Commons Sitting of 6 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Eccles, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNITED STATES (No. 1, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORT (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3737 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Board of Works and Trade Unions.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, have refused to hear complaints from the organisations to which their employees belong unless the complaints are made in the first instance by the individuals affected; and whether, seeing that the wages of the labourers and mechanics employed by the Board of Works, Ireland, are below the market rate, he will have the wages brought up to the trade
  1152
  unions rates prevailing in the respective districts.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board of Works inform me that the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The statement contained in the latter part of the Question is misleading. In estimating the wages paid account has to be taken of many important advantages which are enjoyed by men in the public service, but which are not shared by men in private employ. The Board of Works are inquiring into the rates actually paid by other employers, and in any case in which the rates paid to the employees of the Board of Works are below the market rate, after taking into account the special advantages attaching to Government service, the rates paid will be increased accordingly. There may, however, be a few cases of workmen who are not capable of doing a full day's work, but whose services are retained from motives of compassion at less than the full market rate.

  Heavy Motor Traffic and Skidding.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any and. if so, what trials or experiments have taken place with heavy motor vehicles, running at a speed exceeding eight but not exceeding twelve miles an hour, on wheels fitted with tyres of other substances than rubber; whether such substances include wood; what conclusions, if any, have been arrived at as a result of such trials in respect of skidding on a wet surface and wear and tear of roadway.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The only case of the kind referred to within my knowledge is one in which a trial was made of a heavy motor car running on wheels fitted with wooden tyres. The result of the trial was not altogether satisfactory as regards skidding.

  Municipal Contributions to Unemployed Funds.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what contributions have been

  1153
  paid by the metropolitan boroughs and the great provincial centres of population, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, and Glasgow, under the provisions of the Unemployed Workmen's Act, and what rate per £ they represent; and whether the twenty-nine distress committees represented on the deputation which waited upon him recently to claim a share of the £200,000 grant have exhausted their spending powers under the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Central (Unemployed) Body for London called on the Common Council and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs for contributions from the rates in February and August last of £25,000 and £43,382, respectively. The sum actually paid up to date is £61,397, which is equivalent to a rate of one-third of a penny in the £ on the present assessable value of London. As regards the distress committees outside London, my information generally relates to the period up to 31st March last only. According to this, sums of £500, £525, and £750 were contributed by the town councils of Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester. The distress committees represented on the deputation referred to do not appear to have exhausted their power of raising contributions from the rates under the Act on the 31st March, and I am not aware that they have done so since.

  British and Norwegian Granite.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that some local authorities are accustomed to specify for the use of Norwegian granite in public works under their control; and whether, in view of the existence of undeveloped quarries of suitable granite in Great Britain and in Ireland, he will circularise local authorities, and will point out the undesirability of giving this undue preference to foreign quarry owners.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that in some localities Norwegian granite is cheaper than other similar stone, and I presume that it is on this ground that some local authorities
  1154
  prefer to use it. I could not undertake to interfere with the exercise of their discretion in the matter.

  Pay of Supernumeraries in Post Office during Christmas Pressure.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is employing Christmas supernumeraries in the London postal service at the rate of 3s. 4d. per day of eight hours, on duties which entail attendance at any period during the twenty-four hours, with a deduction of 1s. per day until a test in sorting work is passed; and, if so, whether he can see his way to grant these men the recognised trade union rate for the London district, of 30s. per week.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware that there is any recognised trade union rate with which the wages in question can be compared.

  Sub-Postmaster of Pomeroy (County Tyrone) and Political Disturbances.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster - General whether William Kelly, sub-postmaster of Pomeroy, county Tyrone, is a member of the Orange Society; whether this official has compromised a case in which he was accused of a political assault whilst in a state of intoxication; on what grounds he was previously removed from Stewartstown; and what action is proposed to be taken by the postal authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have no information on the subject, but I am inquiring, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

  Repair and Refit of H. M. S. "Hannibal."
  MR. BELL AIRS (Lynn Kegis): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what date the repair and refit of H.M.S. "Hannibal" was taken in hand; on what date were they completed; and how much of the £78,730 voted in 1905–6 was spent.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The refit of H.M.S. "Hannibal" was commenced in August, 1905, and completed in November, 1906. The expenditure in 1905–6 was £4,200.

  Age Retirement of the Controller and Auditor-General.
  MR. PAUL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the present Controller and Auditor-General was appointed by the late Government with an understanding that he should retire at a particular age, and, if so, at what age; whether they had any right to exact such terms, or any others; and whether Mr. Kempe is made by statute independent of the Executive, so that he should be responsible to this House alone.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am informed that an understanding was made with Mr. Kempe when he was appointed that he is to retire at the age of sixty-five. There is no provision made by statute for the compulsory retirement of this officer at any particular age, and I conjecture that the object of the arrangement was that Mr. Kempe should agree to give up his post at the usual age of retirement in the Civil Service. There can be no question that the holder of the office is by statute independent of the executive and solely responsible to the House of Commons.

  Milan International Exhibition—Jurors.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state, in connection with the Milan International Exhibition, on what group jury Admiral C. P. Fitzgerald served, and what his qualifications were; if Mr. J. Sebastian Barnett, the other Irish juror, is connected with any trade interests, British or Irish; and why Dr. Yoshioka, the Japanese fishery expert, was permitted to serve as a British juror, considering that British and Irish fishery experts were available; will he say if the names of the merchants and manufacturers in such cities as Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and industrial centres as Wexford, will be given who were approached by the Commission with a view to their participating at Milan, and if the name of the exhibition agents who were authorised to get a representative Irish exhibit will be given; will he explain why a special Commissioner was not appointed for Ireland to deal with the matter instead of giving the concession for speculative
  1156
  purposes to a private firm, and if a return will be given as to the fees paid to each juror for serving at Milan, whether he will state if the Government before giving further grants for exhibition purposes, will take steps when Commissions are being organised to see that the science, arts, and industries and trade interests shall be represented by Commissioners who are competent; whether the rules governing the system of awards will be published after each Commission is organised, and no jurors will be nominated unless they are experts and endorsed by the industries to which they belong, and that no foreigner will be allowed to represent British or Irish industries as Commissioners or jurors at future exhibitions, and that, for the protection of British and Irish industries, the expenses of jurors shall be provided for by each Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed by Sir A. Rollit, the President of the Commission, that Admiral Fitzgerald served on group jury thirty, dealing with the construction and equipment of war navies, for which his professional career is the best qualification I can mention. Mr. Sebastian Barnett is not at present connected with any trade interests, British or Irish, but I understand he was so connected in the past. His knowledge of Italian rendered him a most efficient juryman. Dr. Yoshioka had expressed a desire to serve, and was gladly appointed upon the failure of the Commission to secure the service of an expert with the necessary qualifications who was also a British subject. With regard to the fourth part of the Question, I am informed that the Commission issued circulars inviting exhibits to about twenty leading merchants and manufacturers in Cork, among whom were the following:—Messrs. Baker and Company; Beamish and Crawford, Limited; Booth and Fox, Limited; the County Cork Agricultural Society; the Cork Distillery Company, Limited; Crane and Sons, Limited; Thomas Jennings; the Irish Cycle and Motor Company; Timothy M'Carthy, etc. To ten in Limerick, including:—Messrs. J. and G. Boyd and Company, the Limerick Lace School, Denny and Sons, Limited, etc. The Commission also sent circulars,

  1157
  with requests to make the exhibition known to all possible exhibitors in Ireland, to the Chambers of Commerce of Cork and Limerick. Notices were also inserted in the Press of the. United Kingdom. The name of the exhibition agents is Messrs. Hillman Brothers, of Newbury, Berks, a firm which possesses among other qualifications the special advantage of having been agents at the Cork Exhibition, and thus in touch with a large number of representatives of Irish industries. The President informs me that a special Commissioner was not appointed for Ireland because it was left to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to take the necessary steps to secure Irish representation. The exhibition agents, of course, acted under the directions of the Commission, and there was no question of their employment being "for speculative purposes." The sum of £25 was paid towards the expenses of each juryman who went to Italy from the United Kingdom and £10 to those resident in Italy. The President declined to take any remuneration for acting as a member of the superior jury. The remaining points raised in the Question form the subject of inquiry of a Committee which is now sitting, and I am unable to make any statement in anticipation of the Committee's Report in regard to them; but I cannot for a moment admit the implied imputations against the Commissioners.

  Cost of Increase of Turkish Customs Duties.
  MR. LYNCHTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before concluding the negotiations for the increase in the Turkish Customs duties, he will await the receipt from the British Financial Adviser on the Reform Commission in Macedonia of financial statements establishing the fact that the additional cost of putting the reforms into execution will not be less than the revenues to be derived from the new duties.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Government are still awaiting information on certain points before giving their assent to the increase in the Turkish Customs duties, but I am un-
  1158
  able to give the hon. Member any pledge which would interfere with our liberty of action or prevent us from continuing to act with other Powers in the matter.

  Landing of Derelict Cattle Wood in the Thames Estuary.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any instructions have recently been given to the Customs officer in the district of Leigh-on-Sea to prevent the fishermen in that district from acquiring and using the large quantity of wood known as cattle wood which is thrown overboard by vessels in the Thames estuary; whether he is aware that the fishermen have for a long period been accustomed to make use of this derelict wood; and whether he will give instructions that there shall be no unreasonable interference with them in the exercise of this customary privilege.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No instructions on this subject have been issued to the Customs preventive officer in charge at Southend, who supervises the district in which Leigh-on-Sea is situated. That officer reports that about two months ago an inquiry was addressed to him, by the local secretary to tin Kent and Essex Fishermen's Protection Society, as to whether there was any objection to the Leigh fishermen landing cattle wood. In reply attention wa9 directed to Section 20 of the Foreign Animals Order of 1903, and on further inquiry being made as to whether, if the terms of that section were complied with, cattle wood could be landed, it was stated that any considerable quantity of such wood that might be landed would be treated as wreck and taken over on behalf of the district receiver of wreck. The Southend officer also states that during the last two years only one instance of cattle wood being landed has come under his notice and, as in that case the quantity was inconsiderable, delivery was permitted after disinfection.

  Dismissal of School Teachers for Inefficiency.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Education how

  1159
  many teachers have been dismissed for inefficiency during each year since 1899.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The appointment and dismissal of teachers of public elementary schools does not rest with the Board of Education, and I am quite unable to state the figures asked for in the Question.
  ME. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland how many teachers have been dismissed by order of the Education Department for inefficiency during each year since 1899.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The dismissal of teachers is not effected by order of the Department but by resolution of the individual school boards by whom they are employed. A teacher's certificate may, however, be recalled, suspended, or reduced by the Department under Article 69 of the Code. Since 1899 there has been one case of recall (in 1900) and one case of suspension (in 1905).

  Central Telegraph Office Staff—Relief from Duty in cases of Urgent Domestic Distress.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the staff of the Central Telegraph Office, through the London branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, and in a number of cases by individual appeal, have protested against the action of the deputy controller, with reference to release from duty in cases of urgent domestic distress; whether he is aware that, as a result of this action, all grades of officials in the Central Telegraph Office are disturbed; and whether, in view of these protests, he will place the decision on these questions in the hands of the controller exclusively.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As my hon. friend is aware, I am always ready to receive and to deal with any appeals submitted to me by the staff collectively or by individual officers when they consider that they have been unfairly treated.

  Sale of Old War Stores—Unsound Tinned Meat
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the President of the Local Govern-
  1160
  ment Board whether he is aware that consignments of goods sent out to South Africa for the use of the troops during the late war are being sent back to the United Kingdom, and that a part of such returned consignments consist of unsound tinned food; whether his attention has been called to the fact that more than 10,000 tins of food returned from South Africa were lately advertised for sale by public auction in the City of London and seized by the medical officer of health as being unfit for human food; and whether any, and, if so, what, steps are being taken to guard against the introduction of future consignments of unsound food from this source.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The facts are, I believe, substantially as stated in the Question. As regards the last paragraph of it, the Local Government Board have given attention to the matter, and special inquiries have been made by them, with the assistance of the Board of Customs, regarding the importation of meat essences from South Africa, the condition of which was unsatisfactory. Where possible, steps have been taken to obtain such action as local authorities have been able to take to deal with the matter Moreover, inquiries are being made regarding other food stuffs returned from South Africa. Further legislation, however, of the kind contemplated by the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Bill, now before Parliament, is necessary to guard effectively against the introduction of consignments of unsound food.

  Issue of Order under Education Act, 1902.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the statements made by his predecessor on the l5th May and the 4th July, 1905, that the issue of an Order of the Board under paragraph (19) of the Second Schedule of the Education Act, 1902. might be expected shortly; whether he is aware of the inconvenience arising from the delay which in con-sequence of the non-issue of such Order has occurred in the appointment of an attendance officer for the district of Sevenoaks; and whether he can say when the issue of the Order may be expected.

  1161
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I regret the delay in the issue of the Order, which has been found to involve questions of much difficulty. It is, however, being proceeded with, and may be expected to be issued at a very early date.

  Concessions to Dockyard Joiners.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state why no mention is made in the recently published list of concessions to dockyard employees of the petition of the joiners; and whether their case is being further considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The joiners, having received an increase of 1s. 6d. a week in 1904 and a further increase of 1s. a week in 1905, did not participate in the increases recently granted to other workmen.

  Warders Quarters at Princetown.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the insufficient and bad housing accommodation of the prison warders at Princetown, he will take steps to erect new buildings at a greater rate of speed than at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) By the end of the current year 192 officers will be in quarters out of 222 entitled to quarters, and, though some of these quarters are not the most modern type, their reconstruction is not a matter of urgency. Money will, however, be taken in the Estimates for next year for the provision of additional quarters, and the work will be proceeded with with as much speed as the conditions permit.

  Failure of Potato Crop—Grants to Tenants.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Westport board of guardians of the 1st instant, requesting the Congested Districts Board, owing to the almost total failure of the potato crop, to grant a reduction of rent to their tenants on the Stoney estate, near Newport, county
  1162
  Mayo, equivalent to that granted by the late landlord; will he see that such reduction is granted; will he see that the Board give a detailed statement of the expenditure of £3,397 on improvements on this estate, and what amount has been spent on the purchase of holdings in the village of Murrivagh; and can he say what amount, if any, Mr. Stoney received from the Board for the purpose of building a fence round the mountain resold to him by the Board.
  Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The resolution of the Westport guardians referred to has been received by the Congested Districts Board. The Board had before them at their last meeting an application from some of the tenants asking for a reduction of rent on account of the failure of the potato crop, but decided that they could not grant this request. A considerable sum has been expended on the estate, and the delay in resale has been due solely to the Board's desire to enlarge the holdings of the tenants by dividing amongst them lands which they have purchased in the neighbourhood. The board have provided for a loss of £2,848 in dealing with this estate. Their expenditure has been as follows—

  £

  Supervision

  319

  Mearing Fences

  184

  Roads and Fences

  443

  Buildings

  110

  Drainage

  271

  Tools

  39

  Lockspitting

  13

  House Improvements

  61

  Miscellaneous

  6

  Annual charges

  372

  Annuities to Land Commission

  1,520

  Surveys

  33

  Live stock

  33

  Tenant Interests purchased

  506

  £3,910

  For the purchase of tenants' interest in the townland of Murrivagh the Board have paid £420. The figures £3,397 given in the Question were taken from the Appendix of the Board's last Annual Report, and included other expenditure besides improvement works. When Mr. Stoney recently agreed to sell to the Board a further area of arable land, on

  1163
  condition that the Board resold to him some mountain land, it was stipulated that the Board should pay half the cost of the construction of a wall between the lands retained by Mr. Stoney and those purchased by the Board, and the Board's share amounts to £165.

  Grant to Andrew Beggan on the Smith Estate, Cootehill.
  MR. MCKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners, having had inquiries made into the facts of the case of Andrew Beggan, a tenant evicted from the Smith estate, Cootehill (part of which is in county Monaghan), have fixed £50 for the purposes of re-instatement, re-stocking, and successful working of the farm; whether, having regard to the ruinous condition of the dwelling house on the farm and the outbuildings attached to it, the Estates Commissioners will agree to increase the amount to £150; and whether the latter will state the actual terms of sale and purchase and the resulting rent Beggan will have to pay before requiring him to sign the agreement for purchase.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are prepared to make a free grant of £70 to Andrew Beggan to assist him in working his former holding. The amount which the Commissioners are prepared to advance for the purchase of the holding is £158, the annuity on which at 3¼ per cent. is £5 2s. 8d.

  Bent Reductions in King's County.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the average reductions in the land courts on first and second-term rents respectively in King's County for the ten years ending the 31st March last, and the average reductions for the same period on the estate of Lord Digby in the barony of Geashill.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that in cases of judicial rents fixed in King's County during the last ten years ending
  1164
  31st March last the average reductions were for first term rents 13·1 per cent. and for second-term rents 15·6 per cent. As regards the cases on Lord Digby's estate for that period, the Land Commission observe that the parties on both sides have long since been notified of the decision, and the Commissioners do not think it desirable that the result of such judicial decisions under the Land Law Acts in regard to a particular estate should be discussed by means of Parliamentary Questions.

  Application for Advice to Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many applications to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland for advice under the Act are now pending and undisposed of, and the dates when the said applications were received by the Commissioners; in how many applications during the past twelve months did the Commissioners refuse to give any opinion or advice whilst declining to state to applicant any ground for their decision; and how many of the four applications in which the Commissioners did not deem it expedient to give any opinion or advice related to Catholic charities.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The secretaries to the Commission of Charitable Donations and Bequests inform me that this Question will be submitted to the Commissioners for consideration at their next meeting on the 12th instant.

  Higher Velocity Ammunition.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any experiments have been instituted by the War Office with a view to supplying our troops with higher velocity ammunition; and, if so when did such experiments commence; and when are they likely to be concluded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Yes, Sir, experiments in this direction have been in progress for some time. I am afraid that I cannot say when they will be concluded, but they are being

  1165
  carried out as rapidly as is consistent with the attainment of scientifically reliable results.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the French, German, and United States Governments have all adopted new small arms ammunition giving very much higher velocities than those obtained with our small arms ammunition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is understood that the Governments referred to have adopted small arms ammunition giving higher velocities than that obtained from our present ammunition. The bullet is, of course, much lighter.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Portsmouth Courts-Martial.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the sentence on a stoker at Portsmouth of five years penal servitude; and whether, in view of the severity of this sentence and the character of the alleged offence, any steps will be taken to reverse it.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper: —
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what rule or regulation in the Naval Code provides for the order, "On your knees"; where it is to be found; and will he state whether there is any order of a kindred nature which is still in vogue in the service.
    MR. DALZIEL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the proceedings in connection with the recent disturbances at Portsmouth have been concluded; and can he state when he hopes to be able to make a statement on the subject.
    MR. DALZIEL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can offer any explanation as to why no official notice was taken in September, 1905, of the complaint of stoker Acton
    1166
    that Lieutenant Collard had been guilty of giving improper orders.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The report of the last court-martial has only just reached the Admiralty. The reports of all the courts-martial cover 475 typewritten foolscap pages, which have to be considered by each member of the Board. The questions arising are numerous and important, and will be dealt with, as I have already said, in one comprehensive Admiralty Minute. All despatch consistent with due deliberation will be employed, but I cannot at present name any definite date for the promulgation of the Minute.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the Admiralty, in considering this matter, would bear in mind the strong feeling there was that, if an officer who was found guilty of giving an improper order was merely reprimanded, it was, to say the least, an outrage and injustice to give a stoker five years penal servitude for not obeying that order.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty will consider all the circumstances.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is introducing Russian methods here.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the order "On the knee" has ever been disobeyed by the Government when given by Gentlemen below the gangway?
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not answer the last part of my Question?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot now make a statement on one part of the Question.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When may I ask the Question again?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I hope the Minute will be issued before the end of next week,
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will put the Question down for this day week.

    Rosyth.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that our fleet in the North Sea has at present no reliable base nearer than the south of England, he will consider the urgency of giving instructions that the work at Rosyth may be vigorously prosecuted.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The matter is receiving careful consideration, and plans are being prepared for the information of the Board.

    Dockyard Wages.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated increase in the wages in the dockyard services which will come up for course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1907.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The estimated additional expenditure for the present financial year on dockyard wages, resulting from the revised rates of pay which came into force from the 1st October, is approximately £30,000.

    Dockyard Workmen and the Christmas Holidays.
    MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an order has been issued to close the whole of the Home dockyards on 24th December; and, if so, whether he will allow the workmen to make up the loss by working overtime, and thus avoid a loss of from 3s. to 6s. per man.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In accordance with the invariable custom, where there is only one day between Sunday and a public holiday, it has been decided to close the whole of the Home dockyards on the 24th December, and in such a case the dockyard regulations do not permit of the time lost being worked up.
    MR. JENKINS: In view of the season —that it is Christmas time—and that some of the men only earn £1 a week, and what a hard Christmas it will be for them and their families if they lose one day's pay, cannot the Admiralty
    1168
    see their way to relax the rule on this occasion?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I can only refer the hon. Member to the dockyard regulations on the subject.
    MR. JENKINS: Will the £7,000 which will be saved by closing the dockyards on Christmas eve be applied towards the sum to be expended in connection with the increased wages just given?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, we are following the regulations laid down years ago.
    MR. JENKINS: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what has taken place in the dockyards, to reconsider this matter and waive the regulations for this year?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Government Contracts and Fair Wages.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. William Beardmore and Co., Government contractors, Glasgow, do not conform to the fair wages clause by not paying the recognised district rate to enginemen, cranemen, boilermen, and firemen in their employ, and that the firm have refused to consider a petition submitted by the men's society requesting recognition of their society; that men have been dismissed who through their union requested the observance of the district rates; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the observance by this firm of the fair wages clause.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. Member's Question is the first intimation that the Admiralty have received that there was any complaint against the firm in regard to the observance of the fair wages clause. Immediate inquiry will be made.

    Dockyard Joiners.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the joiners employed in the Royal dockyards participated in the increase of wages recently granted to the workmen;

    1169
    whether the increased rate is paid to the joiners employed in all the yards; and, if not, will he state in which yards the increased rate is paid.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The joiners having received an increase of 1s. 6d. a week in 1904, and a further increase of 1s. a week in 1905, did not participate in the increases recently granted to other workmen. The remainder of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
    MR. JENKINSasked if the joiners did not, in common with other trades in the dockyard, present a petition to the Admiralty setting forth a schedule of wages paid in other places where similar work is done, and were the Admiralty now paying in accordance with that schedule?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, I believe the petitions did contain a schedule.

    Lovat Scouts.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received two petitions from the islands of Barra, Benbecula, and North and South Uist, bearing over 1,100 signatures, asking that an additional squadron of the Lovat Scouts may be authorised; and whether, having regard to the popularity of the service in these islands, the character of the recruits, and the specially suitable nature of the training ground, he will authorise this addition to the establishment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The petitions have been received. I fully appreciate the zeal and spirit of the islanders. Whether it would be right to add at present to the existing establishment of Yeomanry is another and much more doubttul matter. The question depends on details of general organisation which cannot possibly be settled for some time.

    Cost of Hutting Cavalry Regiments.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with regard to his intention to quarter two cavalry regiments in the Scottish command, will he, in the interests of frugality, give the estimated cost of hutting the
    1170
    said regiments on a suitable training ground in Scotland pending the erection of more costly quarters.
    MR. HALDANE: The cost of hutting two cavalry regiments in a substantial manner with all accessories is estimated at £150,000. This does not include anything for the ground.

    Ammunition Train Officers in the South African War.
    COLONEL WALKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many field officers of the Royal Artillery were detailed for service with the ammunition trains and parks serving in South Africa during the late war; and what was the number of field officers specially appropriated to an ammunition train.
    MR. HALDANE: During the first year of the war, the maximum number of ammunition columns in South Africa was eighteen. There was also an ammunition park. The latter was commanded by a lieutenant-colonel; the former by majors, although in some cases captains only were available for the duty. After the early phase of the war, and in consequence of the exceptional conditions that arose in South Africa, regular ammunition columns wore abolished, and the number of field or other officers employed cannot now be ascertained.

    Small Arm Ammunition.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if on the 1st November 1906, a portion of the 303-inch small arm ammunition held as a war reserve at stations abroad was beyond the age when such ammunition could be regarded as reliable, or should be reported upon with a view to its disposal, in accordance with the regulations for Army ordnance services.
    MR. HALDANE: There is no reason to believe that any portion of the 303-inch small arm ammunition held as war reserve at stations abroad on the 1st ultimo was unreliable through age. The whole question of replacing existing stocks of small arm ammunition abroad by charger packed ammunition suitable for use with the new short rifle, now in process of issue, is under consideration.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Has it been recently decided to increase the age limit of this ammunition?
    MR. HALDANE: I should like notice of that Question.
    LORD BALCARRES: Is there any reason to believe this deficiency was not well known at headquarters?
    MR. HALDANE: It is not a question of deficiency, it is one of reliability, which is a scientific matter. We have no reason to believe it is unreliable.

    Cavalry in Scotland.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the decision to withdraw cavalry from Scotland is mainly due to financial considerations; and, if so, whether inquiry has been made as to the possibility of providing adequate accommodation at a much less sum than £200,000; can he give any indication as to the period to which the temporary withdrawal of cavalry is likely to extend; and has he received any assurance from the Treasury that the necessary funds will be forthcoming at some future date.
    MR. HALDANE: As I explained to the Lord Provost in the letter of the 28th ultimo, the withdrawal of the cavalry from Piershill is due to the unsuitable character, for such a unit, of these barracks, and I can at present see no reason why Scotland should cease for more than a time to have cavalry stationed in it. But I cannot now say how long the interval will be, though I undertake to do all that I can, consistently with my duty to this House and to the Army, to make the interval as short as possible I do not pledge myself as to the exact sum required, but judging from experience about £200,000 is what would be wanted for the site and for building a good up-to-date barrack for cavalry.
    MR. YOUNGER: May I ask will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether his decision would not be expedited if the public authorities with suitable grounds would communicate with him to that effect?
    MR. HALDANE: There seems to be an outburst of patriotism in Scotland at this time, and if some patriotic people who own beautiful land in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh would put their parks at my disposal it would help to a solution of the problem.
    MR. YOUNGER: Arising out of that Question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he limits that suggestion to Edinburgh.
    MR. HALDANE: No, I am open to offers.
    MR. DALZIEL: With regard to the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman respecting barracks, would he undertake to use his influence with the great landlords with whom he undoubtedly has great influence?
    MR. A. L. STANLEY: Has Lord Rosebery made any offer to the right hon. Gentleman to supply a training ground?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman correctly reported as having stated a few days ago that this regiment of Scottish patriots consists mostly of Irishmen who desire to escape from Scotland?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Piershill Barracks.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that such high authorities as Sir Henry Littlejohn and Dr. Williamson have reported that Piershill Barracks are in a perfectly sanitary condition and whether, in view of the statements made on behalf of the War Office to a contrary effect, he has any objection to lay upon the Table the Report on which the conclusion of the War Office was arrived at.
    MR. HALDANE: My attention has been drawn to the statement that Sir Henry Littlejohn and Dr. Williamson have reported that Piershill Barracks are in a perfect sanitary condition. As such reports would contradict the information I have received from the War Office experts, I have sent Lieutenant-Colonel Melville, R.A.M.C, and Mr. Tyndale,

    1173
    sanitary engineer, down to Piershill, and have made the request that Sir Henry Littlejohn and Dr. Williamson should meet them on the spot while they make a fresh inquiry. I will lay the Report of these exports on the Table of the House as soon as I get it, and I will also lay on the Table the Report of Sir Alfred Keogh, the Director-General of Army Medical Services, who, at my request, inspected these barracks last summer, and who has informed me that, in addition to his dissatisfaction with other features of the barracks, he found it difficult to express in moderate language his view of the conditions under which the number of officers required for a cavalry regiment were being accommodated.
    MR. DALZIEL: Have any special instructions been given these experts to report on the sanitary condition of the barracks?
    MR. HALDANEwas understood to reply in the negative.

    Dublin Army Ordnance Department.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that civil clerks and civil labourers in the Army Ordnance Department at Dublin are being discharged to make room for soldier clerks and soldier labourers of the Army Ordnance Corps, and that the military labour is a heavier charge against the public; and whether, seeing that civil labourers at wages of 18s. a week are employed as clerks in the offices owing to pressure of work, he, will explain why these discharges are taking place; can he state the annual cost of military administration and military supervision in this department in Ireland; and will he consider the advisability of working this department on a more economical and efficient basis as a purely civil department.
    MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that discharges of civilians employed in the Army Ordnance Department in Dublin are already taking place. It is true, however, that, in view of the requirements of mobilisation and administration, it has been decided to replace soldiers of the Army Ordnance Corps by civilians at certain stations abroad, bringing the soldiers back to home stations.
    1174
    This will involve the discharge of a certain number of civilian employees, but the number to be discharged at Dublin will be small. The annual cost of the Army Ordnance Department and Corps in the Irish Command is about £36,500. It would not conduce to economy or efficiency to attempt to work the Ordnance services of the Army on a purely civilian basis, as it is essential for mobilisation to maintain the strength of the military establishment and to train the soldiers of the Army Ordnance Corps in peace for the duties they would have to perform in war.
    MR. JENKINS: Will this apply to the whole of the Army Ordnance Department?
    MR. HALDANE: To some extent it will.

    Partition of Bengal.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bengal Chamber of Commence desire it to be known that they have never contemplated, and are not contemplating, any deputation regarding the partition of Bengal, and that the use of their name in connection with suggested deputations against such partition is without foundation; and absolutely unwarranted; and what action, if any, he intends to take in regard to this declaration.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,): The Secretary of State has observed a statement to the effect mentioned in the public Press. He does not propose to take any action in regard to it.

    Indian Army Medical Service.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can now say how many Indian Medical Service officers had been appointed as specialists under the Indian Army Order regarding specialists' appointments in India; how many officers so appointed by the Director-General of the Indian Medical Service had received the special remuneration authorised for such appointments; and how many were natives of India.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Up to 20th September, 1906, fifty-eight officers of the Indian Medical Service had been recognised as specialists, and fifteen of them had been posted to vacancies and drawn the allowance. Only one native of India had applied for recognition as a specialist, and he had received it. I have no later figures, but it was intended at the time mentioned that the other officers who had been recognised as specialists should (unless transferred to civil employment) be posted to appointments as soon as opportunities occurred.

    Germany and the United States.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any convention or arrangement has been made between the United States Government and the German Government providing that in case Germany should be engaged in war the German mercantile marine shall be taken under the United States flag; and have His Majesty's Government received any communication on the subject from the British Ambassador to the United States.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I have received no communication of any kind on this subject. If the hon. Member has any reliable information upon it, I shall be very glad to receive a communication from him.
    MR. BOWLES: Do I understand that the Foreign Office has no information on the subject of any kind whatever?
    SIR EDWARDGREY: Yes, Sir. We have no information at all; from which I should infer that no such arrangement exists.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is it not the case that no convention or international agreement of any kind with a foreign Power can be entered into by the United States Government without the public ratification of the Senate; and is it not, therefore, impossible for such an arrangement to exist without its becoming a matter of public knowledge?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The hon. Gentleman is as good an authority as I am on the Constitution of the United States, and I have no doubt he is correct. It seemed to me when the Question appeared on the Paper that it was quite impossible that any such arrangement could exist.

    The Congo.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to protecting British trading interests and of possibly mitigating the evils that now prevail, he will advise His Majesty's Government to claim consular rights on the Congo under the Act of 1885.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action in regard to the Congo Free State pending the result of the discussion now in progress in the Belgian Chamber. And in any event, as already stated, the first step taken by His Majesty's Government would be to consult other Powers. It is evident that action by Belgium, or united action with other Powers, would lead to a more complete and effective change of system than could be done by individual action of any Power outside Belgium separately.

    The Denshawai Affray.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the Denshawai incident in June last, the village of Denshawai has been deprived of its immemorial rights as a separate balad or district regulated by its own omdeh and ghafirs, a force of ghafirs being imported from Cairo for its regulation at a charge on the villagers of more than £400 a year for their salaries, and that its inhabitants are now subjected to restraints, seriously interfering with their ordinary avocations and protection of their property; and, if so, whether the British representative in Egypt will be asked to inquire into and report upon the situation thus brought about.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: After the attack on the officers at Denshawai, the village was deprived of an omdeh, and was attached to the adjacent village of Abu Kullos. One sheikh, one wekil, and twenty specially selected ghafirs, recruited and equipped in Cairo, were left

    1177
    to take charge of the village, by the inhabitants of which they were to be paid. All the original ghafirs were dismissed, and their arms and equipment were withdrawn. I do not consider that the matter is one in which His Majesty's Government should interfore with such measures of detail which the Government of Egypt think necessary for the preservation of public security, or that it calls for a special report from Lord Cromer.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that the ghafirs did their best to protect the British officers after the affray, and did they not when they got them into their village protect them from injury?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say from memory exactly what their action was, but it is quite clear that they did not prevent them from being assaulted, and it is impossible for His Majesty's Government after what took place to interfere with the measures taken by the Egyptian Government to preserve public security.

    Persian Loan.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations in connection with the projected Russo British loan to Persia are now completed.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject.
    In Answer to a further Question from Sir EDWARD SASSOON:—
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It is obvious that a matter of this kind cannot be arranged without the consent of the three Governments concerned. When anything has been definitely settled it will be made known. In the meantime I can make no statement.

    Income-Tax Returns.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the income-tax returns made by private individuals and companies are treated as entirely confidential by the Income-Tax
    1178
    Commissioners, or is the information contained in them available to any Cabinet Minister on demand, to the Cabinet collectively, to the officers of the Estate Duty Department, or to any and, if so, what other Government officials and departments.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Board of Inland Revenue do not consider that any use they may make of income-tax returns within their own department, and for their own official use, constitutes a disclosure of such returns within the meaning of the provisions of the law relating to secrecy in income-tax matters. Care is taken, however, that only responsible officers should have cognisance of such matters. Any request for information coming from another department, or from any of my colleagues in the Cabinet, would only be considered in the event of its being preferred through mo. I have not up to the present had occasion to consider in what circumstances, if any, such a request could be complied with.

    Income-Tax on Monetary Prizes.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases income-tax has been deducted from monetary prizes in the form of single non-recurrent payments, offered for competition in the public services, between the years 1895 and 1905 inclusive.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Board of Inland Revenue have no record of such cases. The deduction, when made, would be made by the Department making the payment. If there is any particular case in which a question arises whether the tax is properly deductible or not, I shall be happy to have it looked into.

    Probate Duties.
    MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in the case of the estate valued for purposes of probate at £132,300 in 1898, or less than one-third its true value, the sum of £450,000 at which the concern was floated in 1900 was based on the actual value at the time of death, and on the profits for three years prior to death; whether he is aware

    1179
    that the property in question was an old-established business not liable to violent fluctuations as suggested by the Board of Inland Revenue, and that the profits prior to death showed a steady upward tendency; whether, in view of these facts, and of the statement made by the Board that all the facts were fully disclosed at the time of death, he will say who was responsible for passing the assessment of this property at less than one-third its value, and the consequent loss to the Treasury of over £20,000; will he explain the statement made by the Board that the prospectus of the company is not before them, seeing that it was published in all the leading Dublin newspapers, and should have been well-known to their local officials; and will he say whether the Board requires its officials to acquaint themselves with the contents of prospectuses of new public companies, with a view to a comparison of their statements with the Returns made to the Board for the purpose of income-tax or probate, as the case may be.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to my hon. friend on the subject of this estate, except that I do not accept his view that it was undervalued for estate duty purposes in 1898. The value of £132,300 was five years purchase of the average annual income, a rather high valuation, regard being had to the nature of the business. The statement that "the prospectus is not before the Board of Inland Revenue" means that it is not upon the Department's files. I have no doubt that at the time of its issue in 1900 it was known to the estate duty officials. Such prospectuses are examined by those officers as part of their ordinary duty.

    Board of Inland Revenue—Alleged Refusal of Information.
    MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the practice which has grown up on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue of refusing to give information to this House relating to the work of their department, on the alleged grounds that such information would take considerable time and trouble to prepare and is not of sufficient public interest; is he aware that
    1180
    information is refused when actually in the possession of the Board and when it has a bearing on subjects of importance, as for instance the assessment and collection of taxes, and is intended to show the unsatisfactory nature of the present system and the need for reform, and when such information is regarded by the Board itself as of sufficient importance to be collected for their own use; can he explain the reluctance of the Board to give information to this House concerning the work of their department; and will he take steps to secure that such information shall not be withheld when it is desired in the public interest, and necessary for the use of Members sent to this House to enable them properly to discharge their responsibilities.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of any case in which information asked for by the House has been refused. If my hon. friend is referring to replies given by Ministers to Questions asked by individual Members, I can only say that, for my own part, I regard it as my duty, where such inquiries will involve expenditure of time and labour in a department for which I am responsible, to consider, before agreeing to obtain the information, whether the facts which it is desired to elicit are of sufficient public interest to justify the investigation being undertaken. When I am satisfied that this is the case, I should never sanction the withholding of information.

    Income Tax Repayment.
    MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the opinion of the Departmental Committee on Income-Tax, 1904–5, in favour of continuing the present practice of employing eight different officials at Somerset House, in addition to the Surveyor of Taxes and his staff, on each claim for repayment of income tax, even when such claim amounts only to a few shillings, is based solely on the evidence of the head of the Repayment Branch at Somerset House, who may be regarded as an interested witness: whether he is aware that no independent evidence was taken such as that of a surveyor of taxes, a collector of Inland Revenue, or of any other revenue officer conversant with the view of the outdoor staff in actual contact with the practical work of investigating the bona fides of the claims and certifying

    1181
    thereto; and will he say whether the Government will take steps to obtain such independent evidence and make a full inquiry into this matter before forming an opinion as to the wisdom of maintaining a costly establishment which is only engaged on routine duties and on apparently useless and unnecessary work.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Departmental Committee, of which the late Lord Ritchie was Chairman, was a very strong one, and I am not disposed in this matter to go behind either their procedure or their conclusions. The Committee included the Chief Inspector of Taxes, an ex-surveyor of experience, who both heard the evidence and signed the Report.

    Lieutenant Paton's Case.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Lieutenant Paton, who was charged at Windsor on Saturday, December 1st, before the Berkshire magistrates, with the manslaughter of Mr. Hart, who died from injuries caused by a motor-car driven by the defendant at Windlesham, on October 23rd last, in which case several witnesses spoke to the car having been driven at a speed estimated at between forty and fifty miles an hour, and in which the magistrates, without calling on the defence, dismissed the charge; and whether, in view of the evidence that the defendant was travelling beyond the statutory limit of twenty miles an hour, he will state if he proposes to take any further action to protect the lives of persons using the highways.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): My right hon. friend has no official information on that matter. In Answer to the Question on the Paper, ray right hon. friend has so far only seen a newspaper report of the proceedings, but he is making further inquiries.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: IS the hon. Gentleman aware that this offence of driving over the speed limit is becoming very common, and that the hon. Member who put this Question was himself recently fined for such an offence?

    Unemployed Fund.
    MR. CLYNES: On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what amount of money has been allocated to the distress committees of the various boroughs out of the £200,000 set aside for the relief of the unemployed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Payments amounting to about £25,000 have been made out of the grant by way of instalment up to the present time to the Central (Unemployed) Body for London and to distress committees in other parts of England and Wales. Further payments are being made.

    London Rates.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact mentioned in the Report of his department, just issued, that the rates of the administrative county of London averaged 6s. 9·7d. in the pound, and those of the rest of England and Wales 5s. 6d. in the pound, yet the Government grants to the administrative county of London only equal 12·9d. in the pound, while those to the rest of England and Wales average 21d.; and what steps are being taken to remedy this inequality.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts referred to in the Question. I may, however, point out that the grants in London are equivalent to 9s. 7d. per head of population, whilst in the rest of England and Wales they are only equivalent to 9s. 4d. It would seem impracticable to effect any general alteration in the basis of the distribution of the grants except in connection with a scheme for the readjustment of local taxation, for which purpose legislation would of course be required.

    Canadian Emigration Bonuses.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the offer made by the Canadian Government to pay a bonus of £1 a head to each person over eighteen

    1183
    booked for Canada of the following classes, farmers, farm labourers, gardeners, stablemen, carters, railway service men, navvies, miners, and female domestic servants, and to pay a bonus of 10s. a head for each person between one and eighteen years of age; and whether he will bring this offer to the notice of the boards of guardians and distress committees throughout the country.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen a circular which appears to have been issued from the Immigration Branch of the Department of the Interior at Ottawa to the steamship booking agents in this country, from which I gather that the bonuses to which I presume my hon. friend refers are offered to these agents. It does not seem to be necessary to make this offer known to boards of guardians and distress committees.

    Motor Car Speeds at Newmarket.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Local Government Board has sanctioned the application of the local authority to give a speed limit for motor cars at Newmarket, and if generally, with regard to applications of local authorities, he is aware that the late President of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, stated in the Committee stage of the Motor Car Act, 1903, that to say what the speed of motor cars should be in scores of places throughout the country was a duty the Local Government Board could not possibly undertake; and, just before that, the regulations would have to be made by the local authorities which would have knowledge of the districts; that they might safely leave the matter to the local authorities.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: A local inquiry was held last week with respect to the Newmarket case, and I have not at present received the report which the inspector will make on the subject. I have seen the report in Hansard of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin in the debate referred to. I gather that he was then urging that it should not be made the duty of the Local Government Board to make regulations fixing varying rates of speed in different places.

    Meals for School Children.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now make any statement as to the working generally of the Local Government Board Order of May, 1905, respecting the cooperation of boards of guardians in the work of providing food for children in attendance at public elementary schools suffering from lack of food.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question on the 31st July last.† I do not think I can add anything to the information then given.

    Tuberculous Cows in Markets.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board has been officially informed that cows in an advanced stage of tuberculosis are frequently being sold for food, at prices varying from 10s. to £2, at an open country town market within 50 miles of London; whether, if so, he has had these official reports investigated; and if they have been found substantially correct, whether he will take measures, by legislation if necessary, to prevent such a practice in the future.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: A copy of a letter signed "Medical Officer of Health" which appeared in the Morning Post, and which contained allegations of the kind mentioned in the Question, has been sent to the Local Government Board, but the name of the place at which the market referred to in the letter was hold was not stated. Other representations of a similar kind have reached me, and I have taken note of them for consideration when the time comes for dealing with the subject by legislation. I am not, however, in a position to promise legislation with regard to this matter at the present time.

    Gwespyr Council School.
    MR. MASSIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether an inquiry, relating to the proposed provision of a new council school, is to be held at Gwespyr, Flintshire, on Saturday next; whether
    † See (4) Debates, clxii., 679.

    1185
    he is aware that some tenants of the Talacre Estate, living near Gwespyr, have received notice to quit, that others have had their rents raised, while others have been evicted from their holdings; and whether care will be taken at the forthcoming inquiry that the provisions of The Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act, 1892, will be read by the Commissioner appointed to hold the inquiry.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The investigation which I had arranged to be held on Saturday next in regard to the school named in the Question is merely into the question of the size and site of the new council school which the Board have decided must be erected, and the point had seemed so small that a public inquiry, in the technical sense of this term, had not seemed to be necessary. In view however of the difficulties which have arisen in regard to the case, and in particular of the allegations as to undue pressure which are contained in the hon. Member's Question, I have arranged that a full public inquiry under Section 23 (10) of the Act of 1902 shall be held. This will necessitate posponement of the inquiry till Saturday, December 15th, in order that the statutory seven days notice may be given. The fact that the inquiry will then be in the technical sense a public inquiry will bring it within the provisions of The Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act, 1892, and I have instructed the official to draw the attention of those present at the inquiry to the provisions of that Act.
    MR. MASSIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a letter (a copy of which I hold in my hand) has been sent round to the Gwespyr cottagers by the agent, stating that the landlord intends to reserve his Gwespyr cottages for those who are willing to send their children to his school?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have seen the letter. I do not know whether it has been sent. It would not be within the Act.

    Government Offices—Window Cleaning Contract.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the contractor for
    1186
    cleaning windows of the several Government offices, and drawing £100 per month besides his weekly wage for this work, is employing forty men and paying them 6½d. per hour, while the trade union rate for window cleaning is 7d. per hour; and, if so, what steps he intends taking in the matter.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I do not understand the first part of the hon. Member's Question. Our arrangement with the contractor is to pay him for the work by measurement of the area of glass cleaned. There is no question of a weekly wage to him. I am informed that thirty-eight of the men employed are receiving 7d. per hour or over; nineteen are on the lower scale, but of these eighteen are youths or learners who are not yet fully skilled, and one is an old man who is kept on for charitable and kindly reasons.

    Gloucestershire Inclosures Return.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the Return relating to Inclosures (County of Gloucester) will be ready.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: The Return in question was presented on November 22nd, and it is now in the hands of the printer. I hope that it will be issued very shortly.

    National Gallery.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that six trading firms display advertisements within the walls of the National Gallery; that the area occupied by these advertisements is the greater part of the wall space of the entrance hall, or many hundreds of square feet; that one of the firms has, in addition to wall space, a stall, twelve feet long and three feet wide, whore photographs are sold by an attendant, who is not a public servant; that another firm is allowed to place a pile of advertisement cards on a counter; will he say whether any rent is paid for these privileges; and whether, with a view to improving the general arrangement of the entrance and ground floor corridor of the Gallery, he will represent to the

    1187
    trustees that the wall space of a public picture gallery should be entirely devoted to the artistic purposes of the gallery.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I am informed that the statements contained in the Question are correct, and that at present no rent is being charged. The subject is being carefully considered by the trustees, and I will communicate their conclusions to my hon. friend as soon as I receive them.

    Government Service—Retirement Regulations.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury at what age the non-pensionable workmen in the employ of the various State Departments are called upon to retire; and what classes of such workmen receive gratuities on retirement.
    MR. MCKENNA: No uniform age is prescribed for the retirement of non-pensionable workmen. Each Department makes its own arrangements on the subject. Such workmen receive gratuities on retirement if they fulfil the conditions laid down by Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887.

    Somerset House Clerks.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many assistant clerks, new class, employed in the Secretary's office and Accountant-General's office at Somerset House have been promoted to the second division under the provisions of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am informed that the Answer to my hon. friend's Question is as follows: in the Secretaries' office, four; in the Accountant-General's office, three.

    Sir James Woodhouse.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as in other cases not falling under the provision of the Order in Council, the Treasury have made any, and if so, what conditions as to the age at which Sir James Woodhouse will undertake to retire from the office of Railway Commissioner.
    MR. MCKENNA: No conditions have been made as to the age at which the holder should retire. I may add that no pension attaches to the office.

    Receiver of Crown Rents.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether a new receiver of crown rents has been appointed; if so, what remuneration is to be paid to him, and how does it compare with that paid to his predecessor; and has any change been made in the duties of the office.
    MR. MCKENNA: The arrangements for the future management of the Crown lands are still under consideration.

    Cost of Granting Returns.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to carry out in practice the suggestion made in paragraph 31 of the recent Report of the Select Committee on Official Publications that, before agreeing to grant a Return, the Minister responsible should consult the Stationery Office as to its proposed form, and that, when agreeing to grant a Return, he should state to the House the probable cost of its preparation and printing.
    MR. MCKENNAThe Report of the Select Committee is under consideration, and no statement can be made on the subject at present.

    Tiree Steamer Services.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the mail and passenger service to Tiree, and to the fact that, although a steamer is timed to bring mails and passengers three times weekly, none were landed between the 19th and 26th November, owing to the exposed position of the landing place at Scarinish, although by going a mile further a landing could be effected in calm water at the Bay of Gott; and whether he will take the necessary steps to improve these conditions, which handicap the trade, enterprise, and prosperity of the inhabitants of this island.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I find that I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to address this Question, as it relates to the mail service, to the Postmaster-General on some later day.

    Irish County Surveyors.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what is the necessary qualification for candidates seeking the position of principal and assistant county surveyors in Ireland; when will the next examination be held; are the results of these examinations published; is any nomination necessary; if so, by whom; and, if any differences exist between the system of making those appointments in England and Ireland, will he have them removed.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): My hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. County surveyors in Ireland are appointed by county councils, with the statutory concurrence of the Local Government Board, after examination by the Civil Service Commissioners. The nomination of candidates rests with the county councils, to whom the result of the examination is notified. Assistant county surveyors are also appointed by county councils, subject to the statutory concurrence of the Local Government Board, who prescribe the qualifications. A person who possesses a certain proscribed engineering degree, diploma, or certificate is deemed to be qualified without examination. Any other person undergoes a qualifying examination conducted by the Board. It is expected that an examination for county surveyors will be held very shortly, and for assistant county surveyors early next year. I have sent to the hon. Member printed Papers setting forth the subjects of examination and other particulars which are too long to be stated in reply to a Question. I have no information as to the method of making appointments in England beyond that contained in the Answer of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board to the hon. Member's Question of 26th November.†
    † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1244.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDYasked if the practice in England was analogous to that in Ireland?
    MR. BRYCEsaid he gathered that it was not.

    Leahy Estate, Cahirciveen.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the J. W. Leahy Estate, at Aghatubrid, near Cahirciveen, who signed purchase agreements under threat of legal proceedings by the landlord, have been notified by the Estates Commissioners that they will not declare it an estate for the purposes of the Act; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants are now free to open negotiations de novo for the purchase of their holdings, and have sent a memorial to the Estates Commissioners asking them to purchase the estate, and have expressed their willingness to abide by the valuation of the Commissioners, by whom the estate was inspected last July, he will ask the Commissioners to undertake the purchase of this estate.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that it is the case that they have refused to declare the lands comprised in the purchase agreements in question to be an estate for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioners, however, have expressed their willingness to make an offer for the purchase of the lands, provided that the vendor shall signify his consent to sell the estate to them under Section 6 of the Act. The negotiations have not yet concluded.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the J. W. Leahy Estate at Ballycarberry, near Cahirciveen, have memorialised the Estates Commissioners with a view to the purchase of their holdings; and whether the question of this purchase will be considered by the Commissioners at the same time as the purchase of the rest of the estate at Aghatubrid.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received a memorial from the tenants on the

    1191
    Ballycarbery portion of the estate of MR. J. W. Leahy. The matter of this memorial will be duly inquired into by the inspector when he visits the other portion of the estate which the Commissioners have offered to purchase.

    Vandeleur Estate, West Clare
    MR. HALPIN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire of the Estates Commissioners what steps they have taken to reinstate the evicted tenants on the Vandeleur Estate in West Clare; whether the Estates Commissioners' inspector and Mr. Vandeleur's agent visited the evicted farms; whether Mr. Vandeleur also sent a valuer to examine the holdings; and will the Estates Commissioners have these evicted tenants reinstated as soon as possible.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have had an inspection made of all the evicted tenants' holdings on the estate of Mr. H. S. Vandeleur, and have communicated to the owner the estimated price which they are prepared to offer. The owner has expressed his willingness to accept the estimated price, and is taking the steps necessary to bring the estate before the Commissioners, in accordance with the rules and regulations issued by them.

    Grading Butter
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the estimated annual cost of instituting in Ireland a system of grading butter; and what would be the relative proportion to be borne by the Department of Agriculture and the butter exporters.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture are not at present in a position to give any reliable estimate of the annual cost of instituting in Ireland a system of grading butter. They are of opinion, however, that the cost would probably amount to a sum largely in excess of any revenue which would be obtained.

    Maconcoy Estate, Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
    1192
    of Ireland whether any complaint has reached the Estates Commissioners from Thomas Duffy, of Lagga, Moyne, county Longford, who purchased his farm on the Maconchy Estate in 1904; whether he is aware that this man's rent previous to purchase was £13 17s. 6d., out of which he got an annual allowance of £3 0s. l0d. for maintaining a passway for other tenants on the property whether this allowance has now been stopped, with the result that his purchase instalments now amount to more than his previous net annual rent, although he has no turbary and is an acre short in his measurement; and will an inspector be sent to inquire into this man's case and have justice done to him.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received a communication from Thomas Duffy to the effect mentioned in the Question. The Commissioners have no present knowledge of the facts, but will have the matter inquired into.

    Cloncurry Estate.
    MR. LUNDON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how many future tenants, owing to eviction and e-admittance, the non-redemptions after service of caretaker's notices, and other such causes, are in East Limerick; and how many are on the Cloncurry property in the parish of Murroe; and can he hold forth any hope of redress to them by ameliorating legislation in the near future.
    MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that they have no records whatever as to the number of future tenants in East Limerick or elsewhere. Upon the subject of possible legislation in regard to future tenants, I would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to the Question of the hon. Member for North Westmeath on 7th March last. †

    Stafford Delmege Estate.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for some time past negotiations for sale to the tenants
    † See (4) Debates, cliii., 742.

    1193
    have been in progress on the Stafford Delmege property around Glenbrohane and Garryspillane, in the county Limerick, that on the Glenbrohane side there have boon established later than January 1st, 1901, two tenancies which in purchase will run beyond the statutory limit of £500, and on the Garryspillane side it is sought to establish another tenancy which could not be bought at less than £4,000, the number of acres being 145; can he say whether these sales will be sanctioned by the Land Commission, or will those difficulties militate against the sale of the entire estate; and will the Estates Commissioners, when the opportunity presents itself, purchase the untenanted lands on the estate for the benefit of the labourers and the tenants on uneconomic holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an originating application asking them to declare the lands of Mr. Stafford Delmege of Glenbrohane and Garryspillane to be an estate for the purposes of the Act, but no purchase agreements have yet been lodged. Before declaring the lands to be an estate or receiving purchase agreements the Commissioners will carefully inquire into the facts and, in dealing with the matter, will have due regard to the provisions of the law. The Commissioners are always ready to acquire untenanted land for the purposes of the Act, but they are not at present able to state what they may do in regard to this particular estate.

    School Teachers' Increments.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how many of the Irish national teachers have got partial increments with promotion since March 31st, 1906.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the practice of giving a partial increment followed by immediate promotion has been discontinued, and no teacher has been advanced in this way since March 31st, 1906.

    Portarlington Drunkenness Charge.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald,
    1194
    R.M., Portarlington, ordered a police constable, named Roberts, to arrest a farmer, whom he alleged obstructed him on the road, on a charge of drunkenness; whether he is aware that the constable, after walking the man up and clown the road, refused, upon conscientious grounds, to make the arrest, and has since been transferred to another station under censure; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald has on a previous occasion been fined £1 for obstructing two ladies on the public highway, will he say what course the Irish Government propose taking in this matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that a civil action for damages in respect of the circumstance alleged in the first part of the Question has been instituted against the resident magistrate by Mr. Wyer, the farmer referred to. While that action is sub judice, it would be highly undesirable that I should make any statement whatever upon the subject, which might have the effect of prejudicing the hearing of the action.

    Collum Minors Estate, Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been or are about being taken by the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of the Collum Minors Estate, Newtown Cashel, county Longford; and, if so, will care be taken that of the fifteen evicted tenants whoso derelict farms are on this property none will be exempted from reinstatement in their old holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate mentioned have been instituted before them. The application, received from the evicted tenants will be inquired into and dealt with in due course.

    Adare Evicted Tenant.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Earl of Dunraven or his agent, Mr. Peter Fitzgerald, have as yet reinstated in his holding Mr. Thomas Drew, near Adare, or have the Estates Commissioners taken the matter in hand, and, if so, how far have they progressed in the way of restoration.
    MR. BRYCE: I stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question of 8th November † that the Estates Commissioners had received no application for reinstatement from Thomas Drew. The Commissioners now inform me that they have still received no application from him, and they have, therefore, taken no steps in the matter. They have no knowledge as to whether Drew has been reinstated by the landlord.

    Rathkenny Evicted Tenants.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether and upon what date an inspector from the office of the Estates Commissioners visited a farm from which a tenant named Gore was evicted, situate at Mount Iress, Rathkenny, Slane, county Meath, the property of Mr. Balfour, Townley Hall, Drogheda; if he has yet made his report; and what was the cause of the delay.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from James Gore, and have referred it, with others of a similar nature, to an inspector for inquiry and report. The inspector's report has not yet been received, and the Commissioners are not aware whether the farm has yet been visited by him. The delay is due to the fact that a very large number of these applications have to be inquired into.

    Colonel Lyster Smythe's Meath Estate.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have written, and, if so, how often, to Colonel Lyster Smythe asking him if he would sell to them his estate situate at Notter, county Meath, for the purpose of re-sale to the tenants and reinstatement of an evicted tenant; and what replies they received.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that according to the Return of untenanted land presented to Parliament Colonel Lyster Smythe is not the owner of any untenanted land in county Meath. The Commissioners have, therefore, had no communication with him on the subject, but they will
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 755.
    1196
    now inquire from him whether it is a fact that he owns untenanted land at Notter.

    Mr. Hussey's Rathkenny Estate
    MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of the late H. G. Hussey, Rathkenny, Slane, county Meath, has been sold to the tenants, and if the Estates Commissioners will purchase the untenanted portion for distribution among the labourers and occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the district.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the originating application lodged in respect of the estate referred to comprises, in addition to the tenanted land, some 200 acres of untenanted land which the vendor proposes to sell as parcels under Section 2 of the Act. The originating application has not yet been ruled on by the Commissioners.

    Dublin County Evicted Tenants.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the North Dublin Rural District Council, at its meeting on November 28th, in which complaint is made that, while evicted tenants in Dublin county are still unprovided with holdings, evicted and other tenants from other parts of Ireland have had holdings found for thorn in that county; what is the total number of evicted tenants belonging to Dublin county of whom the Estates Commissioners have a record, and how many of that number have been put back on the land as purchasers; and whether he proposes to take any action in reference to the resolution of the North Dublin District Council.
    MR. BRYCE: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to. The Estates Commissioners inform me that fifty-one applications have been received from persons who state that they were evicted from holdings situate in county Dublin. So far two of the applicants have been provided with holdings on untenanted land acquired by the Commissioners. Such of the, other cases as may be found

    1197
    on investigation to come within the provisions of the Act, and are approved by the Commissioners, will be dealt with as soon as possible. The matter is within the discretion of the Estates Commissioners under the provisions of the Act.

    Overflow of the River Inny.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the townlands of Sleehaun-Sankey, Corraboola, Foxhall, Bally-maclifford, Rockpeyten, Clygeen, and Smithfield, in county Longford, are constantly flooded owing to the overflow of the tributary river, which drains these townlands, into the River Inny; whether he is aware that the outfall of the Inny at or near Ballymahon has been choked for years for want of proper draining and fencing; and will he ask the Board of Works to direct the formation of a district drainage board to get this work properly done.
    MR. McKENNA: I learn from the Board of Works that they have no information on the facts stated in the Question. If, however, the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Cavan on the 15th ultimo he will find that the Board of Works have no power to take the course which he suggests,†

    Irish Board of Agriculture Accounts.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the practice followed by the Auditor-General and Comptroller of Accounts in connection with the accounts of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland, are those accounts submitted to the Auditor-General each year for audit with vouchers and receipts for all payments made and moneys received, with certificates of stock alleged to be held, giving details of cost of such securities, or whether the Board are only called upon to submit a general statement, the accuracy of which is not proved in the usual way by the production of receipts, vouchers, and certificates; and, if this latter course is † See (4) Debates, clxv., 125.
    1198
    followed, will he state where such vouchers may be inspected.
    MR. McKENNA: The accounts and vouchers of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are submitted monthly to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and are audited in detail, including verification of stocks. The accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report thereon are included in the volume of Civil Service and Revenue Appropriation Accounts annually laid before Parliament.
    MR. MOONEY: Does the Auditor-General exercise the same close scrutiny over details in this case as in the case of other Departments?
    MR. McKENNA: I have read the reply furnished me.
    MR. DILLON: The point of the Question is whether those accounts are audited in detail.
    MR. McKENNA: I understand that they are, but the auditor is not the servant of the Treasury.
    Mr. MOONEY: If not satisfied on details would the Auditor-General refer them back or does he pass the accounts without explanation?
    Mr. McKENNA: He reports back to the Public Accounts Committee, and it is for that body to comment on the facts.
    Mr. MOONEY: I hope the hon. Gentleman will read the Auditor-General's Report in this case.

    Tobacco Cultivation in Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in considering the advisability of extending the area allowed for tobacco cultivation in Ireland, he will draw the attention of the Treasury to the fact that a memorial in favour of tobacco growing in Ireland has been signed by every Member representing an Irish constituency and forwarded to the Prime Minister.
    MR. ASQUITH: The First Lord of the Treasury has sent the memorial to

    1199
    me, and it shall not fail to have due consideration.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can hold out any hope of such a proposal for early next session, because I really think we could get it through the House of Lords?
    The PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman considers that much in its favour. The hon. Gentleman applies to me, and all I have to say is that, having had forwarded to me a memorial signed by every Irish Member—a formidable fact —and as, I am thankful to say, it did not fall within the scope of my immediate duties, I handed on the memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we must hear what he has to say to it.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDhoped the right hon. Gentlemen would settle the matter between them.

    Ireland and the Milan Exhibition.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state, in connection with the Milan International Exhibition, on what group jury Admiral C. P. Fitzgerald served, and what his qualifications were; if Mr. J. Sebastian Barnett, the other Irish juror, is connected with any trade interests, British or Irish; and why Dr. Yoshioka, the Japanese fishery expert, was permitted to serve as a British juror, considering that British and Irish experts were available; will he say if the names of the merchants and manufacturers in such cities as Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and industrial centres as Wexford, will be given who were approached by the Commission with a view to their participating at Milan, and if the name of the exhibition agents who were authorised to get a representative Irish exhibit will be given; will he explain why a special Commissioner was not appointed for Ireland to deal with the matter instead of giving the concession for speculative purposes to a private firm, and if a return will be given as to the fees paid to each juror for serving at Milan; whether he will state if the Government, before
    1200
    giving further grants for exhibition purposes, will take steps when Commissions are being organised to see that the science, arts, and industries, and trade interests shall be represented by Commissioners who are competent; whether the rules governing the system of awards will be published after each Commission is organised, and no jurors will be nominated unless they are experts, and endorsed by the industries to which they belong, and that no foreigner will be allowed to represent British or Irish industries as Commissioners or jurors at future exhibitions, and that, for the protection of British and Irish industries, the expenses of jurors shall be provided for by each Commission.
    MR. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate the Answer, which is quite as long as the Question, with the Votes,†
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about the supplementary Questions we may have on it?
    MR. McKENNA: I will read it if the House wishes.
    MR. HALPIN: I object to not having it read. The public ought to know the Answer.
    [The Answer was not read.]

    Local Expenditure and Debt.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government has now come to any decision with regard to the suggestion that immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his Budget Statement of the National Expenditure and Debt for the year, the President of the Local Government Board should make a further statement of the expenditure and debt of local authorities for the same year; and, if so, can he now state that decision to the House.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion. Local finance is not a matter for which this House, or the Government, are responsible, and a supplementary Budget statement of the
    † See Col. 1155.

    1201
    kind could hardly fail to have a misleading effect on the public mind. That is my personal opinion, but I may add that the scheme is impracticable. The local financial year ends on 31st March, and it would obviously be impossible for my right hon. friend to make a statement in April of the expenditure and debt of local authorities for the preceding twelve months, seeing that it takes many months for the collection and tabulation of these figures.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the British Government intend to renew its adhesion to the Brussels Sugar Convention on the expiry of its present term.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No opportunity for giving twelve months notice of withdrawal from the Brussels Sugar Convention will arise until next autumn. In these circumstances I have nothing to add to the declaration made by His Majesty's Government during the debate on this question.

    Election Meetings in Schoolrooms.
    Mr. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed during the present session with the remaining stages of the Elections (Meetings in Schoolrooms) Bill [Lords].
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid that there will be no opportunity of passing the Bill this session.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the Constitution about to be granted to the Transvaal, provision will be taken to safeguard the position of His Majesty's Indian subjects already resident therein.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The pledge given by His Majesty's Government in the statement made to Parliament on 31st July will, of course, be redeemed.

    Election Expenses.
    MR. GODFREY BARING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister
    1202
    whether his attention has been called to a Return recently presented to Parliament in which the total amount of the expenses of candidates at the last general election is returned at £1,166,858, exclusive of expenses of uncontested elections, whether he is aware that the average cost per vote polled at the last general election, exclusive of expenses of uncontested elections, was 4s. 1½d.; and whether, having regard to these facts, and having regard to the Resolution unanimously passed by the House on the 6th March last,† he can hold out some hope that His Majesty's Government will, at an early date, introduce legislation to give effect to that Resolution.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANHis Majesty's Government are fully alive to the evils of the present systems of defraying election expenses, It is, I think, a, most objectionable system, and, as my hon. friend reminds me, the House of Commons has passed a unanimous Resolution calling for a change in the law. But I am not in a position now to say the precise time when we anticipate undertaking legislation for the purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister what would be the course of business next week. He expressed the hope that the debate on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill would not be continued until a late hour to-morrow. It would be a great inconvenience to many hon. Members who took great interest in the subject if they were obliged to sit much after the ordinary time.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the Government hoped the Provision of Meals Bill would be passed to-morrow without any great delay. He was afraid if this hope was not realised the probability of the Bill passing at all would be endangered. There was, of course, always the alternative of a Saturday sitting, but he admitted that that was inconvenient. As to next week, on Monday they would begin to consider the Education Bill in its new shape. He was afraid that involved a thick veil which
† See (4) Debates, cliii., 408.

1203
obscured from his vision, at all events, the progress of business during one or two days after Monday. At that moment they did not know the precise nature of the Bill which was to come to them, and, therefore, they could not form an estimate of the length of time which its discussion would take.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the principle of the Provision of Meals Bill was a novel and very important one, and he did not think it would be desirable in the interests of general legislation that it should be discussed at an hour which was notoriously inconvenient to hon. Members.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was afraid the conditions under which they carried on business at this time of the year were always inconvenient, but he really hoped that the Government's expections would be realised. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill raised new principles. Well, that was always the way with a Bill which a good many people did not like and wished to get rid of by elaborate discussions. He hoped it was not so in this case.
MR. HAROLD COX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the House is likely to sit to-morrow to discuss the Bill?
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is very much in the hands of my hon. friend.
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONasked if the Burials Bill was one of those urgently needed to be passed?
An HON. MEMBER inquired when the National Gallery (Scotland) Bill, the only measure this year applicable to Scotland, was to be taken?
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the latter Bill must pass this session. He would, however, make a further statement as to business to-morrow.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [Lords].
Lords reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by this House
1204
to the Bill, and Lords Amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof, and Lords Amendments to certain of the Commons Amendments, and consequential Amendments to the Bill to be considered forthwith. Considered.
Resolved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendments to the Bill to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill in lieu thereof, and to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by this House to the Bill, and to the consequential Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.— (Mr. Attorney-General.)

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
"To continue various Expiring Laws," presented by MR. McKenna; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 364.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
MR. HICKS-BEACHmoved to amend the definition of "dependants" by declaring that the members of the workman's family must be "actually" dependent, either wholly or in part, on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. The hon. Gentleman said his object in moving the Amendment was to secure a better definition of the word "dependant," because in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act difficulties had frequently arisen in deciding whether relatives were or were not dependent on the earnings of the deceased. In the case of Simmons v. White Lord Justice Romer stated that in his judgment a dependant in order to get compensation must be dependent in the proper sense of that term, and that it was not sufficient if he was merely deriving benefit from the earnings of the deceased; he must be to some extent dependent on him for the ordinary necessaries of life, having regard to his class and position in life. That was the interpretation which he believed the framers of the original Act and the House in general intended to be put on the word "dependant." Everybody agreed that if the wage-earner was unfortunately

1205
killed, and the wages he had earned were lost to his family who had been dependent on him, they ought to receive compensation for his death. But other learned Judges had put a different interpretation upon this word "dependant," and he would refer the Home Secretary to certain decisions of the Law Courts on this question. In the case of Davies v. The Main Colliery Company, the deceased was a boy of sixteen, earning 8s. per week. He left a father who was earning 25s., and two brothers earning 12s. and 7s. 6d. respectively. The County Court Judge decided that the father was dependent on the son, although he was only earning the very modest wage of 8s. a week, and awarded him compensation to the amount of £23 8s. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Again, in the case of Brackton v. Strakers and Love, the deceased had been earning 6s. 8d. per week, the father was earning 16s. 6d. with a free house and coal, and two brothers were living in the same house, one earning 18s. 6d. and the other 24s. 6d. Thus in all these three members of the family earned just on £3 a week and had a free house and coals. It was obvious, and it was indeed admitted by the father, that the wages of the deceased lad were insufficient to provide for his own maintenance, nevertheless the Judge found it was a case of dependency and awarded a sum of £60. That decision, to his mind, went beyond the moaning and intention of the word "dependent," for by it the father and brothers really made a profit by the death of the deceased—they were not only saved the expense of maintaining him in part, but they were declared entitled to compensation. Everybody must deplore accidents which resulted in the death of young boys, but he submitted that the decisions which he had cited had not borne out the interpretation intended by the framers of the Act. He, therefore, moved his Amendment.
MR. GIBBSseconded. He agreed that words were necessary to make clear the meaning of the word "dependant." Undoubtedly great differences of opinion had arisen in the past as to what constituted a dependant. There might be a family of four all earning good wages. If through an accident one died could it be said that the others were
1206
in any way dependent on him for the necessaries of life? He thought not; and he, therefore, had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 34, after the word 'part,' to insert the word 'actually.'"—(MR. Hicks Beach.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'actually' be there inserted in the Bill."
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. Gladstone,)said he did not profess to be bound in every way by the findings of the Committee, and he had to exercise his free judgment in the matter. He did not, however, think that anybody would deny the impartiality of the Committee, and in face of their recommendation he did not think it would be wise to accept the Amendment.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)said he was sure they all desired that when a family had been deprived of the breadwinner they should receive compensation. The expression "in part dependent upon the earnings" had raised great difficulties, and whatever the Departmental Committee might say, now or never was the time to put the matter right, and it should not be left to a private Member to grapple with. The rough test used to be, had the dependant suffered in his means of livelihood having regard to the ordinary amenities and comforts of people in that position in life. It was never suggested that the dependant should be reduced practically to starvation. The matter had been before the House of Lords, and they came to the conclusion that anyone who came within the degree of consanguinity and had sustained any real pecuniary loss was entitled to compensation. Although he did not think the Amendment of his hon. friend was the best that could be applied, he trusted that the Government would give some indication that they would attempt to deal with what was an admitted blot upon the Bill.
MR. BRACEhoped the Government would not accept

1207
the Amendment, because it would only introduce another bone of contention which would disturb the Courts and the arbitrators, and they would find themselves face to face with more litigation in consequence. He thought the House might safely leave this matter to the Courts to act upon a well-established principle.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 36, after the word 'death' to insert the words 'or would but for the incapacity due to the accident have been so dependent,'"—(MR. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. KEIR HARDIE MR. KEIR HARDIE moved an Amendment to the effect that where the workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate child, leaves such child so dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, the expression "dependents" shall include such an illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively. He assumed that his Amendment was going to be accepted, and acting upon that assumption he would not attempt to make anything in the nature of a speech. He hoped the fact that a child was illegitimate would not be held of itself to deprive a child or parent of compensation. He understood that the Government were, on the whole, sympathetic towards the Amendment and would offer no opposition to it. It very often happened that illegitimate children were quartered upon grandparents. They were admitting the mother to the benefits of the Act, and he trusted the Government would not offer any opposition to the words "or grandparent" being included in each case in his Amendment after the word "parent." With that addition he begged to move his Amendment.
Me. BARNESseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 36, after the word 'death, to insert the words' and where the workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegiti-
1208
mate child, leaves such a child so dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, shall include such an illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively."—(MR. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid there were so many cases of real hardship of this kind that, as far as the Government were concerned, they were ready to accept the Amendment.
Me. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid his experience did not permit him to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the decision he had arrived at. He thought very great difficulty would arise if they opened up questions of illegitimacy in this way. He wished to protest against the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped the House would reject that Amendment.
MR. ASHLEY MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil—
"To leave out the words or being an illegitimate child, leaves the parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings,"
and to also omit the words "and parent or grandparent respectively" at the end of the Amendment. He wished to extend the benefits of the Act to the illegitimate child but not to the parents of that child. He agreed that it would be a terrible thing that the sins of the father should be visited on the children, but it was a very different thing to say that the parents of an illegitimate child, who had neglected to conform to the marriage laws of the country should receive any benefits under the Act. He could not imagine any greater hardship upon a child than that it; parents should be encouraged to neglect to go through the simple form of the marriage ceremony. He thought if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in its entirety, they would be putting a premium on people living together without being married.
Lord R. CECILseconded the Amendment to the

1209
Amendment. He thought it was a reasonable compromise between the view of the leader of the Labour Party and the provision in the Bill as it stood. He felt that the House ought not to do anything which would lead people out-of-doors to suppose that they did not attach importance to the sanctity of marriage.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
"To leave out the words 'or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings.'"— (MR. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYexpressed the hope that the House would not accept the Amendment to the Amendment. He looked at the question from the point of view of persons he had met, and especially women, who suffered hardships because they were denied, by a technicality of the law, the advantages of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,)thought the House would be both logical and humane in accepting the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. They would be logical because this Bill was intended to provide for persons who were in fact dependent, and he thought that a child or parent in the circumstances contemplated would be in fact dependent. Therefore, if they established the relationship in nature and the dependency in fact, he did not think the operation of the Bill should be checked by any inquiry as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their natural ties.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he was not proposing a disability on bastardy.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the illegitimate child had no share in the blame. Surely, therefore, its position was one which demanded the consideration of humanity. In the case of a woman
1210
who had an illegitimate son on whose earnings she was dependent, were they before they relieved her to call upon her to produce marriage lines? Did they discriminate in the distribution of their charity upon the same principle. The practice of society was to make the burden as light as might be for all persons who were placed in that unfortunate position. He could not contemplate without dismay the alternative to the Amendment in the case of the mother of an illegitimate child. The breadwinner was gone. Was she to be thrown upon the rates? This was not a measure for attaching a new sanction to the marriage law. It was a measure to give practical relief in circumstances of practical hardship. Therefore he hoped the House would approach the Amendment in no spirit of Pharisaism but in a spirit of humanity.
MR. COCHRANEsaid one felt in great difficulty in touching on this subject. He gathered that the Amendment would not cut out from the benefit of the Act the illegitimate child, but that it would cut out the parent. If he recollected aright the Home Secretary adduced a wealth of argument against this Amendment in the Committee.
MR. GLADSTONEdissented.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he had a distinct recollection that the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Amendment on moral grounds. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman led him to think that he was not going to accept the Amendment, because he voted against it upstairs.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Amendment was not before the Standing Committee.
MR. COCHRANEsaid the Amendment proposed in the Committee was to insert after the word sister the words "the mother of an illegitimate child, son or daughter." The Committee divided, and the right hon. Gentleman was successful in the division. He supported the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. The Amendment was defeated by twenty-nine to fifteen. The sudden change was made when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil gave the command

1211
"On the knee." He saw no signs of mutiny or rebellion on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member said a few brief words and immediately the right hon. Gentleman accepted the situation. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not want your sympathy.
MR. COCHRANEsaid the Government was going somewhat far in this matter. It was almost impossible at a moment's notice to consider all the circumstances that might arise. Let them suppose the case of a man with a wife and family. On the man's death a claim might be brought on behalf of an illegitimate child. The mother of that child might come forward and compete with the widow who was the lawful mother of his other children before the compensation was paid. In that way bitter feelings and jealousy might be created. Aspersions might be thrown on a man's character after his death on account of the cases which were certain to arise. In hundreds of cases where a man might have been living a respectable life someone might make a dastardly attack on his memory by bringing forward a claim. [Cries of dissent.] He ventured to say that these cases would arise. In a case where a man had been bona fide almost in the married state it was difficult to differentiate between him and a married man except on high moral grounds. The right hon. Gentleman was going to work in the wrong way. Let him take a leaf out of the Scottish law, which, was humane and just. If a man at the last moment on his death bed desired to legitimatise his illegitimate family he had only to say, "This is my wife and family." He did not say that was English law.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Suppose he is married already.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that the law in Scotland did not allow of bigamy. What he would suggest to his right hon.
friend was not to introduce questions of illegitimacy into a Bill of this kind. What was required was an amendment of the law of England so as to bring it up to the humane and just standard of the law of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would be doing justice to thousands of families in this country. He should certainly support his hon. friend in his Amendment, which was designed not to injure the illegitimate child. The illegitimate child would still have a claim for compensation if it had been supported by the parents; but to extend the provision beyond that would create jealousies and difficulties amongst the families of the working classes when a man was dead and no longer able to defend himself against bogus charges.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he wanted to remove a possible misunderstanding as to what the Amendment would really effect. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire said that the effect of the Amendment would be that if a workman was injured a claim might be made by the mother of the workman's illegitimate child. That was not so. It was only the illegitimate child and not the mother who could make a claim for compensation. The Amendment went on to say that if a workman was himself an illegitimate child his parent or grandparent might claim.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire had made a very unfair attack on the Home Secretary. He thought that all the Amendments that had been moved on either side of the House had been met by the right hon. Gentleman in a fair manner. The opinion was practically unanimous on all sides in the interests of humanity to give compensation to all children, whether legitimate or not.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 461.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atherley-Jones, L.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Barker, John

Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't)

Hall, Frederick

O'Grady, J.

Barnard, E. B.

Halpin, J.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)

Barnes, G. N.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Malley, William

Beale, W. P.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Paul, Herbert

Billson, Alfred

Hart-Davies, T.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Boland, John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Priestley, W. E. B. (Br'df rd, E.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Radford, G. H.

Brace, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Rainy, A. Rolland

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Branch, James

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Brigg, John

Hills, J. W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Redmond, William (Clare)

Brooke, Stopford

Hodge, John

Roes, J. D.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Richards, Thomas (W. Mon'th)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm't'n)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberd'n)

Horniman, Emslie John

Richardson, A.

Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rickett, J. Compton

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)

Byles, William Pollard

Jenkins, J.

Robinson, S.

Cairns, Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Rose, Charles Day

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rowlands, J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Kekewich, Sir George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clough, William

Kelley, George D.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Clynes, J. R.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Laidlaw, Robert

Sears, J. E.

Cogan, Denis J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lamont, Norman

Seddon, J.

Cooper, G. J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lehmann, R. C.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cory, Clifford John

Lough, Thomas

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Snowden, P.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanger, H. Y.

Crean, Eugene

Macpherson, J. T.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Ches.)

Crossley, William J.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Steadman, W. C.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Crae, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

M'Killop, W.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Summerbell, T.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Maddison, Frederick

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Doughty, Sir George

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Thomasson, Franklin

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Toulmin, George

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll)

Menzies, Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Erskine, David C.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wallace, Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Walsh, Stephen

Essex, R. W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walters, John Tudor

Farrell, James Patrick

Morrell, Philip

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Murphy, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ffrench, Peter

Murray, James

Ward, oho (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Myer, Horatio

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Fullerton, Hugh

Nicholls, George

Wardle, George J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Gill, A. H.

Nolan, Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Glover, Thomas

Nuttall, Harry

Whitbread, Howard

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Luke (York, E. P.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

1214

1215

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Shackleton and Mr. Fenwick.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Winfrey, R.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Everett, R. Lacey

Morpeth, Viscount

Agnew, George William

Fardell, Sir T. George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Balcarres, Lord

Furness, Sir Christopher

Partington, Oswald

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Percy, Karl

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ginnell, L.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'xh'm)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bull, Sir William James

Hogan, Michael

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hooper, A. G.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Idris, T. H. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Spicer, Sir Albert

Chance, Frederick William

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lambert, George

Tomkinson, James

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Liddell, Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Lundon, W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Craik, Sir Henry

Maclean, Donald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Delany, William

MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Younger, George

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Massie, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ashley and Lord Robert Cecil.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Question put, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 462.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Delany, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Armitage, R.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Doughty, Sir George

Atherley-Jones, L.

Byles, William Pollard

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cairns, Thomas

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l)

Barker, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Erskine, David C.

Barnard, E. B.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Barnes, G. N.

Clough, William

Essex, R. W.

Beale, W. P.

Clynes, J. R.

Farrell, James Patrick

Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastb'ne)

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Beck, A. Cecil

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ffrench, Peter

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Billson, Alfred

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cooper, G. J.

Gill, A. H.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

Ginnell, L.

Boland, John

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glover, Thomas

Bowerman, C. W.

Cory, Clifford John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brace, William

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Branch, James

Crean, Eugene

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Brigg, John

Cremer, William Randal

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crombie, John William

Hall, Frederick

Brooke, Stopford

Crossley, William J.

Halpin, J.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Dalziel, James Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Menzies, Walter

Rowlands, J.

Hart-Davies, T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Harwood, George

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mooney, J. J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sears, J. E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morrell, Philip

Seaverns, J. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Seddon, J.

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hills, J. W.

Murray, James

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Myer, Horatio

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hodge, John

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hogan, Michael

Nicholls, George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hooper, A. G.

Nolan, Joseph

Snowden, P.

Hope, W. Bateman (S'm'rs't, N.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stranger, H. Y.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nuttall, Harry

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)

Steadman, W. C.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Summerbell, T.

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

O'Malley, William

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Mara, James

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Jowett, F. W.

Paul, Herbert

Thomasson, Franklin

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Toulmin, George

Kekewich, Sir George

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kelley, George D.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wallace, Robert

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Walsh, Stephen

Laidlaw, Robert

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Walters, John Tudor

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Rainy, A. Rolland

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wardle, George J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lundon, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lupton, Arnold

Rees, J. D.

Whitbread, Howard

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Whitehead, Rowland

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richardson, A.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rickett, J. Compton

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, P.W. (St. Pancras, S.)

M'Crae, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Killop, W.

Robertson, Rt. Hon. E. (Dundee)

Winfrey, R.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Shackleton.

Maddison, Frederick

Roe, Sir Thomas

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rose, Charles Day

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex, F.

Bull, Sir William James

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Agnew, George William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fardell, Sir T. George

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cavendish, Rt. Hon Victor C.W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Chance, Frederick William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Craik, Sir Henry

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Dickinson, W. H. (St Pancras, N.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Idris, T. H. W.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Everett, R. Lacey

Kimber, Sir Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

1218

1219

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Partington, Oswald

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lambert, George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Liddell, Henry

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Valentia, Viscount

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Vivian, Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Massie, J.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Younger, George

Meagher, Michael

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ashley and Lord Robert Cecil

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Morpeth, Viscount

Spicer, Sir Albert

Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 1, after the word 'ship' to insert the word 'vessel.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR W. ROBSON SIR W. ROBSON moved to insert after "1894" the words "except that seamen to whom Section 10 of that Act applies shall include pilots." This was, he said, an important Amendment and one of substance, as it extended the definition of seamen so as to include pilots. The word "pilot" was, however, limited to some extent by the Act of 1894. The Amendment would not apply to foreign pilots, but it seemed hard that this particular class of seafarers should be excluded from the benefit of the Act.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 2, to insert after '1894,' the words except that seamen to whom Section 10 of that Act applies shall include pilots."—(Sir W. Robson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASwas very glad that the hon. and learned Member had moved this Amendment, because had he not done so he had been asked by the pilots around our coasts to bring the matter forward.
SIR W. ROBSON SIR W. ROBSON moved the following addition to the clause "'Manager,' in relation to a ship means the ship's husband or other person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted by or on behalf of the owner." It was necessary to define in the definition clause what the word "manager" meant.
MR. ASHLEYasked what the expression "ship's husband" meant?
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that 'ship's husband' was a term of art known to all people engaged in shipping and in commerce. He was a person who managed the ship, and a ship in nautical language being a female the man who managed her was called her husband. It was a perfectly legitimate relationship.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 2, at the end, to insert the words 'manager' in relation to a ship means the ship's husband or other person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted by or on behalf of the owner."—(Sir W, Robson.)
MR. GLADSTONE*MR. GLADSTONE moved to amend the definition of "outworker," so that the term should mean "a person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, or repaired, or adapted for sale, in his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the materials or articles." This provision was, he said, introduced in order to make it clear what "outworker" meant.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 8, to leave out from the word 'whom,' to the word 'premises' in line 9, and to insert the words 'articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, or repaired, or adapted for sale, in his own home or on other."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. HUGH LAWinquired whether it was not possible to do something for this class of person. He knew that they had settled that the outworker was to be excluded from the operation of the Act; at the same time it appeared to him that the temptations would be increased to employers to give out work to this class of people and so avoid liability. Could not the right hon. Gentleman do anything either by this Bill or in any other way for this class of persons?
MR. GLADSTONEwas afraid he could not answer that question in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 10, to leave out the word 'work,' and to insert the words 'materials or articles."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) moved the omission of Clause 14. He said he did so not in order to attack the right hon. Gentleman, but to give him an opportunity of stating the ground upon which he thought it desirable to make this great departure. The clause would do away with the ancient right in Scotland to have on appeal a trial by jury under the Employers' Liability Act. That was a most important departure to take in a Bill of this kind. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman considered that this privilege had been considerably abused in Scotland, and that a number of speculative agents, of solicitors as they were called in Eng-land, had against the interests of their clients been the cause of bringing many cases before the Court of Session which could have been settled under the Employers' Liability Act on a more equitable basis. There were in Scotland no doubt shady members of various professions as there were in England, but the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to say that that applied as a general rule throughout Scotland. Generally he thought it would be better to let the workmen, who were usually members of a trade union, look after their own interests in the
1222
way they thought best. He believed every trade union in the kingdom was against this clause. Both the trade unions and the mining organisations in Scotland had passed unanimous resolutions against it, and so far as he had been able to ascertain not a single resolution had been passed in its favour. If that was not a case for the rejection of the clause, it was at least a case for its reconsideration. He wished to know, if the right of a trial by jury on appeal was to be taken away, what was intended to be substituted for it, because there was a strong feeling upon the part of the workers of Scot-land that their cause was safer in the hands of a jury than in the hands of a Judge alone. He thought if the right was to be taken away the House ought to have some understanding that in Scotland they should have a similar procedure to that in the county courts of this country. He begged to move.
MR. SPEAKER: There being no seconder the Amendment falls to the ground.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, lines 19 and 20, to leave out 'instead of taking proceedings for recovering compensation under this Act.'"
"In page 14, line 22, after 'accident,' to insert 'arising out of and in the course of the employment.'"
"In page 14, line 23, to leave out 'a.'"
"In page 14, line 25, to leave out 'or at common law.'"
"In page 14, line 27, after 'shall,' to insert 'notwithstanding anything contained in that Act,'"
"In page 14, line 27, after 'removed,' to insert under that Act or otherwise."—(The Lord-Advocate.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 27, to leave out from 'session' to end of sub-section, and insert 'nor shall it be appealed to that court otherwise than by appeal on a question of law; and for the purposes of such appeal the provisions of the second schedule to this Act in regard to an appeal from the decision of the sheriff on any question of law determined by him as arbitrator under this Act shall apply."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill"
MR. YOUNGERexpressed his conviction that this Amendment was dictated by a desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to put a stop to vexatious actions and the practical robbery of working men by a lot of land sharks who had been engaged in raising perfectly useless and unnecessary actions. That would be stopped by this Amendment. He had heard it constantly said that in Scotland the lawyer's minions were often in the house of a man who had suffered from an accident before the doctor. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)said he perhaps might be allowed to explain, as this section contained a very important alteration in the right of appeal, how this matter of judicial procedure under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 stood in Scotland. The object of the clause was to prevent the compensation awarded to the working classes of Scotland from being seriously encroached upon by the operations of those who were neither workpeople nor employers, but who belonged to the professional classes, and who as the law at present stood succeeded in many cases in depriving the working classes of any effective compensation. In England it was competent to have a jury in the county court, but that was optional and in many parts of the country very little advantage was taken of the right. What he proposed to do under this Amendment was to prevent in Scotland actions being taken from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session. Here was a statute which affected the poorest part of the community; yet when its machinery was put into operation the expenses incurred by agents of the kind which had been described, on an appeal to the Court of Session on a matter affecting compensation often, of a most slender amount, ran into hundreds of pounds. Every hon. Member would understand his personal anxiety, when such a Bill as this was going through the House, that he should not lose the opportunity of making it effective in its whole purpose to those who should have compensation. One or two by no means exceptional cases in the ordinary course of law in Scotland had
1224
come to his notice. One case brought in the Sheriff Court was sent to the Court of Session; a jury was empanelled and two counsel a side instructed. The cost of getting compensation to the amount of £30 was no less than £200. In another case £60 was obtained and the costs were £335 and so on. One very gross case had occurred recently. The jury in that case awarded an injured workman £25, but in order to get that amount his case was taken to the Court of Session, where the costs were no less than £225. It was very doubtful whether that workman would get a single sixpence. Because as everyone knew there were a great many extra-judicial costs and they might absorb and more than absorb the amount which had been awarded as compensation. He quite granted what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to certain unions. Their case was well presented to him by their secretary. This gentleman, who presented a case apparently in favour of the present law, was himself a lawyer, and he (Mr. Shaw) took the opportunity of asking him a few questions. The secretary very properly said that owing to the way in which the cases were conducted all the money recovered in the union cases went to the union operatives. He (Mr. Shaw) asked him whether there were any extra judicial expenses. His reply was "Oh, a matter of £30 or £40." And then, in answer to his question as to who paid this, the secretary said that the unions paid it. He (Mr. Shaw) replied, substantially, in these words—
"Then the unions are steadily bleeding themselves in order to pay extra-judicial costs under a system which I want to abolish under this Bill."
Could the House have any more convincing testimony that that was a case which this House would wisely remedy? It had been suggested that the unions took care of themselves, and that they made the contributions and the particular aggrieved party did not suffer. But what if that party were not a member of a union? Then the whole burden fell upon the individual workman or his relatives. This was emphatically the case of the poor and those that have no helper. And he quite mistook the trade unions of the country if they were not with him in this consideration, that it ought

1225
to be the very special care of Parliament to look after the case of the unorganised workers, and that if the average sum wore on the very moderate scale he had mentioned—and it was very much under what one's own experience confirmed—they ought to see to it that where there was no union to protect the workers, the widows and children did not have to pay that sum to the lawyers. The hon. Gentleman had stated truly that there was no system of jury trial in Scotland in the Sheriff Court. He proposed, subject to the approval of the Government, to submit a scheme of Sheriff Court reform and, so far as he was concerned, he confessed that he would personally welcome the introduction of an option similar to that which existed in England; but he might point out that a good deal of the opposition of trade unions in Scotland arose from the fact that these schemes for jury trial could not be embodied in the Bill. It would require the formation of a Sheriff Court code, and they would require very carefully to watch the panel from which juries in those cases were formed. Furthermore, there had been a certain opposition to the Bill because in the form in which he originally drew this clause it proposed to abolish the appeal for jury trial at common law. The employers' unions wanted the appeal for trial at common law done away with also. He had opposed that. He said that the length he proposed to go was at present a fair Parliamentary step to take. He admitted the deep cut it made into existing procedure, but he was not at present disposed to take away the time-honoured system of trial at common law. Of course under the clause as framed appeals should be left open on points of law; but they would be promptly and inexpensively disposed of. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had so persistently maintained the necessity in all this legislation of seeing that whatever was done the effective remedy should go to the widows and children. In that view, and in the hope that the House would not lose this excellent opportunity of a good remedy for a state of matters approaching a scandal, he ventured to submit this clause.
MR. DALZIELexplained that he had not asked for a seconder to his Amendment because he understood that the hon. Member for the Ince Division was going to second it, but the hon. Gentleman was not in the House, owing, no doubt, to some inadvertence. He was glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that there was some prospect of the provision of a jury in the case of the Sheriff Court. He was only sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not more definite as to when that measure would be introduced. There was a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the costs in Scotland, but all cases in law cost a great deal too much. He regretted that there was not in Scotland a system, as in the case of the county courts of England, whereby no costs were allowed unless certified by the Registrar. With regard to the gentleman the Lord Advocate cross-examined on the subject of costs, he had a suspicion who the gentleman was, and he was not sure the right hon. gentleman was correct in saying he was secretary to the Unions.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he might have been wrong in that. He understood the individual in question was a, prominent official and led the movement. He might add that he was a very excellent and capable professional man, very justly respected by the unions, for whom he spoke on almost every occasion.
MR. DALZIELsaid he believed he knew the gentlemen referred to, but he did not think the unions in question would acknowledge him as a leader. He was their legal adviser. It was not fair to put all the cases of the kind referred to on the same basis, and he thought, generally speaking, the parties were well advised. However, he did not propose to offer any further opposition to the clause.
MR. BARNESsaid it was not through any disrespect that the hon. Member did not get a seconder for his Amendment. It was owing to the unexpected absence of the hon. Member for the Ince Division,

1227
who was attending a deputation, that the Amendment was not seconded. He himself did not second the Amendment because he was not in favour of it. He preferred the course mapped out by the Lord Advocate. As a member of the Departmental Committee it was borne in upon him with overwhelming force that the particular part of the appeal appertaining to trial by jury had been scandalously abused. He did not say it had been done in all cases wilfully, but men in pursuance of their calling had done it, and great expense had been incurred by the labouring classes throughout Scotland. Although he was in Parliament as a trade union representative, or rather as a representative trade unionist, he was present on behalf of a constituency which was one of the poorest in the country, representing people whose wages left no margin even to join a trade union. These people were his first consideration in the House, and it was because he was absolutely sure that the provisions of the Act as applied to these people had been abused, and that the money of the trade unions had been to some extent spent unnecessarily, that he was prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Advocate, apart from his proposal—which he was not aware of until this afternoon— for placing the law of Scotland on the same footing as that of England. That was an additional satisfaction to him and an additional reason for sup- porting the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 30, to leave out sub-section (b)."—(The Lord-Advocate.)
"In page 15, line 10, at end, to add the words, '(2) Every scheme under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in force at the commencement of this Act shall, if re-certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, have effect as if it were a scheme under this Act. (3) The Registrar shall re-certify any such scheme if it is proved to his satisfaction that the scheme conforms, or has been so modified as to conform, with the provisions of this Act as to schemes. (4) If any such scheme has not been so re-certified before the expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act, the certificate thereof shall be revoked.'"
1228
"In page 15, line 12, to leave out the word 'January,' and insert the word 'July.'"— (Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In Schedule 1, page 16, line 7, to leave out the words" at the time of his death.'"—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Home Secretary to give his reason why those words were to be omitted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the omission of the words was consequent upon the House having accepted an Amendment to Clause 13. A county court judge had held that a woman who claimed compensation was not totally dependent at the time of her husbands' death because she earned a few shillings a week charing. This Amendment would meet that point.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR WILLIAM BULL SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith) moved to insert in the schedule words to secure compensation representing 156 times the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards the maintenance of his dependants. He thought that would constitute a fair basis of negotiation.
MR. YOUNGERformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 16, line 22, to leave out from the word 'sum,' to the end of paragraph (ii.), and insert the words, 'as shall represent one hundred and fifty-six times the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards the maintenance of such dependants for a period of twelve months prior to the date of the accident causing the death.'"— (Sir William Bull.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the hon. Member's proposal. It

1229
was quite impossible to propose an alteration of the scale in this respect, because it would lead to proposals being forced upon them for altering the scale in other directions. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM BULLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 16, line 26, after the word 'dependants,' to insert the words, 'provided that any weekly payments made under this Act and any lump sum paid in redemption thereof, shall be deducted from such sum.'"—(Mr. Cory.)
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 16, lines 30 and 31, to leave out the words 'after the first three days'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. COCHRANE*MR. COCHRANE moved an Amendment to add words providing that in the case of a serious accident, such as a fracture of a limb, or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or any other serious personal injury incapacitating a workman for over twenty-eight days the employer should be liable to pay compensation for the whole period of disablement. At present, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, an injured workman did not receive any compensation for the first fourteen days of any incapacity resulting from an accident. When this Bill was introduced the period was reduced to seven days and was further reduced in Committee to three days. This had since been altered back again in the first clause to seven days. The Home Secretary now proposed that an injured workman should not get compensation for an injury which did not incapacitate him for seven days, but if the incapacity lasted for fourteen days then the injured workman was to receive compensation from the date of the accident. Hon. Members below the gangway would like to put down malingering, and they were no friends of the malingerer. Where a man met with a serious injury the loss of a
1230
week might be a very serious consideration. What would happen under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment? Simply that a man would get more money if he remained idle than if he went back to work, and that was a direct incentive to a man not to go back to work. The nearer the man got to the period of fourteen days the stronger was the incentive. Under his Amendment where a man lost a limb or an eye or some other serious personal injury he would be able to get compensation at once. There were some serious injuries the nature of which it was impossible even for a medical referee to tell for some time after they had been sustained. If a man suffered from an injury which incapacitated him from work for twenty-eight days that would be a sufficient indication that his injury was a serious one, and he would under this Amendment get compensation from the date of the accident. He thought that fairly and squarely met the difficulty that arose. Various employers' mutual insurance companies had drawn up scales which showed that while fatal accidents had remained nearly constant in point of numbers since the passing of the Act of 1897, there had been a remarkable increase in the number of claims for lesser accidents ranging from 21 to as high as 63 per 1,000. That showed that the Act was becoming better known, The fact that the fatal accidents had remained constant seemed to point to the inference that accidents generally had not increased, and that therefore they must look in another direction for the explanation of this marked increase in the number of claims for compensation. He knew it was unpopular to speak of economy in this House. It was far easier to say "Let them all come, and divide up the property of the employers amongst them." He thought that they owed something to the people who provided the work on which the country maintained its position as a manufacturing nation. It was their duty to see that funds which they compelled the employers to provide were not frittered away and wasted. This Amendment would be accepted for what it was worth by the large mass of employers. He hoped that if it were carried the workmen who sustained serious injuries would get compensation from the date

1231
of the accident, which he was sure everybody desired.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 16, line 35, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that where the disablement arises from a fracture of a limb, or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or from any other serious personal injury which prevents the workman from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed for a period exceeding twenty-eight days, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation for the whole period of such disablement, starting front the date of the accident.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
MR. GLADSTONEacknowledged that the hon. Gentleman had stated his case in reasonable and moderate language, The difference between them on this point was in regard to the qualifying period. The House would observe that the hon. Gentleman had failed to define the very important word "serious" in his Amendment. He did not think the hon. Gentleman's argument went to show that the wording of the Amendment succeeded in defining that word, or that it would really give any adequate direction to an arbitrator in coming to a conclusion. His hon. friend's contention was that the mere fact that a man was incapacitated for twenty-eight days would go to show that it was a serious accident.
MR. COCHRANE: It would be a measure.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it would be a time measure or time limit. That being so he assumed that the seriousness was to be measured by the time.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he desired two measures of the extent of the injury. The first measure was one which any man could see for himself in the case of a broken arm, the loss of a finger, or the loss of an eye. There was another class of accidents, the effect of which could not be so well seen, such as a strained back or an internal crush, for which there must be another class of measure. If a man was incapacitated for twenty-eight days there would be a time measure.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he followed the hon. Gentleman's point. His time
1232
measure of a serious accident provided that if a man was disabled for twenty-eight days his compensation was to start from the date of the accident. He would point out that the effect of this was that the hon. Gentleman's argument against fourteen days fell to the ground.
MR. COCHRANE: No man would remain off for twenty-eight days if he was not seriously injured.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that if at the end of three weeks a man who had been seriously injured was convalescent or approaching convalescence he would be able to prolong his illness till the expiry of twenty-eight days in order to complete the qualifying period. The Government preferred the period which they had already announced and by which they stood.
MR. CORYsaid he had always felt sympathy with the man who met with a serious accident, and did not receive payment from the date of the accident. With that in his mind he proposed in Committee an Amendment similar to that under discussion, which gave rise to the Home Secretary's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the principle, but had carried it so far as to make it entirely unfair to the employers. He thought the measure of a severe accident proposed in the present Amendment a very proper one. The Home Secretary had said that to fix a period of twenty-eight days would not prevent malingering any more than to fix fourteen days, but he thought that was hardly correct. If a man was really shamming he might get sick of it in twenty-eight days, whereas he might be willing to keep on for fourteen days. To extend the period to twenty-eight days would do no injustice to the man who was really seriously injured, but might make it less easy for the man who was desirous of malingering. The Home Secretary had said that the effect of the present Act would be as if wages of 20s. a week were raised to 20s. 1½d. and that the Bill would add another 1½d. or 2d. That did not seem a very important affair, and yet Members who had collieries which were losing

1233
money would find on looking at their pay sheets that to add 1d. or 2d. a ton was a very serious matter. In many cases collieries were being kept on at a loss year after year in the hope of improvement, and also because the owner did not wish to discharge men. Therefore the question of extra cost not only entered into the calculations of employers, but should not be lost sight of by the workmen, because it might make the difference between keeping a colliery open and shutting it down.
MR. GILLdesired to thank the Home Secretary for proposing his Amendment. The organised workers of the country had for years been asking that they should be paid compensation from the day an accident happened. It seemed to be forgotten that this Bill was bringing in a much poorer class than formerly obtained the benefit of compensation. There were thousands of men who were not earning more than £1 a week. How could they manage to keep a family on that and also save against the day when they met with an injury? In former days when an accident occurred an employer sent an injured workman to his own doctor and paid the bill; but that was almost a thing of the past. In Lancashire at any rate the workman paid his own bill, and if he was off work for fourteen days the lost wages, together with the surgeon's bill, amounted to more than the compensation he received. He was not prepared to admit even that the employer found the whole of the money for the compensation. When he himself had had to negotiate with employers' committees on questions of advances or reductions of wages the compensation cost was put as a reason for not granting an advance. The employer insured against fire, against injury to his machinery, sometimes against failure, and he thought it only reasonable for him to insure his workmen who contributed as much as his machinery to earn the profit of his business. The cost was not great. In the spinning section of the cotton trade it had gone up to 6s. per cent. and they were told that it would increase still more; but even then the total did not reach one penny in the pound on the wages paid. So
1234
that under the circumstances there was no need for alarm, as trade was now in a satisfactory condition. In the manufacturing section of the cotton trade the amount was much less than that. He therefore hoped that the Home Secretary would stick to the provision of fourteen days in the Bill.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that the hon. Member for Bolton had stated that the workman would after injury have to pay the doctor's fee and that the compensation would be thereby swallowed up. All he could say was that the firm with which he and his family had been associated for 120 years had always found the doctor's fees. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider, in preference to his Amendment, that which he himself had put on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee had stated that he was doing the best he could for both parties, and surely he might make some compromise. The representatives of the workmen acknowledged that there was some distinction between a slight accident and a serious accident, and that there should be some brief interval before the judgment took place. He thought the difference between twenty-eight and fourteen days was a very slight one; but he suggested as a compromise twenty-one days instead of fourteen or twenty-eight, during which opportunity would be given of distinguishing between a slight and a serious accident. The Amendment of his hon. friend had this advantage, that they would be freed from the litigation that might arise from the definition of what was a serious accident. Statistics showed that employers had not exhibited the slightest desire to drive a hard bargain, and an arrangement might be come to which would satisfy both parties, and at the same time cause no injury to any industry.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he did not think the hon. Member for North Ayrshire was a great employer of labour, or that the hon. Member for St. Ives had any large experience of the working of the present Workmen's Compensation Act. In France if a man met with an injury the compensation was paid in nine days.

1235
In practice the man before he got compensation had to go to the office and be inspected by the manager, and if the manager had any doubt he went to the doctor and got a certificate. Under the law in this country as it had been for the last ten years thousands of men who were earning only 25s. or 30s. a week had gone to work after meeting with an accident when they were not fit to work. He spoke from experience on this subject. An hon. Member had spoken of the cost of compensation as being 2d. per ton of coal raised in Wales. Since the Act of 1897 was passed there had been more money made in the coal trade than in any period since 1870; and at the present time they were making more money in Wales in the coal trade than they knew what to do with. The whole burden that Parliament had put on the trade did not amount to more than 1d. or 1½d. a ton. That did not amount to more than a quarter per cent. on the dividends of the coal companies. It was their duty when they saw all the wealth being piled up in the country to do what they could to protect the lives of those who created that wealth.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that the hon. Member for Mansfield spoke as if he were the only colliery proprietor in the House, and had suggested that the charge on colliery owners was by no means a heavy burden. But he could assert that the charge for compensation on colliery owners was equal sometimes to 3½d. or 4d. per ton; and if the right hon. Gentleman intended to impose a further 1d. per ton he would be laying a heavy burden indeed on the employers of labour. He made no appeal on behalf of the employer. He and his friends came there to do their duty to the workmen and to see that they were compensated when injured. But there were questions to be considered over and above money compensation—the question of good order and discipline in a colliery. It was absolutely necessary to have in a colliery foremen and oversmen to see that the men did their duty and did not sit down resting themselves when they ought to be taking part in the work which they were
1236
paid to do. If that sort of thing took place in the works, what happened at home? The man often laid up for a fortnight when he only ought to lay up for two days. The question of labour was a very serious one for employers, because their machines had to be going and their establishments to be kept working even if they were short of hands. Statistics were brought before him from month to month regarding the working of the Compensation Act, and anyone looking through the list would see how very small was the number of cases in which compensation was awarded, and that in the main they were of a trivial character, such as injury to a finger and things of that kind, so that if a man desired to get back to work he could do so in a very short time. Many of the accidents were not indeed of a real or serious character, and, without accusing the men of malingering or being wicked or careless, he did not desire, as hon. Members below the gangway did, that they should be put in a stained glass window. It was the fact that men who had sustained a slight accident were very apt not to come back to work if there was any temptation to keep them at home. One great temptation occurred when a pit was working half time and there were only three working days. A man would say that there was no need for him to go to work because he was getting half wages, and as they were only working half time it was better for him to stop at home. In the cause, not only of the worker, but of the discipline and proper working of the pits, he urged this proposal. He knew very well he would not get a favourable decision, but he wished to point out that the employers had a very strong feeling on this point, for an inducement was being removed by means of which men would be brought back to work. They certainly approved of the clause suggested by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, because it really gave effect to a reasonable proposal. The House had taken away from the employers their powers in regard to wilful misconduct, and the power of preventing a workman from going into an infectious place, and he thought that here at all events they ought to have some protection. He had no feeling against the men; in fact, in one

1237
of the works with which he was connected the owners had left the whole payment and management of the compensation fund to the men, and since they had done so their costs and charges had been greatly reduced. That was a great credit to the men. While it was the master's purse they were dipping into they felt that it was a very wide and deep one, but immediately the fund came under the control of their fellows they seemed to have a higher standard as between each other and to feel that they had not the same fund to dip into. The proposal under which encouragement would be given to a man to delay his return to work would be a
great injury to the country and the general prosperity of the workmen. He felt it right to make this protest, as the employers' views should be known, and they felt themselves injuriously affected by this clause.
MR. KEIR HARDIEhoped the debate would not be continued, in view of the understanding that it should finish about eight o'clock.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes,307. (Division List No. 403.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Percy, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cory, Clifford John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Ratcliff, Major R, F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

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

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Younger, George

Carlile, E. Hildred

Liddell, Henry

Cave, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Viscount Valentia.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Agnew, George William

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Armitage, R.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Byles, William Pollard

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Billson, Alfred

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

Atherley-Jones, L.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Boland, John

Chance, Frederick William

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Balfour, Robert, (Lanark)

Brace, William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barker, John

Branch, James

Cleland, J. W.

Barlow, John Emmott (Somers.)

Brigg, John

Clough, William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bright, J. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Barnard, E. B.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Barnes, G. N.

Brodie, H. C.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Beale, W. P.

Brooke, Stopford

Cogan, Denis J.

Beauchamp, E.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J T (Cheshire)

Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W.)

Beaumont, Hn W. C. B. (Hexham)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Beck, A. Cecil

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

Bell, Richard

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Paul, Herbert

Crean, Eugene

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cremer, William Randal

Jowett, F. W.

Philipps, Col, Ivor (S'thampton)

Crombie, John William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps. Owen C. (Pembroke)

Crossley, William J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dalziel, James Henry

Kelley, George D.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Kincaid-Smith, Gaptain

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Radford, G. H.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Rainy, A. Rolland

Delany, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lambert, George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Dillon, John

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Rees, J. D.

Donelan, Captain A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Renton, Major Leslie

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lundon, W.

Richardson, A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Luttrell, Hugh Eownes

Rickett, J. Compton

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Elibank, Master of

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

Farrell, James Patrick

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Crae, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Killop, W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Schwann, C, Duncan (Hyde)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Micking, Major G.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Gill, A. H.

Mallet, Charles E.

Sears, J. E.

Ginnell, L.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Seaverns. J. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Seddon, J.

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Shackleton, David James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Meagher, Michael

Sherwell, Arthur James

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Halpin, J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mooney, J. J.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Snowden, P.

Hart-Davies, T.

Morrell, Philip

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harwood, George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murphy, John

Steadman, W. C.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray, James

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hayden, John Patrick

Myer, Horatio

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Napier, T. B.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Sullivan, Donal

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Summerbell, T.

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholls, George

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Higham, John Sharp

Nolan, Joseph

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Hodge, John

Nuttall, Harry

Thomasson, Franklin

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Tillett, Louis John

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tomkinson, James

Hooper, A. G.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Toulmin, George

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Verney, F. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Vivian, Henry

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Hare, Patrick

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

Walsh, Stephen

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

Walters, John Tudor

Jackson, R. S.

O'Mara, James

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jenkins, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

1240

1241

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Winfrey, R.

Wardle, George J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wiles, Thomas

Whitbread, Howard

Williamson, A.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, T. W. (Westhoughton)

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 1, after 'that,' to insert the words '(a) if the incapacity lasts less than two weeks no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Amendment he now moved was brought forward in accordance with, a declaration made in the Standing Committee. The clause as originally produced contained a provision for a special rate of compensation in the case of old men, but it did not find favour with the Committee, and was withdrawn on the understanding that an Amendment of it should be brought up on Report drafted in such a way as to include injured and maimed men. In order that the House might be able to express a free and unfettered opinion he should not move this as a Government clause, and hon. Members would have to make up their minds as to the way in which they should vote. The Departmental Committee, which took a great deal of evidence on this point, came to a very clear decision upon it. They thought that in consequence of the difficulty which aged, infirm, and maimed men had in finding occupation, some special arrangement ought to be made by which that difficulty should be as far as possible diminished, and they recommended that it should be in the power of the employer and the workman to contract for a lower rate of compensation. He had always recognised that this was a question which directly and immediately concerned the working men and working women of the country, and he would not venture to put an imperfectly formed opinion of his own against the actual experience of those immediately concerned. He knew hon. Members opposite and on his own side of the House below the gangway were not favourably disposed towards this proposal, but there was a great deal of evidence given to the Departmental Committee in its favour. In the new form which this
1242
Amendment took the Government were careful not to obtrude any particular age at which a man should be brought to the notice of his employer. There were Amendments on the Paper to this proposal, one of which said that when a man reached the age of sixty it should be brought to the attention of the employer. He was absolutely opposed to any such thing. After full examination he had come to the firm conclusion that it would be most ill-advised for the House to enact that when a man reached the age of sixty it should be brought under the notice of his employer and, what was more important, under the notice of the insurance company, and that he should be stigmatised as being not worth the wages of an able-bodied man. He heard with great pleasure a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his hope that at no distant date he would be able practically to deal with the question of old age pensions. Let it not be supposed that the proposal, if carried out, would meet all the difficulties of the clause before the House. It might or it might not meet the case of the old men, but it would not meet the difficulty of those who were maimed or enfeebled through some physical cause connected with their employment. The evidence given before the Departmental Committee seemed to him to show strongly that the workmen were in favour of the proposal he now submitted. He hoped the House would give its best attention to the case, and form an impartial judgment on a question which was of great importance to a vast army of men.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(b) in the ease of a workman who has, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, obtained from a certifying surgeon a certificate to the effect that on account of old age, or of the loss of an eye or a limb, or of any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in the regulations, he is specially liable to serious accident if employed in any employment of any class specified in the

1243
certificate, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act, the compensation, if payable in respect of an accident happening to the workman whilst employed in an employment of any such class, shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less— (i) where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependants, than fifty pounds; (ii) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, than a weekly payment during the incapacity of ten shillings; and"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. BARNESsaid that, on behalf of his colleagues, and, he believed, on behalf of every humane and sympathetic man in the House, he rose for the purpose of strongly opposing this Amendment. He believed the Government were seriously and anxiously desirous to do something to mitigate the hard lot of the man who had been overtaken by old age and infirmity. They all admitted that evil, and they knew that owing to the increasing intensity of workshop life and industrial competition there was not the same chance of employment at sixty or even at fifty. It was a case of "too old at forty" in many occupations requiring physical strength rather than any special aptitude. Therefore so far as that particular phase of the question was concerned they all admitted the evil. They believed that the Government were seriously anxious to grapple with it, but he maintained that the proposal now made, so far from being likely to do old men any good, was far more likely to do them serious injury. In the Bill as it was presented to the Committee the proposal was that a man should be barred from employment or should have a smaller amount of compensation when he reached sixty years of age. That was bad enough. There was no special duty thrust upon the man of saying anything about his age, which was to be left to somebody outside. That also was bad enough, because probably the insurance companies would have their agents around and would do something to induce the employers to discharge old men. What did they find now? Instead of having a hard and fast rule of sixty years or something of that
1244
sort, and instead of anything in the nature of a guiding principle in the clause, they had a vague and loose proposal. A man might at forty or fifty, after a life of toil, find his eyes getting dim and his back weaker, and in the proposal of the Home Secretary there would be a temptation for him to go to a certifying surgeon and get a certificate with which he could go to his employer and contract himself out of the Act of Parliament. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"] There were many reasons. They, as trade unionists, were engaged— as some of the hon. Members above the gangway in a particular profession —in upholding a certain standard of pay, and they knew that anything that made it easier for a man suffering from physical disability arising from approaching old age to dissociate himself from his fellows and individually sell his labour under the standard wage, as he would be tempted to do under this proposal, would tell not only against the man but against the whole class to which he belonged. They felt strongly in this matter, and were convinced that this proposal was one of the worst things in the Bill. He appealed to the House to reject what they were convinced would be a serious blot upon the Act.
MR. ELLIS DAVIESquite agreed that there were injuries so severe as to increase the liability to accidents. On the other hand, it seemed to him there would be very serious difficulty created by this Amendment in deciding what did or did not impair the efficiency of a workman. For instance, it was stated that the loss of an eye was sufficient to impair efficiency, but in a very recent-case the doctor, on behalf of the insurance company, swore that the loss of an eye did not impair the efficiency of a quarryman. The best argument against the suggestion that old age should be taken into account in estimating compensation was that he knew no insurance company which asked any question on the proposal form as to the age of the workman to be insured. The reason was that as a rule old men were more careful and were not put to do the most dangerous work, besides which, if a young man were permanently injured, the liability of the insurance

1245
company in the ordinary course of events would last many years compared with the duration of their liability in the case of an accident to an old man. He had received from a committee of the Accident Insurance Offices a large number of suggestions for Amendments to this Bill, but it was rather significant that there was no suggestion made by them that old age should in any way affect the question of liability.
MR. MARKHAMappealed to the House to follow the lead of the Home Secretary in this matter. The questions involved excited a good deal of interest amongst the working men in the country. It was a fact that a certain section of his constituents disagreed with him on the matter. He thought that on this question, however, employers of labour were better judges than the representatives of the working men. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for the Eifion Division had said, to his own personal knowledge there were large industrial companies which refused to set men on who had attained the age of between sixty and seventy, because of the fear of having to pay compensation. Reference had been made to the fact that no insurance company asked any question about old men. This was quite true, but with a very large experience of insurance under the Act he could say that there was no company which yet knew what the cost of insuring was, and that their rates of insurance had been rapidly rising, some 30 per cent. having been added in the last year. As for mutual insurance societies, he had one in his mind which made it a rule that no old men were to be employed. He asked the House to consider whether the interests of old and imfirm workmen were really served when they told the employer that unless he paid the full rate of compensation he could not employ such men. He thought it one of the greatest hardships that could be inflicted on old men to debar them from obtaining employment because of the extra charge on the employer. It might be said that he was speaking from a selfish point of view. So far as his own personal interest was concerned it made not a farthing of difference to him, because the companies he was connected with were insured and he only supported the Amendment because he did not wish to see em-
1246
ployment closed to a large body of men. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow said his object in opposing this proposal was to maintain a high rate of compensation for the old men. Under State Socialism it might be possible to secure the same compensation to old men as to others, but while they were dealing with the state of affairs in which large joint stock companies operated for purposes of gain it was not practicable. In the interest of the old men, many of whom were to-day prevented from getting employment by the Act of 1897, he supported the Home Secretary in his Amendment.
MR. J. WARDsaid that some hon. Members so far had agreed to extend the Act to all sorts of workpeople, but they were now anxious to limit the Act when dealing with the question of old age. It would be a great mistake to accept the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division had called attention to one phase of the Amendment which seemed to him to answer itself. He had asked whether it was fair that an employer should be required to pay the same rate of compensation in case of accident to a man who was infirm as to a man who was strong and perfect. It was a moral certainty that no employer would take an infirm man into his employment at the same rate of wages as one who was sound and healthy. The consequence would be that in case of an injury, which would be rare, considering the kind of work given to these men, the compensation would be reduced in exactly the same proportion.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that unless a man was employed as watchman he was, by the rules of the trade unions, to be paid trade unions wages, or none at all.
MR. J. WARDsaid that was not the case. It was impossible for a carpenter with one arm to do the same work as a carpenter with two arms, and a collier would be in the same position. Almost all the men employed by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division were employed at piece-work, and if there was any deficiency in ability to work the remuneration was reduced, and the compensation payable was in proportion. As to the evidence of trade unionist leaders before

1247
the Departmental Committee, it only amounted to this, that men in certain trades who looked old and decrepit stood a much smaller chance of employment than those who looked fit and strong and in good health, and an exactly similar statement could have been made before the Act of 1897. The difficulty for old men to get employment prevailed prior to the Workmen's Compensation Act, and would always prevail, for naturally the employer wanted to get young, healthy, able-bodied men, if he possibly could. The old men were naturally at a disadvantage, and he feared that disadvantage would be increased if the Amendment were passed. There was one point in the evidence before the Departmental Committee upon which he would like to say a word from personal knowledge. A witness, who was not a practical man connected with the trade but a grocer, said that since 1897 it had been more difficult for old men to get employment in the building trade. As one with personal experience he ventured to say that in the building trade there was, as a matter of fact, no discrimination. Every employer would admit that a man over forty-five—it might be sixty-five— was, except in some special cases, a much more careful man to have on a scaffold than a young man from nineteen to thirty, and, as a matter of fact, contractors specially selected old and tried men for dangerous work. He had been a foreman himself, and he would not have put on an eighty feet or ninety feet scaffold giddy young fellows who looked at everything that occurred, but good old greybeards who were steady and paid attention to their own business. There was another way of looking at the matter. An old man, when he received an injury, required greater attention and greater care than a young man, and on humanitarian grounds alone he considered the Amendment as most unfortunate. Those who really represented the interests of working class constituencies had only one course to pursue, and that was to oppose the Amendment by all means in their power.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was glad to find that the Government was given credit for good motive in this matter. As a rule in these debates he found an economic motive on one side and a humanitarian motive on the other.
1248
The question generally was how much they could afford to do for the needy and distressed. In this case it was a conflict between two motives. There was a desire to do what could be done for the aged and infirm, and there was the desire not to lower the general standard of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He admitted that there was much to be said on both sides, and for that reason the Government desired the House to express its opinion freely upon it. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division was right in saying that employers might use a provision of this kind to bring pressure on men to whom it was not really meant to apply, and for purely selfish reasons to induce them to accept a lower scale of compensation. It was true, also, that in all legislation of this kind exceptions were an evil thing. The fewer exceptions they had to the general law the more smoothly would the Act work, and the less litigation there was likely to be. On the other hand, the Government had to take into account the specific cases to which their attention had been drawn, and they felt that by this Bill they were running the risk of the heavy responsibility of turning thousands of men out of the employment in which they were engaged or preventing them from securing the employment which they might otherwise obtain. He mentioned a case in which a gentleman residing in Devonshire had written to the Home Office stating that he was anxious to employ a gardener and to insure him under the Compensation Act. The gardener suffered from epileptic fits, and the Ocean Insurance Company stated that it was quite impossible to cover a man suffering from a complaint of that kind. Representations had also been received from persons interested in the deaf, dumb, and blind, showing the hardships to which persons suffering from these infirmities were subjected owing to the obligations in the way of compensation which were thrown on employers who from charitable or other motives engaged them. Parliament was now extending this measure to all employers, and if a man was rejected by one employer on account of these infirmities he ran the risk of being rejected by all. As to the aged, he thought the difficulty in their case was not so great in that particular as

1249
in the case of persons suffering from the loss of sight, or hearing, or from other special infirmities. The trade unionists throughout the country had indeed always urged that the Act caused hardship to the aged, and at their annual conference the Miners' Federation had passed a resolution unanimously declaring that in consequence of the large number of aged workmen dismissed from their employment on account of the Workmen's Compensation Act it was necessary to provide a system of old-age pensions. He thought that perhaps trade unionists had an interest in making out that the case was rather a bad one in order to show the necessity for old age - pensions, while employers had an interest in presenting the case as a bad one in order to show how workmen might suffer if compensation was carried too far. For his own part he was a little sceptical as to whether the Compensation Act had had the effect of throwing old men out of employment merely on account of their age, and he thought the putting in of the figure sixty, as suggested in this Amendment, might possibly be liable to abuse. If it would meet the opinion of the House generally the Government would have no objection to leaving out the words "old age or" and leaving the Amendment to apply to persons suffering from the loss of an eye or limb or any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in regulations. That would of course include infirmities which were due to old age. As he had said, the Government recognised that there was a great deal to be said on both sides, and doubtless in coming to a decision every Member would take the course which, on balancing the arguments, he thought would most conduce to the good of the classes concerned.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it was but a short time since the Spectator, in one of its weekly lectures, stated that nobody ought to be admitted into the Cabinet after the age of fifty. He supposed they must sorrowfully admit that the race had changed. He remembered the high hopes he had when the Compensation Act of 1897 was passed
that they were going to confer real benefits, without any deductions, upon the working classes. That, however, had proved to be a delusion. In one of his elections—and he had no doubt that others had had a similar experience—it was used as a point against him that the Workmen's Compensation Act had caused the refusal of employment to men in some instances who had reached no greater an age than forty-five. The Home Secretary was applying to that difficulty a very well-meant palliative and a substantial measure of relief. He noticed that no alternative scheme had boon proposed by the Labour Party. They argued that it would be the object of a workman to seek a lower scale of compensation, and thereby lower, not only the scale of compensation, but also the standard rate of wages. Labour Members forgot that it was not likely that the workman would seek the lower scale except when a certain event had happened. Who would seek it unless and until he found that the employer to whom he applied for employment said that he could not give him work because of his age or infirmity? In that case, what comfort did the hon. Members below the gangway offer to the man? When he got outside the yard, it would be very poor compensation to him to be told that in his deserted condition he was doing something to maintain some theoretical principle of the solidarity of trade unions for the maintenance of the standard rate of wages. The working man in such a condition would be apt to think too much was being done by Parliament for young able-bodied men. It was possible to pay too high a price for an aristocracy of labour.
MR. KEIR HARDIErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 211. (Division List No. 464.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Allen, Charles P. (Sroud)

Armitage, R.

Astbury, John Meir

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Ashley, W. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Balcarres, Lord

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Morrell, Philip

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Myer, Horatio

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Napier, T. B.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fletcher, J. S.

Partington, Oswald

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fuller, John Michael F.

Percy, Earl

Beauchamp, E.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexh'm)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beck, A. Cecil

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Bertram, Julius

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Bright, J. A.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hills, J. W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Thomasson, Franklin

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Waterlow, D. S.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lambert, George

Whitbread, Howard

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Cory, Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Crossley, William J.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Williamson, A.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lupton, Arnold

Wills, Arthur Walter

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Doughty, Sir George

Maclean, Donald

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Callum, John M.

Younger, George

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Elibank, Master of

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Markham and Mr. Samuel Roberts.

Erskine, David C.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Everett, R. Lacey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burke, E. Haviland-

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Delany, William

Alden, Percy

Byles, William Pollard

Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dillon, John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Chance, Frederick William

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Barker, John

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Donelan, Captain A.

Barnard, E. B.

Cleland, J. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Barnes, G. N.

Clough, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Beaumont, Hn. H.(Eastbourne)

Clynes, J. R.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Bell, Richard

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cogan, Denis J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Essex, R. W.

Bennett, E. N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd)

Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Ffrench, Peter

Billson, Alfred

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fullerton, Hugh

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gill, A. H.

Boland, John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Ginnell, L.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cowan, W. H.

Glover, Thomas

Bowerman, C. W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brace, William

Crean, Eugene

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Branch, James

Cremer, William Randal

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Brigg, John

Crombie, John William

Hall, Frederick

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Halpin, J.

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

1252

1253

Hart-Davies, T.

Mooney, J. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Harwood, George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murphy, John

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, James

Seaverns, J. H.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Seddon, J.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Hodge, John

Nolan, Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hogan, Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nuttall, Harry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Snowden, P.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Steadman, W. C.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sullivan, Donal

Jackson, R. S.

O'Hare, Patrick

Summerbell, T.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jenkins, J.

O'Malley, William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Mara, James

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Toulmin, George

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kearley, Hudson E.

Paul, Herbert

Verney, F. W.

Kelley, George D.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Vivian, Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Perks, Robert William

Walsh, Stephen

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Walters, John Tudor

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lamont, Norman

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Wardle, George J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Radford, G. H.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lough, Thomas

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, George (Norfolk)

Lundon, W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wiles, Thomas

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

M'Crae, George

Rees, J. D.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Winfrey, R.

M'Killop, W.

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Richardson, A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Shackleton.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Meagher, Michael

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Brad'd)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Robinson, S.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

MR. GILL*MR. GILL moved to leave out the latter part of the proviso after the words "ten shillings" in order to insert the following words—"Provided also that this section shall apply to a workman who is over twenty-one years of age, whose average weekly earnings are less than twenty shillings per week, if he is employed in the same grade, in the same class of employment, in the same district as a workman under that age." His object was more than anything else to prevent an anomaly. They had been arguing for many years past against the large number of anomalies which existed in the present Act, and he wanted this Bill to become an Act, if possible, without any anomalies whatever. The clause as it stood at present read that—
"As respects the weekly payments during total incapacity of a workman who is under twenty-one years of age at the date of the
1254
injury, and whose average weekly earnings are less than 20s., 100 per cent. should be substituted for 50 per cent. of his average weekly earnings, but the weekly payment shall in no case exceed 10s., nor 50 per cent. of the average weekly earnings of a person over twenty-one years of age, employed in the same grade in the same class of employment and in the same district."
That provision was evidently designed to deal with the system of apprenticeship which generally ended when the apprentice was twenty-one years of age. But he would call attention to the fact that the system of apprenticeship had largely decreased. In the cotton trade at the present time men did not get the full wage until long after they were twenty-one years of age. In the last fifty years apprenticeships had been done away with in the cotton trade and in many other trades, and he wanted to point out the anomaly which

1255
the Bill would create in its effect upon the spinning portion of the cotton trade and in other trades. Three persons were engaged at the spinning wheels—a spinner with two assistants under him. One of these assistants ranged from thirteen to eighteen years of age, and was called a "little piecer," and he received a wage varying, according to the size of the machine and the rate at which they were running, from nine shillings to fifteen shillings a week. Under this Bill the person who received nine shillings a week would get a hundred per cent. of his; wages in the way of compensation, but the person who got ten, eleven, twelve, or thirteen shillings a week would only get ten shillings a week. The "big piecer," the man next to the spinner, would receive generally sixteen to nineteen shillings a week, many of which were over twenty-one years of age. At all events 5,000 of the "big piecers" were over twenty-one years of age. The result of this Bill would be, therefore, that the "little piecer" would receive ten shillings a week as compensation while the older man would only receive eight or nine. This was the anomaly of which he complained. The men worked side by side and the man in superior position received less than the man beneath him. That he thought was a ridiculous principle. The anomaly was the greater as the "big piecers" had to wait for promotion to the post of spinner, but the men were willing to wait and work for small wages after they came of age, because the post of spinner was well paid and the work was constant. It might be objected that his Amendment would apply to the agricultural labourer, but why should it not do so, as it only provided for a minimum of ten shillings a week, although his wages were, it was true, only twelve, fourteen, or fifteen shillings a week.
MR. HARWOODseconded the Amendment, and said as one who employed a good many people he thought It was a reasonable one. It might be asked why men in their trade were paid such small wages. It was because there were many posts which were highly paid, and therefore the men were prepared to wait for them, looking to be rewarded when they attained promotion. The anomaly which his hon. friend had pointed out ought to be removed. It was
1256
ridiculous that a man under twenty-one years of age might be getting two or three shillings a week more than the man who was over that age and who was working at a low wage because he was awaiting promotion. If his hon. friend had done anything to procure that the agricultural labourer over twenty years of age should never get less than ten shillings a week, in his judgment he had done an excellent thing. The principle of the Bill seemed to be that the lower the workman's wages the higher the amount of compensation, and they only asked for a fair adjustment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 6, after the word shillings,' to insert the words 'provided also that this section shall apply to a workman who is over twenty-one years of age, whose average weekly earnings are less than twenty shillings per week, if he is employed in the same grade in the same employment in the same district as a workman under that age.'"—[Air. Gill.)
Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONadmitted that there would be an anomaly, but it had been created out of a desire to deal generously with minors, to whom it was shown it would be a hardship in case of incapacity from accident if the wages they received were taken as a standard for the rest of their lives. Now it was pointed out that some persons under twenty-one might get more wages than others over twenty-one. If there was any grievance it was trivial in amount and that could scarcely be considered a grievance which was an excess of generosity to one class not extended to another. It was proposed to abolish the limit of twenty-one years and to substitute a vague test scarcely to be defined. With an arbitrary limit there would always be anomalies, but the Government must stand to the well-understood limit of twenty-one years and could not, to meet a few anomalous cases, make a change that would introduce great confusion in the administration of the Act and unknown difficulties in many trades.
Question put, and negatived.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONE*MR. GLADSTONE moved to substitute the following rules for computing the weekly payments during total incapacity for those contained in the section: "(a) Where the workman was employed exclusively by one employer at a fixed weekly or other periodical wage, the amount per week of that wage shall be his average weekly earnings; (b) where the workman was not employed at such a wage, his average weekly earnings shall be computed in such manner as is best calculated to give the rate per week at which he was being remunerated. Provided that where by reason of the shortness of the time during which the workman has been in the employment of his employer, or the casual nature of the employment, or the terms of the employment, it is impracticable at the date of the accident to compute the rate of remuneration, regard may be had to the average weekly amount which, during the twelve months previous to the accident, was being earned by a person in the same grade employed at the same work by the same employer, or, if there is no person so employed, by a person in the same grade employed in the same class of employment and in the same district; (c) where the workman was engaged under contracts of service with two or more employers his average weekly earnings shall be computed as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident.'" The right hon. Gentleman said this was a rather long Amendment, but its object was to make the whole provision clear, and it was rather a matter of drafting than anything else. The practical effect under the proposal was that under paragraph(a) they dealt with fixed weekly earnings, and under (b) they dealt with the piece worker. This would save much discussion before the arbitrator. If any case arose which could not be dealt with under (a) and (b), they came under the proviso which was incorporated in the Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone had, with his usual courtesy, brought to the attention of the Government a point that was necessary to deal with. The noble Lord had pointed out that in the case of sailors and others it was necessary to include board and lodging in the wages paid, in order to arrive at a proper estimate of their earnings. To
1258
meet that he would move to insert instead of "wages" the word "earnings." He thought that Amendment would meet the views of the noble Lord, because in "earnings" was included board, lodging, coals, and other things necessary to the person's occupation. But if on further consideration that was not found to be sufficient to meet the noble Lord the Government would find other words and insert them in another place.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 10, after the word 'schedule' to insert the words 'the following rules shall be observed, (a) where the workman was employed exclusively by one employer at a fixed weekly or other periodical wage, the amount per week of that wage shall be his average weekly earnings; (b) where the workman was not employed at such a wage, his average weekly earnings shall be computed in such manner as is best calculated to give the rate per week at which he was being remunerated. Provided that where by reason of the shortness of the time during which the workman has been in the employment of his employer, or the casual nature of the employment, or the terms of the employment, it is impracticable at the date of the accident to compute the rate of remuneration, regard may be had to the average weekly amount which, during the twelve months previous to the accident, was being earned by a person in the same grade employed at the same work by the same employer, or, if there is no person so employed, by a person in the same grade employed in the same class of employment and in the same district; (c) where the workman was engaged under contracts of service with two or more employers his average weekly earnings shall be computed as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident.'" — (Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
LORD R. CECILthought the Government had dealt with the point he had brought to their attention very fairly, though he did not much admire their wording. The point was of such importance that he would like to state it once more. In the case of sailors or domestic servants, their earnings depended partly on their wages and partly on board and lodging. It was quite clear that some provision should be made to include in the sum given as compensation both the board and lodging as well as the wage paid. So long as that was in the mind of the Government and the Government draughtsmen would make it clear in the

1259
Bill he was content, although he thought his words dealt with the matter in a better form than those of the Government.
SIR W. ROBSONthought the word "earnings" was adequate to the propose, but if, on consideration, that was found not to be so, the Government would find other words.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 17, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the word 'continuous.'
"In page 17, line 13, to leave out the word 'injury,' and to insert the word 'accident.'
"In page 17, line 15, to leave out the words 'for a period exceeding two weeks.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved an Amendment to exclude such sums as were paid to a workman for any outlay entailed upon him by his employment from being reckoned as part of his earnings. He said the Amendment was rather in the nature of a verbal Amendment than one of substance, as he thought the object of his right hon. friend was the same as his own. An allowance for all those things which were required by the workman and his work, such as oil for his lamp, and for keeping his pick sharp and matters of that kind, which were given by the employer, were held by the Courts to be his gross earnings. The Departmental Committee, who went closely into the matter, pointed out that in the face of recent decisions the word "earnings" might have the effect of laying a much heavier burden on the employer than was intended. They contended that "earnings" should mean net earnings. He moved this Amendment because he thought the words of the Bill did not carry out the intention of the departmental committee. The words "special expenses" could not, he thought, be held to include such things as he had mentioned, whereas if his Amendment was accepted it would make perfectly clear what was intended. He begged to move.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 16, to leave out from the word 'employer,' to the word 'and,' in line 19, and insert the words 'pays to the workman a sum to include any outlay entailed on him by the nature or conditions of his employment the sum so paid shall not be reckoned as part of the earnings.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONthought the Amendment hardly carried out the intention of its proposer. If it did he could only say he would regretfully have to ask the House not to accept it. The hon. Member evidently desired to restrict the compensation of the workman to what was called "net earnings," and it would be practically impossible in dealing with these matters to embark on a large inquiry as to what the net earnings were. If a man were employed at Westminster and lived at West Ham his fare to and fro and matters of that sort would have to be considered. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
MR. WALSHsaid a more insidious proposal had never been made to the House. In many cases the effect so far as miners were concerned would be that, not only would the miner have to work for nothing, but he would positively at the end of the week or the fortnight, after having made deductions for his picks, explosives, lamps, and so on, be in debt to his employer.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 19, to leave out from the word 'earnings,' to end of line 25.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. W. T. WILSON*MR. W. T. WILSON (Lancashire, Westhoughton) moved to delete from the schedule the words which provided that in fixing the amount of the weekly payment for partial incapacity the average amount the workman was "fit to earn in some suitable employment or business" should be

1261
taken into consideration. The clause, he said, if carried, would place a workman in a peculiar position. If he accepted light employment and then lost that employment he would get no compensation afterwards. The workman indeed would be placed in two difficult positions. If he accepted light work in some other employment the question would arise, did he voluntarily leave the employer for whom he was working when he met with the accident? If it were found that he did, the compensation would cease, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 31, to leave out from the word 'earning' to the word 'after, in line 32."—(Mr. W.T. Wilson.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or is,' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment, the effect of which might be to lead a workman to refuse some other employment for which he was properly competent.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 31, to leave out the word 'fit,' and insert the word 'able.'"—(My. Walsh.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WALSH MR. WALSH moved to insert words to ensure that the suitable employment or business in which the partially incapacitated workman was fit to earn wages should be "open to such workman." The reason for these words was that a man might be able to earn wages at an employment, but that if the employment were not open to him the difficulties would still remain. If a man
refused such employment as was open to him the argument of the employer would be overwhelming. All that the Amendment asked for was that the compensation should be assessed at the workman's capacity to earn wages.
MR. W. T. WILSONseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 32, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'open to such workman.'"—(Mr. Walsh.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Amendment was not necessary, especially after the insertion of the word "able."
MR. GILLsaid a man might be able to do some kind of light work, but the employer said he could get sound men for the work, the employment was therefore not open to him, although he was able and willing to do it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that if they inserted the words proposed it would mean that the arbitrator would have to consider the state of the labour market.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsuggested that the words "or is fit to earn in some suitable employment or business," should be deleted.
MR. J. WARDsaid the question was would the employer give a man who was able to work the chance of returning to some light employment? An employer often made a, job for such a man by putting an abler man to do something else, and that sometimes settled a case.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 465.)

AYES.

Alden, Percy

Burke, E. Haviland

Cremer, William Randal

Atherley-Jones, L.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crooks, William

Barnes, G. N.

Byles, William Pollard

Dalziel, James Henry

Bell, Richard

Clynes, J. R.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Boland, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Delany, William

Bottomley, Horatio

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bowerman, C. W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Dillon, John

Brooke, Stopford

Cowan, W. H.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Crean, Eugene

Donelan, Captain A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lundon, W.

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Farrell, James Patrick

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Richardson, A.

Fenwick, Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Rowlands, J.

Fullerton, Hugh

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Gill, A. H.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Seddon, J.

Ginnell, L.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shackleton, David James

Glover, Thomas

Meagher, Michael

Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

Halpin, J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Snowden, P.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mooney, J. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholls, George

Summerbell, T.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Vivian, Henry

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Hodge, John

O'Hare, Patrick

Wardle, George J.

Hogan, Michael

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Malley, William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jenkins, J.

O'Mara, James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brace.

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cave, George

Harwood, George

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cleland, J. W.

Hills, J. W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clough, William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Armitage, R.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Ashley, W. W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Astbury, John Meir

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancr's, W.)

Hooper, A. G.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

Hope, W. Bateman (S'm'rs't, N.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Balcarres, Lord

Cory, Clifford John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hunt, Rowland

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cox, Harold

Hyde, Clarendon

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Crombie, John William

Idris, T. H. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crossley, William J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Jackson, R. S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Sir D Brynmor (Swansea)

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm)

Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)

Kelley, George D.

Beck, A. Cecil

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Doughty, Sir George

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Benn, W. (T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Bennett, E. N.

Elibank, Master of

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Bertram, Julius

Essex, R. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambert, George

Billson, Alfred

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamont, Norman

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Fletcher, J. S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. Col. A. R.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lough, Thomas

Bramsdon, T. A.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Branch, James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lupton, Arnold

Bridgman, W. Clive

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Maclean, Donald

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bright, J. A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Crae, George

Brodie, H. C.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Hall, Frederick

M'Killop, W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

M'Micking, Major G.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mallet, Charles E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hart-Davies, T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

1264

1265

Menzies, Walter

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Tomkinson, James

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (B'df'rd)

Toulmin, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Robinson, S.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morpeth, Viscount

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Valentia, Viscount

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Robers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Murray, James

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Myer, Horatio

Rose, Charles Day

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Napier, T. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Waterlow, D. S.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitbread, Howard

Nuttall, Harry

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

White, George (Norfolk)

Perks, Robert William

Sears, J. E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sherwell, Arthur James

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Radford, G. H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wiles, Thomas

Rainy, A. Rolland

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Williamson, A.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Rees, J. D.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thomasson, Franklin

Roberts John H. (Denbighs.)

Tillett, Louis John

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 32, after the word 'accident,' to insert the words 'but shall bear such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circumstances of the case may appear proper."'—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that the object of his Amendment was simply to secure that where a workman deliberately refused to submit himself to a medical examination he should forfeit his right to compensation.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 17, line 38, after the word 'place,' to insert the words 'and if the Court shall be of opinion that the employer has been in any way prejudiced by the delay caused by the workman's refusal to submit himself to such medical examination, the workman's right to any compensation shall be absolutely forfeited.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment.
In reply to Sir FRANCIS POWELL,
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that it was already provided under the Bill that if a workman refused to submit himself to a medical examination he would forfeit his right to any compens-
1266
ation in respect of the period during which he had so refused.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 17, line 39, to leave out the words agreed or."
"In page 18, line 26, after the word 'where,' to insert the words 'on application being made in accordance with rules of Court.'"
"In page 18, line 26, to leave out from the word 'Court' to the word 'ought,' in line 32, and insert the words 'that on account of neglect of children on the part of a widow or on account of the variation of the circumstances of the various dependants, or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Court as to the apportionment amongst the several dependants of any sum paid as compensation, or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependant is to be invested, applied, or otherwise dealt with.'"
"In page 18, line 33, to leave out from the word 'may,' to the word 'make,' in line 34.'
In page 18, line 35, to leave out from the first word 'the,' to the word 'as,' in line 37, and insert the words 'variation of the former order.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. BRACEsaid he desired to modify the provision in the schedule which enabled an employer on application to the register and without reference to the county court Judge to compel an injured workman to go before the medical referee, by providing that such application should be made in writing by both parties.
MR. WALSHseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 19, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'to the Court by either party,' and insert the words 'in writing by both parties.'"—(Mr. Brace.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEannounced that he accepted the Amendment with considerable regret. The workman had now a right to go to the county court. Under the Bill he would still have that right, but he would have to go with the certificate of the medical referee, and the Judge would not be able to exercise his own independent discretion. That seemed to him be an argument rather favourable to the proposal as it stood at present in the Bill.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERprotested against the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. He hoped this matter would be dealt with properly in another place.
MR. BRACEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 19, line 32, to leave out the words 'either party,' and insert the words 'both parties.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved to insert "shall" after "party" in line 32. The object of this Amendment was to make the provision in regard to the medical referee more effective than it had been under the old Act. The function of the medical referee under the Act of 1897 had been a dead letter, because the county court Judges had not availed themselves of their power of reference. The policy of this Bill was to increase the functions and powers of the medical referee. The Amendment would give to either party the right on payment to ask the registrar of the county court to refer the matter to the medical referee. He thought this would save litigation and facilitate the settlement of claims.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 19, to leave out lines 33 to 38, inclusive, and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'applicant,' in line 33, stand part of the Bill."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The reason why an option was given to the registrar was that the proceedings might be found not to be of a purely medical character. The question whether the condition of the workman was due to his employment might have to be decided. If a workman or employer wished to take vexatious proceedings he might take proceedings before a medical referee and also before the county court. In order to avoid that, the registrar was to have power to refuse to make a reference to a medical referee. He would point out that if the provision regarding fees were struck out a largely increased charge would fall on the Treasury.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 19, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words 'two pounds,' and insert the words 'one pound.'"
"In page 19, line 34, to leave out from the word 'prescribed,' to end of line 38."
"In page 20, line 3, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State.'"
"In page 20, line 5, to leave out from the word 'workman,' to end of line 7."
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 20, line 31, after the word 'employer,' to insert the words 'or workman.'"— (Mr. John Taylor.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill included a great mass of small employers throughout the country, and if this Amendment were carried it might have the effect of ruining a great number of them.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid there was no Amendment which had created greater apprehension than this, and he was glad that the Government had refused to accept it.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 20, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'in default of agreement.'"
"In page 20, line 43, to leave out the words 'but if he proves,' and to insert the words 'unless the medical referee certifies.'"
"In page 20, line 44, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'likely to be.'"
"In page 20, line 44, to leave out from the word 'nature' to the end of paragraph (18), and to insert the words 'If the medical referee so certifies, the workman shall be entitled to receive quarterly the amount of the weekly payments accruing due during the preceding quarter so long as he proves, in such manner and at such intervals as may be prescribed by rules of Court, his identity and the continuance of the incapacity in respect of which the weekly payment is payable.'"
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 22, line 37, at the end, to insert the words (a) no such memorandum shall be recorded before seven days after the despatch by the registrar of notice to the parties interested; (b) where a workman seeks to record a memorandum of agreement between his employer and himself for the payment of compensation under the Act and the employer, in accordance with rules of Court, proves that the workman has in fact returned to work and is earning the same wages as he did before the accident, and objects to the recording of such memorandum, the memorandum shall only be recorded, if at all, on such terms as the judge of the County Court, under the circumstances, may think just.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs in whose name the Amendment originally stood was not present. The Government agreed with him on a certain form of words, but he was not sure if the Amendment as now read carried out that agreement. However, he would accept the Amendment, and in another place the Government would make it conform with what had been agreed upon.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 24, line 8, after the word 'award,' to insert the words 'but in respect of proceedings in the Court as between principals and contractors or between employers and any other persons, or between different employers, the same Court fees shall be payable if an action were taken instead of such proceedings.'"—(Mr. John O'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSON SIR W. ROBSON, on behalf of the Government, accepted the Amendment.
MR. JOWETT MR. JOWETT (Bradford, W.) moved an Amendment to include in the schedule aniline poisoning and chrome ulceration as diseases affecting dye-workers. He had no intention of giving any experience of his own in support of his case, but he would quote the testimony of Dr. Whitelegge, the chief inspector of the Factory Department of the Home Office, who wrote a memorandum in 1905 in regard to the two diseases mentioned, in which he said—
"The vapour of aniline oil as used industrially is known to give rise to definite symptoms of till health by inhalation, mainly by absoption through the skin and by the decomposition of salts which are allowed to dry on the clothes."
As to chrome poisoning Dr. Whitelegge reported—
"Chromic acid or solutions of the alkaline bichromatics cause ulceration of the skin, which commences frequently, but not always, after an abrasion of the skin…. In club dyeing the chrome affection in susceptible persons had been found to take the form of papular eruption on the hands, especially round the knuckles, on the palms, in the fold between the thumb and first linger, and about the wrists and forearms. Constant contact with the solution causes the papule to burst, leaving the chromic ulceration condition so often found in workers."
He submitted that that was quite good enough evidence as to the existence of these industrial diseases, and he could not imagine on what grounds they should not be included in the schedule. He begged to move.
MR. BARNESseconded the Amendment. He said he gladly joined with his hon. friend in pressing the Home Secretary to include these diseases within the scope of the Bill, if not now as soon as he possibly could. At all events he hoped he would give them a promise that by July next year these diseases would be scheduled. As this was the last Amendment, he wished to thank, not only the Government and their supporters, but those above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House for the kindly and full consideration they had given to the Amendments from the Labour Benches. He hoped the Bill, while benefiting the

1271
workpeople, would not be found, as some had feared it might, to be an undue burden on the industry of the country.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 25, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, 'aniline and chrome poisoning, persons employed in or about dye works.'"— (Mr Jowett.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they had now reached the last Amendment upon this stage of the Bill, and he wished that it was possible to signalise that event, in view of the harmonious nature of the discussion, by accepting the Amendment, but the Government could not do so for the reason they gave yesterday. These diseases needed inquiry, and inquiry by the Departmental Committee was proceeding. Aniline poisoning was only one form of poisoning by products of benzine, and there was no reason why they should not include all benzine poisoning in the schedule. Chrome poisoning was a thing which was not known. The disease to be dealt with was chrome ulceration. Nor was it sufficient to include only persons employed in dye-works. Persons engaged in the manufacture of these products suffered from the same diseases, and often in a more pronounced form. Under these circumstances it was necessary that the Committee should frame proper and right terms in which to describe these diseases and employments, but he did not think it would be respectful to his Committee to forestall their Report, and he could, therefore, give no pledge. But in his own mind he had little doubt that before the end of July these diseases would be brought in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 365.]

LICENSING (REMOVAL OF DOUBTS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for the Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)formally moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."
MR. CLOUGH*MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton) moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He knew that the House was very anxious to get on to the discussion of the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, but he felt bound to oppose the measure now before the House because of two sentences in the Attorney-Generals speech in introducing the Bill. The Attorney-General had declared, "What would be the consequences of that decision (of the Court of King's Bench) one does not need an active imagination to foresee. In the first place, the Act of 1904 is a dead letter." It was because the Act of 1904 was now invalid and a dead letter that he wished it to remain so. The whole Act, according to the right hon. Gentleman, had been thrown overboard. He suggested they should leave it there, and not launch a lifeboat to save it. He did not see why there should be this undue haste to rectify this slipshod legislation of the last Government. The present Leader of the Opposition did not take very hasty steps to remove the doubts after the Taff Vale judgment. He did not introduce a measure straight away to remove doubts with regard to trade disputes. With regard to the Education Act, when passive resistance was rampant throughout the land, and when imprisonment was the rule from one end of the country to the other, the late Prime Minister did not introduce a measure to appease these passive resistors— he did not introduce an Education (Removal of Doubts) Bill. He did not see why they should interfere with this legislation, which had been so carelessly framed by the late Government, and was causing so much chaos and litigation at the present time. Let it go on. It was because he objected to this departure on the part of the present Government in bolstering up the hasty class legislation of the last Government, and in riveting the shackles upon public opinion which were imposed upon it by the 1904 Act, that he moved the rejection of the Bill.
MR. G. A. HARDYseconded the Amendment. He said the original measure was a badly

1273
drafted Bill. It was one which they had all opposed on that side of the House, and it was pressed through without discussion by means of the guillotine.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Clough.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was sure his hon. friend behind him would not expect a lengthy reply. Let him remind the House that the object of this Bill was not to alter the original Act. It was simply to determine what the object of that Bill was, and to determine it in no other sense than that in which they all wished the law to be declared, namely, the sense in which it was declared by the Act of 1904. If that legislation was wrong, let the House amend it, or alter it, and have the courage to say that it was wrong. The object of the Bill was not to alter the law, but to make it plain what the House, rightly or wrongly, meant to do in 1904. The Government had bolstered up nothing, had altered nothing, and supported nothing. They had only indicated in terms which he hoped would now be made sufficiently plain, so that they could be understood by every tribunal in the country, exactly what the House meant in 1904, and he thought it was a legitimate object of legislation for the House to correct misunderstandings which might have arisen by the interpretation of statutes by the Courts of law. He would say one word in conclusion which might be some consolation to his hon. friend. The Home Secretary had on the stocks a Bill dealing with the whole of the licensing question, and his hon. friend's views, and the views of the trade, would receive due consideration in the preparation of that Bill.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the following instruction standing in the
1274
name of the hon. Member for Preston was out of order as it was outside the scope of the Bill:—"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for those children attending public elementary schools who are unable, on account of other causes than the want of food, to profit by the education offered."
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. HAROLD COX*MR. HAROLD COX (Preston) moved an Amendment to substitute the Poor Law guardians in any union for the local education authority as the authority for the administration of this Act. The Poor Law guardians had for over 300 years been the authority for administering relief to the destitute in this country, and he maintained that they were the authority which should continue to discharge this duty. He had received, as many other hon. Members had received, circulars from the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales calling attention to this Bill and urging that it should be amended in the way he suggested. In that circular the Council of the Association of Poor Law Unions pointed out that the boards of guardians alone by their relieving officers had the necessary machinery for making inquiries, granting relief, and following up cases, and that if these duties were handed over to the education authorities who had no experience in dealing with destitution and no proper machinery for investigating cases the business would be badly managed. That was not merely the opinion of the Council of the Poor Law Association. It was also the opinion of Poor Law boards throughout the kingdom. The secretary of the association stated that the circular was sent to 170 Poor Law unions and 134 of them protested against the Bill in its present shape. A discussion was held in November last by the representatives of local unions, and at that discussion, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution was carried protesting against the Bill in its present shape. This procedure would not only create confusion in the Bill, but throughout the whole country. In Clause 2, for instance, it was provided that the local education authority should

1275
demand payment twice over for one meal supplied to one child. If hon. Members read the clause it would be clear to them that, in the first place, the local education authority were to demand payment from the board of guardians. Then later on the board of guardians wore to require payment from the parents, and the amount received they were to hand over, in addition to what they had already paid, to the education authority. Another and more serious difficulty was that there were created by this Bill an enormous number of overlapping authorities. According to a circular issued by the guardians of the parish of Fulham, who had gone very carefully into this matter, in the parish of Edmonton, which was in three counties, there would be no less than twelve authorities for this relief—one board of guardians, eight education authorities, and three distress committees. If the Government multiplied authorities in this way and gave to all the power to draw upon the rates to relieve destitution a great waste of money would be caused. Another important reason for the Amendment was that the subject could not be dealt with properly without a careful investigation into each case, and the Poor Law guardians were the only body who had the machinery to do that. There was no machinery for investigation provided under the Bill. He had before him a case so striking that he need not apologise for referring to it again. It was the case of the Johanna Street school to which a visit was paid by his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell, Sir John Gorst, and the Countess of Warwick. The Lambeth guardians examined into the allegations made by this distinguished trio, and found that they were almost entirely unfounded. Sir Charles Elliott and Mr. Hooper of Birmingham had also made a great study of this subject, and it was interesting to find that both these gentlemen agreed that the plan of the hon. Member for North Camberwell of feeding the children first and compelling the parents to pay after was a chimera. The women inspectors of the Board of Education were almost unanimous in dismissing the idea that what the children suffered from was want of food.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not see what this had to do with the Amendment.
1276
The House was now dealing with the question of whether the local education authority or the board of guardians was to be the body which should undertake the feeding of the children. The hon. Member was dealing with the question as to whether the children were to be fed or not.
MR. HAEOLD COXsaid his contention was that the subject should be investigated at the homes, and it was only by the Boards of Guardians that that investigation could take place.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman was raising other questions which had nothing to do with that point, and the point itself did not rise on this Amendment.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that what these children suffered from was not insufficient but improper food, insufficient sleep, and want of cleanliness.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the point which he wished to draw attention to was that this Amendment dealt with the body that was to form a committee to provide meals, but that was not the point which the hon. Member was dealing with. He must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid there was no other machinery for investigation than the guardians. He did not wish to labour the point, and would only say that when these matters were investigated it was found that it was not food but something else that was wanted. This Bill instead of facilitating the building up of good homes would tend to destroy the home. What they had to find out was how the child became hungry. The cause was to be found in the general problem of poverty, and the guardians were the proper authority to deal with that. [LABOUR cries of "No."] He agreed with hon. Members opposite that the duty of the board of guardians was to confine their attentions to destitution. He hoped the great problem of poverty would be dealt with in another way. At any rate the supporters of the Bill allowed the misery in the home to go on. The other children might be ill, or the mother might be dying, but the supporters of the Bill were content to inflate one little stomach with lentil soup.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is disregarding my ruling. He must confine himself to his Amendment.
MR. HAROLD COXthought it was surely relevant to the Amendment to point out that unless investigations took place a remedy would be provided for what was not the evil. That investigation could not take place unless the matter were entrusted to the board of guardians.
THE CHAIRMAN: Strictly, investigation does not arise here, but on a later Amendment. Even if it were in order the hon. Gentleman keeps wandering from it.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was only trying to make his point. There was a mass of evidence revealing the fact that in many cases it was not more food that the children wanted. None of these things could be investigated except by the board of guardians.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he was very sorry to have to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Gentleman did not seem to have read the Bill. The question he was dealing with did not arise out of the immediate question before the House.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was trying to justify his claim that investigation at the home was necessary. The objection to the board of guardians being employed to do this work was that the parent would be disfranchised. A curious anomaly was at once created by the Bill, because under the existing law parents who applied for relief were disfranchised, but under this Bill if a man sent his child to try and pick up a meal at school he would not be disfranchised. He could see no logical difference. It was giving public relief to the family.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with Clause 4. I warn the hon. Member for the last time.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was trying to argue that the boards of guardians should undertake this duty, and the only reason he could conceive against it was that the parent would be disfranchised. But if they could argue that at a later stage there was no necessity to argue it now. He would, however, point
1278
out, in conclusion, that the Bill shifted the duty of relief from the guardians to another body, and that the receipt of relief under it would not entail disfranchisement. It was in its essence a Socialist proposal, and he could not understand how a Government which sent one Of its members to Huddersfield to make speeches against Socialism could force such a measure in the House. The House ought not to be pressed to deal with such a serious matter so late in the session. He fully recognised the spirit in which hon. Members below the gangway defended this Bill. He acknowledged the perfect sincerity of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but he and others who were supporting this Bill were taking a course which would bring no real relief to the children.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again irrelevant, and I must direct him to resume his seat.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'may,' in line 6, and insert the words 'the poor law guardians in any union.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,)said he thought he had extremely little to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government were responsible for the origination of the Bill. He thought the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well it was a private Member's Bill. There was no feeling in his mind that the report he made had been contemptuously rejected. He had never taken part in a Committee whose proceedings were more harmonious, and on the whole it had produced a very workable and feasible Bill to the House. Most of the questions to which Poor Law guardians took exception would be dealt with later on. One of the largest boards—
THE CHAIRMAN: I must try to preserve the same rules of order, and I must ask the hon. Member to reply only to what is relevant in the arguments of the hon. Member for Preston.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was replying to the argument that all the Poor Law

1279
guardians in the country thought the work should be referred to them, and he was saying that one of the great boards of guardians at any rate did not sympathise with that view. The view that it was entirely a work of relief was much too narrow. The idea of the Bill was simply to open refreshment rooms in connection with schools where the local education authority thought such to be necessary. Although there was an interval in the school hours, experience proved that many children could not go to their homes during that interval owing to the distance, whilst others found their homes closed when they went there. In London 300 schools every winter were providing meals. Something like 30,000 children in the Metropolis alone were fed, and about 80,000 meals provided. The idea that the work should be taken in charge by the guardians was contrary to every representation. The hon. Gentleman had not dealt at all with the fact that many of the meals served were paid for by the children. In the case of one experiment that had been tried in London, all the meals supplied to the extent of £14,000 a year had been paid for by the children, and there was no loss to the authority except a small sum not worth mentioning.
MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the hon. Member was in order.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that since work of this kind is being done by the school authorities now, there is no need to change the authorities.
MR. LOUGHsaid no argument had been adduced for handing over the work to the poor law guardians, and he questioned whether under their constitution it would be possible for them to deal with it. Many kindly disposed people found money in order that these meals should be given. Why should not these voluntary funds be encouraged in the future as in the past and some facility be given for their expenditure in the schools? There were grave administrative difficulties in the way of handing this work over to the guardians who did not work in areas coterminous with those of the school authorities. There were 670 poor law authorities, and only 327 local education authorities and their areas were
1280
not the same. He thought the House should pause before consenting to a proposal which would allow the guardians to interfere with the work of the schools. It was desired that this work should be not a work of relief, but a work of education. They desired this part of the work to be as carefully considered as the other part of education. They wanted wholesome food given to the children and they wanted the children taught how to eat it, which was a most useful lesson. Four Royal Commissions and several Parliamentary Committees had expressed opinions adverse to this work being undertaken by the boards of guardians. The hon. Member for Preston seemed to think the question had been discovered since he came into the House, but he would like to remind him that the last Parliament, by a majority of 164, decided that the work should not be done in that way, although a member of the Government had advocated it. The present Parliament arrived at the same decision in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, and he hoped that as the Bill went through the Committee such references to the guardians as the measure contained would be so modified as to remove this work still more completely from them and give it more into the hands of the local education authority. It was impossible to entertain the Amendment.
COLONEL KENYON SLANEYsaid he did not approach this question on account of any hostility to the general principle of the Bill. They were now discussing whether the poor law guardians or the local education authorities would be the best body to administer this Bill. He thought it was the duty of the House to consider carefully whether in confiding this measure to the local education authorities they were putting it into the best hands. He was afraid that, as the measure stood, it must produce friction between two authorities. The local education authority would have to organise the provision of meals and make the charge on the parents whose children received them. But in the event of any parent not paying, it was through the guardians that he was to be forced to pay. If the education authorities acted they should do so by machinery of their own and take proceedings on their own account.
THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member is now discussing Clause 2. The question of investigation does not come in at all on this Amendment.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he was dealing with the question whether the poor law guardians or the local education authorities were the best authorities, and he was under the impression that he had confined his remarks to that point. He was anxious that the Committee should have placed before it reasons why the boards of guardians were the best authorities for carrying out the provisions of the Bill If the administration of the Bill was placed in the hands of the local education authorities it would necessitate friction.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman was disregarding his ruling. The question of expense, the question of investigation, and the question of who was to pay would come on later.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the power of the local education authority was not limited to Clause 1. It extended to other clauses in the Bill, and therefore if they desired to leave out the local education authority, and to put in another, it was absolutely necessary to prove that the substituted authority would take its place not in one clause but in all the clauses.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under those circumstances we might have a Second Reading debate on many of the early Amendments. That would be entirely out of order, and I have given my ruling.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he thought what he was saying was pertinent to the discussion. Of course the ruling which had been given limited him to the narrowest possible ground, and he did not know that he could do more than emphasise what he had already stated. The clause said that the local authority "shall not incur any expense in respect of the purchase of food to be supplied at such meals." The local authority was to have the power of initiating certain proceedings, and then of asking another body to carry out the unpleasant and invidious part of work which they had initiated. If the education authorities acted they should do so by
1282
machinery of their own and take proceedings on their own account.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Government had Amendments to propose on that point.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid they were accustomed to a procedure which left doubt as to what a Government Bill meant. There wore substantial reasons on grounds of good management, economy, and general public interest for the Amendment.
DR. MACNAMARAopposed the Amendment. He pointed out that the Local Government Board Order issued last year, which invested the guardians with power to deal with hungry children, had been inoperative. He did not suppose that there had boon a dozen cases assisted in London, not because there was no necessity, but because the guardians did not want to carry it out. In one case where it had been largely operative it was carried out in a thoroughly vicious way in order that the parents might not come a second time. That was at Bradford, where the Local Government Board Order had been put in operation and meals provided. What was the result?
MR. HAROLD COX: Is it not the custom on the discussion of the first clause of a Bill in Committee to have something in the nature of a Second Reading debate?
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Bradford Board of Guardians had been compelled by popular opinion to put the order in operation. It was a matter of test at an election. The guardians immediately followed the matter up by suing the parent of each child who was assisted for threepence for every meal. A working man's wife was sometimes glad to have threepence for the whole family. It was a preposterous charge, and was solely intended to prevent parents from coming again to get assistance from the guardians for their hungry children. In these circumstances the Committee would not be justified in handing over these powers to the boards of guardians.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he understood that

1283
the purport of the Amendment was that for the purposes of the Bill the guardians of the poor were a better authority to deal with the matter than the local education authority. It was very difficult to discuss this question as to whether the board of guardians were the better authority without looking up and down the Bill and considering the proposals of the Government. For instance, Clause 3 allowed the local education authority to provide food without associating itself with the voluntary committees, but only in cases of exceptional distress. He had never committed himself to the view that the guardians were the better authority; on the contrary, he had never regarded this question as one of outdoor relief. His hon. friend the Member for Preston ignored the case of a large number of children whose parents were capable and willing to provide food for them, but could not because they were away from home at work at the children's dinner hour, or if they did give them food to take with them it was not of a palatable or wholesome quality. On the other hand, if they gave money to the children to buy their dinner, the children often spent it in sweetmeats or cigarettes or other things which gave no nutrition. It would be a very great boom to a large number of children, whether ill or well fed at home, if they got food supplied to them by a committee working under the direction of the local education authority. Therefore he said that this was emphatically a question for the local education authority; but he was disposed to say that some security ought to be taken that the guardians of the poor should be represented on any committee with which the local education authority associated itself. He agreed with the hon. Member for Preston as to the great importance of investigation. He took it that the committee with which the local education authority associated itself should be in a position to make the fullest inquiry before they undertook the work. It was for the interest of all that these voluntary associations or committees should earnestly take up this question of child life in our great towns, not merely the condition in which the children came to school, but their life in their homes. It was from that point of view that he, for one, looked on some portions of this Bill with approbation. But while he cordially supported the Government
1284
against the Amendment, he felt that there were many points which would call for a good deal of criticism at a later stage.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said that the hon. Member for North Camberwell had appealed to him in his official capacity as to the operations of an Order, which the Local Government Board issued to the boards of guardians some time ago. Subject to the qualification that it dealt with a somewhat different class of child from that dealt with by this Bill, the Order issued to the boards of guardians in reference to the provision of meals might be described as a relative failure. His reasons for making that statement were, briefly, that in July, 1906, there were only 151 children in England and Wales, and these were included in only five unions, who were' receiving meals from the boards of guardians under that Order of the Local Government Board; and of these l5l children, 121 were at Bradford. Some hon. Members might object that that was in summer, when there was not much distress; but in January in twelve unions the boards of guardians had granted this form of relief to 563 children, and of these 340 were in one union, viz., Salford. As to whether the Order was successful or not. The House itself could draw its own inference from these figures. That brought him to the precise question before the Committee, which was as to whether the board of guardians should be substituted for the local education authority. All the authorities that Parliament had appointed to consider this subject, whether Royal Commissions or Departmental Committees, had pronounced unmistakably in favour of the local education authority rather than of the boards of guardians. The right hon. and gallant Member had argued that the local education authority should provide the meals and then call upon the board of guardians to distrain. The Board of Education had decided to eliminate the boards of guardians from the process of providing these meals, and to that view the Local Government Board agreed. In his judgment this was a question of principle, and he was unmistakably in favour of the local education authority's working the measure.

1285
It was not fair to assume that the local education authority did not possess the means of investigation necessary for the provision of the meals. On the contrary, he believed that the local education authority, plus the voluntary agencies which they would have at their disposal, and the experience which they would get from the board of guardians and from a broad and general point of view, had ample means of acquiring the information necessary to carry out the Bill properly. It seemed to him that the local education authority should be the nucleus around which members of the boards of guardians and members of voluntary agencies would gather. This was not merely a question of providing the meals; it was also one of teaching better habits and manners and of utilising the opportunity thus afforded for other purposes. If the boards of guardians had to do this work a number of persons would not so willingly co-operate with them as they would with the local education authority. This latter body would attract, in a way which boards of guardians would not, the services of voluntary agencies of leisured people who had the time and means to do this work, and of managers and teachers, whose assistance was absolutely essential to the successful carrying out of the plan. The final and most conclusive answer to the Amendment was that the Local Government Board did not want this particular duty.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that, as a member of the Royal Commission and of the Select Committee which considered this question, he could not give a silent vote upon it. He was in the greater difficulty in regard to it because he was afraid he must dissociate himself to some extent from the cordial acceptance of the Bill given to it by his hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He felt very great difficulty in regard to the Bill, although he fully reciprocated the good feeling of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He cordially agreed with the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board that the less they allowed poor law guardians to interfere with education the better it was for our educational system. It was for that reason very largely that the Royal Com-
1286
mission and the Select Committee desired to leave this power in the hands of the local education authority. They desired at the same time, however, to restrict those powers so that the Act should be properly administered by the local education authority. So long as they had the direction and organisation of the provision of school meals as part of the school organisation, so long as they gave meals the food for which was not paid for by charity but by school fees, he agreed that they ought not to allow the poor law guardians to intervene. But surely it was a different thing when they added to those powers of organisation and direction association with charitable bodies or any other bodies which provided food; if they added to that the actual provision of food by those means, that was poor law relief or it was nothing. There was no use mincing words. If they gave actual food, although they might call the process by different names, they were committing to the local education authority something which did not appertain to it, something which had nothing to do with the carrying on of the school, something which was a mixing up of charity with school organisation and which degraded the school. If the Government were prepared to foist upon the managers by this Bill the actual provision of food, they ought to hand the duty over to the authority which dealt with poor law relief. On the whole he opposed the Amendment, although he did not oppose the Bill generally. He opposed the Amendment, but at the same time he must point out that this was only a particular item in the general objection to the Bill as a whole. He thought the Bill a mistake, because by it they wore touching only a small and comparatively insignificant cause of physical degeneracy. This Amendment made the Bill still worse.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that after reading the revelations as to the proceedings of the Poplar Guardians he had some doubt in his mind as to whether he should support the Amendment, but he had come to the conclusion that the guardians were the bettor body to deal with this matter. The hon. Member for North Camber-well had stated that a particular board of guardians charged 3d. per meal

1287
and that that was a prohibitive price. But if the hon. Member had looked at the evidence given before the Departmental Committee he would have seen that the cost was 2½d. The Financial Secretary had said that this was a harmonious Bill, and had advanced that reason for not accepting the Amendment. But if his recollection was correct the hon. Gentleman's own Report was summarily rejected by the Committee. Another argument used was that this was a sort of refreshment department. If that was to be the object of the clause he could only say he did not believe any local education authority had had any experience in providing refreshments. He further believed a great number of the teachers had refused to undertake the work on the ground that their duties would not enable them to do so. On those grounds he would support this Amendment if it went to a division.
MR. HAROLD COXrose to correct a statement of the Financial Secretary but—
THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not, on this occasion, allow him to speak again.
MR. TALBOTasked whether the hon. Member would not be in order in speaking twice in Committee. The Chairman had refused to allow him to speak.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think he had laid down any rule of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman was probably not present when he had to call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat for irrelevancy.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid the Question before the Com-
mittee was as to the body to give these meals to the children, and he only rose because having been a member of the local education authority in his district from its start he would like to say a few words. No one could doubt for a moment that the local education authority was the best body for this purpose. They were more in touch with the children and better acquainted with the parents than the board of guardians could be, and they were the only persons who could administer this Act in a proper manner.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that as one of those who did not think this Bill went far enough he should resist to the utmost the Amendment. It sought to put into the hands of the boards of guardians a duty which only the local education authority could perform, and because he thought that boards of guardians ought to be abolished, the House, in his opinion, ought not to entrust any further powers to them. There were many thousands of parents in London now who were unable to give their children meals, not through want of means, but because there were no facilities and no accommodation at their homes to enable them to do so. He thought the House should give the local education authority power to give to these children the meals which the rich and well-to-do could always have; and it must always be remembered that school meals were part and parcel of a national system of education and must not be regarded as charity.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 290; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 466.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beauchamp, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Beaumont,Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

Branch, James

Alden, Percy

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'xh'm)

Brigg, John.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Beck, A. Cecil

Bright, J. A.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bell, Richard

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brodie, H. C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt)

Brooke, Stopford

Astbury, John Meir

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)

Brunner, J. E. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bennett, E. N.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Billson, Alfred

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Barnard, E. B.

Boland, John

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Barnes, G. X.

Bottomley, Horatio

Byles, William Pollard

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Chance, Frederick William

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henry, Charles S.

O'Grady, J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Higham, John Sharp

O'Hare, Patrick

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Cleland, J. W.

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

Clough, William

Hogan, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hooper, A. G.

Paul, Herbert

Cogan, Denis J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (SPancr's, W)

Hyde, Clarendon

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Idris, T. H. W.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cooper, G. J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jenkins, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l)

Cory, Clifford John

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

Cowan, W. H.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Crean, Eugene

Kekewich, Sir George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cremer, William Rendal

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Crooks, William

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Crossley, William J.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Keswick, William

Redmond, William (Clare)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rees, J. D.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Mon'th)

Delany, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm't'n)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Panc'rs, N.)

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lamont, Norman

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Doughty, Sir George

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furn's)

Lundon, W.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lupton, Arnold

Robinson, S.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley,)

Lynch, H. B.

Rowlands, J.

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Erskine, David C.

Maclean, Donald

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Sears, J. E.

Farrell, James Patrick.

MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seddon, J.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Shackleton, David James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mallet, Charles E.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ginnell, L.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Meagher, Michael

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Snowden, P.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Molteno, Percy Alport

Spicer, Sir Albert

Gooch, George Peabody

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Steadman, W. C.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mooney, J. J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Greenwood, Hamer (York)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Morpeth, Viscount

Sullivan, Donal

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, Philip

Summerbell, T.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Murphy, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hall, Frederick

Murray, James

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Myer, Horatio

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Napier, T. B.

Thomasson, Franklin

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholls, George

Tomkinson, James

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Nolan, Joseph

Toulmin, George

Hart-Davies, T.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harwood, George

Nuttall, Harry

Verney, F. W.

1290

1291

Vivian, Henry

Whitbread, Howard

Williamson, A.

Walsh, Stephen

White, George (Norfolk)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Walters, John Tudor

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Whitehead, Rowland

Wardle, George J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Waterlow, D. S.

Wiles, Thomas

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bertram, Julius

Hills, J. W.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Younger, George

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hunt, Rowland

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Carlile, E. Hildred

Magnus, Sir Philip

Mr. Harold Cox and Sir Frederick Ban bury.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Meysey-Thompson E. C.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Craik, Sir Henry

Nield, Herbert

And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

BURIALS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
MR, CLAUDE HAYobjected.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)appealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his objection.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he could not agree to the request.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the two Members who put Amendments down to this Bill had agreed to withdraw their Amendments. It was practically an agreed Bill, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his action.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODalso appealed to the hon. Gentlemen to withdraw, and observed that it was a Bill which must be
1292
passed. There was no Party feeling whatever about it.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid naturally the appeal of his right hon. friend and also that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have great weight with him, but as a matter of principle he objected to any Bill being taken after eleven o'clock.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Education (England and Wales) Bill, with Amendments.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 366.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at four minutes after Eleven o'clock.