Commons Sitting of 21 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing
  12
  Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely—
  Barry Railway Bill.
  Midland and South Western Junction Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  BARKING TOWN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Monday next.
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 7th March.

  LONDON WATER PURCHASE BILL.
  On the Motion to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill to 16th March,
  MR. STUART: With regard to our proposal not to proceed with this Bill at present, and without touching upon the substance of the Bill itself, I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should extremely briefly state the course which I, acting on behalf of the London County Council, intend to take with regard to it. We were not without hope that the news of the Royal Commission on the question of purchase might become known at a fairly early date, seeing the efforts which are being made by that Commission to conclude the consideration of the evidence submitted to it. While recognising that it is the House itself that must decide the question on its own responsibility, we propose to defer the consideration of the Bill to a date which, while it will enable us to proceed with it this Session, will be one on which the House may reasonably expect to know how matters stand.
  Question put.
  Motion carried.
  Bill postponed accordingly.

  WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BELFAST WATEB BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
  Upon the Order for the Second Reading of the Bootle Corporation Bill.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I am, of course, very reluctant to object to the Second Reading of any Bill promoted by a municipality, especially with such a Bill as what is known as an Omnibus Bill, but I am acting at the request of a large number of Chambers of Commerce throughout the country who are alarmed at the tendency of municipalities1 to engage more and more deeply in commercial undertakings, and who think that the subject is a matter which requires the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. The London Chamber of Commerce has passed a unanimous resolution, and asked the House to appoint a Joint Committee of the two Houses to inquire into the whole subject, because they firmly believe that these commercial undertakings on the part of municipalities must result in a heavy loss to the ratepayers. This Bill enables the Corporation to enter, for instance, into certain branches of manufacture. Before going further I will refer, in support of this view, to a speech delivered a few days ago by the Attorney-General at the Society of Arts. My honourable Friend, we all know, has had great experience in these matters. In that speech he said, "Whatever might be said as to the profit made out of undertakings, such as gas or tramways, worked by Corporations, my belief is that the burden on the ordinary ratepayers was less where no such risks were undertaken." I do not so> much object to these undertakings on account of the loss which they may entail, because, after all, the Corporations are responsible to the ratepayers; but I do so mainly upon other and perhaps stronger grounds. In the first place the system of Municipal trading has an inevitable tendency to check private enterprise. In the second place, if we once allow Municipalities to trade in order to make1 money, where are we to stop? Undoubtedly
  14
  it will involve an enormous addition to our Municipal debts in the future, which I certainly think the House will agree is most undesirable. These undertakings, moreover, will occupy a very large amount of the time of the Councillors and Aldermen who have to consider other and much more important Municipal questions, and the time which should be devoted to the consideration of these larger questions will be frittered away on trading and manufacturing details. In the third place, there are the labour questions, and it is surely very undesirable that our Municipal Government should be involved in these labour questions more than can possibly be avoided. Town Councillors would have to regulate the wages of their electors, and this would naturally have a tendency to set the wages against the votes. Is this an imaginary danger? Look at New York. Although it is denied that there is actual corruption there, there is no doubt a great tendency to support candidates who will support the local organisations carrying on these enterprises, and this must inevitably have a tendency to deter honest men from coming forward as candidates. The maintenance of the purity of Municipal life is a most important matter, and it is very undesirable that our Municipal Councillors should be mixed up with commercial and trading transactions. I was very glad to be informed by my right honourable Friend the Chairman of Committees that he considers there is much force in the suggestion of the Chamber of Commerce that there should be a Joint Committee of the two Houses to consider the question. We are now at the parting of the ways. We began by allowing Municipalities to purchase tramways, but not to work them; then we took the next downward step and allowed one or two to do so under certain circumstances. But that was within the Municipal boundaries; now we are asked to do away with all limits. We are told that we must allow the privilege to> Bootle, because it has been conceded in the case of Manchester. We have unfortunately allowed Manchester to invest in a canal, but is that to be a precedent? It is because I believe that Municipalities would lose money, that the Aldermen and Councillors would be diverted from their true and most important functions, that they would be

  15
  dragged into labour struggles in which it is moat important that they should not become involved, and that it would be dangerous to the honour, dignity, and character of Municipal life, that I ask the House to withhold this dangerous privilege. As I said at the beginning, I am very reluctant to oppose these Bills, or to put these Municipalities to any inconvenience. I have raised the question in the hope that we may get a Committee to investigate the whole question. The Chairman of Committees has informed me that he will strike the Manufacturing Clauses out of this and all similar Bills, and intends to support the proposal for a Joint Committee, which I understand will not be opposed by the Municipalities. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to object to the Second Reading of this Bill, or of the other Bills which raise the same question. Of course, in saying that I reserve to myself the right at any time to raise the whole question involved in these other Bills, but I trust that Her Majesty's Government will agree to appoint a Committee to look into the matter. I will not, however, further press any objection to the Second Reading, but reserve to myself the right to move any instruction on any particular clause which we may think to be desirable at a later period.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: This Bill is one of a series which lays down proposals of a novel and objectionable character. I would draw the attention of the House especially to a provision which appears in Clause 40, under which any cow-sheds from whence milk is supplied in the limits of the borough, although situated outside the limits of the borough, are to be subject to the inspection of the borough officials. Now, that is certainly a novel proposal. I am by no means objecting to giving every protection to the consumers of milk, such protection being exercised within the actual limits of the borough itself; and I do not suppose there will be anyone of us here who would say one word against such protection being fully given. But Clause 40 gives a power which I venture to think is entirely novel, and I myself have never heard of such a proposal in any other Act of Parliament. Permission is to be given to the authorities of a
  16
  borough to exercise power outside the borough limits. My right honourable Friend who has just sat down, as I understood him, thought the whole question of Private Bill legislation connected with the trading of Municipal Corporations should be dealt with by a representative Committee of the House, and I do not know whether he intended to include within the scope of that inquiry such matters as I have just referred to. The claim by Municipal Authorities to exercise powers outside their limits involves such a grave departure from the existing law that I do not think it should be sanctioned without the express authority of the House. I am not going into the question as to how sufficient safeguards should be embodied for the protection of consumers of milk, or how protection should be afforded with respect to other Measures. But I do think that there ought to be some uniform scheme adopted, and I hope that some representative of the Government will enlighten the House as to the view which the Government takes upon this important question. I shall not be prepared to acquiesce in this Bill proceeding, unless I have an assurance that whatever measures are taken are to be made applicable to the whole question involved in these numerous Municipal Bills. A strong feeling has been aroused, and various expressions of opinion have come from agricultural bodies, and some strong representations, I have every reason to know, have been addressed to Her Majesty's Government upon this subject, and I, therefore, trust that the Government will now say what steps they intend to take.
  MR. JEFFREYS: There are several of these Bills which have the same provisions in them with regard to the inspection of cow-sheds outside the Municipal area. Nobody, I am sure, wishes to limit a thorough inspection with regard to the sanitary matters inside the area of the borough, but when it comes to their going outside the borough it might happen that various inspectors of various boroughs would be inspecting the same cow-sheds, and would be holding different opinions as to whether those cow-sheds are clean and sanitary or the reverse. I have put down an Instruction with regard to another Bill in order that some of these objectionable provisions should be eliminated from it.

  17
  I certainly agree with the right honourable Gentleman that there ought to be some uniform measure adopted, by which sanitary means should be taken to inspect cow-sheds and provide for the absolute purity of the milk supplied within the area of the boroughs; but I do not think that any borough should have the power to go outside its own area. I think, after the expression of opinion that we have heard to-day, that the Committee upstairs will take notice of what has been said, and will be guided to some extent by the conversation which has taken place, and will probably modify Clause 40 of this Bill, and similar Clauses which may be contained in other Bills.
  MR. GALLOWAY: This Bill has a provision in it similar to provisions contained in other Corporation Bills, and I think that the Government should do something by which a decision may be come to by this House giving uniformity to the whole of these Bills. The right honourable Gentleman said that he had no objection to these boroughs taking powers in respect of the sanitary condition of cow-sheds and the purity of the milk supplied therefrom in the area of their own borough. Now, Sir, unfortunately, the borough which I have the honour to represent does not possess in its area any cow-sheds, and therefore a provision of this sort would be absolutely inoperative. I think my right honourable Friend will admit the necessity of every precaution being taken in order to see that produce which is offered for sale in a large working class borough like Manchester should be as far as possible protected from anything like the danger of fever. What I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman is whether ho will take into consideration the appointment, of inspectors, either locally or by the Government, in the various areas. That, I think, would meet the case and remove the objections of my right honourable Friend, and the objections of those who are acting with him in this matter. If the Government would give us some idea of their intentions with regard to this point, I think that the Bill might be allowed to proceed to the Committee, and as these and other Bills come before the various Private Bill Committees each Corporation should give an undertaking
  18
  to agree to anything which the right honourable Gentleman may propose with regard to this matter.
  MR. WARNER: Although we quite realise the importance of taking precautions against the spread of disease, yet at the same time I think the Local Authorities throughout the country districts have claims not to be overridden by the Authorities in their own towns, and I think the only way in which this question can be properly dealt with, is for the Government to appoint the inspectors, because I think that the appointment by the Government of inspectors would get over the difficulties. The milk produced would be inspected by these officials on a uniform system, and there would be no complaint on the part of the boroughs nor of the Local Authorities of being over-ridden by any Sanitary Authority. The Board of Agriculture has a perfect right to have such an inspection, and I think it ought to be done by them. Unfortunately, I believe at the present moment Her Majesty's Government do not intend to appoint inspectors. I asked a question on this subject the other day and got an answer from Her Majesty's Government to the effect that they would not appoint inspectors; but I think when they see the difficulty which is created under these Bills, they will probably take the matter up and endeavour to do something. I think that the appointment by the Government of inspectors will meet all the difficulties of the case, for there can be no possible doubt about it that the County Authorities will object very much to the town inspectors inspecting cow-sheds outside the borough limits, and the only possible way to prevent disease from spreading is to make the inspectors Government officials, whose decision will be recognised by all Authorities. I trust that they will shortly introduce a Bill for this purpose, and then, as I have said before, all difficulties will be removed.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Everybody has agreed that it will be undesirable to interfere with the progress of this Bill at this stage, merely because, in some quarters, objection is taken to a certain clause. At the same time it is impossible to ignore the fact that the powers asked for in the

  19
  Bill now under consideration, and the other Bills to which reference has been made, are, without one exception, novel. There is one precedent, and one precedent only, for this proposition, and that is the case of the Glasgow Corporation Bill of 1890; but although that Bill gave the Corporation a right to exercise certain powers outside its limits, those powers, I think, have never yet been used. Of course, we are all agreed upon the fact that it is desirable that every legitimate step should be taken to prevent the spread of disease, and that when it is spread we should be in a position to trace its origin and to> discover the reason of its so spreading. The honourable Gentleman opposite and my honourable Friend the Member for Manchester suggested that the Government ought to bear the responsibility of appointing inspectors. I confess I do not understand what the work of those inspectors would be. Surely, all the sanitary work is entirely in the hands of the Local Authorities, who are fully equipped for the purpose of their duties. They have Medical Officers of Health, and they can obtain any opinion that they require as to their own districts. This clause proposes that the Local Authorities should go out of their own districts into any other districts from which they draw supplies of milk, and the least consideration of that will show what a ridiculous state of things will be arrived at. It might be that several inspectors or Medical Officers of Health representing different boroughs might meet at the same cow-shed or dairy outside the limits of their respective boroughs. I believe it is a well-known fact that doctors occasionally disagree, and it is quite conceivable that you might have entirely different reports as to the milk supplied from this one place from the Medical Officers of Health representing different sanitary centres; and I cannot myself see any greater confusion than that which might result from such a state of things. The zeal of these Authorities is tremendous, but the truth of the matter is that they are a little too advanced in their generation. There is a great deal of difficulty in saying how this power, which it is proposed by these Bills to confer upon Local Authorities, should be carried out. At present Local Authorities are called
  20
  upon to deal with certain diseases; but that is a very different matter, because they are there called upon to exercise powers which they may properly exercise. I agree with my honourable Friend that we cannot ask the House to reject any of these Bills now, and it would be extremely unfair for any mandatory Instruction to be sent from this House to the Committee upstairs. I think we may rely upon the fact that the Committees who would consider these Bills will call the necessary evidence, and having heard both sides of the question, and having some knowledge of what the Local Government Board does on these occasions, may be safely trusted to sift the matter thoroughly. I cannot help hoping that the expression of opinion which has fallen from both sides of the House, coupled with the evidence that will be called upstairs, will form an excellent guide as to what the Committee should consider proper with regard to the powers that are sought for. I trust that the object of the right honourable Gentleman will have been attained, and that it will therefore be unnecessary that any definite instruction shall be issued from this House to the Committee upstairs.
  *MR. CHANNING: At this stage of the Bill I feel sure that most Members of the House will agree that it will be undesirable to press the issue that has been raised any further at the present moment. At the same time, I think it is my duty to say what I have said in private elsewhere. I think it would be a very serious blunder on the part of the representatives of agriculture to stand in the way of the general results arrived at in these Bills. The Local Authorities rightly claim a power to protect the inhabitants of these great Municipal areas from serious diseases which may arise from the contamination of food supplies. That is a case which cannot be resisted, and the real case which the representatives of agriculture have to face, and which they ought to bring forward to this House and to Her Majesty's Ministers, is to remove all those elements of confusion which arise from conflicting jurisdiction and from these powers being extended beyond the areas to which the Local Au-

  21
  thorities ought rightly to be extended. It is urgently necessary that Her Majesty's Government should in this present Session recognise their duty—their imperative duty—of dealing in one uniform plan with this matter, and of adopting some uniform procedure, giving a solution of the difficulties pointed out by my right honourable Friend opposite. I do not think it is right for us to go on in this haphazard way with these Local Bills. This is a subject of the most vital importance to the welfare of the community. Hut whatever the proper course may be, if these Bills can be limited to a few simple powers which can be readily exercised in these areas; if the Government can give the time to pass a well-considered Measure dealing only as a public Bill can deal with a case of this sort, the difficulty can be solved. I certainly do know this: that if Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to deal with the whole matter by a public Bill this Session, it will be exceedingly ill advised on the part of agriculturists to show a violent and strong opposition to these local Bills, which are so urgently needed for the benefit of those communities to which they particularly apply.
  MR. BARTLEY: This question is of very great importance, and my right honourable Friend raised a very serious and novel question in speaking of the Municipal Trading Clause contained in many of these Bills. He referred to the action of the Chambers of Commerce—a unanimous action—taken in the interests of the ratepayers and others. We have the right to expect the Government to give us some statement as to whether they intend or not to refer this matter to a Committee. The right honourable Gentleman said that he believed that the Chairman of Ways and Means agreed to this idea, and many others feel that there is a great danger of the already overburdened ratepayers being burdened still further if this state of things continues. It does seem reasonable that we should ask the Government to say before these Bills are accepted that they will grant this Committee power to inquire into the whole subject of Municipal trading, which is now becoming a very large and important one.
  Question put,
  Bill read a second time.

  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  (By Order.) Mead a second time, and committed.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.
  DUBLIN IMPROVEMENTS (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENEPAL POWERS) BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  (By Order.) Second Reading deferrer till Thursday.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.
  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.
PUBLIC BILL DEFERRED.
  TELEGRAPH ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Further Proceeding on First Reading (15th February) deferred till Tuesday next.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that in selecting Members to serve on Committees for the consideration of Private Bills equal consideration shall be granted to any Member on the ground of his private profession, business, or avocation."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg, Sir, to move the Instruction which stands in my name with regard to the Committee of Selection. The Motion which I move is different in form to the one which is down on the paper, but I have only altered two words. I have substituted for the words "no exception" the words "equal consideration shall." The object, of course, is that there shall not be any special consideration which can be urged by any individual Member as to his particular business which shall exempt him from serving on Committees on Private Bills. Of course, it is not intended to apply to events which may happen in the course of the next few weeks which might prevent any individual Member from doing his duty on the Committee, and which should be taken into account by the Committee of Selection. But a practice has grown up of granting something in the nature of a general exception in favour of one or two professions. My contention is that that should not be so for the future. It is not a Rule of the House; it is not a Standing Order; in fact, it is in defiance of the Rules of the House. We are all here on terms of perfect equality. There is no Rule which admits of any exception or favour or privilege to any particular profession, and it is not right that, in the interests of one profession (I am not going to allude particularly to that profession) there should be a Rule which extends a larger share of the burden, of the drudgery of the work of the House to those who are not engaged in a few particular avocations. I can quite understand a barrister saying that in the course of the month of February he would not be able to attend certain Committees because he has certain work to do, and I can quite understand the Committee of Selection taking that into account and saying that that particular Member shall be exempted during particular months, but anything in tha shape of a General Rule exempting a man because he happens to be a barrister is very unfair to the rest of the House. It is very true that a Member who is called upon to attend these Private Bill Committees performs very onerous duties, and those duties are growing heavier every year, and there is a disposition on the part of Members to claim exemption, and if this is permitted to go on, the whole work of Private Bill Committees will necessarily fall upon those few Mem-
24
bers who are willing to take their share in what I may call the drudgery of the work of the House. Therefore I move that there shall be no general exemption, but that there shall be an exemption upon special considerations, and I therefore beg to move the Notice as amended which stands in my name.
MR. STRACHEY: I rise to second this Motion, and I think with the Mover of it that there ought to be no particular exception with regard to this particular work. It may have been all right in the days in which there was a large class who had a great deal of leisure and very little business; but in these days there is a large number of Members of this House who are interested in agriculture, and who undertake the management of their own estates, which is, after all, so necessary. Therefore I say that there is no class in this House which has a great deal of leisure, and that is my reason for saying that all the Members of the House ought to be treated equally. But it seems to me that a very large class of able men, whose services would be of the greatest value on Private Bill Committees, are by custom exempt. Every Member of the House will feel that a barrister having a large practice and great experience of examination and cross-examination of witnesses is the very man who would be most useful to sit upon these Committees, but by this self-denying ordinance these practical men who do great service to the House and to the country at large are not allowed to serve upon these Private Bill Committees. It may be unpleasant, it may be inconvenient, it may not be profitable to men of large legal business to serve on Private Bill Committees, but I am quite sure that if brought before them in the House they would say—very properly and very necessarily—that the convenience of this House and the service of the public ought to stand before any private question, however imports it may be.
*MR. HALSEY: I am sure that the House will expect a few words from me on this question, and in addressing myself to the matter before the House I must beg the indulgence of the House for the position in

25
which I find myself, in having to take the place of one like my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who has for so many years presided over this Committee. His sound judgment and ripe experience (to which I feel I can lay no possible claim) did, I am sure, obtain, as it ought to obtain, the confidence of this House. I beg to take this opportunity of thanking the honourable Gentleman opposite for the courtesy with which he has treated us all through on this matter. He postponed his Motion till this day for this reason: that we believed that the Committee of Selection would be constituted in its old form, and that my right honourable Friend, as its Chairman, would have been ready to deal with the Motion which has been made. Providence has ruled it otherwise. My right honourable Friend, as the House is aware, is suffering from a most grievous affliction, and I am sure that I am expressing not merely my own feelings, but the feelings of every Member of this House, in whatever quarter he may sit, in tendering to the right honourable Gentleman our deepest and most sincere sympathy in the trial that has befallen him—a trial which must deprive us for a time of his presence, and of his large experience upon this as upon all other matters. Now, Sir, I come to deal with the Motion of the honourable Gentleman, and I am bound to say that it would have been impossible to have accepted the Motion in the form in which it was originally put down on the paper, because it was of too large and sweeping a character, and because it would have absolutely bound the Committee to deal with every individual case. Now, the Motion as it is now proposed represents much more fairly what it has always been, I will venture to say, the endeavour of the Committee of Selection to arrive at. The view which we take, and which we have always endeavoured to uphold, is best expressed in the answer which was given by my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who was asked a question on the subject early last Session. On that occasion he stated that no Member of the House had any right of exemption from service on Private Bill Committees, either by Standing Order or Instruction of the House;
26
but that it had ordinarily been the custom of the Committee of Selection not to place on such Committees Members of the learned professions actively engaged in practice. Should, however, there be a difficulty in obtaining an adequate supply of Members qualified to serve, the Committee of Selection would consider it their primary duty to call upon any Member to serve who, in their judgment, ought to take part in those labours, even if such demand might involve a modification of the previous custom. Now, I should like to supplement that by saying that I think I am expressing the opinion of the Committee when I say that whatever may be the claim of Members to be excused on the ground of professional engagements, they are carefully considered by the Committee. These appeals for excuse are not limited alone to barristers, but we have solicitors, bankers, merchants, and members of other professions. Our object is to take each case on its merits. When an honourable Member applies to us, and writes to say that his avocation makes it inconvenient for him to attend to his duties on the Committee, it always has been our custom to endeavour to give full consideration to his representations, and to call upon him to serve or not as we think it is expedient in the interests of the House and the carrying on of the Committees. I am bound to say that we fully recognise, we always have recognised, that it is the bounden duty of every Member of this House to serve on a Private Bill Committee if he should be required to do so. At the same time, we endeavour to carry out that obligation and enforce it with as much consideration for the convenience of individual Members as is consistent with the due performance of this important work. I do not know whether the honourable Member will think it necessary to press this Motion in its amended form. I confess that I see no reason why the House should not accept this Motion; but whether the Motion stands or whether the honourable Member will be content, with the discussion that may take place before the master is finally settled, this I can at any rate venture to say, that I for one do not regret this point having been raised. I believe that it will strengthen the hands of the Committee, and that it will also

27
show what there may have been need to show to the very numerous younger Members of this House, that it is as much a part of their duty, if called upon, to give up their own convenience and to serve upon these Private Bill Committees, as it is to perform any of the other duties which they come to this House to perform. If any difficulty should in the future arise in obtaining the services of these Members, then I trust that the House will support the Committee of Selection. But I should like on that point, with all respect, to point out that I cannot quite acquit the House itself of a little laxity. The House appears to have established rather an abrogation of its ancient practices during the last two or three years. I do not know how long, because I have not had time sufficient to go into the question. In my early Parliamentary days, if a Member serving on a Private Bill Committee did not attend on any particular day the Chairman of the Committee reported to the House the fact that that Member had not attended, and the fact was duly entered on the journals of the House, and the entry was invariably followed by a distinct order of the House that that Member do attend the Committee on the following day. That was a peremptory order, and that was a custom which was never departed from except, of course, in the case of sickness or ill-health. That order was sufficient to bring to the notice of the Member in question that it was his duty to serve, and that if he set that order at defiance the consequences might be serious. I do not know how it has crept up in the last two years, but the House seems to have been less urgent in this matter. I have got here two instances which I should like to give to the House. On June 18th, 1890, I find, from the journals of the House, that Mr. Davenport reported, from Group G. on Private Bill Committees, that the Committee could not proceed to business in consequence of the absence of Mr. Henniker Heaton, and, curiously enough, Mr. Lloyd George. The House ordered that the two honourable Members "do attend the Committee to-morrow at half-past 11"; that was the ancient practice of the House. But then, coming to modern times, I find rather a different practice in vogue. On May 6th, 1898, it was reported that Mr. Hnrwood
28
was absent from a Private Bill Committee; that Report was ordered to lie upon the Table. I will venture to suggest that the House would strengthen the hands of the Committee of Selection in insisting upon the service of Members. They can do1 that by reverting to the old practice— that, is, that if a Member is absent from his duty on the Committee an Order should be issued saying that he should attend. At any rate it would have the effect of impressing upon the young and inexperienced Members of this House that it is a part of their duty to attend on these Private Bill Committees. I trust that this discussion will impress, especially upon the younger Members of this House, the fact that it is an obligation on their part to attend to all duties that appertain to membership of this House, and not merely to those which may bring them before the public and before the notice of their constituents. I believe this discussion will strengthen the hands of the Committee of Selection, and that it will in that way conduce to the proper carrying out of this very important part of the work of the House with undiminished efficiency.
*CAPTAIN NORTON: I do not desire to say more than a few words upon this occasion. There can be no doubt that in all legislative assemblies it is well known that all Members are considered equal, and yet we find an attempt in this House to create a privileged class. Because these men happen to be engaged in a particular profession, they are to be allowed to have more privileges than their brother Members. I well remember hearing the late Mr. Gladstone argue that there was no difference in any point amongst the Members of this House. We find that there is no rule or regulation upon this matter. This custom has simply grown up, and it has grown up altogether in favour of barristers. But, Sir, business men have equal claims upon their time as barristers have. Then there are those Members who are directors of public companies. They must give some time to the work of an office and to attend any Board of which they are members, and I cannot see that a Member of this House, who prefers to play golf, should not have the same privileges as Members who

29
happen to be barristers. The right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee stated that we would be excused from attending Private Bill Committees if, in their judgment, we should be excused. That I entirely object to. Let a roster be made, and those who desire to excuse themselves, either for business or pleasure, find somebody who would be willing to perform their duty. So far as I know, the younger Members like to serve on these Committees, but I repeat that it is manifestly unfair that those who do not happen to be members of the legal profession should be placed at a disadvantage with their brother Members.
Question put.
Instruction agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petition from Reigate, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Petition from Dundee, against State Peculation; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from London, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  PETROLEUM BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (DISERANCHISEMENT).
  Petition from Hunslet, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (MUNICIPAL TRADING).
  Petitions for inquiry by a Select Committee;—From Oldham (two); North Shields (two); Immisch Electric Launch Company: Kidderminster; Potteries Electric Traction Company; Brighton (two); General Electric Tramway Company; Hartlepool; Gateshead (two); Newcastle-on-Tyne; Guildford; London (ten); Dudley; Dublin (three); Halifax (two); Master Plumbers' Association; Shrewsbury: Bradford (three); Colchester; Exmouth; Liverpool (three); Wolverhampton: Aldridge Colliery Company: Ventnor; Crewe: Electric Construction Company; Messieurs John Spencer and Sons; Leicester; Bury; Preston; Westminster; Nottingham (four); Sowerby Bridge; Messieurs James Higgs and Sons; Manchester (four); Wirral; Carpet Manufacturing Company; East of Scotland; Dover; Sheffield; Carlisle; Blyth; Bath; Leeds; Matlock; Lincoln; Poole; Southport; Rhymney; South of Scotland; Southampton: Hyde; Gosport (two); Glasgow; Keighley; South Metropolitan Gas Company; Cambridge; Val de Travers Ashphalte Paving Company; Skipton; Middleton; Birmingham (two); Lambeth; Ashton-under-Lyne; Leicester; Walker and Wallsend; Birkenhead: Master Builders' Association; Kensington; Redhill; Lancashire and Cheshire; Preston; Sunderland; and Horrowgate; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Petition from Orsett, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Appleby;—Southport;—St. John's Wood;—Bedford;—Downham Market;—Birmingham;—Bristol;—and, South Bristol (four); to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, CHICHESTER (CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' SCHEME).
  Petition, from Chichester, against confirmation; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Gower, for repeal: to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petitions for prohibition;—from Bethnal Green; and Shoreditch; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
  Copy presented,—of Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March 1900, together with a Copy of the Memmorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto (by command); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 69.)

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copies presented,—of Treasury Minutes declaring that the under-mentioned persons were appointed to the offices set against their names without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Heads of their Department, namely:—
  Francis Bailey, Postman, Woodford Green, Post Office Department, dated 10th February 1899;
  William James Ewington, Postmaster, Ambleside, Post Office Department, dated 11th February 1899;
  (by Act); to lie upon the Table.

  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1887 to 1896–7 (Twenty-fifth Number) (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (AUTOMATIC COUPLINGS).
  Copy presented,—of Memorandum by F. J. S. Hopwood, C.B., C.M.G., Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade, upon the use of Automatic Couplings on Railway Stock, with special reference to American experience (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
  Estimates presented,—for the year 1899–1900, with Explanation of Differences (by Command); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 70.)
  NAVY (STATEMENT EXPLANATORY OF ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented,—of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1899–1900 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented,—of Report No. 257 (Cocos-Keeling and Christmas Islands, Report on the Annual Visit for 1898) (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2206 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (RECRUITING).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Copy presented,—of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March 1897, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March 1898, etc. (by Act); to lie upon the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables and Memorandum relating to the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom in the year 1898; including also a Return showing the Quantity of Fish carried by Railway from each of the Principal Ports of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, in each year from 1893 to 1898, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 96, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table; and to be printed. (No.71.)

  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement showing the Production and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Wine, Beer, and Spirits) in the various Countries of Europe, in the United States, and in the principal British Colonies; together with Statistical Tables relating thereto, in each year from 1885 to 1897, as far as the particulars can be stated (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 408, of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No.72.)

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898–99).
  Order (16th February), That the said Estimate do lie upon the Table, and be printed, read, and discharged:—Estimate withdrawn.—(Mr. Macartney.)
MEMBER'S ABSENCE.
  Leave of Absence,—to Sir John Mow bray, until Easter, on account of domes tic affliction.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  FISHINGS AND FORESHORES (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "of all persons to whom any Crown Rights of Fishings or Foreshores in Scotland have been sold or leased by the Office of Woods, with the dates of grants and consideration paid, whether in a lump sum or as rent to the Crown, to the end of 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 161, of Session 1893)."—(Mr. Weir.)
  METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
  Adjourned Debate (20th February) on Motion for Appointment of Select Committee deferred till to-morrow.
  SALISBURY PLAIN (RENTALS).
  Address for "Return (in continuation of (C. 9032), for 1898) giving the gross and net Rentals of various properties at Salisbury Plain purchased by the War Department, as well as the amounts at which they are rated for the poor rate."—(Mr. Thomas Bayley.)
  METROPOLIS WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Metropolis Water Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
ORAL QUESTIONS TO ANSWERS
  QUESTIONS.

    LOCAL RATES.
    MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is his intention to introduce, during the present Session of Parliament, a Bill dealing with the valuation and collection of local rates in England and Wales, as recommended in the First Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation now sitting?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): My right honourable Friend the President of the Local

    35
    Government Board answered a precisely similar question last Thursday. He said that the subject was engaging his attention, but that he was unable to make any statement with regard to it. I have nothing to add to what was said then.

    STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY BUILDINGS.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the County Council of Staffordshire in diverting from technical education a sum of £7,000 (part of the grant from the Customs and Excise) for the purpose of completing the County Buildings; whether he is aware that the assessable annual value of the Administrative County of Stafford is upwards of £3,300,000, and that the annual charge for interest and sinking fund for the £7,000 would be £350 for 30 years; and whether any steps will be taken to insure that the grants made from the Customs and Excise to local authorities shall be devoted to educational purposes?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the first and second paragraphs. The Committee of Council have no power in the matter. The application of the grant referred to is entirely in the discretion of the County Council.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON INDIAK EXPENDITURE.
    SIR H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what was the date of the appointment of the Royal Commission to inquire into Indian expenditure; how many sittings were held, and how many witnesses were examined; what was the date of the closing of the evidence; how many sitting', have the Commission held for the consideration of their report; and when does he expect to lay the Report upon the Table?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The date of the appointment of the Royal Commission to inquire into Indian Expenditure was the 24th of May, 1895. I learn that the Commission held 46 sittings for the taking of evidence, and examined 31 witnesses. The oral evidence closed on the 21st July, 1897. No sittings have since that date been held for the consideration of the draft Report. A large part is, I understand, in print; but I have not been informed when it will be submitted to the Commission, and I am, therefore, not in a position to name any date for its presentation.
    SIR H. FOWLER: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he intends to take any steps in this matter, the evidence having closed upwards of 18 months ago? I may say, as a justification for putting the Question to him, that the proceedings of the Committee over which I have the honour to preside, in reference to Indian currency are seriously hampered by their not being in a position to obtain the decision of this Commission upon the civil expenditure of India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Secretary has no control whatever over the proceedings of a Commission of this kind. I think there is an understood rule that, when a Commission of this kind is appointed and has taken the evidence necessary to enable it to form a judgment, the Report should be presented to the Commission in order that it may come to a conclusion as soon as possible.

CATTLE TRANSIT RATES IN IRELAND.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway, Ireland, are giving special rates from Ardee to Scotland for cattle, and that that company have declined to give some facilities to the cattle traders of Carrickmacross; whether he is aware that the action of the Great Northern Railway Company in this matter is of great injury to the town of Carrickmacross; and what course does he intend to take in order to

37
give the traders of Carrickmacross the same opportunities of sending cattle to Scotland as the traders of Ardee?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am not aware that the facts are as stated by the honourable Member. The general manager says—
"The company cannot of themselves give any through rates to Scotland, as they can only control the railway portion of the journey. They have, however, rates in existence to all the shipping ports on their system."
He adds—
"I do not find that any application has been made by the cattle traders of Carrickmacross for through rates to Scotland. A question has been mooted as to the arranging of a through rate via Belfast, which has not, however, been carried out, because of the shipping companies not having seen their way so far to agree to through rates."
MR. DALY: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Carrickmacross Council have applied to the company on this subject?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: That is not material. My position is this, that the railway companies have no power of themselves to give through rates. The shipping companies to whom the steamers belong will not consider them. The steamers do not belong to the railway company.

CHURCH TRAINING COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS.
MR. ALFRED BUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is true, as stated by the Bishop of Rochester in October last, that the Education Department has sanctioned a scheme for a new training college for teachers, to which Nonconformists are to be refused admittance as resident students and only offered a limited number of places as day students, the whole institution to be under the control of the Anglican Church and under the management of Miss Bishop; and whether, having regard to the fact that there is already ample accommodation in Church colleges to supply the demand for trained teachers in Church
38
schools, and also to the principle laid down by the Department that all new colleges should accept the conscience clause and that all applicants for admission should be on an equal footing, he will give an assurance that no such scheme as that mentioned by the Bishop of Rochester will be sanctioned by the Department?
SIR J. GORST: The Education Department have sanctioned a scheme for a Residential Church of England Training College, on condition that provision is made for at least an equal number of day students, who are to be admitted under a strict conscience clause. The Committee of Council do not admit that the accommodation in Church colleges is already sufficient. With regard to the latter part of paragraph (2), the Department have never refused a grant to a new training college on the ground that it had not a conscience clause.

MILITARY HEAD-DRESS.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men who suffered from sunstroke during the manœuvres near Salisbury in August and September last; whether any died from this cause; and, if so, how many; and whether any steps have been taken to provide a more suitable head covering in hot weather, as recommended by the Commander-in-Chief in his report on the Manœuvres.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. GEORGE WTNDHAM,): There were 61 cases of sunstroke, but there were no deaths from this cause. The Commander-in-Chief has made no recomendation for any change of head-dress. He noted that the field cap gave insufficient protection against the sun during the exceptionally hot weather experienced.
MR. WARNER: Does the same remark apply to the Glengarry?
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. I think any criticism of the field cap would apply to the Glengarry, which is worn by the Militia.

BRITISH BOYS FOR THE NAVAL RESERVE.
MR. WARR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board are prepared to assist in carrying into effect a scheme which has been submitted to them by a firm of Liverpool shipowners, who have intimated their willingness to undertake to carry on each of the vessels under their management from two to four British boy sailors, to be selected by the Board of Trade, to serve for three years, and to be trained for the Royal Naval Reserve, receiving payment from the shipowners at rates specified, the Board providing on engagement such outfit as may be thought necessary, and providing for general supervision of the boys by their officials; and whether, if the Board of Trade have not at present the requisite authority for the provision of outfit or for any other purpose connected with the scheme, he is prepared to propose legislation by which such authority will be conferred?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am glad my honourable Friend has asked me the Question, as it enables me to express my sense of the public-spirited action which Messrs. Elder Dempster and Co. propose to take in connection with this matter. With regard to outfits for the boys, however, the Merchant Shipping Acts give no authority for their direct provision, but I should have thought that the allowance off the Light Dues provided by last year's Act would more than cover their cost. I understand from Messrs. Elder Dempster and Co. that they do not now attach the conditions named to the employment of the boys.

SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that several thousands of ratepayers in Scotland, who are entitled to vote for the Parliamentary representative and the County and Parish Council, are debarred from voting at School Board elections by reason of their rentals being less than £4, will he state whether a date has vet been fixed for
40
bringing in the promised Bill dealing with the question?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have referred to all my previous answers to the honourable Member on this subject, and there is no promise contained in them to bring in a Bill, as alleged in, the Question. Having carefully considered the subject, the Government are not prepared to make any promise in regard to it.
MR. WEIR: But is it not the fact that last year the right honourable Gentleman promised to bring in a Bill by the next School Board elections?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have looked through all the answers. It is not so.

ROSS AND CROMARTY COUNTY COUNCIL.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a copy of a resolution, which was carried unanimously at a meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council in December last, in which they again request the Government to provide by legislation that the council and the district committees shall be enabled to construct and repair bridle-paths, footbridges, etc., out of the road rates, as provided in the 12th section of the Local Government Bill brought in by the Secretary for Scotland in April, 1895; and further to provide for the County Council and Parish Council elections being held at a more genial period of the year, as was provided in the 16th section of the same Bill; and will he state what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Secretary for Scotland that he has not received the Resolution referred to in the first portion of the honourable Member's Question, but has received one of a similar nature from the Lews District Committee. It is not proposed to legislate on the point, but if the honourable Member will refer to the appendices of the report of the Congested Districts Board, he will find that

41
certain roads, footbridges, and bridges in Ross and Cromarty are being constructed by aid of grants from that Board. As regards the second portion of the Question, the reply is, that no memorials have been received by the Secretary for Scotland in favour of the suggested change since 1893, and that he does not propose to legislate on the subject.

SALISBURY PLAIN MANŒUVRES.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will agree to the Return relating to rentals on Salisbury Plain which stands on the Paper this day?
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The Return will be given.

ORDNANCE SURVEY IN IRELAND.
MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Cork, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will explain why it is that in the annual report of the progress of the ordnance survey, in the sections dealing with England and Scotland, dates are in each case given showing respectively when the 25-inch, 6-inch, and 1-inch map was first published, and at what date the revised edition was published, no such information is given in the caso of Ireland; and whether he will have laid upon the Table of the House a memorandum supplying this omission, so that the relative progress of the survey in the three countries can be ascertained?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The course which the survey has taken in Ireland is quite different from that in the case of England and Scotland, and it is to this fact that the difference to which the honourable Member refers is to be attributed. I may state, however, that, by 1846, the whole of Ireland had been surveyed and published on the 6-inch scale. The revision of these maps was commenced
42
in 1853, and was continued until about 10 years ago, when re-survey on the 25-inch scale was commenced. The 6-inch maps are now prepared by reduction from those on the larger scale. The 1-inch map of Ireland was commenced in 1862. Its revision is now in progress, and it will be completed in about three years. I think that what I have said will supply the information which the honourable Member desires.

IRISH PLACE-NAMES IN ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS.
MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Cork, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in the revision of the ordnance maps of Ireland any arrangement is made for a revision of the place-names under competent supervision, as in the case of Wales and Scotland; and, if not, will he explain why?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The names on the original 6-inch maps of Ireland were submitted to, and very carefully investigated by, three Irish scholars, all members of the Royal Irish Academy, who paid special attention to the correct rendering of names of Irish origin. A similar course will be taken, on re-survey, in all cases in which any doubt as to the correctness of the names of Irish origin exists. The same system will be adopted as in the case of Scotland. The circumstances are different in the case of Wales, where other arrangements have been requisite.

ORDNANCE SURVEY OF CORK CITY.
MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Cork, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the city of Cork has been re-surveyed and an ordnance map published on the 25-inch scale, there is any reason why a revised map on the 6-inch scale should not be immediately published; and whether he will state the names of ill towns and cities in the United King-

43
dom having a population of 80,000 and upwards in which there has been no re-publication of the 6-inch ordnance map since 1876?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The honourable Member is not correctly informed as to the position in regard to the Ordnance Survey maps of Cork. The re-survey of Ireland on the 25-inch scale has not yet reached that city, and no maps on that scale are, therefore, available for reduction to the 6-inch scale. There are 11 towns in the United Kingdom, having a population of 80,000 or upwards, the 6-inch maps of which have not, as yet, been republished since 1876.

CRETE.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action, if any, has been taken by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of raising funds to enable the Repatriation Commission in Crete to rebuild the ruined Christian and Moslem villages which suffered in 1896–97, and thereby meeting a need to the urgency of which Sir Herbert Chermside has borne testimony?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODBIOK,): Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they can properly undertake single-handed to contribute funds for the rebuilding of the villages; but they have stated that they are ready to take part in any well-considered scheme for assistance by the four Powers jointly towards this object.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Government will not take the initiative in proposing to the Powers the advance of a sufficient sum to enable this most necessary repatriation to take place?
[No Reply.]
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right honourable Gentleman not answer that?
MR. MACNEILL: He is not allowed to answer. You have forgotten the new rule.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will ask the Question on Thursday.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact, that the strength of the Royal Army Medical Corps, detailed for duty during the late autumn manoeuvres —namely, 23 officers and 215 men—was quite inadequate for an Army of nearly 18,000 of all ranks, and in view of Lord. Wolseley's comment thereon that the. Medical Staff requires augmentation, ha can state from what source a sufficient number of medical officers, as laid down in mobilisation tables, is to be drawn for the two Army Corps declared by the Commander-in-Chief to be always ready for embarkation for field service abroad?
MR. WYNDHAM: The strength of the Royal Army Medical Corps employed at the manoeuvres was 68 officers and 312 men, and not 23 officers and 215 men, as stated in the Question. The 224 officers required for two Army Corps can be provided from existing home establishments. There would be no justification for withdrawing 224 medical officers from their normal duties for manoeuvres. In time of war this would be done, and the vacancies supplied with civilian practitioners.

UGANDA.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state to the House how many coolies have been imported from,1 India for the Uganda railway works; how many are now employed on the line, how many have returned to India, and from what cause, and how many have died during the progress of the works; and whether there are any hospital returns available showing the amount of sickness and mortality among: the workmen on the railway?
MR. BRODRICK: The number of coolies imported from India has been 14,283. The latest return, that for the month of December last, gives the total number now employed as 12,019; 769 have returned to India on expiration of agreement, 1,015 have been invalided, 480 have died on works. The above figures are an index to the sickness and mortality, and hospital returns are furnished to the Foreign Office.

RECRUITING FOR THE IMPERIAL ARMY IN CANADA.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a decision with regard to the repatriation of the 100th Regiment, Royal Canadians, and of the raising of a second battalion in Canada, has been delayed by obstacles created by the War Office or by the Canadian authorities, and what is the nature of such obstacles; and whether, in view of the desire expressed by all sections of society in Canada, the War Office will sanction the restoration to the first battalion of the so-called Leinster Regiment their true and honourable title of Royal Canadians?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the present arrangements of the War Office, young men in Canada desiring to enlist in the 100th Regiment are unable to do so unless they undertake a journey, sometimes extending to as much as 3,000 miles, on the chance of being rejected on arrival at Halifax; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the difficulties interposed, hundreds of young Canadians have joined the United States Army instead of enlisting in the British Army; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the War Office will make some reasonable arrangement by which intending recruits may be approved and attested for the 100th Regiment, or for any other branch of the Army, in any part of Canada?
MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the honourable Member will allow me to answer his next Question at the same time. The
46
question of recruiting for the Regular Army in Canada is now under consideration. Any statement at this stage would be premature.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Can the honourable Gentleman give no information? Is not this question a long time under consideration, and when does he hope the end will be reached?
MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, I cannot give the information. It is true, as the honourable Member says, that the subject has been under consideration for some time; but it would be clearly premature for us to express an opinion until we exchange views with the Canadian Government and arrive at a conclusion in the matter on which both Governments are agreed.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the honourable Gentleman say whether the obstacle has arisen here or in Canada?
MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to call the due consideration of the question an obstacle either on the one side of the Atlantic or the other.

DOG LICENCE EXEMPTIONS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, having regard to the fact that in the month of November last Miss Ann Mackay, Drynie Park, Muir of Ord, made a declaration before a magistrate to the effect that the dog kept by her is used solely for the purpose of tending sheep and cattle on her croft, will he state the precise provisions of the law on which the supervisor at Inverness relied as justifying him in excluding Miss Mackay from the privilege of a certificate of dog tax exemption; and will the Board of Inland Revenue reconsider that decision?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R, W. HANBURY,): The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, empowers the Board of Inland Revenue to grant exemption from licence duty to shepherds and farmers, who keep and use dogs solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm. Miss Mackay keeps one cow and two heifers, and the dog is reported to be of no use for tending cattle.
MR. WEIR: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that this lady is a crofter under the Act, and that her next-door neighbour, who is in a similar position, and has an exactly similar croft, is exempted from paying the tax for his dog?
MR. HANBURY: I do not think he keeps a similar dog.
MR. WEIR: I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

THIBETAN TORTURES.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to statements in a recent publication, entitled "In the Forbidden Land" (vol. 1, p. 75), to the effect that of recent years the Government of India has had reported, by its own officers, cases of horrible torture inflicted by Thibetan authorities on British subjects captured by them on our side of the frontier; that some of the atrocities committed by the Llamas on British subjects are revolting; that it is a matter of great regret to the Englishmen who visit these regions to think that the weakness of our officials in Kumaon has allowed and is allowing such proceedings still to go on; that the Jong Pen of Taklakot, in Thibet, sends over, with the sanction of the Government of India, his yearly emissaries to collect land revenue from British subjects living on British soil; that the Shokas have to pay this tribute out of fear, in addition to other taxes and trade dues iniquitously exacted by the Thibetans; and that on the slightest pretext the Thibetans arrest, torture mercilessly, fine, and confiscate property of British subjects on British territory; whether the reports received by the Government in any way support these statements; and whether he could inform the House what is the state of the British territory bordering on Thibet?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: My attention has been called to the statements contained in the publication referred to in the honourable Member's Question. No report on the subject has reached me from the Government of India, but I find from the pro-
48
ceedings of the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West Provinces and Oudh that his attention has since 1895 been given to the alleged exactions levied by Thibetan officials on the British side or the northern frontier of Kumaon. The frontier has since that year been repeatedly visited by British officers, who have had interviews with the Jong Pen of Taklakot and other officials from the Thibetan side, and have clearly explained to them that no dues can be allowed to be levied by Thibetan officials from Bhotiya traders, who are British subjects, within the British frontier. The last letter of the North-West Provinces Government, which appears in the Proceedings, is dated the 22nd August, and states that—
"The dues collected by the Thibetans from the people of Darma are clearly proved to be not land revenue, but a trade tax, to which this Government has no reason to object. The Lieutenant-Governor is gratified to learn that Thibetan outrages on British subjects have ceased."
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Darma, Chandas, and Bias, on the borders of Thibet, form part of the British Empire; and whether Thibetan law is enforced within these regions, and the natives driven to bring the greater number of their civil and criminal cases before Thibetan magistrates?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes, Sir. The portions of the districts of Kumaon to which the honourable Member probably refers, namely, Dárma, Chandáns, and Byáns, are part of British India. I have no reason to suppose that any other than British law and authority are exercised in these parts.

ENGLISH CHANNEL PASSENGER SERVICE.
MR. BRYCE): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the frequent interruptions of the service of passenger steamers across the Channel, interruptions which have at Dover become more frequent owing to recent alterations in the harbour; and whether, having regard to the impossibility

49
of employing larger steamers for the cross Channel traffic until larger and better harbours have been provided, the Government will endeavour to accelerate the execution of the works for the construction of a new harbour at Dover, and will, pending the completion of those works, endeavour to have a scheme prepared for remedying the difficulties and delays to which the passenger and mail service across the Channel is now exposed.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): There are two distinct sets of works in progress at Dover— namely (1), those for the construction of a commercial harbour designed for and carried out by the Dover Harbour Board; and (2) the National Harbour works of the Admiralty, which will, when completed, entirely surround and protect the commercial harbour. The difficulties alluded to in the Question are caused by the extension of the Harbour Board's pier beyond the head of the existing Admiralty mole. The engineers of the Harbour Board pointed out to that Board in August, 1896, that these difficulties would arise if they continued their extension in advance of the Admiralty works, but for reasons into which I need not enter the Harbour Board decided that it was undesirable to interrupt the progress of their contractor. The difficulties are in no way due to the Admiralty works, though they will disappear as progress is made with the latter. The extension of the Admiralty pier will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. I shall be happy to show any honourable Member who is interested a plan of both sets of works, which will explain what has happened.
MR. BRYCE: I should like to ask the honourable Gentleman two questions arising out of his answer. The first is, when the Admiralty expect that their works will be completed; and the second is, whether I am to understand that until these works are completed nothing can be done to remove the very serious disadvantages under which the service now labours.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The whole of the Admiralty works are to be finished in 10 years from the date of the
50
contract. The Admiralty mole is to be completed eight years from the signing of the contract. But while the work is in progress, and long before it is actually completed, these difficulties will have disappeared. If there is anything further to be done to meet the present necessities of the situation, that should be done by the Harbour Board, whose work has caused the difficulties, and not by the Government, who are not responsible for the difficulties which have arisen.
MR. BRYCE: Then are we to understand that no direct responsibility is recognised by the Government to endeavour to make the service better than it is now, or to endeavour to improve the harbour accommodation?
[No Reply.]

MILITARY HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION IN EGYPT.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if, upon receipt of the unofficial application for a hospital ship by the General Officer commanding the Army of Occupation in Egypt on 27th June, 1898, any steps were taken to fit out a ship and hold it in readiness to proceed to Egypt in anticipation of the expected renewed application; what steps, if any, were taken to supplement the existing hospital accommodation and nursing staff at Cairo and Alexandria, with a view to the proper care of the sick and wounded while awaiting embarkation; and whether he can state the average number of patients in hospital at Cairo and Alexandria between 20th September and 30th October 1898, as well as the average number of trained nurses in attendance on them during that period; also, the average time that each patient remained at Alexandria or Cairo awaiting embarkation, and the number of deaths that took place amongst the patients?
MR. WYNDHAM: NO steps were taken to fit out a hospital ship on the receipt of the unofficial communication. The hospital accommodation at Cairo and Alexandria was supplemented by

51
tents pitched close to the Hospitals; at Cairo, where the accommodation is greatly in excess of normal peace requirements, the tents were used for a few days only. The average number of patients in hospital during September was at Cairo 354, at Alexandria 113; during October, at Cairo 347, at Alexandria 268. Information has been asked for from Egypt as to the average time during which each patient awaited embarkation. This cannot be ascertained from the returns at the War Office. The deaths between 20th September and 30th October were, at Cairo 67, at Alexandria 37. The nursing staff at Cairo and Alexandria was supplemented by the addition of 138 non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Arising out of the Answer, the honourable Gentleman has not stated the average number of trained nurses in attendance on the men.
MR. WYNDHAM: I must explain to the honourable and gallant Member that the non-commissioned officers and men of the Army Medical Corps are trained nurses. They go through a special training, and they are those who in ordinary circumstances are looked to to attend to the wounded and the sick.
CAPTAIN NORTON: If the honourable Gentleman is not able to answer the Question in regard to the number of trained nurses, I must put it again tomorrow.

CASE OF THOMAS BRADY.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Brady, of Ballinaglera, County Leitrim, who was convicted at the last Carrick Assizes for firing a revolver at a boy named M'Hugh, and bound to the peace for two years and to come up for judgment when called on, and since then was convicted at Dowra at the suit of the Excise for carrying a gun without a licence; had he then a licence under the Arms Act,
52
and where was it granted; and, seeing that this man is frequently in possession of firearms while in a condition that makes him a danger to the public peace, will he explain why he has never been prosecuted by the police?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THB LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. At the time of the occurrences mentioned, Brady had not a licence to keep firearms under the Peace Preservation Act. Since he was convicted of carrying a gun, at the suit of the Excise Authorities, he has again been found in possession of a gun, and the Excise have directed further proceedings to be instituted against him. The question of proceeding against him under the Arms Act for this second offence cannot be determined until the prosecution at the suit of the Excise has terminated, as it is not considered desirable to do anything that would prejudice the prosecution by the Excise. In the meantime, the police have been instructed to report fully he facts of the case to the Crown Solicitor, with a view to being advised by my right honourable Friend the Attorney-General, whether Brady's recent conduct is a contravention of the conditions of his recognisance.

NORTH DUBLIN WORKHOUSE.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the letter of the Under Secretary to the English Local Government Board as to the state of the inmates in the North Dublin Workhouse and the disparity in the rates between the North and South Dublin Unions; and does ho propose to take any action in this matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the letter referred to in the first paragraph. The North Dublin Workhouse is very much overcrowded, but in other respects it is not badly managed, and the guardians spare no pains to do what they can, within the circumscribed limits of their pre-

53
mises, to ensure the comfort of the sick and destitute. Unfortunately, there is no room to build, and although the Local Government Board have been pressing the guardians for years to build with special reference to providing better accommodation for the lunatics, the guardians have experienced much difficulty in obtaining a suitable site for building elsewhere. They have been for some months past in negotiation for a definite site, and they appear quite prepared to commence operations. With respect to the disparity of rates between the North and South Dublin Unions, it would no doubt be within the power of the Local Government Board to do away with this disparity by amalgamating the two unions. I am not prepared to say that such a course is out of the question, but it is one which would involve such important administrative and other changes that it could not be adopted without the most careful consideration, and without giving ample opportunity for an expression of local public opinion on the question.

NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL DISPUTE.
MR. PRIESTLEY (for Sir J. (BRUN-NER): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether 300 or 400 children have been locked out from the Church of England Day School, St. James End, Northampton, because their parents declined to undertake that they should not wear a medal presented to them for attendance at a separate service held under the Conscience Clause; whether the wearing of such a medal is a reasonable ground within the meaning of the Act of Parliament for refusing admission; and whether he is aware that in 1883, in the case of the Wiveliscombe Board School, in the county of Somerset, 'when admission was refused by the managers to children wearing the temperance blue ribbon, the Department ruled that the wearing of a blue ribbon was not a reasonable ground for refusing admission, and threatened to withdraw the grant unless the excluded children were readmitted?
SIR J. GORST: I must ask the honourable Member to postpone this Question till Thursday, as the Committee of Council have sent down an inspector to inquire into the matter. This report is not yet before us.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the inquiry finished?
SIR J. GORST: Well, I understand that the Chief Inspector's report was sent in this afternoon.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Then it is over now.
SIR J. GORST: I assume it is from that.

UGANDA RAILWAY GAUGE.
MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact that the gauge being used for the Uganda Railway is different from that of the Nile Valley Railway; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the gauge of the Uganda Railway made similar to that of the Nile Valley Railway?
MR. BRODRICK: The gauge of the Uganda Railway is one metre different from either of the gauges used on the railways in the Nile Valley; 260 miles of the Uganda Railway are already laid, and it would not be possible to assimilate the gauge of the railway with either of those of the Nile Valley.

DANGEROUS INDUSTRIES.
MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say when the Reports of the experts appointed to inquire into various matters connected with the Pottery and Lucifer-Match industries will be laid upon that Table?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have received the Reports from the experts on the Lucifer Match industry; they are now being printed, and I hope in a few days to lay them on the Table. I have not yet received the Report on the Pottery industry, but I understand that it is in an advanced state, and when I receive it I shall lose no time in communicating it to the House.

OMDURMAN.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any estimate has been received of the Dervishes killed and wounded at the battle of Omdurman, and of the number wounded at that battle whose wounds were subsequently treated by the British and Egyptian medical staff in the hospitals of Omdurman?
MR. BRODRICK: According to a telegram from the Sirdar, dated Omdurman, September 5th, officers who counted bodies on the field reported total of dead at 10,600, and it was estimated that about 16,000 were wounded. Besides the above, between (300 and 400 men were killed in Omdurman when the town was taken. No return has been made to us of the numbers treated in hospital.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right honourable Gentleman get a return as to that?
MR. BRODRICK: Yes.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what he estimates that the total expenditure upon Naval armaments and of all connected with the Admiralty will be during the present financial year?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEK, St. George's,): The expenditure of
56
the Admiralty under the original Estimates will be about £23,778,000; under a Supplementary Estimate, £350,000; and under the Naval Works Act is little less than £1,500,000.

COST OF THE SOUDAN EXPEDITION.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to the House what is the total amount of the charge for the Soudan Expedition for the current financial year, what part of this was provided for in the Estimates, and what part remains to be provided for in the Supplementary Estimates?
MR. WYNDHAM: The total cost to Imperial revenues of the Soudan Expedition is represented as nearly as possible by the sum of £215,000, which appears as a repayment by Egypt in the Supplementary Estimate. No provision for this expenditure was made in the original Estimates for the current year.
MR. BARTLEY: Is that in addition to the £1,000,000 granted in lieu of the loan last year?
MR. WYNDHAM: I am speaking of the cost of the Soudan Expedition and of nothing else. Egypt has paid for all the benefit she has derived from transport, coaling, and supplies. The total of that amount is as nearly as possible £215,000.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War to specify the amount in the Supplementary Army Estimates required for the Nile Expedition.
MR, WYNDHAM: If the right honourable Gentleman desires information in addition to that given in reply to Question No. 37, I shall be obliged if he will allow me to answer him when the Supplementary Estimates are introduced.
MR. J. MORLEY: Is the honourable Gentleman not aware that action might be taken which, if an explanation were now given, would probably not be taken at a later period?
MR. WYNDHAM: The right honourable Gentleman will see that a short reply could not be given to this Question. On Votes 1 and 7 for pay and clothing there is a saving this year; therefore, the cost which will be incurred on account of Egypt does not and cannot appear in the Supplementary Estimate. The cost which was incurred on account of Egypt for transport, clothing, and stores does appear in the Supplementary Estimate-The total amount we have incurred on account of Egypt for benefits received by Egypt, and not by us, is, as I have said, about £215,000.
MR. J. MORLEY: May I point out that in the foot-note to the first page of the Army Estimates it is stated that the excess arises under three bends: —Volunteers, the Nile Expedition, and Crete. Surely there can be no objection now to specify, either in the form of a return or in answer to a Question, how much of that is due to the Nile Expedition.
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, I can do that. It would not be the whole amount due to the Nile Expedition, but the amount relating to the Nile Expedition which appears in the Supplementary Estimate.

TRAWLERS AND THE FISHING INDUSTRY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has received a copy of a Resolution which was carried unanimously at a recent meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, calling upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps to prevent trawlers destroying fishing banks and immature fish within the 13-milo limit; and, further, that fishing banks situated in firths or inlets of the sea be at once closed to trawlers, as otherwise a large fishing population who are entirely dependent on line fishing for their existence will be deprived of their means of gaining a living; and will he state whet or to Powers Signatories to the North Sea Fisheries Convention have been communicated with on the subject, or whether any other steps have been taken in the matter.
MR. BRODRICK: Various resolutions have been received to the effect named in the Question. As I stated on the 13th inst., it is hoped that the Hydro-graphical Conference, for which the Swedish Government are issuing invitations, will shortly assemble.

PERIODICAL POSTAGE RATES.
MR. PIRIE: (Aberdeen, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the present system of postage allows journals, such as the Graphic and the Field, averaging in weight 19 oz:, and at special times 2 lb., composed as much of advertisement as of literary matter, and whose circulation; s almost entirely confined to the wealthier classes, to be carried by post for a halfpenny within the United Kingdom, whilst if the working man's penny periodicals, such as the People's Friend, exceeds the weight of 2 oz. by the merest fraction it has to pay one penny; if the Government can see its way to propose a change from this difference of postage rate, to-be brought about so as to include all weekly publications at the same rate; and if he is aware that booksellers'' orders for a quantity of these sixpenny weeklies are largely transmitted singly by post, instead of in the usual open-end parcel by the railway, which tends to inflict on the Post Office unremunerative work?
MR. HANBURY: The present regulations of the Newspaper Post, based upon the Post Office Act, 1870, take no cognisance of the price at which a periodical is sold, or the classes amongst whom it may circulate. What they do require is that the newspaper shall appear once a week at the least, and consist wholly or in great part of political or other news. The Graphic and the Field satisfy these requirements, and the other periodical named does not. As a matter of fact, the People's Friend is sent for a halfpenny by book post. As the honourable Member implies in the last paragraph, a good deal of the newspaper post is already unremunerative.

THE FRY COMMISSION.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Fry Commission?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The recommendations of the Fry Commission may be divided into three classes. Firstly, those which would require legislation; secondly, those depending on the rules and practice of the Land Commission; and, thirdly, those requiring Government and Treasury sanction. With respect to the first of these classes, I cannot hold out any hope to my right honourable and gallant Friend that the Government will undertake to bring in a new Irish Land Bill. Of the recommendations which could be carried into effect by the Land Commission, a considerable number have been adopted and acted upon, but it would be impossible, within the limits of a reply to a Question, to go into these in detail. With respect to the recommendations requiring Government or Treasury sanction, the following measures have been adopted. The suggestion that all Sub-Commissioners should be permanent Commissioners is one that could not be accepted. Arrangements have, however, been made whereby Sub-Commissioners at present employed will hold office on a three years' tenure. Arrangements have also been made for testing the qualifications of future candidates for the post by means of a Civil Service examination. In addition to this, the system of employing only one lay Assistant Commissioner in the fixing of a fair rent will be discontinued from Easter onwards, and the Treasury have consented to the appointment of additional Assistant Commissioners to expedite the transaction of business.

BRADFORD MILLS AND THE HOME OFFICE REGULATION.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the Bradford District, in some mills the wool-sorting regulations of the Home Office
60
are not rigidly observed; and, whether, having regard to the fact that these regulations have been issued by the Home Office on the joint and unanimous recommendation of employers and employed, he will, in justice to the workers and to those employers who conform to the regulations, take steps to see that the regulations are fully and generally observed?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I regret to say that a case has just been brought to my notice in which the evidence given at a Coroner's inquest points to a grave infraction of the rules at one place in the Bradford district; but I have no reason to doubt that the rules are in general fully observed in the places where they are established, and the Factory Inspectors are doing their utmost to enforce them. In the case to which I have referred I am calling for further reports, and will take the most stringent action that the circumstances allow.

CONVALESCENT HOMES FOR SOLDIERS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the decision of the War Office with reference to the establishing of convalescent homes for soldiers in the United Kingdom?
MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State has decided that accommodation for convalescent soldiers shall be provided in existing barracks at 10 selected stations. There will be room for about 3,500 convalescents in all.

CAPTAIN COOK MEMORIAL SCHOOL, CLEVELAND.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Jewett, headmaster of the Captain Cook Memorial School, Marton in Cleveland, who has received notice to terminate his engagement because he declines to sit

61
with the choir in church on Sundays, such not being one of the duties denned in the agreement into which he entered with the managers of the school; and whether the Education Department can take any action, or are prepared to give any advice to the managers of the school on the subject?
SIR J. GORST: The honourable Member has communicated to me the particulars of Mr. Jewett's case, and it will be most regrettable if the services of so excellent a school teacher should be terminated by extraneous causes. The Committee of Council can take no action in the matter, and they are reluctant to give advice in a matter in which they have no authority to interfere.

PRIVATE BILL FEES.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Select Committee on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill of last Session having reported that the sum of the fees of the two Houses for a series of years to 1897 was on an average £54,176 per annum, whilst the expense of both Houses for the 3rear 1897 in relation to private business was estimated at only £21,680, showing that an annual profit is made of £32,496, and that Committee having strongly recommended that those who are responsible for fixing those fees should materially reduce them, he will state who are responsible; and whether they have acted upon, or intend to act upon, the recommendation of the Committee; and, if so, to what extent the fees will be reduced?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The charges on Private Bills are regulated by Standing Orders. In 1864, in accordance with a draft Standing Order drawn up by the Select Committee on Standing Orders, the fees were fixed, and so long as that Standing Order is operative no modification of the existing scale can be made.

NORTH-EASTERN FISHERIES.
MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the existing distress among large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects on our north-eastern coasts, and especially at Eyemouth; whether he is aware that this painful condition is, in the opinion of those best qualified to form an opinion, the direct result of a form of fishing by beam and otter trawling; whether Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt any precautionary measures to safeguard the spawning beds and the immature fish from this means of fishing beyond the existing law, which has proved inadequate to meet the situation; and whether he will consent to institute an inquiry into the condition of these fishermen, or whether he can undertake to introduce measures for the relief of this distress?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As the honourable Gentleman is aware, the effect of trawling upon the line fisherman has been a subject of interest and anxiety, not only to this Government, but to its predecessors. I do not know what particular amendment of the law the honourable Gentleman desires, but it is possible the Conference about to be entered upon on the subject of the North Sea fisheries may suggest some improvement in the existing state of things.
MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman be able to lay before the House the instructions given to the representatives of this country at this Conference and the correspondence which took place between the various Powers upon it?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will ask the honourable Gentleman to put that Question down on the paper.

SCOTCH JUDGES AS DIRECTORS.
Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that many of the Lords of the Court of Session of Scotland hold extraordinary directorships in joint stock com-

63
panics, and that one of these Lords acts as governor to an insurance company, will ho consider the expediency of suggesting to them the desirability of withdrawing their names from such directorships?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The directorships to which the honourable Member refers are, I think he must well know, of a purely honorary character, carrying no emoluments, involving no duties, and incurring no responsibility. Under these circumstances, even if the Executive Government had a right to interfere—which they have not—I do not see that there would be any ground for so doing.
MR. WEIR: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the second part of the Question?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe the governorship referred to is of an equally honorary character, and known in Scotland as an extraordinary director.
MR. WEIR: A decoy director.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Government Business have precedence this day of the Notices of Motion and, if the proceedings on the Address be not concluded this day, then such proceedings do have precedence to-morrow of the Orders of the Day."—{Mr. Balfour.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Government Business," and insert the words "the proceedings on the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will have observed with some surprise, that the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has not thought fit to make some explanatory statement of the Motion, which, I think I may say, is not only extraordinary, but unprecedented. We quite understand, Sir, that it is necessary that Her Majesty's Government should ask for precedence for the
64
Address over all other business which is at this time before the House. Sir, that is what Her Majesty's Government asked for last Tuesday, and which the House then granted. His Motion today is of a very different character. The right honourable Gentleman does not ask for precedence for the proceedings of the Address, but he asks for precedence for the Government business; in other words, he asks that the House should on this, the first private Members' night of the Session, not only give precedence to the Address, but at once appropriate it as a Government night. Sir, the statement is the more extraordinary because yesterday an honourable Member asked the First Lord of the Treasury at what date the Bill for giving Lord Kitchener £30,000 would be introduced, and, as reported in to-day's "Times," the First Lord of the Treasury replied as follows: —
"I am afraid I cannot give an answer to that Question at present. As the honourable Member knows, I had rather hoped to begin the ordinary legislative work of the Session to-day. That hope has been disappointed, and the ordinary work of the Session cannot now be begun until Thursday."
The right honourable Gentleman is so scrupulous, and always has been ever since he has been Leader of the House, to keep faith with us, not only in the letter, but in the spirit, of an engagement, that I am sure he must have forgotten what ho said in the House yesterday when he put down the Motion which appears in his name to-night, Now, Sir, I am going to move an Amendment to the right honourable Gentleman's Motion, to leave out the words "Government business," and insert "the proceedings on the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech." If the House will accept that Amendment the Government will have precedence, both to-day and to-morrow, for the Address, but if the proceedings on the Address are concluded, then the business of the House will resume its normal course, namely, to-day for Private Members' Notices of Motion, and to-morrow for Private Members' Bills.
MR. CALDWELLformally seconded the Amendment.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)Let me say that I had entirely forgotten the obiter dictum to which the right honourable Gentleman referred and copied from "The Times." I believe "The Times" is accurate in its report, and no doubt the right honourable Gentleman has accurately copied what was stated in "The Times. On the substance of the Motion I have not the slightest doubt that I am well within not only my technical but my equitable right in asking the House, after the inordinate length of time spent on the Address, to give a short period— and it is only a short period we ask —during this evening's Debate to Government business. There is no conceivable reason why we should not dispose of the two or three Government Orders of the Day, all of a non-controversial character, and give the Motion of an honourable Member from Wales more time than it would have if the Government had taken a morning sitting. The only Government business down is the Supply Rule, which, I am glad to think, needs little debate, and the introduction of the London Government Bill, which, I think, will not take much time on first reading, and which I should have been justified in introducing without Debate, under the 10 Minutes' Rule. After these matters are disposed of, the only other Government Measure is the House of Commons Liquor Bill, or whatever it is called, on which, I think, it would be impossible to raise debates on matters of great generality of interest. Now, Sir, if these matters are disposed of before dinner, there would be no hardship on honourable Members who have Motions down. We have taken this year more time on the Address than was taken even at a period of our political history when party passion ran high, when Mr. Parnell was leader of an undivided Irish Party, and when the whole strength of that party was thrown into preventing the Address being voted, or the business of the Government being carried on; and it really is an extraordinary extension of the privilege of private Members to make the Address a peg upon which to hang a long string of abstract resolutions such as we have been favoured with during the present
66
Session. While this justifies anything I have proposed, I entirely admit that the obiter dictum—for it is nothing more—made on a different subject throws a new light on the matter. It indicates that I did not contemplate beginning Government business until Thursday, which, at the time I gave the answer, was a fact, and as I gave that information publicly it is possible that it may have given rise to some misconception. Under these circumstances I consider it to be in the highest degree inexpedient that I should even appear to go back on anything I have said publicly, and I shall therefore, if the right honourable Gentleman prefers it, accept the Amendment, or, if he leaves the Resolution as it stands, I shall not proceed with the Government Orders.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to offer my congratulations to the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury on the course he has taken, which I think was certainly very wise under the circumstances. I only wish to say one word with regard to what-has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman as to the Amendments to the Address. Sir, I do not think the right honourable Gentleman is fair in his criticisms. The real reason why so many Amendments are now put down to the Address is that the rights of private Members have been most seriously interfered with. The rights of private Members, indeed, have been impaired more seriously by the action of the present Government than by any preceding Government, and I am confident that when the time comes fop the other side to be in power the Conservative Party will very deeply regret these changes. Sir, formerly private Members had practically two nights a week, Tuesdays and Fridays, as well as Wednesdays. Now Tuesdays and Fridays have been taken away, and Wednesdays and Tuesdays are also taken away in the early part of the Session, the result being that private Members are driven to what I may call this rather unfortunate practice of putting down Amendments to the Address.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the

67
Treasury has expressed his willingness to take two courses. I think the better course will be to accept the Amendment. When the right honourable Gentleman has so immediately, frankly, and genially admitted that it was not in his power to proceed with his original Motion it would be ungracious for me to criticise what he has said. But he must not imagine that we admit either that the discussion on the Address has been unjustified or that it would be open to him to move the first reading of a Bill—the most important Bill mentioned in the Queen's Speech—in a ten minutes' speech. The right honourable Gentleman's memory may be called to many occasions, when we were on that side and he on this, when we were not allowed to bring in Bills of the smallest degree of importance because they were Government Measures.
Question, "That the words 'Government Business' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words inserted.
Ordered, That the proceedings on the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech have precedence this day of the Notices of Motion, and, if the proceedings on the Address be not concluded this day, then such proceedings do have precedence To-morrow of the Orders of the Day.

NEW BILLS.
Leave was given to introduce the following Bills, which were brought up and read a first time: —
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (NEW BYE-LAWS) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Bye-laws under the Elementary Education Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. (Bill 81.)
SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To provide for seats being supplied for the use of Shop Assistants in Scot land," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bil 82)
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
"To consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Protection of Wild Birds," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 7th March, and to be printed. (Bill 83.)
CONSTRUCTIVE MURDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Law of Murder with reference to the doctrine of constructive or implied malice," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 84.)
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 1st March, and to be printed. (Bill 85.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    ELEVENTH DAY.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question (7th February), "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth: —
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,—
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Captain Bagot.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words —
    "And we humbly express our regret that there is no indication in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech that the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act will be extended to British Seamen, in order to secure greater protection to life and limb at sea."—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I have to take up the time of the House in discussing the question of extending the Employers' Liability Act, but, Sir, the fault is not mine— it is that of the Government in neglecting to do their duty to the men who have to go to sea for a living. Now, Sir, the sailors and firemen employed in our Mercantile Marine are now in exactly the same position that the workmen were in some nine years ago. In the year 1890 the Government recognised the importance of making the employers responsible for injuries that had been caused to workmen by the neglect of foremen and managers in their employ. Unfortunately, Sir, at that time, the seafaring men were not directly represented in this House, and consequently it was possible for the shipowner Members of the House of Commons to persuade the House that it would be an unjust thing to include seamen in the Employers' Liability Act. Now, Sir, the shipowners have been very fortunate in that direction. We have had several Amendments to the Employers' Compensation Acts, and the shipowners on each and every occasion have been able to succeed in escaping their liabilities. Now, Sir, I should like to call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that the shipowners, although they are largely responsible for the largo number of injured workmen who are to be found in our workhouse hospitals, and also for the large number of widows and orphans that are to be found in the workhouses, directly pay no rates whatever towards the support of those institutions except what they pay in connection with their office. A shipowner may have £100,000 worth of shipping, yet the only rates he pays in connection with that shipping are those paid on the office for managing the business. Now, Sir, any other employers of labour who hare property
    70
    worth £100,000 would have to pay very largely indeed in the district where their works are situated to maintain the institutions to which I refer. I have noticed that whenever there has been an Employers' Liability Bill be fore the House the shipowners have come down quite lively, and voted for such a Bill to be passed, saddling other employers on shore for all the responsibilities of such an Act. But when ever any proposal of the kind has been made with a view to extending such Act of Parliament to shipowners they have done their best to intimidate the Government that has approached the question until they have been absolutely afraid to do their duty to the seamen of this country, because they were afraid of the shipowning influence. But, Sir, I should like to point out to the Government that it is altogether a mistake to suppose that the shipowners are opposed to the seamen having the Employers' Liability Act. As a matter of fact, when the Bill of the right honour able Gentleman was before the House in 1893, the seamen were included in that Bill, and several very prominent shipowners supported the proposal to include the seamen in that Measure. There was the honourable Baronet the Member for Southampton and some five or six others, whose names I do not remember for the moment, who sup ported the Bill being extended to sea men. There were only about three or four shipowners in this House who were opposed to this extension. Now, Sir, I venture to say that if I were to can vass this House of Commons on both sides, I do not believe that I should find 50 Members who were opposed to seamen being included in any Work men's Compensation Act. But, some how or other, the present Government are very much afraid of the shipowning influence outside the House of Commons. I won't tell them that they have no reason to be afraid of that influence, because I find that only two weeks ago a very prominent shipowner in the Port of Hartlepool wrote to the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary asking him to bring in a Bill to extend the Employers' Liability Act to seamen. Now, Sir, when the Work men's Compensation Act was before the

    71
    House the Home Secretary made a speech, in which, he said:—
    "I now come to the question as to what the Industries Bill is to apply to. From what I have said, the House will imply that in our opinion it is not possible that the Bill can apply to all the industries of the country. We propose that the Bill shall apply to what I may call the most dangerous industries of the country."
    Now, Sir, if the right honourable Gentleman had applied the Bill to the most dangerous industries, I venture to say that the shipping industry would have been the industry to which he would have applied the Bill first, because I shall quote figures to prove that the loss of life at sea is something appalling as compared with any other industry in the country. The right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary, in reply to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, said: —
    "We never pretended that it was a complete and final Measure. We have never barred the way absolutely for all time against the possible inclusion of the trades which are now excluded. But when my right honourable Friend said that we might with the greatest ease have extended the Bill to deal with agricultural labourers and with shipping and other trades, I say that, having regard to the time which has already been taken in discussion in Committee and Report Stage upon this professedly incomplete Bill, it is perfectly evident that if we had accepted his advice and brought other trades into the Bill, the Bill would not have been passed in an ordinary Session."
    Now, Sir, I remember very well that when the Debate took place on this Bill, that several shipowners asked the Government in this House to apply the Bill to seamen, whereas on the other hand, the coalowners—and there are many of them in this House—absolutely protested against the Bill being extended to the coal men. Now, Sir, on what grounds do I ask that something should be done by the Government in connection with seafaring men? On the main question of time the Bill was passed in the year 1897, and now we are in the year 1899, and from the Queen's Speech it is very evident that the Government have not a very large legislative programme in hand, and I think they have had ample time, by now, to have done something in connection with bringing an Amendment in to extend some kind of employers' liability to seamen. And I might point
    72
    out to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House that he promised, in reply to some question that was asked of him, that at a very early date it was the intention of the Government to bring in a special Bill for seamen. Now, Sir, the Government have not fulfilled their pledges, and I, as representing the seamen, have a right to come to this House of Commons to make one more appeal to them to ask the Government, after I have quoted figures—which I say are startling figures—do they intend for ever to allow the seamen to be injured and killed in such large numbers without bringing in some Measure of legislation to prevent it if they possibly can? Now, Sir, my grounds for asking for this Bill are, first of all, that the seafaring profession or trade is the most dangerous of any industry in the country, and I think I shall be able to prove that by figures published in the "Gazette" of the Board of Trade. Now, the total number of accidents in mines for the year 1896, 1897, and 1898 was 2,977, and the total number of men employed was 728,713, showing a percentage of 134 per 100,000. Those accidents were in mines. Now, Sir, I come to the next most dangerous trade, and that is on our railroads, where the total number of men employed for the same period was 463,112. Now, the number killed during the three years was 1,564, or an annual death-rate of 119 per 100,000 men employed. Now, Sir, in the factories and workshops, and I would like to call the right honourable Gentleman's attention to this fact, wherever there are proper safeguards, the loss of life in those industries gradually diminishes the whole time. Now, in the factories and workshops there are very strict precautions with a view of affording safety for life and limb, and out of a total of 3,743,418 people employed the death-rate for the three years was only 1,578, or an annual death-rate of 14 persons per 100,000 employed. I venture to say that if anyone wants to find the reason for that small death-rate, it is in consequence of our Factory Acts and the Employers' Liability Act, and, above all, to the manner in which the Home Office administers those laws. Now, Sir, when we come to the shipping, I ask the right honourable Gentlemen on the Bench opposite if the Government can possibly

    73
    remain inactive after I have given them those figures. I know the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was at a, shipowners' dinner the other day, and he was quoting figures, and congratulating the shipowners on the fact that the loss of life at sea had greatly diminished. Now, I venture to say that the right honourable Gentleman was not altogether careful with his figures, and in all probability those figures had been prepared in such a way that they were not altogether correct. I venture to say that with respect. Ho said the total number of people drowned was 700 for the year. That is perfectly true if you only take the figures for the persons drowned by wreck and standards. But, Sir, that is not the only life at sea. There are nearly as many men killed on board ship where there is no injury to the vessel at all. Now, Sir, out of a total of 231,000 men employed the death-rate for three years was 5,058 for each 100,000 men employed, or 769 for each year. The figures are as follows:—In 1898 the total number of men killed and drowned by wreck and casualty was 1,818, in 1897 1,612, and in 1898 1,598. Now, Sir, I contend that these are very startling figures, and it is the duty of the present Government, with the large majority they have at their disposal, to seriously consider whether something cannot be done to remedy that state of affairs. Now, without being guilty of repeating myself too much, I will just quote again the figures as they are in each trade. In mines, for each 100,000 men, 134; railways, 119; factories and workshops, 14 per 100,000; and for ships 769 per 100,000. Now, I ask, Sir, am I not justified, as representing those men, in coming to this House of Commons, even if it is to waste time, as some people might say?—is it not my duty to come here and to ask that something should be done, if possible, to remedy this state of affairs? And, mark you, Sir, this has been going on for years. It is not a matter of a few weeks or a few days, but this has been going on for years. The right honourable Gentleman was congratulating the shipowners on the fact that the loss of life at sea was diminishing, but it was not in consequence of the extra safety of ships. If there are more lives saved at the present time it is on account of the amount of salvage work
    74
    done in the Western Ocean by sailors picking up disabled ships. That did not happen years ago so much, and if there is any diminution in the number of lives lost it is due to the fact that seamen are able to render more service to each other at sea. Now, what are the objections which the shipowners have raised to seamen being included in this Act? Some of them are exceedingly funny and amusing to me, although they might do all right for some people who do not quite understand the shipping trade; but to those who know, I venture to say they are exceedingly funny. Well, now, the shipowner says that the shipping trade is the most dangerous, and the Secretary for the Colonies says that the mines are the most dangerous. That is a point for the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary and the shipowners to settle between themselves. But the shipowners say that the shipping trade is unprofitable. Well, Sir, I know that the profits of some firms does not amount to a great deal; but I know other firms which are a perfect Klondike. I have heard of people going to Klondike to make fortunes; but I have read the prospectus of the Cardiff Shipping Company, in which they have promised the shareholders 48 per cent.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: For how long?
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: They do not state any length of time, but they claim that for the past three years they have earned 26 per cent. Where is there another firm that can say they have earned so much money? I am not going to say whether the statements in this prospectus are right or wrong. They say they have made that amount of money, and on that score the shipowners cannot possibly plead poverty as a reason for not extending this Act to seamen. Now, Sir, the shipowners, or some of them, have opposed this extension, but, as I have said before, I believe the majority of shipowners are anxious that the seamen should have this Bill. It is only the small petty firms whose managers are not the owners, who get a sum of money for managing each ship and pose themselves as shipowners; but they are really not shipowners at all—these are the men who make the most noise in opposition to the seamen having the

    75
    Employers' Liability Act extended to them. One strong point which they urge is that the shipowner has no direct control over his vessel. They have said in this House, "We may build a fine ship, we may equip this vessel with all the latest improvements in machinery, and select the very best captain we can get with the certificate; we send her away on a long voyage, and when she is entirely out of our control some mishap occurs through some neglect on the part of the captain or the other officers, and are we to be held responsible for negligence of the captain and the officers?" Could not that same argument be urged by every other employer? Could not the mine owner, who may himself go away and be thousands of miles from his works in India, could ho not urge the same point, and that if an accident happened through the neglect of the manager of the mine, say, "Gentlemen, you cannot hold me responsible for this; I have been out in India, and my manager is to blame." I venture to say that the jury would quickly tell that mine-owner that he was responsible for the acts of his manager. Is it not the same with the factories and workshops? I do not know that the owners of factories and workshops live on the premises or superintend their work, for they generally leave that in the hands of competent managers. Therefore, I say, the shipowner has got equally as much control over his ship as any other employer has got over his particular works. In my opinion that is no reason, or, at any rate, no good substantial reason, for the seamen not being included. Then, Sir, the shipowners say that the seamen have exceptional treatment. Well, Sir, I know the Merchant Shipping Act fairly well, for it is my business to read the various sections of it from time to time, and I would like to know where this exceptional treatment is that seamen have which is not enjoyed by every working man. In the case of the miners, have they not got a Mines Regulation Act, which is tantamount to the Merchant Shipping Act? Have the men working in workshops and factories not got the Factories Act? Then we might urge that because they have got the Factories Act and the Mines Act they have such excellent precautions that they should not have the Employers' Liability Act. But I would like to point
    76
    out this to the Government: you may have a good many Acts of Parliament passed for the protection of the sailor, and they work exceedingly well whilst the ship is in ports of the United Kingdom, where we have a large staff of officers employed by the Board of Trade to see that these Acts are carried out and administered in a proper manner. But, Sir, I want to call the attention of the House of Commons to this fact, that the bulk of our ships are trading m ports abroad, where there are no Board of Trade officers, and where there is no one to see that the Merchant Shipping Act is properly enforced. Why, Sir, if we were now to extend the Board of Trade inspection to all the ports of the world it would be necessary to have a whole army of Board of Trade surveyors and officers appointed to all parts of the world to see that this Act was properly carried out. But, Sir, that is not a fact. In ports of the United Kingdom the seamen do not need protection at all, for when the vessels arrive in port at the present time the men are discharged from the ships, and, consequently, it is not until they have been engaged on another vessel and proceed to sea that they require protection of this kind by exceptional legislation. Now, Sir, I want to remind the shipowners of this House that if the seamen have protection, and I know the kind of protection that they have—they have got a law which says-that no ship shall leave a port in the United Kingdom or any other port that is overladen; they have got an Act which provides for the stowage of grain to see that it is properly stowed; there are several other things with regard to lifeboats and buoys—but I say these are a lot of things that occur in a similar kind of legislation for factories and workshops. I want particularly to call the attention of the House to this fact, that a seaman, when once he is engaged on a ship, is at once subjected to exceptional laws. The captain is monarch of all he surveys for the time being, and the captain's word is bound to be obeyed, whether it is right or wrong. Not only the captain, but every other superior officer on board ship, has the right to judge, when an order is given, as to whether it is a right order or not, and the man is bound to obey that order. If

    77
    a seaman refuses to obey the lawful orders of the master or any officer of the vessel, it is possible for him to be brought before a court, and, as a matter of fact, he may be sentenced to terms of imprisonment from one week up to twelve. Only a few weeks ago a ship met with an accident during a storm in the Downs, and after bumping about on the beach for some time, they eventually got the vessel off, and the men protested against going to sea again in the vessel until she was put in the dock and properly surveyed. Now, I do not think anyone would object to that. If a ship has been on the ground bumping about it is quite possible that there might be a considerable defect in her. Those men objected to proceed in the vessel until she had been put in the dock, and, in consequence, they were taken ashore at Deal and brought before the court. Well, the magistrates on the bench were all ships' captains, and they called in a surveyor and another captain who said that the vessel was perfectly seaworthy, but they had taken no trouble whatever, any more than anyone else, to see that the ship was perfectly safe. Well, those men were sentenced to six weeks' hard labour, but, fortunately, through the good nature of the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary, they were released after doing a month's imprisonment. Now, those men were all men of good character. One of them was a seaman who had served 21 years in the Royal Navy, and he had served on the same ship with the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for York. He was a man with an exceptionally good character, and yet he was sent to prison because, in his judgment, he thought it was not safe to go into that ship unless she was properly surveyed. I say that when men are subjected to I hat kind of treatment Ave have a right to ask that there shall be some legislation to make the owners responsible for any orders that may be given by the captain where the men are likely to be injured. All that we have in the way of protection at the present time is this: if we can prove that a ship was defective in her hull and machinery before she left the port, and the owners knowingly sent that ship to sea, knowing the hull and machinery were defective, we have a right, in the event of injury or loss, to sue for compensation. But, Sir, that is, in com-
    78
    merce, only a small number of accidents on board a ship. I remember one case that we carried to the House of Lords. It was the case of a vessel which discharged a cargo on the river Thames, and part of the bulwark had not been attended to. As soon as the ship was discharged they let go the ropes and she steamed away down the river. The captain was anxious to have the hold of the ship cleared up ready to take in a cargo at Penarth. When they got into the Channel a heavy gale sprang up, and the men were called out of the hold while the ship was pitching and tossing very heavily. As they were engaged closing up the hatches the ship gave a heavy lurch, and the men were thrown through the bulwarks. At the Durham Assizes the jury awarded the widow of one of the men who were killed £195. This was appealed against, and the Court of Appeal decided the question. We proceeded under the section which provides that where a ship is unseaworthy in her equipments the owner is liable. Well, the Court of Appeal decided that the ship was seaworthy within the meaning of the Act; that the defect in this bulwark did not affect the seaworthiness of the vessel in any degree; and that if there was any fault it was the fault of the captain, and not of the shipowner. The captain being a fellow servant, the Court decided that there could not be any compensation given to the widow. Well, we took that case to the House of Lords, and that House also decided that the captain was a fellow servant, and therefore there was no compensation. Now, Sir, just imagine a sailor, being a fellow servant of the captain, coming to him and calling his attention to something of a dangerous nature. I can just imagine what the captain would say, for he would very soon order that sailor about his business, and if he did not go he would put him in the loft for insolence and disobedience to the commands of the master. All I want is the Government to extend the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and that is a very small demand, for I am not asking for the Compensation Act. I would not mind taking it, but I know what a storm of indignation would come from certain shipowning Members of this House if I were to talk about that being extended to seamen. But I will be modest, and only ask if the Government will bring in

    79
    a Bill to extend the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 to seamen. We will take that as a small instalment. There are other reasons which the shipowners give against extending this Act, and these are what I call the funny ones. They say that we provide the men with medical comforts. Well, now, I have had some experience of the medical comforts provided on sailing ships and steam ships. They do not carry doctors, and the captain is supposed to be the doctor. Well, he does not pass any examination in medicine, and there is one remedy which he always relies on, and that is salts. If a man gets a broken leg he gives him a dose of salts, and as for the surgical business, I say the Lord help the poor fellow who gets his leg or arm broken on board a ship if she is a sailing vessel on a long voyage. You would be astonished to see the large number of men who are crippled for life in consequence of not having their limbs properly set on board ship immediately after the accident. I had a case of a young man the other day who was only 21 years of age. He met with an accident on board a sailing ship, and broke his arm. The captain did the best he could for him, but he did not know much about it. The man's arm was set on board, but it was not set properly, and the result was that when he came ashore he had to have it re-broken again after it had been set for months. And now that young man is crippled for life, and his arm is no use. I have known lots of cases where men have had their legs broken, and they have been set on board ship, and when they have come ashore they have had to have them broken again, and in many case* have had to have them amputated. Now, I can give names of men and places where these cases have occurred, if necessary. I think the least the shipowners say about medical and surgical attendance as being an argument against the seamen having the Employers' Liability Act the better. Then, say the shipowners, there is another reason: If a vessel leaves the port and a man meets with an accident after the ship has left, we have got to keep this man on the ship and pay his wages during the whole of the time he is disabled. Now, Sir, I know a little bit about that, and I will throw some light on the subject. If the ship leaves, and the man has the misfortune to meet
    80
    with an accident shortly after the ship leaves port, it is no hardship on the owner, because he does not stop the vessel to get another hand on board, for the men who have signed on have to do the work of this man who is injured. Therefore, there is nothing which the shipowner suffers on that point, and there is no hardship upon him. But, Sir, the sailing ships are gradually dying away, and their tonnage now is exceedingly small, and will get smaller every year; and on steamers when men meet with accidents it is only a few days before they are landed in the first hospital at the nearest port at which the ship might call for coals. Now, as soon as the man is landed in the hospital, the only expenses the shipowner is called upon to pay are the hospital expenses, and then when the man is being sent home to his own port the shipowner is charged at the rate of 3s. a day whilst the man is being conveyed on board ship as a distressed seaman. There, again, I say that the shipowners are not at any great disadvantage on that point. Now, Sir, the shipowners have also contended that they maintain a benefit fund through the Shipping Federation. That is to say that if a man is injured, as a member of the Shipping Federation Fund, he is entitled to so many weeks' pay at something like 10s. a week, or in the event of death his relatives are entitled to the sum of £25. But, surely, Sir, they are not the only employers in the world who provide these benefits. I venture to say that there is not a class of employers, speaking generally, and taking the shipping community all round, who give less to such funds than the shipowners do. The men who support the Shipping Federation Benefit Fund do not do so with a view to help the seaman, but with a view of discouraging the seaman from being a member of a Trade Union, whereby he is likely to give trouble. Now, Sir, I think that the time has arrived when the Government should do something in this question. There cannot be any substantial argument brought forward as a plea for not giving the seamen the benefit of this Act. I know that a great deal may be said about the difficulty of getting evidence, but that is not against the shipowner—that is against the men. I have heard it argued in this House—"Oh! but look at the

    81
    trouble that we will have in getting evidence, supposing that a man is in India, and some 12 months afterwards brings an action against the shipowner. Where is the shipowner going to get his evidence to protect himself against the demands made by this man?" Why, Sir, it is just the opposite way, because the officers of a ship always—or generally—stop in the vessel year after year, with a view of getting promotion, and you can always depend on the first mate or second mate supporting the captain in whatever evidence he may give. I have had some experience of that. No doubt the seamen on their part are just as ready to support their mates in their evidence—there is no doubt about that; but, Sir, if a seaman is injured on board of a ship, his policy is to get his case on as early as possible, because if he has need of his ship-mates, if he wants to call his witnesses, and does not get his case on quickly, the chances are that when the case conies before the court he has not got his evidence: the shipowner has got his evidence, and the man loses his case. Therefore, it is a very weak point, I think, for them to urge, that of the question of getting evidence to protect themselves. I do not think it is a substantial point, and it is one that I venture to say the House would not agree with. Now, Sir, I do not know what the right honourable Gentleman is going to promise. I know that he is very generous, and I know that if he can do a good turn he is always ready to do it; but I would like to say this, that I do not believe that his supporters upon that side of the House—I do not believe they will vote for us in this Debate, because they say the question is one of censure on the Government; but I believe that if they were left entirely free to vote upon this question they would be ten to one in favour of the sailors having this Act. I know that honourable Gentlemen opposite, those who have no connection with the shipping, would support the seamen on this, and I know also that the majority of honourable Members in this House who are shipowners are all in favour of the seamen having this Bill, except about three honourable Members — and I believe that one or two of them will speak to-night—who will oppose the seamen having this Bill. On the other hand, I know that there
    82
    are shipowners who will, perhaps, speak to-night, and will support the seamen. I ask the right honourable Gentleman, seeing that there is plenty of time this Session, if he can see his way clear to bring in a small Bill giving to seamen the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. We will take that as an instalment, and come back later on, perhaps, in another Session; but if we can get that as a start we will see how we get on with it, and then I venture to say that some other day they will be able to give us another Bill. Sir, apologising for having taken up so much time, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    MR. WOODS: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to formally second the Motion of my honourable Friend.
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: I have listened with attention to the excellent speech of the honourable Member, which I have no doubt is calculated to call forth a good deal of sympathy, and deserves sympathy, from both sides of the House. There cannot be any question that the great majority, indeed the whole, of the House are in warm sympathy with the seaman class, and would be only too happy to assist any Government in remedying any grievances, where grievances exist, and to support any proper remedy that can be offered to meet the points to which the honourable Member has alluded in his speech. The honourable Member also says that he believes nearly everybody would vote, if they were free to vote, for the views he has enunciated, with one or two exceptions. Well, Sir, I am one of those exceptions, and I have always opposed this kind of legislation when it has been produced. A right honourable Gentleman, now a member of the Government, then, I think, not a Member of the Government —I refer to the Vice-President of the Council—supported this kind of legislation. I am utterly opposed to it, and I believe the worst thing Parliament could do would be to bring seamen as a class under the Employers' Liability Act. The honourable Member speaks as if the seamen were under no law at all; he would lead the House to believe that the Merchant Shipping Act

    83
    scarcely exists. Why, he gave us an illustration, Sir, of how the seamen at the present moment are under common law, and how he and his friends took a case to the House of Lords. He got an unfortunate decision, which I for one greatly regret. If there be a defect in the law, I should like to see such defect cured. I think that the case is a very strong one, and I think that if the shipowner is not liable for the act of his captain, he ought to be. I only quoted because the honourable Gentleman laid great stress upon it; we want more legislation, he said. That may be an argument in favour of amendment of the existing law, but it is not an argument for bringing in exceptional legislation, and bringing seamen under an Act which no Government has felt justified up to the present in attempting. The honourable Gentleman referred to the dangers of the seamen's calling. Granted that the calling of the sea is a very dangerous calling: because of its dangers, because of; the necessity which arises from time to time of dealing with these dangers, I say it is practically impossible to bring seamen under the Employers' Liability Act without creating more evils than you would remedy. We have had a striking example recently of the perils of the sea in the terrible dangers which happened to the "Pavonia," which was nearly lost. If the owners had been under the Employers' Liability Act, I doubt whether the crew and the captain and the officers would have applied themselves as diligently to meet the terrible state of things. ("Oh, oh!") Well, I am only saying that after all, captains are human. The men had opportunity to go on shore, to leave the ship. They did not leave the ship, to their honour be it said. Many of the risks that were run were so serious that if the captain of that ship had been hampered by the Employers' Liability Act, it is quite possible he would have hesitated to call upon his men to undertake some of the work which they carried out. I am not quite certain what are the numbers of the sailing ships now afloat, I believe the figures are about 4,000; but it might very well arise in sailing ships that a captain would be hampered in his actions by the thought of the liability cast upon his owners if lie called upon his men to run certain
    84
    risks, to go aloft, and so on. Seamen, I believe, do not ask for this kind of legislation. What they ask for, and have a right to have, is that the law should be so framed that it should be impossible to allow unseaworthy ships to go to sea—Mr. Plimsoll brought in legislation with that end—and that it should be impossible for ships to go to sea undermanned. The Manning Committee made some recommendations to put an end to the evil of undermanning if the honourable Member will bring forward a Motion to deal with that evil he will have my warm sympathy. Then there is the question of overloading. These are evils which can be guarded against by legislation, and have been cured more or less. Well, I have said overloading should be guarded against, unseaworthiness should be guarded against, und regulations that ships should be properly manned and well-found should be enforced. When that is done I do not think the seamen will ask for more protection. All that can be settled before a ship leaves port, but the various risks which arise at sea are such that I think the captain ought to have a free hand, and if you are to tie him down by the restrictive operation of the Employers' Liability Act, I believe it would be doing more harm than any good which could arise to the seamen from the adoption of that Act. Brave deeds we have seen done in the Atlantic by brave men. The other day, I think it was the "Vedamore" which launched a boat to rescue men, and successfully rescued them, under great difficulties. But if you had these ships under the Employers' Liability Act, a Captain might hesitate whether he is to send his men to face these risks in a raging sea.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSONrose.
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: No, I decline to give way.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: They were volunteers.
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: Quite so. The seamen may volunteer, but the captain may hesitate to allow them to go if you saddle him with these ghastly liabilities. I believe all the seamen want is to be allowed to pursue their calling under as safe conditions as circumstances permit,

    85
    and I think the proper manner in which any possible damage to their interests, any possible loss of life or limb, should be met is by a Federation Shipping Fund, to which the honourable Member alluded just now. These seamen's benefit funds are the best funds that can be originated in any way. They are subscribed to by shipowners and men—just as you have on the railways the great railway companies subscribing to benefit funds for their employés. And I think in that direction we should look—to encourage this system of mutual help, both employers and employed joining—and not to exceptional legislation such as the honourable Gentleman recommends. I have always opposed it, and I shall continue to oppose it. I think it is a mischievous kind of legislation, and it has never been yet recommended by any Government, and it passes the wit of man to invent by legislation any system that can quite justly and equitably deal with the great interests which are imperilled by the calling of the sea.
    *COLONEL DENNY: Mr. Speaker, I also oppose the motion, but not for the same reason as my honourable Friend. When the Workmen's Compensation Act was being discussed in this House, seamen were left out of the scope of that Act, because it was felt that they could not be brought under an Act which entirely related to land industries. The honourable Member has now brought forward what he considers to be the maximum amount that he is prepared to take. But may I point out to him that while I, and I am sure all of us, are entirely sympathetic towards the claims of the seamen, it is advisable that we should consider not only the cause of the seamen but the cause of the employers as well. You must not legislate in such a way as would do the minimum of good with the maximum of harm to both parties. Now, Sir, I will take this Employers' Liability Act of 18S0. It does not fulfil the object desired, because it practically throws upon the seaman the onus of proving his case against the shipowner. I am prepared—and I have advocated it in my own constituency, and will advocate it again—to submit that a modification of the Workmen's Compensation Act adapted to sea life is what is really required.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Quite right.
    *COLONEL DENNY: But, Sir, this Employers' Liability Act, 1880, is absolutely inadequate, for this simple reason, as I say, that it throws the onus of proof upon the seaman, who is so situated that it is exceedingly difficult for him to give proof. That is particularly so, Sir, in individual cases; but the great hardships that sailors have to endure are more apparent when the disaster happens en masse, and when the ship disappears, and no one is left to say what is the reason why the ship has gone, and gone for ever. How does the honourable Gentleman meet a case like that I He cannot tell whether the loss of the ship was due to the fault of the owner, of the captain or his officers, or whether it was due to the act of Cod, or to the fault of the men themselves. How can a case for liability be established under those circumstances'? My opinion is that the grant now given by the Shipping Federation to men who suffer from accident is too small, and the compensation awarded for the loss of a man's life is insufficient for a widow and children to live on in these days. I do not see how it can be possible to assess damages in the circumstances I have mentioned. I know that the right honourable Gentleman the late Home Secretary had this matter very carefully under consideration in 18y3. With all respect, I do not sec very well how you can meet this point. In cases where a ship is lost with all hands, and there is no one left to tell the tale, you cannot find out who is to blame, and the widows remain absolutely uncompensated. And in cases where individual men are injured it is almost impossible to get evidence. In the case of factories like my own works, under the Employers' Liability Act, the moment an accident happens we are obliged to report it to the proper authority, and the police at once send down an official to examine into the whole circumstances of the accident. He has an opportunity of examining everything. He sees what has caused the accident, and has a clear opportunity of judging all the circumstances. But, Sir, just consider the case of a ship in mid-ocean. Something happens. The ship

    87
    is divided into two camps of witnesses, one consisting of the officers and the other of the men. Independent evidence and independent criticism are bound to be entirely wanting, and, therefore, I say that under no circumstances can the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, be applicable to seamen with any justice to the men themselves, leaving the shipowners out of the question altogether. I hold that this matter must be considered by the Government before very long. I believe that what would meet the wishes of the seamen best, and would meet the views of the shipowners also—or if it does not we cannot help that, but something must be done— is to give the seaman a method of deciding the amount of the compensation due to his peculiar circumstances, and that will certainly not be found in the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. Our shipping industry is our great industry, and I do not want to have it treated with anything but absolute justice; I do not want it to be treated unjustly, because, recollect this, that here on shore we cannot transfer our properties; they remain; they are here, and we cannot get rid of them. But, Sir, a ship can be as easily transferred as a bank note. I asked the right honourable Gentleman for a return of the number of ships transferred to foreign flags, and I think the answer was sufficiently startling. I trust the House will recollect this, that we must treat this matter with generosity, but with a desire not to unduly harass shipowners, who without the slightest difficulty, without the slightest drawback, can transfer every ship to a foreign flag to-morrow. Even our coast services can go over, for there is no law against them being conducted under any flag in the world. And I do trust that honourable Members will not be carried away by the eloquent speech of the honourable Member opposite. He is speaking for his own class, and he speaks in this House moderately, and consequently, Sir, Members are very apt to be unduly influenced; but I do trust that matters will be looked at all round, that we will consider every point of view; and I assert that, from the point of view of the seamen, what the honourable Member proposes would be absolutely insufficient,
    88
    and that nothing short of a well-considered scheme of compensation, such as that we have on land in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but which will be applied in a modified way to meet the exigencies of the sea, will ever satisfy the demands of those who are engaged in the shipping industry.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): When I first came to notice the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman, I felt inclined to believe that he had made a mistake in not referring to the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that he desired to press upon the House the desirability of extending that Act to seamen. I understand now, from the observations which the honourable Member has made, and the irreducible minimum which he asks for, that that is not the case, and that he blames the Government rather for not introducing a Bill which should repeal the exemption from the advantages of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, under which seamen have hitherto been. Well, Sir, I entirely share the opinions of the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down when I assert that I do not think that the seamen whom we desire to benefit will think that they will be as much advantaged by repealing that exemption as they would be by a Measure bringing them within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I suppose I shall not be blamed for believing that that Act, which I was responsible for introducing to this House and passing, was in itself more beneficial to the working-classes of this country than the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or even than the scheme of the right honourable Gentleman opposite. The honourable Member may hold a different opinion upon that point, but at least it was the sincere conviction of the Government in 1897, when they introduced and passed the Workmen's Compensation Act, that they were by that Act and by the new principle which for the first time it is carried out, conferring a new and greater boon on the working classes, by removing opportunities for litigation, and giving them more right to obtain compensation in case of death or accident than they could have under the other scheme. I am not going to argue that point,

    89
    because I am aware that there may be differences of opinion upon it, but I can hardly understand the position of the honourable Gentleman who now says that an extension of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, would really be an adequate provision for the class which he represents with such assiduity and energy in this House. Well, Sir, the Government has always taken the same attitude upon this question; they have not denied—I am not here to deny— the extremely dangerous character of the seaman's occupation. I am not able to follow the honourable Gentleman in the analysis of the figures which he has given. I have always admitted, and I think he will find that in my opening speech on the Workmen's Compensation Bill I admitted, that among the most dangerous occupations or trades of this country must be included that of the seamen. But the honourable Gentleman ought to do me the justice to remember that I went on to argue that there were special reasons why it was impossible to introduce the seamen, who required different legislation, into the provisions of a Bill which is generally applicable to men employed in dangerous industries in this country. The figures which the honourable Gentleman has given are sufficiently startling. I shall not for a moment dispute that, but I daresay that on an analysis the proportion of fatal accidents among the numbers employed might not be found to be exactly what the honourable Gentleman represents. But at least we have it for an established fact, what I believe is known to every Member of the House—it is a matter of common notoriety—that among the dangerous occupations in the trades of this country certainly must be placed the employment of our seamen. The position which the Government took up upon that occasion was this, that it was not possible to deal under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of that year, 1897—it was not possible to apply the principles of that law to seamen in the Bill which was then before the House. And I ventured then to give an example of legislation of a somewhat similar character which had been passed in Germany, and attempted in other countries, where it was found that the circumstances and surroundings of the industry were of such a different
    90
    character that you could not possibly apply the specific clauses of that Act of 1897 to men who were employed under such very different circumstances.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right honourable Gentleman say why? Will he give us the reason why they cannot be applied?
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is apparent to everyone.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: It is not to me.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT: A seaman who serves on board a ship is in a position very different from that of a man living at home, who hires out his labour for the day in a factory, or a man who follows any of the industries in this country which are included under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. I need not refer more particularly to the provisions to which I think the honourable Member has already alluded; but the House must remember that seamen are subject to special legislation under the Merchant Shipping Act, and I do not say that it is a disability upon the shipowners, but it is to a certain extent intended to be an advantage to the seamen, that they have secured to them by Statute, very likely arising from the conditions under which they discharge their work—they have secured to them provisions in pay and maintenance, which are not secured to any of our labouring populations in the land industries. The honourable Gentleman knows very well that however he may think the surgical appliances and medical assistance on board a ship to be inadequate, yet, at least, the man who is engaged on board a ship, if he suffers from hurt or injury received in the service of the ship, receives his wages and his provisions as if he was able to continue his work. Well is that not something secured?
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: His shipmates have to do his share of the work. They do his work, and it is not a loss to the shipowners.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Well, there is no one else to do it. But at least the man is entitled, without

    91
    deduction from his wages, to receive pay for the work which he would have done, and although, from the circumstances of the case, it is unavoidable that his portion of the work must fall upon his shipmates, still, from the point of view of the man himself, there is secured to him by legislation this, that there shall be no reduction from his wage, notwithstanding the fact that he is not able to do his work, unless, indeed, it has been the man's own fault that the accident happened to him. So again, with the expense of maintenance and medical attendance, I venture to say that these are special circumstances, which have been attended to by the Legislature for the benefit of seamen; and very properly so, for surely it will be apparent to any honourable Gentleman who considers the question of applying the principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen, that seamen labour under very different circumstances, and requires legislation very different from that which obtains in the case of other industries. That is point which I urged, and the House accepted when we were debating the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I say that these reasons were held to be good— and I say that, if it was felt to be desirable that at this moment, or this Session of Parliament, we should introduce legislation—if the time was ripe for introducing legislation — to include seamen under the benefits conferred by that Act, we should have to do it, as I conceive, on different lines, and worked out on different terms, from those of the Act which was then passed. Such an Act cannot be lightly undertaken at the present moment. The honourable Member says the Workmen's Compensation Act was passed in 1897. How long has it been in operation? Not more than eight or nine months. There are plenty of enemies of that Act who are already saying that there are a great many legal difficulties surrounding it, and some say that the advantages conferred on workmen by it have not reached the height that was anticipated. I am not anxious to magnify the importance of that Act, or its success, but I think I shall at least carry the House with me when I say with regard to an important Act of that kind, involving a new departure in our law and the establishment of a new principle which has only been at work for a
    92
    very short period of time, that it is only reasonable that we should see how it works before we seek to extend it in the direction in which we have all admitted that, some day or other, it should be extended. I think it would be a very strange thing if the Government asked Parliament to extend that Act in the way suggested by the honourable Member when it has only been in operation eight or nine months. I think, therefore, we can say, as we have always said from the beginning, and as has been said by my right honourable Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, who took such an active part in passing this Act, and said much more recently by the Leader of the House, that the Government feel that the time must come when seamen ought to be included in the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. We distinctly feel that the principle which we have succeeded in getting the House to adopt in passing this Act is better than the principle which underlies the Employers' Liability Act. I am not going to argue that point now, but I feel it is sot We think it would be a most anomalous kind of legislation to propose that the principal class in this country which has been exempt from the provisions of what Ave conceive to be a very incomplete and unsatisfactory Act that of 1880, should now be brought within the provisions of that Act, which, by our action, we have done out best to render obsolete. Therefore, the position of the Government is this—the certainly are not prepared in the present Session of Parliament to propose to amend or extend the Act of 1897. We have never taken up the position, and do not now take it up, that the particular class for whom the honourable Member speaks ought not to be included ii the provisions of that Act. On the contrary, we recognise the dangerous character of the industry of seamen. We are as ready as the honourable Member to believe that the time will come, and I hope, before very long, when seamen must have extended to them similar provisions to those extended to other persons employed in dangerous indus tries in this country, but we have no seen any way, in view of the sufficiently long programme of legislation for thi Session, to propose the Amendment o this particular Act. My answer, there fore, to the honourable Gentleman i

    93
    that, while affirming with, perfect sincerity the desirability of that extension, when we have had a further opportunity of seeing how the present Act works, I do rot think it is reasonable to call upon the Government to introduce, or blame them for not having introduced, such a Measure as the honourable Gentleman wants. I argue my case upon the Workmen's Compensation Act. I believe very few Members would agree with the honourable Member who moved this Amendment in the proposition he laid down that it would be a good and satisfactory way of dealing with the seamen to bring them within the provisions of the old Employers' Liability Act of 1880. I am quite prepared to rest my case on the Act of 1897, and I say, and the Government fully admit, that the time will come, and I hope before long, when we may be able to make some such provisions for seamen as we have made for other classes of the community.
    MR. ASQUITH: I think the House is much indebted to my honourable Friend for the able and temperate manner in which he presented what I may venture to describe as an irresistible case, a case which no serious attempt had been made to answer, and one which has been practically conceded by the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, and who has not given any adequate ground for the attitude he has adopted. It is not disputed that, of all industries in this country, the industry of seamen is the one involving the greatest number of dangers to life and limb. It is also unfortunately the case that, almost alone amongst the great industries of the country, it has not secured even that modicum of protection given by the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and when the right honourable Gentleman made it a matter of reproach to my honourable Friend that his Amendment referred only to the Employers' Liability Act, I think it is only fair to state that my honourable Friend expressly stated he did not limit his demands in any way, or regard his proposal as a satisfactory solution of the matter. He merely put it forward as the first instalment, because he thought he was more likely to get it. What is the history of this matter? As far back as 1887 a Royal Commission recommended the in-
    94
    clusion of seamen in the Employers' Liability Act. When we were in office in 1893, and endeavoured to model the law of employers' liability upon what we believed to be juster and sounder principles, we introduced seamen together with every other class of industry, and we made none of these discriminations which, in my judgment, disfigures the Act of 1897. The House will remember that, although we then had a certain amount of contest with the House of Lords as to the details of that Measure, the House of Lords withdrew the objections they originally made, and assented to the inclusion of seamen. Therefore, we had, in 1893, a Parliamentary consensus representing the opinion of all parties in both Houses that the time had come when seamen should be placed in a position of greater protection and security. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the Act of last year. What was the principle as laid down by him over and over again, and by the Colonial Secretary, upon which the Government sought to justify their deferential methods of treatment in that Act? He said they went on two grounds. In the first place, they selected the most dangerous trades, and excluded those in which the risks were less serious or continuous; and in the next place they included those trades in which the employers were men of substance, on whom the burden of compensation in the event of accident would not be pressing, as in the case of smaller employers. Those were the two reasons for discrimination, and they induced Parliament to adopt them; but both these tests applied to the case of seamen. My honourable Friend has abundantly proved that, if exceptional danger be the test, the seamen's industry stands first among all the trades in the country in its need for protection; and if, on the other hand, we take the only other ground for exclusion, we all know that among the first of the great industries of the country is the shipping industry, in respect of its vast aggregation of capital. I confess I was very sorry to hear from the only shipowner who I think took part in this Debate, the honourable Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, a repetition of a threat which used to be more common, that if the Legislature imposed obligations on the shipowners of this country to take extra precautions for the protection, of

    95
    their men, they would be under an irresistible temptation to escape these obligations by selling their ships to foreigners. I do not believe that represents the general opinion and general feeling of this country, and I hope that before the Debate is over someone will get up and refute the statements of the honourable Gentleman. The right honourable Gentleman has said, and with perfect truth as far as the argument goes, that seamen do enjoy, under the Merchant Shipping Act, a special code, in some of its aspects, of a protective kind. This is quite true, but it goes a very little way towards preventing these constantly-recurring cases of loss of life and injury to limb at sea. The argument is not worth very much, but taking it for what it is worth, as my honourable Friend pointed out, it is equally applicable to the other industries which have been brought within the Compensation Act. Look at your factory system, and your mines and railway legislation. In the case of these three enormous industries, Parliament has been for nearly two generations constantly developing a more highly elaborate code for the protection of the lives of those employed in them, and the existence of that special legislation of a protective kind was not deemed any reason for excluding those industries from the Compensation Bill. When the matter is argued and fairly presented, there is no answer to the case. Indeed, the right honourable Gentleman himself has said in his speech that he admits as fully as we do that, sooner or later, this particular class of working man must be brought within the scope of a Measure not perhaps identical in its details, but practically on the same lines as the Compensation Act of 1897. But, for my part, I fail to see any reason why it should be framed on different lines at all. The difficulties of proof and the difficulties of evidence which have been referred to are not greater in cases of accidents at sea which result in the sinking of a ship and the loss of all lives on board than in the case of an accident in a coal mine in which two or three hundred lives are lost, and no possible proof is left behind by which anyone could possibly discover the cause of the accident, or who was to blame. Therefore I do not at all myself assert that any reason for different treatment exists;
    96
    but whether that be so or not I cannot recognise the inability of the right honourable Gentleman to deal with the matter. Of all classes of working men in this country seamen are those who most need protection and have least protection given to them. That constitutes a case of urgent need which ought to be recognised by Government and by Parliament as urgent. Of course, I wish to see seamen brought within the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, but I believe it would be inadequate. I wish, however, to ask the House to affirm the principle, and to say that this urgent necessity, which has ben recognised for so many years, and which has not as yet been effectively dealt with, should be pressed upon the Government and the judgment of the House by a formal vote.
    *COLOKEL SIR E. STOCK HILL: Mr. Speaker, certain statements have been made during the Debate that nothing has been done for sailors during a great many years. I do not think that proposition ought to go unchallenged. I do not know any class of labour more hedged, round with Government protection than sailors, and rightly so. In the first place, the ship the sailor sails in cannot leave port unless the officers are satisfied she is fit for the voyage; the amount of cargo she is allowed to carry is regulated; her engines are carefully examined before she is registered; certificates have to be produced from a Government officer that the accommodation of the seamen, both as regards extent, ventilation, and sanitary arrangement is in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and, in addition to that, the provisions are subject to examination. All these precautions, added to the circumstance of the transference of the trade from sail to steam, have produced a very great decrease in the annual loss of life at sea. I shall not attempt to quote figures, but the President of the Board of Trade gave statistics the other day which, though challenged by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, I find to be correct. But however careful we may be, there will always be a certain number of accidents which we cannot prevent; and I fail to see that if we included sailors in the Workmen's Compensation Act, or any other Compensation Act, how it will in

    97
    any way decrease the number of those inevitable losses. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough hinted that the shipowners were to blame. The shipowners are not more infallible than any other class, but what I should like to put before the House is this, that I have yet to learn that the shipowners are less humanitarian than any other class of the community, and it is to their pecuniary self-interest that they should see that their ships and crews are properly equipped and well cared for. The right honourable Gentleman, the late Home Secretary, in his Bill did not include the cases to which he now refers as likely to happen where a vessel is lost and never heard of again, and it may be in the recollection of the House that I had the honour of moving an Amendment to the right honourable Gentleman's Bill, to which he has referred as including all classes of workers. Yes, Sir, so it did; but it was restricted to cases where negligence could be proved. My Amendment proposed to give compensation for all injuries, to all classes—including sailors; and if I recollect rightly I was not followed into the Lobby by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, nor, indeed, by any 01 the Ministerial party with one exception. By doing that I think I have shown that, as far as I am personally concerned, I desire to see our sailors suitably and properly provided for, and I am glad to hear that the Home Secretary proposes in due time to bring in a Bill suitable to the requirements of this particular industry, and to give a certain amount of compensation to our sailors. It is not a question of money. I repudiate on behalf of the shipowners the suggestion that we consider money in connection with the lives of our sailors. We all know that sailors should receive every consideration on lines similar to those given to other classes of workmen. It is stated that there is nothing in the objection that the shipowners can have no control. But how can a shipowner follow every one of his ships? Whilo I believe the time has not yet come when we can bring in a Bill, I look forward to such a Measure being introduced. I do not think that anything will be lost by waiting for a short time until the employers are more favourably disposed towards it. I trust that the Bill which
    98
    the Home Secretary will bring in will be of a satisfactory character, and that it will prove beneficial to our sailors.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I very deeply regret that this Debate has not led to something further being done in regard to the seamen and firemen. When the Workmen's Compensation Bill was introduced into the House in 1897, I moved an Amendment myself to include them, because, as a shipowner myself, and one whose interests deeply depend upon the shipping trade, and who has followed all those items which go to make up profit and loss, I had carefully examined at the time what would be the result to the companies in which I am largely concerned if the Workmen's Compensation Act had then been running for about five or six years. As a result of that calculation, I urged the Government to extend the Act to seamen and firemen. I was very sorry to hear the remarks of the honourable and gallant Admiral who spoke earlier in the Debate. He said that, for some reason or other, the question of money compensation might come in between the execution of the captain's duty to his employers and the duty he owed to his men. What would the owners of the "Pavonia" have said if the captain had thought more of their purse than of the lives of the passengers and crew, and if he had hesitated for a moment to do that duty which all seamen are expected to carry out on the high seas, I regret these observations. My honourable Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs trotted out the old idea of selling our fleets to foreigners. We are not going to sell our fleets, although we might sell our effete ships. Nor is the mercantile business of this country to be affected because we try to carry out every Measure for the protection of our sailors. I am very glad to hear from my right honourable Friend that the Workmen's Compensation Act is applicable to seamen and firemen. Of course, we may have to discuss the details for extending the Measure, but are we to go on year after year putting off the time when we are to deal with this great wrong? I think the Government are very much to blame for not putting forward this Measure. I last year approached the Government myself privately and asked that they would then

    99
    consider the question. The answer was, We must have a little more time to see exactly how the Act will work; but surely another year has brought us further forward, and we ought now to hear something more than that we are to wait for a little more time. I cannot agree, I am sorry to say, with the Motion of my honourable Friend. I think the 1880 Employers' Liability Act would not meet the case at all. But as he says that he only proposed it as an instalment, and would receive anything as an instalment, and as we can get no positive promise from the Government, if my friend goes into the Division Lobby I will support him. If he does not go into the Lobby we shall have more delay, and a Division will perhaps stimulate the Government to take up the question seriously. I, therefore, shall have very much pleasure in supporting my honourable Friend if he goes into the Lobby.
    MR. THOMAS GIBSON BOWLES: It seems to me that honourable Members on the other side of the House are going to support this Resolution because they want something else. Their arguments have gone to show that if anything be wanted in this case it is the extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act, passed by the present Government to seamen. This Resolution does not propose anything of the kind, but the extension to sear men of an entirely different Act, founded on entirely different principles —the Act known as the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, which partly incorporated a previous Employers' Liability Act. The right honourable Member for East Fife and the honourable Baronet the Member for Southampton have given their reasons for supporting the Amendment, and these reasons are that they do not agree with it. For the same reason I am going to vote against it. Objection has been taken to the argument of the honourable and gallant Member for Dumbarton that if you put upon the shipping industry burdens greater than it can bear the necessary result will be that shipowners will sell their ships, and that these will henceforth sail under a foreign flag. That is, in my opinion, a very fair argument. It is an argument which I am sure must appeal to the reasoning faculty of the
    100
    honourable Baronet the Member for Southampton. I am perfectly certain that if he found, as chairman of a company owning a fleet of vessels, that in consequence of the heavy burdens placed upon his company by the enactments of this House, if year by year he had to go to his shareholders without dividends, and wanting, perhaps, more money from, them, I am certain that, as a man of business and of conscience, he would wind up his business and sell his fleet to whoever would buy it. That is simply the proposition of the honourable and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, and I cannot see why he should be exposed to such obloquy as he has been for propounding a proposition which is self-evident, and which appeals to a man of sense. I think it is necessary to say that I am not a shipowner. I only own one ship; it is a very small one, but that does not constitute a man a shipowner. I have the greatest sympathy for seamen. I do recognise that of all the callings it is one of the most dangerous and also the most valuable to this country. We might lose all our labourers and our workmen of every description, but we should still be a great country if we kept our seamen. I may be allowed to' refer to an incident already spoken of to-night—the bringing in of the "Pavonia" in safety to the Azores. I know of no nobler, I know of no more splendid, achievement in seamanship, than the story of those men who for four days and four nights were in the hold of the ship, which was sometimes on its beam-ends, with the boilers rolling about, threatening every moment to crush them—who, I say, laboured four days and four nights trying to secure these boilers. I think it is a noble tale, and sheds credit on the courage and endurance of British seamen. Therefore, I have no want of sympathy at all with seamen, and I think that their case is a very special one, and that they are under special disadvantages; and if I may say so in the presence of the honourable Member opposite, I think one of their greatest and most special disadvantages is that they have never had a union that they could trust. I am perfectly convinced that the men in all trades should have unions; but this is more especially the case with seamen, who are so often, away for long periods, and who are, like

    101
    Moses, not ready of speech or altogether incapable of speech. It is indeed in their case, more than in any other trade, important to have a union which the men can trust to represent their case to their employers honestly. Well, I do observe about this Motion that it is a direct reflection on the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I rather think it is an intentional reflection. My belief is that if I had been the representative of the seamen, and had had the whole range of Acts of Parliament to choose from, it is not the narrow Act of 1880 that I would have selected to bring the seamen under. For how are the sailors going to show negligence, on the part of the shipowner, and how are they going to prove it? That is not the Act I should have gone to. I should have gone to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897—an Act under which it is not necessary to have proof or to show negligence. Therefore, when the honourable Member for Middlesborough chooses to found his demand on the Act of 1880 instead of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, I cannot but suppose that he had in his mind some idea of reflecting on the present Government, and drawing a contrast between them and the late Government. My belief is that the Act of 1880 would be wholly inadequate to the case of seamen. I hardly agree with the honourable and gallant Member for Eastbourne when he says that if the Motion were adopted, and if this Act of 1880 were extended to seamen, the captains of British ships would be hampered in their orders to their crews'. That is not so, for under the Act of 1880 it would be necessary before compensation could be claimed to prove negligence on the part of the owners or the captain, But, even if that were so, I cannot conceive of a British captain hesitating about giving certain orders because he might think it would cost his owners £10 or £20. But still less can I conceive of any British captain when he saw a vessel sinking near him, and his seamen came and volunteered to go to the rescue of the sinking crew—for that is what British sailor-men do—I cannot conceive the captain hesitating to allow the volunteers to go away in a boat because he might lose the boat and he men. I do not think that would; ever happen. It is impossible to hap-
    102
    pen, and any man with a knowledge of British seamen would hardly conceive it possible; but, even if it did, it would not make the owners liable for compensation under the Act of 1880, though it would under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897. Now I come to the moral of my speech. My moral is that if the Workmen's Compensation Act was founded on true principles, they were as true for seamen as for other trades and callings, such as builders and carpenters; but if it was founded on false principles, then it ought to be repealed. But if these principles are true, then I do certainly think that the Government owes, it as a duty to the seamen to bring in an extension of that Act to seamen. I do> not say that it should be extended just as it exists. It, would be perfectly legitimate to make certain alterations in details. But as to the Amendment of the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, nobody has had a good word to say about it, and all who are going to support it say they are going to do so because it is not the right thing to do. It is for that reason that I am going to vote against it.
    SIR JAMES JOICEY: This is a question in which I take a very great interest. I have listened to the various speeches of the representatives of the shipowning interest, most, of which have been against including seamen either in the 1880 Employers' Liability Act or in the Workmen's: Compensation Act of 1897. There was one remarkable exception during the whole discussion of this question— that of my honourable Friend who sits, near me, the honourable Member for Southampton. The honourable Member for Bristol seems to think that sailors are under the more special protection of the Government than are the workmen in any other industry. I cannot agree with that, because if you compare the inspection given by Government to ships with inspection given by Government to-mines, I think that mines are just as cart-fully looked after (us ships. They are under strict, rules and regulations, and there are special rules to control their working. No mine can be worked without a certificated manager, and his, certificate is just as difficult to get as, the certificate of a master who controls a ship. But the mines have more disadvantages than ships; they cannot be

    103
    sent to sea, and therefore the mining inspector can pay a visit to the mines at any moment he chooses. Now, although it may be said, as it has been said in the course of this Debate, that the most of the speeches have been directed to the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, I am one of those people who think that it would have been much better, in the interest of the working people of this country, had the Bill of my right honourable Friend below me, the Member for East Fife, introduced in 1893, been carried instead of the Workmen's Compensation Act, because we must not overlook this fact, that the first intention of this class of legislation is to> prevent accidents and loss of life. I believe that had the Measure passed in this House, and had not been so amended in the House of Lords that we could not accept it, but had it become an Act we should have found that the tendency of the Act would have been to decrease the number of accidents instead of increasing them. So far as my experience of the Workmen's Compensation. Act has gone, I believe that it will have the very opposite effect, and I shall be very much surprised if we do not find a largo increase in the number of accidents since the Workmen's Compensation Act came into operation. I cannot understand the position of Her Majesty's Government, who in 1897 opposed the inclusion of seamen in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and have now seemingly come to the conclusion that it is a desirable thing to bring them under the operation of that Act. I think they were wrong altogether in excluding sailors from the benefits of that Act when it was being passed. I am not in favour of creating a privileged class of workmen, and I am against creating a privileged class of employers. I think Her Majesty's Government had no right to pass a law which was to operate on certain classes of workmen and certain classes of employers and not on others. If the Workmen's Compensation Act was good in itself, every workman in the Kingdom should have had the benefit of it. The law should be equal for all, and I think I am perfectly justified in supporting the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. There is one strong argu-
    104
    ment which I think is in favour of the Amendment. At present, if an accident happens to a ship at sea by which a number of sailors' lives are lost, what becomes of their widows and orphans? They fall on the rates in different parts of the country. Now, the manufacturers in our large towns, such as we have on the Tyne—in North Shields and South Shields and in Newcastle—of course have to pay largely to these rates, so that in the event of sailors being excluded from the benefits of the Act, the manufacturers have not only to provide compensation for their own workmen and for their widows and orphans, but they have to pay rates to support the widows and orphans of the seamen. That is a very strong argument why there should be no exceptional legislation. I remember that during the discussion of the Workmen's Compensation Bill the chief reason for excluding seamen and agricultural labourers from its benefits was given by the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who, I regret, to see, is not present. We all regret that, partioularly because it is owing to illness, and I hope that he will be able to appear in his place again. The reason which the right honourable Gentleman gave for excluding seamen and agricultural labourers from the Bill was that it would be impossible to carry the Measure in this House if the whole of the working-classes of the country were included in the Bill. Well, if the shipowners who took such a prominent part in making many of the provisions of that Bill unjust and stringent—as they are— are now beginning to find that they will have to come under the same law themselves, they must not expect much sympathy from me. Having put that burden on my shoulders, I am not going to relieve them: at the expense of my constituents. Now, various reasons have been given why the Act should not apply to sailors. I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of the honourable and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, but I believe that he stated that if burdens were put on the shipping industry it would tend to induce a large number of shipowners to transfer their vessels to a foreign flag. I am a large shipowner myself, and I am in this unfortunate position, that I have one class of

    105
    workmen who get the benefit of the Act, and another class of workmen who do not get the benefit of the Act. Now, I think it is unfair that that difference should be made. But in regard to putting ships under a foreign flag, we all know that any burden put on the shipping of this country which has to compete with foreign ships places the former at a disadvantage. The question is, how much burden can the homo shipping industry bear without doing injury to it? I know of some cases where ships have been put under a foreign flag, but I do not think that this example will be followed to a large extent, for there are many advantages in being under like British flag. The inducement in most of the cases would not be sufficient to make shipowners change the flag of this country for that of some other. It is not my intention to make any lengthened speech. Had there been a Bill before the House I might have spoken at greater length. But I wish to give the reason why I intend to vote in the Lobby with my honourable Friend the Mover of the Amendment. I quite agree Will my right honourable Friend the Member for East Fife. I cannot see that there should be any great difficulty whatever in the way of adding seamen to the Workmen's Compensation Act if the Government feel disposed to include them. If the Government were to' bring m another Bill making different conditions, that would be, I think, very unwise, because the Workmen's Compensation Act is not an Act to prevent accidents, but to give compensation in case of accidents. On that ground I scarcely think it is necessary to make any great change.
    MR. THOMAS P. O'CONNOR: I propose to move an Amendment on the Amendment of the honourable Member for Middlesbrough. The honourable Member for King's Lynn pointed out with great force that the Employers' Liability Act would not be applicable to seamen, and that also was one of the main arguments brought against the Amendment by the right honourable the Home Secretary. Now, my honourable Friend who proposed the Amendment said that the reason why he put in the Employers' Liability Act in his Amendment was that he thought by
    106
    minimising his demand in that way he would be able to get more of the sympathy of the House. He has seen that that was not so, and instead of finding that it was an argument in favour of supporting the Amendment, he finds that it is a strong argument, for voting against it. To meet the difficulty raised by the honourable Member for King's Lynn and other honourable Members, I therefore, Mr. Speaker, propose, with the approval of the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, to amend the Amendment by substituting for the words "Employers' Liability" the words "Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897." I do not intend to say anything in favour of the Motion of my honourable Friend, but in the case of the general acceptance of the House of this particular point, I think the Amendment, as I propose to amend it, is one which might be adopted by general assent.
    MR. W. JOHNSON GALLOWAY: I beg to second the Amendment to the Amendment moved by the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. I find myself unable to understand the position of the Government. Something ought to be done for the seamen, and I for my part, am in favour of the extension of the Act to every class of workmen.
    Question put.
    *MR. DAVID MACIYER: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the new turn, which has been given to it by the terms of the Amendment on the Amendment moved by the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. I cannot help feeling that the honourable Gentleman could not have been present in the House when the right honourable the Home Secretary made his sympathetic remarks in regard to seamen.
    MR. THOMAS P. O'CONNOR: I was present.
    *MR. DAVID MACIYER: My right honourable Friend the Home Secretary in the clearest manner expressed sympathy for the seamen, and also expressed a wish, at the proper time, to bring them under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I feel myself that the same compensation and the same benefits as are given to' other workmen should be given to seamen. But the conditions

    107
    are different. I am entirely in sympathy with, the general principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and should like to see it extended, but I do not think that the time in which it has been in operation is sufficient to warrant the House in altering it just yet. I want to Say a word in illustration of what appears on the face of it to be a real difficulty of extending the Act to seamen. The same difficulties would occur, but in a worse form, as have already occurred in certain trades. Taking the Act as it stands, it rather hinders the employment of men of mature years, and causes employers to employ only young men. Now, British ships, I am sorry to say— but everybody knows it for a fact—are very largely manned by foreign seamen. Shipowners are neither better nor worse than their neighbours, but they might prefer to employ foreigners who were without family ties and in respect of whom there would be nobody to claim compensation than British seamen. That is no more than the truth. Well, that is one of the reasons —not at all for not extending the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen, but why it should not be done without very careful consideration, inasmuch as the provisions of the Act as it stands are really inapplicable to the conditions under which seamen are employed. I distinctly wish to see the principle extended to all workmen, but I do-not think it can be done in the rough-and-ready way suggested by the Amendment. The right honourable the Home Secretary has expressed his sympathy with the case of the seamen, and we can safely leave the matter in his hands. I want to say how heartily I concur in what was said by the honourable and; gallant Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. I think that what he said is absolutely true. It was a statement which you expect from one who understands all that ho is talking about. I am not able to see the matter in the same light as the honourable Member for Southampton, and I hope he will pardon me if I speak of my own personal knowledge on 'matters which I know to be absolutely true. There are companies in Liverpool, some of them nearly as great as that presided over by the honourable Baronet, some of whose vessels trade under the Belgian flag and under the
    108
    Dutch flag. They do not do so for any purpose connected with the Workmen's Compensation, Act. I venture to think that the owners of these lines are gentlemen of such high character that we need not believe that they would put their vessels under foreign flags for reasons of that kind; but they do> so because there are certain privileges obtainable thereby as well as exemptions from conditions of unreasonable Board of Trade interference with shipping which they do not find under the British flag. I am not arguing against the extension of the principle of workmen's compensation, but I am speaking in favour of the view which the Home Secretary put before the House—the view that the time is not ripe, without further inquiry, for the extension of the Act to seamen, and that when the time comes for such extension it will require very considerable modification.
    MR. DONKIN: Representing the constituency I do, I think I ought to say a word on this subject. I am at some disadvantage through not having heard the earlier speeches; but from what I have heard, it seems to me that the almost universal feeling of the shipowners of this country is against the Employers' Liability Act being applied to seamen. That is not my experience, for so far back as 1875, on an election platform, I advocated that the Employers' Liability Act should include seamen. As the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary very properly said, there must be many modifications and alterations in the Bill before it can be extended to seamen. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who said that he could not, for the life of him, see why there should be any more difficulty in applying the Bill to seamen than there is to miners and others. I would venture to point out that the shipping industry is very different to any other, and the procuring of evidence as to causes of accident would not be easy. For the reasons I have advanced, I shall vote against the Motion of the honourable Member.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: With the permission of the House, may I say that I am prepared, in view of the friendly feeling shown on both sides of the House towards seamen, not to press this matter to a Division if I can get a definite

    109
    promise from the Government that even next year they will bring in a Bill extending this Act to seamen. If I get that promise, I will ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Resolution;
    (No answer was made to the honourable Gentleman.)
    Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "Employers' Liability Act," and inserting the words "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897."
    Question put, "That the words—
    'And we humbly express our regret that there is no indication in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, will be extended to British Seamen, in order to secure greater protection to life and limb at sea'
    be added at the end of the Address."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 125, Noes 206. (Division List No. 14.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

    Hayne, Rt.Hn. Charles Seale-

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hazell, Walter

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme)

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Asher, Alexander

    Hogan, James Francis

    Price, Robert John

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

    Baker, Sir John

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Balfour, RtHn J. B. (Clackm.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jazez E.

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Birrell, Augustine

    Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHn. SirU

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Kearey, Hudson E.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Burns, John

    Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Burt, Thomas

    Kitson, Sir James

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Lambert, George

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Langley, Batty

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leng, Sir John

    Spicer, Albert

    Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Colville, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Strachey, Edward

    Commins, Andrew

    Logan, John William

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lough, Thomas

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Crombie, John William

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Tennant, Harold John

    Daly, James

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    MArthur, William (Cornwall)

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Walton, John Lwsn. (Leeds,S.)

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Dillon, John

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Weir, James Galloway

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Doogan, P. C.

    Maden, John Henry

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Ellis, Thos. E. (Merionethsh.)

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    Woods, Samuel

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.).

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

    Mr. Havelock Wilson and

    Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert J.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sir Francis Evans.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Palmer, George W. (Reading)

    NOES.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

    Bethell, Commander

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Biddulph, Michael

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bigwood, James

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Bill, Charles

    Baird, John G. Alexander

    Beach, RtHnSir M.H.(Bristol)

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (Mnc'r)

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Balfour, RtHn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Bowles, T G. (King's Lynn)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Brassey, Albert

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Heath, James

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Butcher, John George

    Henderson, Alexander

    Plunkett,Rt. Hn.HoraceCurzon

    Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs., N.)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Cavendish,V.C.W (Derbyshire

    Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Priestley, SirW. Overend(Edin.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir. Matt. W.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas.Tompson

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Kenyon, James

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Keswick, William

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Lafone, Alfred

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Curzon, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lawrence,Sir E.Durning-(Corn

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Leighton, Stanley

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Denny, Colonel

    Llewellyn, Evans H. (Somerset)

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(S'nsea)

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Loder, Gerald Water Erskine

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Lowles, John

    Strauss, Arthur

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir. Wm. H.

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Talbot,Rt Hn J.G(Oxf'dUniv.)

    Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fergusson,Rt Hn SirJ.(Manc'r)

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Finch, George H.

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin., W.)

    Warde, Lt -Col. C.E. (Kent)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M'Killop, James

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Malcolm, Ian

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C.E.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Milton, Viscount

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Forster, Henry William

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Monk, Charles James

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Gedge, Sydney

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C. of Lon.)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh,N.)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Morton,Arthur H.A. (Deptford)

    Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Mount, William George

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murrav,Rt HnA. Graham (Bute)

    Wyndham, George

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Wyville, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Goschen,RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's

    Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Myers, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Sir William Walrond and

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

    Orr Ewing charles Lgsayin

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Penn, John

    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United
    112
    Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and such Members as are of Her Majesty's Household,

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Thursday, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present Session be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, that this House will, upon Thursday, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

    BISHOPS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
    Motion made and Question proposed:—
    "That the legislative power of Bishops in the House of Peers in Parliament is a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual functions, prejudicial to the commonwealth, and fit to be taken away by Bill."—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
    MR. H. LEWISsaid that in submitting the Motion to the judgment of the House he was not actuated by the slightest feeling of disrespect towards the Spiritual Peers. The object of this Motion was simply to draw attention to their position in the House of Lords, with a view to putting an end to an anomaly and an injustice which was prejudicial to the interests of religion and to the welfare of the community. It was not the first time that this Question had been brought before the House. The Parliamentary history of the Question could be told very briefly. In the year 1611 the House of Commons passed a Resolution in the exact terms which fie now submitted to the House. For that Resolution not only men like Pym, Hampden, Selden, Vane, and Cromwell, but also Falkland, Hyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon, voted. In 1834 and 1836 Mr. Rippon, then Member for Gateshead,
    114
    moved "That the attendance of the Bishops in Parliament is prejudicial to the cause of religion." In 1837 Mr. Lushington moved:—
    "That it is the opinion of this House that the sitting of the Bishops in Parliament is unfavourable in its operation to the general interests of religion in the country, and tends to alienate the affections of the people from the Established Church."
    In; 186G Mr. Peter Rylands gave notice of the following Motion—
    "That the right possessed by certain Bishops of the Church of England of sitting in the House of Lords is contrary to public policy, and injurious to public interests,"
    but Mr. Rylands did not obtain an opportunity of bringing on the Motion in the House. In 1870 Mr. Somerset Beaumont moved for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve the Bishops hereafter consecrated from attending in Parliament. That Motion was rejected by 158 to 102. Upon the 21st March, 1884, Mr. Willis moved a Resolution in identically the same terms as those of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1641 and the one he now ventured to submit to the House. There voted for the Resolution 137, against 118. The Resolution was therefore only defeated by a majority of 11. So far as he was aware, that was the last occasion on which the Question was debated in the House, but recent events had raised the Question into considerable prominence, and he (the Mover) had received communications from different parts of the country, chiefly from Conservatives, which showed that considerable public interest had been aroused in the Question. The reasons given by the House of Commons in 1641 for the exclusion of Spiritual Peers from the House of Lords held good at the present time, and would continue to hold good so long as the Spiritual Peers regained members of that Assembly, and, as he had based his Motion on the precedent of 1611, so he would base his argument in support of it on the reasons offered by the House of Commons at that time for seeking to exclude the Bishops

    115
    from the House of Peers. The first Bill for the exclusion of Spiritual Peers was passed by the House of Commons in May, 1641. After the Committee stage in the House of Lords, a Conference was desired with the Commons, and on the 3rd June the Lords gave their reasons for retaining the Bishops' votes in Parliament, stating that both by the common law, statutes, and constant practice, there was no question of the legality of their giving their votes, and they asked what inconveniences there were that would induce Parliament to deprive the Bishops and their successors of the right of voting. On the following day the Commons offered their reasons, and he should make those reasons the basis of his arguments in the House. The first reason was that it was a very great hindrance to the exercise of their ministerial functions. That applied at the present time, because although facilities of travel had greatly improved, the population of the dioceses had increased immensely since 1641, and one would imagine that at a time when, an addition, to the ordinary cares and responsibilities of the management of great and populous dioceses, the Bishops had abundant cause for anxiety and work, arising out of those theological differences which have been so prominently displayed, their time would be fully occupied in attending to their diocesan work, and he did not think there was a man in the House who said that it would not. It was not to the advantage of their spiritual work that, they should be called upon to take part in the proceedings of the House of Lords. They had done so, and in recent, years, not only where the interests of the Church of England were concerned, but also when questions of general interest had been discussed. In fact, they had often taken part in ordinary politics like ordinary politicians. That had, been greatly resented by the clergy in some dioceses, and if the Bishops were relieved of their Parliamentary work, it would certainly lie to the advantage of their spiritual work in the Church over which they were called to rule. Times were considerably changed since a Bishop wrote to the Prime Minister asking to be nominated for service on Committees of the House of Lords, on the ground that otherwise he would have nothing to do while staying in town. Diocesan work had become
    116
    far more onerous; and responsible, and Bishops could less than ever afford time for attendanea on Parliamentary duties. The second reason given by the Commons was:—
    "Because they do vow and undertake at their ordination, when they enter into Holy Orders, that they will give themselves wholly to that vocation."
    Those vows had been referred to lately as being of a very peculiar and sacred kind. It was impossible for them to perform that vow so long as they occupied seats in the Legislature. The next reason was "Because Councils and Canons in several ages do forbid them to meddle with secular affairs." He was under the impression that, in the Church of England far greater regard was paid to the authority of Councils and Canons than was formerly the case, and the appeal of the Long Parliament to Councils of the Church ought, therefore, to apply with all the greater force at the present time. The fourth reason was:—
    "Because the 24 Bishops have a dependency upon the two Archbishops, and because of their oath of canonical obedience to them,"
    which, of course, takes away to a very large extent their independence. He could not help applying this reason, although. Parliament had not so far taken cognisance of the matter, to that correspondence between the Archbishops and the Pope not so long ago, of which no English Churchman, to whatever school he might belong, could think without pain and humiliation. He wondered whether the Bishops approved of that correspondence. Another weighty reason given by the House of Commons for their proposal, and one which would apply in 1941 as well as in 1641, was "Because of Bishops' dependences and expectances of translations to places of greater profit." This was a question to which he we aid rather not refer, but leave entirely untouched. But human nature was exactly the same now as it was 200 years ago, and it had been connected in many minds with the fact that the Bishops had been so often found associated with the rejection of some of the most beneficial legislation ever proposed for this country. Why had they so seldom raised their voices against unjust wars? For example,

    117
    during the premiership of Lord Beacons field, six Bishops took the trouble to come to the House of Lords and to vote for the policy of the Afghan War. Only one Bishop attended and voted against the Government on that occasion. It was at the time rather unkindly suggested that a great See was vacant, and that, might have in some degree influenced the Spiritual Peers in the votes they had given; but he would not suggest that the attitude taken by the Bishops was due to anything but their unswerving loyalty to the Government of the day. It was well known that Mr. Disraeli looked at the appointment of the Bishops from a political point of view, but he (the speaker) was quite willing to believe that their action was not in any way due to any expectation of preferment, but to loyalty, and that had often led them, closely associated as they were with the temporalities of the State, to take action, which, to say the least, had from time to time made them the objects of strong, if undeserved, suspicion. The next reason of the House for excluding Bishops from Parliament was—
    "That several Bishops have of late encroached upon the consciences and properties of the subjects; and they and their successors will be much encouraged still to encroach, and the subjects will be much discouraged from complaining against such encroachments when they are judges of those complaints. The same reason extends to their legislative power, in any Bill to pass for the regulation of their power, upon any emergent inconveniency by it."
    Was it not just as true in the present day that "several Bishops have of late encroached upon the consciences of the subjects"? They exercised the rights of patronage, to an enormous extent, and they could impress almost any character they pleased upon the Church—directly by preferring clergymen of one school of thought, and indirectly by the effect of those preferments upon the main body of the Clergy. It was largely by such means that Church doctrine and ritual had been changed, and that Bishops had "much encroached upon the consciences of the subjects." Moreover, the Bishops had taken advantage of their position to continue for as long a time as possible the infliction of odious and painful disabilities upon Nonconformists of all classes. When a Bill for the removal of Roman Catholic Disabilities came before the
    118
    House of Lords in 1821, only two Bishops voted in favour of it and 25 against. During the following year 23 Bishops voted against the same Bill, and only one for it. In 1829, when, largely owing to the withholding of the rights of citizenship, Ireland was on the verge of a civil war, 19 Bishops voted against the Roman Catholics' Disabilities Bill, and only 10 in favour of it. The same ecclesiastical bias was seen in the case of the Jews. When the Jews' Disabilities Bill was introduced in 1833, 20 Bishops voted against it and only three for it. The rejection of the Bill was moved by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who urged, that "the moral and intellectual capacity of the Jews was not such as to entitle them to take any share in the Legislature." It seems almost incredible that those words could have been uttered by the saintly and venerated Dr. Howley. Yet he did use them, and they could only be accounted for by the influence of his environment. So late as 1858, when the Bill was actually passed, 11 Bishops voted against it and seven for it. So much for their conduct in regard to the Roman Catholics and the Jews. Now let us come to the case of the Protestant Nonconformists. In 1854 22 Bishops voted against admitting Dissenters into the Universities and only two for their admission. And as late as 1869 three Bishops voted against the Universities Test Abolition Bill and not one in its favour. The admission of Nonconformists to the Universities was delayed for 36 years—from 1831 to 1871—by the House of Lords, and that delay was largely due to the official chiefs of the Church of England, and he did think, having prevented Nonconformists for so long from obtaining University education and culture, it was hardly fair that members of that Church should sneer at them, as they sometimes did, for want of culture. The Bill to abolish the declaration which prevented Nonconformists from accepting public offices came before the House of Lords in the years 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1865. The law, as they must know very well, debarred them from public appointments unless they prejured lie appointments unless they perjured indefensible disability was opposed by 36 votes of Bishops, and supported by only two votes. On the Motion to permit "Christian and orderly services, other

    119
    than that of the Church of England," in churchyards, brought forward in 1876 and 1877, 50 votes were recorded by the Bishops against the Resolution and only nine in its favour. During the toilsome uphill journey which Nonconformists had to make to attain their political rights to which they were entitled as subjects of Her Majesty for over two centuries the Bishops had thrown obstacle after obstacle in their way, and what he complained of was that those who, by the nature of the position they held, apparently felt it necessary to thwart Nonconformist aspirations in the supposed interests of the Church of England, should be, in the words of the Motion of 1641, the judges in their own cause. In the past it had been prejudicial to the Commonwealth that the Chamber, which, in the last resort, had the power of deciding questions affecting Nonconformists, should contain not merely an overwhelming preponderance of members of the Established Church, but also a number of official representatives of that Church. While questions affecting the rights and the interests of Nonconformists constantly came before the House of Lords, Nonconformists had not a single representative from England or Wales in that Chamber. Surely if it were desired to protect the interests of the Church of England in the House of Lords, the fact that nearly all the members of that Chamber belong to that Church was sufficient, protection. Was it not enough to practically exclude Nonconformists from the House of Lords, although they numbered half of the population of the United Kingdom, without having in addition 26 men whose special business was to look after the interests of the Church of which they were the official heads? By all means let the just interests of that Church be protected, like those of any other Church, but not at the expense of those great independent religious communities whose rights, as subjects of the Queen, ought to be placed on a footing of complete equality with those of the Established Church. One of the most important movements in which Nonconformists had been interested during this century was the abolition of Church Rates. It was an extraordinary fact that the wealthiest religious denomination in the country should have exacted money from Nonconformists, not only for the erection and repair of Mr. Lewis.
    120
    churches, but for the provision of divine worship in which they took no part. An example of what happened during that controversy was the case of Braintree, where Nonconformists refused to pay the rate, and, while enormous sums of money were raised for the purpose of compelling them to pay, the parish church of Brain-tree was allowed to fall into such a state of dilapidation that, on a wet Sunday, people were obliged to put up their umbrellas during divine service. A great number of Nonconformists all over the country allowed their goods to be sold by auction rather than pay the rates, while others were imprisoned for refusing payment. The question came before Parliament in the years 1858, 1860, and 1867, and Bills to abolish the Church Rate were carried by majorities of 54, 89, and 76. During those years 47 votes were recorded by the Bishops against the Bill, and not one in its favour, and the determined struggle they made to maintain a position which had become as intolerable as it was unjust, showed that the Episcopal Bench would always regard questions of that kind, not from the impartial standpoint of justice to all classes of the community, but from the point of view of the temporal interests of the Church which they represented. This partiality was prejudicial to the interests of the Commonwealth, and the opportunity of exercising it ought to be taken away by the Bill. The action of the Bishops in reference to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was well known. That Bill had passed the House of Commons seven times, but it had been rejected in the House of Lords no less than fourteen times, and it was the votes of the Bishops which had prevented it from becoming law. That Bill did not compel any clergyman of the Church of England to marry any man to his deceased wife's sister. It provided that the ceremony should take place either in a Nonconformist place of worship or before the Civil Registrar. But notwithstanding this, the Bishops had invariably come to town in force when the Bill came before the House of Lords, and had defeated a Measure which had become law in every British Colony. Mr. Balfour had defended the delay, in carrying beneficent Measures, imposed by the House of Lords, on the ground that it was "necessary for the smooth working of our institutions." Was it really neces-

    121
    sary for the "smooth working of our institutions" that Dissenters should have been excluded from the Universities, that they should be compelled to use a separate burial-ground, that they should pay the Church Kate, that they should be forbidden to hold services in private houses for so many years after the country had definitely made up its mind in favour of these urgent and necessary reforms. Delay in matters of this kind often did infinitely more harm than good, and left behind it a rankling sense of injustice and oppression. When the Measure was ultimately passed it was felt that no gratitude was due for it. In such cases delay only inflicted injury upon the body politic. In regard to the votes of the Bishops on general questions, he drew attention to their attitude in the early days of the anti-slavery question and the great Reform Bill, and quoted the opinion of the Bishop of Liverpool, who said that after 40 years' study of the Debates of the Upper House, he was of opinion that they were often present when they ought to have been absent, and absent when they ought to have been present, and that of Dean Plumptre, who said that the record of their votes on questions essentially moral had for the most part been on the wrong side. To take one instance which showed how the official position of the Bishops in the House of Lords had made them upholders to an unreasonable degree of the rights of property, in 1810 seven Bishops voted against the Bill to abolish capital punishment for stealing from shops property to the value of five shillings. On that occasion not a single Bishop voted in favour of the abrogation of the monstrous and barbarous punishment of death for a comparatively small offence. Some might regard that as ancient history, but my point is that in regard to humane reforms and all great reforms Bishops should be leaders of public opinion. If they were out of the Legislature their influence for good in moral questions would be much greater. The Commons' next reason for excluding the Bishops was—
    "Because the whole number of them is interested to maintain the jurisdiction of Bishops, which hath been found so grievous to the three kingdoms, that Scotland hath utterly abolished it—"
    —and I don't think there is a Scotchman
    122
    in the country who would wish to see those Bishops reinstated—
    "and multitudes in England and Ireland have petitioned against it."
    Scotland had no Bishops in the House of Lords, and would not have them there on any consideration. The Irish Protestant Bishops had left that Chamber 30 years ago, and happily would never return. They had been far better occupied in looking after the spiritual interests of their dioceses than they would have been in meddling in Irish politics in Parliament. While Bishops had been lately interested in extending their jurisdiction by such Acts as the Benefices Act of last Session, which did not touch the question of doctrine and ritual, and concerning themselves in what was very erroneously called the work of "Church Defence"— that is to say, the political defence of the Establishment, and all the privileges and emoluments that went with Establishment—while they had occupied themselves in smashing and mutilating Education Schemes, they had allowed to grow up under their very eyes, practically without check or rebuke, doctrines and practices absolutely subversive of the doctrines and practices of the Church as established by law. The Church of England had during the past 50 years undergone a complete transformation. So far had this transformation been carried, that, broadly and generally speaking, the Clergy were now in one camp and the Laity in another. The Bishops, by discouraging legal action, had as a body abetted and connived at this transformation to such an extent that the great body of the Laity were now in open revolt all over the country. It was useless to minimise the significance or the gravity of this revolt, and it was idle to say that it was the outcome of the irregularities of a few extreme men. The fact of the matter was that the Bishops had spent so much time in fighting for the temporalities of the Church, and for the maintenance of their position in the House of Lords, that the infinitely weightier matters of the law had been neglected. The secret clerical campaign which had been going on, and which had been so admirably exposed, ought to have been well known to the Bishops. Either it was known to them or it was not. If it was,

    123
    they should have taken prompt means to check it, instead of encouraging; it by promoting the Clergy who were engaged in propagating subversive doctrines. If it was unknown to them, it could only be supposed that they had been paying too much attention to matters which did not specially concern the spiritual interests of the Church. The Attorney-General said they had been supine; the Bishop of Winchester admitted that they had been casual. Was it apathy or sympathy that had caused the Bishops to overlook for so long such widespread and flagrant violations of the law? If it was apathy, then the sooner they were relieved of their duties in the House of Lords the better. If it was sympathy with the lawbreakers, then it was clear that the Bishops, sitting in the House of Lords to legislate for the whole community, represented only a section of a section of the religious world, and that, he contended, was unjust to the other sections, and therefore prejudicial to the Commonwealth. Nonconformity had a far stronger hold on the nation than was commonly supposed. At the beginning of the present reign the Nonconformist bodies provided 3,000,000 sittings. What were called the Evangelical Free Churches in England and Wales alone now provided 7,848,804 sittings, and there were some Nonconformist bodies not included in that estimate. The total number of sittings provided by the Established Church was 6,886,977.That afforded some indication, though not by any means, perhaps, a complete one, of the comparative strength of Nonconformity and the Established Church. If they added to the Nonconformists who did not believe in the retention of the Spiritual Peers in Parliament, the Laity of the Church of England who believed that the Bishops would be far better occupied in carefully watching, and, if need be, repressing the growth of illegal doctrines and practices in the Church of England, than in attending to legislative work in the House of Lords, they would find that the great majority of the nation would prefer to see them, so far as legislative work was concerned, in the position of the Irish Bishops, who did not need to look to the State for either guidance or promotion, and who could give their whole time and energy to the work of their
    124
    dioceses. The ninth reason of the House of Commons was—
    "Because the Bishops, being Lords of Parliament, it setteth too great distance between them and the rest of their brethren in the ministry, which occasioneth pride in them, discontent in others, and disquiet in the Church."
    Looked at from the merely human point of view, the fact that the chief ministers of the Church had titles conferred upon them by the State, and had power of legislating, or preventing legislation, for people of all creeds was, in his opinion, not an advantage to the Church, but a great disadvantage. But when the Church was regarded as a divine institution, when they considered all that Scripture said about the Church and the world, about the lives of the first Ministers of the Christian Church, and what the Bishops ought to be, he could conceive of nothing more alien to the spirit of Christianity than that Ministers of the Gospel, however exalted their position in the Church, should have peerages and other temporal prerogatives. And he thought that that was one of the grounds upon which this Motion would commend itself to the House. He had no doubt they would hear in the course of the Debate the argument from antiquity. The House of Commons replied to that argument in 1611 by saying—
    "As to their having votes a long time since, the answer is, if inconvenient, time and usage are not to be considered with law-makers. Some Abbots voted in Parliament as ancient as Bishops, yet are taken away."
    So that there were precedents, both ancient and modern, for the removal of the Bishops from the Upper House. There were those who would persist in regarding this as a Disestablishment Motion, and there were some who said that if a Resolution of this kind were passed they must make up their minds for Disestablishment, and that meant the destruction of the Church. There were some also who identified the Establishment with the Church, and spoke of it as if it were a house of cards—if one card were taken away the whole edifice would come toppling down. That was an absurd notion. The Church of England was still strong in the affections of millions of people in this country. As one of the Prelates had said, "the water of Disestablishment cannot drown her, the axe of

    125
    Disendowment cannot lay her low." She had no need to fear the results of Disestablishment; her real danger lay in other directions. But this was not a Motion for the Disestablishment of the Church. It was directed against a specific grievance, felt by a large number of persons, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, which might be removed with the best results to the Church and the nation alike. It neither did the world nor the Church any good for Ministers of the Gospel to sit by virtue of their office in the House of Lords. Such a position was unnatural, inconsistent with primitive Christianity, injurious to Nonconformists, and prejudicial to the spiritual interests of the Church. It was on these grounds that he hoped the Motion he had submitted would commend itself to the judgment of the House.
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval.
    *MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Mr. Speaker, the Motion which has been brought forward by my honourable Friend is one which has come on rather unexpectedly to-night, because it was generally thought, I believe, that the Debate on the Address was1 going to last to a longer period of the evening; and it is somewhat unexpectedly, therefore, that I had been called upon to rise to second the Amendment. But in approaching this question I approach it from a somewhat different point of view from, that of my honourable Friend. My honourable Friend, as a Nonconformist, has pointed out with great force, with great clearness, and, I think, in a very temperate way the grave objections which may be urged from the point of view of feeling that, the principle of religious equality is opposed to the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords. That, Sir, may, on the face of it, appear to be a, matter rather of sentiment than one which corresponds to the solid fact which requires to be taken into account. But I think that when one looks at the matter, not only from the point of view of sentiment, but also of what has been the practical policy exercised by the Bishops in the House of Lords, in the right which they unquestionably have at the present time, it will be seen that the matter goes beyond the boundaries of mere senti-
    126
    ment. It corresponds to a feeling which is based upon a series of facts which have brought about a condition of affairs which urgently requires to be remedied by the operation of Parliament. Now, Sir, as I have said, I have only been able during a comparatively short time this evening to consider the arguments which have been put forward by my honourable Friend, and the line he was going to take. But there are, perhaps, one or two matters in regard to the reasons which he urged, and which were based upon the proceedings of the Long Parliament—that is to say, the proceedings of the best portion of the Long Parliament—to which I ought to make some reference. One was the fact that he quoted from the Long Parliament an expression of opinion that the position of the Bishops and the position of the Abbots stood very much upon the same footing, and that because the representation of the Abbots in the House of Lords had been abolished, there was exactly the same reason why the presence of the Bishops should also be done away. As a matter of fact, however, the position of the Bishops and the position of the Abbots in the House of Lords stood upon an entirely different, basis. The Abbots were there by virtue of their tenure of Barony. Now, although some distinguished lawyers have, I have no doubt, asserted at different times that the Bishops are also in the House of Lords on the same principle, I think that every historian of note who has looked into the fact has taken an entirely different point of view. Now, it is very likely that the wording of that Resolution is inspired— probably it was inspired—by Seldom Now, Selden held very strongly that the Bishops were in the House of Lords by virtue of the tenure of Barony, and his views were followed by Blackstone, whilst, as a matter of fact, I believe, every historian of note, ending with the present Bishop of Oxford, has come to the 'conclusion that the Bishops were there by virtue of their Ecclesiastical office not only before the Conquest but also' after the Conquest. There is no question as to the grounds on which they occupied seats in the chief Council in Saxon times, but the question has arisen as to what was their position in the great Council of the Nation

    127
    after the Norman Conquest, and I think the labours of the historians have conclusively shown that they are there by virtue of their Ecclesiastical position,. In those days they were there as the representatives of the Church of the whole nation. That was the time when every Englishman was pleased to belong to' one Church, when such a thing as schism was practically unknown, and when there were practically no differences of religious opinion between one man and another in this country. But that is not the case at the present time, and therefore what might in one age have been useful and perhaps a justifiable provision, is one which;, in the present condition of religious opinion in this country, no longer has its raison détre. Now, I do not wish, of course to labour the point as to the difference between the Bishops and Abbots, but I think those honourable Members who are inclined to look upon the fact will see that over and over again there are instances which have occurred in the course of the Middle Agesi—i.e., in a period, roughly speaking, from the Norman Conquest to the Reformation, where it is shown that the Bishops occupied their seats in the House of Lords by virtue of their Ecclesiastical position. For instance, I believe there is one case which has often been cited in this connection, and that was the case of the Abbot of Osney, who> was very anxious to be relieved of Parliamentary attendance, and he brought forward arguments to show that the Abbey of which he was the head had not been founded by the King; and also some other Abbot at the same time brought forward similar arguments to show that they had not received their appointment from the King, and did not hold from him by any tenure of Barony. At the present, time there is no longer one Church in the nation—there are many sects and creeds, and consequently arguments which might have been very well used in 1641 in the Long Parliament in its best days with reference to the early Constitution of the House of Lords is one which no longer can be used at the present time. Then, Sir, there is one other point which perhaps I can approach, from a somewhat different point of view from that of my honourable Friend. My honourable Friend has approached the question
    128
    from the Nonconformist point of view, and very clearly, and very temperately, and very forcibly showed what are the grievances that are due not only to the action taken by the Bishops in the House of Lords as against every measure which was in favour of the promotion of religious equality, but, he also' showed what were the grievances that are felt by the nation as a whole on the ground that a certain privilege, a certain legislative prerogative, was in this manner accorded to the heads of one particular religious body which was not extended to other bodies. Now, Sir, I approach this question rather from the point of view of a Churchman, and I desire, therefore, not so much to emphasise those two points, although I entirely agree with them, but rather to insist upon the harm which is being done at the present time to the Church of England and to the feelings of Churchmen throughout the country by the fact that in the House of Lords the Bishops are taken away to a considerable extent from the work of their dioceses, and also, owing to the atmosphere, or owing to the environment in which they are surrounded, or possibly to some faint traces of original sin which may be found even on the Episcopal bench, they have on so many occasions set themselves against progress and in favour of reaction. Now, with regard to the way in which Bishops are taken away from their diocesan work, of course, as my honourable Friend pointed out, and as the Long Parliament pointed out in 1641, the dioceses were very vast and very populous, and if they were vast and populous then, they are certainly more populous now, even if they are not vaster. I do not think that perhaps they occupy so much area as they did then. For instance', the Diocese of Lincoln in those days was larger than any diocese at the present time—it extended all the way from the Humber to the Thames; but at the present time, wing to the increased population, there is no comparison whatever to be drawn between the population of the dioceses in the Middle Ages, or even from the population in the seventeenth century, and their population at the present time. They require constant attention and they require constant work, and even the fact that the House of Lords only sits for a comparatively short time each day

    129
    makes very little difference with regard to the matter, because the attendance of the Bishops has, especially in the case of those who come from a long distance, been continuous. Not many months ago I had some conversation on the subject with one of the Bishops, who told me that, not only does the legislative business involve so much strain, but also that there are various other matters connected with the functions of the House of Lords which require their attention. For instance, in the House of Lords there is no Chaplain, as in this House, but certain Bishops take it by turn to read prayers for a certain number of days consecutively. Well, it was his turn to perform these functions, and there were some very important matters which were at that time exciting attention in his diocese, which urgently required attention, but, owing to the fact that it was his turn to perform these duties, he was unable to spend those days in his diocese which he ought to have done, and was obliged to; be present at the Debates in the House of Lords in connection with matters in which he took very little interest, and which did not even affect the affairs of the Church. Well, that is perhaps an instance which does not occur very often; but still, if it occurs in one case it may occur in several others. It seems to me that that is not a sort of work which one expects from one who is at the head of a large diocese, and one who has such important duties to> perform as are connected with the pastoral care of so large a flock. One does not expect a Bishop's attention to be diverted in that way from, what may be for the good of his flock, and for them to be left unwatched and uncared for during that time. Then, again, not only is it the fact that they are taken away from the work of their dioceses, but also the fact remains that they are prevented to the same extent from the possibility of paying that attention to the affairs of the Church which they might pay if they knew that they and their fellow-Churchmen were able to do what they wished with regard to the reform and regeneration of the Ecclesiastical body. What I mean is this—that if honourable Gentlemen are of opinion that the Bishops have an important legislative work to do in connection with the Church, why do they not promote the reform of Convo-
    130
    cation? and why do they not give, subject to the veto of Parliament, increased legislative powers to Convocation? Why do not honourable Members advocate that, instead of removing the Bishops from their proper sphere of influence and mixing them up with other matters and with other persons, with which and with whom, they have really very little to do —an arrangement which is producing in the minds of Churchmen a deplorable effect. Because what they say is this—-these are the chosen leaders of the Church; these are; the men entrusted with the continuity of the Church work; these are the men who are able to exercise within their several spheres an influence second to none, and which ought unquestionably to be paramount. But what is the fact? Instead of their being able to devote themselves uninterruptedly to that work, instead of them standing aloof from party questions, we find they are obliged, from the necessities of the case, to spend so much time in a secular body, connecting themselves with one party by the votes they give and the speeches they make. The effect of that upon the minds of Churchmen is to make them believe that their leaders belong to one party, and to one party only, instead of, as is actually the case, dividing and sub-dividing the members of the Church into the different parties which exist not only in the nation, but also in the Church. That is an evil which will go on even if the Bishops should not continue to vote in the manner in which they have almost continuously voted in the past. Instances have been given in which they have voted and spoken against the spread of the principle of religious equality; but there are other matters which have less to do with the Church on which they took a similar line. We all remember what took place in reference to the Local Government Act, 1894. The effect of the action taken he the Bishops in the House of Lords on that Measure was to render nugatory some of its most valuable provisions. I have no doubt they voted and spoke perfectly conscientiously in the matter, and that they thought that those provisions were derogatory and injurious to the best interests of the Church. I am referring specially to the clauses relating to the charities; but what applies to the Act of 1894 aprlies also to the

    131
    action of the Bishops on many other occasions. The line taken by the Bishops has been altogether one-sided, and this fact has not only been objectionable and unfair in itself, but it seems to me it must have had a very deplorable effect on the minds of those who, whilst adhering fully to the principles and traditions of the Anglican Church, are at the same time desirous of seeing fair play and impartiality displayed on the parts of its heads in connection with legislative matters, which really ought not to be placed in their hands. Many of the arguments which in former days were advanced in favour of the retention of the Bishops in the House of Lords have no longer any reason for their existence. Not only is the position of affairs different from what it was in the seventeenth century and in the Middle Ages, but we have had that practical experience of the last 50 or GO years not only of what has actually been done by the action of the Bishops themselves, but also what, to my mind, is more important still—namely, the effect which that action has produced on the public mind. There are only two Archbishops and 24 Bishops in the House of Lords, and even if they voted in favour of political progress, their votes would not, make very much difference, and Churchmen would desire that they should, as the spiritual head of a, spiritual body, stand aloof from political and secular affairs. On these grounds it seems to me that there is an entire difference between our position now and the position in which this country stood three, four, five, and six centuries ago. At that time the position of the Bishops among the Spiritual Peers—in the early days they were not in a majority—was one of great importance and value, because the Bishops were more in harmony with the wishes and aspirations of the people. We have only to turn back to what took place in the thirteenth century. The Bishops were then leaders of the people, and it is to their action that we owe the great advance in liberty which was effected at that time. But now the Bishops are not on the side of progress. On the contrary, they are on the side of reaction, and it is not to be expected that men who are induced by their surroundings to act in that way can preserve the influence which they ought to preserve, and which they are entitled
    132
    to exercise over their flocks, and especially over those who are under them performing pastoral duties. It may be urged that the presence of the Bishops has the effect of leavening the lump of the House of Lords, but it has been very much the reverse. The Bishops have not been able to make much impression upon the House of Lords. They have, on the other hand, been dragged down by those with whom they are acting, and induced to desert the spiritual aspirations which they are bound to represent, and they have sided in every case with those who are opposed to progress and the advance of liberty. Instead of the Bishops spiritualising the House of Lords, the House of Lords has materialised the Bishops. Spiritual force has in that way been wasted. It is the secular force which has prevailed, and which has dragged down those who might otherwise have inspired legislative authority with a higher tone. There is every reason, from, the point of view of a Churchman, that I should support this Motion. I hold that the Church ought not to identify itself with one particular Party in the State, and that the Church, as a spiritual and moral force, ought to be allowed its freedom in the same way as the State ought also to be allowed its freedom. On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I cordially second the Motion which has been moved by my honourable Friend the Member for Flint Boroughs, and I hope the anomaly and anachronism of the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords will be speedily remedied.
    *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely of opinion that neither the Established Church nor still less its existence as a spiritual body depends in any sense whatever on the Bishops being in the House of Lords. I am not even prepared to go so far as to say that if the Bishops were not in the House of Lords they would not do their work so well. Probably they would be free from some of the disadvantages under which they now suffer, and which have been very much exaggerated; but I doubt whether it would be as well for the Bishops themselves if they were excluded from the House of Lords. We have heard that one particular Bishop, in conversation with the honourable Member opposite, complained that he was

    133
    suffering temporary inconvenience from being obliged to act as Chaplain to the House of Lords, and that he would rather be in his diocese. Well, considering that the House of Lords seldom sits more than live months in the year, and that they do not sit every night during those live months, and considering, also, that there are 24 Bishops who take in turn each month the duty of Chaplain to the House of Lords, the inconvenience of being compelled to be absent from his diocese can only happen to each Bishop one month in five or six years. This plan was devised in order to reduce the inconvenience to a minimum, and it certainly is a very small point on which to build a pyramid to exclude the Bishops from the seats in the House of Lords which they have occupied since Parliament has existed. [Mr. MORLEY dissented.] Well, the right honourable Gentleman's historical knowledge is undoubtedly greater than my own, but I think if he went back to the early days of Parliament ho would find that there never was a time when the House of Lords did not consist of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. The preamble of every Act of Parliament will prove that fact. I think, therefore, that my statement, with all deference to the right honourable Gentleman, is historically correct. The presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords has been spoken of as a disadvantage. In my opinion it is an advantage. A Bishop, we are told, has paramount power in his own diocese. No doubt every Bishop, from his position, ability, experience, and character, commands influence, which is increased by the large patronage which he is able to exercise. A Bishop in his own diocese is superior in rank to nearly all other inhabitants of the diocese, and it is important, it seems to me, that the Bishops should come in contact in the House of Lords with those who are socially and intellectually, and in learning, their equals, and in some cases their superiors. It is important that Bishops should be Members of the House of Lords, because they come into contact with men who
    134
    are not associated with sacerdotalism, and who are accustomed to the administration of affairs, and from whom they can learn a great deal. It is also useful, when occasionally a Bishop has gone wrong, to haul him over the coals, because a little wholesome criticism is good sometimes for Bishops as well as for other people. Now, although we have many democratic institutions, at the same time I think that we are rather an aristocratic people. We have men of high rank, and there is no doubt that there is at tendency, on the part of some Peers to look down upon the Clergy as their social inferiors. I think the Bishops should be men of social rank as well as of high spiritual rank, so that they may hold their own and have influence with the Members of the House of Lords. It has been said that the Bishops are apt to take a one-sided view, and to look upon things too much from the point of view of the Church; and it is said that by their right of voting in Parliament they are set up as judges in their own cause, which they ought not to' be. Well, I never knew any man who' did not take an interest in his own cause which he had at heart. We all do it in this House—take the railway interest, for instance. Then, again, nobody objects to barristers being Members of this House on the ground that Parliament has to make laws affecting barristers, and that those gentlemen must necessarily take a professional view of legislation. Why, then, should the Bishops not be in such a, position in the other House? I would put this further point to honourable Members, that the Clergy are debarred from entering this House. They cannot come here to speak for themselves, and I do not think that many honourable Members on the opposite side can claim to represent the Clergy of their own constituencies. Therefore, if you exclude the Clergy from this House it is only fair and right that they should be represented in the other House by the Bishops who have themselves been parish priests and know their wants. Therefore, on that account, I think there is ample justification for the Bishops being there. The honourable Member who moved this Resolution took 'is back 250 years, but in spite of all the

    135
    ponderous reasons he has given, the Bishops have remained in the House of Lords ever since, and there has been no serious attempt made to turn them out. If we come to examine the reasons which the honourable Member took as his own, what do they really amount to The first reason was that sitting in the House of Lords was a great hindrance to the carrying on of their spiritual work. Well, of course, if a Bishop is taken much away from his diocese, he cannot, while he is attending to his duties in London, be also personally attending to the spiritual wants of his diocese. But since the days of the Long Parliament we have not only built railways, but we have established the penny post. In olden times correspondence was most difficult, and a Bishop in London then was many days' journey away from his diocese in the north and west of England, and communication by post was infrequent and very difficult. Now, however, we axe connected by the closest possible communication, and except in those matters in which his personal presence is absolutely necessary, he can administer the affairs of his diocese for the time, intermittently, very well indeed while he is in London. Therefore, I cannot conceive that this objection is seriously put forward. I can hardly believe that Nonconformists are so very anxious about it, especially as they claim to represent one-half of the population; and the other half of the population, who are mostly concerned, do not complain that their spiritual wants are not looked after by the Bishops because they have to come to London to attend to their Parliamentary duties. We find that the Bishops, and the leaders in all other spiritual bodies, do not confine themselves entirely to their own place, but they go about preaching in other parts of the country, and therefore I cannot conceive that this is any reason for this House to attempt to interfere in this matter. The next point raised was that the Bishops promised in their Ordination vows to devote their whole time to their vocation. Now, what does that mean? Is the Bishop to be always interfering in the affairs of his diocese? Is he not acting with his duties when he is attempting to exercise a good influence in London society? I should have thought that a spiritual man and a godly man like a Bishop or a Clergyman is following his vocation if he
    136
    is endeavouring to exercise a good influence amongst those with whom, he come in contact. It is absurd to say that a Bishop is breaking his vows because he does not reside the whole year in his diocese, but does other duties which come within his own vocation as a Bishop. The honourable Member has quoted a number of resolutions of the Long Parliament, the same Parliament which got rid of the House of Lords altogether, and I am amazed that he should now give them as reasons why the Bishops should be turned out of that House, remembering the joy with which a few years afterwards the country welcomed them both back.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I never said anything of the kind. I said that argument would appeal to certain minds.
    *MR. GEDGE: At all events the honourable Gentleman started by saying that he should give the reasons which were given by the House of Commons in. 1641, because those reasons, he said, applied as well now as they did then. Having adopted them; in the wholesale, I was not aware that when he came to the retail that he would excuse himself from responsibility for these reasons. It is not a mode of reasoning which commends itself to a high-minded man, to use an argument to others which has no weight in his own mind. That is a mode of reasoning which most people would be sorry to be guilty of. Then he said that the 24 Archbishops and two Bishops—
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I said 24 Bishops; I did not say Archbishops.
    *MR. GEDGE: I meant 24 Bishops. The honourable Member said there were 24 Bishops, and they were dependent upon two Archbishops. Now is that statement really to be taken seriously? Does he mean to say that the Bishops are in any way dependent upon the two Archbishops? Even in ecclesiastical affairs which sometimes come before the House of Lords, has any Archbishop ever maintained that a Bishop owed him by canonical obedience the duty of following him into the division Lobby and not using his own independent judgment? Another argument was that the Bishops are always looking out for translations to other and more lucrative see. Well, there was a Bishop

    137
    in the days of William Pitt who disgusted him by applying for a more lucrative Bishopric. The honourable Member does not seem to be aware that the Bishops have nearly all the same income; or, at all events, the difference is so small that it is really no inducement to do what had been suggested. The honourable Member did not cite any instances of Bishops who had been translated, and I can only remember, within the last 25 years, two Bishops who have been translated from one Bishopric to another, except to those of London and Winchester. Next, we are told that the Bishops are all Tories, and belong to one party, that, they identify themselves with and have to please a Tory Minister, and, in fact, that they vote in a way which the honourable Member does not like. Now, the honourable Member's Party have had an equal share of power, though not in late years. Since the first Reform Bill they have been in power for more than half the time, until the last few years, when they lost the confidence of the country. The opposite party had made Bishop after Bishop, and Mr. Gladstone, Lord palmerston, and Lord Russell made many Bishops, and what was the result? Why, as a rule, they selected men of their own political creed. These Bishops went into the House of Lords, and when they got there they became opposed to the Government which had created them. So much was this the case that it became quite a proverb that the first thing a. Bishop did when he got into the House of Lords was to deny his maker. The honourable Member failed to show a single: instance in which it could be alleged against any Bishop that he had ever voted against his convictions. "Why," said the honourable Member, "had they not raised their voices against unjust laws?" And then we heard a number of further instances of the manner in which Bishops have voted, and they have voted not in the same way, perhaps, as they probably would do if the same matters were to come on now, and upon which it is admitted that they voted wrongly. It is perfectly true that Bishops, like many other great men all over England, for the most part, upheld slavery— a thing which we all now loathe and detest. But, at the same time, are we to look back 70, 80, or 100 years to the feelings and opinions of those days, and judge the people of the present day by such
    138
    opinions? Why, it is like the child who climbs on to his father's shoulders, and cries out, "See how tall I am." It is not for us, because we have had advantages which they did not possess; because the light of Christianity has spread more widely over the world now than it has ever done before^ because men know better what, the principles of good government are; it is not for us to say to our grandfathers, "What ignorant fools you were because you did not think as we do on a number of these subjects." But after all they were in the same position as a large majority of people of this country were at that time, even though it be true that the Bishops have opposed and obstructed some useful and admirable reforms. Then, with regard to the other point that the Bishop's have not voted in the way Nonconformists liked, in regard to some subjects in which they differed from them. Well, I should think it would have been singular if the Bishops had voted otherwise. I do not think the House will take it as a matter of course that everything a Bishop voted for was wrong, and everything a. Nonconformist voted for was right, for I think there have been considerable fault on both sides. Then we are told that, the Bishops make too much distinction between themselves and their clergy. Well, I am not saying that there has never been a Bishop who has been too much of a prelate, but the Bishop who nowadays lifts himself up high above his clergy is likely to find his own level. (Laughter.) I see my right honourable Friend laughs very much at this, but there is nobody, including himself, who may not probably have had the advantage of finding himself with his intellectual equals, if they exist. I thank the House for the patience with which they have so kindly listened to my remarks. I have endeavoured to go through the arguments of the honourable Members who have spoken; I have admitted that there are reasons, not doubt, which could be fairly urged in favour of this change; but I submit that such a change at present is a very undesirable one, and one which would do more harm than good. There are real and positive advantages to be gained from the Bishops being in the House of Lords, both to the House of Lords and to the country, and the inconveniences which have been alluded to compared with

    139
    these great advantages are very slight. For these reasons I heartily oppose the resolution of the honourable Member.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: My honourable Friend who has just resumed his seat seems to me to have mistaken his destiny. I do not want to say anything unkind of him, but I think he ought to have been a Bishop. As it is, he is a Bishop spoiled in the making. Now I am going to say a few serious words on a serious question. This is the first time that I have spoken upon ecclesiastical matters in this House, and I only do so now because I am a member of the Irish Protestant Church. Now the Irish Protestant Church once had Bishops in the House of Lords, but it has not now. I may say that the Irish Protestant Church is well contented with the change. No one would speak disrespectfully of his own Church, but I rather think the Irish Protestant Church is in the position of a converted attorney who has found out that honesty is the best policy, having tried both. I rise, Sir, under some disadvantage, because the First Lord of the Treasury is out. I expected to see him here, because I wanted to pay him a great compliment. The honourable Gentleman who spoke last said he did not expect that this Motion would be taken to-night. Neither did I, by the look of the paper, but clearly the First Lord thought better of it and repented, and he has allowed the Bishops to be subjected to these criticisms. There are various reasons why I am sorry that the First Lord is not present. On the score of consistency, I think the First Lord ought to be here, and what is more, I shall claim ills vote in this Division—first of all on the ground of consistency, and secondly on the ground of that great hereditary principle of which he is so devoted an apostle. This resolution was passed by the Long Parliament in 1641, and supported by his ancestors, and surely the right honourable Gentleman will not vote against that resolution now. If he is consistent in one case, he must be consistent in the other. But then, again, Sir, we are talking on matters bordering on the hereditary principle, and therefore I claim the First Lord's vote for this resolution which his ancestors supported in the Long Parliament. Even Lord Salisbury's ancestors sat in that Parliament, and voted for this
    140
    resolution. To speak historically, he sat for the constituency which is represented now by an honourable Member of this House, who, above all others, they would least have expected—I mean the honourable Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn. I shall not be seduced by my honourable Friend opposite to go into anything like historical analogies, but this I do say on this subject, that we might be very easily led aside from the true issues by false analogies and historical reminiscences. Let me say this, that the conduct of the Bishops for some centuries—for four centuries—was everything that was true and elevating. They were for centuries the great bulwark and barrier between the King and the oppressed people. It is no1 secret to say that two of the signatories to the Magna Charta were Bishops of the Church, and so they went down through the ages until the Reformation. Look at the Bishops not merely in their legislative capacities, but closely akin to it; they were ambassadors of great ability, and they built up those great volumes, which we now enjoy, of learning in Oxford and Cambridge and various other colleges. We cannot in the slightest degree contrast these men with their present very degenerate successors. As long as the Bishops were men who had no families, and who had no ambition except the service of the Church and State, that service was admirable. I will now come to their rather worldly successors, who are supported by my honourable Friend who has just sat down, and who seems to act as a kind of crutch to Episcopal respectability. Mr. Speaker, it is exceedingly wrong of any man to compliment himself, and it is equally wrong to compliment the assembly to which he belongs. But we are a tolerant body, and we are only discussing the case of 26 men out of 527. These Bishops only number 26, and why do we mind them? At the present moment the Bishops have brought themselves into prominence, and they have only themselves to thank if we say a few severe words about their conduct. Let us consider how matters stood and how they stand at present in reference to these matters. I say that any person who has the smallest knowledge of the general outline of the question, and only a mere general outline of history, must recollect that since the Reformation the Bishops have actually become a non-useful force in

    141
    English politics. So far from them being "defenders of the faith," as they were before the Reformation, after the Reformation they became, in the words of one of their own number, "time-halting' and time-serving prelates." Now, let us take these instances. I do not wish to' go through them, all again, but the Bishops have placed themselves, not as they formerly did on the side of liberty, but against it, I do not know, Sir, how I could contrast best or 'more suitably the pre-Reformation and the post-Reformation times, but I will take one instance from the diocese of Winchester. We all know how the Bishop there adorned that diocese, and how he used his enormous influence in founding colleges. But now the Cathedral has gone to ruin. The difference between the Bishops of olden times and the present seems to be this, that the Bishops of the old times founded Cathedrals and colleges, while the Bishops of the present time found families instead, and there is an enormous difference between the crozier and mitre of former days and the cradle and perambulator of the present Episcopal nursery. Now I come to a few other things. We hear a good deal about the time: taken up by the attendance of the Bishops in the House of Lords. Let us take what the present Archbishop of York says. When he was Bishop of Lichfield he issued a public notice that he could not for the present attend to his various diocesan duties, because he had to read prayers in the House of Lords. I was told by one Bishop that if he went through his diocese parish by parish, as he ought to do, it would take him 15 years to get through, and yet all these men who have this tremendous amount of work to do are brought up to London to dance attendance on London Society, with all its attendant evils, which I will not now attempt to sketch. I know another Bishop, though I would not mention his name under any circumstances. He travels third-class in order to mingle with his people and to ascertain their views and so on, and his only pleasure is with his Episcopal work in his diocese. Could you not leave him to his work there instead of bringing him up to read prayers in the House of Lords, which anybody could do who had learned to read at all? I come now to another point, and say that so long as Bishops hold political
    142
    appointments, as long as the appointments are made more for political reasons than any others, so long will they have seats in the House of Lords. My great objection to the Bishops being appointed for political reasons is that that appointment is taken out of the hands of the people. And the people themselves should have control over these Episcopal appointments. So long as the Bishops have seats in the House of Lords no effort of power will make their appointments subject to public control. The Prime Minister of the day uses the appointment for political purposes, as will be seen from the biography of Bishop Wilberforce, which proved so much. It spoke of the disappointments in not getting some things and intriguing for others, and disclosed a mass of intrigue which it is painful to contemplate. Again, it is said, and, I think, properly said, that the absence of the Bishops from their duties in the dioceses is felt by the public. Look at the Irish Bishops. In their dioceses they know the circumstances of every parish, and they look after their Clergy, regarding them more in the light of brothers and sons, and they belong to them all, and are devoted to their interest. The Irish Church is disestablished; but the present Prelates are as much in accord with their people as the old State Prelates were not. When that Church was disestablished the Bishops were offered the retention of their seats for life in the House of Lords. Not one of them accepted the offer. It was particularly desired that one in particular should retain his seat, and he was pressed, but he actually refused to sit in the House winch ho had so often charmed by his eloquence. I believe that it would benefit the English Church and the English Clergy if the Bishops wore removed from the adventitious position they now hold, and were allowed to tend their flocks.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I think it is a pity that this House does not seem inclined to deal with this very serious question in the way in which I consider it ought to be dealt with. It is true that we are here on what I might call a derelict night and no Member of the Cabinet seems to have thought it worth while to be in his place at the present time at a discussion of such serious importance. I do not propose to discuss

    143
    with the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down the question of the present representation of the Bishops in the House of Lords. There are a good many differences of opinion in this House as to the way in which Bishops have behaved quite recently in connection with an interesting question with regard to the Church; but the matter proposed to the House of Commons to-night is a larger matter than that. It concerns the Constitutional principle, the gravity and importance of which I hope will be realised on both sides of the House. We exclude the Clergy from this House, and do not allow them to become candidates for the representation of a constituency in this House, and unless the Church, which is as essential a part of the Constitution of this country as Parliament itself, unless it is represented in the House of Lords as it is to-day, it is to have no representation whatever in the councils of the nation. I submit that this is a very large question indeed, and I accept the challenges made in the motion this evening, and I respectfully suggest to the House of Commons that the motion is untrue in its statements. It says that "the legislative power of the Bishops in the House of Peers in Parliament is a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual functions," and it says, "secondly," that their presence there "is prejudicial to the Commonwealth." Now those are the two propositions, and I challenge both. I say that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is not a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual functions. There are occasions when the Bishops are called upon to attend upon the House of Lords, and when it is their special duty, as representing the Church, to take part in discussions and divisions in which the interests of the Church are concerned. But a Bishop can well discharge those duties, with all the facilities of communication and travel which now exist, without any very serious derogation from the discharge of his duties in his diocese. And when he was in the House of Lords, if for the time being he was obliged to intermit for a short time what I might call the pastoral duties of his diocese, he is none the less discharging the large duties which belong to him as the representative, under the Constitution of this country, in Parliament of that great body
    144
    of the Clergy and Laity whom he represents in the House of Lords. The fact is, that the Bishops in the House of Lords occupy a very exceptional position, and one which I should have thought would ensure them the regard of those who entertain the more democratic notions with regard to government. They do not come to the House of Lords by hereditary principle, which I believe to be the soundest foundation of the Second Chamber, but my opinion with regard to which I waive for a moment, because, as I say, it is not in question. They do not come there on the hereditary claim, but they come there because they have been in the administration of the Church, called to great positions of public authority and responsibility, positions which no man can fill unless they have justified themselves in the opinion of those who belong to their Church. They are men who are judged by their intellectual capacity and their pastoral zeal, and who come and bring to the House of Lords authority as representative of the great influence and feeling of the Church, and who are entitled to think and to speak in that Chamber with at least as large an authority as belongs to any member of this House who represents the largest constituency in the country. They are not in the House of Lords by any hereditary title; they are in the House of Lords as representative men, and it is impossible at this moment for anyone to show that the adequate discharge of his duty in the House of Lords by any Bishop demands from him so serious an interruption of this pastoral work as to be an objection to his presence in that House or to be a serious derogation to the services which he renders to the people among whom, he works. But I think it is quite clear, and must be well known to those who know the facts of the case, that the discharge by a Bishop of his duties in the House of Lords does not constitute any interruption or serious hindrance to his Episcopal work. Let me now take the next proposition that "their presence there is prejudicial to the Commonwealth." I hold entirely an opposite opinion. I do not altogether agree with the action the Bishops have taken in the House of Lords. There is more than one question upon which I myself think that their action has not been in accordance with the dictates of sound reason or in the interests of the

    145
    people. But because I differ with, regard to one or two matters from the conclusions which the majority of Bishops have come to, that is a very insufficient reason for my suggesting that their presence there is prejudicial to the Commonwealth. I believe quite the opposite. Among all the great influences that are at this moment moulding and framing the character of our people, and in moulding and framing the character of our people are making the whole future of our great community, and through us we hope are helping to spread the influences of our race and language throughout the world, the greatest, the closest, deepest, and most effective influence of all is the influence of the teachings of the Church; and it would be a monstrous thing that we should exclude from both Houses of Parliament the ministers of that Church. That we should refuse the ministers of that Church the right to speak through their representatives in the House of Lords, men whose presence in the House of Lords has been coeval with its existence, men who are entitled to represent there in the fullest, in the highest, and most effective sense, some of the greatest influences that affect the people in this; country. It is a trivial question whether in the year 1894 upon the Parish Councils Bill the Bishops were found in opposition to that which the honourable Gentleman opposite vainly called the will of the people on a question in regard to charity. What matters it for a moment if one or more of the Bishops are found thinking that their duty compels them to vote against a popular cry? I am not going back to discuss the question of the 1894 Act or of these charities, but I am not quite sure that in the light of the experience we have now enjoyed as to that. Act that the Bishops have not found a good justification for the attitude which they adopted. But what does it matter whether in 1894 they formed that opinion or not? This is a question of the long continuance of the established, the dignified, the authorised exposition of the voice of the Church in matters which concern the welfare of the country and its administration. And when our opponents on the other side say that of late years the voice of the Bishops has been in the main in opposition to
    146
    their view in regard to the public welfare, I can only say so much the worse for the honourable Gentlemen. At this moment I am prepared to throw out the challenge with regard to that. The Party which is now in office on this side of the House represents the predominant opinion of the people, and it has represented the predominant opinion of the people for the larger number of years that have passed since, in the year 1867, the great extention of the Suffrage took place. Take it from the time when the Suffrage was extended to Household Suffrage. Take the dates from time to time, and you will find that the Party we represent, the Party to which I belong, and which I shall always call the Tory Party, the Party which represents the true tradition of Bolingbroke, of Pitt, of Canning, and, greatest of all, of Beaconsfield—that Party since the year 1857 has more largely been in harmony with the opinion of the people of the country. You dispute the right of religious dignitaries to sit in the House of Lords and speak there on behalf of the great influence which they represent. Why. Because they are in accord with that which has been the public opinion of the people. Mr. Speaker, I really only rose, because I was very sorry that this Debate, which I look upon as one in, which a great Constitutional question is being raised, has dropped down into a discussion as to what happened in a particular year to a particular Bishop. There are many others in both Houses who think that from time to time the Bishops have been mistaken in the way in which they gave their votes in the House of Lords. We think of late there has been good reason to regret the action taken by some of the Bishops; but do you think we are going to allow a temporary feeling of anxiety or of distrust, even, with regard to the action of the Bishops, to affect our judgment on the effect of a great Constitutional question? The great Constitutional question raised by this amendment is nothing more than this: Whether the Parliament of England shall represent in all its traditional dignity, fulness, and strength the various elements of thought and influence among our people. Among those influences the Church is the

    147
    greatest, the strongest, and most permanent of all. It is most important that that Church should speak in one, at any rate, of our great deliberative assemblies. It is debarred from direct representation in this House, and, therefore, it is the more important that it should have its traditional representation in the House of Lords; and it is in that spirit and in support of that old Constitutional position that I, for one, will resist this Amendment.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I do not intend to retread the ground which has been travelled over by the honourable Member who has moved this Motion. It has been stated in forcible terms that the agitation has arisen by reason of the anti-popular votes which have been given by the Bishops in the House of Lords. That is, however, an argument that might be urged against the existence of some other members of the House of Peers. But my opinion is based upon quite a different principle. If the whole bench of Bishops belonged to my Party, and were willing to vote as I dictated, I should still object to their being in the House of Lords. We have heard of various proposals for amending the House of Lords, and among them is one by which it is proposed, in order to balance the Bishops in the House, that the representatives of the whole of the Nonconformist bodies should have a seat there. That is to say, the Chairman of the Baptist Union and the President of the Wesleyan Conference, and, I apprehend, of the Roman Catholic Church, would all have a seat, to represent, the bodies to which they severally belong. I can only say that those who made that grotesque proposal must have very little knowledge of the sentiments of the Nonconformists. In the first place, the great body of the Nonconformists have no love for the House of Lords, and they do not wish to see their best ministers turned into bad 'politicians. Why are the Bishops in the House of Lords? As representatives of the Church. But why should that be the only institution that is allowed this particular privilege?
    148
    why are not the Navy, the Army, and the great railway interests also represented?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: They all are.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Yes! they are all powerfully represented in both Houses; but so is the Church, in precisely the same way. It lacks no friends in this House, and it certainly lacks none in the House of Lords, and all the protection that is needed by the Church would be amply secured without the Bishops in the Upper Chamber. Then, again, there are a large number of Churchmen who object to further legislation on Church matters. They object to legislation for the repression of Ritualism, for instance, and other illegal practices. But there is another reason of great force at the present time, and that is that the Bishops now acknowledge that a course must be taken in the Church, and they solemnly pledge themselves to adopt such measures as are in their power to suppress Ritualistic practices in their dioceses, and if they do so, I am satisfied that the Bishops will have a task which will tax their energies to the utmost, and it will be out of their power to give their attendance in the House of Lords. I think that the lay Peers in the House of Lords would not greatly regret the absence of their Episcopal brethren, and I base that belief upon two passages which I have found in the Life of the late Archbishop Magee. When Bishop of Peterborough:—I think it was in 1877— Dr. Magee said:—
    "I was greatly struck with the tone of suspicion and dislike of the clergy and Bishops that ran all through the debate. If the clergy wish to see lay alienation they should come to the House of Lords."
    And then in the following year he wrote: —
    "I am thoroughly sick of episcopal life in Parliament, where we are hated by the Peers as a set of parvenus whom they would gladly rid themselves of if they dared, and are only allowed on sufferance to speak now and then on Church questions of a timid and respectable sort."

    149
    And I do not know that the Bishops are more endeared to the lay Peers at the present moment than they were when those words were written by Bishop Magee. Now, we have heard to-night the reasons of statesmen, real statesmen, why the Bishops should not sit in Parliament, and it would be easy to give to the House reasons from very different quarters. I had put into my hands some years1 ago no fewer than sixteen reasons why Bishops should not be Peers of Parliament^ and the reasons were given by a clergyman of the Church of England. Some of the reasons are not of a kind that I should be disposed to press upon the attention of the House, but there are three which I think are quite opposite to the Resolution. They are:
    "1.—Because the example of the Chief Priests, clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day, is unedifying to the Faithful and generally hurtful to the interests of true religion, besides being of itself a reason of their unpopularity amongst the working classes.
    "2.—Because it places the Bishops at too great a distance socially from their presbyters, weakening their sense of fellowship and tending to the general inefficiency of the Clergy."
    And this is the last reason: —
    "3.—Because a Bishop is little or no acquisition to the Upper House of Parliament. Custom precludes his expressing an opinion upon any subject except a few which are assumed to belong to his profession. His vote is known beforehand to be pledged either to the maintenance of his order and the interests of the Church Establishment, or to the support of the Ministry which appointed him."
    Now, I am quite sure that these views express the opinions and the feelings of thousands of Churchmen in the present day, and that they would rejoice if this resolution were carried in the House. I am certain that its adoption by the House will do no injury to the Church, but will be a gain to the Church, to religion, and to the country at large.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "Parliament," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words:—
    "ought to be maintained; but that it is desirable that other life Peers should be added to that House, especially those who would
    150
    represent the greater religious denominations other than the Church of England."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I hardly know whether it is desirable that anyone on this side of the House should trouble the House with any observations after the admirable, and it appeared to me almost conclusive, speech of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth. Certainly, I think he effectively disposed of almost all the arguments that had been used in favour of the Motion. I cannot, indeed, take very seriously many of the arguments that were put forward by the mover of this resolution. What value is there in an appeal to> the Parliament in 1641, of which we only know substantially this, that it was a Parliament met in revolutionary times, under strong excitement, that it came to a variety of decisions, almost all of which we think were wrong and mistaken, and, most of all, that the position of the House of Lords was utterly different to what it is at the present time. Nor can I attach, much importance to the argument that so much of the Bishops' time is taken up by attention to their duties in the House of Lords that they are unable to look after their dioceses. Many of us think that the House of Lords is a very useful and valuable Second Chamber, but yet its best friends cannot describe it as a very laborious Assembly, and everyone also knows the Bishops are by no means the most regular attendants—quite right and properly—at its meetings. Surely it would be extravagant to argue that the very small part of their time which the Bishops spend in the House of Lords would assist very much to> the spiritual government of their dioceses. And I am afraid it is for the sake of creating prejudice that references are introduced to the current controversies on the Church. Is there a single man of the House who, in his sober senses, really believes that the. Bishops would have taken a different line upon any controversy connected with Ritual, if they had not been members of the House of Lords? I do not, therefore, attach much importance to this argument. But I think there is one argu-

    151
    ment, or two arguments, which, in different, ways weigh with a good many people, and deserve serious consideration. There is the argument that secular employment, especially that carrying with it any worldly rank and grandeur, is unfitted to those who ought to be regarded as the chief Ministers of a Christian Church. Well, I think that is an argument which deserves to' be treated with great respect; and if I thought that membership of the House of Lords really tended to make Bishops proud or uplifted by their great position, or was that kind of dignity which was incompatible with a really humble life, I quite agree, I should have a great objection to their remaining Members of that Assembly. But everyone knows that at the present time membership of the House of Lords is regarded, and quite rightly, as principally a public duty, and in so1 far as the Bishops are Members of the House of Lords they look upon it only as an opportunity of doing their duty—as some honourable Members may think very badly, but as honourable Members will admit, with an undoubted conscientious intention of zealously doing their duty to the public. How can anyone say that there is anything in such a discharge of public duty irreconcilable with being a Minister of the Church? I confess I think both Bishops and Clergy are somewhat hardly treated, not only on this occasion, but by public opinion generally, in regard to the question of Worldly employment. They seem always to fall upon one side or the other. If they do not join the Parish Councils and the District Councils in the county they are told that they are out of sympathy with current opinion, which thinks that the clergy ought no longer to be only concerned with the spiritual world and the spiritual life, but ought to be the chief ministers for the comfort and worldly good of the poorer classes of the community. If they take, on the other hand, too prominent a part in public affairs, then they are at once told that they are degrading the clerical character by mixing it up with politics. So that one way or the other they are sure to be abused: either they are over-worldly or else they are unworldly, I confess that I think the clergyman who honestly tries
    152
    to do his duty, whether as a Member of the House of Lords or not, is not in any way degrading or departing from the clerical character, and I cannot conceive that anyone can seriously contend that the Bishops of the present time are morally inferior to' the prelates who' immediately preceded the Reformation. I really wonder sometimes at the variety and the inaccuracy of the honourable Member for Donegal's historical reading. He seems to know a great many things, indeed—mostly wrong. But there is another argument which I think weighs most of all with the honourable Member who moved this Amendment—that is the argument on the unfairness to Nonconformists, the argument that the Church ought not to have any special privileges, above any other denomination. I quite agree with that argument. I do not think that the Church, as a Church, ought to have anything of the nature of a privilege. If the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is to be defended, it cannot be defended as a matter of right to the Church1, because it belongs to the Church; as a privilege, the Bishops have always been there, and the privilege ought not to be taken away from them. I feel that argument very strongly indeed. The idea undoubtedly used to be held very widely that the Church should be singled out from all other denominations, and should, by reason of its being so singled out, be given special advantages and privileges. But that, I think, is a vicious idea; and I think it is quite right that we should separate the idea of exclusive privilege from the idea of the Established Church, But I think that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is to' be defended on quite different ground. I think it is to be defended, not because it is a privilege to the Church, but because it is for the general benefit of the community. It appears to me that the House of Lords, properly to discharge the duties of a Second Chamber, ought to remain, not less representative of the different classes especially the better-educated classes, of the community, but should be more representative. I think we ought to look in

    153
    the future to gradually changing the constitution of the House of Lords in some respects so as to make it more completely representative of the better-educated classes of the community. Well, here we have in the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords the germ of such an idea; we have here a number of gentlemen who really do represent what is a very important and a very widespread phase of public opinion. A great many votes have been quoted against the Bishops, but does anybody doubt that in the great majority of those votes the Bishops accurately represented the great mass of Masters of Arts? I see the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose is reminded of a speech of his, in which he described Masters of Arts in very much the same terms as, broadly speaking, those in which the Bishops have been attacked to-night. I think, he said, you would find that the working men had voted in favour of all the reforms which the Masters of Arts had resisted in the past. Well, of course it may quite reasonably be said educated opinion is often wrong. I am not upon that at all. But no one can deny that the great majority of these votes of the Bishops really did accord with the great body of educated opinion. Now, is not that the kind of opinion you want represented in the Legislature? If we are to1 discuss the matter from any point of view but the point of view of the lowest partizanship, that is a consideration which ought to have weight. We have the Bishops representing the educated opinion of the Church of England. They are typical men who may fairly be said to be typical representatives of the great, body of Church of England feeling, so far as it is an organised Party feeling at all. Can you not go on, not to take away the seats and the votes of the Bishops, but to add a large number of life Peers, who would to a greater or less extent represent every phase of public opinion, and so immensely strengthen and improve the House of Lords, of which the Bishops are Members. Is not that a much more rational course than the course which
    154
    has been suggested this afternoon? I believe that would be a more rational: course, and I believe that this is to be dealt with as all these questions of Church privilege ought to be dealt with. They ought to be dealt with not by taking away the privileges of the Church, but by raising the privileges of other denominations up to the level of the privileges of the Church. Because there is always this great consideration to be borne in mind: if you take away particular privileges from the Church, you take them away from the cause of the Christian religion altogether. But if instead of taking them away from the Church, you extend them to other religious bodies, to all schools of thought which deserve representation, then you do not lose the representation of the Church of England. You do not lose any of the weight of religious thought, and you gain all the other elements in the religious thought of the nation to which you give representation. I do not know whether I will get a seconder for it, or whether it will receive any extensive support in this House, but I have framed an Amendment which expresses my view of the true policy in regard to this question of the Bishops in the House of Lords. I propose to omit all the words after "Parliament," and to insert "ought to be maintained, but it is desirable that other life Peers should be added to that House, especially those who would represent the greater religious denominations other than the Church of England." I would very gladly see, in spite of the opposition of the honourable Member, who has just sat down, to this proposal, representatives of the great. Nonconformist bodies—men who are an, ornament to the denominations to which they belong, men like the late Dr. Dale —added to the House of Lords as life Peers, so that they may give it the benefit of their wisdom and advice. I believe that a great feeling of bitterness would: be removed from the Nonconformist mind, and great strength would be added to the House of Lords by the admission of such men. I cannot for the life of me

    155
    see any argument by which men representing the great religious bodies should not be added to the Second Chamber. Religious questions, after all, lie more at the root of human action than any other questions, and can it be said that it is an unfitting thing to have a formal representation of religious opinion in the House of Lords? Here is, of all things, the wisest and most statesmanlike way you can propose to add strength to the Second Chamber and strength and stability to the Constitution. I do hope, on the one side, that Churchmen will more and more rally to the idea that the proper way to meet Nonconformist attacks is not by an unreasoning non possumus, but by finding out any grievances they may believe themselves to have, and frankly meeting them, not in opposition to those grievances, but in a spirit of reasonable conciliation. If Churchmen do that, I hope that Nonconformists who have seats in this House will use their position as Members of Parliament to prevent interference with objects which Churchman with a single mind and for the good of the Church have at heart, and will co-operate with Churchmen, and that Churchmen will co-operate with them, for the common good of the religious life of the people of this country. I beg to move this Amendment.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I rise with great diffidence to second the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, because I think it contains an idea entertained by many members of this House. I came here with the intention of voting in favour of the Amendment to the Address moved from the other side of the House, but when I began to consider the arguments urged in favour of that Amendment, when I was asked to pledge myself to the fact that because Bishops sat occasionally as judges in secular causes, when I was asked to believe that that was a hindrance to their utility in their profession, or that the presence of such men in the House of Peers was a danger to the Commonwealth, I felt that I could not conscientiously vote for the Amendment. I do not think it is a danger to the Commonwealth that men
    156
    who are great in religious matters should be asked to decide on public questions. I do not think it is a hindrance to such men in the discharge of their private functions that they should be placed in a position in the House of Peers. We all know that no man in this House can please everyone of his constituents, or that every member of the English nation is always pleased with the action of the Members of the House of Peers. But the question we are asked to look at is, to set forth by a serious Resolution of the House of Commons, that because a man, who is engaged in religious duties, and who sits and acts in the House of Peers, is prejudicing himself in the eyes of the people, is himself a hindrance to his private duties and is a danger to the Commonwealth. Well, Sir, that is a proposition that I fail to find grounds to support. I very cordially agree with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I listened to the speech of the honourable Member for Plymouth with intense pleasure. It appears to me that he lifted this discussion into a higher sphere. The Amendment follows his lines. You are asked by the right honourable Member for Plymouth, Why is it that the Bishops are in the House of Peers? And, the answer is that the religious life of the country is the great feature in the formation of our national character, and that it is proper that those men who are charged with the guidance and development of that life should be represented in the House of Peers. When the right honourable Member was speaking it occurred to me—if it be true that the men who are charged with directing and forming the religious life of the country are to represented in the House of Peers—why are the Scottish Clergy not represented? I say it with modesty, of course, in the presence of Englishmen and Irishmen, but I maintain that if there be one country more conspicuous than another by the depth of its regard for religion and its profound religious feeling, it is Scotland. And that is the country which you select for the exclusion of representatives of religion in the House of Peers! I believe that the real reason why this question has not been dealt with sooner is that it was the

    157
    policy of the high Tory Party to say that things being as they are they should be left alone. It is because the Resolution of the noble Lord proposes to deal with this question in an enlightened, progressive, and generous spirit that I support it. He does not suggest that the presence of clergymen in the House of Peers is a danger to the Commonwealth, but that that great Assembly has been strengthened by the presence of men of character like the Bishops, and he goes on to include in the list of those who ought to be allowed the privilege of sitting in the House of Peers certain members of other Churches. I may as well make myself perfectly plain. I look with a strong feeling of resentment at the English Bishops alone sitting in the House of Peers. I want to know by what title they are there. If the high Tory feeling expressed by the honourable Member for Plymouth prevails, then they won't sit there much longer. The only chance they have of maintaining their place in the House of Peers is to extend the privilege to the representatives of other Churches. I want to plead with honourable Members on this side of the House to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. I apologise for having intruded so long on the attention of the House. I am glad to see that the Front Bench is now better filled than it was, and I am sure the country will look with anxiety to the expression of opinion on this question by those who hold responsible situations in the Government. But whatever Resolution the Government may take on this matter, and whatever decision the House may come to to-night, I am perfectly certain that the reform of the House of Lords will be wise, and one that will carry a larger support in the country if it be a reform passed, not for the exclusion of any great representatives of religious thought, but on the lines suggested in the Amendment of the noble Lord, which I have the honour to second.
    SIR ROBERT T. REED: I think the House will have noticed that this Debate has taken a somewhat unexpected turn. We thought when we came down to the House that the Debate would be about the presence or absence of the Bishops as the representa-
    158
    tives of the spiritual authority in the House of Lords. But we now find that the noble Lord—I cannot but think, with great circumspection and prudence—does not find himself able to assent to the high Tory doctrines of the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I would have voted against the original motion as it stood.
    SIR ROBERT T. REID: The arguments of the noble Lord in his very interesting speech were valuable in this respect, that they expressed the very strongest dissent from the high Tory doctrine of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, that not only the people of Great Britain and Ireland, who belonged to an exclusive and privileged denomination, were to be represented in Parliament, but that, they should have a double and exceptional representation. The honourable and learned Gentleman pointed out that the Clergy of the Church of England were excluded from the House of Commons. That is true. They are not excluded, however, from voting for Members of the House of Commons, and I do not suppose anyone on this side of the House would offer any opposition to the Clergy of the Church of England being admitted as Members of the House of Commons, if they could find electors who thought fit to send them there. The view of thet honourable and learned Member for Plymouth seemed to be that as the Church is not represented in the House of Commons, if there were no Bishops in the House of Lords this unfortunate Establishment would remain without representation at all. Sir, that is an argument which my honourable and learned Friend signified by the name of a Constitutional argument, but it certainly is new to me that corporations or institutions are represented in the House of Commons. I always thought it was individual electors and constituencies who are so represented, with the solitary exception of the University vote. The noble Lord, no doubt, feelingly pointed out that it was generally for the benefit of the community that Bishops should sit

    159
    in the House of Lords, because they constituted in themselves the germs of a reform, of the Upper House. For my part I was never aware before: that that august body of opinion could be regarded in the light of a germ for the future reform of the constitution of the House of Lords. The noble Lord felt that so strongly that he had put down this Amendment providing that it is desirable to retain the power of the Bishops. All I can say is, that any attempt to strengthen the House of Lords by adding more persons und anomalies to it, either by heredity or selection, by the Crown, is a proposal which would meet with very vigorous and protracted resistance from those who wish a, better way for dealing with that branch of the Legislature. I do not suppose that it would be better off if we had divines of different denominations silting in that Assembly, because I do not myself think that these divines would be a bit better than the Bishops. I believe that the Lords would very soon secularise Nonconformist divines in the same way as they have secularised the Bishops, and that they would do very little in the way of spiritualising the House of Lords. The real objection, as far as I can see, to maintaining the Bishops in the House of Lords, or any other persons of a distinctly religious type, is that experience has shown that it is an absolute failure. There has not been an attempt in the course of this Debate on the other side of the House to show that a Bishop has, in point of fact, been a useful factor in the House of Lords. No doubt in the old days there were Bishops who rendered great and signal service in the history of the country, but not in the House of Lords. Those services had been rendered in their libraries or in their studies, or, like Bishop Latimer, by preaching throughout the country; but they have done no good in the House of Lords. What has been the attitude of the Bishops on great questions like slavery, the granting of reforms to the people, and the attempts which were made to make the brutal old criminal law more humane? They have opposed those movements. If one can justify the presence of a spiritual body, it must be upon the basis that they have contri-
    160
    buted some higher tone than otherwise would exist. If I thought that they did that before, or that they would do it now, so much do I feel that we all want a great deal of moral tone, that I should be perfectly prepared to support their remaining in the House of Lords. But what is the fact at the present time? You may say that slavery is an old story; so it is. But are there no slavery questions pending now? Is there no such thing as slavery suspected of existing in British Protectorates now? Have the Bishops ever said a single word for the purpose of putting an end to the status of slavery as it exists at Zanzibar? If the Bishops are to elevate our tone, ought they not to show us an example in questions of that kind? Take another case. There has been of late times a great deal of oppression of Christian populations in the East. For 50 years, until quite recently, this country has, what Lord Salisbury would call, "put its money upon the wrong horse." Now I venture to say that if the Bishops had thrown themselves into questions of this kind, and had protested against the policy of this country being of such a character as to encourage or tolerate the continuance of the horrible rule of the Sultan, they would have been able to prevent that policy from being successful before now. Take, again, the case of war. There have been efforts made by many people to discourage war and to create a healthier tone on that, subject in the community. I am not suggesting for a moment that in this matter the Bishops would have any other feelings than those of pious and good men; but in the House of Lords I say they have taken no great part in questions of that character, which, if they would be of any use in a representative assembly, they ought to have done. It is in consequence of this state of affairs that I am bound to support the Amendment of my honourable Friend. I believe that it is really inconsistent with the essentially spiritual character of their office that Bishops should take part in public legislation in an Assembly like the House of Lords. I believe that experience has shown that they do not, and cannot, have any effect in introducing a higher level in the debates of that

    161
    House, while experience equally shows that they have not been upon the right side, but upon the wrong side in all great moral questions that have tome before that Assembly. I think, Sir, the Amendment of the noble Lord is too preposterous to be supported. I do not believe Nonconformist divines wish to obtain a seat in the House of Lords. I am quite certain that in Scotland Moderators of the General Assemblies have no such ambition, and I am most certain of all that the people who chiefly support the Nonconformists and who belong to the Presbyterian communities in Scotland have not the slightest desire that any representative of theirs should find a place in the Gilded Chamber. Under these circumstances I beg to support the Amendment, and I sincerely hope that my honourable Friend will find a large body of supporters in the Lobby.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER): I had certainly hoped to have heard from my honourable and learned Friend some attempt to answer the speech of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, because I am sure the House will agree with me that that was a speech which contained arguments which deserved an answer. It was a speech of great discrimination, and it was couched in considerable eloquence, and also bore on it the stamp of conviction. I do not think that the speech of the Member for Dumfries has done the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich justice, because it started by saying that he considered that no speech was necessary against the original proposition of the honourable Member for Flint Boroughs, after the arguments brought forward by my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, with which he expressed his entire concurrence, and it is not a fact that he is in any way antagonistic to the arguments of my honourable and learned Friend. The honourable and learned Member for Dumfries said that reference had been made to such questions as Slavery, the Reform Bill, and Revision of the Criminal Law; all of
    162
    which date back 60 years ago, and they are scarcely germane to the present discussion, and scarcely afford arguments for driving Bishops out of the House of Lords now, and, therefore, the honourable and learned Member had produced modern instances. Those instances which have been given, and instances which he has quoted, are, in my humble judgment, most unfortunate for his argument. What have we heard from the opposite Benches during the early part of this Debate? What has been the most important argument of the Member for Flint and other Members? It has been that the effect of the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is that they were tempted to abandon their spiritual functions, to have their minds turned away from spiritual work, and to subordinate it for political work. I want to know what the House thinks of the very instances which the Member for Dumfries has said unfit the Bishops for sitting in the House of Lords. Having urged against them that being in the House of Lords unfits them for their spiritual work, he blames them for not having taken part in certain political questions. The first of these questions was the question of slavery in Zanzibar. A more unfortunate instance could not have been possibly quoted. The denunciations as to slavery in Zanzibar have not come from these Benches alone; they have come from this side of the House as well, and it is quite unfair to assume, in the face of the information which has been given to this House, that there is now any slavery in Zanzibar recognised by Her Majesty's Government, and which Her Majesty's Government could put down. He first of all assumes that there is a state of affairs in Zanzibar which facts do not justify, and then he blames the Bishops because they have not rushed hot-foot into the breach and condemned a state of things which did not exist. If the Bishops had thought fit to stand up and assume the facts which my honourable and learned Friend assumes, they would be rushing into that very political arena which every previous

    163
    speaker has hoped they would soon be clear of. Then the honourable and learned Gentleman referred to the question of Turkish rule in Armenia, and he actually suggests that it should be a part of the known political conduct of the Bishops of the Church of England to be advocates against Turkish rule as compared with some other policy which may for the time being be supported by Her Majesty's Government. Let the honourable Member denounce slavery and the Turks by all means, but he has no right to bring a charge against the Bishops that they have declined to enter into the political arena.
    SIR K. REID: I never said anything about the political arena. What I said was this: The Bishops were in a political assembly, and I believe that if they had used their influence systematically, year after year, in order to show the public the gross horrors of the rule in the Turkish Empire, they would have been able by now to make that rule impossible, and that is the kind of influence which, if they were of any use in the House of Lords, they would have exercised.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I did not intentionally misrepresent my learned Friend, but, having heard his explanation, if that is not entering into the political arena I do not know what is. The Bishops could not have discussed the very outlines of the questions which my honourable and learned Friend has spoken of without entering into the political arena. Now, I come to the last accusation. At what precise period was it the duty of the Bishops to discuss the Rescript of the Czar? What does the honourable and learned Member mean? What is it the Bishops have not done which they ought to have done in connection with war? It is perfectly true that the Mover of this Amendment did say that the Bishops had failed to speak against unjust wars. He did not give us any instances. But my honourable and learned Friend has now endorsed that
    164
    argument, and says that the Bishops ought to have justified their existence in the House of Lords by entering into what I venture to call the political arena and discussing the question of peace. Before I leave these three questions let me say one word. It was my inestimable privilege to know very well the late Archbishop of Canterbury. No man did more for the Armenians to protect them against Turkish oppression than he did, and, therefore, I think that the honourable and learned Member should not suggest that the Bishops have been indifferent.
    SIR R. REID: I never said so.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: If he states that the Bishops have not themselves done enough to indicate their abhorrence of what is going on in Armenia, in my opinion that is not in accordance with the facts, and I do not think any fact can be brought forward to justify that statement. Before I pass from the question put to me by the honourable and learned Member who so pointedly put it to me, I want to say a word about the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. At the same time as it recognises the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords, it enters into a larger subject—rather larger than we care to discuss to-night—as to whether there should be an addition to the House of Lords. That would prolong our discussion to an undue length, and would keep us away from the question which this resolution raises. I come now to the speech of the honourable Member the Member for Flint, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that some of the answers which I should have given with reference to some of the arguments put forward have been anticipated by the honourable Member for Walsall, excepting that, speaking in the year 1899, seeking to justify a change which has been proposed twice during the last 30 years—once in 1870 and once in 1884—the main arguments to

    165
    be found in the speeches were resolutions of the House of Commons in the year 1641. But passing from that and assuming that the honourable Member for Flint had no better arguments, there are one or two to which I shall refer for a moment. I confess that I think he did himself an injustice and that he did his cause an injustice when he said that the Bishops in the past had been ready to give their votes in favour of unjust war for expectancies and promises to places of profit. I confess that I think that is a little unworthy of such an address as he gave to the House, to indicate that on some particular occasion, which he did not specify, the Bishops voted in favour of unjust war, because one of the archiepiscopal sees was vacant. He accompanied that assertion by the usual statement that he did not impute motives. What is the use of advancing such an argument as that if no motive is imputed?
    MR. LEWIS: What I meant was that by action of that sort the Bishops placed themselves in a condition of strong but undeserved suspicion, and I asked whether it was wise Ito place themselves in a position of that kind.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The interruption of the honourable Member justifies the inference which I drew as to the grounds on which he supported his argument. He now calls it a case of strong suspicion. It is a matter of opinion entirely, and perhaps I feel more strongly on this matter than he does, but I should not have thought that it was worthy to suggest that 26 Bishops, or 16, or 20, voted in favour of an unjust war because one of the archiepiscopal sees was vacant. Having said that, the honourable Gentleman then made some references to the recent Ritualistic crisis in the Church. What has the present condition of the law to do with that question? The opinion against practices which are contrary to law has been expressed as strongly by
    166
    Lord Salisbury, by my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, and by other leading Members of that Party with whom the honourable Member says the Bishops are associated. I have endeavoured to follow the sequence of the argument in the mind of the honourable Gentleman on this occasion, but I fail to see what possible connection there is between the fact that certain Bishops have been said to be supine and have not encouraged prosecutions to the extent that they ought to have done—what connection is there between that and the fact that they are in the House of Lords? I could not help feeling that if that kind of argument is used, it does bring out somewhat strongly the view that it is not easy to find arguments, at any rate based on modern facts, to justify this Resolution. I was asked a pointed question by the honourable Member. He said he hoped that, if I was allowed to answer for the Government, I should address myself particularly to this question—Is it right that not one single Nonconformist of England and Wales should sit in the House of Lords? May I ask the honourable Member what the presence of 26 Bishops, representing the Church of England, in the House of Lords—what bearing that can possibly have upon the question of whether any peers are Nonconformist or not? The Nonconformist Churches prosper and flourish by the spread of their doctrines, by the genuine character of their work, and by its earnestness. I have often, in this House and out of it, expressed my general approval of the work which the Nonconformist bodies have done in connection with religion. When I say "approval" I mean my appreciation; I have no right to use the word "approval." If I remember aright, there are a good many Roman Catholic peers in the House of Lords, and, as far as I know, I should think it is extremely possible that there are some peers in the House of Lords who are what we call so Low Church as almost to be Nonconformists. I am using the words-

    167
    "Low Church" to represent a class or standard of the Church, and I believe there are not a, few Presbyterian peers in the House of Lords; so I do not know on what information the honourable Member suggests that there is not a single Protestant Nonconformist in the House of Lords.
    MR. LEWIS: I was referring to England and Wales.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Well, even in that case, how will the presence or absence of 26 Bishops in the House of Lords prevent the House of Lords from effecting the placing in that body of certain other people of certain other creeds? I confess that I feel that the honourable Member is practically speaking, if I may say so, at a loss to find any argument by which he can support this Motion based upon modern facts. He cited another instance—and he will forgive me if I call it an unfortunate instance—that was the Benefices Bill. He suggests that that was a striking instance of the disadvantage of the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords—that they were judges of their own case, and that either by the introduction of the Bill or by the promotion of the Bill they sought to increase their own powers, and therefore that it was very inadvisable that they should be in the House of Lords. The Benefices Bill, as the House will remember well, was for many years before this House—long before the clause which dealt with the power and jurisdiction of the Bishops was put into the Bill. That clause was put in, not at the suggestion of the Bishops, but against their wish. I remember being for many years in communication with the late Archbishop of Canterbury with reference to that matter, and he was very unwilling that the Benefices Bill should be weighted with this particular clause with regard to the Bishops, because he thought it would increase the difficulty of passing the Bill, and he was unwilling that it should be
    168
    inserted; he for his part did not desire that further powers should be given to the Bishops. He was not the author of that part of the Bill, nor were any of the Bishops in the House of Lords, but my noble Friend the Member for Rochester, who sits below the Gangway. It was he who, by the force and power of his advocacy, induced the Grand Committee first, and then the House of Commons, to pass those clauses. We are able to say without any fear of contradiction that no part of that Bill was introduced or suggested by the Bishops in order to gain further power. It was an act— it may be wrong—of the House of Commons and not the act of the Bishops, and the suggestion made by the honourable Member who moved this Motion that the Bishops had been unworthy members of the House of Lords does not rest upon a single historical fact. Let me say that there were many of us on both sides of the House who wished to eradicate from the Church those practices which we thought did the Church harm, and I am satisfied that the present Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, from the earliest time that agitation was started, did their best to pass Bills in order to improve the condition of their Church, and so far from the Benefices Bill showing that the Bishops are unable to promote legislation of that character, it is, I think, the strongest argument to us that they approach this question from the point of view of the Laity of the Church, and do their best to put down existing abuses. I will not trespass upon the House by following the honourable Member in other instances he gave of doctrinal practices, which he said are allowed to grow up and set, the laity against the Clergy of the Church of England. It seems to me to have no connection with the absence or presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords. I come now, then, to the only other class of observation with which I shall trouble the House, that is, the grounds which are put upon the Paper in support of this Motion, as distinct from the grounds

    169
    which are put forward by the honourable Member in his speech. Some of those have been dealt with, if I may be permitted to say so, most admirably by the honourabe Member for Plymouth. I only wish that everyone now present had heard that speech. I will now in a few sentences explain why I do not agree with my honourable and learned Friend. He said that the Resolution suggests that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is a hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual function. This idea was destroyed 14 years ago by the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouth, which I think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton will remember, but to which no reference has been made to-night; and if honourable Members desire to read a masterly article against a resolution practically in the same terms, I may commend them to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, when he opposed a similar Motion in the year 1881. I do not, of course, desire to make quotations, and I am not going to do so, but I may commend the study of that speech to the stalwart Radicals who desire to show that they have not deserted the principles of their late Leader. But, Sir, let us dispose of it for ourselves from a practical point of view. Do honourable Members who talk so glibly about the time the Bishops spent in the House of Lords ever take the trouble to see how many Bishops attend? I say it is a slander against the Bishops to suggest that they are neglecting the duty of their dioceses for London society or for the purpose of going to the House of Lords. I do not know whether the honourable Member has ever personally investigated the work that the Bishops do. I say here from my place in this House that I am perfectly satisfied—there may be some minor exceptions—that 90 per cent, of every Bishop's time is devoted to the discharge of his duties in his diocese, and to suggest that they allow their position in the House
    170
    of Lords to prevent them from discharging those duties is not speaking in accordance with existing facts. I say that no gentleman who is acquainted with the true facts of the case can possibly suggest that, whatever may be the constitutional question, the occasional attendance in the House of Lords by the Bishops is a hindrance to the discharge of their duties. I followed with all the attention I could command the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and, if he will allow me to say so, the somewhat exuberant utterances of the honourable and learned Member for Donegal, which seem to me not to be very germane to the question before the House. But I have throughout the length of this discussion failed to hear of one single instance in which the commonwealth of this country has been put in danger by the action of these Bishops. But I want to ask honourable Members in all seriousness whether there are not questions upon which the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords has been of the greatest practical use, and is still likely to be of the greatest practical use. We have had discussions—very important discussions—during the last 20 or 30 years upon the question of education. Will any honourable Member who values his reputation for political accuracy say that the Bishops have obstructed the question of popular education? I say most distinctly that they have not. Honourable Members opposite may, perhaps, differ from them with regard to the opinions which they have expressed as to the utility and maintenance of voluntary schools, but I challenge them to give an instance in which it can be fairly said that the Bishops have wantonly and improperly given their votes against any reform in education. Take the Temperance question. Has not the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords, when the question of temperance has been raised, been of value to the State? There is no stronger or more powerful advocate of temperance to-day living than the present

    171
    Archbishop of Canterbury, and it would be lamentable if such a man could not make his voice heard with reference to any proposed temperance legislation. As the House knows, I have always taken deep interest in the laws with regard to the prevention of cruelty to children. There were no more strenuous advocates of that important change in the law which has saved the lives and rescued from misery hundreds of young children than the Bishops in the House of Lords. Take any other question upon which it is thought that the Bench of Bishops ought to state their opinions, and in which they ought to guide those who listen to them. I dismiss, of course, such questions as the Rescript of the Tsar, and the question of Turkish misrule, or any other of those political matters in which I should be very sorry indeed to see the Bishops mixed up; but speaking of these economical questions connected with religious education—the welfare of the poor, temperance, and so on—I say that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords has never been prejudicial to the Commonwealth, but productive of nothing but good. There are other arguments which I have not noticed that have been dealt with by previous speakers, but I have addressed myself only to those which seem to me to be more striking. It is because I believe in the Christian—(I say Christian in the broadest sense of the word, and not in its priestly sense)—influences of the Church, because I believe it is greatly for the good of the
    poor, because I believe that the Bishops do not interfere in ordinary political welfare, but do endeavour to bring their influence to bear honestly and honourably in all these matters, that I should deeply regret to see the disappearance of the spiritual influence from the House of Lords, and I hope, therefore, this House will reject this Motion.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should be sorry if the division to-night should be taken on a side issue. My noble Friend the Member for Greenwich has moved an Amendment for which much might be said, and for my own part I should be glad to see many Nonconformist representatives promoted to the other House; but after all the Amendment is a side issue, and I think we should take a plain division on a plain issue. I suggest to my noble Friend that he should not press his Amendment, but allow us to vote immediately on the main question, though I admit the topic he has raised is one of great interest, and upon another and more fitting opportunity might form an interesting subject for debate.
    LORD H. CECIL: With the leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment. [No.]
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    Main question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 200.—(Division List No. 15.)

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Colville, John

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Burns, John

    Commins, Andrew

    Asher, Alexander

    Burt, Thomas

    Crombie, John William

    Baker, Sir John

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Daly, James

    Balfour,Rt HnJ.Blair(Clackm.)

    Caldwell, James

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Dillon, John

    Birrell, Augustine

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Doogan, P. C.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Clark,Dr.G.B.(Caithness-sh.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Evans, Sir Francis H.(S'th'ton)

    Lough, Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Evershed, Sydney

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Killop, James

    Souttar, Robinson

    Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert J.

    M'Laren, Cnarles Benjamin

    Spicer, Albert

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Maddison, Fred.

    Strachey, Edward

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Maden, John Henry

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Hazell, Walter

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Morley, Rt.Hn. J. (Montrose)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Warner, Thomas Ccurtenay T.

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn.SirU.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Weir, James Galloway

    Kilbride, Denis

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

    Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

    Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Labouchere, Henry

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Lambert, George

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Langley, Batty

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hddrsf'd)

    Lawson, SirWilfrid(Cumb'l'nd)

    Price, Robert John

    Woods, Samuel

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

    Leng, Sir John

    Provand Andrew Dryburgh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Francis Stevenson.

    NOES.

    Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Charrington, Spencer

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Flower, Ernest

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Arrol, Sir William

    Clarke, Sir Edwd. (Plymouth)

    Forster, Henry William

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H. (C. of Lond.)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

    Goschen,Rt HnG. J.(St.G'rge's)

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Beach,Rt Hn Sir M.H.(Bristol)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Bethell, Commander

    Denny, Colonel

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Bigwood, James

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

    Bill, Charles

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bond, Edward

    Doughty, George

    Heath, James

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Henderson, Alexander

    Brassey, Albert

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hill, Sir Edwd. Stock (Bristol)

    Butcher, John George

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampst'd)

    Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs., N.)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Cavendish,V.C.W.(Drbyshire)

    Fergusson.Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r)

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Finch, George H.

    Hudson, George Bickcrsteth

    Chamberlain, J.Austen(Worc'r)

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    174

    175

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

    Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Skewes-Cox. Thomas

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Milton, Viscount

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

    Kenyon, James

    Monk, Charles James

    Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Keswick, William

    More, Robert Jasper

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Lafone, Alfred

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf.)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Mount, William George

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G. (Oxf.Univ)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry C'nrrie

    Myers, William Henry

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Leighton, Stanley

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Valentia, Viscount

    Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn (Swansea)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Webster, Sir R.E.(Isle of Wight

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesh'm)

    Plunkett, RtHnHorace Curzon

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Long, Rt. Hn Walter (L'pool)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

    Lowles, John

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Priestley, SirW.Overend(Edin.

    Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Lucas -Shadwell, William

    Purvis, Robert

    Wodehouse, Rt Hn E.R.(Bath

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Rasch. Major Frederic Carne

    Wortley, Rt. Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Ridley, Rt Hn. Sir Matt. W.

    Wyndham, George

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas.Thomson

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Round, James

    Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin.,W.)

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Malcolm, Ian

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Sir William Walrond and

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Mr. Anstruther.

    THE TRANSVAAL.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: I am painfully aware that the moment is a very unpropitious one in which to raise any question of this sort before the House, but under the new system by which the rights of private Members have been taken away, with the exception of certain opportunities, on the Address of which my right honourable Friend the First Lord always makes the most, I believe that this is probably the last occasion on which I shall have the slightest chance of bringing forward the wrongs of the Uitlanders before this House. For another reason I regret that I should have to make these observations to-night, and that is because of the absence of the Colonial Secretary. I am sure we all regret the absence of the right honourable Gentleman, though, perhaps, to-night it does not matter much, because he would hardly have an opportunity for replying. The present. Government have been in office for a little over three years, and I
    176
    regret to say that the fair promise with which they began in regard to the Trarspvaal has been somewhat clouded. We used to say of the Uitlanders under the late Government that they were chastised with whips, but I am afraid we may say that for the last three years they have been chastised with scorpions. This is the lamentable condition of a large number of British subjects of the Transvaal %t present. The Uitlander population number, I think, more than three-fifths of the total white population of that country. They are deprived of all political rights, they are even deprived of the privileges of free men. Their condition has been worsened in the last few years instead of improved. Every year a very curious state of affairs prevails in the Parliament of the Transvaal. About August an exceedingly optimistic speech has always been made from these benches with regard to the Transvaal. Parliament is prorogued, and then President Kruger sends a message to the Volksraad, and they proceed

    177
    at once to make the condition of the Uitlanders worse. In 1896, directly this House was prorogued, three laws were passed by the Volksraad which inflicted the greatest injustice upon the people of the Transvaal. There was an Alien Expulsion Law, an Alien Emigrants' Law, and the Press-gag Law. Owing to the representations of the Colonial Secretary there was some amelioration with regard to the Alien Emigrants' Law. The result of some of these Acts has been that every Uitlander in the Transvaal has been placed absolutely at the mercy of the Boer Government with regard to his residence there. Consequently, all freedom and redress has been taken, away from these people. The same thing happened in 1897. In 1897 we had an optimistic speech from that bench, and directly Parliament was prorogued the Transvaal Government proceeded to refuse all redress to the Uitlanders' demand. For instance, it refused to remedy the dynamite monopoly, and generally inflicted upon the non-Boer population all kinds of tyranny and insult. Well, Sir, the other day the non-Boer residents of Johannesburg found their position so intolerable that they protested against it, and in the course of the difficulties that arose an Englishman was shot by a Boer policeman. I do not propose to go into the details of that incident, but I can only say that the members of the society, which was formed for the protection of white men and Uitlanders, who ventured to hold a public meeting to assert the rights of the Uitlanders were arrested, and four times the amount of bail was asked for them that was asked for the Boer policeman who shot the Englishman. This is an example of the injustices to which the Uitlanders are subjected. It would be impossible even in the course of an ordinary speech to enumerate the whole list of tyranny and injustice with which our countrymen are treated in the Transvaal day by day. The thing has got so serious that some action must be taken by Her Majesty's Government. I am
    178
    perfectly well aware that there may have been difficulties which prevented action being taken before, but I must say that I think some of these difficulties have been owing to the action of the Government themselves. I think it very unfortunate that in an early stage of this business the hostility of Germany was practically challenged. Since then things have ameliorated, and there has been an understanding with Germany, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will now be able to take action to protect the rights of the British residents in the Transvaal. I think it is very difficult to carry out and to indulge in any satisfactory discussion in the absence of the Colonial Secretary. I only hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter into their consideration, and will take effective steps to remedy the things of which I have complained.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
SIR CHARLES DILKEformally moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. BANBURY: I hope that the right honourable Member will not proceed with this Bill at the present moment, because, in my opinion, a Bill which introduces an alteration in the law of the land ought not to be taken at this hour of the night. For the first time in the history of the country there is a proposal to place a prescription upon adult labour. I believe that hitherto no Measure has been passed which would prevent an employer from using his labour in the manner in which he thinks best for himself. This Bill would carry this extremely vicious principle into effect, and would also press most hardly upon the small class of shopkeeper who, while he is honestly struggling to make a living, should, I think, be supported by everyone who has the welfare of the people at heart. Now,

179
the small shopkeeper, perhaps looking after his shop with the aid of his son, and in many instances with the aid of his wife, sometimes—nay, often—by himself, is, under this Bill, precluded from earning his livelihood. Honourable Members opposite do not quite like that statement, but I can assure them that I have the most pathetic letters from shopkeepers in my constituency, pointing out that during the middle of the day their shops are empty, and that they do at that time take that rest which is so dear to the heart of the right honourable Baronet; while in the evening they look for the reward of their labours, which is the just recompense of every man in this country. I think it will be evident to everyone, and especially to the working class community, that there are great difficulties in the way of shopping being carried on in the middle of the day. Not only are there great difficulties for the working classes, but there is that hard-worked class of man—the clerk, engaged in commercial pusuits, whose hours are very long and whose leisure is very short, and I think that it is evident that it would be impossible for these men to obtain those articles which they desire to buy if this Bill is carried into effect. Now, Sir, these are some of the principal objections, in my mind, to this Bill. They are only a few of the objections which might be raised. While the Bill would prevent an ordinary man using his labour to the best extent, it introduces conditions which, I think, would be extremely difficult to carry into effect. To begin with, this Bill differs from the Bill which has been so often before the House—the Bill introduced by my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London. In the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, power is given to the different shops to determine by a majority whether or not they shall be brought under the purview of the Bill. But by the Bill before the House no authority is given to the shops, and no authority
180
is given to the different persons to determine for themselves whether or not they shall be brought under the provisions of the Bill. This Bill allows the local authority to decide all the steps which shall be taken. Now the local authority may be a very good authority, and I do not say that they will not do that which is right, but at the same time I do not think that a local authority is the authority which should be called upon to judge as to whether or not a small shopkeeper is to be deprived of the means of earning his livelihood. It does not seem to me that the local authority have either the means or the time to judge whether or not certain shops should be closed or whether they should continue open.
And it being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Considered in Committee; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
House adjourned at two minutes after Twelve of the Clock.