Commons Sitting of 1 June 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  On the consideration of this Bill as amended,
  MR. D. CHILLYsaid that before he moved the rejection of this Bill he desired to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to a matter affecting the privileges of that House. For his own part he desired to approach the consideration of this Bill in the most impartial spirit, but when he came down to the House about a quarter of an hour ago he found that a circular containing statements of an inaccurate character with regard to this Measure were being distributed among
  6
  hon. Members in the Central Lobby, and he was afraid that those statements would prevent hon. Members from approaching the consideration of the Bill in an equally impartial spirit. The circular purported to he issued by a firm of Parliamentary agents, carrying on their business in Abingdon Street, Westminster. What he desired to ask the Speaker was whether it was in order for any firm of Parliamentary agents to interfere with the procedure of that House in Private Business in the way he had indicated, which would have the effect of preventing the impartial consideration of a Private Bill. The circular contained a number of statements which, at all events, from his point of view, were not accurate, and, therefore, he submitted that the House ought in defence of its own procedure and privileges to prevent hon. Members being met by a circular of this kind in the Central Lobby. He, however, did not wish to press the point too far, but he submitted that it was a little out of harmony with the dignity and position of hon. Members that Parliamentary agents should seek to influence their action by such means as these.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is probably aware that in the cases of private Bills, it is not at all uncommon for statements to be circulated on one side and on the other, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has laid before the House anything in the nature of a breach of Privilege. With regard to the circular in question having been distributed in. the Central Lobby, I must say I do not think the Lobby is the right place for circulating such documents. ["Hear, hear !"] I will, at all events, make inquiries and see that no attempts of an objectionable kind are made to canvass Members in the Lobby. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CRILLYsaid that he now proposed to move the rejection of the Motion for the confirmation of this Provisional Order, because as far as he could see there was no other course open for him to take in connection with this Measure. This Bill showed the evils of the present system. The Board of Trade came before the House with a sort of omnibus Bill by which they sought to have confirmed a number of Provisional Orders relating to various localities in the north of Scotland, in the south of England and in Ireland. By this method of procedure the Measure

  7
  was neither considered by a Committee, as in the case of a private Bill, nor had it the publicity of a public Bill. If a private Bill were promoted it was carefully examined by a Committee of the House upstairs, and if a public Bill were brought in it was considered in that House on its merits. In the present case they were merely asked to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Board of Trade, without any of the facts being brought under the notice of the House. For his part he could not understand why any Measure affecting the seaboard of Ireland should be promoted by the Board of Trade for England. However, they had to deal with the Bill as it stood. He would ask the House to follow the history of this Measure. This Bill proposed to renew the powers which were granted by that House in 1892 to build a pier and causeway and to construct other works at Killina. Those powers were to remain in force for five years, but during the five years, Mr. Frazer, the promoter of the Bill of 1892, had done nothing towards carrying out the authorised works, and he now came to ask that House for an extension of the period for constructing the works for another five years. He had had representations made to him that the locality was opposed to the term being extended for another five years. It appeared that it had been desired to construct a line of railway from Killina to Ballina, and the Government came to the assistance of the locality, and promoted a Measure for the construction of the line which was engineered by Mr. Frazer. Personally he had nothing to say against that Gentleman, whom the Government regarded as being a very capable engineer. But this Gentleman was a private individual, and the works to which this Bill was to apply were such public works as would, in the event of the change in the local government of Ireland, indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, being brought about, be constructed by the various new County Councils. In these circumstances it was in his opinion right that a private individual should be allowed to intervene between the new Councils and the construction of these works. The Government themselves had recognised the importance of the proposed works by offering a grant of £10,000 towards their cost. In these
  8
  circumstances he thought that the least that Mr. Frazer could be asked to do was to give some guarantee that he really intended to proceed with the construction of the works at once. It was on these grounds that he opposed this Bill.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that in his view it was not necessary for the House to spend much time in considering this very simple question. He could assure the hon. Member that the method of procedure by what he termed an omnibus Bill, was the usual practice. The Local Government Board had therefore done nothing out of the ordinary course in the procedure they had taken with regard to this Bill. The powers for the construction of these works were granted by Parliament in 1892, and all that Mr. Frazer now asked was that those powers should be renewed for another five years. The local authorities entirely approved of the extension of the period for the exercise of the powers conferred by the Act of 1892, and he hoped that the House would pass the Bill.
  Bill considered; to be Read the Third time to-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state if it is intended by the Tweedmouth Report that double increment for sorting clerks and telegraphists at and after the age of 21 shall apply in the case of officers scheduled B, C, D, and E in the said Report?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General understands the hon. Member to refer to the double increment which is to be given in the large provincial towns in Schedule A (which have hitherto had distinct classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists) to those officers who prove themselves qualified and ready to serve in future on both the postal and telegraph sides of the Department. That double increment will not

  9
  be given in towns under Schedules B, C, D, and E, where the officers have always been liable to perform the double duty.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether prior to 31st March last the sorting clerks or Plymouth and the sorting clerks and telegraphists of Devonport were paid according to the same scale, the maximum of which was 40s. per week; whether the maximum pay of the former has now been raised to 52s. and the latter to 44s. only; whether he is aware that the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Devonport perform counter and telegraph duties in addition to sorting duties, which are alone performed by sorting clerks at Plymouth; and, whether he will investigate the local circumstances so that the Devonport clerks may receive pay and treatment equal to that conceded to the Plymouth staff?
  *MR. HANBURY: Prior to the 31st March last the maximum pay for the separate classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Plymouth was 52s., whereas the maximum pay of the amalgamated class at Devonport was 40s. The men were divided into two classes at Plymouth, the lower rising to 40s. and the higher to 52s., while at Devonport they formed only one class, rising to 40s. Under the Tweedmouth Scheme the two classes at Plymouth were thrown into one the maximum pay remaining at 52s., while the maximum at Devonport was raised from 40s. to 44s. It is the case that the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Devonport perform counter and telegraph duties in addition to sorting duties, while the great majority of the sorting clerks at Plymouth, though they take part in the counter duties, are not called upon to perform telegraph duties. But new entrants at Plymouth are now required to perform all the duties mentioned. The difference in pay is based upon the difference in the amount and importance of the business at the two offices, and it would be contrary to the approved system of classifying offices to raise Devonport to the same category as Plymouth.

  CANADIAN MAIL SERVICE.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
  10
  the conditions of the contract which has been entered into with Messrs. Peterson, Tate, and Company for the Canadian fast Atlantic service are in all respects the same as those set forth in the advertisements inviting tenders, and in reply to which advertisements, tenders at higher figures than were afterwards accepted by Messrs. Peterson were submitted; or whether there is any alteration in the conditions that will explain the lower subsidy accepted by Messrs. Peterson; and What ports have been definitely decided on and named both as ports of call on each side of the Atlantic?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The conditions of the contract are the same as those set forth in the advertisement for tenders, except that in some particulars they are more onerous for the contractors. The steamers will start from Liverpool and run in summer to Quebec and to Montreal, when the navigation permits; in winter they will run to Halifax, Nova Scotia, or St. John, New Brunswick, at the option of the contractors, such option to be declared before May 31, 1899, the date fixed for the commencement of the service. Her Majesty's Government have stipulated that the vessels are to call at an Irish port if required, and that condition has been accepted by the contractors.
  GENERAL LAURIEasked whether the Irish port referred to in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman had been defined?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

CANADA (PREFERENTIAL TARIFF)
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if British goods are near being admitted into Canada upon the lower and preferential tariff recently adopted by the Dominion Government; if there is any reason to apprehend a disturbance of this advantage to British trade; and, in the event of any protest being received from any foreign nation, will Her Majesty's Government take prompt steps to secure complete liberty of action in commercial matters between the several Governments of the Dominions of the Queen, in accordance with

11
the unanimous resolution of the Inter-colonial Conference held at Ottawa in 1894, at which all the self-governing Colonies were represented by their ablest statesmen?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: British goods are now being admitted to Canada upon the lower tariff. Protests have been received from the Governments of Belgium and Germany, and the matter is under the consideration of the Law Officers.

FACTORY INSPECTORS' ASSISTANTS.
MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain why the parchment certificates of authority formerly issued to the inspectors of factories' assistants by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman have been lately withdrawn, and in the new certificates issued to them all power to enter factories and schools has been omitted, and power given to them only to enter and inspect workshops and workshop laundries; whether the inspector assistants would be trespassers should they inadvertently enter a factory; and, whether he is aware that the latterly issued instructions are causing a great amount of injury to the workers by preventing an adequate inspection especially in factories and schools?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): There has been no change of practice in this matter as the hon. Member seems to suppose. Inspectors' assistants, from the time when the class was instituted by my predecessor, never have inspected factories or schools; their duties have always been confined to workshops, and the alteration in the certificate has been made with the object of preventing any misunderstanding as to their position. The injury which the change is supposed to be causing to the workers must be imaginary. I think the provisions of Section 68 of the Act of 1878 would protect an inspector's assistant who entered a factory.

CRETE.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any estimate has been made of the cost to
12
the country of the blockade of Crete; and whether any arrangement has been arrived at for an equal apportionment of the total cost among the six Governments directly concerned in the Concert of Europe?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The answer to both Questions is in the negative.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Has no suggestion been made to apportion the cost between the parties?
*MR CURZON: No such suggestion has been made.
MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the six Powers have yet agreed upon the scheme of autonomy to be established in Crete; and, if so, whether the Sultan has accepted the scheme; and what progress is being made with the removal of the Turkish troops from Crete?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The question of the organisation of Crete is under the consideration of the Powers. It has not yet been possible to open discussion with the Porte on the subject, as the settlement of an armistice and the terms of peace between Turkey and Greece first require attention. The removal of the Turkish troops from Crete is dependent upon the formation of an adequate force for the preservation of public order—a measure which is now under discussion.
MR. J. C. FLYNNasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether the Powers had yet agreed upon the choice of a Christian Governor for the island?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No Governor-General has yet been selected.
MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an armed band of Mohammedans made a sortie from Candia on the night of the 29th instant, burned the village of Kalivia, killing 12 men and two women, and lifting a large number of cattle; and whether, in view of the exasperating effect likely to he produced by this raid on the Christian Cretans, the representatives of the

13
Great Powers will take adequate measures to protect the Christian population against the recurrence of such attacks?
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information is in the possession of Her Majesty's Government as to the Mohammedan attack from near Candia on Kalivia and the loss of life which occurred?
*MR. CURZON: It appears from telegraphic reports received from Sir A. Biliotti and Colonel Chermside that on the night of the 28th a secretly organised raid was made by Moslem peasants on the village of Ghalifa. The raid resulted in the death of 10 or 12 Christians and one or two women; cattle and sheep were carried off, and the olive oil deposits were destroyed. The Consul derives his information from Turkish sources. Colonel Chermside sent on the 30th instant to the insurgents informing them of his regret, and that the raid took place without the knowledge of the Governor, who had specially instructed the outposts that no movement of any sort was to take place. Colonel Chermside has been directed by the Admiral to insist upon the disarmament of the Mohammedans, who commenced the attack.
Mr. JOHN DILLONasked whether any punishment was to be awarded to or any effort made to bring to justice these murderers, because they were nothing else?
*MR. CURZON: That is an assurance which it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to give here, and I am afraid that if we are to give promises about meting out punishment to those who commence these disorderly attacks in Crete the whole time of our officials in that country will be taken up in so doing.
Mr. DILLON: Is not the town of Candia in possession of the Great Powers?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is entering into an argument.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible at this present moment for the government of Crete?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
*SIR C. DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Monmouth (Mr. R. McKENNA), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information of a nature to supplement or contradict the statement in a letter of Rear Admiral Harris to Admiral Sir J. O. Hopkins, of 23rd April 1897, in which he describes the insurgent forces round the town of Candia as consisting of 3,000 fighting men, which might be raised to 8,000 or 10,000 for any operation on the outside of the town; and whether this may be taken as a substantially accurate estimate of the insurgent forces round Candia at the present moment?
MR. CURZON: In a Dispatch dated May 11th, Colonel Chermside stated that from the date named in the Question onwards there were reports of a considerable concentration of insurgent forces upon Candia, and that on one occasion it was estimated by the Turks that as many as 6,000 insurgents, including 600 horsemen, were present.

STEAM TRAWLERS (INJURY TO BRIGHTON DRIFT NETS).
MR. GERALD LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that very serious damage is constantly being done to the drift nets of the Brighton fishermen by steam trawlers, which also destroy large quantities of immature fish; and whether he is prepared to take effective measures to protect the fishing industry on this part of the coast?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am aware of complaints that injury has been caused to drift nets by trawlers off the coast of Sussex, but it does not appear that the drifters have taken the usual steps for identifying the boats alleged to have offended. Had they done so, they might, upon due proof, have obtained compensation under the Sea Fisheries Act 1883. It is the practice of the Admiralty to place a cruiser on this coast during the fishing season, and I understand that there is one there now; but the fishermen ought to do their part by supplying the necessary information and evidence.

QUARANTINE.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that all P. and O. steamships from Australia, which take on board Bombay mails and passengers at Aden, are, in consequence of the existence of bubonic plague at Bombay, quarantined with their passengers at all the ports of call, Suez, Port Said, Brindisi, Marseilles, etc.; whether he has received petitions, signed by nearly all the passengers by the P. and O. steamer Parramatta, from Australia, strongly protesting against the present practice of taking the Bombay passengers at Aden on their clean ship, pointing out the further inconvenience they were subjected to by not being allowed to land at ports of call, entailing delay and discomfort, and also that there is a weekly service of mails from Bombay to Aden, which might be extended to Brindisi, as it is now done fortnightly; whether the statement made by the petitioners is correct that the P. and O. Company is not responsible, as the terms of their mail contract compel their steamers to call at Aden; and whether the Government will taken action in the matter without delay?
*MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General understands that all Peninsular and Oriental steamships from Australia which take on board passengers from Bombay at Aden are placed in quarantine at the Egyptian ports of call. At Brindisi and Marseilles he believes there is now no regular quarantine, but only a certain medical inspection which causes little delay. The petition referred to from passengers on the steamship Parramatta has been received. The statement that the call at Aden is compulsory under the contracts of the Peninsular and Oriental Company with the Postmaster General is not quite correct. The mail steamers from Australia are not obliged to call at Aden, but the Company are at liberty under the terms of the contracts to make these steamers call there and carry the mails from Bombay to Europe. A copy of the petition has been sent to the Company; but, as I stated in reply to a similar Question on April 12 last, it is not in accord with the duty of the Post
16
Office Department to lake further steps in a matter which does not directly affect the mail service.

QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the forthcoming Naval Review at Spithead, he will follow the precedent set in the case of the Naval Review in 1887, and call the attention of the various police authorities in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, and Isle of Wight by circular as to their duty under the Merchant Shipping Act of enforcing the law against the overcrowding of steamers, and thereby preventing the serious risk and danger to human life by such overcrowding in the event of collision on such an occasion?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes. I propose to issue a circular to these police authorities similar to that sent out in 1887.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the forthcoming Naval Review at Spithead, he will adopt the course taken at the Naval Review in 1887, and cause notices to be issued to all masters and owners of steam vessels employed between Portsmouth, Gosport, Southampton, and Isle of Wight, licensed to carry passengers, warning them against any infringement of the law by carrying more than the specified number of persons mentioned in their licences respectively, in view of the fact that such overloading is a very serious risk and danger to life in the event of even a slight collision in a crowded roadstead?
MR. RITCHIE: Before notice of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question appeared on the Paper, I had given instructions for the issue of cautionary notices with regard to vessels taking passengers to the forthcoming Naval Review. I have also placed myself in communication with the Home Office on the subject.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether there is any precedent for the exclusion of Members of this House from Westminster Hall except on payment of

17
a sum of money for refreshments; and, under what authority is it proposed to appropriate any part of the precinets of the House to the exclusive use of certain Members for a monetary consideration?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER, OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that I have had, and I have, no intention of excluding Members of this House from Westminster Hall on the the 22nd June, and they will not be so excluded. At the request of a Select Committee representative of the whole House, I sanctioned the use of the Hall for a definite purpose, which I believe was approved by the House. The arrangements for the day in question rests with the Select Conimittee.
SIR JOHN LENG: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his public announcement that Members unprovided with tickets will not be admitted to the House?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I never made any such announcement.
MR. T. G. ASHTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that, while lords lieutenant of counties are to be provided with seats in Trafalgar Square on Jubilee Day, no provision is to be made for sheriffs of counties; that the office of sheriff is a much more ancient one than that of lord lieutenant; and that the sheriff is, equally with the lord lieutenant, the representative of the Sovereign in the county; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will reconsider his decision with regard to the provision of seats for sheriffs of counties?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am sorry to say that I cannot depart from my previous decision as to the high sheriffs, it being impossible, for want of space, to allot seats to them on the stands. I may mention that, as most of the lords lieutenant are provided for in other capacities, only about six applications front them have had to be met.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that, the forthcoming Jubilee Procession is to be composed in part of military and police contingents from every Colony and Dependency of the Crown, the Lords Commissioners of
18
the Admiralty Will make further representations so that the sea power of the Empire may find its proper place in the Procession, either in the form of a naval field battery with a covering party of Marines or of a rocket, brigade; and whether, if none of these suggestions can he adopted and it is decided that the Royal Navy shall have no place in the Imperial Procession, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will order that the seamen of the Fleet shall remain at their respective ports, and not be brought up to act, as sentries; in the streets, and that, their services shall be confined to furnishing guards of honour where required?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to repeat his Question on Thursday, when I will be able to say more with regard to this subject. At present I can only say that I believe it would be a subject of great disappointment to the public at large and of deep regret to the naval service if they could not participate in the Procession on Jubilee Day. [Cheers.]
MR. JOHN AIRDasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could now state whether any arrangements had been made to enable Members of Parliament to witness the illuminations of the Fleet on the occasion of the Naval Review?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): I am glad to say that it has been possible to make arrangements to enable a certain number of Members and their friends to remain on board the Campania for the purpose of witnessing the Accommodation can be provided for not mere than 350 persons to dine, sleep and breakfast on board the ship. They will be landed at Southampton on Sunday morning by tender from the Campania not later than ten o'clock. The Campania, after landing those who desire to return to town on Saturday afternoon, will leave Southampton Deck not later than 7 o'clock p.m. and take up a position in the Solent. The charge will be £5 5s. per head, and these arrangements are dependent upon not less than 250 persons intimating their intention of staying on board.

CO-OPERATIVE STORES (SCOTLAND).
DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether he is aware that a number of traders in Scotland have formed an association to boycott the co-operative stores and their members by refusing to sell to them, and that at a public auction in Glasgow the auctioneer refused to accept a bid made by the manager of a store; (2) whether boycotting is illegal in Scotland; and, if so, what action he intends to take in the matter?
* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): In answer to the first paragraph of the Question, I am aware that a dispute has arisen as to the action of an auctioneer at a public sale in Glasgow. I understand that an action of damages in respect thereof has been raised in the Sheriff Court, which action is at present sob judice; and in any case the point as affecting civil liability is not one on which I could pronounce an opinion. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question, I have to state that "boycotting" is not a "nomen juris." If the conduct of any person or persons in Scotland is alleged to be in contravention of the criminal law, the matter should be brought forward by lodging information with the Procurator Fiscal in ordinary form. No complaint has up to this time been lodged in respect of the matters alleged in the Question; and there is therefore at present no occasion for me to take action.

ARTILLERY PRACTICE (DARTMOOR).
MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large number of people who use Dartmoor as a holiday resort, he would take steps to prevent the artillery practice on Dartmoor on bank holidays?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): It is not quite clear that the general wish of the frequenters of Dartmoor accords with the suggestion in the hon. Member's Question. It is understood that a great many persons go out to Okehampton on bank holidays expressly in the hope of seeing firing. Again, each battery has a limited time at Okehampton and many days are too misty for firing. If a bank
20
holiday should be a bright day, succeeding several misty ones, it might not be possible to spare the day from the firing course. Therefore, the question of firing or not on a bank holiday must be left to the decision of the officer commanding on the spot. Precautions are, of course, taken for the safety of the public.
Mr. LUTTRELLasked whether it was the case that large numbers of people did go to witness the practice, and whether, if they did go, they were allowed to roam about the moor as they pleased?
MR. POWELL - WILLIAMSsaid the people did not roam about the moor as they pleased, but they did go to places of safety in considerable numbers to watch the firing.

UGANDA RAILWAY.
MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason why only 68 miles of the Uganda Railway were laid up to the 18th May, as against the estimate of 100 miles mentioned in the Report of the Uganda Railway Works Committee of 10th April 1896; how many men are now engaged upon the works, and how many of these are English, and how many native workers; what length of the route of the proposed railway from Mombasa to Victoria Nyanza has now been completely surveyed; and whether it is the intention of the Government to open the first section of 68 miles, now finished, for public traffic; and if so, when?
MR. CURZON: The Report of the Committee, which I have promised to lay out at an early date, will contain all the information that we are in a position to give with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member; the difficulty of obtaining labour has been the most serious obstacle.

SHIPWRIGHTS (NAVY).
GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) what is the establishment of shipwrights on the active list of Her Majesty's Navy; (2) whether the number is complete, or what is the present deficiency; and (3) if a deficiency, whether competent men have

21
expressed unwillingness to enter the service, owing to alleged grievances in regard to rank and pay and the duties they are required to perform; and (4), whether there is any alterations in the matters of pay and position?
MR. MACARTNEY: There is no fixed establishment of shipwright ratings. The number borne at the present moment is 1151, and the number required to meet waste is 27. As regards paragraphs 2 and 3, it is, I believe, the case that efforts are being made to prevent the entry of shipwrights, with a view to putting pressure upon the Admiralty to remedy certain specified grievances. These alleged grievances have been carefully examined, but it is not considered necessary to treat shipwrights in any exceptional manner as compared with other skilled ratings on board H.M. ships.

POST OFFICE (SECRETARY).
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Secretary to the Post Office is still away in Washington; and who is Acting Secretary in his absence?
*MR. HANRURY: The Secretary to the Post Office is still absent in Washington, attending the Postal Union Congress. The Second Secretary acts as Secretary in his absence.

WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES AND FEVER HOSPITALS IRELAND).
MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in consequence of the defective condition of the nursing in Irish workhouse infirmaries and fever hospitals, he will consider the desirability of suggesting to the Local Government Board to appoint at least one or two lady inspectors, professionally qualified as doctors or nurses to inspect the Poor Law fever hospitals and infirmaries, and who would also inspect the state of the women and children, the idiots, lunatics, and infirm?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The major portion of
22
the duties of an Inspector of the Local Government Board could not be undertaken by a lady inspector. As to the expediency of appointing a lady inspector, the question is not one on which I should be prepared to offer an opinion at present.

DRUNKENNESS (STRATFORD).
MR. T. P. WHITTRAKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which a woman was convicted at West Ham on 20th March for being drunk, the police constable who was on point duty outside the "Princess Alice" public house in Romford Road, Stratford, having given evidence that at 7 p.m. on the night of 19th March he saw the prisoner enter the "Princess Alice" sober, and spoke to her; that she remained there two hours, and at 9 p.m. he was called in to eject her, and she was then very drunk; and whether any proceedings have been taken by the police against the landlord of the "Princess Alice" for permitting drunkenness; if not, whether he can state why such proceedings have not been instituted?
*SIR MATTHEW WHITERIDLEY: I have obtained a report of this case and find that it is not correct to say that the constable gave evidence that the woman remained in the public house for two hours. What he did say, when asked whether she was there the whole of the two hours from 7 to 9, was that he did not see her after 7 until called to the public house at 9; and the facts appear to be that the woman left the house in less than half an hour after the constable saw her enter it, that she returned about 9 the worse for liquor, and that the landlord refused to serve her, and called the constable to eject her. There were no grounds for taking any proceedings against the landlord.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. E. CREAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it would be possible to have the mails on their arrival at Abbeyleix, Queen's County, at 8.25 a.m., immediately forwarded to Ballinakill, as the present delay of over three hours

23
causes great inconvenience to people leaving by the 10.14 a.m. train from Abbeyleix, before the delivery of the mails under existing arrangements?
MR. HANBURY: The day mail, which arrives at Abbeyleix at 8.25 a.m., reaches the post office at 8.35 a.m., and the postman is dispatched at 9.40 a.m. for Ballinakill, where he is due at 11.20 a.m. He cannot leave earlier because he has other duties to perform. To admit of the interval of 1 hour 5 minutes between the arrival of the mails and the departure for Ballinakill being reduced, it would be necessary to employ another person, and this would involve additional expense. At the best the interval could not be reduced by more than about 40 or 45 minutes, which would apparently be of no use for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member. The day mail service to Ballinakill, which was recently accelerated by upwards of two hours, is now carried on at a loss, and any further expense would not be justified.

ARMY PENSION (MICHAEL CONNAUGHTON).
MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the attention of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital has been directed to the case of a Crimean veteran, Michael Connaughton, now residing at Ballintubber, County Roscommon, who served in the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny, was wounded at Inkerman, and holds three war medals, and was discharged on a pension of 9d. a day; and whether, as this pension is now insufficient for his support, he will recommend that he be granted a special campaign pension?
MR. POWELL - WILLIAMS: The special campaign pension is only granted to men who are not already pensioners for army service, as Michael Connaughton has been since 1867.

FISHERY CRUISERS.
MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the speed, normal coal supply, complement, and original cost of each of the following cruisers engaged in protecting the in-
24
terests of the line fishermen off the coast of Great Britain and Ireland, viz., Jackal, Daisy, Hearty, and Beatrice.
MR. MACARTNEY: The particulars asked for by the hon. Member are as follows,—

Ship.

Speed, Knots.

Coal Stowage, Tons.

Complement

Original Cost.

Hearty

14·5

250

94

£42,213

Jackal

13·5

130

59

25,265

Daisy

Sailing

Vessel

7

1,345

Beatrice

Sailing

Vessel

5

1,127

MILITARY EQUIPMENT (INDIA).
Mr. G. B. HUDSONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in cases of officers proceeding to serve in India, a part of their military equipment, such as their sword and revolver, is exempted from import duty, whereas their regimental saddle and bridle, equally necessary proportions, are charged a duty; and whether he will inquire into the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Indian Tariff Act exempts from import duty arms imported by a military officer for the purposes of his equipment. I am not aware whether an officer's saddlery is similarly exempted from the general import duty of 5 per cent. ad valorem, but I will communicate with the Government of India on the subject.

STATIONERY.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the War Office, the India Office, or any other Government Department, is able to obtain either paper or other stationery otherwise than through the Stationery Office; and whether he will consider if the Stationery Office might obtain its supplies more advantageously direct from mills and factories in the United Kingdom instead of from middlemen who may be only agents of foreign firms?
*MR. HANBURY: Unless under exceptional circumstances all supplies of stationery required for use in the Public

25
Service and paid for directly from Public Votes are obtained throngh the Stationery Office. Supplies for use in India, which are paid from India funds, have now for some years past been commonly purchased by the India Office without the intervention of the Stationery Office. It is only under exceptional circumstances that middlemen can properly be excluded from the open competition which is the rule of the Office. Such a case arises for instance when, owing to a combination of firms, prices are run up unduly high. This I found to be happening with regard to certain classes of paper, and the tenders were therefore limited to the actual producers, with the result that we shall now obtain them at prices at least 25 per cent. lower than hitherto.

ELECTRIE LIGHTING (KENSINGTON AND KNIGHTSBRIDE CO.)
MR. H. M. STANLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the notice recently issued by the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company to their consumers intimating their intention to increase the voltage of the current supplied from 100 to 200, and calling upon the consumers to adapt their fittings at their own expense to comply with the altered voltage, was issued with the sanction of the Board of Trade; and, whether compliance with such notice is legally binding on the consumers?
MR. RITCHIE: I have not seen the notice referred to, but the sanction of the Board of Trade to any such notice is not required. Under the Board of Trade Regulations any change of standard pressure by the Kensington and Knights-bridge Electric Lighting Company is subject to the approval of the County Council and not of the Board of Trade. No provision is made for a reference to the Board of Trade, except on appeal by the Company against any decision of the County Council. No change is allowable in the pressure of the supply to any premises which on March 4th 1896, the date of the Board of Trade Regulations, were supplied with energy by the Company, except with the consent of the consumer.

PLAGUE (BOMBAY).
MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the measures of segregation of the sick, and of healthy from plague-infected houses, recently ordered by the Government of Bombay on the recommendation of medical men from Hong Kong, were in substance urged upon that Government early in October 1896, by the Surgeon General with the Government of Bombay, and again. in December by a committee of Bombay medical officers presided over by the late Surgeon Major Manser; (2) whether the Surgeon General in October advised medical examination of railway passengers at Kalyan and Virar, as being more effectual than inspection at terminal stations within Bombay limits, and whether the recommendation was disregarded by the Bombay Government for three and a half months, during which the plague was carried to numerous fresh centres of infection; (3) whether in the measures that have been adopted and the special appointments made to deal with the plague, the Bombay Government have acted in consultation with the Surgeon. General and the Sanitary Commissioner and on their recommendation; and (4) whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the report of committee above referred to and of the recommendations of the Surgeon General?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am unable to answer the first two Questions as to the origin and paternity of the measures taken to suppress plague in Bombay, but, so far as I know, there has been no divergence of opinion as to the most effective means of stamping out the pestilence, though there may have been differences of opinion as to the possibility of enforcing drastic measures offhand. I believe that the Bombay Government have acted throughout in consultation with the Surgeon General and the Sanitary Commissioner. As to the reports referred to, I will inquire about them and consider whether they should be made public.

SILVER IMPORTS (INDIA).
MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, since the closing of the Indian mints in 1894, continuous shipments of silver have

27
been imported into India, amounting on the average to seven crores of rupees annually, or nearly as large an amount as was imported when the mints were open; whether these imports were maintained in 1896–7, notwithstanding the ravages of plague and famine and the reduction of Indian exports of merchandise by nine crores of rupees; whether his attention has been called to the report that large consignments of the imported silver have been taken into Native States under a rebate of duty, and after being coined have been brought back into British India and sold at a profit; whether, in consequence of the competition of silver imports, the fluctuations in exchange are as great as ever; and will he explain why, in these circumstances, the mints are still kept closed?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The Indian mints were closed on 26th June 1893. For the five years previous to that date the net imports of silver into India averaged Rx.11,249,000. For the three years since 1893–94 they have averaged Rx.6,256,000, showing a reduction of Rx.4,993,000, or about 44½ per cent. The net imports in 1896–97 were the smallest on record since 1881-82. I have seen the statement as to the importation of silver into Native States in order that it may be re-imported into British India at a profit; but I doubt it, as there is no provision in the law for a rebate of duty on the import of silver into Native States. Imports of silver are not the only factors affecting exchange; and I know no reasons for thinking that the fluctuations in exchange (which, I may add, have of late been very much less than those of of previous years) are attributable to them. In these circumstances, there is no intention of altering the policy adopted in 1893.

DUTY ON HERRINGS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as in the 14th Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland it is urged that the Governments of Russia and Austria should be approached with a view to a reduction in the duty on herrings entering those countries from Scotland, and that the Foreign Office hesitates to appeal to the Russian Government, will he state whether there are
28
any circumstances to prevent an application to the Austrian Government on the subject?
MR. CURZON: It is not considered that an application of this nature would lead to any useful result.

SMITH v. LONDON AND SOUTH 'WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of Smith v. London and South Western Railway Company, in the Queen's Bench Division last week, in which the plaintiff recovered £100 damages for having been detained at Totton Station by the station master some hours because he refused to give up his ticket, although he had previously tendered his card with his name and address; and, in view of the fact that the action of the station master, although illegal, was supported by the railway company as being in accordance with one of their bye-laws sanctioned by the Board of Trade, will he see that the bye-law is cancelled, not only so far as this Company is concerned, but also in the case of any other company which may have obtained the Board's approval of such bye-law?
MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade are aware of the supersession of the bye-law by Section 5 (2) of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889; there are, however, many points in the bye-laws which require consideration, and the Board propose to deal with them as a whole.

PENSIONS COMMUTATION ACT.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a retired officer, aged say 50, desirous of commuting £100 of his pension, would under the Tables of the Pensions Commutation Board, be entitled to receive only £1,121. 7s. 1d., while, should he be desirous of purchasing from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt an annuity of £100 per annum, he would have to pay £1,583. 10s. 6d., a difference between buying and selling of £463. 3s. 5d.; and whether he will re-consider his decision as to the expediency of taking such steps as will admit of the Tables of the Pensions Commutation Board being

29
placed more in accord with the present value of money, especially having regard to the fact that they were promulgated immediately after the passing of the Pensions Commutation Act of 1871, when Three Per Cent. Consols stood at 923/4, and have not been once revived?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The difference between the prices at which a pension can be commuted and a Government Life Annuity bought is not so great as the hon. Member supposes. Some considerable difference in two such cases is inevitable; because the average life of persons who commute their pensions would he as a rule considerably less than that of those who buy a Life Annuity. I do not propose to alter the law.

TOKAT MASSACRE.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has yet received information respecting the letter addressed by Sir Philip Currie to Tewfik Pasha, in regard to the recent massacre of Armenians at Tokat; whether complaint was made as to the inactivity of the tribunal at Tokat appointed to try the Mussulmans implicated in the massacre and what steps have been taken by the representatives of the Powers to secure the punishment of those already tried and found guilty of complicity in the affair?
MR. CURZON: No reply has yet been received to our telegram, which was sent more than a week ago. We have telegraphed again.
MR. FLYNNasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that this letter was alleged to have been sent by Sir Philip Currie over a fortnight ago?
MR. CURZONsaid they telegraphed to Sir Philip Currie a day or two after the hon. Gentleman put a Question in the House. It was to that telegram that no reply had been received.

LOCAL TAXATION. (ROYAL COMMISSION.)
SIR. HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board the date of the warrant appointing the
30
Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and the number of days that Commission has sat since its appointment?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The date of the warrant appointing the Royal Commission on Local Taxation was l5th August 1896, and that the Commission has held 19 meetings since that date.

METROPLOITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Metropolitan Water Companies Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give an absolute pledge on the matter, but I think it probable—I cannot put it higher than that—that the Second Reading of this Bill will be taken on Monday, the 28th.

ALLEGED LARCENY (CO. MONAGHAN).
MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will release the money found upon the Maguires, who are detained in prison for alleged larceny from the body of a dead man, so that the men may be enabled to provide for their defence?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J A'I'KINSON,): If evidence on oath be supplied to me by the prisoners that they are unable to provide for their defence without this money I will direct that so much of it as may be at present necessary may, with the exception of one particular five pounds, be paid over to the prisoners on their signing a receipt therefor, describing the nature of the monies paid over and the amount.

MAGNETIC OBSERVATORY (GREENWICH).
LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any steps have been taken to fix the site of the new Magnetic Observatory at Greenwich?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I must refer the noble Lord to the answer which I gave him to a similar Question last week.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (IRELAND).
MR. W. LECKY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any prospect of the Government introducing, during the present Session, the Measure relating to Irish Private Bill Legislation, which was forshadowed in the Queen's Speech?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot hold out any prospect that the Government will introduce during the present Session a Measure relating to Irish Private Bill Legislation. Apart from the question of the time required for the completion of Government business already before the House, it would appear expedient, in view of the reform of local government which it is proposed to carry out next year, to defer dealing with Irish Private Bill Legislation until the subject can be considered with reference to the new state of things which that reform will establish.
MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether the Government intend to introduce or pass any Bill relating to Ireland this Session?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; there is a Bill already on the Paper relating to Ireland.

DERBY DAY.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER, asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposed to take Government business to-morrow.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say it is manifest that the Debates on the Committee stage of the Accidents to Workmen Bill will require us to set aside to-morrow for the discussion of that Measure.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: In consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I do not propose to move the adjournment of the House to-morrow. (Opposition cries of "Oh" and Laughter.) And I would add that I sincerely hope that this may not act as a precedent (renewed Opposition laughter), and that hon. Gentlemen who, as a matter of fact, are against the adjournment may be in their places to discuss this important question. (Opposition laughter.)

MOTIONS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker Smith, Sir Thomas Gibson-Car-michael, Colonel Denny, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan); presented and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday 21st June, and to be printed.—[Bill 275.]
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Bill to amend the Elementary Education Acts, and to provide Continuation Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Samuel Smith, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Yerburgh, Colonel Mellor, Mr. James Stuart, and Sir George Baden-Powell; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday 28th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 276.]
  BETTING ACT (1853) REPEAL.
  Bill to repeal The Betting Act 1853, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Tully, Mr. Patrick Aloysins M'Hugh, Mr. John Roche, and Mr. Thomas B. Curran; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.— [Bill 277].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Electric Lighting Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tully, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, and Mr. Thomas Curran; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, 24th June, and to be printed.— [Bill 278.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 31st May.]
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  Clause 2,—

  APPLICATION OF ACT AND DEFINITIONS.
  (1.) This Act shall apply only to employment on, in, or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work.
  (2.) In this Act—
  "Railway" means the railway of any railway company to which the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 applies, and "railway" and "railway company" have the same meaning as in that Act.

  33
  "Factory" has the same meaning as in the Factory and Workshop Acts 1878 to 1891, and also includes any dock, wharf, quay, or warehouse, to which any provision of the Factory Acts is applied by the Factory and Workshop Act 1895.
  "Mine" means a mine to which the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872 applies.
  "Quarry" means a quarry under the Quarries Act 1894.
  "Engineering work" means any work of construction of a railroad, harbour, dock, canal, or sewer, and includes any building or other work on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is used for the purpose of the construction thereof.
  "Employer" includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate.
  "Workman" includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether his agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing.
  Amendment proposed [1st June] in Sub-section (1), after the word "quarry," to insert the word "shipyard."—(Mr. J. A. Pease).—Debate resumed.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid his hon. Friend had told him that he proposed to postpone his Amendment to a later stage. He understood the learned Attorney General to have said that it was the intention of the Government that shipyards should he included. That was the only matter in which he was interested at present, and he hoped that if he could show in a very few words that ship yards did not come within the Bill as proposed, the Government would give a favourable consideration to the Amendment which his hon. Friend would propose hereafter at a more suitable place. The whole question whether ship yards came within the words of the Bill or not depended upon the definition of the word "factory." The Bill stated that the word "factory" had the same meaning as in the Factory and Workshops Acts 1878 and 1891. The definition clause which governed the whole matter was Section 93 of the Act of 1878, which said: "The expression non-textile factory "—under which a ship yard would come if it came under anything—
  "shall include any premises or places named in part 2 of the said schedule, or within the close, curtilage, or precinct of which steam.
  34
  water, or other mechanical power is used in aid of any manufacturing or other processes carried on therein."
  In the second part of the Schedule they found the words "shipbuilding yard," but it was perfectly clear that shipbuilding yard was governed by the words in Section 93 which he had read, and it was only shipbuilding yards in the close, cartilage, or precinct of which there was steam, water, or other mechanical power used. As he understood, when his hon. Friend came to propose his Amendment at a later stage, he would frame it so as to refer to all shipbuilding yards.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that on the understanding that he should be able to propose an Amendment to increase the meaning of the word "factory," so as to include all vessels, whether being constructed in yards in which there was mechanical power or not, and all vessels under repair in mid-stream, he proposed to withdraw the Amendment which he moved last night.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)said no pledge had been given, but it was quite open to his hon. Friend to move the Amendment. The Government were desirous of keeping within the definition of the Factory Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. W. PERKS MR. R. W. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth) moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "quarry," to insert the word "canal." He said the object of this Amendment was to bring canal employés within the Bill. He did not wish to press the claims of these employés beyond this —that they were a deserving section, and their pay was small, and that the disadvantage of leaving them out was that it created serious anomalies. He quite admitted that in the case of canals owned by railway companies it might be open to question whether the employés on those canals might not be covered by the Bill. But it ought not to be left in a state of uncertainty. A question, he supposed, would arise as to whether, under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871, defining "railways," the employés on canals which had been transferred to railway companies might be included under the Bill as framed. But there

  35
  were a good many canals that were not owned by railway companies. Take, for example, the Manchester Ship Canal, the Gloucester Canal, the Leeds and Liverpool, and many others in this country—none of these were owned by railway companies. Therefore they would have this anomalous state of the law—that upon series of canals the employés, if injured, would be within the provisions of this Bill, but directly the canal boats got on to another section of the same series of canals which was not the property of railway companies, they would be outside its provisions. Another point he ventured to make was this: In the definition of an "engineering work" a canal during construction was within the operation of the Bill. Thus a contractor, while constructing a canal, was responsible for the employés upon that canal during its construction, but immediately the construction ceased, and the canal passed into the hands of a chartered company or a limited company, or possibly a railway company, who took over the work, then the employé would be deprived altogether of the rights he had under the Bill against the contractor. That seemed very anomalous indeed. Further, they knew that it was often the duty of the contractor to maintain the canal for a certain period after the works were turned over to the person or the company for whom they were constructed. Now, as long as the employés were simply maintaining the work, they would be under the control of the contractor. The work would be an "engineering work," and an employé, when injured, if he were a servant of the contractor, would be entitled to compensation under the Bill. But if his fellow servant, working alongside of him, were injured, if he were not engaged technically upon an "engineering work," he would not be covered by the Bill, and the anomaly to which he had directed the attention of the Committee would arise. He hoped that, having regard to the singular anomalies that would arise under the Bill in its present form, and the justice of extending its provisions to a most laborious section of the community engaged in somewhat dangerous work, the Government would see their way to extend the Bill to them.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was afraid the Government were
  36
  not prepared to accept the Amendment. If the hon. Member said that the exclusion of canals might involve some anomalies, he was quite prepared to admit it. He had not denied that the exclusion of certain industries would give rise to anomalies under the Bill. But the line of demarcation was very near and close. They had gone on the general principle of limiting the Bill to dangerous trades, and the Committee so far had accepted it. If they were going to put in all canals because, in the first instance there was a clear line between canals owned by railway companies and those by private owners, and, in the second, because of the difficulty of drawing a very clear line between the finish of the construction of a canal and its occupation or user—then he thought they would be getting into very great difficulties. He did not think, whatever sympathy they might have with the population concerned in the working of the canals, that there was any exceptional danger in the employment, and certainly there was no reason why they should be included in the Bill if they were not also to include that large class of the industrial population whom the Committee had already agreed to exclude —namely, the agricultural labourers. ["Hear, hear !"]
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he could understand the Government saying, with regard to the agricultural labourers and other trades not specified in the Bill, "We will not include them," but he understood them now to say: "We will include a canal when it is the property of a railway company, but when it is not the property of a railway company the unfortunate people who are employed upon it shall be exempted." He thought there was no parallel between the exclusion of the agricultural labourers and the exclusion of one section of canal employés, while another section was let in. He might say that the reason why he rose on this question was this: The district of South Staffordshire was traversed by the Birmingham Canal as if it were a street. There were hardly any works in the whole of South Staffordshire that were not in communication with the Birmingham Canal. Now that canal was practically, though not technically, the property of the London and North Western

  37
  Railway Company, who guaranteed a dividend of 4 per cent. Therefore practically the Birmingham Canal was the property of the London and North Western Company, and yet, as they were not technically its owners, it would be outside the Bill. Thus a large class of operatives were not to have the protection of this Bill, whereas some trivial canal in another part of the county which actually belonged to a railway company was to have that protection. If that was so, he was at a loss to see what ground there was for refusing the Amendment and depriving operatives of their remedy, owing entirely to the position of the owners of the canal. ["Hear, hear !"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted it would not be the ownership of the canal which would be included, it would simply be the small boat owners who employed one or two men. The canal company, practically speaking, merely received tolls, the canal trade being carried on by the owners of barges employing one or two hands. The fact that the real property was owned by a railway company did not bring it within any of the principles by which this Bill had been supported. No one could suggest that this was a dangerous trade, and if the House was wise in excluding ships it would surely be wise in excluding the less dangerous trade carried on by barges.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANScalled upon Mr. Tennant to move his Amendment, that being the next which was in order.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEinquired why the Amendment relating to light railways had been passed over.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSconsidered that the proper place for raising such an Amendment would be in that part of the clause which dealt with the definition of a railway.
  *MR. H. J. TENNANT*MR. H. J. TENNANT (Berwickshire) moved in Sub-section (1) after the word "quarry," to insert the word "workshop." He had occasion, on another stage of the Bill, to call attention to the fact that there were more than 34,000 factories in this country in which less
  38
  to bear, he maintained that it was equally fit for the occupiers of large workshops to bear. Again, he had called attention to the case of electricity. He did say it was very important to recognise that transformer workshops were places in which there was a great deal of danger to the persons employed, and that they should come under the Bill. Mr. Richmond, one of the Factory Inspectors, stated that out of 74 fatal accidents in his district, only six occurred through machinery. He could not help thinking the Government must see there was a strong case on the ground of the number of accidents which occurred in workshops, for including them in the scope of the Bill. Section 93 of the Factory Act of 1878 gave power to make any factory or part of a factory a different factory or a different workshop for the purposes of the Act. A man might be employed in a factory on Monday and on Tuesday. On Wednesday he might he in a workshop in the same employment, and might fall down a staircase and break his leg, or sustain other injuries, and what sort of law would he consider it when he knew that had he been injured the day before he would have been able to get compensation, but because he happened to be employed that particular day in a workshop he would not get compensation. He maintained that if they denied to the people in workshops the benefits they were giving to large classes of persons under the Bill, instead of having brought a boon to the working classes of this country they would have produced in the minds of these persons who were not able to get compensation the impression that they had been flagrantly and unjustly dealt with. He begged to move the Amendment.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYwas afraid he could only reply to the hon. Gentleman in the same spirit that he had replied to similar Amendments. The inclusion of "workshop" would mean a considerable addition to the classes of industry brought under this Bill, and although he did not say that that in itself was an objection to the proposal, yet he did say that all the arguments which the Government had endeavoured to enforce upon the House

  39
  since the introduction of the Bill applied emphatically in this case, and if they had in the first instance included workshops in the Bill the satisfaction with which the Measure would have been received might have been very different from what it had been. The distinction was one which was drawn by the present law. He was not denying that there would be difficulties in the carrying out of the Measure, but the Government had contended throughout that when they were introducing a new principle in a tentative manner, they were justified in acting as other countries had done and applying it in the first instance to the more dangerous trades. The hon. Member talked of the great number of accidents which occurred in workshops under the Factory and Workshops Act. That was perfectly true, but he should like to repeat the figures he gave to the House on a previous occasion. This was the very first year in which they had any official Report of the number of accidents in workshops as compared with factories, and he found that in the first three months of the year there were only two fatal accidents in workshops against 188 in factories, the number of persons employed in workshops being larger than the number employed in factories. The number, too, of non-fatal accidents in workshops reported in these three months was only 34 as against 9,247 for a similar period in the factories of this country. If, in favour of the Amendment, it was argued that workshops were as dangerous as factories, then these figures showed there was a real and substantial difference in point of danger between trades as carried on in factories and workshops. This might not be a conclusive reason, but it was a reason why the Government should resist the inclusion of workshops in the Bill. Over and over again they had impressed on the Committee—and so far with great success—that the Bill did not pretend to apply to all the industries to which they would wish to see it applied, but they applied it to all those industries to which they believed they saw their way to apply it satisfactorily. He trusted the Committee would support the Government in the position they had taken.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONregretted the speech of the Home Secretary, because he him-
  40
  self and his hon. Friends understood that if in Committee on this Bill they could show that a particular industry had a special claim to inclusion, and this did not affect the principle of the Bill, the Government would be prepared to consider the matter on its merits. The Government were perhaps wise, when introducing the Bill, in not applying it to too many trades. The Opposition had no desire to "smother the Bill with Amendments." The Government must admit that the Bill had been received with greater favour than they anticipated, and when Members of the Opposition desired to extend the Bill to other trades, they did not wish to destroy the Bill or smother it with Amendments, because they believed the country generally accepted the principle of the Bill. The Amendment was unlike some others that had been proposed. It involved no new principle or departure, like the Amendment on health which the Government resisted as beyond the scope of the Bill. It could not be argued, as it was in regard to sailors, that the position of persons in workshops was so different from those in factories and docks that they should be kept outside the Bill. All the tendency of modern legislation, while keeping up a nominal distinction, had been to level workshops up to factories and place them under the same regulations to prevent accidents. Fifty percent. of the factories which would come under this Bill were factories in which less than 10 persons worked. The Home Secretary implied that if the Bill were extended to small employers it would bring about their ruin, because it was impossible that they could compensate their workmen. Accidents, fatal and non-fatal, were of infrequent occurrence in workshops, and so small consequently would be the liability cast on the owners of workshops that it was not likely to effect their ruin. The Home Secretary said the responsibility thrown on large employers of labour by the Bill would be really no more than they, out of their generosity, gave in compensation to their men. That might be the case as regarded workmen in factories, but when they came to the class of workshops with which the Committee were dealing, the labour was less skilled, the employers had not the same regard for the welfare of those whom they employed, or the

  41
  same public eye directed to their proceedings. As regarded the relations between masters and men, employés in workshops required statutory compensation rather than those in factories, because they did not get compassionate allowances. The majority of employés in workshops consisted of women and children, and where there were men also they had few trades unions to take up their cases. They did not belong to friendly societies, and, when injured, as regarded the possibility of obtaining a weekly allowance from a trades union or friendly society, they were in a far worse position than people engaged in factories. Under all the circumstances to which he had alluded, he hoped the Government would reconsider the exclusion of workshops from the Bill.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid that of the logic of the Amendment and the justice of including workshop employés in the Bill there could not be the slightest doubt. When miners, railway employés, and other workmen were included, there was absolutely no justice, right, or logic in keeping anyone else out of it. But as far as he and most of them understood this Bill, it was not based on justice, logic, or anything of that sort. [Opposition cheers.] It rested on expediency, and the result was not whether it was right to include workshop employés, but whether it was expedient, and he was strongly of opinion that the Government were right in saying it was not expedient. The Bill was a new departure in the relations between employers and employed, and he could perfectly understand that under these circumstances the Government should wish to confine it at present to dangerous trades and see how it worked before they extended it to other trades. If the Bill was found to work well, nothing could prevent its application to other trades than those mentioned in it. Probably next year, but certainly the year after, the trades now excluded from the Bill would be included in it. Meantime, there would be an opportunity of discovering what the defects of the Bill were. The Government had distinctly declined to include other trades at present, and it was waste of time for hon. Members opposite to try to persuade them to do so, especially when they knew that with the majority they had, they could do
  42
  whatever they pleased. [Opposition laughter and "hear, hear!"]
  MR. REGINALD·McKENNAasked if the Government really declined to include in the Bill any more trades than those mentioned?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Committee are fully possessed now of the mind of the Government on this question. I entirely agree with almost every word which has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, except that I did not say the Bill was not based on justice—[laughter]—because I really think it is based on a desire to do absolute justice to all who come within its purview. [Cheers.] Only we have said, and have stated again and again as plainly as it is possible to state it, that we considered when we introduced this great and novel principle that if we at once applied it indiscriminately to all trades and all classes of workmen, we should not have the ghost of a chance of passing our Bill. Therefore we conceived it to be expedient to limit it to trades in which the demand for reform was most urgent, and to see whether it cannot be safely extended further. But we have said distinctly that we cannot undertake to add to the Bill any of these great classes, such as agricultural labourers, seamen, and those employed in workshops, and, further, that we confine ourselves to the limitations already existing in different Acts of Parliament to which we refer in the Bill, and the only exceptions which we can make are with regard to building, laundries, and machinery plant, in respect of which we are putting down our own Amendments to the Bill.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I think that after that declaration it would probably be taking up the time of the Committee to go on discussing in detail arguments in reference to particular categories of workmen whom we know the Government are not going to include. ["Hear, hear !"] We understand the position; logic, my right hon. Friend admits, has been banished, and justice, or, at any rate, perfect justice has been adjourned until the Greek Kalends. In the meantime, we must make the best we can of this position; the Government are the masters of the situation, and I

  43
  venture to appeal to my hon. Friends to accept the situation, and to come as speedily as we can to the discussion of matters which are debateable ground. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid that he would like to call attention to the result of the refusal of the Secretary for the Colonies in this case. It would specially affect the carpentering and joinery trade. If there was a gas engine outside in the yard by which a certain amount of sawing was done by men at work inside, the building came within the definition of a factory; but if there was no gas engine outside the yard they did not come within the Act at all. If a man carried on a large business with the same machinery on one side of a road, with a gate across the fence leading into the road, and on the other side of the road had very large workshops where hundreds of men were engaged, those men would not come within this Act, while if they happened to be working in the yard 50 or 60 yards away from it on the same side of the road, they would come within the Act. That was an extremely inconsistent position, and he thought it was expedient that that kind of work should be included.
  Question put, "That the word 'workshop' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 115; Noes, 191.—(Division List, No. 229.)
  *SIR, MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that, in accordance with what he said the previous evening to the hon. Member for Leicester on the question of buildings, and in fulfilment of his promise, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper. His proposal was intended to include not only those buildings in which steam machinery or other mechanical power was used, but also buildings to which at present the Factory Acts applied. His Amendment was to make the Bill apply only to employment on, in, or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work,
  "and to employment on, in, or about any building exceeding 30 ft. in height which is being constructed or repaired by means of a scaffolding, or on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is
  44
  being used for the purpose of the construction or repair thereof."
  He moved the insertion of those words.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTacknowledged that in this Amendment the Home Secretary had redeemed the promise made the previous evening, but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone further in the direction of the Amendment which had been suggested by including all places where building material was being prepared, and where buildings were being constructed. The limitation of height to 30ft. would only produce further anomalies. He pointed out, moreover, that the ordinary practice was to erect buildings in an irregular manner—that was to say, one end of the building was sometimes erected at a quicker rate than the other, so that one end might be 30ft. high and the other end 25ft. high. It would be curious to see how a Judge would construe this portion of the clause in a case of that kind, and whether or not the entire building would come within the scope of the Bill.
  MR. LEES KNOWLESsuggested to the Government that it was desirable to insert in the definition clause the definition of a "building," and to make some reference to the Factory Acts. He agreed with the view that the height of 30ft. was an arbitrary limit.
  MR. S. WOODS MR. S. WOODS (Essex, Walthamstow) moved the omission of all the words in the Home Secretary's Amendment after the word "building," so as to get rid of all limitations. He objected to any limitation being fixed in regard to the building trade. The building trade was one of the most important and highly skilled trades in the country, and he thought it came within the category of a dangerous trade. He could not understand the distinction drawn between a building under 30ft. in height and a building over 30ft. in height, and it was anomalous that a man should be able to claim compensation for a fall of 30ft., while another man employed on the same building should not be able to claim for a fall of 28ft. An expert in the trade had stated that there were as many accidents under 30ft. as over 30ft., and it was, therefore, just to contend that no distinction should be made.
  MR. J. SAMUELasked what was meant by height—was the mea-

  45
  surement taken from the street level to the eaves or the top of the roof? A large number of houses in the North of England were constructed about 30 ft. high from the level of the street to the eaves.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Government had adopted as a convenient definition the words of the Factory and Workshops Act, which had already received statutory interpretation. That definition had really the further advantage that it would to a considerable extent relieve the smaller builders from the obligations of the Bill. The Government felt that there was a considerable difference in the position of a small man employing one or two labourers and that of a man engaged in large contracting operations.
  CAPTAIN NORTONappealed to the Government, seeing they had agreed to include three-fourths of the building trade, to bring in the remaining fourth. The portion excluded represented that which stood in the greatest need of protection. Those builders who undertook large contracts were usually men who employed the more experienced workmen, whereas the smaller builder was in nine cases out of ten the sweater. He engaged inexperienced workmen, and put on two or three men where four or live were required for the job. And why should the small builder not be subject to the same liabilities as the owner of a small factory or workshop? In the Operative Plasterers' Society alone he found that last year they had no fewer than four deaths, live accidents causing total disablement, and 250 other accidents, or 16 per cent. of accidents in that particular trade. A very large amount of plaster work was done in buildings under 30 ft. high, where there was no scaffolding and no machinery used.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESreminded the Secretary for the Colonies that this Act would be put in force by the County Courts, and therefore the statutory interpretation which had hitherto obtained would be of no avail at all. Passing from that, he could not see why, in addition to height, they should superimpose the two conditions of scaffolding and machinery. Surely if a building exceded 30 ft. in height the Act should apply whether there was scaffolding or
  46
  machinery or not. A man who fell from the Tower of Babel would have no compensation under this clause; and so would the steeple-jack who, without scaffolding or machinery, ascended to the top of the Trafalgar Monument the other day. The height was the thing, and the addition of scaffolding or machinery should make no difference at all. Another effect of the Government Amendment would be to discourage sound employers and the use of machinery in the building trade. The logical thing would have been to refer to the building trade generally, and define the term in the definition clause.
  Mr. TENNANTasked whether there would be any objection to inserting the word "demolish" after the ward "construct!"
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that there would be no objection to inserting the two words "repair" and "demolish."
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDsaid that the question was one of drawing a line somewhere, and he was only concerned to see the line drawn in a practical way. He had no sympathy with those who tried to extend this tentative Measure first in one direction and then in another; but the line proposed to be drawn by the Government was not practical. The Government were going to make legal rights depend upon an exact measurement of 30ft., and yet they were leaving wholly vague the methods by which the measurement was to be determined. Were pinnacles and weathercocks to be counted in the height of a building? Was the measurement to be taken from the concrete, and, in the case of sloping ground, from the lowest point? Was the Act only to apply when a building in course of erection had passed the height of 30ft.? It really did not matter in the building trade whether this experiment were made a little larger or smaller, and he thought the words "30 feet" had better be omitted.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the difference of opinion was perfectly clean. Some hon. Gentlemen desired the provision to be extended, and the Government could not agree to it. Upon that point the decision of the Committee must be taken. If the anomalies which would arise under any definition were to be discussed, the Committee would never get

  47
  to an end of its labours. The Government were anxious to meet any suggestion, if doing so did not involve lengthened discussion; and they would accept the insertion of the word "demolish" if it would not add to the controversial matter in the Bill.
  MR. E ROBERTSONsaid that after the concession of the Home Secretary he should not move the Amendment of which he had given notice making the Bill co-extensive with the Notification of Accidents Bill.
  *SIR ALFRED HICKMANasked the Government to say whether they regarded these exclusions limitations as vital to the Bill?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that he could not say that a point of this kind was vital to the Bill; but the Government had clearly declared how far they were prepared to go. They could not advise the Committee to go further.
  MR. ALFRED BILLSONthought that the builder would be able to insure better if all his men were covered by the insurance. The question of the height of the building did not come in at all.
  MR. W. ALLANasked the Home Secretary to give him a practical definition of "30 feet high." [Ministerial laughter.] If the height was not clearly defined it would be the source of endless litigation between workmen and their employers. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the Government had been charged with not having sufficiently included the building trades in the Bill. They had gone as far as they could go in that direction in the Amendment which he had moved, and they had taken the words "30 feet high" from the Act of 1885.
  MR. ALLANsaid he felt sure that both workmen and employers would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman inserted after "30 feet" the words "front the ground level." ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid that what they wanted to ascertain was how the Courts would interpret "30 feet."
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Who can tell?
  MR. CHANNINGasked if the Attorney General could give any information as to whether there had been any cases
  48
  decided under the Act of 1885 which threw light on the question?
  Question put, "That the words of the Amendment as far as the word 'constructed,' inclusive, stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 120.—(Division List, No. 230.)
  MR. TENNANT MR. TENNANT moved after the word "constructed" in the proposed Amendment to insert the word "demolished."
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that a good many people had suggested this Amendment, but he was bound to say it was a rather dangerous one. Buildings were demolished by people called "knackers," who were a special class ill themselves; and if this Amendment were accepted there would be admitted one of the poorest class of wretched employers from whom the difficulty of obtaining compensation would be the greatest.
  Amendment amended by inserting, after the word "constructed," the word "demolished," and after the word "construction," in the last line, the word "demolition."
  Words, as amended, inserted.
  Amendments made: Sub-section (2), first paragraph, "87" struck out, and "1873" inserted—(The Attorney General.) Sub-section (2), second paragraph, the word "or" omitted—(Sir Matthew White Ridley)
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to insert the words "machinery or plant," after the word "warehouse."
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLpointed out that this Amendment raised the question mooted last night, but reserved for further consideration. The Government would be landed in a very strange anomaly if this Amendment were accepted. Sometimes ships were unloaded at the dock side, and at other times into lighters. If the unloading process went on at the quay the docker was protected, but if it took place into lighters the docker was not protected. Often a ship lay in mid-stream, and her unloading took place into lighters while she was in that position. The men employed in that case ought, he thought, to be protected. He, therefore, moved,

  49
  as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert the words:—
  "or as far as relates to the process or loading or unloading every ship while in port, harbour, or river, and all machinery or plant used in that process."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought this was a separate Amendment.
  MR. PICKERSGILLpointed out that his words also included "machinery and plant." His Amendment extended the effect of the Home Secretary's Amendment, and, therefore, he respectfully submitted, that with the usual practice, it would be in order here.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the Home Secretary had the same words in before the hon. Member, and he was, therefore, entitled to get the decision of the Committee first. If the Committee rejected the right hon. Gentleman's words, then the hon. Member would be in order.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that would make the wording of the clause extremely clumsy. It would not meet his purpose if the Home Secretary's words were first submitted.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OP WAYS AND MEANSaccepted the Amendment as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that if this Amendment to the Amendment were accepted, it would include all cases of loading or unloading of ships by ship's tackle whether in dock or in mid-stream and would impose a liability on the shipowner indirectly. What the Government proposed was that where the machinery of the dock was being used for the purpose of loading or unloading a ship at the quay it should come under the Bill; but if that machinery was also used for unloading into a lighter, it would also, he took it, come under the Bill. They must draw the line somewhere, and, as the Colonial Secretary had pointed out more than once, they had thought it wise to draw it at the definition, which had already been accepted, of the loading and unloading by machinery which was part of the dock premises, and which was used as the dock premises. They could not possibly accept the Amendment, which would be, to a large extent, negativing the decision which the Committee, indirectly, came to last night.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsubmitted the Attorney General was mistaken in supposing that the Home Secretary's words would cover the particular case he had quoted of machinery on the quay which was being used to convey goods from the ship into the river on the other side, for this reason, that the words which the Government proposed to insert were "machinery or plant," to which the provisions of the Factory Act of 1895 applied. The "machinery or plant" to which the Factory Act of 1895 applied were machinery or plant which were used in the process of conveying the goods to or from the quay. Therefore, it was clear that these words would not cover the case of goods being dealt with even with the gear of the dock company.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he believed that the cases to which he referred, in which a crane could be used for conveying goods on to the other side of the ship, were very exceptional cases, but the real strength of the Amendment was the tackle and gear of the ship which was being used for that purpose, and in that case it would be excluded.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to take out the words "either to or therefrom." That was all that was required to meet this particular case.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this matter was fully discussed in the Debates on the Factory Bill of 1895, and he thought that the sense of the House was that if words could be formed it should extend to the loading and unloading of ships, though they might not be actually attached to the quay and were loading from or into lighters. There was no question here of extending it to the sailors. It was entirely a matter with reference to stevedores and dockers, and if the Government would consent to consider the matter on Report, so as to see whether it was not possible, with regard to them, to extend this protection which they had now when the ship was attached to the quay, and whether some words could not be adopted to bring these men under the protection of the Bill, from which they were at present excluded, simply because the ship was not attached to a quay, he thought they would meet the objections which had been raised.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINwas a little surprised at the appeal which had just been made by the hon. Member opposite, because he thought he thoroughly accepted the view taken just now by his hon. and learned Friend that it would be wise to accept the definitions already laid down in the Factory Act. The Government would not engage in the extremely difficult task of amending the definitions of the Factory Act. He did not say that they might not be able to amend those definitions in many particulars, but it would be too great a task for them to undertake in that Bill.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that by the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, a grave injustice was being done to the stevedores. The dividing line would be far better drawn if it were to refer simply to those men whose occupation was docking, and who lived on shore, and who were not part of the actual complement of a ship's crew.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANSdesired to ask the Attorney General a question. If a ship was alongside a quay, and one of the shore gang, while working a winch on board towards the quay met with an accident, he presumed he would come within the range of the Bill. But if, while working at the same winch, he met with an accident while lowering anything into a barge alongside, he was without the Bill. If that were so, that man would be in a very awkward position.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he had raised a small but very important point, and if the Government would agree, either now or on Report, to withdraw the words "either to or therefrom," so as to cover the case of unloading with the gear or crane of the dock company into a lighter he would not divide. If they would not consent to do that he would divide the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that if they were to at once agree to withdraw those words they would have to insert a clause repeating again Section 23 of the Factory Act. He thought the hon. and learned. Member must see that to enter into this kind of discussion was just one of those very difficult and complicated matters with which the Colonial Secretary declined to deal. With regard
  52
  to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, he certainly should have thought that the machinery referred to in the Factory Act was the machinery belonging to the dock, wharf, warehouse, or quay. He was not aware whether there had been a decision on that point, but he should think that was the intention of the Factory Act, and did not include machinery on board a vessel. The point was one he should inquire into before giving a positive answer.
  MR. ASQUITH, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that "machinery or plant," to whomsoever it belonged, whether the ship's tackle or the dock tackle, which was actually used for conveying cargo to or from a ship, came within the intention of the Factory Act.
  MR. ABEL THOMASthought that the words must cover all plant.
  Question put, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 113; Noes, 217.—(Division List, No. 231.)
  Words inserted.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (2), second paragraph after "1895," to insert the words and includes every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. A. PEASEproposed to add to the words last inserted in the paragraph the following words, which he thought did not go beyond the principle the Government had laid down: —
  "also includes every shipbuilding yard, whether or not such shipbuilding yard is one wherein or within the close, curtilage, or precincts of which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used; also includes vessels under construction or repair, or any other employment in which the operation of plating or rivetting is performed."
  His object was to prevent ship owners and ship builders evading the obvious intention of the Government to include the shipbuilding trade within the four corners of the Bill. As the Bill at present stood, in the case of any shipbuilding yard where machinery was not used, or in any shop

  53
  away from a yard where machinery was used, it was possible to contend that it did not come within the Bill.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, interposing: This Amendment is not on the Paper. Would it not be better—I make the suggestion, but, of course, if he insists, the hon. Member has a right to press his Amendment—but would it not be better that he should put it on the Paper for Report. It is rather lengthy, and it is impossible to understand unless we have the words before us.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I am quite willing to have the Amendment considered on -Report. It is one in connection with which I moved last I withdrew that Amendment in order that this matter might be considered at this stage, but I should be willing to withdraw if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that it shall be considered on Report.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEYwished to propose at the end of the paragraph to insert the words: —
  "'Light railway.' has the same meaning as in the Light Railways Act 1896; 'tramway' has the same meaning as in the Tramways Act 1870."
  *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANSruled that it could not be put after the rejection last night of the proposal to include "tramways" in the Bill.
  MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD moved in the next paragraph to leave out "1887," and to insert "1872." He quoted the definitions of "mine" in the Acts cited in the clause as drafted, and asked the Government if they thought it was worth while to have any definition at all? The Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887 referred to the definition in the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act of 1872, and that stated that a metalliferous mine was any mine excepting the mines included in the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1872. He put it to the Government whether it was worth while, under the circumstances, to trouble about definitions at all. They might just as well leave it "mines."
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he should not like to expunge the words without consulting the draftsman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR BOUSFIELD MR BOUSFIELD moved in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "a quarry under the Quarries Act 1894," and to insert the words—
  "every place (not being a mine) in which persons work in getting slate, stone, coprolites, or other minerals."
  The hon. Member said that the definition of quarry which he proposed differed from that in the Quarries Act only by the omission of the limitation of depth to 20 ft. It seemed absurd to make the right to compensation of a workman depend on a precise measurement of depth, which might be from the bottom of a muddy pool in the quarry to the top of a spoil heap above. It would be far better to omit this limitation. However, he understood the Government were willing to consider the matter on Report, so he would not press it further.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYpromised to consider the question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FENWICK (for Mr.HEDDERWICK,)MR. FENWICK (for Mr.HEDDERWICK, Wick Burghs) moved in Sub-section (2), after the word "construction," to insert the words "alteration or demolition."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept this Amendment as it stood. They never heard of the "demolition" of railways or docks or harbours or canals. He did not know that such a thing ever did occur.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid there were extensions and many alterations in railways.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked whether the hon. Member would be content if he put in "alteration?"
  MR. J. W. LOGANsaid that demolitions went on when railways were widened.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Words "or alterations" inserted after the word "construction."
  MR. LAWSON WALTON MR. LAWSON WALTON moved in Sub-section (2), after the word "canal" to insert the word "street." It would be within the knowledge of the Committee that sewers were nearly always constructed with a new street, and that the

  55
  work was nearly always done by the same contractors and the same workmen. The work was continued, the street was made and the sewer settled at the same time, therefore, it would be a little anomalous if the same body of men were under the protection of the Act when below the surface of the road, and outside the Act when above the surface, and that they would only have protection when in the cutting.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the hon. and learned Member to give the Government time to consider this proposal. They were not unfavourably disposed towards the Amendment, but they would like time to answer it.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he was quite willing to allow the matter to stand over until the Report stage, and he would withdraw his Amendment now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR MATTHEW WIIITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WIIITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "building or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD moved in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "machinery driven, by." His object was to make the Bill uniform with the language used in the Factory Acts.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR. MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR. MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, as agreed upon, to insert the word "alteration."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHARLES HARRISON MR. CHARLES HARRISON (Plymouth) moved in the same paragraph after the word "person," to insert the words "whether under the age of 21 years or above that age." These words, he pointed out, were in the Act of 1875, and he thought they should be introduced here to prevent ambiguity, and so as to insure that even if a person injured was under 21 years of age he would be entitled to compensation.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYremarked that though the words might have been quite necessary in the Act of
  56
  1875, he was informed that they were quite unnecessary now.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HARRISON MR. HARRISON moved in the same paragraph after the word "agreement," to insert the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act." He observed that these words, again, were in the clause of the Employers' Liability Act which had been worked up to the present time, and he considered they should be inserted in this Bill.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the same remark applied to this as to the previous Amendment. There was no necessity for the words, and that being so they ought not to be inserted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3,—

  APPLICATION TO WORKMEN IN EMPLOYMENT OF CROWN.
  (1.) This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to any employment by or under the Crown to which this Act would apply if the employer were a private person.
  (2.) The Treasury may, by warrant laid before Parliament, modify for the purposes of this Act their warrant made under section one of the Superannuation Act 1887.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, after the word "Act," in the first line of the clause, to omit the words,
  "shall not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the Crown, but otherwise
  He said he did not in the least suggest, that persons in the naval or military service of the Crown who were engaged in active naval or military operations proper should be brought within the purview of the Bill, but he claimed for them that when they were employed as workmen, in the sense that that expression was understood by the Bill, they should come under the same rule as other persons who were in the Bill, and should not, because they were nominally in the naval or military service of the Crown, be deprived of such advantages as the Bill gave. Take

  57
  the case of a dock labourer employed in the making of a dock for the construction of which machinery was employed, the work being under the superintendence of an Engineer officer. The dock labourer was worth £300 to his family, but the Engineer officer was not worth a farthing. Why should this be so? The Engineer officer, although in the military service, was not then employed in military operations, but was engaged in superintending the workmen at the dock, and, if the Amendment were accepted, he would be in the same position as the men who came under the Bill. Soldiers and sailors were constantly employed by their commanding officers, as workmen, and surely a soldier who was injured whilst engaged in cleaning windows ought not to be left out of the purview of the Bill. He thought the Amendment was a reasonable one, and he trusted it would be accepted by the Government.
  *SIR C. DILKEwas of opinion the Government could not be expected to consider the Amendment at this stage. He feared the effect of the Bill, without the Amendment, would be to increase the employment of military as against civilian labour in purely civilian work, which would be a bad thing, both for the labour and the military world. The evidence before the Committee on Government contracts showed that an increasing amount of civilian work was done by soldiers—which took them off their proper military duties—for the purpose of saving money, and he was afraid that the effect of a Bill under which the Government would have to pay heavy compensation to their civilian labourers who were injured would have the tendency to make them. employ soldiers to a still greater extent. However, the difficulties raised by the Amendment were great, and he was not prepared to face them.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the Government were in the same position. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was wrong in supposing that, if these persons were left out of the Bill, that would be any temptation to the Government to employ them in work on which they would not otherwise be employed. He would point out that where Government servants were injured in the course of their employment at the present time something was done for them, although there was no statutory liability. He believed that was
  58
  the practice in the great workshops at Woolwich and elsewhere. ["Hear, hear !"] The Government were quite willing to consider the matter, but they should have to consult the two Departments concerned. He could not say anything now, but on the Report stage he might be able to do so.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwould, on that understanding, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—

  PROVISION AS TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
  4. Any contract existing at the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right to compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, shall not, for the purposes of this Act, he deemed to continue after the time at, which the workman's contract of service would determine if notice of the determination thereof were given at the commencement of this Act.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5,—

  COMMENCEMENT OF ACT AND SHORT TITLE.
  (1.) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.
  (2.) This Act may he cited as the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
  MR. H SETON-KARRproposed to leave out the words "one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight," and to insert "one thousand eight hundred, and ninety-nine," so as to postpone the operation of the Bill for a year. He ventured to think the Amendment involved considerations of great importance. He had had some conferences with the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and the impression conveyed to his mind was that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to listen favourably to him. He had also had some conversation with the Attorney General, and, considering the importance of the subject, he hoped the Committee would pardon him if he occupied a little time in stating, his case. The practical effect of the Bill was to put a tax upon certain classes for

  59
  the benefit of the whole community. This Bill has been introduced without notice to the constituencies and without the parties interested having had time to realise the effect it would have upon their industry. He therefore contended that plenty of time should be given before the Bill came into operation. All the small employers would be compelled to federate. The figures that had been given as to the effect in the coal-mining industry differed very materially. The Government had been appealed to to give the figures, and they had not done so. At any rate, different authorities differed very widely. The rate of insurance against employers' liability was at the present moment very low, about 3s. 6d. to 5s. per cent., but it was likely to rise to 40s. or 50s. per cent. if the whole liability under this Bill had to be insured against. The Debate the previous evening on the inclusion of agriculture in the Bill was really one of the best arguments he could use, for in that instance the uncertain effect of the Bill was pleaded as a reason why agriculture should not be introduced. Everything that had been said with regard to the small farmer in connection with this Bill applied in an equal or even a greater degree to small colliery owners; but all he was asking for now was that the small colliery owners should have an opportunity of federating amongst themselves and that time should be given to them to prepare for the liability that would be imposed upon them. He had been told by an hon. Member of the House that he had private information that if the Bill passed bankers would not extend the same credit to collieries which they were giving at present. That was a practical effect of the Bill. That was a thing the owners must provide against. He would like to give a few figures with reference to a great industry in the constituency which he represented. The borough of St. Helen's was the seat of the glass trade. Something like one-third of the inhabitants were dependent for their daily bread on the glass trade. That trade consumed no less than 10,000 tons of coal a week throughout the year. That meant, at 2d. a ton, an impost of £4,300 a year, which with the 1 per cent. to meet the glass trade employers' own liability to their 25,000 employés, would impose a burden of £8,300 on that trade. Somebody would have to pay that. They were
  60
  told that the consumer could be made to pay, but, so far as the coal industry was concerned, it was not possible, in his opinion, to make the consumer pay. For the last seven years the trade unions had been endeavouring to put up the price of coal and wages, and they had absolutely and entirely failed.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he thought the hon. Member was now dealing with matters from a Second Reading point of view. The hon. Member was entitled to use arguments why the Bill should be delayed coming into operation, but he was now travelling rather beyond that.
  MR. SETON-KARRthought that these arguments directly affected the postponement of the operation of the Bill, and showed that time should be allowed to the men who were affected by it. He was only using these arguments for the purpose of showing that. In considering on whose shoulders the burden would fall, they had to remember the increasing competition with foreign coal fields and glass industries. Let him tell the House the position of the glass trade. [Cries of "Oh !"] Half the glass works in the country had been shut up during the past 30 years, and the importation of plate and sheet glass had enormously increased; yet upon this struggling British industry they proposed to throw a new heavy burden. Surely, in such circumstances, time ought to be given to insure against the new conditions, either by federation or by insuring in the ordinary commercial companies. The economic law of supply and demand prevented the burden of their compensation being put on the shoulders of the consumer. Foreign coalfields had been discovered. The price could not be raised on the foreign consumer, and, if it was raised on the home consumer it would inflict a fresh burden on an industry which was already struggling with very serious difficulties. There was one other reason why he submitted that the operation of the Bill should be postponed, and that was that there were many existing contracts for the sale of coal extending over long periods. Those contracts had been made on the faith of the existing law, and no one had any knowledge a month ago, that the law was going to be altered so largely. A solvent contractor might become an insolvent one owing to the operation of

  61
  this Bill. That would be a serious hardship. From the point of view of workmen and employers alike it was important that this relief should be equitably adjusted, and that an unfair and unjust burden should not be placed on the industry in which they were mutually interested. Small collieries were often worked by half a dozen men who had been practical miners. When they found themselves face to face with a new state of things they would federate with other small employers or settle the rate of insurance they could afford to pay. Before this Bill came into operation they should have time to make satisfactory arrangements. He had suggested that the operation of the Bill should be postponed for 12 months, but he would not object to a longer period. He had received a petition from the glass industry at St. Helen's stating that if the Bill passed in its present shape it would inflict serious injury on that trade, and possibly lead to the closing of more glassworks.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid there could be no doubt that if the Bill came into operation too soon it would cause great difficulty, loss, and, perhaps, in some cases ruin. The opinion was widely held that some system of insurance was absolutely necessary for the safe and proper working of the Bill. If the insurance companies saw a difficulty in ascertaining what their actual risk would be they would put their premiums at such a rate as to satisfy what they thought the maximum would be. It was desirable in the interests of all engaged in this important industry that the changes involved in the Bill should be brought about without friction and the mischiefs that must necessarily arise if it came into operation too soon.
  *MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGEhoped the Government would not consider it unreasonable to concede the 12 months suggested. The Bill would impose a serious burden on the coal trade, and the margin of profit was already very small to work upon. He was able to say with authority that the majority of the coal mines of this country were at present owing money to their bankers, and if these bankers imposed restrictions, that alone would have an important prejudicial effect on the finances of the collieries. There was no crying need for the Bill.
  62
  The Government had made a present of the Bill, and the working classes would be glad to accept it. In six months he believed most of the insurances could be arranged. But when it came to making contracts for millions of tons of coal which ran to June and December next year, the burden imposed by the Bill would work a great injustice. Employer, workman, or consumer would have ultimately to bear the burden. But there was no need to impose it hurriedly, and he trusted the 12 months asked for would be conceded as a fair and reasonable demand.
  *SIR A. HICKMANsaid that if the Government desired to encourage a friendly arrangement between workmen and employers, it was clear that it would be impossible in the short period prescribed for the Registrar of Friendly Societies to examine the great number of schemes laid before him. He therefore hoped the Government would consent to a reasonable and moderate extension of time
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that naturally the Government were desirous of considering how the Bill might be brought into operation with the least possible friction, and with reference to the duration of contracts, and arrangements which might have to be made as to insurance, and arrangements which might be necessary on the part of friendly societies, some longer time might be necessary. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Helons would not expect the Government to go so far as to postpone the operation of the Act for 12 months. The Government had looked at all sides of the question, and they thought they might fairly consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire to bring the Bill into operation on March 31, 1898, which would be giving another three months. This should go some way towards meeting the objections urged against bringing the Bill into immediate operation. If the Committee were agreeable the Government would consent to the date he had mentioned.
  MR. SETON-KARRthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he had made. At the same time he could not help thinking that a delay of only three months would not be enough, and that the minimum extension ought to be six months.
  SIR ROBERT REIDhoped that the Home Secretary would remember that a good many Members on the Opposition side of the House and probably on the other side also did not take part in these discussions, because they. did not want to hinder the progress of the Bill. Many of those Members regretted, he was sure, the concession which the right hon. Member had made.
  MR. BROADHURSTthought the concession made by the Government was unprecedented. He did not remember any occasion when the operation of a Bill had been postponed for so long a period as was proposed. The Government had made a very considerable concession to the other side, but they had not accepted, as far as he could remember, any equivalent Amendment on the side of the men. He trusted that the Government would not prove amenable to any further pressure exercised by the opponents of the Bill. When, in his innocence, he ventured to suggest, a short time ago, that with a view to making the Bill absolutely perfect, they might well devote a little more time to its consideration, he was charged, most unfairly, with wishing to delay the Measure. But now the Government themselves accepted an Amendment which would cause considerable delay. He trusted that they would have no more concessions of this kind. If the Government acted in this way, the Opposition might have to reconsider their attitude towards the Measure.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINregretted that the hon. Member should have thought it right to speak in a minatory tone. The hon. Member declared that no concessions had been made by the Government in favour of the workmen. [Mr. BROADHURST: "I said equivalent concession !"] That did not alter the case. As a matter of fact, many considerable alterations had been made to meet the views of hon. Members opposite. In fact, a day or two ago the Government were very sharply criticised for having given way so much to the Opposition. He deprecated such criticisms, however, either from the one side or the other. The Government regarded all Amendments according to their merits, and did not consider that they were dealing with opposed interests. They hoped that the interests of workmen and of employers were identical.
  64
  Nothing would induce them to agree to any great delay before the Bill should come into operation, but they were of opinion that a fair case had been made out for a short delay so that employers might have a better opportunity of making their arrangements. The Bill certainly did involve great change, and he attached high importance to the arrangements which he hoped would be made between employers and employed. He meant amicable arrangements within the Bill, and he thought it was reasonable that time should be given to those concerned to make their plans.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the Members on his side of the House would be prepared to support the Government after the speech of the right hon. Member. [Some cries of "No !"] A short delay was expedient in order that arrangements might be perfected in regard to insurance, contracts, and substituted schemes.
  MR. J. WILSONdid not think that a delay of three months would be long enough. He would have preferred the period mentioned in the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens. He had gone into the Lobby against the Government on more than one division since this Bill had been in Committee, but on the present occasion he should support them.
  *MR. J. WILSON, viewing the matter impartially, approved the proposed extension of time, because he believed that the peaceful operation of the Measure would be thereby facilitated. In the proposed interval Committees could be formed and friendly arrangements made between employers and workmen.
  MR. J. G. WEIRsaid he did not believe that the colliery owners would be ruined. There appeared to be very much consideration for the employers of labour in that House, but what about the workmen? These contracts were among the ordinary risks of trade, and colliery owners must take their chance with other employers. He understood that colliery owners looked for very handsome profits. [Cries of "Oh !"] He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not go back on the concession which he had offered.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGEpointed out that the coal contracts for the City of London

  65
  and all the railway contracts were made from June to June, and had already been made up to June 1898. He thought it was a very small concession to ask the Government, instead of fixing March 31, to fix a time which corresponded with the time for which the contracts were made. He did not agree with the hon. Member for the Falkirk Division. He thought they were justified in pressing the Government for this further extension. He wished to say that he was not now an opponent of the Bill; he had been, but now that the Bill had passed the Second Reading he and his Friends wanted to remove some of its evils, and to defer the incidence of such evils.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid in order to make his position clear he wished to say that he had been opposed all along to the incidence of the compensation, but he had always been in favour of the principle of universal compensation. To some extent, he thought, they had managed to make the Bill a better Measure.
  MR. BROADHURSTwas understood to say that he had only quoted the Home Secretary.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid he understood the Government would give them an extension of three months. On that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that if the Committee allowed the Amendment to be withdrawn the Government would be prepared to support an Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire for the extension of the time to the 31st of March.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. McKILLOP MR. J. McKILLOP (Stirlingshire) moved to omit the words "first day of January," and to insert the words "thirty-first day of March."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WOLFF: On behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock
  66
  Burghs (Colonel DENNY), moved to insert at the end of the clause, the words
  "and shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred· and two, provided that any cases remaining unsettled at that date shall continue as if this Act had not expired."
  He did so on the ground that the Bill was admittedly an experimental Measure. At the end of five years they would have ascertained the faults of the Act, and would be able to bring in an amended Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, as they did not think it was desirable that the Bill should be of a temporary nature. ["Hear, hear !"] It was quite obvious from the discussions which had taken place that in all probability amending Acts, and possibly extending Acts, would be brougt in, and there would then be ample opportunity for discussing the working of the Measure.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR. HALDANE MR. HALDANE (Haddington) moved, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—

  SUB-CONTRACTING
  (3.) "Where any person in the execution of any work within the scope of his trade or business and for the purpose of executing such work is in occupation of or has control over the place or premises in or upon which such work is to be done, he shall be liable to any workman engaged in the execution of the work therein or thereupon for the amount of any claim which such workman may have under this Act, or in respect of personal negligence or wilful act independently of this Act, against any sub-contractor. Provided that any person liable under this section shall he entitled to indemnity against any other person who would have been liable independently of this section."
  This question of sub-contracting, he said, was one of great importance and, perhaps, of more interest to the working classes than any other point in the Bill. By the rules of jurisprudence in this

  67
  country no man could sue upon a contract who had not been what was called party to that contract. Therefore, if a workman was not in the employment of a master he could not sue the master for injury in his employment, and that would be the rule under this Bill were it not for some such clause as the one he had proposed. This rule had worked out in practice so as to inflict very grievous hardship upon many workpeople who had been injured. He would take two illustrations for the purpose, first, of showing what the clause aimed at doing; and, secondly, for the purpose of showing what class of parties it aimed at bringing within its limits. Take, for instance, the case of a man who had got a mine and who wished to get a certain amount of coal out of it. Headings were driven and a shaft was sunk. It was not convenient for him to find the miners, and so he went to the people who were in some parts of England known as "buttymen." These "buttymen" said they would get the coal the owner wanted, that they would find the miners and would be responsible to them. The "buttyman" employed the miners under the conditions that the whole work was being done under the control of the mine owner, that it was directed by his mine manager, that every bit of it was supervised by the agent of the owner, and that the miners were employed by the "buttyman," although they were only technically employed by him and were really under the control and direction, and subject to the orders of the mine owner or his managers. Under those conditions it was a mere technicality to say that the men were not employed by the mine owner. They were employed by him—that was to say they were controlled and directed by him, and they got their wages out of what belonged to him. Under these circumstances it had always been a great grievance on the part of the workpeople that they had not been able to recover against the mine owner compensation for their injuries, because they found that the sub-contractor was a person of no substance, and so they were left without a remedy for the wrong they had suffered. In that case there had been a growing demand for an alteration of the law, such as was proposed in that clause, which, notwithstanding the technicality that the mine owner had not directly employed them, should make him
  68
  liable. The clause, therefore, proposed to make liable the mine owner or other employer who was getting work carried out which was within the scope of his trade or business by other people. Then it proposed that if this sub-contractor caused injuries to the workmen the mine owner or employer should have a remedy over against the sub-contractor for what he, the head employer, had had to pay. That seemed just and fair, and it would tend to make the head employer of labour careful as to the kind of sub-contractor he employed, and to see that he was such a man as was likely to do fairly by his workpeople. There were a large number of cases which the clause carefully excluded. Take the case of a man who was in the occupation of land—say a colliery—and who wished some building put up on it, say a colliery shed. Instead of building it himself he went to a builder and employed him to put it up. This could not be said to be "within the scope of his trade or business," and, if an accident happened, this was not a case that would come within the clause. He thought, as drawn, the clause would meet a great grievance which had been felt all over the industrial parts of the country for a long time, and as to which he thought the time had arrived when they should seek an alteration without looking too closely as to whether they were departing from a mere technical rule of law.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid that with a great many of the propositions stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite he found no exception at all. This clause undoubtedly was a very important one, and he was not quite sure whether the limitations the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested were really sufficient. There were one or two points to which he should like to direct his attention and that of the Attorney General so far as sub-contracting was concerned. Suppose the work of the sub-contractor was in connection with the general scope of the work of the head employer. From that point of view, he thought the workman should have a remedy in a case of that kind, but he thought it was extremely important that it should be strictly limited. Suppose an employer brought a sub-contractor on to his premises, say a factory, for the purpose possibly of repairing the premises, and that in the course of the work the

  69
  workman suffered from some injury. He did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that in such a case the factory owner should be liable.
  MR. HALDANEpointed out that the words of the clause were "within the scope of his trade or business."
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that, if it were limited in that way, for his part he thought it was a proper Amendment, and ought to be introduced, but that any extension of it beyond that limitation ought, on the other hand, to be rigorously excluded. There was another point on this clause which he could not pass by, although he thought it had to do with the general scope of the Bill. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman had made certain Amendments in the words of the Amendment so that it should only apply to the "personal negligence "or" wilful act "of the employer. He wanted to protest against these words being introduced. If the first clause was not to be altered on Report, of course the words would have to stand, but he had always protested against the introduction of these words into the first clause.
  MR. HALDANE: I have protested as stoutly as my hon. and learned Friend, and I quite agree with him.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he only wished to safeguard himself as regarded the introduction of the words in this Amendment. He thought they ought not to be introduced, and of course they must be subject to the general form which the Bill took on the Report stage.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALagreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud, and if on Report the first clause should be altered it would be absolutely necessary to alter the present Amendment in the same sense, but as long as the decision of the Committee stood they must adopt here the words "personal negligence" and "wilful act." He would be responsible, so far as he could, for making the Bill consistent when they got its ultimate shape finally agreed upon. He came now to his criticism of this Amendment. He agreed with his hon. Friend time Member for Stroud that it was necessary to have some limit; and he thought that limit was supplied by the words of the Clause "within the scope of his trade or business." There was originally no sub-contracting clause in the Employers'
  70
  Liability Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, and after a long discussion in the Grand Committee, words substantially the same as the Clause now before the Committee were added to that Bill. When the Government came to consider this most difficult question they came to the conclusion that they should not go far wrong in adopting something similar to the subcontracting clause of the Bill of 1893. They accordingly accepted the new clause of the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire.
  Clause Read a Second time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved to add at the end of the clause the words:—
  "All questions arising under this section shall be settled by arbitration in the manner provided by this Act."
  The Government considered that one of the great advantages of the Bill was that it would kill litigation. The lawyers in the House had accepted that principle. [Laughter.] They had, so to speak, their own death-warrant, and had thus shown their disinterestedness and self-denial in the matter. [Laughter.]
  MR. HALDANEthought the Amendment was an improvement to the clause, which would go far to prevent litigation, and, like Quintus Curtius, he would leap into the gulf with the Attorney General. [Laughter.]
  Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  SIR R. REID SIR R. REID moved the following new clause:—

  COMPENSATION TO WORKMEN IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF EMPLOYERS.
  "Where any employer becomes liable under this Act to pay damages or compensation to any workman or his representatives in respect of any accident and is entitled to any from insurers in respect of such liability then in the event of the bankruptey 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."
  According to the law as it stood the general creditors of an employer in the

  71
  event of his bankruptcy or liquidation would receive the benefit of any sum owing to him by an insurance company in respect of an accident; and the object of the Amendment was to secure that the injured workman on whose behalf the insurance was made should get the benefit of the insurance.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Government had already expressed sympathy with the principle of the clause, and they consequently had no objection to its being added to the Bill. It might, however, to a certain extent, depend whether the Government could adopt the clause as it stood, upon what might be the ultimate decision of the House in regard to the schedule of the Bill. There were provisions in the schedule in regard to periodical payments and payments in a lump sum; and it was quite possible that some words would be introduced into the schedule to enable employers to get rid of the current liability to pay weekly allowances for an indefinite period; and in that event it would be necessary to· make some modification in the clause.
  MR. C. J. DARLINGasked whether it was to be understood that the workman in this case was to have a charge upon the special sum which the employer might be entitled to receive by virtue of the insurance he has effected; and also in addition to that to have an equal claim with the other creditors upon the general assets of the employer.
  SIR R. REIDsaid the workman would have a charge on the money owing by the insurance company, but if he had any other claim against the employer he would have to prove his claim like any other creditor.
  Clause Read a Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  *SIR C. DILKE, on behalf of Mr. S. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid), moved the following new clause:—

  PRIORITY IN BANKRUPTCY OR WINDING UP.
  "All compensation payable under this Act shall have the like priority in payment in case of bankruptcy or winding up as wages under the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act 1888, or any other Act for the time being regulating the priority of wages in bankruptcy or winding-up."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid there was a broad distinction between this clause and the clause which the Committee had just accepted. That clause proposed that the sum of money which an employer might receive under an insurance should not, in the case of his bankruptcy, be considered as one of his general assets and go to the general creditors, but should be applied to the use for which it was intended—the compensation of injured workmen. He had every desire to· benefit the workmen, but this clause certainly went a great deal too far, and he did not think the Committee would do well to adopt it.
  *MR. J. B. BALFOURunderstood that the preferable claim for wages in bankruptcy was allowed because the work in respect of which the wages were payable had created part of the fund which was divisible among the creditors, and the principle of the Bill was to treat compensation for accidents as part of the cost of production. This being so, payment of damages for loss of life or bodily injury was just as much incidental to the cost of production of the divisible fund as the wages were.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that this was really a most important point, and he considered that it should be properly adjusted quite as much in the interest of the workmen as of the employer. It was quite evident that the adoption of this clause would practically destroy credit. What banker would give credit to an employer if, owing to an accident, a claim for possibly very many thousands might take preference of anything the banker had advanced for the purpose of carrying on the business? No clause could be more calculated than this to cripple industry. It was well to remember that the liability as to wages was an ascertained liability, but in this case there was an unascertained liability. Could it really be suggested that a large unascertained liability of this kind could suddenly be placed in preference to all other creditors? In that event no one would be more injured than the working classes themselves.
  MR. CHARLES FENWICKremarked that the Colonial Secretary had always argued that compensation should be made a charge upon trade, and therefore a charge upon production. The Bill did not compel employers to insure, in which event the

  73
  Attorney General would surely admit that workmen were entitled to some protection whereby any claim of theirs to compensation should have priority over the claims of other creditors who did not stand in the same relation to the employer as they did.
  MR. JAMES KENYONhoped the Attorney General would reconsider his decision upon this question—["Hear, hear !"]—as this Amendment proceeded on the exact lines of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Bill—namely, that no one ought to be considered before the man who had met with an accident in the course of his employment.
  MR. J. L. WALTONsaid it had been contended that they were proposing to give a preference to unascertabled liability. It was not clear from the wording of the Amendment whether it extended to compensation which had not been ascertained. In so far as it had been ascertained the objection entirely failed. With regard to compensation which had not been ascertained one would have thought there would be no difficulty in estimating sufficiently what the amount would be. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would reconsider the attitude he had assumed towards the Amendment.
  MR. F. G. BANBURYfelt that, in addition to putting an extra burden on the employer, the adoption of the clause would result in preventing the employer from borrowing money at as reasonable a rate of interest as he did at present.
  MR. BUXTONcontended that this was really a question of future wages. But the great point of the Amendment was this—that unless some such provision were inserted the workman's compensation, in case of his employer's bankruptcy, would depend entirely on the employer's caprice in insuring or not insuring. He should vote for the Amendment because it would encourage employers to insure.
  *SIR A. HICKMANsaid that he was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite advocating something which would compel employers to insure. He thought that the object of the Labour Representatives was to prevent accidents rather than to compensate workmen. [Cries of "No !"]
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that there was no difference in principle between this Amendment and the Bill for the preferential payment of wages which was now awaiting the Royal Assent. What did the Attorney General call the money which was to be paid to the men injured by accidental?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Compensation
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that it was remuneration—what, in the Civil Service was called "deferred pay."
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid that all were anxious to do justice to the working man, but they must not be unjust to others. Wages were quite different from compensation claims. Priority was given to wages as a claim against an estate, because the wage-earner. unlike most other creditors, was obliged to give credit to his employer. By not giving priority to claims for compensation some inducement was offered to the working man to join in providing for his insurance.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that he wished to press on the Committee the extreme importance of this Amendment. By reason of the employer alone being made liable for the compensation the chance of the workman getting paid was somewhat precarious. That was one of the weak points in the Bill; and this Amendment was levelled against it. Supposing a colliery owner had a great accident, followed by liabilities for compensation of £40,000 or £50,000. If he were uninsured and became bankrupt, those interested in the compensation claims would have nothing but the chance of a dividend in common with other creditors. Yet these people were peculiarly entitled to consideration. They had more claim to preference than many of the interests named in the Bankruptcy Act of 1883. It was said that the banker would charge more for advances if this Amendment were carried. Everybody knew that in every shipment of produce from abroad to this country or from this country abroad the banker who made an advance upon it required to see not only the bill of lading, but the policy of insurance, and was satisfied if the policy was good. It was incredible that the banker would charge more in this case. He would do this—he would insist, before giving accommodation to a

  75
  particular firm, that there should be an insurance that would cover him against any great supervening risk, such as that of an accident on a large scale which might make his security comparatively valueless. If this preferential clause were passed, the banker would act practically as a vigilance agent to see that there was an insurance against the liability treated by the Bill; and that was the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds—viz., that the clause would immensely increase the prospect of the insurance being effected. He did not pretend to be more particularly informed on business than anybody else. But he was dealing with insurance and commercial matters of all kinds every day, and he knew that every banker who made advances always expected to have an insurance policy and charged nothing extra for it. If hon. Gentlemen did not agree, they must agree to differ. The effect would be that instead of this claim coming as a preferential claim against general assets, there would be a special fund created by the insurance, against which, under the Amendment already passed, there would be a claim by way of security. He had endeavoured to put this to the Home Secretary and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But after all, this was a matter on which there could be no difference as between employers and workmen—it could only be a question of what was expedient and fair. He supposed they would divide—["Hear, hear !"]—and he certainly should divide in favour of the Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"] Although the Home Secretary was master of majorities, he hoped that he would not dismiss tins subject from his mind, but would give it a fair amount of consideration, and would see whether it was not really and truly in the interest of the employers as well as in the interest of the workmen to insert this preferential clause. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. PARKER SMITHsincerely hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. Hon. Members who had spoken in support of it had not faced the real difficulty of the question. The real difficulty seemed to him to come out in regard to a. big colliery accident as it did in nothing else. It was of small importance in regard to other trades in which there was no possibility of an accident on a large scale.
  76
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House who had spoken on behalf of the Amendment had got hold of a false analogy when they put this claim to compensation on the same ground as wages. The position of wages was explained very clearly by an hon. Member below the Gangway. Wages were simply a payment for work already done; and it must be borne in mind that under the Preferential Act of 1888 there was a definite limit set to the amount for which preference could be claimed. A man could not claim preference for wages for more than two months, or a sum not exceeding £20. But here there was a possible enormous claim of £50,000, £60,000, or £100,000, which might come suddenly. What was more, it was an absolutely new right. What was there that could he held sacrosanct about such a right as that? He should like the men, of course, to get their money if they could. But why were they, on grounds of general justice to be put in front of every other creditor in the country? Take the men who had been supplying timber and other materials to the colliery. Take the widow and the orphan who held shares in the colliery. Why should they not have their claims too? Why should this new right be put absolutely in front of all? They were all agreed as to giving the workmen compensation for accidents; and of course they desired that everybody should be solvent and be able to meet all claims on them. But he failed to see the argument that this right, involving a fresh liability, it might be to the extent of £50,000 or £60,000, should come before everything else. He did feel most strongly that it would be a most serious interference with the ordinary course of the business of collieries. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said earlier in the evening that according to his knowledge the great majority of the collieries of Great Britain were in debt to their bankers. His own knowledge, as far as it went, was to the same effect. Speaking as one who knew something of what went on upon both sides in the process of a colliery borrowing money from a bank, he was sure that any fresh liability of this kind would have the very strongest effect in deterring a bank from lending money to a colliery. They knew how cautious bankers were, necessarily and naturally, and how much any

  77
  small, any reasonable obstacle weighed with them. They wished to have their money advanced on complete security always. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of ordinary advances on bills of lading and property of that kind. Of course it was right and reasonable to insure in such cases. But here was a liability not merely to the extent of the thing they were advancing the money upon, but an entirely indefinable liability—it might be for an amount ten times the value of what they were asked to advance. A bank, in the ordinary way, often allowed a colliery to go on with an overdraft of £10,000 or £15,000, which might last for months or years. What would happen if there was to be a sudden claim for a heavy sum? There was always the possibility of an explosion, and if there was to be a sudden claim for £50,000 or £100,000 coming in front of every other claim on a colliers—the right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he was of opinion that the cost of the insurance a bank would insist on being paid would be so heavy that it would be a most serious thing for all colliery proprietors. Therefore, he held that this liability was in a wholly different position than that for wages, and he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. F. CAWLEYcould not possibly understand why the Government objected to this Amendment. It was calculated to protect the workmen from loss who wanted protection most. It was a well known fact that impecunious employers were the very persons who neglected the ordinary precautions against accidents, and also of insurance, or indeed any other expense that could be immediately done without. It would be quite possible to imagine a colliery proprietor who was in a semi-bankrupt condition neglecting to insure his men and going into bankruptcy directly a large claim for compensation was made on account of an explosion or serious accident. The result would be that the workmen who were injured, or the representatives of those who had perished would come in with the general body of creditors and perhaps get only 2s. 6d. in the pound. If this Amendment passed bankers before granting an overdraft to an employer would demand to see his insurance policies both for fire and under
  78
  this Bill. And this, as the hon. and learned Member said, would be a very great safety to workpeople.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYdid not rise to argue this question any further, but to appeal to the Committee whether they were not prepared to come to a decision on the question, which had been adequately discussed on both sides. So far as the Government were concerned the Attorney General had sufficiently expressed their views. They were not prepared to accept the Amendment now before the House. He hoped, therefore, the House, would be prepared to come to a decision.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid it seemed to him that some Gentlemen were trying to get an easement out of the liability. He should like to press on the Government to fulfil their promises and to fulfil the hopes they had raised in regard to working men and the working classes in regard to this Measure. It would be no use unless they carried it out to its logical conclusion, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked was it right that the workman should have a preferential claim over all others? [Cries of "Yes!"] Over the butcher and the baker? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is Promised!"] He did not think that it was promised. It would drive the employer into bankruptcy or into a joint stock company, the next thing to it. There was a certain amount of ungenerosity in the attitude taken up. They had given the workman a claim under this Bill, and they were giving him a claim on the first part of all that was left.
  *MR. J. WILSONobserved that the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had lost sight of one of the great blemishes in the Bill when he said that a man who caused the accident might have a claim on a bankrupt estate. He ought to know that a clause had been inserted in the Bill by which no man who wilfully misconducted himself had any claim whatever to compensation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That refers to wilfully.
  *MR. J. WILSON: If he wilfully misconducts himself that implies negligence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No, no.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Not contributory negligence.
  *MR. J. WILSONcontended that that implied any species of misconduct of which a man might be guilty, and in respect of which he would lose his claim for compensation, and consequently any claim upon a bankrupt estate. There was nothing in this Amendment asking that the Government should guarantee the solvency of any man, but all that was asked was that a man, after he had been injured, should have a full claim to the right which the Government established in the Bill. All through the discussions on this Bill the Government had ruthlessly disregarded the liability that was thrown upon the employer, but here, in a most intrinsic point of the Bill, when it was sought to guard the workmen against any loss after being injured, the Government set themselves to care for the liability of the employer. Again, the Government had asserted by this Bill that the injured workman had the first lien upon the industry in which he was engaged so long as he was incapacitated, and that if he was killed his widow or those dependent upon him had a right to be provided for with a sum ranging from £150 to £300. By the bankruptcy of an employer the widow and orphans, unless this Amendment were carried, might be deprived entirely of their means of subsistence. It had been said that the workman stood on the same footing as the ordinary creditor. Hon. Members would see that that was a mistake, for while a creditor had some means of knowing, in part, at any rate, whether an employer of labour was financially sound or bordering on insolvency, the workman had no opportunity whatever of acquiring such knowledge; and yet if he was injured, and the employer suddenly became bankrupt, his means of support were cut off, and he was left in beggary. The Government, having asserted that the workman, as a result of injury, had a right to have some provision made for him, ought to guarantee that provision so far as they possibly could. It had been said that an injured workman did not stand so high in the scale as the wage-earning workman. In his opinion, he stood far higher. A man who was hale and hearty, and who was deprived of his wages by the bankruptcy
  80
  of his employer, might go and get employment to-morrow elsewhere, but the man who was shorn of the compensation the Bill gave him, being incapacitated, perhaps permanently, had nothing but beggary before him as the result of the insolvency of his employer. If it was right for the ordinary workman to have a preferential claim upon the estate of his late employer—as it undoubtedly was—on that employer becoming insolvent, there was a stronger right on the part of the man who was injured to have a preferential claim on the estate, and to obtain the compensation the Bill gave him. If the Bill had been attractive in the eyes of the working classes up to the present, the refusal of this Amendment would minimise and lessen that attraction. As far as he was concerned, he had said more than once that he was not enamoured of this Bill, and if the Government wished the working classes to continue to look upon the Measure as a boon and a benefit they ought to reconsider their position, and accept this Amendment.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid they all acknowledged the grievance that was entailed, but he would point out that when a concern was in bankruptcy all the creditors were partners in misfortune, and somebody had to bear the loss. When it came to a question of wages, a limited amount paid in respect of wages already earned was perfectly fair, but when it was a case of payment for future wages, which was being asked for on behalf of the workmen, instead of getting it out of the pocket of the employer, the workmen world get it out of the pockets of their fellow creditors, who were in equal misfortune with themselves. He would mention just one more point. Hon. Members who had spoken on behalf of the workmen had said that they regarded this as one of the intrinsic points of the Bill; but did they ever put this point forward in connection with the old employers' liability law? Two or three years ago hon. Gentlemen were perfectly contented to leave that as it stood, and now they sought to introduce a. new principle. They desired to push the matter further. Unless hon. Gentlemen wished to wreck the Bill, they ought on this point to stop short.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid the hon. Member for

  81
  Leicester described compensation as the deferred payment of wages. He thought the more accurate description would be substituted payment, and that was his answer to the Attorney General. So long as a man was in health he received weekly wages, and when he became incapacitated he received wages in another form, that was, in the form of compensation; and if it was admitted that wages had a preferential claim, it seemed to him that, logically, the principle should be applicable to the man who was paid by way of compensation. As to the general objection that had been raised, namely, that the adoption of this principle would lead to financial disaster, if valid, held good against the entire Measure. He, however, did not believe the manufacturers of this country would he injured if the relations of employer and employed were placed on an equitable basis.
  MR. J. G. WEIRsaid that bankers were quite competent to look after their own interests. They seldom made a loss in a commercial transaction. In the interest of the sick man, the widows and the orphans, this Amendment ought to be adopted. They were entitled to the first consideration of the House, seeing that they had no means of ascertaining whether an employer was insured or not. He agreed that compensation ought to be considered as having a preferential claim, mid for that reason he should vote in favour of the Amendment.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 80; Noes, 162.—(Division List, No. 232.)
  MR. G. WHITELEY MR. G. WHITELEY (Stockport) moved the following new clause, to which he said there was no opposition:—
  "Provided that where an employer who is the owner or occupier of any premises has engaged or contracted with any other person to execute any work, act, or thing in or upon such premises not within the scope of the trade or business of such employer, and such other person employs or directs and controls the workmen engaged in such work, act, or thing, then, in the event of any of such workmen being injured whilst so engaged, such other person shall be deemed to be the employer of such workmen for the purposes of this Act, and not the owner or occupier of the premises."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALintimated that the Government agreed to accept the clause.
  Clause Read a Second time.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAargued that either this clause or that moved by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington was unnecessary.
  MR. G. WHITELEYexplained that his clause was intended to meet cases like the following:—A factory had to be limewashed every year, and a master limewasher was employed who brought in his own men, scaffolding poles, etc., and managed the whole job himself. It would be manifestly wrong in such a case to hold the owner or occupier of the premises liable for any accident to the contractor's men.
  SIR ROBERT REIDfeared that this clause might lead to misunderstanding, and suggested that the Attorney General should give it his attention before the Report stage, so that if the clause should be found to be unnecessary it might be deleted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALadmitted that it would be reasonable to reconsider this clause in connection with that which had been carried by the hon. Member for Haddington. If he should find, on looking into the question further that this clause was likely to lead to ambiguity, or was unnecessary, as the hon. Member for North Monmouth suggested, the matter could be set right at the Report stage.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid that the Bill did not provide for any record either of accidents or of the compensation paid in respect of them. He proposed, in order to supply this omission, to move—" That there shall be laid before Parliament annually a Return showing the particulars of all accidents in respect of which compensation has been paid, and the amount of compensation paid under this Act or under schemes certified by the

  83
  Registrar of Friendly Societies." Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had repeated several times that experience must be gained of the working of the Measure before it could be extended to trades not at present included, and in order that that experience might be recorded it was necessary to provide suitable machinery. It might, he admitted, be difficult to determine the best way of obtaining the information which it was desirable they should have. That was a point to which he hoped the Home. Secretary would devote his attention. The statistics now available in regard to fatal accidents were, no doubt, fairly correct, but the same could not be said of the statistics of non-fatal accidents, which were often almost worthless. So far as existing Acts were concerned, he did not think any existing statistics were likely to help them. He did not know what the Home Secretary proposed to do with reference to a clause which would be proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs in regard to the notification of the amount of compensation. He was inclined to think that some method of registering both the accidents and the compensation given might be a better method of obtaining statistics than any attempt to alter or modify the present arrangement for the notification of accidents. However that might be, if they were to obtain experience of the working of this Bill, some provision for the laying before Parliament of a report by some public office was certainly essential, especially in view of any future legislation on the subject.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was in entire agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that for the future success, not only of this Bill, but of any subsequent legislation, it was extremely desirable that Parliament should have a proper record, and he had already been considering how to introduce into this Bill sonic provision for a compulsory return, so that they might be informed of what took place under the Act. He was not at present prepared to say what shape such a provision should take, and he was not, therefore, prepared to accept the clause which the right hon. Gentleman had sketched out; but he could assure him that the Government agreed that they should endeavour to procure
  84
  proper information for Parliament of what took place under the Act.
  MP. C. B. RENSHAWsaid if the Home Secretary was going to accept this Amendment at a subsequent stage he would point out that there was no particular reason why a return of this kind should be placed before the House. He understood that the whole liability would devolve on the employers, and if they were called upon to make additional returns with regard to this Bill he must really protest against it, as it would be laying an additional burden on the employers of labour which he thought was unnecessary.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid it was obvious that the return, if it were to be of any use, must go much more into detail than did many of the existing returns. Something had been said as to foreign countries, and perhaps a knowledge of the exact nature of the returns made in Germany might give sonic guidance. He thought they ought to protest against the industries of the country being burdened with the expense of elaborate returns.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEpointed out the great variety of the existing returns, which were somewhat confusing in their character. The returns of shipping, mines, and railways were at present all drawn out on different lines. There was also a want of instruction to those who made the returns, and it was notorious that the railway returns were made up on various bases by various companies.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYbelieved that the Home Office had taken steps to introduce sonic conformity in the various returns. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, however, omitted to say by whom the Return should be made. As this information would be returned for the public advantage, it ought not to be exacted from employers at private cost.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULES.—F1RST SCHEDULE.
  Scale and conditions of compensation.—Scale.
  (1.) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be—

  (a) where death results from the injury—

  (i.) if the workman leaves dependants, a suns equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those 811/11S is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum; and

  (ii.) if he leaves no dependants, the medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds.

  (b) in case of incapacity fir work, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his weekly earnings at the time of the accident, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.

  (2.) The payment shall, in case of death, be made to the legal personal representative of the workman, or, if he has no legal personal representative, to his dependants, or, if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due.
  (3.) The expression "dependants" in this schedule means such members of the workman's family as are entitled to damages in cases under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846; and any question as to who is a dependant, or as to the amount payable to each dependant shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
  (4.) If any of the dependants is an infant his share of compensation may in invested for his benefit as directed by the arbitrator.
  (5.) Any weekly payment may be reviewed at intervals of not less than three months at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and on such review may be ended, diminished, or increased, subject to the maximum above provided, and the amount of payment shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
  (6.) A weekly payment shall not be capable of being assigned or charged, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law.
  MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved in Section (1), sifter the words "if the workman," to insert the words "under sixty years of age, and," so as to limit the compensation to be paid to the dependants of a workman who has been killed and who "is under 60 years of age." He believed that there were an enormous number of old hands employed in factories who through failing health or imperfect sight were not so capable of performing their duties so satisfactorily as when younger. It was a matter of constant consideration between a good employer and Ids manager that nothing should interfere
  86
  with the continued employment of these MOB. But when a liability such as was imposed by the Bill Was incurred and accidents happened to these old men, the claim in respect of the dependants, who were extremely ill-defined, raised a grave and serious question as to how far the passing of the Bill would affect the employment of these older hands. While making a certain provision for men under 60, the Committee ought to make a sandier compensation in respect of an accident to men over that age. Having regard also to the question of carrying out a scheme of old age pensions, it seemed extremely undesirable to add to the already large number of those who were driven out of employment by reason of increasing years.
  MR. WALTER HAZELLhoped the Government would not agree to this Amendment. The Mover of it did not appear to have borne in mind the fact that in the ordinary course of nature an aged man was hardly likely to have any dependants, except, per-Imps, a wife—[HON. MEMBERS: "Grand-children!]—and the employers would be few and far between who, whether the clause passed or not, would be so chilly in their dealings as to withhold the benefits from the aged widow under such circumstances.
  MR. PARKER SMITHpointed out that, under the Bill as it stood, not only the widow, hut every son and daughter and every grandson and granddaughter would— be a dependant and entitled to a share of the compensation. As a man got old he was less likely to have persons actually dependant upon him in the sense of requiring his earnings, and that seemed an argument for reducing the scale of compensation. Again, as a man got old, Ids rate of wages ensile down, and that was another argument for reducing the scale of compensation. If this heavy scale of compensation, which might be fair enough to a man in the prime of life, was to be payable to old men, it would offer a strong additional inducement to employers, instead of finding easier places for the old men, to get rid of them altogether.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid there was another reason which the hon. Member opposite had not taken into consideration, and that was that, in the case of an

  87
  accident befalling an old man it might be a long affair, whereas the same kind of accident happening to a. young man would be of trifling importance. A comparatively slight accident might take the old man months to get over it, and when at length he came back, he would find his muscles stiff and less fitted for work. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is the case of death!"] Even if the Amendment was limited to death, he still held that there should be a difference in the scale of compensation as between old and young men.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he had thought a good deal about this subject, and he should like to have some opinion from the Committee from the point of view of the workman. He thought there was something in the argument that they might be putting a disability, as it were, on the older men. That was one of the most serious things which we had to face in future with regard to our industrial position. Every day firms of any importance were being turned into limited liability companies, and however generous an employer might be, these companies were not always generous. He knew many such companies—extremely well managed, and, on the whole, liberally conducted—in which even now no man above 50 years was employed. If an additional disadvantage were attached to old age, it might tend more and more in the direction of throwing the older men on the world without a chance of employment. That would be a most disastrous thing for the men themselves and generally for society. He should like to know what those who represented the working classes in the House thought on the subject. In its pecuniary aspect the question was not of the slightest consequence, and the Government were quite prepared to stand by their Bill if it were preferred. But, if he were confirmed in his impression that the tendency in adopting a uniform scale would be to prejudice the older workmen, then the Committee might reasonably consider whether a difference could not be made. It was known that the older men were those to whom accidents were more likely to happen, because they were not so skilled nor were their muscles in such good condition.
  MR. FENWICKsaid that those who directly represented labour would
  88
  not be prepared to accept the statement that the older men were more liable to accident. They were generally more cautious. If the Bill were to differentiate, not only between different classes of men in the same trade, but between old and young men, the Measure would be very unpopular. The whole experience of permanent relief funds and benefit societies showed that there was less liability to accident on the part of the older men.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid that the Amendment was moved entirely in the interest of labour, and if those who directly represented labour were not prepared to accept the Amendment, his lion. Friend would not press it, but would be content to leave the consequences to those who were advising labour. It frequently happened that old men, unfit for work, were kept on simply because they had grown up with their employers, and fictitious posts were created for them, because if they were discharged they would never earn another day's wages. It was rather hard to offer another inducement to the limited liability companies to get rid of the old men.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he had a better opinion of the employers of labour than evidently sonic of those gentlemen had of themselves. He did not think there would be that readiness to discharge old men on the part of the employers which the Mover of the Amendment seemed to anticipate. When the Bill was originally introduced, he was glad to see that there was no distinction drawn in it between old men and young men, but that compensation on the same basis of percentage of wages was to be provided for all alike. If an old man earned less than a young man he would get less compensation. Under the Bill as it stood, whatever a man's age might be, he would get simply a percentage of his wages as compensation in the event of an accident. That appeared to him to be the best plan, and he hoped the Government would adhere to it. There was no necessity whatever to draw a distinction between the young and the old. He might be accounted an old man, but he was sure he could work as hard as some young men. Old age, after all, was only relative, and they could not set up on the basis of age

  89
  as a distinction between capability and incapacity. He did not believe, as he had already said, that there was any danger of employers treating their old workmen unfairly; but he was prepared to risk that danger rather than that there should be a distinction between young men and old men in regard to the compensation they were to he allowed in case of injury.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that this was a matter which entirely concerned labour, and he took it its representatives were unanimous on that point. He imagined his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment did not claim to move it on behalf of the employers, and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. RENSHAWcould not say he moved the Amendment on behalf of the employers, but he felt that the Bill would prejudice the position of many old men in the eyes of employers. He had several old servants in his employ whom he certainly would not like to dismiss, and to whom it would be a great punishment if they were deprived of their employment. He sympathised with the hardships of the employés, and in view of the speeches which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR J. PEASEthought it would be most. invidious to make a. distinction in an Act of Parliament between old and young men and at the same time be of no practical use at all. [Cries of "Agreed!"]
  MR. J. WILSONexpressed the opinion that in the interests of the workmen his hon. Friend was wrong in offering to withdraw the Amendment. There was no doubt one effect of the Bill would be that private firms would be turned into limited liability companies, whose managers, having to show a profit, would select young employés, who were less likely to come to injury that older Melt. In a coal mine, nine-tenths of the accidents were caused at the face, and young men were able to spring away.
  *MR. J. WILSON: Old men keep out.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid that when he was a young man of 20 he was in such an accident. He sprang aside. Had he not done so he would have had, instead of having a. sprained
  90
  leg, a sprained back, and he would not now have been addressing the Committee. If the representatives of the workmen thought they were acting in the best interests of the workmen, he had nothing more to say.
  COLONEL MILWARDbelieved that under the Bill as it now stood the older workmen would be more likely to lose their employment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR. A. HICKMAN*SIR. A. HICKMAN moved in Section (1) to leave out all the words front "leaves" to the end of the Section, and to insert:—
  A widow the sum of 10s. per week during her life and widowhood, and, if he leaves children under the age of 16, the sum of 1s. 6d. per week for each such child until he or she attains that age. If the workman leaves no widow or children, but leaves dependants, the sum of 10s. per week during the life of such dependants, to lie divided amongst such dependants, if more than one, in such proportions as the County Court Judge or arbitrator, as provided by the second schedule of this Act shall direct and—"
  The object of the Amendment, he said, was to provide that the provision made under the Bill for the widows and orphans should be of a permanent character. Those who had experience of the working classes knew how soon a lump sum could he dissipated. The interest of t he community was that there should be a permanent provision which should keep the widow and her children, rather than that she should receive a lump stun, which might very soon be wasted, and that then she should become a charge upon the rates. His proposal might impose in increased burden upon the employer, but, speaking- as an employer, he would he quite willing to accept that additional burden, for he should have the satisfaction of knowing that under no circumstances whatever could the widow and children go to the union.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he was obliged to ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment. The fact was, the Government had adopted the principle to. which his hon. Friend attached importance in regard to certain cases. What had followed? There had come to the Government demands from all quarters of the House—from those who

  91
  represented the cause of the workpeople and from those who represented employers, that this scheme would be unfair both for workmen and employers if there were no means whatever of commuting it for a lump sum in certain cases. There were on the Paper at the present time 10 or 12 Amendments from different sections of the House, claiming that under certain circumstances, at all events, there should be liberty to commute in the interests of the workpeople quite as much as in the interests of the employer. If that were the case in regard to incapacity, a fortiori it would apply to this proposal to make a new prolonged payment in the case of the dependants of the person who had suffered death by accident. Although he agreed with his hon. Friend that this proposal of his would probably be, actuarially, more valuable than the proposal under the Bill, he did not believe it would be so popular with the workpeople themselves. The Government proposed to meet his hon. Friend and those who had Amendments upon the subject, as far as they thought it possible, by allowing discretion to the arbitrators, in all cases of death, to invest the sum which came to the dependants in such manner as they might think desirable. They had provided in the schedule that they might invest it in the case of infants. They proposed to go further and to give that discretion in regard to all dependants. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid he did not know where the 10 or 12 Amendments were to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, as wishing to alter the weekly payments in the direction of a lump sum. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The fact was, that the lump sum had been absolutely rejected by all the people who had written and thought upon the subject before people here began to think of it at all. It had been rejected by the legislatures of all countries which had adopted any legislation of this kind. He could only imagine one reason that might induce them to adopt the lump sum, and that was the difficulty of being certain that they should be able always to provide for the payment of the weekly instalments. The bankruptcy argument always came up on this question, as it cropped up in almost every question they
  92
  had so far debated on this Bill. But except that one argument, he could imagine none. In the German legislation this matter had been most carefully provided for. In every form it had rejected the lump sum, and in case of death there was an allowance made for the widow and for every child separately. It was very elaborate and careful legislation, and took a long time to carry.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
  *SIR C. DILKE: Still, it is not the scientific way of looking at the question to object on that ground, and it confirms the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment. He must say that it was with some alarm he heard the Attorney General indicate, earlier in the evening, that a change would be made in the Bill in the direction of a lump sum. Of course the Committee would have to consider it when they came to it later on; still, he desired to express the alarm he felt, because he was sure that the lump sum would be too often wasted and squandered. ["Oh, oh!"] He spoke with some knowledge of the habits of widows who received compensation upon the deaths of their husbands. He had often, when sitting as chairman of a board of guardians, seen instances of enormous sums being wasted on death. He remembered one case of a widow who came into a very large sum of money, as the result of subscriptions by her husband's friends—an immense sum for the class to which she belonged, and within three months, although she was a perfectly respectable woman, she came to the Board of Guardians for relief, having wasted the whole sum in expenditure in her husband's honour in connection with the funeral and mourning. He was sure there would be great opposition to any commutation to a. payment in a lump sum. If the Government could see their way to some method of securing permanence for the weekly payments, that would be a very different mode of relief; but he was quite sure that the substitution of a lump sum for weekly payments was not the right direction in which to advance, and he was, therefore, disposed to support the Amendment.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that he rose to a point of order. He understood that the Chairman was going to put the word "dependants" as part of the clause. If

  93
  so, would that not have the effect of ex-chiding his own Amendment, next on the Paper, which was to leave out "dependants" and insert—
  "any wife, husband, parent, or child who has been wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death (hereinafter referred to as dependants')"?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: There is no other form in which the question can possibly be put, and it cannot be helped if the hon. Member is excluded. He can raise the question lower down upon the schedule.
  MR. CRIPPSasked upon the point of order whether, under the circumstances, he might not on this occasion speak to his own Amendment? [Laughter.] The point was this. Although possibly his Amendment might come later on, yet he thought the discussion of his Amendment at this stage had a very material bearing on the whole of the rest of the schedule, and it might shorten the discussion as to whether this principle was to be accepted or not.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the hon. Member's Amendment could not be discussed at this stage.
  MR. CRIPPS: But surely my Amendment would be in order upon the Motion that the word "dependants" stand part of the clause. My Motion is entirely relevant, because if it is carried, the word "dependants" would not stand.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsuggested that the hon. Member might bring his Amendment in order by inserting after "dependants" the word "being," making the clause read, "dependants, being any wife, husband," etc.
  *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS: It is impossible to discuss another Amendment which really does not raise the same point as that raised by the Amendment now before the Committee. The hon. Member will have an opportunity lower down.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANSconsidered the lump sum payment to be the only practical and business-like suggestion. Fix a lump sum, and it could be insured, but if they went mixing up weekly payments, they were immediately brought face to face with actuarial considerations, which were extremely difficult.
  94
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  RATING (PLACES OF WORSHIP AND SCHOOLS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25th June.
  WAREHOUSEMEN'S CERTIFICATES BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Tuesday 6th July.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (MARINERS' VOTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 6th July.
  APPOINTMENT OF HIGH SHERIFFS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 29th June.
  ACCOUNTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading Road, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  ACCOUNTANTS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading Read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  BUILDING FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 21st June.
  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday I4th July.
  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 29th June.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday I7th June.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 21st June.
  DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorow.
  SALE OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday.
  PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday 7th July.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on. Trade, Etc. [I7th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LABOUR BUREAUX BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  VERMINOUS PERSONS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
  House Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.