loose with the fundamental principles which had hitherto guided the legislation of this country. The House was asked to agree that a person was to be responsible for the acts of individuals over whom he had no control whatever. He could conceive of nothing more strenuously unjust. It was all very well to be benevolent and charitable at other people's expense; but he hoped the House would bear in mind that a clause such as this committed them to the enunciation of a doctrine fraught with danger of injustice to all persons concerned. They might be told it would affect only one class—the employers. He ventured to say the workmen themselves would have cause to find the greatest fault with legislation that was likely to drive capital and trade out of the country. The principle contained in this clause appeared to him to be, if possible, more unjust than a great deal already in the Bill; and as there would be no opportunity of eliminating it, he hoped the right hon. anal learned Gentleman would give ear to the appeals which had been made to the House's sense of. justice. He did not approach the subject with any prejudice. He had always thought that compensation should be paid from smite quarter to those upon whom misfortune fell in the course of their employment. But he could not see why the whole burden of what was really a national obligation should fall on one class. He protested altogether against such legislation. He had hoped that

  1131
  some scheme would be found under which the burden should he more fairly distributed over the whole community; and he trusted the Government would at this stage of the Bill devise some method of avoiding what seemed to him to be rank injustice.
  MR. J. WILSONwished to say a word as to the meaning of the proposed substitutionary clause. The words of the first clause, to which the Attorney General had referred were very plain, and defined clearly that it was against the stranger that the employer would have to go for an indemnity. The clause that was to be substituted was much broader in character. He understood the definition of "a stranger" in the first clause to be some one altogether out of the employment. The new clause said that "where the injury was caused under circumstances creating legal liability in some person other than the employer," and he wanted a definition of "other persons." He took it that the words meant any person either in the same employ or outside it. He would put a case to `the Attorney General or any other hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. Suppose a foreman, or any other person in the same employment, should be the cause of injury to a workman; as he read the clause, the employer would have an indemnity against that other person. A great deal had been said about the workman getting benefit from the Bill. He failed to see how he was going to get much benefit if Amendments of this sort were introduced. Many, if not most of the Amendments already inserted into the Bill had been, in his opinion, to the detriment of the workman. He wanted to know, therefore, whether under this clause an employer would be entitled to get an indemnity for any man in his employ who caused injury to another. Not only for the working of the Bill, if passed into an Act, but also to justify the acceptance of this clause, they ought to have some statement from those in charge of the Bill as to what "other person" would include. In his opinion the terms of the Bill as it stood were better, for they knew that it was against the stranger only that the employer could proceed. Perhaps the Attorney General would tell them that "other person" meant a stranger outside
  1132
  the employment, but they ought to know clearly what was meant.
  MR. CHARLES RENSHAWreminded the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, if he remembered correctly, the Amendment giving the employer the right of claiming indemnity was put into the Bill in the Committee stage without being even on the Paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the hon. Member was in error.
  *MR. RENSHAWsaid at all events there was very little discussion upon it. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee stage was taken very quickly after the Second Reading. Members had had an opportunity of meeting their constituents between Committee and Report on the provisions of the Bill. He should like to say with regard to this point that the question raised in the clause, or in Clause I., when it was reached, had been unanimously disapproved at a large meeting of employers in the County of Renfrew. They regarded it as going far beyond the original scope and intention of the Bill. Speaking as an employer, it seemed to him that they were being placed in a very unfair position, even though the term "stranger" was not used, but he was introduced under the alias of "some person other than the employer." Grave as was the burden thrown on the employer by the provision originally introduced, it would be materially increased by this clause, and he hoped the Government would not pass it. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs spoke as if the clause dealt only with the act of a foreman. It was not, he apprehended, the act of any foreman that employers generally were anxious about under this clause—it was the interference of absolutely outside individuals; and it was because they protested against being made responsible for the actions of persons in whom they had no interest, and over whom they had no control, that he should vote against the insertion of the clause.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYwished to say one word before the right hon. Gentleman replied, because the Bill had been rushed through the House and many hon. Members had but a vague idea as to its effect. The Bill contained a principle which, as a hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said, had not hitherto been recognised in any of our legislation. Take a

  1133
  case or two to show what would be the effect of this Amendment. A workman in the course of his employment had to go a journey by railway, and the man was injured. He gathered from this clause that the Workman would have the right to claim compensation from his employer for an accident caused by a railway company, over which, of course, he had no control whatever.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Oh, no.
  Sir J. JOICEYsaid he would like the House to be satisfied on that point. They had been led to understand that the Bill was to do away with litigation and law expenses; but, assuming that, he was right in his view of the clause, the employer, after appearing before the arbitrator, would have to sue the railway company, and there would be more litigation and more costs. Take another case. An employer found it, necessary to send a workman from one pant of London to another; and in crossing Piccadilly the man was knocked down by an omnibus or cart. He gathered from this clause that the workman would have the right first of going against his employer for an accident with which his employer had nothing to do, and the employer would have to take his chance of whether the owner of the vehicle was a man of means or not. He should be glad to be satisfied by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the cases he had mentioned would be comprised in the clause; because if they were, there was, in his judgment, something in the principle here laid down that the country ought to be informed of before the House passed such legislation as this. They were making such departure that nobody knew what it would lead to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)said he would not discuss the whole principle of the Bill on this clause. The opposition to the clause was largely due to misunderstanding. The two cases the hon. Baronet opposite had given would not involve the employer in liability. In reply to his hon. Friend behind him, he might make the same remark. He did not see what ground he had for fear. According to the Bill, the accidents to workmen, for which the employer would be liable, must arise "in the course of his employment or arise out of his employment." If a man in the
  1134
  employ of a railway company met with an accident, due to a defect in machinery, owing to the negligence of the person supplying the machine, the clause gave the workman the option of going against the person who supplied the machine instead of the railway company, and gave the company a remainder over against the person who supplied the machine. This diminished the employer's liability rather than increased it. If a carpenter, in works subject to the Bill, ran over a workman, the workman in that case would have the option of two remedies. Whether the clause was right or wrong, it was not open to the objection that had been raised against it. The whole object of the Government was to make clear and improve the phraseology of an Amendment which hall been accepted without opposition from any quarter.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYcontended that the words of the clause did not create any liability which was not created by the words of the Bill. They were words of procedure, which placed employers in a better position than otherwise. They did not apply to any cases but those arising in the course of or out of employment, in which alone the workman was entitled to compensation. The words created no new liability, and in the interets of the employer it would be dangerous to omit them from the Bill.
  *SIR ALFRED HICKMANsaid that if a workman brought an action against a third party, from whom he had received injury while following his employment, the latter might plead contributory negligence. But the man's employer could not, when sued, plead this, however justified, and that was an unfair position for the employer to be placed in.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that this clause created no new liability, though it might enlarge or extend what was or would be enacted when they came to Clause 1. He himself was in favour of the clause for several reasons. He could see nothing more unjust in making an employer liable for the act of a stranger than in making him liable for "the act of God." Under the Bill he was clearly liable for the latter if the injury arose out of or in the course of the workman's employment. It was

  1135
  clear that the cases put by the hon. Member for Durham would fall within the scope of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The point has been foreseen, and there are Amendments on the Paper expressly to include these cases.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he had not observed them, though he had studied the Amendments. It was quite clear under the Bill that if a commercial traveller sustained personal injury on the railway while soliciting orders for his firm the latter were liable to pay compensation. The right hon. Member for Thanet said the Bill was founded on no doctrine of moral responsibility whatever. [Cheers.] Moral responsibility had nothing whatever to do with it. [Renewed cheers.] The Secretary for the Colonies had said so over and over again. The theory of the Bill was not that the employer should be liable in some respect in which he was blameworthy, but that what was called "the trade" should be made liable as one of its necessary and incidental expenses for all injuries sustained. On whom that would fall was a question about which they might argue. The clause was necessary for the protection of the employer, and to make clear and definite the rights of the workman. If the Bill were left without the clause, it might be argued that the workman, being given this right of compensation, had forfeited the right he would have had against a third person. But if the clause was not passed, the employer, who was bound to pay compensation to his workman for the wrongful act of another, could not sue the latter for indemnity.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid employers of labour entertained grave apprehension about this clause. It was to his mind unjust that any person should be made responsible for the act of another person of whom he might know nothing whatever, and over whom in many cases he had no control whatever. Natural justice revolted against it. He believed that insurance would be impossible except at such high rates as would impose a most unjust burden upon trade. He hoped the Government would reconsider their course.
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAsubmitted that nine-tenths of the discussion on this clause had not been relevant, as the words "where the injury
  1136
  was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability" were governed by the preceding words in Clause 1, where a legal liability was defined. The words in the first clause to which he referred were,—
  "If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman,"
  and the discussion they had listened to would be relevant on the point as to whether those words were a sufficient definition of an accident in order to enable a workman to get compensation. It was not, however, relevant, he submitted, to this particular clause, which simply gave a relief to the employer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the intention of this clause was on the introduction of this Measure distinctly repudiated by the Secretary for the Colonies. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid their view was that it was in the original Bill; this clause did not make it any different, but only made clearer what was intended.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman, on the introduction of the Bill, said they were dealing, not with accidents caused by negligence, but with inevitable accident or misfortune. Now this clause dealt solely with accidents caused either by guilt or negligence. It stood to reason, therefore, that this clause was never thought of when the Bill was introduced, but was now brought forward owing to the irresistible pressure which had been exercised. It seemed to him that the right hon. Member for East Fife had given a diametrically different construction of the clause to that put upon it by the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney General, and he thought it was absolutely imperative for Members on that side who objected to the clause to divide upon it. They had been surprised to see the Amendments at this stage put down in the name of the Home Secretary, as it was the Secretary for the Colonies who took charge of the Bill in the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, had put down 92 Amendments, which together were greater in length than the whole of the original Bill, including the Schedule.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order; The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No, Sir; I was commenting on the inconvenience of having the Amendment of one Minister explained by another. [Laughter.] He thought they ought to have some further explanation from the originator of this clause. He cited the case of a workman who, while travelling on a railway in the service of his employer, met with an accident. He denied that any subsequent Amendments upon the Paper modified this clause—they left the clause exactly as it stood. This clause showed for the first time the injustice, in all its naked proportions, that would be inflected by some of the provisions of this Bill. It seemed that logic, justice, and responsibility had gone. It had been shown that this clause would impose a liability on the employer unknown to English law, and he hoped that every Member who believed in the principle which was the bed-rock of the Tory Party—that honestly earned property should he safeguarded—would vote against this clause.
  MR. W. ALLANasked why the words "or firm" were not inserted after the words "in some person?" There were many cases where a workman was injured by the negligence of a man. and could not discover who the man was, although he would knew by what firm he was employed. He instanced the case of an engineer who was employed in a shipyard on the outside of a vessel, and a man up above let fall upon him a rivet or hammer, by which he was killed or seriously injured. Such cases were of common occurrence, and the injured man might often be Unable to discover who was the actual man by whose negligence he was injured. He thought the clause needed Amendment so as to cover firms employing "other persons."
  *SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHthought the House was entitled to a little more information in regard to the effect of the clause before they disposed of it. He was a loyal supporter of the Bill, but if the interpretation of the clause given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was correct, then none of the employers of the country had any adequate conception of the enormous scope and
  1138
  application of the Bill. It seemed that not only were employers to be responsible for all accidents that took place in the course of their employment, but they were to be responsible for a number of accidents under circumstances that none of them ever supposed would be included within the scope of the Measure. He thought the House was entitled to information from those in charge of the Bill as to whether the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he could only speak again by leave of the House. He desired to make perfectly plain that the clause did not increase the liability of employers at all. ["Hear, hear!"] If anything it was in favour of employers. ["Hear, hear!"] Take the case of an engine which had been so badly put together that while working in a mill the fly-wheel went to pieces and injured 20 persons. That being an accident which happened in the course of employment there would he compensation under the Bill and the compensation would he payable by the employer of the workmen—that was the mill-owner; but as the accident was really occasioned by the engine maker the object of the clause was to give to the employer a remedy against him. There was another case—the case of an employer who sent his carter to the railway station in order to unload goods from trucks, and a crane which was badly managed led to an accident in which the leg of a railway porter and the leg of the man who was sent with the cart were broken. There would be no remedy by the carter against his employer for that accident, but he would have a remedy against the railway company for negligence, and, of course, the railway porter would also have a remedy against the railway company as he was in their employment.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEput the case of a man sent on an errand by his employer, and run over at the level crossing, through his own wilful negligence. The defence of contributory negligence would be good for the railway company against any claim by the injured man. But would the employer he able to plead the same defence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The employer would not be liable at all.
  MR. GEDGEsaid that the point was likely to lead to litigation, and the House was entitled to an authoritative declaration on the point. This clause would increase the liability of the employer far beyond anything contemplated when the Bill was read a Second time. Nothing could more increase litigation than a provision giving the workman the choice of two kinds of action, one of them involving another action. It was no answer to say that the employer's liability would be covered by insurance; because in the long run insurance must be more costly than damages. Insurance only distributed the payment; and the insurance company had to make the profit. Since the Second Reading he had consulted his constituents, and he found that every employer, Conservative and Radical alike, was diametrically opposed to this Bill and to any extension of it.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid it was a surprise to find this clause defended on the ground that it was necessary, for the protection of the employer. It had been conceived on the ether side in quite a different spirit. At present there was a provision in the Bill to the effect that the contractor was liable for his own men; but the Home Secretary had an Amendment on the Paper to omit that provision, and that fact gave much more significance to the clause under discussion. He entirely accepted the principle of this Bill, but the present point could only be justified by regarding the Measure as an insurance scheme carried out to the fullest extent. But the employers had not yet been convinced that the charge which this Bill would impose was a charge which could justly be passed on to the public; and they would feel it as a great injustice if their liability were extended to the case where the workman was injured by the act or neglect of a stranger, over whom the employer had no control. The Government would be doing an ill-service to the Bill if they insisted on a provision which, on their own showing was of no particular value to the workman, and which raised the greatest feeling of resentment among the employers.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid that the explanation given by the Attorney General did not meet the case put by the hon. Member for King's
  1140
  Lynn—that of the workman of one employer injured through the fault of the workman of another employer. Would the employer of the injured man have the right of action against the other man's employer? The right hon. Member for Fife had not defended this clause on the ground that it was necessary for the employer's protection. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that if the employer was made responsible for the act of God, why not also for the act of a stranger? That argument would not commend itself to the employers in those trades affected by the Bill.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were quite clear that the Amendment was a limiting Amendment in the interests of the employer. Under the Bill the employer was liable for injury to his workman, whether the employer was to blame for the injury or not. This clause did not extend this principle. It only proposed to give a remedy against the stranger, for whose act the employer was already liable under the Bill. As the clause originally stood, the remedy given to the employer was only against the stranger, but now, as amended by the Government, it was given against everybody, including the foreman and fellow workman. Therefore, the employer was given something which he did not possess before. He consoled with the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill as good men struggling with adversity. The Debate on this clause had gone, not against small points, but against the whole principle of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 351; Noes, 43.—(Division List, No. 266).
  Clause read a Second time.
  MR. GEDGEsaid that he had to move a slight addition to the clause in order that the remedy which was afforded should not be an illusory one.
  SIR R. REIDdesired to move a verbal Amendment in the clause to carry out the purpose which had been indicated He moved to leave out the word "not"

  1141
  in order to insert the words "may not recover."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it seemed to him that this was a very considerable alteration to make in the clause. It allowed a man to proceed against both parties, and opened the possibility of a new course of procedure to the workman by providing him with two courses.
  Sin R. REIDsaid he would not press the Amendment if it was not looked upon as a verbal one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GEDGE MR. GEDGE moved to add at the end of the clause,—
  "The employer may in any such action avail himself of any defence which such person might avail himself."
  He pointed out that unless words like these were added, the employer might be found liable for the accident, and that when he tried to obtain his remedy against the real author who had been negligent he might entirely fail, because he did not give evidence of contributory negligence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out in reply that in the action the employer would be the plaintiff and not the defendant, and thus the words "avail himself of" would not apply. The scheme of the Bill was that the workman should bring his action against the employer, and that then the employer should bring his action against the third person.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSasked whether the House was to understand that where a person had been injured by a stranger, and where the servant had contributed by his own negigence, the employer was to be debarred from setting up the defence in the action? This was a point which deserved the careful consideration of the Government. Even when they had abandoned moral responsibility and the claims of justice, there came a point when equity would arouse even the House of Commons to resentment; and this point was reached when they allowed the man who caused the accident to plead a defence against the employer which the employer could not plead against the man who caused the accident.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERpressed for a word of explanation from the Government on a point felt to be of great importance.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONasked whether it was intended by the words to give a complete indemnity to the employer in this case, or was a liability put upon him which he would not have apart from these words? Was the liability of the person who originally caused the accident to be extended by these words? Supposing the employer tried to get rid of the liability by insurance, would the person who caused the injury be entitled to say in advance against the action by the employer that the employer was insured?
  SIR A. FORWOODrepeated the concrete case put by the hon. Member for Gateshead to the Government. An employer sent one of his engineers to work at the boring out of the post of a ship. A man dropped a hammer upon the engineer, and the engineer's employer would have to compensate the man. Would the employer of the engineer have a right of action against the employer of the man who dropped the hammer?
  MR. ASQITHconsidered it was perfectly clear in that case that the workman would have a right to claim compensation from the employer. In the case put by the hon. Member for St. Albans the injured workman would have a right to claim compensation against his employer, but the employer would not have a right to be indemnified by either the workman who did the injury or the employer of the workman. The measure of liability imposed on the employer by this Bill was distinctly different from the liability which existed under common law or statute. This Amendment was a very good illustration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdid not think that the Attorney General had grappled with the case put before him. Was the employer not to have the same defence as the stranger himself? It seemed to be just that the employer should have the same defence.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid the intention was perfectly clear that by the Bill it was not intended to give the employer the same remedy against the stranger as the employé had against the employer. Supposing a man who had come from engineering works in London with a bolt

  1143
  in his pocket to do certain work should be run over by his own carelessness, and it was shown that he had contributed by his own negligence to the accident. By this Bill the employer would have to pay full compensation, but when he proceeded against the stranger it would be pleaded that the employé, not having used proper precautions, no case lay against the stranger.
  MR. HAREY FOSTERasked whether no Member of the Government was going to rise to deal with the point? Was it to be left to the late Home Secretary to explain it? This indemnity was no real indemnity to the employer at all. It was going a long way in the direction of injustice to say that the employer was to be liable for the act of a stranger. The House was prepared to go that length, but the House was also told that the employer in his turn, though possessing a right of indemnity against the person who had brought about the accident, would not be able to plead contributory negligence. The stranger, on the other hand, would he able to plead contributory negligence against the action of the employé. If that be so, then the indemnity was clearly an illusory one.
  MR. RENSHAWasked whether the Government would accept these words,—
  "Such other person shall not be allowed to avail himself of any defence which would not be open to the employer."
  [cheers.]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that he could not accept the words, because they would enlarge the liability of the person in circumstances contrary to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was that an employer against whom a claim was made by a workman should not be allowed to plead contributory negligence. It was part of the system which formed the scheme of the Bill, that for this purpose contributory negligence should not be pleaded. Now, it was sought to say that the liability which was put upon the employer should also be put upon the third person. That was plainly beyond the scope of the Bill. The special liability which it had been thought desirable to impose upon the employer was not one that ought to be imposed upon
  1144
  the third person in this roundabout way. The Government, therefore, must adhere to the principle of the Bill; and if a third person had any good defence to a claim brought against him, there would be no legal liability on him.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid that after the reply of the Attorney General it appeared to him that they would have to trust for legal guidance to the late Home Secretary—they were not going to get any on their own side of the House. It seemed that the liability put upon the employer was far greater than he had any means of remedying. It amounted to this—that while your workmen might come upon you under this Bill and bar you from pleading the doctrine of contributory negligence, you went into the fight with one hand tied behind your hack, because the third person could plead against you the doctrine which you are debarred from pleading against your workman. It showed the danger of accepting Amendments without sufficiently considering how far they went. Personally he was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he did insist in his capacity as an employer, that he should receive, at any rate, equitable treatment at the hands of the Government.
  MR. GEDGEsaid that, after the unmistakable expression of the opinion of the House, he did not wish to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RENSHAWproposed to add to the clause the words—
  "Such other person shall not be allowed to avail himself of any defence which would not be open to the employer."
  He thought that in submitting these words to the consideration of hon. Members, he might fairly appeal to their sense of justice. It was monstrous that the employer should be put in the position which he understood, from what had fallen from the Attorney General and the late Home Secretary, he would be placed in if this Bill were placed in the Statute-book in the form proposed. He hoped their common sense of what was just to employers would prevent them from being placed in that false position.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that in again repeating that it was not possible for the Government to 'accept the Amendment, he only desired to make one observation. The hon. Member for Dumbarton, who was no longer in his place, had complained of the absence of legal assistance from members of the Government. He did not wish to say anything about himself, but he did not think, in view of what passed in Committee and of the assistance which Ministers endeavoured to give on legal points, that Members on their side of the House were in any way justified in such an observation. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to this particular Amendment, he must again point out that it could not possibly be accepted, because by this Bill they were dealing with the liability of the employer and not with the liability of a third person. It might be right or wrong to say that when compensation was claimed under the Bill, the employer did not have the defence of contributory negligence. The hon. Gentleman did not propose an Amendment which would enable an employer to avail himself of that plea. He was only desirous that in a case in which there happened to be a remedy against a third person, this third person should not he allowed to plead the contributory negligence of the person injured. It was perfectly obvious that such an Amendment was not in accordance with the principle of the Bill. They had altered the law, rightly or wrongly, by saying that where compensation was claimed against an employer, the employer should not be allowed to plead the contributory negligence of the workman. It was not possible to go further and say that a third person who had nothing to do with the matter except that he was liable to an action should also have his right of defence cut down.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrew seemed to him to be out of order, being outside the scope of the Bill. It was impossible to introduce in this Bill an Amendment to deprive a large class of persons, who were neither the employers nor the employed, of their common law rights.
  Sin J. JOICEY, On a point of order, submitted that the Bill did put a liability on a third person—["No, no!"]—when it gave the employer the right to sue a
  1146
  third person, and the only thing they were seeking to do was to make it possible for the employer to recover the full amount of compensation he had to pay in consequence of that person's act.
  *MR.SPEAKERsaid the workman might sue the third person, and the Bill only gave the employer the same right that the workman possessed. The Amendment was clearly out of order.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that in the original clause the employer, after compensating the workman, was entitled to recover in the name of the workman such damages as he could himself recover. Under this clause the employer was to have against the third person a right to an indemnity. Now the liability for indemnity thus cast upon the third person might be considerably larger than any right to damages which might be asserted and maintained by the workman. Surely it was not intended that the liability of the third person should be enlarged by the procedure provided in this Bill. If time workman were to elect to sue the third person, he might recover such damages as a jury might award. If he elected to go against his employer he would get compensation of a certain kind, according to a rather intricate schedule—it might be £1 a week for life. It could not be intended to cast upon the third person an obligation to indemnify the employer against his liability to give a pension for life. Clearly some words of limitation were needed, and he proposed to add to the clause, which he took it would now be adopted by the House, the following words:—"The employer shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person to the extent of such damages and costs as the workman might have recovered against such other person by an independent action."
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid there had been no oversight in putting the words on the Paper. The clause was advisedly intended to cover the very special difficulty raised by his hon. and learned Friend and he was told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, that the case was amply met by the words on the Paper. He was not himself a lawyer, and he was bound to accept the Attorney General's assurance.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid the words on the Paper were:—"shall he entitled to be indemnified by the said other person." It came to this, that if a stranger driving a dogcart ran over a workman in the street, who was there in the course of his employment, the workman might obtain from his employer a pension of £1 a week; and the employer under this clause was entitled to recover as against the third person, who might have injured the workman through no fault of his own—the thing might be a simple accident. The employer was thus given a right against outside public far exceeding anything the workman could recover as damages in a court of law. Under the principles of the Bill it might be quite right to impose liability for this larger compensation upon the employer, but it was not intended that such an extended liability should fall upon the general public.
  SIR R. REIDdid not agree with his hon. Friend. If a person by his neglect caused an accident in such a manner that he was now liable by law to pay compensation for, the compensation, awarded by whatever tribunal, would be fair and full. If that was the case, he could not see why the employer should not recover the damages and thus be indemnified. That was what was intended, and it was only just.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that if a workman was entitled as against his employer to £500, but might have recovered from the other person £1,000, this Amendment would entitle the employer to get the £1,000 from the other person—and he thought he ought to have it.
  MR. GEDGEsaid the proposal was that the employer should be indemnified for what he paid. There could be no question of profit or loss.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONwithdrew his Amendment.
  MR. HALDANE MR. HALDANE moved the following clause:—

  (1) Where, in any employment to which this Act applies, personal injury is caused to a workman by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the workman's employer, the workman, or in case of death, his representatives. shall have the same right to compensation and remedies against the employer as if the workman had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer, nor engaged in his work.

  1148

  (2) A workman shall not be deemed to have accepted any risk incident to his employment by reason only of his having entered upon or continued in the employment after he knew of the risk.

  He said this clause was happily less contentious than the last. There was hardly any hon. Member representing a working class constituency but had pledged himself on whatever side of the House he sat against the doctrine of common employment. It was against that doctrine that the new clause was levied. It proposed to put the workman in the same position as regarded his remedies that a stranger would be. Anyone who had taken the trouble to follow the course of the discussion of this topic in the House of Commons during the last sixteen years knew that opinion had been rapidly coming to a head upon it. Since 1880 there had been a great development of opinion in the direction of abolishing the doctrine and we had got to a stage when the majority of hon. Members thought it unjust and ought to be abolished, and in the evidence taken by the Royal Commission on Labour if there was any topic on which the representatives of labour were most agreed it was this. The doctrine of common employment worked unfairly in practice and was indefensible in principle. It put the workman in a worse position than a stranger in the face of accidents for which he would have compensation under ordinary principles of justice. The doctrine led to injustice, because there was no real relationship between the workman injured and the employer. It was said in 1893 that an employer was liable to a stranger, and why should he not be liable for a fellow workman. Did moral justice go further in one case than in the other? In morals there was no distinction except by a legal fiction which had come in and prevented the workman recovering. The doctrine was originated sixty years ago by Lord Abinger, a great judge of highly technical mind. But the courts did not limit the defence of common employment to cases in which men were in the same employment or working at the same spot. The doctrine of common employment was invented by English Judges, but it had not been recognised in the Scotch Courts. As far as he was aware it did not exist

  1149
  in any continental system of jurisprudence, and it had been condemned by many eminent legal authorities. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to assist him in getting rid of a doctrine which was founded upon injustice, could not be defended in principle, and was a scandal to our jurisprudence.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he must confess he was unable to understand the object of this new clause, still less did he understand the object of the interesting speech which his hon. and learned Friend had made in support of it. His hon. and learned Friend had told the House the whole history of the doctrine of common employment from the beginning, with variations and incursions into Scottish jurisprudence, and although he thought the House was well acquainted with the subject, he should not have complained had it had any bearing whatever on the present Amendment. But the present clause proposed to abolish the doctrine of common employment, not universally—in that case there would leave been something in the argument of his hon. and learned Friend—but in any employment to which this Act applied. What was the case in the Bill in regard to any employment to which this Act applied? Why, the doctrine of common employment was abolished in every case of an employment to which this Act applied. ["Hear, hear!"] If an accident occurred through the negligence of a fellow-workman, the doctrine of common employment went to the wall and the workman was entitled to claim damages under the Bill. The only object of this clause must be to give him an alternative process, and to say that in the case, and only in the case in which an accident was due to the negligence of a fellow workman, the injured man was to have not only the opportunities which were given him under this Bill, but "the same right to compensation and remedies against the employer," and so on, as if the accident had occurred through the negligence of a stranger.
  MR. HALDANEsaid there was one very large class of cases to which this applied; he thought the right hon. Gentleman had recently said that I hey were 25 per cent. of the total number of accidents. He referred to cases where a man received an injury, but was not disabled for a fortnight.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked if the object of this clause was to give an opportunity of having an action for damages in the case of an accident which did not incapacitate him for work for more than a fortnight, and where that accident was due to the negligence of a fellow-workman.
  MR. HALDANEassented.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that class of cases certainly would not be anything like 25 per cent. What he had said was that the number of accidents which only incapacitated for less than a fortnight amounted to 25 per cent. of the total number of accidents, but they were not by any means all due to the negligence of fellow-workmen. Now that he understood exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would say that he must not ask them to overburden this Bill. He certainly did not believe that to do so at that time would be in the interests of the workmen; moreover, it would materially complicate what they desired to simplify, it would raise a new question continually, and would bring within the possibility of litigation all these cases of short accidents, which, after all, were hardly worthy of the attention of the Legislature, and were rather cases to be attended to by the friendly societies. It would raise such a crop of difficulties that they could not possibly undertake to deal with them. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would show himself to be a friend of the Bill, and would understand the line they had definitely taken. They had gone as far as they thought they ought to, and were not prepared in any such way as this to increase the scope of the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid the working classes of this country had for some time been anxious to have the doctrine of common employment abolished. He pointed out that this Bill did not apply to all the industries of the country.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Baronet was speaking outside the Amendment.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid the working classes of this country had for some time been anxious to have the doctrine of common employment abolished. If they had put it to any audience of working men during the last election what was

  1151
  the chief thing they required in connection with employers' liability, he thought the answer would have been abolition of the doctrine of common employment. The Government had done something for the working classes which they had not asked for, but they refused to give them what they demanded by means of their representatives. He was surprised that the Government had not, at all events, made an attempt to deal with this important question. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman only alluded to one class of cases, namely, where the effect of an accident lasted only for two weeks. But this Bill did not extend to the whole of the industries of the country.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: You are outside the Amendment.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid the Government were not bringing forward any Amendment to deal with this question. [Cries of "Question!"] He wished to take this opportunity of raising the question. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the matter to a Division, because he did not think that that was an opportune time for dealing with the matter, but he could not but blame the Government for not attempting to carry out some of the pledges which were scattered broadcast at the time of the General Election.
  MR. McKENNAsaid this Amendment would include amongst those persons whose act or fault the employer was responsible for the fellow-workman of the injured workman. In that sense he submitted it was a valuable Amendment, and a simple way of abolishing the doctrine of common employment. He was afraid the Amendment would not include accidents lasting under 14 days, but, so far as the first part of the Amendment was concerned, he thought the proposal was a very valuable one.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERhoped the Amendment would receive a little more consideration. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he had not quite understood it.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid the essential point in the creed of those engaged in this question was to take any and every opportunity of endeavouring to abolish this ridiculous fig-
  1152
  ment made by lawyers, known as the doctrine of common employment, which had never been enacted by that House.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was not prepared to defend the doctrine of common employment. [Opposition cheers.] This Bill in no way defended that doctrine. Instead of putting the workman on the same level as a stranger, the Bill avowedly put him in a better position. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggested that they should make a declaration that it was desirable that common employment should be abolished. That would be inopportune, both in regard to workmen inside the Bill and workmen outside the Bill.
  *MR. G. J. BUTCHERsaid he agreed with everything his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddington had said as to the mischievous character of the doctrine of common employment. That doctrine was wrong in principle, and it had worked hardship in practice. But when his hon. and learned Friend threw the blame on the English Judges, he would remind him that the doctrine was an importation from America, and a very bad importation too. He could not, however, support the Amendment, because to the trades to which the Bill applied it would be of little advantage whatever, because the Bill provided compensation for all accidents without regard to the doctrine of common employment, while in regard to those trades to which the Bill did not apply, the Amendment would give no relief whatever from the hardships of the doctrine of common employment. That would be an unsatisfactory and piecemeal way of dealing with a great subject. If his hon. and learned Friend endeavoured by way of a separate Bill to remove the larger and more serious grievance of the working classes outside the Bill, he would give him his hearty support.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid the object of the Bill, which had his complete approval, was to simplify all actions brought by workmen against their employers. The Amendment, if adopted, would tend to the confusion of matters, and, as practically the doctrine of common employment was abolished by the Bill, he hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time." The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 169.—(Division List, No. 267.)
  *MR. SPEAKERruled that the other new clauses standing on the Paper—four in number—should properly he moved as Amendments to various clauses of the Bill.
  Clause 1,—

  LIABILITY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO WORKMEN FOR INJURIES.
  (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject its hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.; such compensation shall be payable whether the injury occasioned arises from the act of the employer or of some person in his employ, or from the act of a stranger thereto. Provided that where such injury shall be occasioned by the act of a stranger under circumstances creating a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may at his option proceed either at law against such person to recover damages or against his employer for compensation under t his Act, and if he be compensated under this Act the employer shall be entitled to enforce in the name of the workman all rights of action possessed by him against, the person occasioning such injury as aforesaid.
  (2.) Provided that:—

  (a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed;

  (b) When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the amount of damages due from such employer may, at the request of the persons claiming compensation, be settled by arbitration in accordance with the second schedule to this Act, or may at the option of such persons be recovered from such employer by the same proceedings as were open to such persons before the commencement of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation both independently of and also under tills Act, and shall not be liable to pay compensation independently of this Act except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act;

  (c) If it is proved that the accident is solely attributable to the serious and wilful
  1154
  misconduct of a workman, any compensation claimed in respect of injury to that workman shall be disallowed.

  (3.) If any question arises as to whether the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer, or of any person for it hose act or default the employer is responsible, or whether the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the workman injured, or whether the accident was solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman in respect of whose injuries compensation is claimed, or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, or otherwise as to the liability for compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, and any questing as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the second schedule to this Act. Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof, and the Claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within twelve months from the time of death. Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or that such absence was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause. Notices shall be served in the manner provided for by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, Section seven.
  (4.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after ascertaining the views of the employers and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment is on the whole not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act. No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.
  If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable there out the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act.
  (5.) The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall in every year make a report of his proceedings under this Act, and that report shall he laid before Parliament.
  (6.) If any workmen or their representatives shall submit to the said Registrar primâ, facie evidence that the provisions of any scheme are no longer so favourable to the workman as the

  1155
  provisions of this Act, or that the provisions of such scheme are being violated, or that the same is not being fairly administered by the employers, or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking the certificate, then he shall examine into the complaint, and, if satisfied that good cause exists for such complaint, shall, unless the cause of complaint is removed, revoke the certificate.
  (7.) Whenever a scheme has been certified as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the employer to answer all inquiries and to furnish all such accounts as may from time to time be required by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the. words:—
  "be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act, such compensation shall be payable whether the injury occasioned arises from the act of the employer or of some person in his employ, or from the act of a stranger thereto. Provided that where such injury shall be occasioned by the act of a stranger under circumstances creating a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may at his option proceed either at law against such person to recover damages or against his employer for compensation under this Act, and if he be compensated under this Act the employer shall be entitled to enforce in the name of the workman all rights of action possessed by him against the person occasioning such injury as aforesaid."
  He explained that this Amendment was consequential upon the adoption of the clause to which the House had agreed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. CRIPPS MR. CRIPPS moved to leave out paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:—
  "(b) An employer shall not be liable to be proceeded against independently of this Act in the case of any injury to which the procedure of this Act applies, but when it is decided by arbitration that any injury has been caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employer, or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in the first schedule to this Act shall limit the amount of compensation payable by the employer."
  The hon. and learned Member, in the course of whose remarks an unsuccessful attempt was made to count out the
  1156
  House, said this was a matter in which there could be no difference between the interests of the, workman and the employer. The interests of both could only be to ascertain the amount of liability and the speediest and most economical way of avoiding legal expenditure and delay. Now, it was an arguable question whether they should have arbitration procedure, or whether the common law methods would not be better, but clearly they should have one method or the other, and seeing that. they had adopted arbitration in the Bill as the proper method of ascertaining the amount payable to the workman, they ought to limit the form of remedy to arbitration and to no other; and that was why he moved the Amendment.
  SIR R. REIDcould not assent to all the words of the Amendment, but the principle of it he entirely agreed with. In his opinion it was one of the most important Amendments in the whole Bill. The acceptance or rejection of it would have more to do with the success of the Bill than almost any other Amendment that could be proposed. There were and must be conflicts in the Bill as between separate interests, as between the employer and the workman, but this was an Amendment which was to the interest of both. He should be very much surprised if they did not join for the purpose of recommending the Government to accept this proposal. According to the present law the workman could bring an action against his employer if he had been guilty of any negligence himself, and that action had to be tried in the High Court. In addition to that the workman had a right of action against his employer by virtue of the Employers' Liability Act. That was in the case where some person for whom the employer was responsible had been, guilty of negligence. In that case he must go to the County Court. So that they had already two classes of procedure, and the workman had to choose which he would accept. If he went to the County Court and the Judge said he ought to have gone to the High Court, or if it was the other way, the workman found his whole expense and labour had been thrown away, and he had to commence proceedings anew. That was not a satisfactory state of things, and it was going to be aggravated by this Bill, because they now had

  1157
  a third remedy—the remedy for compensation under the terms of this Bill. The consequence was that when a man had been injured he would have to consider whether he was to go to the County Court, the High Court, or to the compensation arbitration tribunal. If he found himself in any one of these tribunals when he ought to be in another the whole of his expense was thrown away. Was that in the interest of the workman to begin with? It could not be. His chance of recovering damages or compensation might be dependent upon his taking the wrong tribunal. They put this unfortunate workman—an illiterate man, be it remembered—to to whom they wanted to give his remedy with as little of legal technicality as possible, in peril because they had three classes of remedy. Was it to the interest of the employer? He thought the hon. Member for Stroud would agree, not only that the workman should be able to bring his action in the arbitration court, but that the employer should be entitled to compel him to do so. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it ought to be a reciprocal benefit. This would be a check upon those unscrupulous solicitors who endeavoured to levy blackmail on an employer, because he could force him to go to the arbitration court without involving himself in any expense. The Home Secretary, feeling that there was something in this, had put an Amendment down on the Paper. By that Amendment the Government proposed that when a roan brought an action independently of this Act and it turned out that he was entitled only to compensation under the Act, and not to bring an action, that action was not to be dismissed, but the compensation awardable under the Act was to be given in the Court. That substituted the proceedings of the action for the proceedings of the arbitration. The Government saw it was necessary to meet the point, and, instead of meeting it by making arbitration universal, at the option of either party, what they did was practically to give the workman the option of going to law instead of to arbitration. The choice of the House lay between these two things—either they were going to give the workman alone, as the Government proposed by their Amendment, the option
  1158
  of bringing an action or going to arbitration—which was a one-sided affair, and he did not think fair—or they were going to give either the employer or the workman the option to say that they would have the matter settled by arbitration whether it arose at common law, under the Employers' Liability Act, or under this Act. This was a most important question, and he was certain that, if it was fairly explained to the employers, they would see that the principle embodied in this Amendment was to their true interest as well as to that of the workmen.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had somewhat belittled the suggestion which had been made by the Government in order to meet this difficulty, and he certainly attributed a consequence to it which did not exist—that was to say, the possibility of double proceedings. He could not help reminding the House that the great matter which lay at the root of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries was his wish that all the proceedings should he forced to arbitration, whether they arose at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act. He thought his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite must have forgotten the Debate which took place in Committee, and the attack made on the Government because they had proposed to refer to arbitration the question of the personal negligence en wilful default of an employer. His hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite desired to remedy this matter by forcing everything to arbitration. They had been told that which was not the experience of one working lawyer out of this House—that arbitration was a cheaper and more expeditious procedure than the County Court. That was exactly the contrary of all their experience, and they had been pressed front very influential quarters to make the proceeding much more analogous to the proceeding in the County Court, and not to allow this proceeding of arbitration to be so much the order of the day. They had met the wish for a simple procedure by saying that, if a workman did not allege any personal negligence or wilful act or default on the part of the master, he should take his proceedings under the Bill—first before

  1159
  the committee, and then before the arbitrator if necessary. His hon. Friend would admit that in that case there was no necessity to alter the Bill in the way suggested. Then take the case of a workman who thought he had got an action for personal negligence, or wilful act, or default. When the Government proposed that that question should go to arbitration, they were told from all quarters of the House that that ought not to go to arbitration. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wolverhampton protested against the question of a wilful act on the part of the master being dealt with by arbitration. A workman who was going to allege that his master had been guilty of personal negligence would at once see that the measure of damages was not limited to the provision in the Bill; he would be advised that his remedy was to pursue his common law rights, and he would go to the County Court or the superior Court. The Government had endeavoured as far as they could to meet what they understood to be the express wish of the House—that where it became a question of personal negligence or wilful default on the part of the employer it should be decided in open Court with the safeguards which the master now had towards his protection, at the same time making it secure that no hardship should be caused to the workman by being driven from Court to Court to recover the amount of the compensation. The Government had in their judgment adopted the simplest and best way of meeting the difficulty, and the one which would cause the least amount of friction and expense. It would be a benefit to all parties, while at the same time carrying out the wishes expressed by the representatives of employers and workmen.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid that he and his friends had tried to judge this question from a common-sense standpoint. They had looked upon the Bill as a means to the promotion of peaceful relations between employer and employed. He believed that in every case the avenues to the law should be closed as much as possible, and that access should be given to more peaceful and less costly tribunals. If disputes could only be settled by an appeal to the Law Courts, a feeling of friction resulted
  1160
  injurious both to employers and workmen, deterring them in the future from seeking the methods of conciliation, which it was the interest of employers arid workmen to foster. When the Bill was introduced he took the view that there were to be three different modes of procedure:—(1) Where there were committees in the districts who would represent the workmen and employer, then the settlement of disputes should in the first place be placed within the purview of the committees; (2) where committees did not exist then arbitration should be resorted to; (3) where arbitration was not accepted and acted upon then there should be an appeal to the County Court. He did not understand why it should be urged that arbitration cases would be no less costly than an appeal to a Law Court. It was a strange statement to make. He was a member of a workmen's organisation and there were no fewer arbitration cases settled in Durham than at least a hundred every year. They were not very costly, and there was no appeal to law. If they could keep out any suggestion that the Law Courts were the final tribunal they would conduce a great deal towards the formation of those Committees composed of employers and workmen which would settle these questions in the way in which they ought to be settled. It had been said that this Bill was rushed through the House and through Committee; but there had been a change in the views of hon. Members opposite. When the Bill was introduced he did not beam a single employer demur to its introduction. The Second Reading was not challenged by them, and every hon. Gentleman opposite, and especially the capitalists, were willing to accept the principle of the Since the Committee stage however, every capitalist had done his best to oppose the Bill. He maintained that there should be an appeal first to the committees composed of workmen or employers and then if this was not successful recourse should be had to arbitration. He hoped the House would favour any attempt made in the insertion of a principle which might conduce to that end.
  MR. RENSHAW, as an employer, was strongly in favour of the simplification of procedure under the Bill. He understood that when the Bill was introduced one of the strong features by

  1161
  which it was proposed to recommend it to employers in the Louse was, that it would avoid litigation. [Cheers.] If there was one thing about the Bill—harsh as it was in many respects—about which as an employer he felt strongly, it was this principle, that they were to have one court to go to, and one only. He believed that the provision suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud would really go a very long way to avoid the difficulty and the friction which would be created by the Bill of litigation in some cases and arbitration in other cases. They wanted to be perfectly certain that when they went before the arbitrator he was to have full power to deal with the question before him. As to the wilful misconduct on the part of the employer, he thought it would be difficult for the arbitrator to fix a monetary consideration to be awarded to the individual on the same scale as would be the case at common law. Employers of labour had a right to ask the House to make the Bill as fair to them as they could. One of the best ways of doing that was to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, inasmuch as under that Amendment all questions would be referred to the arbitrator. He believed that the Amendment would really and truly simplify the procedure, and therefore he strongly supported it.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that as. a mine owner a and a large employer of labour he desired to support the argument so eloquently advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. He was surprised to hear the Attorney General say that he had not heard anything from the employers as to arbitration. An Amendment in favour of arbitration for all cases arising which he put down was ruled out of order by the Chairman of Committees. Employers would have good reason to complain if the Government did not accept the spirit at least of this Amendment. There were many things which pressed hardly on the employer, anal were difficult to bear, such as being liable for the acts of strangers, and they were entitled to expect that all eases should he referred to arbitration and that even there should be State insurance. The opinion was universal that all the questions which would arise under the Bill
  1162
  should be referred to arbitration, and he very earnestly wished the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. ALEXANDER URE,said the object of the Amendment was to preclude actions at law wherever arbitration could be effectively employed. The Amendment would achieve that object, and be knew of no reason why the House should not accept it. Hon. Members were desirous that the workman should not he deprived of any remedy he had hitherto had, but they were not desirous that that remedy should be obtained at the expense of costly, but by means of a cheap, procedure. Under the Act of 1880, although no doubt a workman was compelled in the first instance to bring his claim in the County Court in England, and in the Sheriff's Court in Scotland, he might at an early stage of the litigation remove his claim into the higher Court, and have it so adjudicated upon by a Judge and jury at great expense in proportion to the unit of damages he ultimately would recover. The reason why the Scotch people had held that the Act of 1880 was a total failure was that the costs had so far exceeded the amount of compensation recovered, and that the friction generated between employer and workman during the course of the litigation did very pond' to increase the difficulties between capital and labour, which had been greatly felt. In Scotland this Bill had been hailed with delight, because it was believed it would preclude the possibility of large bills of expenses being incurred, and enable compensation to be awarded at the cheapest possible rate. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud would reduce the costs and at the same time preserve the right to compensation. The wish had been expressed in all quarters of the House that compensation should be awarded by the most rapid and inexpensive method, and he was persuaded that if the Attorney General would but accept this he would make the Bill a much better one than it was at present.
  MR. PARKER SMITHhoped the Government would favourably consider the views expressed in all quarters of the House in support of the Amendment. The great attraction which the Bill possessed from the point of view of the Scotch people, was the prospect it

  1163
  afforded to getting rid of the extravagant expenses which hitherto had been incurred. In Glasgow, for instance, 115 out of 370 had been carried into the Court of Session. The claim of the Government was that the workman when injured should be able to go past the arbitration and take his case into Court. The workman had simply to allege that the accident was due to the personal negligence or the wilful act of the employer; he had not got to convince anybody at all. Now, without convincing anybody at all, simply on his own allegation that the injury was due to the personal negligence or wilful act of his employer, he would be able to take the case into court. He was sorry to say there was a great number of low-class agents, especially in Scotland, who endeavoured to get hold of a man when he got hurt, and whose desires were not at all to get compensation for him, but simply to run up costs for themselves. See how the scheme of the Government would play into their hands. There would be no longer any reason for the workman to content himself with making a moderate claim against his employer, because under the scheme or the Government he could not be in any worse position by making an unlimited common law claim in respect of the negligence or the wilful act of his employer. He would make that statement, and would go into the Sheriff's Court and thence into the Court of Session without any possibility on the part of the employer of preventing him. He would have a thoroughly expensive action, and even if it turned out that there was not a shadow of foundation for his allegation of negligence or wilful misconduct, the only result would be to run up heavy costs, which would come partly out of the pocket of the employer and partly out of the money which should have gone as compensation into his own pocket. That, he thought, would be regarded as a singularly unfortunate result. In Scotland it had been the great attraction of this Bill that it got rid of these abuses, this power of incurring excessive expenditure. He did not want to labour that too far. He would only say that it had been admitted again and again that it was a great abuse in Scotland. Under the late Government, in the debates on the Employers' Liability Bill,
  1164
  amendments were accepted by the Government and carried without discussion, which would have had practically the result of the Amendment now before the House—which would have made every case go to the Sheriff's Court and to the corresponding court in England, the County Court. That was the view taken by the late House of Commons; it was the view taken by a considerable number of representatitve bodies in Scotland, and by the Miners' Association; it was the view which working men themselves all felt inclined to take. The workmen were no more anxious to get into the hands of the low-class agents than their masters were to see them. He hoped that the Government, who had made this proposal no doubt with a view of meeting a theoretical difficulty without a sufficient sense of the abuse to which, it was open, would accept the views expressed so strongly in different parts of the House in favour of arbitration in all cases.
  *MR. WARRdid not pretend to speak as an employer of labour, but he did pretend to speak as a lawyer having some practical experience of the effect of litigation between employer and employed. Speaking in that capacity, he did most earnestly hope that Government would neglect no opportunity of ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts between employers and employed, and of substituting for the courts a tribunal of arbitration. The courts were the very worst tribunals for dealing with questions between employer and employed. They were bad for the employer because in every case he went into court with the certainty of having to pay costs even if he won his case; and they were bad for the employed, because if a workman took a case into court and won it, he was thenceforward a. marked man. He could see no earthly reason why the issue of the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer should not be decided by arbitration. It seemed to him to be an entirely suitable topic for arbitration.
  MR. WALTONhoped that Her Majesty's Government would have the courage of their convictions. The very limited scope of their proposed Amendment seemed to be overlooked. It was confined entirely to that very small category of cases in which a charge of personal misconduct was made against the

  1165
  employer. He thought the House need not be distressed by any sentimental consideration in favour of an employer who was subject to a charge of that kind. He failed altogether to appreciate the arguments of those who would seek to protect an employer subject to such an allegation from passing before the ordinary tribunals of law. One would imagine, from the employer's own point of view, that he would court public investigation in a case where moral culpability was alleged. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the House would dismiss the idea that in every case, without exception, the workman should be compelled to submit to arbitration. The last person to entrust such an issue as that involved in the allegation of negligence or wilful misconduct would be an arbitrator nominated by a County Court judge. A charge might be brought against the owner or manager of a large colliery, himself a professional man, and the issues at stake might be of enormous importance to him. The issues might also be of great importance to the workman, because he might be representing a large number of men who were seeking compensation, and it was essential that such a case should be tried with gravity and deliberation before a public tribunal. There was danger that an arbitrator appointed by the County Court might not command the confidence of either workmen or employer, and the only alternative was that the issues should be submitted to a tribunal in which judge and jury took part, and whose decision would command acceptance by all parties. It was impossible to leave an arbitrator to decide questions of character such as were necessarily involved in cases of alleged wilful misconduct or default either on the part of the employer or of some person of trust to whom he had deputed the management of a large undertaking. He had on the Paper an Amendment that would provide for arbitration at the desire of the parties; but the Amendment now before the House forced it upon both whether they desired it or not. In the first place character was involved; and in the second place they might have a question of heavy moral responsibility, with a possibility of criminal proceedings following. There had been, let them suppose, a great colliery explosion. Some
  1166
  cases were put forward in order to test the responsibility, both civil and criminal, of the owner and manager of the colliery. That issue must, under this Amendment, be tried by an arbitrator, who would thus be put in the position of having to decide on a question of moral responsibility, which was bound to come before the tribunals of his country. The Government, he hoped, would not assent to that.
  *SIR A. HICKMANsaid they must all agree that in the great majority of cases arbitration was the fittest and best tribunal to try claims under this Bill. But the hon. Gentleman went much farther, and provided that in all cases both parties should be forced to accept arbitration, whether they had confidence in the tribunal or not. Under this Bill claims of a ruinous amount might be made, and questions of character might be raised of the highest importance. There was already a limit to the jurisdiction of the County Court, and a very proper limit, but was this jurisdiction to be extended without any limit at all in cases of workman and employer—and extended not to the County Court as a public tribunal, but to the judge or his nominee sitting in camera? Would any reasonable man in his senses consent that a liability which might be absolutely ruinous should perforce be settled by such a tribunal? Moderate and reasonable claims they might be always willing to submit to the shortest and cheapest way of determining them; but when the questions at issue were so enormous and vital as they might be under this Bill, surely the parties ought not to be forced to submit to arbitration. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid the Debate was one of great importance. He could not accept the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. An alternative remedy seemed to him to be a great defect in procedure. The House ought to provide one remedy suitable to the case, and compel its adoption in every instance. It appeared to him that of the two remedies that proposed by the Amendment was far cheaper than the procedure under the scheme of the Government. He thought the Amendment, if adopted, would be of advantage to all concerned.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONshould vote for the Amendment, as he was anxious, as far as possible, to substitute arbitration for litigation.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid reference had been made to the abuses which had occurred in Scotland in the working of the Employers' Liability Act. The abuses in Scotland arose from the fact that whereas in England under the Act of 1880 causes were to be initiated in the County Court, and only removed to the Supreme Court on cause shown, it was forgotten that there was in Scotland a section of an Act passed at the beginning of the century, under which all such causes were to be removed without cause shown.
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOODwas surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wigan say the question of character was not involved. The matter went far beyond the question of character; it involved the decision by the arbitrator whether an employer had committed manslaughter or not, and in his opinion that was a most unfair thing to do. The workman had nothing to fear under the clause by making that serious charge against the employer, because if he substantiated it, he got unrestricted damages, and if he failed, he could still claim damages under the Bill.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid that it seemed that some hon. Members went on the idea that arbitration in every case was cheaper than litigation, but such was not the case. If there were one thing more expensive than litigation it was arbitration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid they had been told that the object of this Bill was to avoid litigation, but he doubted whether that would be achieved by this Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'when' stand part of the Bill.—The House divided; Ayes, 150; Noes, 126.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "it is decided, as hereafter provided."
  MR. PARKER SMITHobserved that if these words were left out no primâ facie proof would be required that the injury has been caused by the negligence or wilful act of the employer. A mere statement to that effect would be
  1168
  quite sufficient and thereupon the procedure by arbitration could be set aside by the workman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that if the words were not admitted there would be a kind of double procedure which would be objectionable.
  MR. CRIPPSasked whether if these words were struck out it would be possible in every case for a workman to proceed by action, making the allegation of personal negligence a wilful act on the part of the employer. If a workman made that allegation could the whole procedure be by action, the arbitrator being ousted altogether.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes; but in such cases the workman would run the risk of having the costs of an unfounded issue of personal negligence or wilful act found against him by the judge and that would be a serious liability.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved in paragraph (b) to leave out the word "personal." He said that if the House should adopt his Amendment he should ask it subsequently to have out "wilful" in order to substitute the word "wrongful" and to add after the word "act" the words "or omission." Were the Government, he asked, or were they not, going to give a workman the alternative of enforcing his rights at common law and under statute or of proceeding to obtain compensation under this Bill? He had understood the Colonial Secretary to say in Committee that the intention of the Government was to give workmen a complete and exhaustive option between those two courses. He was apprehensive lest under the clause as it stood the common law and statutory rights of workmen should be very seriously cut down. Under the law as it at present stood, if a workman were injured in the course of his employment and could show it was due to the negligence of the employer, or to some wrongful act or omission by a person for whom, under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, the employer was responsible, he could recover damages. He understood from the Colonial Secretary that it was intended to preserve that right to the workman in its integrity. But if the words stood in the Bill, two

  1169
  additional cases would have to be considered which, in the present state of the law, did not and could not arise—if it was the negligence of the employer that was alleged, whether it was personal negligence, and if it was the act of a superintendent or foreman for whom, under the Act of 1880, the employer was responsible, whether the negligence was wilful. This would give rise to subtle distinctions entirely novel in their character, and of infinite complexity, both as to law and fact. If they agreed that they would retain to the workman all the rights he at present enjoyed under common law or statute, it was desirable that they should adopt the simplest possible language, and that when they were dealing with common law liability they should use the won "negligence" and where they were dealing with statute law "wrongful act or omission." Was it the intention of the Government to preserve in their full integrity all the rights of the workman? It must be remembered that there were many cases under the existing law, in which workmen by enforcing their legal rights would obtain a larger measure of compensation than under this schedule. If the Government intended to preserve that right, no language should be used which would suggest that it was cut down and modified. To obtain the clear decision of the House that every existing right of the workman, whether by common law or by statute, would be preserved to him, he moved his Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the question raised by his right hon. Friend was an important one, and he would endeavour to give a clear answer. First, the House should bear in mind that they were proceeding on the assumption that this Bill offered to the workmen in the trades with which it dealt exceptional and extraordinary advantages, and the Government believed it was in the interests of the work men and of simplicity of procedure that in the vast majority of cases—if not in all—they should take advantage of the Act and of no alternative procedure. ["Hear, hear!"] But they endeavoured to meet what they thought was an exceptional case—namely, that there might be an occasion—although they considered it extremely rare—in which there was such gross personal negligence on the part of the
  1170
  employer that the compensation awarded by the Bill would be insufficient, and something in the nature of punitive proceedings ought to be contemplated. That was the case in which they desired to preserve in their full integrity all the rights of the workman. The Government never said they intended to preserve all the present rights of the workman in their full integrity because they substituted something better than their present rights. ["Hear, hear!"] But in cases of moral negligence and liability on the part of employers they had endeavoured to provide that any rights which the workman now possessed he should have at His option. He was not certain that his right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife was right in saying that the workman could obtain larger compensation under the existing law than under this Bill. It was entirely contrary to the experience of his present rights, because the average compensation the workman had received under the existing law was less than the average he was likely to receive under the Bill and according to the scale employed in the Schedule of the Bill. The Government treated as an extremely exceptional case the case of deliberate and peculiar negligence on the part of the employers and for that only they made exception. There should be some reciprocial understanding as to the obligations of work-people as well as employers. In the case of workpeople the Government had guarded them from exclusion from this Bill except under extraordinary and peculiar circumstances. They had said that only if it were proved that the accident was solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman should compensation in these cases be disallowed. He was not quite certain that it would not be fair to adopt exactly the same words in the case of the employer; but, at all events, he wished to make it perfectly clear that a similar responsibility was to be established. They might not use exactly the same words, but they meant practically the same thing. They meant that an employer was to be guilty in the same sense in which they had supposed a workman to be guilty before he was to be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Unless better words than those

  1171
  they had adopted could be suggested, he thought they would sufficiently guard the case of the employer. But certainly he could not admit that it ever was their intention, while imposing upon the employer all the obligations of this Bill, at the same time to leave him open in every case to all the claims which at present could be made under the existing law in every case of accident.
  Sin R. T. REIDsaid he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be only one form of procedure, but, as regarded the rights affected by this Bill, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman indicated an entirely new departure. They had not heard when this Bill was introduced that this was a Bill for disfranchising as well as enfranchising. They had thought that the Bill was intended to confer a new right on workmen, and not to diminish their existing legal rights. [" Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman had told them that in return for the immense advantages conferred by this measure—and he admitted they were great advantages—the workman was to be deprived of any other recourse against the employer outside the Bill, except in special cases, which he covered, not inappropriately, by the general phrase moral responsibility or blame attaching to the employer. But by this Bill three years of wages was the maximum of compensation that could under any circumstances be granted, or six years part wages.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that in the case of incapacity that was not correct. In that case it was seven-and-a-half years.
  SIR R. T. REIDsaid half a year would not make much difference to the argument. The point was that in the case of serious injury by reason, not of wilful default, but of negligence, either on the part of the employer himself or of a person for whom he was responsible, a workman was at present entitled to unlimited damages at common law. Was that right now to be reduced to a limit of three or three-and-a-half years' wages That was certainly not what they had understood, and it altered entirely the character of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Instead of being an unqualified boon, the Bill would be in the nature of a bargain, and
  1172
  he hoped the House would appreciate what they were dividing upon.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDsaid they had had in view the question of the ultimate extension of this principle to all trades, and it had been understood that, while universal compensation might be a good thing, it was also desirable to preserve existing safe-guards against negligence on the part of the employer. He failed to see the importance of the point under discussion except from a legal and technical point of view. The omission of the word "personal" would make scarcely any difference now in the practical view of the Bill. After all, the point in dispute was merely a question of precision of language. In A cases where the employer was liable before, the Bill would leave him liable still.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that, in Committee on the Bill, he had moved an Amendment to secure the object now aimed at. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary rose, and, in reply to that Amendment, made a speech which led them all to understand that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was to preserve to the workmen all their existing rights, and to give them further advantages. But the House had just listened to a speech from the right hon. Gentleman in which all that was changed. They could not help associating that change of attitude on the part of the right hon. Gentleman with the deputation of angry employers, headed by a noble Marquess, which the right hon. Gentleman had recently encountered. The workman was having taken away from him by the Bill rights which he had at the present moment. He believed the right hon. Gentleman, if left to himself, would have brought in a better Measure, but the right hon. Gentleman was in the hands of other people. The result was that the rights of the workmen were being frittered away, and undoubtedly the Bill was a different Bill from what they had gathered it was in Committee.
  SIR A. HICKMANsaid everyone knew that the law of employers' liability, as it stood, was a complete failure. About three or four times as much money was spent in litigation than the amount of claims recovered, and it would be a bad thing to allow the workmen any longer to be tempted by pettifogging attorneys

  1173
  to throw away the substance of the Bill in favour of the shadow an appeal to the Courts might give him.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that if the word "personal" were omitted, the liability of the employer would undoubtedly be extended far beyond what was proposed in the sub-section. There were a very large number of cases of accidents in which there was no personal negligence on the part of the employer, and no personal negligence on the part of some person for whose act the employer was responsible, and if the word "personal" was left out, it would undoubtedly result in largely extending the liability which the Bill placed on the employer. There was another point. On the Second Reading of the Bill, he himself had pointed out that one of the corresponding advantages conferred on the employer was that the old rights of the employé were not to be maintained in their full integrity. That question was discussed on both sides of the House, so that it was perfectly understood that the Government Measure did not seek to maintain in their full integrity the old rights of the employés under all conditions. They were assured more than once that the rights were not maintained in their full integrity, but that it was the intention of the Government only to give the full liability as against the employer after the arbitrator had decided that there had been personal negligence. The only Amendment at the present time on that position was that the employer could proceed under the common law liability. The workmen, however, could proceed under the common law liability or under the Employers' Liability Act, without the arbitrator in the first instance, finding that there had been personal negligence or wilful act on his part. So that if any Amendment had been introduced, it had not been an Amendment in favour of the employer or anything that could have been suggested by the deputation the other day, but an Amendment introduced by the Government in favour of assisting procedure when that procedure was initiated by the workman. The alternative Amendment which he suggested having been negatived, the Amendment of the Government was in favour of the simplicity of procedure for the workman.
  MR. McKENNAhad before him the actual words used in Committee by the Attorney General in introducing the Amendment, containing the words now under discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that—
  "they had adopted the words which were practically those of the Employers' Liability Bill, personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or some person for whose act or default the employer was responsible.' They believed they had reserved to the workman by these words every case which would come within the Employers' Liability Act."
  There was the statement by the highest legal authority of the Crown in that House that these words were intended to reserve to the workman every right which he had now got under the Employers' Liability Act. Under that construction it must be obvious that the word "personal" could not have the meaning which was now put upon it by the Colonial Secretary, but must be mere verbiage over and above "wilful and wrongful act and default." It could not alter the statutory liability, upon the authority of the Attorney General. If it could not alter the statutory liability, it would not alter the common law liability, and as the word, upon the construction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, was meaningless and did not, on his authority, convey the meaning which the Colonial Secretary had to-night given it, he submitted it would be only reasonable for the House to accept the Amendment of the late Home Secretary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that, as what he had said on the Committee stage had been quoted, he would remind the hon. Member that the particular passage to which reference had been made arose upon the question as to the words, "person for whose act or default the employer is responsible," and his observations, if his memory served him aright, were made after the Colonial Secretary and the Home Secretary had both of them pointed out that what they intended to reserve was the right of the workman to sue the employer where the employer had been guilty of personal negligence. He quite agreed that, taken apart, his words would appear to have a wider meaning than they were intended to bear at the time. If the hon. Member would look at the earlier part of the Debate he would find what he was there

  1175
  dealing with was the question as to the words "person for whose act or default the employer is responsible," and which, he said, were taken from the language of the old Employers' Liability Act. If the hon. Member would look at that Liability Act, he would find that the expression "personal" negligence did not occur at all.
  MR. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman in the Debate in Committee spoke after the Home Secretary but before the Colonial Secretary.
  SIR J. JOICEYexpressed the opinion that while the discussion had been interesting, so far as he had been able to gather it seemed a question between tweedledum and tweedledee. He had had some experience in Northumberland and Durham of the common law, and, so far as he had been able to judge, it was of very little value indeed to the workman. If he were to mention the sums which had been obtained by the workmen under the existing law he thought the House would be somewhat surprised. So far as he was concerned, he did not care whether the Government accepted or refused the Amendment, as he was satisfied it would make very little difference to the workmen of the country. It was of such trifling value that his own inclination would be to accept it and give the workman the advantage of the present law.
  Question put, "That the word personal' stand part of the Bill:"
  The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes, 123.—(Division List, No. 269).
  Amendment proposed in paragraph (b) to leave out the words—
  "case the amount of damages due from such employer may, at the request of the persons claiming compensation, be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act, or may at the option of such persons be recovered from such employer by the same"
  and to insert the words "the workman may at his option either claim compensation under this Act, or take"—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "such persons," and to insert the word "him."
  MR. WALTON MR. WALTON moved, in paragraph (b) after the words "commencement of this Act," to insert the words,—
  "Provided that when the workman claims compensation under this Act alleging that the injury was occasioned by such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid, the employer may elect to have the said claim determined by a jury, and the same shall thereupon be transferred to the High Court and tried accordingly."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that under no circumstances could the Government accept this Amendment. It had apparently been framed as an Amendment to the Bill as originally introduced, but, however that might be, it would give a privilege to the employer in that particular case which would encourage litigation, and so defeat the intention of the Bill.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved, in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "pay compensation," and to insert the words "be proceeded against."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out, that before any Question of arbitration or County Court comes in, there was the Committee of employers and employed. It seemed quite possible that some proceeding of that sort must be taken, which would be excluded by the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in paragraph (b), after the word "compensation" to insert the words "for injury to workman by accident."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in paragraph (b) after the word "pay," to insert the word "such."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved at the end of paragraph (b) to insert:—
  "If an action is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by any accident, and it is determined in such action that the injury is one for which compensation

  1177
  ought to have been claimed under this Act, the action shall not be dismissed, but the damages recovered from the employer shall not exceed the compensation payable under this Act."
  MR. McKENNAsuggested that instead of the word "ought," the Home Secretary should insert the words "could only." The word "ought" was, he submitted, ambiguous.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas understood to say that the proposed substitution was not necessary.
  MR. GEDGEthought the clause as it stood was likely to lead to a good deal of litigation. There were members of his profession who were not very respectable—they had been called "pettifogging attorneys"—and who looked out for a number of actions of this kind. They would go to a workman who had been injured and induce him to bring an action, instead of taking the cheaper and more convenient way of going to arbitration, and, as he understood, he would be certain to get his costs. If he were wrong he should be glad to hear from the Attorney General that that was so.
  SIR A. FORWOODrose to move his Amendment to the Home Secretary's proposed Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that this is not strictly an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It can be moved as an Amendment after that Amendment has been carried.
  MR. ALFRED LYTTELTONsaid he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend tile Member for Walsall that if this Amendment were inserted the invariable effect would be that the workman under the guidance of a "pettifogging attorney" would proceed to a very heavy claim, and that unless there were some penalty provided against his doing so in the way of costs the effect would be that in each case the more serious claim would be preferred. The practical result would be that arbitration which it was the object of the Bill to attain would be ousted.
  MR. CRIPPSsuggested that the Attorney General should put in a specific provision that, if an action were not on the basis of wilful misconduct and no misconduct were found to exist, the actions being dismissed, no costs should be given. There would then be a
  1178
  safeguard which would preserve the procedure of arbitration.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he would point out in the first place that this particular amendment was absolutely necessary. It was consequential upon what they had passed. They had decided that a workman should be allowed to recover his Act Compensation, if he might so say, in an action which he had brought alleging that the employer was guilty of wilful misconduct. Therefore, these words must go in, but he had already pointed out that in his judgment the proper safeguard would be a discretion as to costs. They thought any reasonable Judge via) found that an unfounded action was brought by an employer being found guilty of wilful misconduct would give costs against the plaintiff. If when they came to the question of costs it were thought that the provision was not sufficient, they could easily insert words to that effect.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this clause, as now proposed, did not regard all action brought in case of negligence on the part of the employer. It distinctly contemplated an action which did not apply to that, hut which arose out of an accident which ought to have been compensated under this Act. This clause proposed that the action should go on, but that it should be limited in the amount of compensation. The object of the Bill was to avoid litigation, hut here the House was being brought back from the arbitrator to litigation once again. Where they found a man who refused to take the method which the Bill provided, it was the business of those who believed in the principle of the Bill not to protect mini and to maintain him in His refusal, but to turn him back to the arbitrator. He could conceive nothing more calculated to lead the eminent solicitor and the still more eminent counsel to advise an unfortunate workman not to proceed with arbitration but to go to the flight Court.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that apparently the hon. Member had not been present when the matter was discussed before in Committee, and when by the practically universal assent of the House au Amendment, of this kind was claimed and asked for. Under the Bill they gave to the workman an option in

  1179
  certain circumstances to proceed by a different method than that given in the Bill. Originally the Bill provided that if the man made a mistake and selected the wrong procedure, then he should be thrown back to the other procedure, and have his remedy in that way. To this it was objected on both sides of the I louse that it would be unfair to the employer and the workman because in the case of mistake both would be subjected to the system of trying two actions, one after the other, first an action in the High Court and next arbitration. A desire was generally expressed that if a work-made made a mistake it should not prevent him from getting a decision. Accordingly if the man went to the Court, and the Court found that there had been a mistake, the Court had to deal with the point as if a Court of Arbitration were acting under the Bill. In that way litigation and expense would be saved.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that the difficulty that danger of law agents getting hold of men and pressing them to run their claim were very real obstacles indeed. Costs would not terrify a man who had nothing to lose. Agents would take up the work on speculation, and he did not like the system of using the compensation given under the Bill to satisfy the claims of the people who were fighting out the case in court.
  COLONEL DENNYwanted the Government to say how they would treat the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire.
  MR. CHARLES SEELYsaid he could not recall the actual promise made by the Government to insert this Amendment. It was not altogether wise that a workman should be entitled to bring an action against his employer alleging personal negligence on the part of the employer, and yet should suffer nothing in the event of failure. If an action were dismissed as wrong, there should be some penalty imposed on the workman for having brought it. This would be met to a certain extent by the Government accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet next on the Paper, and the Government might now give some
  1180
  indication of the view they took of the Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It would not he in order to open a discussion on that Amendment upon the Amendment now before the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOOD, having given notice of the following Amendment: To add after the words last inserted:—
  "Provided that where in any action brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by accident it is determined that the compensation ought to have been claimed under this Act, the costs incurred in defending such action must be deducted from the amount of compensation so payable."
  He said that it was quite clear that unless the employer were protected against the costs which he would incur for actions brought for alleged wilful misconduct on his part every case would be brought into court and nothing would be referred to arbitration. He therefore proposed to insert after the words last inserted:—
  "Provided that where in any such action it is determined that the compensation ought to have been claimed under this Act, the costs incurred in defending such action shall be deducted from the amount of compensation so payable."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: "Agreed, agreed!"
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he must call attention to the very serious consequences of the acceptance of this Amendment. The Amendment upon the Paper was altogether unreasonable as it empowered the Court in the exercise of its discretion to deduct the costs from the damages. The power would never be exercised unless the action were unreasonable.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that what the Government agreed to was the Amendment as it appeared on the paper.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that what had been moved was not the Amendment upon the paper. Were they to understand the word was "shall?"
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: "May."
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the alteration?
  SIR A. FORWOOD: I prefer the Amendment as I moved it. [A. laugh.]
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the best way would be to move to amend the Amendment by omitting the word "shall" in order to insert the word "may." [Laughter.] I greatly prefer the first Amendment of my right hon. Friend, which I think is perfectly reasonable. It would be improper to insist that in every case, whatever the circumstances may he, the whole of the costs shall he deducted. That might involve considerable hardship.
  SIR A. FORWOOD: Then I will agree to "may." [Laughter.]
  Word ''may" substituted fur the "shall" Amendment, as thus amended, agreed to.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT MR. H. J. TENNANT (Berwickshire) moved to add, after the words last inserted:—
  "Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any of her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories to recover penalties Under Section 82 of 41 and 42 Viet., c. 16, and Acts amending the same, and that the recovery of such penalties shall not be taken into account in estimating compensation under this Act."
  He said that the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, enacted that if any person was killed or suffered bodily injury in consequence of neglect of the occupier to fence machinery, etc., the occupier of the factory should be liable to a fine not exceeding £100, which might be applied by the Secretary of State for the benefit of the injured person or his family, as the Secretary of State might determine. He believed that in the past the factory inspector had instituted proceedings against the occupier of the factory, and had obtained damages, but that when the injured person desired to take proceedings under the Act of 1880 he had been informed he was not able to do so, owing to damages having been already secured under another statute. He could not help thinking the House would agree it would be a great misfortune for a man who had received serious injury, and on whose behalf the Inspector of Factories had obtained a small amount of compensation, to he informed that he could not get compensation under this Bill. In case the Attorney General said that any proceedings under the Factory Acts were not civil proceedings, but criminal, he might state that the Factory and Workshops Act of 1895 alludes to these damages which are called fines in the
  1182
  Act of 1878, and provides that the workman may take the money as compensation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid if he caught the statement of the hon. Gentleman aright, the money recovered was to be applied to the benefit of the injured person, it was not to be merely a punishment of the employer, but was to be applied to the benefit of the workman.
  MR. TENNANT: It may be.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid it was perfectly plain that in its integrity the Government could not adopt such a proposal. It would be an alternative method of compensation. Of course it was intended that the compensation provided by the Bill should be a full discharge. ["Hear, hear!"] He confessed he thought the hon. Member was referring to penalties intended to enforce observance of certain provisions of the Act, which would be a very different thing. I hit it was impossible to sanction any proceedings, civil or criminal, to provide for taking money out of the pocket of the employer which would be additional compensation to that recoverable under the Act.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it was necessary to be clear as to what the effect of the Bill would be. The primary object of the section, as he had always understood, was to secure by legal provision the observance on the part of the employer of certain enactments. A fine not exceeding £100 was recoverable; but there was a discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State to apply the amount of the fine, in whole or in part, to the benefit of the injured person. He could quite understand the point of the Attorney General, that where that power was exercised it might be right to take into account the money so applied as part of the compensation payable by the employer. He could understand it, but he did not agree with it. He thought that in all such legislation they ought to preserve a distinction between the employer who had neglected his duty and the employer who had not; and where an Act of Parliament required a statutory duty, and imposed a penalty which might or might not be applied for the benefit of the workman, the employer who was shown to be guilty of negligence and incurred the penalty ought not to be entitled to claim the

  1183
  benefit of it as a set-off against the compensation to which the workman was entitled. It was clear that this Act ought not to affect the power of the Inspectors of Factories to make defaulting employers pay these penalties, and he should like to have an assurance from the Attorney General to that effect.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid the words of the Attorney General had left the House in doubt as to how this provision as to penalties would really apply in future where claims for compensation were made under this Bill. He did think that employers of labour in factories were entitled to ask whether or not compensation under the Bill was to be given plus the £100 fine. ["Hear, hear!"] He gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife that he was not quite up to date. He suggested that there should be some punishment for the negligent employer. It seemed to him that they had got beyond all that, for they had made up their minds that the employer was to he punished in any case whether he was negligent or not. They ought to have an assurance, he thought, that the employer was not to be subject to a double charge.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought if there was any doubt it might be met by an amendment of the Amendment. As framed, the Amendment was certainly in a directly opposite sense to the intention of its mover. The difference at all events was appreciated by his right hon. Friend opposite, who admitted that there might be an argument against double compensation. Certainly the Government felt that argument so strongly that they wished to make it perfectly clear that double compensation was not to be allowed. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand they quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill ought to affect the right of the State Inspectors of Factories to recover penalties for breaches of the law and if it was necessary he should suggest that they amend the Amendment in this way. Take the Amendment as far as the words—
  "Nothing in the Act shall affect the right of the Inspectors of Factories to recover penalties,"
  1184
  and then go on to say—
  "if such penalties, or any part thereof are applied for the benefit of any person injured, such amounts shall be taken into account in estimating the compensation."
  He moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by leaving out from the word "same," to the end thereof, to add instead thereof the words—
  "but if such penalties, or any part thereof, are applied for or to the benefit of any person injured, such amount shall be taken into account in estimating the amount of compensation under this Act."
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcomplained of the procedure with regard to this Bill, which had already been rejected by a substantial majority of 13. [Laughter.] In recent years there was no precedent for the course pursued. The Isle of Man had a Legislature of its own. They knew little of its laws, absolutely nothing, and this Bill was launched without a single word of explanation.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to he resumed To-morrow.

POST OFFICE (SITES) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
Motion made, and Question again proposed,—
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all sums payable by the Postmaster General under any Act of the present Session to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire lands for the public service, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of such Act."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY (2ND JULY).
Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £137,137, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the erection, repairs, and maintenance of public buildings in Ireland, for the maintenance of certain parks and public works, and for drain-ago, works on the River Shannon."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,928, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for payments angler 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act 1883,' and the Light Railways (Ireland) Acts 1889 and 1893."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  CLASS TV.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £630,291, granted to. Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the expenses if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
  MR. JOHN DILLON, called attention to the question of the teaching of Irish in the primary schools of Ireland. It was, he contended, ill a very unsatisfactory and unfair condition. It was impossible properly to instruct children in the schools in the Galway and other Irish speaking districts unless the teachers themselves spoke Irish and used to the children the language they themselves heard used in their own homes. Instruction ought to be conveyed to the children in their native tongue and he maintained the intellect of these children was crippled and their instruction interfered with by the fact that an attempt was made to teach them in what was to them an absolutely foreign tongue. In the districts of Clare, Galway, Mayo, Donegal, and other counties, many people only spoke the Irish language, the rest of the population being bilingual. He maintained that in all districts where the majority or a large proportion of the school children came from homes where Irish was spoken, the teachers ought to he Irish-speaking teachers, so that they should be required to explain the English
  1186
  language and that other information which they had to impart through the medium of the tongue which was familiar to the children. The Chief Secretary seemed to have a prejudice against the ancient tongue of Ireland. He had never been in favour of depriving the people of Ireland of the opportunity of acquiring the English tongue. To deprive them of the opportunity would be a great mistake, as it was to their advantage to know English. But in the west of Ireland, there were over half-a-million people whose education was injuriously affected by the fact that they were treated as if they were an English-speaking people. He wanted them to be taught English through the medium of their native tongue. It was a disgrace to the so-called national system of education in Ireland, that more teachers were riot Irish-speaking, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would lay aside his apparent prejudice and instruct the Education Board to adopt what the Irish Members believed to be the true principles of education.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsuggested that statistics should be obtained of the number of Trish-speaking children in primary schools. It would be interesting awl important to know year by year whether the number of children who spoke Irish was increasing or diminishing. Statistics should also be presented annually of the number of teachers who spoke Irish, so that they might see whether there was any increase or diminution. There was a great anxiety in Ireland to preserve the Irish language, which should be made part of the classical education of the people.
  MR. J. G. WEIRexpressed sympathy with the Members front Ireland who had spoken. Children in Ireland and in the Highlands should be taught English through their mother tongue—Irish or Gaelic. Teachers who spoke Irish or Gaelic should be appointed by the Education Department.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)assured the hon. Member for East that he had no prejudice against the teaching of Irish. He once tried to learn it himself, but he found it so difficult that he was obliged to give up the task. As to the use of Irish as the native language in Ireland, the hon.

  1187
  Member seemed to hold that it would be a good thing if the proportion of Irish-speaking teachers in Ireland were increased as compared with English-speaking teachers.
  MR. DILLONsaid all he wanted was that there should be no attempt to stamp out the language.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid if the hon. Member meant that where the children spoke Irish they should be taught English by means of their own language, he did not altogether differ from him. It might be a. good thing that there should be a certain proportion of teachers able to speak the Irish language in districts where it was needed. He was afraid, however, that they could not make a hard-and-fast rule as the capacity of such teachers in other directions was likely to be inferior. He would remind the hon. Member that it was a question also for the decision of the National Commissioners. He had no desire to crush out the knowledge of the Irish tongue in those parts of Ireland where it was spoken.
  Resolution agreed to.
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £625, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing certain School Endowments in Ireland."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,697, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come is course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland including a grant in aid for the purchase of Pictures."

  CLASS II.
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,880, be granted to Her Majesty. to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries ml expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin.''
  Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY [18TH JUNE] REPORT.
Order read for further consideration of postponed Resolution:—
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,923, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
1188
necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and other expenses of temporary Commissions and Committees including Special Inquiries."
*MR. ROBERT PIERPOINTasked that the decision which had been come to in regard to the Historical Manuscripts Commission might be reconsidered. These manuscripts had been published now for 27 years, and the total cost of the parts issued during that period to anyone who bought them was only £9 0s. 0½d. There had been on an average 400 parts issued gratis to Members. Therefore during the 27 years the total amount of money that would have been paid by the Members if they had been charged for those parts was £3,600, so that the amount of money saved to the Members of the House out of the. Public Funds in this respect was £133 6s. 8d. a year. That was a very small sum when they were dealing with the works of the Commission, which were of very great interest both to Members of the House and to the country at large, and it was a great pity that either the Treasury or the Commission should come to the decision to deprive Members of having these volumes issued to them for nothing. Ever since he had been a Member of the House he had obtained those volumes, but like many others be had handed them over to the Public Library in his constituency. This deprivation would have the effect of leaving many incomplete issues of the Historical Manuscrips Commission.
MR. HANBURYsaid he desired to explain what was really the position in regard to this first. His hon. Friend seemed to imply that Members had been deprived of a right, and that that was due to the parsimony of the Treasury. In both of these ideas the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Many complaints had been received that under the present system those Reports were issued slowly and irregularly, and that they were not issued as a series with other public documents from the Record Office. He placed the matter before the. Master of the Bolls, asking him whether the time bad not arrived for turning the work of what was a temporary Commission over to some permanent public department, so that these documents

1189
might issue at the same rate as all other public documents. He received a reply from the Royal Commission, saying there were certain objections to handing over this work to a permanent Department, and they made the counter proposal that the Commission should continue to act, but that the papers should be issued in a somewhat different form; the work being kept in the hands of the Royal Commissioners themselves, a change being made in the mode of publication. Every one of the Commissioners was consulted as to the best form in which to issue the publications in future, and the unanimous decision was arrived at that it would he in every way in advantage to bring out as independent publications what were now called appendices to the successive Deports of the Commission, and so to avoid delay in their presentation to Parliament. The Commissioners who arrived at that unanimous Report were first of all gentlemen of great political influence, and persons whose acquaintance with literature and history gave them special importance. The President of the Commission was the Master of the Rolls, and the other Commissioners included Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery, Lord Edmond Petty-Fitzmaurice, Bishop Stubbs of Oxford, the Bishop of Limerick, Lord Acton, and Sir H. Maxwell Lyte. He thought it was quite clear that even over an ordinary Royal Commission the Treasury had got very little control indeed. They were gentlemen who undertook work of this kind gratuitously, and it was quite out of the power of the Treasury, and to a certain extent, even out of the power of that House, to dictate what course should be adopted by a Royal Commission. So far from any right of that House being infringed, the view the Commissioners took was this: up to the present they had been under the idea that this work would come to an end sooner than it was likely to come to an end. They had issued these very valuable historical documents in the shape of appendices to their Reports, and as long as they were issued in that form undoubtedly the House of Commons and the House of Lords—who were entitled to the Reports of Royal Commissions—were entitled to have these documents issued to them gratis. But the Commissioners had decided,
1190
chiefly for reasons of convenience, and in order to get these Reports out in a more regular and orderly series, to issue them as independent documents. They had no doubt as to their right to do this, according to the opinion of a Judge like the Master of the Rolls. This, therefore, was not an attack of a parsimonious Treasury upon the rights of the House; if anything it was rather an attack on the rights of a Royal Commission, very influential and capable, who were perfectly unanimous in the step they proposed to take. These papers, after all, had nothing of the ordinary Parliamentary paper about them. They were very valuable historical documents, but they had nothing to do with the ordinary work of Parliament, they were of no advantage to Members for their work in the House, and the Committee had properly decided that since it was only by an accident that these documents had hitherto been published in the present shape, they should go back to the more regular procedure in cases of this kind.
MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsubmitted that it was quite immaterial whether these Reports were called appendices to the Royal Commission or separate publications. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was rather a quibble. The Members of this House were entitled to be furnished with copies of the Report of any Royal Commission issued, and these publications were nothing but a portion of that Report.
MR. HANBURYsaid that was not so. They would continue to issue their Reports as hitherto, but they were under no obligation to issue these appendices to Parliament; they could be treated as entirely independent documents.
MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLcontended that the Report would be an imperfect document unless the appendices were included. He thought it would be a very great public loss if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his determination; it was not so much the price that one would have to pay, but that the documents would escape notice and be buried in oblivion.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury complained of the irregularity that was permitted in the giving of copies of the Reports of

1191
the Historical Manuscripts Commission to Members gratis, but the irregularity had gone on now for some 27 years, and was anyone injured by it? The Financial Secretary said that the new proposal would lead to uniformity, but the House would remember that the Reports of this Commission were already issued in two sizes, the first issues being issued in a larger size than the remainder, which was already an inconvenience to librarians. If a change were now made, and the publication brought out in a new and third shape, the inconvenience would be greater still. In this matter there were two points of view to be considered. It was all very well for the Commissioners to give their views of the situation, but seeing that the House supplied the money for publication, Members had fair ground to claim that their wishes should be consulted. The Reports of these historical manuscripts were unquestionably the most interesting of all Parliamentary Papers issued, and he was sorry to have to confess they were the only Parliamentary Papers he ever read. It was a monstrous thing that after their work in the service of the country, Members should be deprived of this small perquisite. The Secretary to the Treasury had made but a half-hearted defence of the Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman had read these Reports he would take the view expressed, that the Commission had not acted quite fairly. He was not a sufficiently experienced Parliamentarian to know, but it seemed to him there was something approaching to a breach of privilege in this attempt to withhold these publications from Members. For a long time Members had had them, and under the arrangement, the Commission had carried on their work. He did not think the Commission, however learned and influential, were competent to interfere with arrangements deliberately made by Parliament and carried out for a long series of years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question. He would say nothing about the parsimony of the Treasury, it remained to be seen what the Treasury would do, but he pointed out, that however unimportant and obscure, each Member had a means of avenging himself on the Treasury. They had an easy means of showing their sense of this proceeding and making it an ex-
1192
tremely expensive one for the Treasury. Every Member of the House was entitled to two copies of Reports during the time he remained a Member of the House, hitherto he himself had taken, only one copy, but if this proposal was carried out he intended to apply for another copy, and he was quite satisfied that other Members would do the same. There were a number of Members who had not realised the importance and value of these Reports, but who were entitled to two copies, and would immediately apply for them, and the full assertion of their rights would materially add to the expense to be borne by the Treasury. They could give the Treasury trouble in another matter. They were entitled to all Parliamentary Papers, and what he proposed to do, if this project was carried out, was to apply for every Parliamentary Paper published. Probably other Members would do the same thing, and in the end it might possibly be found that the gain to the Treasury had not been very great.
MR. HANBURYsaid this was certainly not it matter in which the Treasury was deeply concerned. It was only a very few pounds a year—[cheers]—and there was evidently a feeling on both sides of the House that the present arrangement should continue. ["Hear, hear!"] He had, as he had said, no control over the Commissioners, and had really no right to suggest to them what should be done in the way of issuing their own publications; but still he thought he should be justified, after hearing the Debate, in representing to them his view with regard to the feeling in the House that the present system might be allowed to go on. [Cheers.]
MR. WEIRasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he could state the result of inquiries he had promised to make into the expenses of the Colonisation Board?
MR. HANBURYsaid he had made inquiries and had tried to get some independent information with regard to this Vote. Although this year it was absolutely necessary to place these sums on the Estimates, he hoped that by next year the Vote would be considerably reduced, if not done away with altogether. ["Hear, hear!]
Resolution agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.
FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.

LAND TRANSFER [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Considered in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any deficiency in the Insurance Fund which may he established under any Act of the present Session to establish a Real Representative find to amend the Land Transfer Act 1875."— (The Attorney General.)
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Thursday.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
POOR LAW BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Thursday.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as a mended, deferred till Thursday.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee. Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

EDITCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Mot ion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
SOLICITORS (MAGISTRACY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
TITHE REDEMPTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
POLICE PENSIONS AND SERVICE BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
YORKSHIRE CORONERS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) (CASUAL VACANCIES) RILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
JURORS' EXPENSES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
RATING OF MACHINERY SUSPENSORY BILL.
Order for Second Reading Read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
IDIOTS INSTITUTIONS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 14th July.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
RAILWAY RETURN TICKETS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHSE POWERS) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till -Wednesday 21st July.

SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 21st July.
And, it being One of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
House Adjourned at One o'Clock.