Sitting of 25 April 1893

QUESTIONS.

  COMPLAINTS AGAINST MRS. SUSAN FOX.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the frequent complaints made against Mrs. Susan Fox, a dressmaker, of Brook Street, Hanover Square, by her apprentices, accounts of which have been reported in the police news of the papers; whether he is aware that Agues Lucas, an apprentice of Mrs. Fox, was, on 7th April instant, thrust violently out of the workroom by the porter of the establishment and Mrs. Fox, on account of inability to perform a certain quantity of work in three minutes; that Mrs. Fox then assaulted Agnes Lucas, injuring her so seriously that the girl was obliged to stay in bed for several days under medical treatment; that, in spite of this, a summons has now been taken out against the girl and her father for neglect of duty; and that, generally, the apprentices are kept at, work for exceedingly long hours, deprived of proper and sufficient food, and sometimes locked in a damp room for long continuous periods; and what course he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): For some time past I have been aware of the complaints made against Mrs. Fox, and as long ago as last September I directed that the Inspectors should give frequent and special attention to her premises. Since then she has been kept under close.

  1125
  observation and frequently visited by the Factory Inspector, to whom constant complaints have been addressed by the parents of apprentices. From time to time cross-summonses have been heard at the Marlborough Street Police Court between Mrs. Fox and the parents of her apprentices on the one hand, for alleged failure on the part of these latter to comply with their indentures, and on the other for alleged acts of ill-treatment. So far as the Factory and Workshop Act is concerned, Mrs. Fox has kept herself, as a rule, within the law in matters affecting her hands. She was, however, prosecuted and convicted at the instance of the Home Office, a short time ago, for working overtime without sending the required notice to the District Inspector. The alleged ill-treatment of apprentices in the house appears, unfortunately, to be of such a kind as not to involve a breach of the Factory and Workshop Acts, or to fall within the jurisdiction of the Inspectors. But every step has been, and will be, taken, so far as the law allows, to prevent and punish its infraction.

  OPIUM DENS IN BOMBAY.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. Henry Varley, in The Methodist Times of 6th April, in which he states that he has visited some of the opium dens in the City of Bombay, and that in one were at least 130 men and a few women, and in a second about 90, and in a third about 40 men; and if he is aware that by a Resolution of the Government of India, No. 4033, 25th September, 1891, an Order was made, closing every opium smoking den in India, and if the Secretary of State will take whatever action is necessary to secure the enforcement of this Resolution throughout British India?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State for India has seen the statement referred to by my hon. Friend. The Orders of the 25th September, 1891, directed that in any future opium licence the vendor should be prohibited from permitting the consumption of opium on his premises in any form. The Secretary of State has asked the
  1126
  Government of India to consider whether the law should not be strengthened, so as to enable legal steps to be taken for suppressing private opium saloons.
  MR. CAINE: Is not an Order of the Viceroy in Council itself sufficient? Is it not operative as part of the law of India?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We are advised it is expedient to amend the law of India in order to secure the carrying out of the intentions of the Government.

  RATING HINDU TEMPLES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is in the power of an Indian Municipality to institute a new mode of rating without authority from the Government of India; whether he is aware that, without authority from the Viceroy, certain Hindu temples in Benares have been rated by the Benares Municipality, while Mahomedan mosques and Christian churches and chapels have been exempted, although it has been the general practice to exempt from taxation, whether Imperial or municipal, all places of worship and charitable institutions; whether the temples in question—namely, those of Ganesh and Anapurua, and the Chattra connected therewith, are exempted from the payment of Income Tax because they are charitable institutions; whether hospitals in India are exempted from taxation or rating: and whether, if the alleged rating of Hindu temples in Benares has not been brought under the notice of the Secretary of State, he will make inquiries: and, if he finds the fact is as stated, will give instructions that all religious edifices and charitable institutions, without distinction of creed, shall be treated on one and the same footing of equality?
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Yes, Sir; an Indian Municipality can levy such rates and taxes as are allowed by law without, the sanction of the Government of India. In the case of Benares, the law applicable is Chapter 3 of Act XV. of 1883, as amended by the North-Western Provinces Act I. of 1891. The Secretary of State has received no information as to the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's second and third questions; but he will forward the questions to the Government of India, and ask for information on the points mentioned.

  1127
  Hospitals in India are not ordinarily exempted by law from municipal rates and taxes; but they may be, and often are, exempted wholly or partially under Rules made by the Municipal Authorities subject to the approval of the Local Government. If the people of Benares consider that impartiality has not been shown in the matter referred to, they will, doubtless, seek redress and cause a question to be put upon the subject in the Local Legislature.

  BENARES WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware of the strong feeling which exists among the Hindu and Moslem inhabitants of Benares respecting the provision of a water supply for that city in pipes protected internally by an anti-corrosive mixture; and whether, in view of the great mischief caused in India by any prevailing idea regarding matters affecting religion, the Secretary of State will ascertain by public analysis what are the component parts of this mixture, and make the result of the analysis known in Benares, as the belief is widely spread throughout the city that the mixture contains hog's lard and bovine fat, a circumstance which, if correct, would prevent either Mahomedans or Hindus making use of water which according to their religious tenets is thereby polluted, and may not be used?
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1) No, Sir; the Secretary of State for India has heard nothing of the strong local feeling mentioned in the question. (2) The Secretary of State for India will forward my hon. Friend's question to the Government of India.

  WRONGFUL ARREST IN ABERDEEN
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a letter in The People's Journal with respect to a wrongful arrest in Aberdeen; whether it is consistent with usage or law in Scotland that a policeman who has not witnessed an assault may, without warrant or other process, on his own responsibility arrest persons who may be accused of having committed an assault; and whether, if the existing law be defective, he will take steps to prevent
  1128
  occurrences of the kind described in the letter above mentioned?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.): I have seen the letter in The People's Journal, the statements in which are borne out by the information which I have received. I think that the police displayed a want of judgment and discretion in arresting the men as they did on a charge of what seems not to have been a very serious breach of the peace, said to have been committed at another place on the unsupported testimony of one person. The more appropriate, and I believe the more usual, course in such circumstances would have been to ask the persons accused for their names and addresses; and if these were found to be accurate to allow them to go until evidence corroborative of the statement of the person making the charge had been obtained, when a warrant to apprehend them could have been applied for. It would not be easy to lay down hard-and-fast rules upon such a subject by legislation, and in general experience it is found that by the exercise of ordinary judgment and discretion, anything like hard or oppressive action can be avoided.
  MR. HUNTER: Are there not regulations laid down in reference to these matters?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Yes, there are regulations which I have read; but I must confess that they seem to be in themselves contradictory.

  THE LANCASHIRE MAGISTRACY
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he can state the number of Magistrates he has placed on the Commission of the Peace for the county boroughs of Lancashire since August last, and how many were political supporters of Her Majesty's Government; and if, when appointing 12 additional Magistrates for Liverpool, he was aware that all wore supporters of the present Government, and that he thereby raised the number of Liberals to 50 as against 60 Conservatives, the proportion of the Parliamentary representation being seven Conservatives to two Liberals.
  MR. CROSFIELD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question I desire to put another on the same subject. It is, whether he is aware that the official list issued by the Town Clerk of Liverpool at the commencement of the present year shows that out of 113 Borough Magistrates 33 are supporters of Her Majesty's Government, whilst 80 hold opposite views?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: And is it not the case that immediately after the presentation of the bogus Petition against the return of the right hon. Member for East Manchester, in which four persons were guarantors, he placed three of them on the Commission of the Peace for the borough, one of them being on it already?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): Sir, in answer to the last question, I have to say I have no knowledge of the subject; I do not know, and never have known, who were the guarantors; I conceive the words "bogus Petitions" ought not to have been used. In reply to my hon. Friend behind me, I think he will find my answer in the answer I am about to give to the question on the Paper. The total number of Magistrates placed upon the Commission of the Peace for the county boroughs of Lancashire since August last is 145. Of these, so far as I can ascertain, 118 are supporters of Her Majesty's Government, while 24 were appointed as representatives of working men, some of them being Liberals, some Conservatives, and some not attached to either Party. In these 14 boroughs the proportion of Parties was in last August, when I entered Office, more than three opponents to one supporter of the Government; and in no one of these boroughs, except Rochdale, where the Parties are now equal, have the appointments that I have made brought the number of Liberals up to that of their opponents, the latter being nearly two to one, or, to be quite exact, in the proportion of 20 to 11. The 12 Magistrates whom I have appointed for Liverpool were not all supporters of the present Government, one of them being a Dissentient Liberal, and one of them a representative of the working men. It is not the ease that the number of Liberals upon the Liverpool Bench is now 50 Liberals to 60 Con-
  1130
  servatives. That proportion, is in fact, 30 supporters of the present Government to 80 opponents. During the six years from August, 1886, to August, 1892, the late Government appointed 30 Magistrates for Liverpool, of whom 27 were Conservatives, three were Liberal Unionists, and no one was a Liberal.
  MR. FORWOOD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no supporters of the present Government were appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Liverpool during the last six years?
  *MR. BRYCE: I can only repeat the numbers I have just read. Between August, 1886, and August, 1892, 30 Magistrates were appointed, of whom 27 were Conservatives and three Liberal Unionists. Not one was a Liberal.
  MR. FORWOOD: From whence did the right hon. Gentleman get the information as to no Liberals being appointed?
  MR. BRYCE: I got it from a list of Magistrates appointed during the last six years, furnished to me by friends in Liverpool.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand that in the number of Liberals none of the working men are included?
  *MR. BRYCE: The working men have been classed as separate altogether. Some of them are Liberals—probably the greater number; some are Conservatives; but a considerable number are not attached to either Party; and I have no record as regards their politics.
  MR. BARTLEY: Do I understand the Government does not include working men among its supporters?
  MR. BRYCE; That understanding would be exactly contrary to what I have just stated.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, having taken so much pains with regard to the polities of the opponents of the Government, has not taken the trouble to ascertain what those of the working men are?
  *MR. BRYCE: I have reckoned working men as being appointed simply in the interests of working men, and that is why less attention has been paid to their politics than to the politics of other persons.

  THE BURGH POLICE ACT, 1892.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that great anxiety exists in Scotland as to the result of Sections 5 and 9 of the Burgh Police Bill of 1892, which comes into force on the 15th of May; and if he could conveniently inform the House if any, and what, steps are being or will he taken to prevent these results?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I am well aware that great and, in the opinion of the Government, well-founded anxiety exists in Scotland among men of all classes as to the effect of sections in the Burgh Police Act relating to the creation of populous places. A short amending Bill is in preparation, which I shall ask leave to introduce to-morrow, and which I hope will pass unopposed, as the 15th May is now very near.

  UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPTS.
  MR. HOWARD WHITBREAD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Luton Chamber of Commerce, pointing out the danger to the trading community which arises from the large and increasing number of bankrupts who continue to carry on business although they have not obtained their discharge, and suggesting as a remedy that an annual supplement to The London Gazette be published giving the names of all undischarged bankrupts, and that all undischarged bankrupts be required once a year to attend their respective Courts for examination; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to give effect to such recommendations?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): Yes, Sir; I received the resolution in question. The names of all persons who are adjudicated bankrupt are duly published in The London Gazette at the time of adjudication, and the names of such bankrupts as are discharged are also published in the same manner when the discharge is granted. The expense of re-publishing annually a separate list of undischarged bankrupts would amount to several thousands a year. Before all undischarged bank-
  1132
  rupts can be required once a year to attend their ree necessary, which I am not at present prepared to recommend.

  RAILWAY RATES AT SHEERNESS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received resolutions passed by the Local Board of Health, Sheerness, Kent, complaining of the great injury caused to the trade of Sheerness owing to the recent excessive increase of railway rates; and if he will do all in his power to find a remedy?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Board of Trade cannot trace the resolutions referred to. I am assured they have not been received direct from the Local Board of Health. If a copy is forwarded to me I will have the matter inquired into.

  DOCKYARD CLASSIFICATION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now able to state the decision of the Government, with respect to the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): As I have frequently stated in the House, all the Dockyard questions are being considered together, and it is not desirable to announce a decision on any one until the general result can be stated. I have, therefore, nothing to add to my former answers to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is the greatest anxiety and dissatisfaction in the Dockyard on this question, and that most conflicting rumours have gained currency as to the intentions of the Government?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have not heard of any rumours. We are doing our best to come to a decision as soon as possible.

  THE CORVÉE IN EGYPT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have given

  1133
  attention to Lord Cromer's statement in his Report on Egypt, dated 9th March, 1893, that forced labour still exists in order to prevent inundations when the Nile is exceptionally high, as was the case last year, the existence of which, though not so great a hardship as the corvée, is to be regretted, and also to his further statement that the Public Works Department is at present engaged in considering and working out a scheme both as regards the payment of the corvée called out on the Nile banks during the flood, and for the completion of the Nile protection works in a shorter period than is possible with the limited funds annually available; whether the system of forced labour known as the corvée has subsisted in Egypt during the 10 years' English occupation of the country, and has not yet been abolished; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any measures for the abolition of this form of involuntary labour?
  "THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): (1.) Yes. (2.) The answer is yes, in the limited sense now attached to the corvée. (3.) Lord Cromer's Report, page 14, shows that the matter is receiving the attention of the Egyptian Government, and Her Majesty's Government do not propose to interfere.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What does the hon. Baronet imply by the words "in a limited sense"? Does he mean that the labour is forced, but is paid for?
  *SIR E. GREY: I shall be happy to give the hon. Member references to passages in the Blue Book which will fully explain my meaning.

  THE HULL STRIKE.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed at a meeting of 30,000 workmen held at Victoria Park, London, on Sunday last, protesting against the Naval and Military Forces being used at Hull in the labour dispute existing there: and whether the Government is now prepared to withdraw the Naval and Military Forces from Hull?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Naval and Military Forces now at Hull were sent, and have been used, not to take one side or the other in an industrial dispute, but to aid in the preservation of the peace and the protection of life and property. For this purpose the Local Authorities are of opinion—and I concur with them—that the presence of the Forces is still necessary; and, until the necessity ceases to exist, they will not be withdrawn.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether it is true that a requisition has been made for additional Forces to be sent to Hull, and whether these additional Forces are to be sent?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir; that is true
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary take steps to send the additional Forces to Hull for the purpose of preventing the free labourers from breaking the peace among themselves? I should like also to ask whether the Home Secretary is aware that a free labourer attacked another free labourer the other evening with a knife?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member. The Government, in dealing with these matters, necessarily depend on the demands made on them by the Local Authorities, and it is in compliance with those demands that, the additional Force has been sent to Hull.
  MR. CHARLES DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House any information as to how the tire at the Hull Docks was caused; whether a hose was found to be so damaged as to be useless in extinguishing the flames; whether any men have been, or are likely to be, deprived of work in consequence of the destruction of stock in trade; and what steps have been taken to prevent the further destruction of property at Hull?
  MR. J. HAYELOCK WILSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if he is aware it was the usual practice for many years for smoking in the docks to be strictly prohibited, and whether since the free labourers were brought there they have been allowed to smoke amongst the

  1135
  timber, and where cotton is stored, so that they have caused this fire and probably many more?
  MR. ASQUITH: On this point I must take my information from the Local Authorities, and they inform me that fires, which are believed by the Local Authorities to be the result of incendiarism, occurred in several places on Sunday. All were promptly extinguished except one in the large timber yard, which was still burning yesterday. I believe, however, it is now out. It is a fact that the fire hose was cut. I have no information as to men being deprived of work in consequence of the fire; but damage to the extent of £50,000 has been done. In answer to the last paragraph, I have to say that the Mayor has telegraphed for additional soldiers and police, and I have authorised the despatch this morning of 25 mounted men of the Metropolitan Police to assist in the preservation or order.

  ARCHBISHOP KHRIMIAN.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Czar has power to grant letters of naturalisation to Archbishop Khrimian, on his taking up his residence in Russian territory, without reference to the Porte or to any other State; whether the Archbishop has made a formal protest against his detention in Jerusalem, as a violation of the privileges granted to the Christian population in the Ottoman Empire and solemnly secured by International Treaties and Imperial Firmans; whether the 62nd Article of the Berlin Treaty stipulates in precise terms for the transit of all Christian clergy throughout the Ottoman Empire without hindrance or molestation; and whether, throughout Armenia, Her Majesty's Government will reconsider its decision and use its best endeavours to obtain for the Catholicos-select permission to leave Jerusalem and to embark at Jaffa for Erivan at an early date?
  *SIR E. GREY: (1.) I am not aware of any special Convention on the subject between Russia and Turkey. The Ukase of the Senate relative to the naturalisation of foreigners in Russia makes a five years' residence a necessary preliminary to an application for Russian naturalisation. (2.) I am not aware of such a protest.
  1136
  (3.) The paragraph of the 62nd Article which appears to be alluded to refers to the movements in the Ottoman Empire of ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of foreign nationality. (4.) Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any initiative in the matter.

  SALMON FISHING ON THE SCOTCH COAST.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if it is intended that the recently appointed Committee to inquire into the question of Sea Fisheries shall take evidence upon the subject of salmon fishing round the coasts of Scotland; and, if not, if he will extend the powers of the Committee so as to embrace this important question?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I may point out that the Select Committee is appointed to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland, and that I must refer him to the President of the Board of Trade to say whether the Government will extend further powers to that Committee.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Then I put the question to that right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MUNDELLA: This Committee has been appointed solely with the object of obtaining an inquiry into questions connected with the sea fishing industry, which is governed by acts of a totally different nature from those which relate to salmon fishing. It appears to me, therefore, to be very inexpedient to extend the Reference in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Then I beg to give Notice, in view of the vast importance of this subject, I shall at the earliest opportunity call attention to it and move a Resolution thereon.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been the custom of the Admiralty to purchase copies of the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution for distribution to the various ships in commission; and whether this custom is to be discontinued; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. On the establishment of

  1137
  separate Libraries for officers, it was arranged that such books as wore not specially suited for the seamen's reading should be eliminated from the Seamen's Libraries. It has not been considered desirable to appropriate any part of the small sum available for the Officers' Libraries to the purchase of this Journal.

  THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government of Victoria gave an order for about 5,000 of the magazine rifle when it was first adopted, but subsequently countermanded the order; and whether any new order has since been received from that Government for magazine rifles of a later mark?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): My reply to the three points in the question is in the affirmative. The second order, which was for a very small number of rifles, has also been countermanded.

  ARMY ENLISTMENT.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the number of men now entering the Army is largely below that of those recruited during the corresponding weeks of last year; and, if so, whether it is to be attributed to a suspension, partial or total, of special enlistments, or to what other cause?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Army is at present so full that we have been able to raise the standard for certain corps and to minimise special enlistments.

  THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION GRANT.
  MR. GRANTLAWSON: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is intended to continue to pay to those County Councils who have not devoted to Technical Education the whole fund paid to them on account of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Grant, the full amount of such grant?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): Under the Local Taxation Act, 1890, it is not at present compulsory on a County Council to apply the moneys received by them
  1138
  under that Act to purposes of the Technical Instruction Act. I am glad to say that a very large proportion of the counties and county boroughs have applied the whole sums received from those duties to technical and intermediate education. I have no authority to withhold any moneys payable under the Act of 1890 on the ground suggested.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the money will be paid this year to counties which have not expended anything on technical education?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am sorry to say it will.

  THE INDIAN COTTON DUTIES.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the report that the Indian Government intend to re-impose the Cotton Duties; and whether, in that ease, they will impose countervailing duties on Indian manufactures so as to deprive the proposed measure of a protective character?
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has not heard of any intention on the part of the Government of India to propose a re-imposition of the Cotton Duties. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the point referred to in the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. THOMAS ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the possible early return of cholera to this country, he has considered the desirability of granting a contribution from the National Exchequer to the Local Sanitary Authorities at the different ports in this country towards any extra expenses which may be thrown upon the locality in this matter; and whether, under all the circumstances, he is prepared favourably to consider any application which may be made to him in this respect?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I must remind my hon. Friend of the reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury to a similar question on the 17th of this mouth, and also of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same sub-

  1139
  ject in connection with his Budget last evening.
  MR. HENEAGE: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what ground he stated that the grant of this contribution would require several pennies in the £ to be added to the Income Tax? Is there any reason for supposing the sum required would exceed £200,000? Would it not probably be less than that?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): What I said was that I should like to receive from my right hon. Friend an estimate of the cost. I understand he puts it at £200,000.
  MR. HENEAGE: Less than that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to see the details of this estimate.
  MR. HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the various ports? Full information would then be given him.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman desires me to receive a deputation I certainly will do so; but I do not know that I can add anything to my former statements.

  UNSANITARY SHIPS:
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement made by 30 passengers on board the Allan Line steamship Norwegian, which left Glasgow on the 31st of March last, complaining of the unsanitary condition of the accommodation on that vessel; and, if so, what steps will he take for the purpose of insisting on the Allan Line providing better accommodation for their passengers; and will he instruct the Board of Trade officials to refuse to grant a certificate of clearance to such vessels until such accommodation has been provided in accordance with the Board of Trade Regulations?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, and I have called for a full Report, and until it is received I am unable to judge to what extent, if any, there has been a failure to comply with the Board of Trade Regulations.

  SWAZILAND.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the
  1140
  Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give to the House any information relative to the reported failure of the Conference between Sir Henry Loch and President Krüger; and whether he is now in a position to state whether any agreement has been arrived at with regard to the future of Swaziland?
  THE UNDER SECETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Conference has not been a failure, but in Sir H. Loch's opinion a success, and Sir H. Loch and President Krüger have had a satisfactory and profitable discussion. A full account of what passed is on its way home; and I hope, before long, to be able to lay on the Table Papers in regard to the whole question.

  COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1892," Section 3, limits the collection of Income Tax for the year which commenced on the 6th April, 1892, and terminated on the 6th April, 1893, and that the authority of this Statute terminated on 6th April last, will he explain what Statute is now in force to authorise the collection?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I answered this question at length last night in reply to the hon. Member for Droitwich. There has always been an interval of some mouths between the expiry of one Inland Revenue Act and the passing of another. The practice pursued this year has been the same as that always pursued in the general convenience—that is, that of deducting the tax on dividends, &c., at the rate which prevailed in the preceding year. The hon. Member will find the answer to this question was given by the Prime Minister on March 23, 1882.

  THE DISTURBANCES IN BELFAST.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to a statement made in to-day's Times that after the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill a scene

  1141
  of disorder occurred in Skibbereen County Court, that the windows of a Protestant clergyman and merchant who took part in the recent Unionist meeting were smashed; and whether extra police will be drafted into the town and steps be taken to protect the Protestant inhabitants of Skibbereen from such acts of violence?
  MR. ASQUITH: I only received Notice of the question a few moments ago, and there has not been time to communicate with the Irish Office. The question had bettor be deferred until Thursday.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can now complete the official record of the rioting which he began last night, especially with regard to what has taken place in the Queen's Island works, where the whole body of Catholic workmen have been driven out from the works and deprived of their means of subsistence; whether the military and police, after the workmen had been expelled, were attacked by stones, bottles, and iron missiles; whether the right hon. Gentleman can state accurately or approximately the number of workmen driven out of employment, the number of houses looted or attacked, the number of persons injured, the number of arrests made, and the sentences imposed; what steps will be taken to enable the hundreds of driven-out workmen to resume their employment; whether the daily procession of thousands of men from the Queen's Island works through the city armed with sticks and bars of iron, and the throwing of stones, is calculated to conduce to the public peace and will be permitted to continue.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that no procession takes place beyond that which necessarily results from a number of workmen following the same route to the same destination every day; whether he is aware that every effort has been and is being made by those responsible for peace and order in Belfast to minimise as far as possible these unhappy disturbances and to bring about a better state of things; is he aware that steps have been taken by the leaders of opinion of all classes in Belfast to bring before the people the necessity of tranquillity in present circumstances; and that the disturbance as
  1142
  far as yet is known is duo to persons entirely out of control and who are not in the employment of any large Corporation or any responsible body or individual in Belfast?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask, with reference to the telegram of last evening that a group of idle men at the gate prevented the Catholics returning to their work, whether those idle men were ship carpenters, or whether it was a crowd collected at the gates not connected with the shipyard?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is impossible for me to answer these detailed questions with reference to what took place at Belfast without a little more notice than I have received. I hope to be in a position to supply the information asked for by the hon. Member for North Kerry on Thursday. But for the purposes of the day the House may think it sufficient if I read a communication which I have received from my right hon. Friend at Dublin, which continues the narrative of what took place after the events mentioned in the previous telegram—
  "The injuries received by the men assaulted at the Queen's Island shipyard were only slight blows with fists and kicks. Lest any Catholic workmen should be in the yard and afraid to leave it, the Town Commissioners at the dinner hour, at 1 p.m., went there with six pickets of infantry and six parties of police with Resident and Military Magistrates. The pickets were posted along the road which passes the yard at intervals of about 120 yards; so that any one seeking protection could claim it openly or proceed to the city under police protection. No one claimed such protection, although it was understood that some Catholics were still on the works. The Protestant workers resented the presence of the police, and began stone-throwing. Two pickets were ordered to fix bayonets, which caused a dispersal of the mob. Stones were, however, still thrown over hoardings and roofs. At 2 p.m. yesterday the Queen's Island men resumed work, and all was quiet. Many Catholics were escorted out of the works by their Protestant fellow-workers. The rivet, boys in another yard (that of Workman and Clarke) put up a notice that, all Home Rulers should leave the works, and as the firm did not yield to this demand the boys struck work, and consequently the platers are 'out.' also. The Catholic girls referred to in yesterday's wire at the dinner hour demanded to be paid off. but were refused, and on being told to return to work declined to do so, and are now 'out.' When the Queen's Islam I men were returning from work at 5.30 p.m. yesterday, some glass was broken in Protestant and Catholic public-houses, and some glass was also broken on border-line between rival quarters. Six pickets of infantry were on duty up to 10.30 p.m. to block streets, but at

  1143
  that hour the city became quiet and has remained so up to this hour. 1.10 p.m., Tuesday. The inhabitants of the Shankhill Road (Protestant quarter) have called a meeting to arrange for the preservation of the peace to-night in conjunction with the police. The aspect of affairs at present may be described as distinctly favourable."

MOTIONS.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY MAGISTRACY (APPOINTMENT).

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. THOMAS LEGH, Member for South West Lancashire, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in revoking the Memorandum of 1870, and in reverting, in the appointment of Lancashire County Magistrates, to the system which was then abandoned with general approval, and to the wholesale appointment of Magistrates of one political Party in the various boroughs in Lancashire."
    MR. SEXTONrose to Order. He asked whether the revocation of the Memorandum of 1870 by a Minister of the Crown was a subject to be dealt with by moving the Adjournment of the House, or whether the hon. Member interested in the question should not ballot for a day and take his chance?
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is optional with the hon. Member whether he proposes to take this course or not, and the House must judge. I understand that the Memorandum of 1870 applied specially to Lancashire and the appointment of Magistrates within that area. Is it your pleasure that leave be given?
    Not less than 40 Members having risen to support the demand.
    MR. LEGHregretted that he had not been able to secure a better opportunity for raising the question. He had selected the present method of procedure because the Chancellor of the Duchy occupied a particularly enviable position, inasmuch as his salary did not appear on the Votes, and therefore he could not be attacked in Committee of Supply, and because the Government had taken the whole time of the House, and the Home
    1144
    Rule Bill might be under discussion for the next two or three months. The question would have been raised long ago had those interested in it not been prevented by various causes, such as the difficulty of presenting Papers, the absence of the Chancellor of the Duchy abroad, and the discussion on the Home Rule Bill. The facts in relation to this matter were very simple. Prior to 1870 County Magistrates in Lancashire were appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy directly; but in April of that year a Minute was issued by the then Chancellor (Lord Dufferin), assimilating the practice in Lancashire to that of the rest of the country. Lord Dufferin was not a Member of the Cabinet at the time, but they had they the authority of the present Lord Chancellor for the statement that the question was of sufficient importance to be treated as a Cabinet question. He need hardly remind the House that in 1870 the present Prime Minister was the head of the Government, and only two years before the right hon. Gentleman had been a Lancashire Member himself. In replying to a deputation which waited on him on the 22nd of March, the Lord Chancellor said that in 1871 it was thought expedient to make a change by means of a Minute to which the Cabinet were parties. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy alluded to the Memorandum as a temporary arrangement, which rested only on a voluntary concession of one of his Predecessors; but he (Mr. Legh) could find nothing in the Minute to justify the statement. As a matter of fact, it directly contradicted it, for it said that, so far as it was in the power of the Government, it was intended that the arrangement should be a permanent one. The object of the change was well known. The Lord Lieutenant, in his communication with the Chancellor of the Duchy, made use of the phrase, "The chaos which existed prior to 1870." He supposed that was a political chaos, because up to that time the Magistrates were invariably selected in accordance with their political views. It was unnecessary for him to enlarge on the advantages which the Lord Lieutenant possessed over the temporary occupant of a political office; but he would point out that it was only quite

    1145
    recently that there had been any suggestion that the system instituted in 1870 had been in any respect a failure, and even now he did not gather that the Lord Lieutenant was charged with appointing improper persons. Everybody knew that, as a matter of fact, he had been exceedingly particular, and had not gone on the principle of appointing men as Magistrates because they were county magnates. He had not even selected Peers, but had always taken special care to appoint people who would guarantee to work, who resided in the neighbourhood, and took an interest in its affairs. It was quite impossible for anybody to quote an instance of any person having been jobbed into the position of Magistrate by the Lord Lieutenant. If all the Lord Lieutenants of the country had taken the same trouble in exercising their right of nomination, there would have been less excuse for interfering than there was at present. The appalling charge against Lord Sefton was that in 1886 he became a Liberal Unionist, and that since 1886 gentlemen belonging to the Liberal Party had not found their way to the Bench in sufficient numbers. It was perfectly true that Lord Sefton was a Liberal Unionist, but he was a politician of a very mild and unaggressive type. He was not connected with any political organisation, and he (Mr. Legh) had never heard of his appearing on a political platform. He seemed to have carried his aversion to politics to an excess, and looked upon any recommendation for the County Magistracy that came from the House of Commons with extreme suspicion, and he (Mr. Legh) would like to know whether the Member for Southport and the Member for the Ormskirk Division had found the cause of gentlemen nominated for the County Bench greatly advanced by their taking it up and recommending them to the Lord Lieutenant. What did the complaint amount to? What struck him was the extreme patience which had been displayed by the Liberal Party in Lancashire. For six years he had never heard them complain in any shape or form—[Cries of "Oh!]—but. in November or December they awoke to the fact that they had not adequate representation on the Bench, and representations were addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy from various
    1146
    quarters. He had never been able to hear of this discontent himself. The only rumours he had hoard were statements that representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman from the Liberal Club in Manchester. There seemed to be a certain Mr. Guthrie, who took upon himself to collect the figures with regard to the composition of the County Bench throughout England, and to show the proportion of political appointments. Taking that gentleman's figures as comparatively accurate, he found that there were five counties fortunate enough to possess Lord Lieutenants who followed Mr. Gladstone, and the proportion of Liberals in those counties was—In Bedford, 14 per cent.; in Northampton, 17 per cent.; in Somerset, 20 per cent.; in Warwickshire, 10 percent.; and in Westmoreland, 28 per cent. In Lancashire, the proportion was 21 per cent., and only one county—Westmoreland—had a larger percentage of Liberal Magistrates, and he believed that there the increase could be traced to the ingenuity of the present Lord Lieutenant in discovering qualifications in some of his nominations. Whose fault was it that the proportion of Radical Magistrates was so small? Certainly it was not the fault of the Lord Lieutenant. [Cries of "Oh!"] The Chancellor of the Duchy or Mr. Guthrie had pointed out that, before 1883 45 to 55 per cent. of the Magistrates appointed were Radicals; and surely, if it was anybody's fault, it was the fault of the Prime Minister that they had changed their politics. The Lord Lieutenant, when he appointed the men, could not possibly toll that they were going to change, any more than they could predict the policy of right hon. Gentlemen. But even 21 per cent. was not a disproportionate representation on the Magisterial Bench of the Radicals of Lancashire. The Magistrates were taken from the classes, and the classes were all on one side; therefore, if the Radicals got 20 per cent. of them, they had not much to complain of. The Chancellor of the Duchy had stated in his communication to the Lord Lieutenant that he should
    "be reluctant, in the interests of the office he held, to assume the exercise of tins large and most delicate patronage;"
    but his letter culminated in the impetuous demand that 39 prominent Radical poli-

    1147
    ticians should be added to the Bench, chiefly on the ground that the injustice which now existed should be remedied in the interest of the due administration of justice.
    *MR. BRYCE: Many of them were not prominent politicians at all.
    MR. LEGHsaid, that was the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the way in which an "extremely delicate patronage" should be exercised. Lord Sefton did not find himself in a position to subscribe to these "thirty-nine articles" of the Radical creed, and no self-respecting man would have acted in any other way. The Chancellor of the Duchy replied by issuing a sort of Ukase, which would, perhaps, have more befitted a Russian Government or Oriental potentate than as proceeding from an enlightened and cultured Representative of modern democracy. The question was, why should politics have anything to do with selections for the Bench? What was the object aimed at? He took it that even if every single Magistrate was a follower of the Prime Minister the administration of justice would not suffer; but what was aimed at was to get hold of people who lived in the neighbourhood, who held positions of responsibility, and who would take an interest in the administration of justice. Whatever might be thought of the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy, no one could deny that it was a startling innovation. Here they had for the first time, so far as he was aware, an official declaration that a certain number of Magistrates must be Radical, and it was the first time in which such a position in politics had been openly avowed. There were two explanations which suggested themselves to his mind. The right hon. Gentleman was a student of American political life, and apparently he had adopted and had go this Colleagues to concur in the adoption of one of the leading features of the Presidential Election—namely, that the spoils belonged to the victors, or, in other words, that official positions were to be the rewards of Party services. But why stop at Magistrates? Why not carry the principle into the Army and Navy? If Conservatives and Unionists were not fit to be Judges, they were not tit to command or drill, or even to post the letters of the people. Perhaps it would be advisable for the Postmaster General to
    1148
    inquire into the politics of postmen. But how had the Home Secretary been "squared"? The other day the Home Secretary laid it down that politics ought to have no connection whatever with appointments to judicial functions. This was not the first time that the frank and outspoken declarations of the Home Secretary had caused some slight embarrassment to his colleagues. But there were Gentlemen on the same side of the House who did not hold the same views. In a discussion a short time back in the County Council, with reference to the salary of a Judge, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. John Burns) had opposed an increase of the salary because the Judge was not in sympathy with the democracy. To find indications of the policy of the present Government, he always turned to the hon. Member for Northampton, or rather, his organ. In that paper the hon. Member had been hounding on the Lord Chancellor for a long time, telling him that he had "a public duty to perform." The hon. Member regarded Ministers as the servants of their Party; and had declared that no one required more looking after as a general rule than a Liberal Minister.
    MR. MACFARLANErose to Order. He wanted to ask if the hon. Gentleman was not going beyond the question?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must keep strictly to the question of the conduct of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the matter.
    MR. LEGH MR. LEGH, resuming, said the Chancellor of the Duchy, having received his orders, went to deal with his own Lord Lieutenant with the proverbial light heart, but the feverish zeal with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this matter suggested that he feared he might not occupy his present position long; and if that was so, what would happen? It was very probable that in 12 months' time, the right hon. Gentleman's position would be occupied by a Conservative or a Liberal Unionist. Certainly he did not envy the right hon. Gentleman's successor his post. Day and night, in season and out of season, he would be pestered by people who thought they had rendered political services to the Party in power who would be claiming to be made Magistrates. In his opinion, the ill-advised

    1149
    action of the Chancellor of the Duchy must introduce to the Bench a marked element of discord. He supposed his action would be ratified. by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), and the hon. Member for Northampton, and other hon. Members on the other side of the House, but he (Mr. Legh) could not help thinking that his action would be viewed by all impartial persons with something very much like disgust. Even his own Party organs in Lancashire were finding fault with him, and he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had permanently injured his political reputation by being the first person who had sought to prostitute the County Bench to Party political purposes.
    MR. HANBURYsaid he rose to second the Resolution. He desired to join in this protest against the arbitrary ukase of the Chancellor of the Dually, What the Unionist Members of Lancashire"—and they were the majority of Members for that county—did not understand was, that there was anything in the position of Lancashire or of the Chancellor of the Duchy why that county should be treated with a highhandedness which the Lord Chancellor did not venture to apply to England and Wales, There were special reasons why such notion should not have been taken in Lancashire. The system which the Chancellor of the Duchy had re-introduced was in existence up to 1870, and was a miserable failure. The right hon. Gentleman had referred somewhat pedantically to the ancient custom which he was reintroducing. It was very remarkable that eager reformers of the type of the right hon. Gentleman were so ready to rake up any discarded and discredited system if only it suited their purposes to do so. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the system of which he now expressed approval was put to death with universal approval in 1870, on the understanding that it was never to rise again. Up to that time both sides had been in the habit of appointing Magistrates in batches just as the right hon. Gentleman was now doing. 'Then, as now, appointments were made to the Bench not because Magistrates were wanted, but because Party hacks wanted to be Magistrates, and the result was that
    1150
    there were in 1870 over 900 Magistrates in Lancashire, or a good deal more Magistrates than policemen. The right hon. Gentleman said that the old system was temporarily abolished by the voluntary act of one of his predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It was not temporarily abolished, and it was not abolished by the act of one of his predecessors alone. The abolition was agreed on by both Parties, as they had grown sick and tired of the disgrace which had been brought on their Parties and on the Judicial Bench by the competition in jobbery which had been in progress before 1870, and which was to be renewed if the policy of the right hon. Gentleman prevailed. The abolition of the system was so much the effect of an agreement between the two Parties that its terms were absolutely embodied in a Minute. Lord Dufferin, who was the Chancellor of the Duchy at the time, quoted Colonel Wilson Patten as saying, on behalf of the Conservatives, he had
    "No doubt that every future Government will be able to resist political pressure for the appointment of Magistrates by any recurrence to the old system."
    The declaration made by Lord Dufferin himself was very much more important, as he was actually in office at the time of the abolition of the system, and he abolished it with the Consent of his colleagues, of whom the present Prime Minister was one. Lord Dufferin said—
    "I have further to inform your Lordship that it is intended by Her Majesty's Government that this arrangement should be a permanent one, so far as it is in their power to render it so."
    The only difference between the position of 1870 and the position now was that Magistrates were no longer charged with more or less political and administrative duties and were almost solely judicial officers, so that political bias ought, less than ever, to be imported into their appointments. Was the present Chancellor of the Duchy likely to have less political bias than Lord Dufferin or than the present Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire, who was appointed with the common consent of the two Parties? Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that he would ever find two Parties in the State willing

    1151
    to trust him with appointments to the Magisterial Bench? What special local knowledge did the right hon. Gentleman possess? There had been Chancellors of the Duchy who, like Colonel Wilson Patten, Mr. John Bright, and the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir U. Kay-Shuttle worth), had local knowledge, hut none of them had thought it necessary to go hack to the old system, and it was certainly remarkable that this change should he introduced by a right hon. Gentleman who, whether he was a Scotchman or an Irishman, certainly know nothing about Lancashire. It was extraordinary that while the Lord Chancellor, with his vast experience, was unwilling to apply this scheme to the counties of England and Wales, the Chancellor of the Duchy should have lost no time in seizing upon it and applying it to the county over which he presided. It was evident that either the Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire was a particularly bad Lord Lieutenant, and had abused his powers, or the Chancellor of the Duchy was an especially unwise Chancellor of the Duchy. What were the circumstances with regard to the Lord Lieutenant? In the first place, Lord Sefton had had as many years' experience of his duties as Lord Lieutenant as the Chancellor of the Duchy had had weeks' experience of his duties as Chancellor of the Duchy. Lord Sefton was appointed Lord Lieutenant in 1868. He was then a Liberal of the Liberals, and his appointment was at the time resented as a job, but so bad was the system of magisterial appointments which the Chancellor of the Duchy was now reviving, that only two years afterwards both political Parties concurred in putting the power of appointment in the hands of this Radical Lord Lieutenant. Lord Sefton said most distinctly that never once during the whole of the 23 years that he had been administering the power of appointing Magistrates had he considered the political character of any man he had appointed. He (Mr. Hanbury) was told by those who knew the Lord Lieutenant that he had told Members of Parliament who had recommended men for appointment that a Member of Parliament was the very last person from whom he would take a recommendation. The sole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was
    1152
    that there was now a great preponderance of gentlemen belonging to one particular Party. But there were three Parties in this country. The Liberal Unionists were recognised by the constituencies, and he should have thought that what was good enough for the constituencies was good enough for the Chancellor of the Duchy. The fact was that the sole offence of the Lord Lieutenant was that he had not wiped out the Liberal Unionists altogether. The action of the right hon. Gentleman was prompted by mere Party rancour against the Lord Lieutenant. He should like to know what a mere difference of opinion on Irish administration had to do with fitness to administer justice in the County of Lancashire. When the right hon. Gentleman talked of the preponderance of one Party, did he not forget that a great many of the Magistrates who were now Liberal Unionists were appointed before 1886, when they were as good Liberals as he was—and He (Mr. Hanbury) did not know that they were not. a great deal better Liberals now. Even in 1886, when the Lord Lieutenant himself was a Liberal, and when the Liberal Unionists belonged to the Liberal Party, there was a great preponderance of Magistrates who belonged to the Conservative Party. That showed not that there was Party bias on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, because he was a Liberal himself, but that the Lord Lieutenant could not find a sufficient number of Radicals who were properly qualified to sit on the Bench. If that difficulty existed then, surely it existed a great deal more now, when the cream of the Liberal Party had left it. The Liberals who were most fitted to sit on the Bench were precisely those who had deserted the Liberal Party and become Liberal Unionists. The right hon. Gentleman in his letter to the Lord Lieutenant stated that only 20 per cent. of Liberals as against 80 per cent. of the other Party had been appointed to the Magisterial Bench in Lancashire since 1886. The right hon. Gentleman was emphatically, distinctly, and ludicrously wrong in that statement. The fact was that since 1886 33 per cent. of the appointments to the Judicial Bench had been Gladstonian appointments. The Return which the right hon. Gentleman called for himself showed that since

    1153
    August, 1886, 116 Conservatives and 36 Liberal Unionists, making together 152, and 50 Liberals had been appointed Magistrates in Lancashire. It would thus be seen that almost exactly one-third of those appointed were Liberals, and not one-fifth as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The figures showed also that the Lord Lieutenant had replaced Magistrates who had died by men of their own Party, and had added actually 12 per cent. to the number of representatives of the three Parties. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing a deputation to the Lord Chancellor recently, stated that only 10 per cent. of the Magistrates on the whole of England wore Liberals, and the Lord Chancellor stated in reply that on the Borough Bench only 22 per cent. of the Magistrates were Liberals. In Lancashire, however, which had been singled out by the right hon. Gentleman for special treatment, 33 per cent. of the whole number held the same political views as the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had consulted his friends in Lancashire on this subject, but the only Memorial he was able to produce was one signed by gentlemen, nearly the whole of whom lived in the towns, and a great number of whom were not qualified to be County Magistrates, and were defeated candidates at the last Election. If there were two classes of people who could not speak with any authority on a subject of this kind, surely one of them consisted of those who were not qualified to be Magistrates, and the other was composed of those whom the people of Lancashire would not elect as their representative in Parliament.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member's statement is quite incorrect. I had a large number of Memorials sent to me, and I told the Lord Lieutenant that he was at liberty to publish the Memorials if he desired to do so.
    MR. HANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman would not. be likely to publish his worst Memorial. He has chosen his best.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member is entirely misstating facts. There were at least 25 Memorials sent to me, and they confined themselves to suggesting persons who were suitable for nomination.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, it was evident that the Memorial published was the only one that was worth anything at all. Well, what was there on the other side of the case? There was a majority of Lancashire Representatives on the Opposition side of the House. Take the County Council of Lancashire. That surely would be admitted to he a representative body. Mr. Guthrie put on the agenda paper a motion that the appointment of Magistrates should be made solely by the County Council of Lancashire. What happened? The County Council wore so opposed to the Resolution that Mr. Guthrie did not dare to even bring it to a vote, and withdrew it on the advice of the Secretary to the Treasury, who sat on the Treasury Bench. This did not show that the County Councils wore also in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Then he took the resolutions sent up by the different Quarter Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman said there was one where the resolution was passed unanimously, but. that his men were not there, and that they had no notice of it. This looked as if the right hon. Gentleman's friends were not very punctual in attending these Sessions, and that there was no great necessity to have any more of them. But he (Mr. Hanbury) found three other cases where these resolutions were passed. How was it that the right hon. Gentleman's friends did not attend to oppose these resolutions which condemned the right hon. Gentleman most strongly? The right hon. Gentleman said they did not condemn him by name, but they praised the Lord Lieutenant, which was the same thing, and contradicted the assertion upon which the right hon. Gentleman had based his statement. If the Lord Lieutenant was not the bad Lord Lieutenant which the Chancellor of the Duchy tried to prove, then the Chancellor of the Duchy must be one of the wisest Chancellors of the Duchy they had ever had. It was pretty clear that the alternative was one which they ought not to reject, at any rate in a hurry. He did not think the Chancellor of the Duchy had carried out his duties with any peculiar tact. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the importance of what he was doing, or he would never have lectured the Queen's Representative in

    1155
    a county like Lancashire as a pedagogue might lecture an impertinent school-boy. He did not think that any man who had any great regard for the administration of justice could have appointed Magistrates without necessity. He would recall to the House the fact that, since 1886, an enormous amount of work had been taken off the hands of the Magistrates, and there was nothing like the necessity for them now as was the case years ago. But, since 1886, the number of Magistrates had enormously increased; and, not content with this, the right hon. Gentleman actually wanted to add another 40, though there wore no vacancies at all. By his action, the right hon. Gentleman would he stirring up division between the Magistrates of Lancashire—a thing that had not happened before. Party politics had not been introduced into these appointments before, but it was still worse when they had two sets of Magistrates, one the Lord Lieutenant's and the other the Chancellor of the Duchy's, the latter, he supposed, to take the views of the Chancellor in the administration of justice. How many months was this going to last? One of two things would happen—either the Conservative Party would have to imitate the Chancellor of the Duchy in their turn—and he deprecated this method most strongly—and revive the old system, or they would have to cease to imitate him, which was the more likely thing. He deprecated most strongly these political appointments, and he might say that in his own borough, when he had the names of Magistrates sent to him for recommendation, he had invariably written to the Leader of the other Party asking him to send him names also, so that the names sent up might be free from Party favouritism. He did this because he wished to he thoroughly fair, and to show that he was not actuated by political motives.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Legh.)
    *MR. ROBYsaid he should not imitate the violent Party insolence which had characterized the last two speeches. [Opposition cries of "Withdraw! withdraw! "] He should withdraw at once if called upon by the Speaker, otherwise
    1156
    he should not. He complained that no notice whatever had been given of the intention to bring forward this question on a Motion for Adjournment. He had come down to the House without the smallest idea that anything of this kind was going to be raised, and without the least opportunity of consulting anyone else. There was one hon. Member who had certainly taken active part in this question who was not present in the House, and perhaps would have been if he had known it was coming on. Although he heartily endorsed what the Chancellor o the Duchy had done, he was not one of 1hose who originally moved him to do it having been out of England when the movement took shape. It was not a new question, because to his knowledge it had excited great dissatisfaction in Lancashire for years. It was rather difficult in this matter with regard to a person like the Lord Lieutenant to make use in public of all that one might have heard, and he desired to say emphatically that he had no wish for one moment to say one word personally against the Lord Lieutenant. He believed the real mischief had arisen from the Lord Lieutenant paying regard only to one source of information—namely, persons on the County Bench—and that those persons had in many cases acted not from political feeling, but from the ordinary motive of desiring to see on the Bench those with whom they were acquainted or in whose circle they moved. The result had been most unfortunate. In his own division at this moment, he was informed, there was not resident one single county Magistrate of a Liberal way of thinking. He knew that two years ago an application was made by the Local Board in the district to make an appointment, and he was informed that no notice whatever was taken of the recommendation, but that shortly afterwards a gentleman was nominated by private influence—a Tory, though in every respect a perfectly fit man to put on the Bench. When they found no notice taken by a public authority of such a recommendation, the House would understand that it was not very pleasant to persons who were strongly opposed in political opinions, as he was, to make representations to the Lord Lieutenant. As a matter of fact, he made one in a case where there was urgent want of a

    1157
    Magistrate. He was informed at that time that the gentleman was a Conservative or Liberal Unionist, but even in that case it took three or four mouths to get the appointment. His own impression was that the Lord Lieutenant had acted on the theory that he should not appoint Magistrates unless there were distinct vacancies on the list. There might not be actual vacancies on the list, but there might be some gentlemen on the list who through age and other circumstances were incapacitated from performing their duties. So long as the list was filled up with a sufficient number, the Lord Lieutenant did not think it his duty to make new appointments. But it was sometimes very necessary that new appointments should be made. In country districts it was exceedingly inconvenient that, old pensioners who required a certificate, or persons who had lost a pawn ticket, should have to go miles in order to find a Magistrate. This was equivalent to taking time from persons to whom time was their only menus of support.
    MR. HANBURYasked the hon. Member to name the Petty Sessional Division where there was no Liberal Magistrate.
    MR. ROBYsaid that throughout the whole of the Division of Eccles there were no Liberal Magistrates.
    MR. KNOWLESsaid, he lived in this Division, and he should like to ask the hon. Member his grounds for the statement. He knew several Liberal Magistrates.
    MR. ROBY: Will the hon. Member tell me their names?
    MR. KNOWLES: Mr. William Agnew.
    *MR. ROBYsaid Mr. Agnew did not live in the County Division, but lived in the Borough of Salford. He knew of one Magistrate appointed in his own Division who was an active supporter of his opponent. What he wanted to point out was, in the first place, that there was an absolute need of more Magistrates: secondly, that the action of the present Lord Lieutenant had been such as to make it almost hopeless for Liberals to approach him; and, thirdly, that it was desirable that there should be more members of the Liberal way of thinking on the Bench. Magistrates ought, he admitted, to be above all political con-
    1158
    siderations, but they knew that Magistrates wore human. There were occasions when Magistrates were almost forced to take a line which others would attribute to political considerations, and he desired that there should be some on each Bench who would be able to call their brethren's attention to the Liberal side of the question. He also desired that in the many discussions which must arise as regarded capital and labour there should be some members on the Bench who would have more sympathy with labour than with capital. He entirely applauded his right hon. Friend in making a distinct point of appointing some Labour Representatives. Was it really so entirely alien to the feelings and views of hon. Members opposite that politics should enter into those appointments? The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution declared his own practice to be entirely superior to political considerations. He heartily congratulated him on it; but when numbers of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists had been appointed, and hardly any Liberals, it could not be said that those were appointed mainly on account of their superiority'. He had known in some cases that they were not persons whose individual merits would recommend them. They were put on the Borough Benches in heaps, and put on, no doubt, deliberately and purposely for political motives. It had been asserted that the Chancellor of the Duchy was not connected with Lancashire. He was very proud to think that his right hon. Friend had, by marriage, become connected with that county. For many years one of the counties in which he had taken most interest was Lancashire, and there was no doubt that those people with whom he had become acquainted would only be too glad to give him honest assistance in regard to the appointment of Magistrates. He declined to agree to the doctrine that it was only from a Conservative or Liberal Unionist Lord Lieutenant that fit appointments could be made. He was certain that the Chancellor of the Duchy was as capable as any man of overlooking political considerations where those political considerations were not of the first moment. But he said that in the present state of the Bench in Lancashire it was of the first moment that some regard should be paid to political considerations, therefore

    1159
    he would oppose the Motion and support the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
    *MR. CURZON: The hon. Member who has just sat down has accused two Members on this side of the House of Party insolence, and the hon. Member persisted in the criticism. I venture to say, with all respect to the hon. Member, that a more insolent observation has rarely been made in this House. We are discussing what we believe, rightly or wrongly, to be an exhibition of the grossest political partisanship on the part of a Member of the Liberal Government, and it would be difficult to exclude from such a discussion some slight display of Party feeling. Having made this protest, I will endeavour to avoid any such feeling as much as possible myself. I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Newton Division has boon abundantly justified in bringing forward his Motion. As a Lancashire Member of seven years standing I have had some opportunity of becoming acquainted with the appointment of Magistrates both in the county and borough. It is not for me to defend Lord Sefton, but I must say I never knew a Lord Lieutenant less willing to take into account in such appointments purely political considerations, or one who more carefully and scrupulously examined the local and personal claims of every name submitted to him. A Lord Lieutenant more averse to receive recommendations with a political colour, either from the nature of the men who offered them, or the political complexion of the individuals suggested, I never came across. My own communications with Lord Helton left me with the impression that Lord Sefton is a man peculiarly gifted with Party independence and superiority to Party bias, which ought to have ensured him, not the laughter, but the enthusiastic admiration of the Bench opposite. If it be asked how, then, came about this preponderance of the one Party on the Magisterial Bench, I would reply that it is due to the mischievous policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—which has driven the intelligent and leisured classes into the ranks of the Conservatives. Lord Sefton is a peculiarly scrupulous individual, for he has not only discouraged the advances of the hon. Member for Eccles, but he treated with indifference the representa-
    1160
    tions of my hon. Friend and myself. That is the character of the nobleman selected for these attacks. The hon. Member opposite talked about the dissatisfaction which existed in Lancashire at the discharge of his patronage by Lord Sefton. If such discontent existed it was a purely bogus discontent, manufactured for purely political purposes. As to the signatures to the Memorial addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy, which the right hon. Gentleman has printed, because, as he says, it has attempted to argue the question, four of them are drawn from my own constituency. Who are they? The first is the Chairman of the Gladstonian Party in my Division, and lives in a town; the second is a gentleman who stood against me, and who was very properly defeated by me at the last election, who also lives in a town; the third is a gentleman living in the same town, interested in labour matters, who has two or three times very properly been defeated in Parliamentary contests in other parts of the United Kingdom; the fourth of the signatories is a leading member of the Gladstonian Party, and was one of the principal speakers against myself in another part of the division. [Ministerial cheers.] I am interested to hear the cheers of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they appear to endorse the purely political partisan character of the Memorial. While on the question of the discontent in Lancashire I would like to acquaint the Chancellor of the Duchy with the fact, of which he is probably ignorant, that the Justices of the West Derby Hundred passed a resolution a few days ago placing upon record their appreciation of the good sense, discretion, and complete absence of political favouritism displayed by Lord Sefton. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. V. Harcourt) opposite appears to be overwhelmed with laughter, but I would remind him that the resolution to which I refer was proposed by a gentleman who for many years was a warm supporter of the Prime Minister, but who is now a Liberal Unionist, and was seconded by a gentleman who is still an adherent of the Prime Minister—though how long he may remain so is another matter. Scant mention has been made of the boroughs. I should like to offer a few observations as to the Borough Bench of

    1161
    Southport—a town which gives its name to the Division which I have the honour to represent. The system of appointments hitherto pursued has commonly been that the Chancellor of the Duchy made the appointments upon receipt of suggestions or recommendations from the Member for the borough, presuming him to be of the same political Party. That system imposed a very onerous and high responsibility upon those who were called upon to exercise it. During the time of the late Government I never recommended anyone except upon vacancies occurring through death or removal, and I took an immense amount of trouble to induce Members of the opposite Party to accept nominations. [Laughter. I really do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite should laugh, unless they doubt my word.
    MR. T. S. LITTLE: It is so.
    *MR. CURZON: The hon. Member knows the town, and he can tell the House that both in 1886 and 1892 it was as I have stated. Last summer, for example, the five gentlemen appointed on my recommendation wore three Conservatives, one Gladstonian Liberal, and one Liberal Unionist. I may say that I found great difficulty in inducing gentlemen belonging to the Party opposite to accept nomination. When the right hon. Gentleman came into Office the Bench at Southport were almost evenly divided in politics. Notwithstanding this, and although vacancies had been filled up by the appointments of a few months before, the right hon. Gentleman in a moment added eight new names, and tried to add a ninth to the Bench. But of what complexion were those eight gentlemen? Did the right hon. Gentleman approach any Liberal Unionist or Conservative in the town? Did he follow my example r Those eight gentlemen were Gladstonians, pure and simple. [Cheers.] That exhibition of partisanship on the part of the right hon. Gentleman seems to meet with approval from his friends below the Gangway. The Bench of Southport, instead of being pretty evenly divided as it was before the right hon. Gentleman came into Office, now stands thus—Gladstonians 19, Conservatives 11, Liberal Unionists 2. Yet this political Puritan comes down to the House——
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. J. BRYCE,): Quite wrong.
    *MR. CURZON: The right hon. Gentleman says I am quite wrong. It is a mere question of fact, and we can soon settle it. I have made a statement to which I adhere, and I challenge him to prove the incorrectness of that statement. The right hon. Gentleman comes down, in face of these facts, to take away the power of the Lord Lieutenant—a power which has been exercised with scrupulous fairness, for mere suspicion of a partiality of which I have shown him to be flagrantly guilty himself. I desire now to remind him of the statement of one of his most eminent colleagues. The Times of March 23rd last contained an account of the reception by the Lord Chancellor of a deputation that waited upon him in reference to appointments of Justices. Lord Herschell stated the principles which had guided his own conduct in this matter. He said—
    "The statement of recent appointments should be accompanied by a statement of the condition of the Magisterial Bench at the time that the appointment was made."
    I have fulfilled that condition this afternoon. And again—
    "I do not think it is well at any time to add a disproportionate number to any Bench. You should have in all the appointments a certain proportion so that you do not swamp the old Bench by a number of new men."
    That is exactly what his colleague has not done. The Lord Chancellor added—
    "In no case have I placed those of my own political belief in a majority on the Bench.
    That is exactly what his colleague, the present Chancellor of the Duchy, has done. The Lord Chancellor said—
    "Wherever the numbers have been very near I have appointed Conservatives as well as Liberals."
    That is exactly what his colleague did not do. And, finally, the Lord Chancellor said—
    "Certainly when T have brought them near, I shall in the future, if I appoint Liberals, appoint Conservatives as well."
    This his colleague is not likely to be able to do, since whatever balance existed, he has already destroyed. But I would quote just one more

    1163
    authority, which the Chancellor of the Duchy will perhaps recognise as even a greater authority than the Lord Chancellor—that is the right hon. Gentleman himself. In his published letter he wrote—
    "We must all unite in desiring that politics should have as little as possible to do with appointments to the Bench, but when a glaring disparity exists it is natural that those excluded should feel aggrieved and suspicious."
    And yet the right hon. Gentleman has considered polities, and politics alone, in his appointments to the Borough Bench. He has thus aroused suspicion by creating the very disparity which he himself deplored. The case I have submitted is one that I think deserves the consideration of the House, for it shows that the right hon. Gentleman has exercised his patronage in a way that calls for the condemnation of this House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he found consolation in the fact that there was one individual at least whom the hon. Member for Southport had found unapproachable. The hon. Gentleman reminded him a little of a distinguished man, the Emperor of Germany, in his boundless self-confidence. He had some hesitation in joining in this discussion, although he was a Lancashire Member; and one reason why he had that hesitation was that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway had shown extraordinary inventive power in discovering urgent questions of great public importance during the present Session, and he had some hesitation in assisting them in standing between the House and great measures of reform that were demanded by the working classes. Not for the first, second, or third time the House was called upon to pass a measure which dealt with the lives, limbs, and homes of hundreds of thousands of families, and it was on this day that hon. Gentlemen thought it right to occupy a considerable portion of the time of the House with as unreal, artificial, and unfounded a complaint as was ever made in that House. What was really at the bottom of this business? It was said that political opinions were no qualification for the Bench. Well, then, they ought not to be a disqualification. His hon. Friend the Member for South Molton had been returned by an overwhelming majority, but it was not until recently that there was a single
    1164
    Liberal on the Bench. Let them take Essex. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. O'CONNORsaid, he was probably wandering beyond the question, so he would confine himself to Lancashire. The Bench there had been manned for years practically from the members of one political Party. ["No!"] Well, they would soon have the figures, and he thought they would startle the House. It was nearly time that this state of things should be dealt with. He should like to ask how many labour Magistrates Lord Sefton had appointed since he deserted his own Party? ["Oil!"] Did hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on that (the Conservative) side think that because a man was a working man that was a reason for excluding him from administering justice?
    MR. HANBURY: No.
    MR. O'CONNOR: Docs the hon. Gentleman say that working-men have not been excluded from the Bench in this country?
    MR. HANBURY: Not excluded. It is the law of the land.
    MR. O'CONNORsaid, of course the hon. Member for Southport Division (Mr. Curzon) was dealing with Borough Justices. The Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) seemed to think he (Mr. O'Connor) was confining his observations to County Justices.
    MR. HANBURYrose again amid cries of "Order!"
    MR. O'CONNORsaid, that was hardly the way in which to conduct a debate, nor was it the way in which to show that working-men had not been excluded from the Bench. If they had not been excluded, how many, he would ask, had been appointed? The whole case was one of class and Party prejudice, and it was time the system was swept away. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had rendered good service to the people by the action he had taken.
    MR. R. G. C. MOWBEAYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down evidently knew nothing of the subject at all. He asked whether it was a disqualification that a man was a workman, and he also asked how many workmen Lord Sefton had placed on the Bench?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I asked how many the Party above the Gangway had put on the Bench?
    *MR. MOWBRAY: No. The hon. Member distinctly charged Lord Sefton with keeping working men off the Bench. The Member for Preston was right in saying that workmen were not now qualified for the County Bench. Whether it was right or wrong, there was a certain qualification with regard to the Country Bench, and if the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to alter the system they would find assistance on his side of the House. Lord Sefton was not responsible for the system, and it was simply Party prejudice which was at the bottom of the attack which had been made upon him. So far as his experience went, it was precisely the same as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Southport. The worst tiling they could do was to make a recommendation to Lord Sefton as a Party politician. They were now asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy to destroy a system which had worked, he believed, fairly. They were told that they should have the figures, and no doubt the preponderance of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists was a very largo one, but that reminded him that among those who were qualified there was a very largo majority of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists. In Lancashire also they had a large majority of Conservative and Liberal Unionist Members of Parliament. They were now asked to transfer the power to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who was essentially a Party man. He would illustrate the present system with the case of the town of Mossley, which was partly in Lancashire, partly in Yorkshire, and partly in Cheshire. In 1888 fourteen names were recommended to the Lord Chancellor, with whom the appointment at that time rested—ten Liberals and four Conservatives. The Lord Chancellor thought that, in a borough of that size, 12 would be amply sufficient, and in the end seven Liberals and five Conservatives were appointed. It might be said that two of the former were Liberal Unionists but he could only reply that they never came to his platform, and, for all he knew, they might not he Liberal Unionists at the present moment. Thev were certainly gentlemen who were associated with the Liberal Party in the old days—the days preceding 1886.
    1166
    At the close of the last Parliament he believed the Borough Bench of Mossley consisted of seven Conservatives and four Gladstonians, and two Liberal Unionists. An application was made to the then Chancellor of the Duchy to appoint further Magistrates before the Party went out of Office; but he refused, because, he said, there were sufficient Magistrates in number for a borough of that size. But the present Chancellor of the Duchy had not been in Office throe months before he appointed five additional Magistrates, all of his own Party. He thought these cases taken together would show the House that they had good grounds for saying that whether the appointments of the Lord Lieutenant had been perfectly free from Party prejudice or not, they preferred them to the partisan appointments of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
    SIR H. JAMES: I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy will feel that in taking the course he has taken he has passed a heavy sentence of condemnation on Lord Sefton. Those who know Lord Sefton know very well that he has never made the appointments on political grounds. Until 188(5 he was a strong Liberal. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, I can assure my right hon. Friend that at that time Lord Sefton was a strong Liberal, but I will not discuss whether he loft the Liberal Party or whether the Liberal Party left him. I must ask that stock should be taken of the number of Liberal Magistrates in 1886, and then you will see what was the proportion of other political opinions. If there was a large proportion of Conservatives, how was it that Lord Sefton, a devoted Liberal, appointed Conservative Magistrates? I think it, arose from this cause. The old statute of Henry V. said that the Magistrates should be appointed from the "most efficient persons in each constituency." That brings into play the property qualification, which answers the objections of hon. Gentlemen on that point. I must say that my experience of Lord Sefton is that he never studied political opinions. I once made two recommendations to Lord Sefton of men who happened to hold sound political opinions—they were, in fact, Liberal Unionists—though I did not make the recommendations on political grounds; but my application was refused, because

    1167
    it was thought there was no necessity for more Magistrates in the district. we are now discussing whether an improvement is made by asking an official of the Government to take the place of the Lord Lieutenant, who is guided by local reasons. Now, in Bury, in 1892, the late Chancellor of the Duchy appointed two Conservatives, two Liberal Unionists, and two Gladstonian Magistrates, and the Town Council was consulted before the appointments were made. The present Chancellor of the Duchy then came into Office. I think the Bench was pretty full, but the Chancellor appointed eight members, all of whom were Gladtonian Liberals, and without consulting the Town Council. That, was striking so strongly at the precedents that the local Press, which was represented with great ability by a gentleman who was a Liberal candidate strongly imbued with Party feeling, condemned in strong terms the action of the right hon. Gentleman, because it displayed partisanship that could not be supported for a moment. I will ask my right hon. Friend to tell me if any statement I have made is correct. No representative body has advised the right hon. Gentleman in his action, and I would point out that there are many people in Lancashire; who do not feel that the right hon. Gentleman has discharged his duty in a manner more free from political bias than the Lord Lieutenant, whom he has condemned, has done.
    *MR. BRYCE: I agree with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that this is rather a curious case of urgency, and it appeared to me in listening to the Mover, the Seconder, and the hon. Member for Southport, that they felt that themselves, and tried to make up by the vehemence of their language for the want of real urgency in the matter. I do not complain of the subject being brought forward, but for the loss of public time. I think it is a legitimate matter for discussion, but I must express regret that notice was not given me that the question of the Borough Bench was to be raised, as I would then have furnished myself with particulars on that point. First with regard to Bury. When I came into Office there were in Bury 18 Magistrates, 16 of whom supported the late Government—only two being supporters of the present Govern-
    1168
    ment. What I did was this: I appointed six Liberals and two representatives of the working men, but I am not able to say what are the politics of the latter. The condition of the Bench now, therefore, is that there are 16 opponents of the present Government, eight supporters, and two working men. So much for the right hon. Gentleman. In the borough of Mossley, when I came in, there were nine opponents of the present Government and four supporters; and, being pressed by a gentleman entitled to speak with authority on the point, and being assured that there was need for further appointments, I appointed five. That is to say, I have left the Borough Bench exactly equal, and have not given to my own Party a preponderance on the Bench. Now I come to Southport. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman are totally different from those I possess. In South-port, from the short note I have with me, I find there were 16 opponents of the present Government and nine Liberals. What I have done is to appoint six Liberals and two working-men representatives, thus leaving the Bench consisting of 16 opponents of the present Government, 15 supporters of it, and two working men representatives.
    *MR. CURZONsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to correct him, because the figures with which he was supplied was incorrect, He had put before the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the County Council and Municipal Companion for the present year, and taking the list appearing in that book of the names of the gentlemen on the Southport Bench, he made out 19 Liberals, two Liberal Unionists, and 11 Conservatives.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member has done nothing more than reiterate what I have already said. I cannot detain the House now by scrutinising the names, because I have none of my own data by me wherewith to test what he says. If the hon. Member had told me he was going to raise this question I would have been better prepared, but I am confident the facts I am supplying to the House are correct. The hon. Member has cited the method followed by the Lord Chancellor. I have followed the same method. I did not rely on the representation of the Members of Parliament or candidates

    1169
    solely, but in every case I bare made it my business to obtain independent, information on the subject, and often I have obtained advice from my political opponents. I think I can best state the general case as regards the Borough Magistrates by repeating some figures I gave at Question time. When I came into Office I found that in the various borough divisions the opponents of the present Government had 507 Borough Magistrates and the supporters of the Government had 159. By the addition which I have made to the Borough Bench I have brought up the number of Liberal Magistrates to something very little over one-half of the number which the opposite Party possess, and the proportion of Liberals to that of the other Party is as 11 to 20. Coming to the question of the County Benches, which is much more important, I will endeavour to deal especially with the speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Legh), since the hon. Member for Preston added little except personal bitterness. The hon. Member said a great deal about the desirability of keeping politics out of Magisterial appointments. I subscribe to that admirable general sentiment, but I want the House to look at the facts. I have been represented as if T had wilfully disturbed the state of peace and contentment which existed in Lancashire. When I came into Office I found an enormous disparity as regards the County Bench. There were 522 opponents of the present Government and only 142 supporters. There were many loud and constant complaints from Members of the Party excluded regarding their exclusion, and if the hon. Member for Southport had had the experience I have had during the last five months he would have known that there is no question which interests and excites the people of Lancashire more than this question of the exclusion of Liberals from the Bench. (Jut of 32 Petty Sessional Divisions there are seven on whose Benches there is not a single Liberal. I was challenged by the hon. Member for Newton to point out what reasons there were for persons of different politics being on the Bench. According to the hon. Member there is no reason why every Magistrate should not be a Conservative. His argument went the length of justifying a complete monopolisation of the Bench by one Party. Let
    1170
    me suggest some reasons why both Parties ought to be fairly represented. It is a very serious inconvenience when Magistrates of a certain political Party are not to be had within a given area. At election and registration times a great number of declarations have to be given before Magistrates, and I have heard of Magistrates refusing to take declarations from members of the other Party. [Opposition cries of "No!" and "Name!"] I have had such cases mentioned to me, and have been informed that at election or registration time it sometimes happens that the local Magistrates are taken to the club of their own Party, where, naturally, persons of the other Party do not like to go to look for them. I am not stating this as against one Party; for aught I know it may happen alike in both Parties. Again, there are a certain number of questions on which, as every one knows, no doubt Justices belonging to different parties are apt to take somewhat different views—for example, the Licensing Question, the Game Laws, and questions relating to rights of way. Then when any breach of the peace has been committed in any political connection, when there has been an election disturbance, for instance, and the accused is brought up, it is eminently desirable that the Bench should contain members of both political Parties. I do not accuse the Magistrates of Lancashire of any want of fairness or uprightness, far from it: but the Magistrates there and elsewhere should be above even the possibility of suspicion, and I say that not only by the selection of fair and impartial men, but by securing proper and adequate representation of both political Parties, must any such suspicion of partiality be avoided. It is sometimes said that the present disturbance of the balance of the Magisterial Bench is due to the schism which unhappily occurred in the Liberal Party in 1886. But if you examine the appointments made for some years before 1886 you will find that the proportion of those appointments was 55 Conservatives to 45 Liberals. Since 1886 the proportion is something more than 80 per cent. Conservatives to 20 per cent. Liberals, and it is largely owing to this great recent inequality that the total disparity is so striking. ["No!"] The Member for Preston

    1171
    may deny that. I have gone into the matter fully. I have examined three different sets of returns of Magistrates' political opinions that have been sent to mo from different quarters, and that is the result I have arrived at.
    MR. HANBURYrose, hut Mr. BRYCE declined to give way, and the two Members remained standing for some time amid loud cries of "Order!" from the Ministerial Benches.
    *MR. SPEAKER,interposing, reminded Mr. Hanbury that the right hon. Gentleman had not given way.
    MR. BRYCE: The reason why I did not give way is because I had no reason to think that the hon. Member is able to add anything to what he has said.
    MR. HANBURY: I used the Official Returns.
    *MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member did say that at the time, and need not have risen again to repeat it, but I must remind him that there was no official statement. I know the statement he refers to, but it cannot be called official. Another objection is made that there are many parts of the country where there are no Liberals possessing the necessary qualification. That is an argument which I have no doubt has some weight in some counties, but Lancashire is a very peculiar county. Most of the area, and seven-eighths of the population outside the boroughs is really urban; there are a large number of men engaged in manufactures, and there are few districts where it is not possible to find, on both sides of politics, people who are qualified. in the Manchester Petty Sessional Division at present the proportion is, I am informed, six Liberal Magistrates to 30, who are opponents of the Government; and in Rossendale, whose political complexion we have all good reason to know, out of a Bench of 23 Magistrates, only two are Liberals. In these districts surely an adequate number of duly-qualified and perfectly competent Liberals can be found. The gross disparity cannot, therefore, be accounted for by the absence of fit men on the Liberal side. The hon. Member for Preston has accused me of knowing nothing about Lancashire. I can assure the hon. Member that I know that county far better than any other part of England, for on behalf of a Royal Commission, 28 years ago, I explored every nook and corner of the county, and
    1172
    have had, ever since, opportunities of knowing the condition of the county, and of obtaining information regarding it, and of making friends in it, which can have fallen to the lot of very few persons who do not permanently reside there. In the state of facts I have described, I was obliged to ask myself what ought to be done. It seemed to me that the experiment made in 1870 might fairly be described as a failure. It had totally failed to secure a fair representation of both Parties; it had produced not peace and confidence, but discontent and exasperation. Lord Sefton has assured me that he had not made his appointments on political grounds. I have no charge to bring against Lord Sefton, and, of course, I accept his assurance; but, at the same time, it is abundantly clear that Lord Sefton in fact, even if unconsciously, did make political appointments, and for this reason: that he relied too Largely on I he Local Benches of Magistrates, the members of which were in the habit of recommending their own political friends. I would, however, like to make an exception of the Bolton Bench. In Bolton the Magistrates have gone on the principle of endeavouring to preserve the balance of Parties, and a very fail-balance has been preserved. If all the Benches in Lancashire had acted in the same way, there would be no fault to find. Well, in the circumstances I have described the question arose—What should be done? The matter was very carefully considered, first, by myself, and then by my colleagues also, and we came to the conclusion that we must pronounce the experiment of 1870 to have been discredited by experience and must revoke the Memorandum of 1870. But, first of all, I gave Lord Sefton an opportunity of rectifying the disparity. Lord Sefton met my suggestion, although with a negative, in a spirit of perfect courtesy; but he refused to comply, and there was then no course left to me but to revoke the Memorandum. I saw an injustice; I had the power to rectify it; I conceived that it was my duty to rectify it, and to endeavour to secure the confidence of the people in the local administration of justice by removing any possible ground for suspicion. No one desires less than I do that the Magisterial Bench should become in any way a subject of partisanship. My hope

    1173
    is, and my effort will be, to exclude partisanship, and such suspicion of it as may now exist. I believe I have completely vindicated my action, and I hope when the present Government retire, and others sit on these Benches—I hope then all these admirable professions of a desire to exclude politics from the Magisterial Bench will be remembered and acted upon. If any Member of the House will suggest to mo any means of avoiding political appointments, any means of securing that the appointments shall be made by some wholly impartial authority who will set politics entirely on one side, I will be very glad to carefully consider such a suggestion; but I feel sure that what I have done so far will be approved by the opinion of all impartial men, and all the more so because public opinion in this country will not, since the creation of local representative government in the counties, any longer acquiesce in the exercise of such important functions by a totally irresponsible person.
    MR. CHAPLINwho rose amid cries of "Divide!'' from the Ministerial Benches, said: If the House will allow, me I will not detain it beyond a few moments. On the question before us there seems to be a great divergence as to facts between the right hon. Gentleman and Members on this side of the House; but, having heard the right hon. Gentleman, I think there will be a very general and widespread feeling on both sides of the House that a weaker defence of an arbitrary exercise of authority—which, after all, might be, very brief—has seldom been offered to the House by a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman will admit, that this question is a perfect legitimate one to to raise——
    MR. BRYCE: Not in this way.
    MR. CHAPLIN: It would be impossible to raise it any other way, as the Government have taken over all the time of the Session. One of the reasons given for this change is that there was a difference of opinion between Magistrates on the Bench—a difference, I presume, about the Game Laws, licences, and such matters. There was a difference of opinion before 1886; but since then the right hon. Gentleman, and not the Magistrates, has changed his opinion. The right hon. Gentleman admits the
    1174
    difficulty of getting Magistrates of his own way of thinking, and he admits that Lord Sefton never intended to make appointments on political grounds; but, at the same time, he says that Lord Sefton did so unconsciously, because he relied on the opinions of the County Bench. The House has before it Lord Sefton's statement that he had never made an appointment on political grounds, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give the House some ground for saving that Lord Sefton's appointments were political appointments. What are the facts before the House? It appears that the system of appointing Magistrates prior to 1870 on purely Party grounds had degenerated at that time into an abuse. So great was the abuse that the Cabinet decided to make a change.
    MR. BRYCE: There is nothing whatever to show that there was any decision of the Cabinet.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Then I will take leave to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the correspondence conducted by Lord Dufferin and Colonel Wilson Patten. Lord Dufferin says—
    "I have, however, to inform your Lordships that it is intended by Her Majesty's Government"—
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I must enter my protest against the idea that whenever in official correspondence the phrase "Her Majesty's Government" is used it signifies the assent of the Members of the Cabinet.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Then are we to take it that Lord Dufferin's letter was written against the decision of the Cabinet? Not only was it the deliberate decision of the Government, but it was concurred in by Lord Derby, the Leader of the Conservative Party. The arrangement made then had lasted for 20 years; and it is only since 1886 that complaints have arisen as to the disparity between Liberal and Conservative Magistrates. Prior to that year the Magistrates in Lancashire and elsewhere were in a position satisfactory to the Government; and if, whenever the Prime Minister and his Party think it necessary to change their opinions upon matters of vital importance, fresh batches of Magistrates are to be appointed, the thing will be interminable, and the whole population will become

    1175
    Magistrates. The sole ground for the change that, is now made is the Memorial sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy. The Lord Lieutenant has pointed out that nearly all who signed that Memorial are townsmen. I fully confirm what has been said by my hon. Friends of Lord Sefton, and I can confirm it from a private letter written to myself, and which I will take the liberty of quoting to the House. Lord Sefton writes to me—
    "I have never made an appointment in my life upon political grounds, or as a reward for Party services."
    I do not believe you can find a. Lord Lieutenant who more carefully examines into the fitness of those whom he appoints. Yet the Government deliberately reverts to a system which has been tried, and which failed when it was tried. They profess to be anxious that the appointments should be made irrespective of political considerations, and then, by the way of showing their consistency, they propose that 39 appointments should be made in Lancashire on political grounds. Lord Sefton said that, even if he was requested to do so, he would not add to the Bench of Magistrates unnecessarily for the purpose of giving representation to political opinions. The Government, however, now return to a system of political jobbery of the most mischievous and regrettable description. I think my hon. Friend behind me is entitled to the thanks of the country for raising this question.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 260.—(Division List, No. 61.)

    PUBLIC BUSINESS.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the general sketch of the Business which he has given for Wednesday remains unchanged—whether he proposes to take as the first Order the Registration Bill?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Yes; that is so. I take it for granted that the Employers' Liability Bill will be read a second time to-night, and, that being so, we shall go on with the Second Reading of the Registration Bill to-morrow.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 118.)

      SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [24th March] proposed to Question [20th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      And which Amendment was,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no amendment of the Law relating to Employers' Liability will be final or satisfactory which does not provide compensation to workmen for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment, and not caused by their own act or default,"—(Mr. J. Chamberlain,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he regretted that he could not approve of the manner in which the Bill was brought before the House, or of the hurried way in which the Government proposed it should be dealt with. It was a Bill that affected many thousands of working men, and it was necessary that the case of those men should be fully stated. When the late Government brought in a Bill on the subject, containing no novel provisions, but founded on the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, those now in power obstructed the measure, and prevented it becoming law. Up to the present time only eight hours had been devoted to the consideration of the Bill now before the House, and only nine Members had spoken. He was entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill, which abolished the doctrine of common employment and general contracting out of the Act, and which simplified the procedure; but he desired to support the Amendment, which seemed to him to improve the position of the workmen. The Home Secretary had said that he regarded this Amendment as a proposal to substitute for the law of employers' liability a law of industrial

      1177
      assurance, and that it ought to be rejected until someone had the ingenuity to provide a system of insurance in order to make it workable. But the process of insurance on the part of the employer; was going on now, and if the Bill should pass that process would be extended, and if the Amendment were carried the process would be still further extended. There was no difference in principle between the Bill and the Amendment; it was only a difference in degree. The abolition of the doctrine of common employment involved the principle of industrial insurance. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were in the United Kingdom and in the City of London no less than 28 public companies carrying on the business of employers' liability insurance? These companies had a subscribed capital of £4,511,292, and an annual income of over £200,000 derived from premiums paid in respect of employers' liability. He had received a letter from the manager of one of these companies which was to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would give much more satisfaction all round, for the employers would be liable for all accidents, and the companies would get at a premium to meet this quickly, as there would be no question of liability, and there would not be half the disputes which would arise under the Act as it stood. He submitted that he had shown that there was an existing Industrial Insurance Organisation ready to hand. He hoped the Government would see their way to introduce the Amendment into the Bill, because he believed it would largely benefit the workmen and enable them to obtain compensation in at least 25 per cent. more cases than under the Bill, and further because it would largely decrease the expenses of litigation and simplify the procedure. Clause 2 of the Bill, which gave a workman the choice either of taking compensation from the insurance fund or of bringing an action against the employer, would destroy all the existing Insurance Societies from which the men, without litigation, now received fair and free compensation for injuries, for employers, by reason of the uncertainty of the action of the workmen, would not continue their subscriptions to the funds which were paid expressly to avoid litigation arising on the question of risk
      1178
      as to the contracting out of the Act. Strong observations had been made about coercion and bogus deputations, and he did not propose to go further into the matter than to say that the hon. Member who made the charge might have given some evidence in support of his statement. There were many societies against which no such charge could be sustained for a moment, and there were many which both the employers and the men were anxious to see continued. he had received numerous unsolicited communications from his constituents declaring their anxiety to see these societies preserved. The Secretary to the London and North-Western Railway Mutual Insurance Society (Running Department) had written to him, though he was neither a director nor a shareholder of that company, urging him to do his best to get his company exempted from this clause of the Bill. This correspondent said—
      "I beg in inclose you balance-sheet for 1891 as our balance-sheet for 1892 is not yet ready, and wish to inform you that the number of members in our Society at the end of the year 1892 was 10,453. The payments made by the company during the 12 years since the Employers' Liability Act of 1881 amount to £28,590, and those made by the Society from members' payments are £39,000. It is the unanimous will of all the members to remain as at present. There are about 37,000 members in the Traffic Department Insurance, and 8,000 members in the Crewe Works Insurance, and they have had meetings and are all desirous of remaining as at present."
      He had had a letter from the St. Helen's Junction Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, in which it was said that the balances in hand to the end of 1892 amounted to £86,897, and that under the operation of this clause the Society would be absolutely destroyed. These Societies, generally, desired to sec a clause exempting them from the operation of the clause, and, as a matter of fact, he failed to see why the Government should attempt to thrust benevolent legislation down the throats of men; who did not desire it. The manager of the Oldbury Alkali Company, Limited, writing to the Home Secretary in regard to the Bill, spoke about the scheme which the employers had submitted to the men in 1880, and which had been in operation since January 1, i 1881. He says—
      "During the 11 years, 1881–1891 inclusive, we had not one fatal accident at our works, in

      1179
      happy contrast to the nine preceding years, 1872 to 1880 inclusive, during which seven deaths occurred from accidents. This immunity from serious accidents i largely attribute to the greater tare and vigilance exercised by the men themselves, in consequence of the interest which our scheme throws upon them."
      He went on to say—
      "Unhappily, in 1892 two fatal accidents occurred: one due to a scald from the escape from a steam boiler of steam, due to the man's own act; the second due to the workman in charge opening a tap by which the poor fellow was terribly scalded with a boiling solution of soda. Now, please mark what happened! No. I, on his dying bed, knowing that if he died £100 would be immediately paid to his heirs, said to his father, 'Tell Mr. Chance that no man was to blame but myself.' No. 2 told several of his family that it was 'purely an accident,' and the Coroner's jury returned a verdict of 'Accidental death.' His parents also received £100 from our fund. Had no such friendly fund existed what a distressing temptation would there have been for each sufferer to remain silent on his death-bed as to the true nature of the accident, so as to leave his friends free to try to obtain compensation in a Court of Law!"
      This gentleman further wrote—
      "We have, during these 12 years, contributed sums largely in excess of any amounts we would have been required to pay under the Act, and our men have in every case of accident, from whatever cause, received prompt and full payment as provided."
      The writer pointed out that the object of the liberality of the company was to avoid the possibility of litigation with all its disturbing effects on their business, and to strengthen the good feeling which existed between the company and their workpeople. The reply of the Home Office, which was dated so lately as March 4, was simply—
      "I am directed by the Secretary of State; io thank you for your letter of the 22nd ultimo on the subject of the Employers' Liability Bill, and I am to say, in reply, that it is not the intention, nor in the opinion of the Secretary of State will it be the effect, of the Bill to discourage such mutually beneficial arrangements as have existed between myself and your workpeople."
      He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to be as good as his word, and to insert a clause in the Bill which would except from its operation these Insurance Societies. He had been much struck by a clause introduced into the Bill of 1888 to provide that Societies that desired it should, with the approval of the Board of Trade, be allowed to contract out. So injury would be done to anybody by such a
      1180
      clause as that, and he hoped it would be inserted in the Bill. The best part of the Bill was that which related to the simplification of procedure. He did hot think those hon. Members who thought that the Amendment would lead to litigation had proved their case. If the Bill wore passed without the Amendment the workman, to be qualified for compensation, must prove the positive proposition—namely, that the injury had resulted from the negligence of some one other than himself. If the Amendment were accepted, then the workman need only prove the negative proposition, that the injury did not proceed from his own negligence. Surely it would be much easier to prove the negative than the positive proposition. The manager of one of the Insurance Companies, to whose letter he had referred, made the remarkable statement—
      "As regards claims generally, a greater part of the expenses incurred under this heading may be said to be expended in law, there being so many, what we may call 'call, cases,' got up by cheap lawyers on the principle of no cure no pay.'"
      Well, it seemed to him that the effect of embodying the Amendment in the Bill would be to largely reduce litigation, and for that reason he proposed to support it. In conclusion, he would merely say that if they wanted to pass a good Bill which would put the law on a most satisfactory footing they should adopt the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain).
      *MR. HARRY SMITHsaid, he did not intend to trouble the House with any general criticism, whether in approval or otherwise, of the greater part of the Bill. The Home Secretary stated the three great purposes he had in view in connection with this Bill were the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, the prohibition of contracting out of the Act, and the simplification of procedure. With regard to the first two, he was in entire agreement with the proposals in the Bill; but with regard to the simplification of procedure, he pressed upon the Home Secretary to make Clause 8, which applied the Bill to Scotland, very different from what it now was. Because instead of simplifying, it would stereotype procedure which had proved itself during many years very bad

      1181
      and costly. Although the matter was a little technical, as one who had had large experience in dealing with cases under the Act in Scotland, he might be permitted to state in a general way the nature of the procedure in Scotland. In Scotland a workman sued an employer in the Sheriff Court—which answered to the County Court in England—under the Act of 1880; but in the vast majority of cases he desired to have the amount of the damages that were to be awarded to him found by the verdict of a jury. That was not surprising, as, if the workman contented himself with the verdict of the Court without a jury, there was a costly series of appeals dealing not only with the sum awarded, but with the law of the case. The workman could also remove the case to the Court of Session to secure trial by jury. But there was one deterrent, and that was that it was in the power of the Court of Session to award the same amount of costs as if the case had proceeded in the local Court. He need not say that the costs in the two Courts differed very materially. But there was a means of getting behind the Act of 1877, and going to the Court of Session without running the risk of having the damages reduced to those which would be awarded in the Court below. By the Act of George IV. a litigant could carry a case from the local Court to the Supreme Court for trial by jury, provided that the sum claimed was not under £40. Obviously the proper remedy was for the Home Secretary to introduce a clause allowing actions of this kind to be tried in the Sheriff Court with the assistance of a jury. The machinery was there, and it would cost the public nothing. The present anomalous position of matters was this: that according to the Bill as it stood, while in England a workman could sue up to £100 without the more costly procedure, in Scotland, which was the poorer country, if he sued for more than £4C, he must sue in the more costly and tedious Court. He (Mr. Harry Smith) had received from a gentleman who had paid great attention to the matter some statistics as to the costs in Scotland. In the Court of Session, in one case where £100 was recovered, the judicial expenses amounted to £362 11s. 2d. In another case the verdict was £79 10s.,
      1182
      and the judicial expenses £259 8s. 11d. After paying these enormous costs, the House would see that the balance to the injured workman would be of the scantiest description, as there were extra-judicial expenses to be added. The case was similar where an employer succeeded in his defence. A successful defence in Scotland was sometimes a luxury of a most expensive character. In one case a successful defender's taxed costs amounted to £315; in another to £165; in a third to £187; and in a fourth to £204. Those were samples of recent cases. So that it seemed the present system secured the smallest possible benefit to the workmen, at the largest possible cost to the employer. The Bill, he thought, would lose more than half its value to the workmen of Scotland if it remained in the state in which it now stood. It was absolutely necessary, in order to put them on the same level as their brethren in England, that the system of jury trial should be introduced in the local Courts as well as the Court of Session.
      MR. FOROOD: I wish to approach this Bill from rather a different point of view from that in which it has yet been approached in the House. I want to deal, first, with its principles; and, secondly, with its provisions as they affect shipowners. Now, Sir, it appears to me that the Bill in its present shape is nothing more nor less than a Bill which must encourage perjury in the Courts, and lead to antagonism in the relation of employers and employed. I know that these are strong statements, which require reasons to support them. If the principle of compensation to workmen is to be extended, to which I have no objection, it ought to be on the lines of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), otherwise employers and workmen will be placed in improper relations to each other, and the family of the workman, in the event of accident, will derive little benefit under the Bill. What are the conditions under which workmen will obtain compensation? The Bill provides that where a workman proves that an accident is due to negligence of the employer, he is to receive adequate compensation; but if he fails to show negligence of the employer or fellow-workman, then he will receive

      1183
      no compensation whatever. Therefore, it comes to this: that for a workman to obtain any advantages under the Bill, his interests become directly opposed to those of his employer; in other words, you will put a temptation in the way of the working man to give false evidence in the Courts of Law.
      MR. ASQUITH: Hear, hear!
      MR. FORWOOD: The Home Secretary cheers that. Well, it is not, to my mind, fair to put the workman in that position. As a rule, the result of an accident destroys all evidence of its cause, and it becomes a matter of opinion whether the accident is due to negligence or pure accident. That is a very serious matter to all employers, but particularly to shipowners. I think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is the only way of meeting all cases of accident which do not arise out of a man's own negligence. I have endeavoured to get some statistics bearing on this matter as to ships. I find that during the 12 months ending June, 1891, there were 1,550 vessels totally lost, or which met with serious accident involving more or less loss of life. Out of these only 45 were attributed to causes for which the owner was held responsible, and 230 were held to be due to bad seamanship, so that the Bill would only benefit the seamen of 275 out of the 1,550 vessels; in other words, it would only benefit one seaman in five. It seems to me, therefore, that this Bill, so far as the shipowner is concerned, would confer the minimum of advantage, whilst causing the maximum of evil. There is no analogy between accidents at sea and on shore. The relative position of the shipowner as regards liability, and the mine proprietor or shore employer are distinctly different. The loss or liability to a mineowner in the event of accidents in his colliery is limited to the damage done to his own workings and to the loss or injury sustained by his workpeople if it arises from the fault of those in charge. But, Sir, the shipowners' liability goes far beyond that. The shipowner in the case of a collision is liable, not only for the loss or damage done to his own ship, her cargo, and passengers, but also for the injury sustained to the vessel with which his ship has come into collision, if negligence on the part of his crow is proved. The
      1184
      owner of the cargo on board that vessel and the passengers travelling by her, as well as her crew, have claims upon him, and to this responsibility the Bill proposes to add the liability for injuries to his own crew! The owner of the ship causing the collision has a liability of £ 15 per ton according to the tonnage of the vessel, and £8 per ton in the case of damage to property on the same tonnage. I think the Home Secretary will admit—and anyone who has had any experience in our Admiralty Courts must know—the difficulty that now exists in ascertaining the truth in cases of collision and stranding; and, as I have already stated, I think the Bill will place a premium on false evidence. The officers and crew of each ship are generally most anxious to prove themselves in the right and the other ship in the wrong. Hence, as we all know, there is much hard swearing in opposite directions on both sides; but this contradictory testimony is not in all, or even in many, cases under existing circumstances wilful and corrupt perjury, because the seamen on board the vessel have no direct personal interest one way or the other in giving evidence to show which ship was in the wrong. But the state of things under this Bill will be altogether different. Under this Bill, if the Court holds that their own ship is in the right and the other in the wrong, they will be deprived of all compensation; whereas if they give such evidence as to lead the Court to believe their own ship was negligent, then, under the Bill, they will have a claim upon the owners. Now, this is a very large and serious question as regards the shipowner. It must not be forgotten that in his endeavours to make good his own claim on his owner, the seaman makes him responsible for the injury done to others even to the full value of the vessel—a liability which may amount to £100,000. But, apart from the shipowner's position, which I have endeavoured to explain, the future of the captains and officers in charge of the navigation has to be considered. If the members of a crew, by false swearing, can prove that those in command of their ship are negligent in their navigation, they may become the means of depriving such officers of their certificates for the rest of their lives, or at any rate for a considerable time, and cause them to lose their characters as good navigators.

      1185
      I think anything that places the crew of a vessel in a position to feel that the evidence they give may benefit themselves will make the position both of the captain and the officers most unsatisfactory. That is, however, the state of things which this Bill will create. I admit at once that in the case of a collision, if one vessel is found to be in fault and any men who were on the vessel not found to be in fault are drowned, the owners of the vessel in default will be liable to the payment of compensation. That compensation will be limited in amount and will be difficult to obtain, whereas the compensation that will be obtained from the owner of their own ship will be secured directly, and at a much earlier date than if it were necessary to sue the owner of the other ship. The Bill will increase the giving of improper evidence in these very difficult cases. In case a vessel is stranded and the crew can prove that the stranding is due to negligence those members of the crew who suffer injury and the representatives of those who are lost will have a claim against their owners; whereas if it can be proved that she has stranded by pure accident the claim will absolutely disappear. There is another point to which I must direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention. A very common practice has grown up in modern days of owning vessels under the limited liability principle, the whole amount of the shares being paid up. If such a vessel is lost or so seriously damaged as to be a constructive total loss the seamen on board will be unable to claim against anyone, as the Limited Liability Company will disappear. On the other hand, if an individual owner is proprietor of the ship and these claims arise, the seamen will be able to claim against him. If this Bill passes in its present shape, I feel sure it will encourage the further creation of these single-ship companies for the purpose of further restricting the liability and responsibility of individual owners. All the difficulties I have endeavoured to describe with regard to the position of the shipowner would be entirely obviated if the Amendment were adopted, as the whole of the seamen employed on British ships and suffering loss by accidents would be able to obtain compensation. At the same time, all the litigation which the present Bill will so effectually promote would be
      1186
      avoided, and no question of negligence would arise, the result being that good relations would be retained among officers, crow, and owners. I have an idea that if the Bill passes in its present shape owners will be more inclined to ship as seamen foreigners with fewer domestic claims than the British sailor generally has. The sole argument I have heard from the Home Secretary against the adoption of the Amendment is that it would mean the carrying into effect of a wholesale industrial insurance scheme. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite unaware of the modern commercial practice. Shipowners already effect insurances either by ordinary policies or by mutual associations formed amongst themselves against every possible risk that can bring pecuniary loss to them. It is always understood that the ship-owner insures his vessel against marine risk; but it may surprise many to be told that they protect themselves by indemnity or insurance against their present liability for loss of life or personal injury at Common Law, as also against damage to their vessel, damage to cargo, harbour risks, tines imposed on their sailors for smuggling, and misconduct of the crew. They also insure against undue interference with the Board of Trade with respect to their liabilities as carriers, and further against any legal cost which may be placed upon them in respect of the defence of their interests against the Board of Trade. It would be impossible to imagine any case of loss which the shipowner to-day does not, as a rule, insure or protect himself against. Under these circumstances, the Home Secretary's bogey of wholesale industrial insurance is placed out of court at once. To give the right hon. Gentleman an idea of the extent to which the system of insurance is carried out by shipowners, I may say I have here a list of 15 Associations in this country for insuring British ships against the risks I have indicated. No fewer than 7,500 ships are insured in one or more of these Associations. The tonnage of these ships approaches 9,000,000, or practically 75 per cent. of the total employed tonnage of this country. It will be observed that I am not altogether advocating the views which have been put before the Home Secretary by the shipowners. They desire that seamen should be altogether

      1187
      excluded from the Bill. If the Home Secretary declines to accept the Amendment, I think that circumstances of shipowners are such that seamen ought to be excluded from the Bill. At the same time, I think my fellow-shipowners over-estimate altogether the pecuniary responsibility which the Bill or the Amendment of my right hon. Friend would cast upon them. I have rather closely gone into the figures on this matter, and I will give a few facts to show the probable amount of liability which the proposal of the Government would impose on the shipowners as compared with the liability which would be cast upon them by the Amendment. In 1891 there were rather under 300 deaths of seamen through shipwreck, and 228 deaths from accidents on board steamers, whilst there were 800 deaths from shipwreck and 228 deaths from accidents on board sailing ships. In the sailing ships in which these deaths took place there wore 62,000 men employed, the wages of these men amounting to £ 2,800,000 a year. On board steamers 122,000 seamen wore employed, their wages amounting to £ 6,750,000 per annum. Assuming that the loss of life by shipwreck arose from negligence in the proportion I have indicated, and that the juries who assessed the damages gave for every man lost compensation equal to three years' wages, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will say is a reasonable assumption, the cost to the sailing ship owners would amount to £ 22,000 a year, or £3 per ship employed. I have taken my figures out of the Board of Trade Returns for 1891.
      MR. ASQUITH: You are dealing only with deaths?
      MR. FORWOOD: Yes. I will come to injuries presently. These shipowners, on the same basis, would have to pay something like £13,000 a year, or £2 10s. per vessel. I can find no record anywhere that will enable me to form any approximate estimate of what the compensation arising from injuries would be. I do not think, however, that the amount would at all approach that which would fall upon employers on shore. Under the Shipping Law the shipowner is already liable to provide medical attendance, hospital care, and so on, and to pay the wages of any man who receives injury on board his ship. Therefore, I
      1188
      think it may probably be a fair estimate to place the amount for injuries at 25 or even 50 per cent. in excess of that for deaths. Taking the same basis, I will endeavour to show what the charge on shipowners would be if the Amendment became law. I must take the whole of the deaths that occur by shipwreck, and I must add 400 deaths that occur from accidents on board the vessels apart from shipwreck. I think the Bill is faulty in having no limit of liability; and that, if it is to apply to shipowners, it is but reasonable and fair that a limit should be fixed. If the shipowner assumes all the responsibility involved in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, I submit that a maximum of two years' pay would be reasonable and fair for him to undertake. On that basis, the extra cost to the sailing shipowner, taking the whole of the responsibility, would amount to a little more than £ 10 a ship per annum.
      MR. ASQUITH: Plus the £3.
      MR. FORWOOD: Yes; and on steamers the additional charge would be exactly £10 per ship per annum. But these estimates are made irrespective of the consideration of what might be the compensation payable for injuries.
      MR. ASQUITH: What is the estimate of the aggregate sum in these cases?
      MR. FORWOOD: It would be £13 on sailing ships and £12 10s. on steamers. As far as shipowners are concerned, I think they will see it is far better for them to incur this direct extra charge than be liable to be mulcted in damages on the evidence of men whose testimony might be affected by their own interests. From the philanthropic point of view, there can be no question that if provision is made for all loss arising to seamen from accidents in the pursuit of their calling, the misery we see in our seaport towns through the distressing circumstances of orphans and widows of seamen lost at sea will be largely removed. Insurances against employers' liability are to-day of the commonest occurrence. I have taken some trouble to ascertain, from a very trustworthy and experienced source, what the probable charge on the land employers of the country will be for protecting themselves against the liabilities that will be cast upon them under this Bill. I am told that the value of the insurable risk under the Bill is

      1189
      estimated at 10s. per £100 of wages paid per annum, as against the 2s. 6d. per £100 which is found to represent the insurable value of the risks under the present Act. There is no doubt that the risks created by the Bill are very uncertain, and of a very varying character, and they depend largely upon the idiosyncracies of juries. In one part of the country a jury may give compensation equalling two years' wages, and in another a jury may go as far as four or five years. The Insurance Companies, of course, have to protect themselves against the extreme point to which their liability may be forced. If the right hon. Gentleman will insert in his Bill a liberal maximum by which people can calculate what their liability is going to be, he can adopt the Amendment, under which every man who meets with an accident may receive compensation without imposing any greater cost on the employer than he will have to pay for the uncertain liability imposed by the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will fix the limit in case of death at £150, and in ease of total disablement at £400, with compensation for partial disablement providing that the workman is incapacitated for four weeks, the employer will, I am informed, be able to protect himself by insurance at no greater cost than 10s. per cent., which would be the cost of insuring under the Bill as it stands. I know there are many who object to any such scheme. I know that the representatives of Trades Unions do not favour the broad extension of the Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain). I am not surprised at that objection, because if you impose upon the employer all this responsibility you will largely diminish the necessity for the benefit funds which keep those gentlemen to the front in the agitations of this country.
      MR. JOHN WILSON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to name any of the gentlemen who he says are kept by these funds? He might mention one or two.
      MR. FORWOOD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not respond to the hon. Member's challenge. I do not think that, for the purpose I have mentioned, it would strengthen my argument. My argument is that, if the Bill is extended in the direction of the Amendment, the neces-
      1190
      sity for many of these benefit funds would disappear, as the men would get full compensation for every accident, although the extra cost to the employer would not be greater than under the Bill. We must not forget that all legislation of this class means an increase in the cost of production, and someone must pay it. At the same time, of all the forms of protection that are suggested, the Amendment is the best and the least onerous, whilst its benefits are the most far-reaching, as it makes provision for the widow and the orphan, and keeps people of a future generation from the contaminating influence of the workhouse.
      *MR. WALTER M'LARENsaid, the unfortunate circumstance which had deprived hon. Members who wished to speak on this Bill of several hours which had been expected to be devoted to the discussion of the Bill would, he hoped, induce hon. Members to compress their speeches into the shortest possible time, so that the House might dispose of the Bill, so far as the Second Reading was concerned, that night. Therefore, though there were many points of the Bill which he would like to discuss, he intended to deal mainly with one section of great importance. He wished, first, to say a word about Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, which provided that no compensation should be given to a workman who, knowing of some defect likely to cause injury, failed without reasonable excuse to give information of that defect to the employer, or to someone acting on his behalf. It had been strongly represented to him by workmen who were well able to judge of this particular matter that such a clause, if allowed to stand, would have the effect of depriving workmen of compensation for injuries. If a workman noticed a defect in machinery likely to cause injury, and gave notice of that defect to his employer or the foreman, and no remedy was provided, and the defect was allowed to continue, it was doubtful whether that workman, in the event of an accident, would not be held to have condoned the defect, and therefore to have deprived himself of the right to compensation. That was a matter which he trusted the Home Secretary would make clear when the Committee stage of the Bill was reached. But the main question on which he wished to

      1191
      address the House was the question of contracting out of the Act, and the effect which the Bill would have in that respect on a large number of workmen if it passed in its present shape. There were many Insurance Societies in various parts of the country, but the ones which he would take as an illustration, as they were by far the largest and the best in the country, were the three Insurance Societies organised by the London and North-Western Railway Company. Representing, as he did, 8,000 or 9,000 of the workmen of that company, every one of whom had contracted himself out of the Act, the House would, he was sure, pardon him if he dwelt particularly on that point. There were 60,000 workmen employed by that Railway Company, and, speaking with a full knowledge of the subject, he ventured to say that the vast majority, or 90 per cent. of the men, were willing to contract themselves out of the Act, and would much regret if the Bill passed into law in its present shape. The men agreed to contract themselves out of the Act because it was very much to their advantage to do so, as they got much better terms under the Insurance Societies than otherwise. There were three Insurance Societies connected with the London and North-Western Railway—namely, the Mutual Insurance Society, the Running Department Mutual Insurance Society, and the Works Mutual Insurance Society. Out of every 11d. contributed to the funds of these Societies the company paid 5d.—that was to say, the men paid 6d. and the company 5d., the total contribution of the company to the Insurance Societies every year being £22,000. The men knew that they could not get £ 22,000 in compensation every year if they were left to the tender mercies of an Act of Parliament. Those Societies gave compensation to the workmen for all accidents. If a man in using a hammer smashed his thumb he would get compensation. There was no delay; no hesitation; no litigation; the money was paid at once. There was also an unwritten rule that if a man were seriously and permanently injured, some light occupation was found for him; and if a man were killed his widow or children had a prior claim on the company for such employment as could be found for them. There was,
      1192
      therefore, an indirect advantage from these Insurance Societies that good feeling was promoted between the employer and the employed. Those Societies could not exist unless the men were permitted to contract themselves out of the Act; and he believed that if there were no such Societies, and if the men were left to the mercies of the law in its present form, not 10 per cent. of the men injured would get compensation. No one would, therefore, deny that the men of the London and North-Western Railway Company were far better off with their Societies than they would be under the Bill if it became law in its present form. Those men desired to be lot alone, for they were perfectly satisfied with their Societies. A large deputation of the men waited on the Home Secretary to urge these views, and were introduced to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) and himself. The hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire (Mr. Wood) told the House that—
      "It was a bogus deputation, and did not, in the slightest degree, represent the railway servants of this country; that he had addressed hundreds of meetings of railway servants, and had never met a single workman who was in favour of contracting himself out of the Act."
      The hon. Gentleman must have never been in Crowe, and his experience of the workmen of the London and North-Western Railway Company must be singularly limited. The deputation did not profess to represent the railway servants of the country; it represented the men of the London and North-Western Railway Company, and he was perfectly satisfied that a more genuine deputation had never waited on the Home Office. No one who knew him would suspect that in this matter he in any way represented the Directors or the officials of the company. His connection with Crewe would be terminated at a moment's notice if the Directors or the officials had anything to do with him. He represented the men simply and solely, and he could assure the House that the deputation had been spontaneous, and fully represented the vast majority of the 60,000 men employed by the company. He therefore said to the Government on behalf of these men—"Let them alone." It might be said that these Insurance Societies could go on under the Bill as they were going on at

      1193
      present, and that under Clause 3 it was open to an injured workman to go to law under the Act, or to go to the Societies for compensation. That was quite true on paper. The Bill, no doubt, gave the men that option; but the weak point about the Bill was that it could not compel the company to continue its contribution of £22,000 a year to the Societies. If the accident were a clear case under the Act, the man would go to law; if not, he would go to the Society, so from the men's point of view it would be a case of "Heads I win, tails you lose." That would be first-rate for the men, provided the company could be compelled to continue to pay £ 22,000 a year to the Insurance Societies in addition to the costs of lawsuits. But would it do so? The Midland Railway Company, which employed one-third less men than the London and North-Western Company, did not ask its men to contract themselves out of the Act, and the highest sum it had ever paid in anyone year in compensation for injuries was £1,300. The London and North-Western Company, which employed one-third more men, would, if they did not ask the men to contract out of the Act, probably pay £2,000 a year in compensation. But that company did ask the men to contract out of the Act, and it paid to the Insurance Societies £ 22,000 a year in consideration of the contract. The chances were that if the Bill, as it stood, were passed, the company would drop the £ 22,000 a year voluntary contribution, and content itself with paying the £2,000 a year in compensation. The result of such a step would be that 90 per cent. of the men injured would get nothing at all, and what the remaining 10 per cent. would chiefly get would be a lawsuit, because there was no doubt that such a powerful company would fight most claims for compensation made under the Act. Of the 10 per cent. of the injured men who would go to law probably half of them would be defeated and would be ruined by lawyers' costs, and the other half who would win would find, after paying the lawyers, that they had very little left of the compensation awarded them. Meantime, the Insurance Societies would probably have ceased to exist, and the men would be in a very much worse position than they were at
      1194
      present. He, therefore, wished again to urge the strong desire of the men to be let alone, and he hoped the Home Secretary would give way to it. The hon. Member for St. Helen's had quoted the Home Secretary as having said that the Bill would not interfere with good Insurance Societies. But about a fortnight ago, at the annual meeting of the Mutual Insurance Society, Mr. Webb, the chief locomotive superintendent of the London and North-Western Company, said—
      "If the Employers' Liability (Amendment) Bill was passed in its present form it would be almost impossible for the Insurance Society to continue."
      There was a forecast of the danger which the Home Secretary said he desired to obviate. He did not object to a clause forbidding contracting out as a general rule, provided some safeguard was inserted in the Bill for the protection of Insurance Societies of this kind. He was entirely opposed to the employers compelling the men to contract out, but he was willing to agree to any arrangement by which the feeling of the men, of any company or employer, as to whether or not they desired to contract themselves out of the Act should be ascertained by ballot; but if the Bill passed in its present shape it would deprive the 60,000 men of the London and North-Western Railway Company of the benefits of their Insurance Societies, and run great risk of doing serious injury to the finest body of working men in the country.
      *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he desired to say some things in support of the Bill. His experience told him that there was no question in which the working classes had taken a greater interest than in the question of employers' liability. That was so because the question came close to their daily lives, and dealt with the risks they were constantly incurring, and because at times the justice or otherwise of the law placed them and their families either in a position of want, or in that of obtaining relief for injuries caused by negligence. He regarded it as equally good for employers that this branch of the law should be placed on a just and wise foundation. If the law were just and wise it meant industrial peace, whereas if the law were inequitable it had the tendency to increase that friction

      1195
      which should not exist between employers and the employed, and did a serious injury to the industry of the country. For those reasons he thought the Bill dealt with a matter of the greatest importance to the commerce of the country. The leading principle of the Bill seemed to him to be that it completely removed those qualifications of the doctrine of common employment which were allowed to exist after the passing of the Act of 1880. That Act greatly limited the doctrine of common employment. But the Act of 1880 had considerable demerits, and one of the demerits was, so far as his experience extended, that it tended to produce a much greater quantity of litigation than had been estimated during the course of this Debate; he knew scarcely any branch of the law that was more studded with cases than that relating to the Employers' Liability Act. But there was this observation to be made: that the bulk of that litigation had been occasioned by the reservations made in the Act of 1880; not arising out of the provisions of the Act itself, but arising from the exceptions and qualifications retained, instead of dealing with the law on a broader, and, as he thought, a better footing. For this reason he concurred in the expression of an opinion of a statesman on this question—a statesman who had admittedly done much for labour legislation. As long ago as 1875, when Lord Cross introduced great improvements into the law affecting the working classes, he (Lord Cross) said—
      "The only practicable plan to remove injustice was to deal boldly with the doctrine of common employment, and practically to abolish it altogether."
      The doctrine of common employment was an anachronism, and obsolete in its application to the administration of justice in this country; it was a relic of the last century, a creation of what he would call Judge-made law, and it was essentially based on what was a legal fiction. What was the basis of the doctrine of common employment? It was that a workman, entering into a contract of service contemplated and took into account the risk that might accrue to him from the acts or negligence of his fellow-servants. To say that he knew and appreciated that risk was to say what was practically impossible. How
      1196
      could it he said, with truth, that between an employer receiving £3,000 a year and the employé receiving, perhaps, 30s. a week, there could be that community of interest or knowledge which should make them responsible for each other's acts? If it were contended that the doctrine of common employment had better foundation when it was originated he should still hold that, owing to the advance of industrial development, it had become completely obsolete. He, of course, alluded to what he called the pre-factory age of industry in this country. When this doctrine of common employment was first established, industries were more of a domestic character, and when men worked in the same house they could, perhaps, be said to have some knowledge of each other, and could estimate the risks they ran in dealing with those with whom they were cast; but since the introduction of the factory system that had become absolutely impossible; therefore, if the common employment doctrine had some foundation in the last century, it had none now, and was absolutely out of place in dealing with the developed and extended industries of the country. If there was one branch of the law more than another on which the remark could be made that law and equity were two things God had joined together and man had put asunder, it was the doctrine of common employment. Not only was the abolition of the doctrine of common employment desirable in itself, but there was no ground for retaining those exceptions and qualifications that were a characteristic feature of the Act of 1880. He was glad, therefore, that the Bill abandoned the exceptional requirement as to notice. Surely the fact that the absence of notice would be a great disadvantage to the plaintiff was an assurance that it would be given in some form or other, and, moreover, that it would be given rapidly after the injury. He would also point out that under the Act of 1880 the one case in which the most damages could be given, the case of death, was the very case in which the obligation of notice could be absolved if the Court considered there was excuse for this. Therefore, they had this anomaly: if the accident was trifling, notice must be given; but if the accident was serious and occasioned

      1197
      death, then an application could be made to the Court and the obligation of notice excused. But he opposed notice on the broader ground that his experience had led him to conclude that in some, but by no means all, or most, or even many, of the cases, benevolence had been very transitory in dealing with them. Notice must be given within six weeks, charity had lasted six weeks, and after that charity and consideration had both ended, and the result had been, with little power of amendment at the trial, grave injustice had been inflicted upon those who had been seriously maimed, and they had been deprived, owing to a technicality, of that measure of relief to which they were justly entitled. That could not conduce to good relations between employer and employed; and after all, whatever might be the state of the law, what was so important as the existence of good feeling between tham? He, therefore, said the Bill that abandoned the exceptional requirement of notice was a Bill that was based upon equity and mutual interest as between employer and employed. He took next another qualification, which was retained in the Act of 1880, but to which the go-by was given by this Bill—he meant the limitation of damages. If a serious injury had happened to an employé, between whom and his employer, or rather between whom and a colleague, the application of the doctrine of common employment being excluded, on what principle then was there to be a limitation of damages? The measure of damage was the injury, and there could be no ground, so far as he could judge, for making this an exceptional case. If it were said the reason of the limitation was the restriction of the remedy to the County Court, he answered that if there were a difficult question of law or fact the case might be removed to the Superior Court, and on that ground there was no necessity for restricting the damage. Here, too, was what he ventured to think was a defect, though a minor one in the present Bill, and it was that the right of removal was only given to the defendant. In the existing Act it was given to both plaintiff and defendant, and he could quite understand a case might arise in which the plaintiff had entered his case in the County Court in the
      1198
      belief that the circumstances were perfectly simple, but in the development of them might find himself face to face with grave questions of fact or law on which the decision of a superior tribunal was desirable; and, therefore, he thought if a workman had entered his case in the County Court, and afterwards discovered serious questions required to be decided, he should have the right of removal given him upon good cause shown. But he thought the restriction to the County Court was no ground for limiting the claim for damages, and he was very glad that law and equity were again reconciled by the absence of any limitation in the present Bill, so that the damages might be apportioned in accordance with the injury sustained. Another exception which existed in the Act of 1880, and which he was sorry to find was retained in the present Bill, was that these actions were not to be open to domestic or menial servants. The exclusion would inflict a grave injury upon a large class of the community. But he based the inclusion of domestic and menial servants on broader grounds. He thought if this Bill was to be passed, and it carried with it a benefit to the employé and a burden upon the employer, the whole community should share in the benefits and the burdens. If the provision were a good one, it should apply to all, and if a bad one, then there would be greater means of obtaining an improvement, if the whole community was interested in the justice or injustice of the matter, and for these reasons he thought that both domestic and menial servants should be included in the Bill. He now came to what he granted was a much more difficult point, and that was the provision which dealt with contracting out. On previous occasions they had heard that it was a mischievous thing; but no one, of whatever view, could have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. W. M'Laren)—representing a large industrial centre—without feeling that he expressed the opinions of a large portion of the working classes. He was not going to disguise from himself or the House that there were grave objections to contracting out. He appreciated to the full the danger of placing pecuniary considerations over and above considerations of humanity, and the saving of life

      1199
      and limb; and no one could have mixed, as he had, with the working classes without feeling they were deeply sensible of the duty to their class of putting humane considerations first, whether in relation to the doctrine of common employment, working overtime, or the smaller questions that must constantly arise in our complex industrial system. But he would ask the House to consider whether, recognising the great benefits that might ensue from a system of contracting out, followed by more substantial benefit to the employé, whether it was not possible to reconcile both with the interest of the employé, and without running any grave or real danger of that disregard for the safety of life and limb which he know was so strong a feeling on the part of numbers of the working classes? The benefit to be provided by any insurance fund could be taken into account in dealing with such cases, and allowed to that amount; and that might be the means of retaining the benefit of such insurances, and not running any grave risk of undue disregard for the safety of the employés. If that were done, another advantage would be to further limit those speculative actions which were brought against employers at the present time by professional adventurers. Another question was the objection which had been raised to the employer insuring. On that, point, he said at once that, in his opinion, the employé ought not to be his own insurer; he had limited means, and if he underwrote his own safety, he did it with the utmost limitation as to risk, and for that reason he (Sir A. Rollit) thought nothing in the shape of a pittance, of additional wages, bore anything in proportion to the risks he ran. On the other hand, he equally thought it was to the ultimate interest of the employé that the employer should have the right to insure, a right in regard to which many writers and many hon. Members in this House had referred with expressions of doubt. But the ground on which he based his opinion was this: He did not believe—though there might be an occasional employer who was disregardful of the safety of his men, although there might be an occasional shipowner who was indifferent if his ship
      "Went down into the sea,
      When Heaven is all serenity—''
      1200
      this feeling was applicable to the great class of this country who were employers. He was satisfied, both from that consideration and from the statistics cited by the late Mr. Bradlaugh on this question, that the right to insure did not carry with it indifference to the life and safety of the employé. There were other considerations and securities, such as the cost and inconvenience; but they were lower motives, and he based his consideration on the higher principle that he did not believe so ill for the general body of employers in this country as to accuse them of any indifference upon a question like this. In the absence of insurance, a casualty in a mine might be a catastrophe for the community, for a whole country, for large bodies of employés, as well as the employer himself, and might carry ruin and disaster throughout a whole district; it might annihilate capital, and render the carrying on of such industries practically impossible. If, owing to an error of judgment, a shipowner lost a vessel, and not being able to insure, not only brought terrible consequences upon the men, but ruin upon himself, he thought in the combined interest of capital and labour no one would deny the right of the employer to be sufficiently prudent to protect himself and his employés by taking precautions, if only for the purpose of preventing his own bankruptcy, and so his inability to pay any compensation at all. He therefore felt strongly that the right to insure was one that ought to exist, and one which he was glad was not touched by the present Bill. It was not touched adversely by the hon. Member opposite, the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Burt), it was one that was not touched by the Trades Unions' Bill of 1876, nor by the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. He would conclude in a word or two by a very brief reference to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He honoured the lead which the right hon. Gentleman had taken in the movement for a general industrial insurance, and he hoped the time would come when they would place themselves on the side of some other nations in taking a wide and practical view of this subject; but at the present moment he thought it would be an undue extension; it would

      1201
      be travelling beyond the purview of the law of the liability of the employers, by introducing a provision for industrial compensation. Feeling as be did in favour of this Bill, a view which was also taken by his constituents, and having been asked by them to speak, not for the sake of obstruction but, on the contrary, to help, by some expressions of his own, to further the progress of the Bill, he felt that to introduce a subject of this vast width and magnitude, containing so much controversial matter, would be to imperil the passage of the Bill. Therefore he thought that this provision was not one—though he hoped it might ultimately become law in some form—that he could support in dealing with this measure. But he had another reason for not doing so. What was the chief ground for the Amendment? It was that the consequences of injuries, such as those to which they were referring, should be regarded as part of the cost of production as a charge upon business. That was the principle on which the Amendment was based. He did not think in these competitive days they could afford to add to the cost of production; that they could handicap themselves in trading competition in the products of the world. He was told that the cost would ultimately fall upon the consumer. His answer to that was that in some cases, no doubt, where there was a monopoly, the consumer would bear probably the whole, certainly a part, of the increased cost of production, but in many other cases the consumer would never bear any portion of it at all. In some cases the consumer might bear part or even the whole; but owing to what was termed economic friction, it would be a very slow process. But what would happen in the meantime? That this increased cost of production would fall first on profits and secondly on wages. He would venture to say to the Representatives of the working classes that if they were wise they would not increase the cost of production in that way, and so cause the employer to try to recoup himself from the reduced wages of the workpeople, wages which were too often only sufficient for subsistence. That was not a proposal that would commend itself to him, and had not commended itself to
      1202
      others, and its unnaturality was shown by the several Amendments placed on the Paper, Amendments to the Amendment itself. They had the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), which provided that workmen should be compensated for all injuries not caused by their own act or default. Then followed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), who proposed that all workmen should be compensated for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment; and the last of all was a reductio ad absurdum of the two preceding ones. These various sets of Amendments seemed to him to point to the fact that this was a very great subject, a national subject which had been thought of a great deal, and would have to be thought of a great deal more, as it had not yet been thought out, though it ought to be so. He trusted he had not trespassed unduly upon the attention of the House, but this was a subject in which he took great interest; and he had spoken, first, in redemption of a promise he gave specifically upon his last election; and, secondly, because he believed this Bill, if carried, would conduce, first, to justice to the workmen, and, secondly, to the improvement of those industrial relations which were absolutely essential to the commercial welfare of our common country.
      MR. RANDELLsaid, that from many points of view, undoubtedly this Bill was an improvement upon similar proposals of the late Government. The Government might be congratulated upon taking up and dealing with the controversial part surrounding the question of the employers' liability—namely, the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. And that was met in preserving the Common Law right of action side by side with action under this Bill. He was glad that, the Bill proposed to abolish the time limit within which an action might be brought, and also to do away with what had been undoubtedly a mischievous condition, operating against the interests of the working people—namely, the notice preliminary to an action. This preliminary notice of claim, highly technical and embarrassing as it was, had been more destructive of the interests of the work-

      1203
      ing classes than the doctrine of common employment. There were Petitions from colliery proprietors and others asking the Government to reinstate this notice, hut he trusted that the Government would sternly resist any such proposal. The Bill fulfilled popular expectation, and the Government were giving effect in it to the resolutions of the Trades Union Congress. But while deserving support in many particulars, the Bill was capable of vast improvement, and he hoped that the Home Secretary was not so wedded to the scheme as to refuse in Committee Amendments which would improve what was already a good Bill into a very excellent measure. He wished to draw the attention of the House, and particularly the attention of the Labour Representatives, to Sub-section 2 of Clause 1. If the Bill was to be of real value to the working classes, the sooner that subsection disappeared the better. In theory, and to the uninitiated, it might appear reasonable to expect a workman to give an employer notice of any defects in machinery; but it was impracticable, because a workman would not expose himself to the risk which might attend his reminding the employer of defect or negligence. The principle of contributory negligence was wide enough already, and they should not seek to enlarge it by fixing on the workman the undesirable responsibility of reminding his employer of his own negligence. The finding out of negligence and defects should be left to the masters, or to the overseers of works whose duty it was to find out defects. The Home Secretary expressed the hope that the Bill would prevent litigation; but he thought the retention of this provision would increase litigation, because the real defendants in any action would be an Insurance Company by whom the employer was insured against liability, and the companies would chortle with delight at the possibility of defence which this provision would offer them. Clause 2 appeared to sanction existing insurance contracts, and enabled an employer to deduct out of moneys recovered what was payable out of the insurance fund. But it was important to consider how far the question of insurance should be mixed up with that of employers' liability. The Act of 1880 had the effect of bringing about favourable compromises and settle-
      1204
      ments, but he did not share the faith of the Home Secretary on mutual insurance schemes. He would extend liability to employers in all eases, and considered that the policy of the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was the most logical and thoroughgoing, if they had to deal with the question from a mutual insurance point of view. He thought mutual insurance was an extremely doubtful advantage. In the seven years in which it had been in operation in Germany the percentage of accidents had steadily risen. The accidents per 1,000 men insured were—in 1886, 2·87; in 1887, 4·14; in 1888, 4·35; in 1889, 4·71; in 1890, 5·36. It was matter for reflection how far compulsory insurance was, after all, in the interests of working people. They ought to consider the means of preventing accidents as well as the compensation of sufferers by damages. He could quite understand that the men on the London and North-Western Railway desired to maintain a system of insurance which had existed so long; but in South Wales, notwithstanding the large percentage of workmen insured, the feeling was absolutely opposed to voluntary insurance. The workman was concerned in being able to pursue his daily work with the minimum of risk and danger, and mutual insurance would not secure that benefit for him. Clause 4 proposed that there should be deducted from the compensation any fines paid in pursuance of any Act of Parliament to working men. He supposed that referred to the Factories and Workshops Act of 1888. He thought that where a fine had been imposed under the Act 1888 it was unreasonable to allow the employer to deduct the amount of it from the sum awarded as compensation to the injured workmen. He objected to Clause 5, which enabled an action brought under it in the County Court for damages over £ 100 to be removed to the High Court of Justice. That provision would be most detrimental to the interests of the working people. The powers of removal from the County Courts to the higher Courts were sufficiently large already. The intention of the House in providing the jurisdiction of the County Courts for cases of employers' liability was to bring the means of invoking the administration

      1205
      of the law to the very doors of the working classes. He noticed that the Miners' Federation had suggested that the limit should be raised to £500 damages, but he trusted the House would not agree to anything of the kind, and the suggestion he would make was that the High Court should be deprived of its power of removal from the County Court except with the written consent of both parties. He knew that in a great number of these action the defendants were not the employers, but Insurance Companies, who had registered offices in London, who would invariably defend, as a matter of course, and would on every possible occasion seek to remove the actions from the County Courts. He therefore trusted that the Government would not do anything in the way of increasing the present power of removal. He should wish to see the provisions of the measure extended so as to include clerks, domestic and menial servants. A provision should also be inserted in the Bill to render an employer liable for accidents in the case of sub-contracts. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would insert a provision in the Bill to reduce the fees now payable by plaintiffs in actions of this character. At present before a man was able to go on with his action he had to spend £9 or £10, and there was no reason why he should pay such high fees. Reserving to himself the right of proposing Amendments in the measure when it got into Committee, he should give his support to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
      SIR J. GORST: I wish, in the first place, to recall the attention of the House to the real issue before it, which was raised some two months ago by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. We have had that issue discussed in a very desultory fashion upon portions of evenings and afternoons set apart for the Debate during the last two months; and it is a little difficult for those who, like myself, have sat through the whole Debate and listened to every speech made to recollect the precise position in which the question now stands. The only issue really before the House at the present moment is whether we should adopt the scheme of the Government which restricts the liability of the employer to cases in which
      1206
      he or his servant has been guilty of negligence; or the more extended scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, which brings within the liability of the employer every case of accident which occurs in the course of employment, except it is caused by the fault or the wrong-doing of the injured person himself. In my opinion, the wider scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is the wiser of the two, and would operate more beneficially towards the workman. The great objection to the scheme of the Government is that it covers a very small proportion of the accidents that occur to workmen. We have no information in this country which would enable us to estimate the number of accidents caused by the negligence of employers or servants; but in Germany, ever since the Insurance Laws came into operation there, the most careful statistics have been collected from which we may gather the proportion of accidents which would fall under this Bill of the Government. I obtain my information from an extremely interesting little pamphlet on the Insurance Laws of Germany, which has been prepared by an official of the Insurance Department of Germany for the Chicago Exhibition. It appears that of every 100 injuries to workmen which occurred in 1892, no fewer than 44 were caused by inevitable accidents which was not the fault of either the employer or the employed; there were 7 per cent. caused by the fault of the injured; 19 by the carelessness of the injured; and 3 per cent. of the causes were not ascertained, making a total of no less than 73 per cent. of all the accidents that occurred which would not be covered by the terms of this Bill. Only 27 per cent. of the accidents which occur to workmen in the course of employment come, therefore, under the provision of this Bill. But that does not mean that in 27 per cent. of the accidents compensation can be recovered; for before a workman can recover compensation, he has to furnish legal proof that the accident was caused either by the negligence of his employer or of his fellow-workman, and most lawyers will agree that it if taking a favourable estimate to say that the proof would be successful in half the cases. It therefore comes to this: that the Bill will only compensate the workman in about one-

      1207
      eighth of the accidents that take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said the Bill would meet one-fourth of the accidents. But the right hon. Gentleman took too sanguine a view of the case, for only in one-eighth of the eases of accident which occur in this country will the Bill of the Government give indemnity to the workmen. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has suggested a counter proposal, to the effect that the employer shall be made liable for all the accidents which fall on the workman in the course of his employment. The hon. Member for West Islington seems entirely to misunderstand the proposal made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. There is not a word about insurance in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. The question of insurance is an entirely separate question. It is one which the House may take up on some future day; but the question before the House at present is not a question of insurance, but a question of liability. It is simply a question whether the employer is to be liable in the restricted sense laid down by the Government Bill or the wider sense proposed by the right. hon. Member for West Birmingham. The proposal which the Government are making is really in the nature of an experiment which was tried in Germany 22 years ago, and which was abandoned because it did not work satisfactorily. It was exchanged for that comprehensive liability which afterwards gave rise to the Insurance Laws which now prevail in the German Empire. I will not delay the House in attempting to explain the principle upon which the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is based. I am content to rest the case upon the admirable and exhaustive speech made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hackney, who seconded the Amendment. It may be shortly stated in words of a German authority to the effect that casualties which are necessarily incident to undertakings and compensation for injuries must be reckoned as part of the cost of production. The principle advocated is that any person who carries on a dangerous trade or industry for the purpose of production of any article must, in the first instance, regard the cost of life and labour necessarily sacrificed in the course of the employment as part of the
      1208
      cost of production. What is the enormous burden which we were going to put upon the employers of this country? When the Employers' Liability Act was under discussion in 1880 some employers talked as if that little measure was going to ruin the great industries of the country, and in the List few weeks there have been meetings of shipowners, who talked as if their trade were going to be ruined by the proposed burden. But, as to the burden that would be imposed upon the employers, German statistics are instructive, and from these it appears that there were 18,000,000 persons insured in Germany in the year 1892. I am not advocating an insurance scheme; I am merely referring to those statistics to show the amount of liability which would be placed upon the employers. The whole cost of compensation in respect of these persons for deaths, funeral and sick expenses, and annuities for widows amounted in that year to 3s. per head for each man employed. I admit that the cost would not remain at 3s., but would possibly, after a certain number of years, increase to 4s. 6d. or 5s., and that payment the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would throw upon the employers. The Government Bill throws upon the employers a sum from 4d. to 6d. per head. I was anxious to find out the separate cost of seamen, and, through the kindness of Mr. Drage, the Secretary of the Labour Commission, I obtained exact results. In 1892 there were 43,300 seamen insured, and the actual cost of providing for all accidents and deaths amounted to £7,527, which worked out at rather less than 3s. 6d. per head; and, therefore, the shipowners, who had ruin staring him in the face in case this liability should be thrust upon him, may reckon that even if the wide recommendations of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were carried into effect, his liability would only amount to 3s. 6d. per head per annum, which might ultimately rise to 5s. or 6s. I would mention that by German law the employers are liable for every accident upon a scale very similar to that in the Schedule to the Employers' Liability Bill, No. 2, and this German scale gives a very handsome compensation based upon the amount of wages. The House will see that it is very fair. The hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr.

      1209
      Woods) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. J. H. Wilson), who claim to represent the working classes, have utterly misunderstood the drift of the Amendment. One of them said the Amendment would strangle the Bill.
      MR. S. WOODS: I was present when it was said the Amendment would defeat the Bill.
      SIR J. GORST: It has been stated that there is no intention of pressing the Amendment to a Division; but the statement has also been made that the Amendment would strangle the Bill by giving rise to greater law expenses. Nothing can be more absurd than that; the only expense the workman will have to bear will be that connected with proof of the injury. I am amazed to hear that the Government is going to exempt itself from the operation of the Bill. Here is a Government which has taken upon itself the task of becoming a model employer of labour, and the first thing it is going to do is to exempt itself from the legal obligation imposed by law upon other employers. I do not know whether the Home Secretary will persist in that determination. I am sure it is not his own free will, but rather the action of the chiefs of Departments; and I hope the House will make the Government submit themselves to the same laws as are imposed upon other employers of labour. The Government is not over-generous in relieving those in its employment who suffer from unavoidable accident; and if I were to trouble the House with details, I could tell some sad cases of miserable destitution in men who, after serving their country well, have been stricken down by some accident in the extremely dangerous employment of our dockyards and arsenals. I hope the sense of the House will be taken on the Amendment at a later stage, when the Bill will not be delayed. On Report I will propose an Amendment raising the principle advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in which I thoroughly concur. I hope the Home Secretary will make the Bill a large, comprehensive and complete measure. He has said that he is anxious to settle this question. The Bill as it stands will not settle it, and the result will be that it will give rise to more agitation and alarm. If he gives a complete and comprehensive measure that
      1210
      will be more satisfactory to the employer of labour, and I am sure it will have the support of both sides of the House.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend (Sir J. Gorst) is perfectly right in saying that my Amendment was not intended to be hostile to the Bill. I merely put it down in order to raise a, discussion on an alternative method of securing the object which the Government have in view. The Amendment has served its purpose. I have no hostility to the principle of the Bill, and I should be sorry to endanger it in any way. It will be perfectly possible to raise the issue in Committee, and if the House will permit me I will now withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question again proposed.
      *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BURT,): I have to thank the, right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Gorst) for having done something to allay the fears of employers of labour, and for having given an effective answer to the speech of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division (Mr. Forwood.) I think the Government have reason to be satisfied with the spirit in which the Bill has been received. It has been complained that this is nothing like a complete measure; but I think it will be admitted that the Bill proposes to go a great deal further than previous legislation. The question is one which has always excited the greatest interest among workmen and their Representatives. In 1880 we had what was recognised as a very valuable measure. Almost as soon as the Act was passed employers who had previously refused to fence dangerous machinery did so, and statistics as to mines and other dangerous employments show how largely that Act has contributed to the safeguarding of workers in mines, railways, and workshops. Some of these statistics are very interesting: but I do not wish to trouble the House with many figures. During the first year of the Act, the loss of life in mines fell considerably. I do not attribute that entirely to the Act; but it is a fact that the loss of life was lower in that year than it had ever been in any previous year, except one, from 1851. It is quite true that the Act was very

      1211
      imperfect; and immediately after its enactment an agitation commenced for amending it. The agitation was directed mainly to the prohibition of contracting out of the Act. I, for one, deprecated the re-opening of the question immediately after the Act had been passed, and I confess I was one of those who hesitated to go the full length of abolishing the doctrine of common employment. I have always admitted that there might be cases of great hardship to the employer. The more, however, the question has been dicsussed the more manifest it has become that there is no middle course between altering the general law and abolishing the doctrine of common employment. We admit that the criticisms of Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 of the Bill, which would prevent a workman from obtaining compensation if he knew of defects and failed to inform his employer, are valid criticisms. We are not enamoured of the provision, and are quite prepared to omit it from the Bill. A great deal has been said about contracting out of the Act. As we all know, the agitation which has resulted in this Bill sprang from the wholesale contracting out of the Act, and one hon. Member spoke of a case where 50,000 miners in Lancashire were coerced into doing this.
      MR. TOMLINSON: We desire to refute that statement. We say there is no truth in it whatever.
      *MR. BURT: My hon. Friend quoted from the contract that the men have to sign as part of their agreement before they can obtain employment; and if over a wide area you have thousands of men who are compelled to sign a contract to forego the claims to which they are entitled by Act of Parliament, though the term may be a rather strong one, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that that is coercion. Sir, the Government intend to adhere to the principle of prohibiting workmen from contracting themselves out of the Act. It may be possible, and I hope it will, to make some arrangements whereby the valuable Societies that already exist may not be injured. I, for one, fully recognise the advantages that have been conferred on the workmen by these societies. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe spoke of the London and North-Western Railway Society. No doubt it is one of the best,
      1212
      though, perhaps, not, as he said, the largest. The Miners' Permanent Relief Societies number altogether nearly 300,000 members, and many employers have liberally contributed to the Societies. These Societies have conferred immense benefits on the working man, and it would be undesirable to do anything to injure them. I do not, however, believe that contracting out of the Act is of the very essence of these Societies. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham says that under the existing law the moral and legal liabilities are equivalent. I do not myself accept that; I do not believe it for a moment. In my opinion, employers of labour have never, or in very exceptional cases, fully recognised their moral liabilities, and from the statistics which have been quoted I contend that the inherent danger of the occupation is responsible for the majority of the accidents. Therefore it is not just to say that the workman is wholly responsible. I think the employer ought fairly to take his share of the pecuniary responsibility of providing for accidents. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has brought us back to the direct issue raised by the Amendment; but he omitted to notice that even this Amendment does not provide for all the cases of accidents. My right hon. Friend would except all those caused by the act or default of the workman. Well, if the German statistics be fairly representative of the condition of things in this country it is apparent that there would be more than 25 per cent., nearly 26 per cent. unprovided for by the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. The workman's own default only affects the workman himself. The German statistics—the 95 per cent.—show the number killed through the default of any workman, not only a man himself. If we are to take the case of a colliery accident in which 200 workmen are killed through the fault of one workman, the only person who will be excluded under my Amendment will be the one and will allow the others to be compensated.
      *MR. BURT: I am glad of that explanation. But I was very much struck with the reason my right hon. Friend gave for this exception—that it would

      1213
      encourage recklessness on the part of the workmen. Yet in another part of his speech he said, and said justly, that every accident involved the employer in great pecuniary responsibility, and, he contended, that this risk was in itself quite sufficient to induce care on the part of the employer. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the workman cares much loss for his life and limbs than the employer cares for his money. That is a conclusion I cannot accept. But I know there are other hon. Members who desire to speak, therefore I will say no more. I hope we shall pass the Second Reading of the Bill to-night. I think there is no doubt about that; and all I will say is that the main principles of the Bill have not as yet been directly attacked. Nearly all the criticisms which have been passed and all the objections which have been made might be urged with equal effect and with more propriety in Committee. The Government mean to adhere to the main principles of the Bill, and we hope that the House will give the measure a Second Reading and let it go to a Grand Committee, where its details will be thoroughly discussed.
      *MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has good reason to be satisfied with the Debate, for it has practically been a Debate on the principle that he himself and Mr. Broadhurst, who is no longer a, Member of this House, have presented to us more than once. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has bodily swallowed the two nostrums of the Trades Unions—namely, the abolition of the doctrine of common employment and the prohibition of "contracting out." I I think that the right hon. Gentleman this time must have begun to feel that, painful as is the task and nauseous as is the dose, he has not yet got to the last of it. The employer, according to the demand of the hon. Member for the Ince Division, is to be prohibited from securing himself against liability under this Bill. No insurance against liability is to be permitted. The employer is to be liable for the servant of his sub-contractor whom he has not hired, whom he does not pay, and whom he cannot dismiss. The
      1214
      employer is to be liable for these servants as though they were his own. All persons, whatever their position—domestic servants as well as people engaged in manual labour—are to be included in the benefits of the Bill. No removal is to be made to the County Court. [Mr. WOODS dissented.] I was careful to take the hon. Member's words down as he spoke, and I know I am not misquoting him. I thought at the time that he was a little carried away by the enthusiasm of his own eloquence. But every point I have mentioned he insisted upon being added to the Bill. I am bound to say it appears to me that the Bill embodies no final principle. The right hon. Gentleman opposite might have taken first the broad principle that a man is to be liable for negligence. I should not object to that principle being pushed to its furthest limits. I should not offer any objection to the employer of labour being required to equip his premises in the fullest and safest way, and to exercise the greatest care in the selection of every agent who is to assist him in carrying on his business. If any agent is not properly skilled or trained for carrying on the business that is to be carried on, that fact should be treated as negligence on the part of the employer. That would be quite fair. If the employer were made liable for the neglect of any of these precautions the right hon. Gentleman would have got at the moral principle underlying this liability and fixing it if it is to be permanent and final and treated as satisfactory. But he has discarded that—he has not taken negligence as a ground of liability. On the contrary, he says that, although the employer may have exercised the greatest caution and the greatest possible prudence, though he may not have neglected anything which an honest and careful man ought to have regard to, though he may have chosen his agents with the greatest possible care, and has laid down rules for their guidance which are unimpeachable, yet if any one of his servants deliberately breaks the rules, and is guilty of neglect, the employer, who is certainly not morally responsible or morally to blame, will be subject, to penalties which, in many cases, may be simply ruinous to him. ["No, no! "] Can that be denied? Can it be denied that by the abolition of

      1215
      the doctrine of common employment, and by making the employer liable for the negligence of every one of his servants in the conduct of his business, although he may have taken the utmost pains to provide against accidents, consequences may ensue that may ruin that employer? The common answer, I know, is that as the employer is liable to the stranger, why should he not be liable to his servant? Permit me to say that the liability of the employer to the stranger is also contrary to common justice—and I do not hesitate to say that, as we are now discussing general principles. The Home Secretary, with that lofty wisdom which distinguishes him, has dismissed a whole generation of Judges who have established the doctrine of common employment, and who have pointed out again and again that there is a broad distinction between the case of a fellow-servant and a stranger. In the first place, it is the case that the fellow-servant knows, generally speaking, the danger the employment exposes him to; secondly, he has means of avoiding that danger by the vigilance he can exercise over his fellow-servants; and, lastly, he has made his own bargain as to the conditions of the employment out of which the danger arises, and has not stipulated that the negligence of fellow-servants shall involve any liability in the employer. These are the three broad and clear distinctions between the cases of fellow-servants and strangers which have been established by the consensus of opinion of a generation of Judges, and they cannot be waived aside by a gesture of the Home Secretary. Then the Home Secretary has fallen into many inconsistencies in regard to the Bill which I should like to hear him defend. He has stated that the manual labourer shall have the benefit of recovering against the employer for the negligence of somebody else—not of himself—but he has excluded other classes—the clerk, the domestic servant, and others—from the same benefit and remedy. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has shown, the Bill, illogical as it is, and resting as it does on an unsound principle, excludes many classes of servants from its benefits. Seventy-five per cent. of the accidents which occur in the manual labour of this country will
      1216
      not be met by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to include a very large class of men in the Bill without distinction or qualification—namely, seamen. I know that we live in days in which authorities are disregarded, and in which there is rather a prejudice against any proposition that is supported by authority. In 1886 a Committee sat and inquired fully into the subject of the employment of seamen, and heard the representatives of the seamen as well as of the shipowners, and they unanimously reported against extending the Bill to seamen generally on the same principles and conditions that it is extended to other classes of workmen. Now, what has happened since to alter that conclusion? The Home Secretary has given no reason for departing from it further than to say, in the speech in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, that telegraphic communication has improved. But surely that cannot be seriously alleged as a reason why the House should act directly contrary to the judgment of the Committee—why the shipowner is to be made liable to the same extent as the owner of an establishment on land, so that he shall have to pay for accidents when his ship is at sea, and not in any port with which there is telegraphic communication, and negligence on the part of any one of his servants is a thing that does not come to his knowledge, and is a thing which he cannot correct or control, either by remonstrance or dismissal, when he cannot replace the servant he has on board his ship in the middle of the seas, and who probably for weeks to come has to be on the seas. There is surely a broad distinction to be drawn between the master of a ship and the master of works on shore. The owner of a ship does not know what is going on on board the ship when it is at sea; moreover, he has not a free choice of agents, for the Merchant Shipping Act imposes on him all sorts of conditions. His servants must be certificated, and he is not left to his own judgment in their selection. A variety of conditions of the utmost stringency bind him, for instance, as to the help he is to give his men if they are disabled or sick. In these and other respects the case of the shipowner seems to me such

      1217
      an exceptional one, that I think there ought to be further inquiry before the Report of the Committee of 1886 is set aside. The right hon. Gentleman put forward as the principle underlying the Bill that an employer shall be liable for the consequences of the employment of any dangerous agency which he sets in motion for his own profit. I have no quarrel with that principle, save that it is totally inapplicable to the case in hand. The employer does not set in motion the machinery that causes a great accident—that causes a great disaster. The shipowner does not set the winds blowing, or the currents twisting, or the waves rolling, and least of all does the employer set in motion the negligence of his servants for which ultimately he is to be held liable. If a man sets in motion dangerous agencies he may fairly be held liable for the consequences; but in this case the owner is the last person to set in motion the negligence of his seamen. There is a much truer and more just proposition on which the principle of liability in the Bill should rest—namely, that the risks of any employment, dangerous or not dangerous, should be borne in proportion by all for whose benefit the employment is carried on. That is a very different proposition in its results and effects. In such cases all should be made to contribute to the cost which the risks may involve, not as a question of moral right or wrong, but as a question of expediency and prudence. At the same time, any man clearly guilty of negligence should be made entirely liable for the consequences. The amount of compensation, too, that would be justified by such a principle as that would be very different from the amount of compensation due from a person who had been guilty of negligence. The compensation that should be paid for risks under this principle ought to be estimated on a different scale, more moderate and reasonable in amount, and it seems to me that this is a principle which hitherto we have in our legislation entirely ignored. It is a principle of great value, and is embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. That is a principle entirely independent of negligence, though perfectly consistent with keeping alive the remedy for negligence. Owners guilty of personal negligence of any
      1218
      kind whatever ought, I admit, to be made liable for damages. My opinion is that you should make a man liable for his own negligence, and superadd to it a fund contributed to by employer and employed; and adopt a system of compensation whereby all who receive benefit from an industry shall assist in relieving the misfortunes and sufferings of those who in that industry meet with disaster. I believe that that is the proper way to settle this controversy. I believe that it has been done, and is being done, voluntarily by the masters and men in a most beneficial manner. The hon. Member for Morpeth said what I should have expected from a man of his fairness of mind. He said he should be extremely sorry to destroy agreements already made between masters and men, greatly to the advantage of the men, in order to relieve them from sufferings resulting from accidents in the course of dangerous employments. It would be positively cruel and disastrous to put an end to the system of mutual insurance which now exists. The extent of it is very considerable. Not only have some of the great Railway Companies adopted the system, but it has been adopted in connection with great mining industries. I find that in 1890 there were 110,000 men who had contracted out of the Act as against 158,000 who had not. Those figures, which are supplied by the Central Mining Association, show a minority which is deserving of consideration and respect. It is a remarkable fact that in South Wales and Monmouthshire this system of, I do not like to say "mutual insurance," for it is not that, but that system under which compensation is paid to men whatever the cause of the accident, whether caused by negligence or by what is commonly called "the act of God"—I do say it is remarkable that in South Wales and Monmouthshire this system has been growing largely. In 1881 there were 5,000 and odd persons who had contracted out of the Act as against 67,000 who had not; but in 1890 the proportion was reversed, and there were 52,000 who had contracted out of the Act as against 47,000 who had not; showing, therefore, that the men themselves feel the advantage of a system by which, without litigation and in the most friendly and peaceable and

      1219
      rapid way, compensation can be given to them, whatever the cause of the accident may have been which disabled them. I had, perhaps, better not mention the names of the industries in which this system has been adopted. I may just refer to the miners under Lord Dudley, who also have entered into a contract of this sort, for they are so large a body. They have entered into contracts which have withdrawn them from the Act. I am receiving daily accounts of similar organisations and associations. From my own constituency I have received almost a plaintive letter from persons in the employment of the London and North-Western Railway imploring me to press upon the Government their firm conviction that they are better provided for under their contract with that company than they could ever hope to be by the provisions of this Bill. I cannot help saying that the Home Secretary is incurring tremendous responsibility when he destroys all these arrangements. I am quite aware that he has said that he does not destroy them, and that the persons who enjoy the benefit of them have the option of continuing them; but it is ridiculous to expect employers to go on making large contributions to funds of this sort, and at the same time be exposed to the chance of the ill-feeling produced between masters and men by litigation under the Act—to a prospect of having to pay heavy, and in some cases ruinous, damages for some act over which they had no control, and for which they were not morally responsible. The right hon. Gentleman will kill all these Associations at once. The masters will withdraw their contributions, the whole thing will come to an end; and, unless he is prepared to adopt the extreme proposal of the hon. Member for the Ince Division, masters will simply insure against the increased liability, and whenever an accident occurs the unhappy injured workman will be handed over to the resolute, determined opposition of an Insurance Company, which will draghim through all the stages of litigation before he is enabled to recover a farthing. What argument is there in favour of this? I have heard it suggested that the workman is not free. ["Hear, hear! "] I am
      1220
      sorry to hear that cheer. I do not know any assertion that can be regarded as more degrading to the workman than that these contracts are involuntary contracts on their part and that they do not cheerfully embrace them. I say the whole experience of the facts connected with this matter are the other way. I do not know whether the hon. Member who cheered has referred to the contract of the London and Brighton Company, but if he will do so he will see that the men are absolutely free to join or not as they like. The men have come in by degrees, and up to this time the total was somewhere between 29,000 and 30,000. They come in gradually, because the benefits of the arrangement impress themselves on the minds of men. In the same way in the coal-mining industry there has never come to me any fact to show that the slightest compulsion is used.
      MR. J. WILSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had quoted figures to show that some 47,000 men in Lancashire and Cheshire had contracted out of the Acts. As a matter of fact, the men were compelled to sign an agreement as a condition of being reengaged after a strike of seven weeks. [The hon. Member read the terms of the agreement to which he referred.]
      MR. MATTHEWS: I am always glad to give way to the hon. Member, because I know he represents, in a special sense, the interests of the working classes, but he will allow me to observe that his interruption was totally irrelevant. I did not say a word about Lancashire. The passage he has just read had already been read by the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Woods). I know that my hon. Friends connected with Lancashire have a full and complete answer" on the point, but they have not yet had the opportunity of giving it. I repudiate the idea that, under normal circumstances, men in this country are in such an abject condition that they are not to be regarded as free agents when they enter into contracts which I say, in the judgment of any sensible man, benefit them enormously. Another argument that

      1221
      would be entitled to the greatest weight if well founded has been presented in various shapes more or less dramatic. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), in one of the remote days on which part of this scrappy Debate was taken, said that what the men wanted was not money, but safety. I entirely agree, and if I thought that these contracts diminished the chances of the safety of the men, I should be as determined an opponent of them as is the hon. Member who has just favoured me with an interruption. But take the London and North Western Railway Company, practically the whole of whose employés contract out of the Act. Does anyone say that there is less care taken on the London and North Western line than on the Great Western, where nobody contracts out? Then take the cases of those miners who contract out of the Act. There are more miners who are under the Act than there are who contract out of it. The proportion of the latter is growing daily, but at present they are in the ratio of something like 110,000 to 158,000. Can the slightest evidence be produced to show that among the 110,000 who have contracted out of the Act accidents are more numerous than among the 158,000 who have not? The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) has more than once given figures which, if he will allow me to say so, will not bear the test of examination, as they are based on a narrow average. I believe that if you take figures extending over a large area and over a number of years, you will find that in the districts contracting out the cases of disablement have been fewer than in other districts.
      MR. FENWICK: What does the right hon. Gentleman regard as a period of fair comparison? Are not seven years before and seven years after fair periods?
      *MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member has given figures which were in part inaccurate, and which did not lead to any fair result. [An hon. MEMBER: Divide!] I do not know who is the hon. Member who cries "Divide!" but, whoever he is, he seems to attach very little importance to the gravity of this ques-
      1222
      tion. The evidence of the facts does not show that, either on the ground of increased liability to accidents, or on the ground of any interference with freedom, have these contracts, which have been of enormous advantage to the men, been shown to be objectionable. The folly of putting an end to agreements in which thousands of men find satisfaction, and under which the employers certainly give for the benefit of the men far larger sums than they would have to pay under the present Bill, or under any possible Bill, does seem to me so great that I would earnestly entreat the Home Secretary to consider whether he cannot leave some door open for the continuance of those arrangements. I am myself one of those old-fashioned persons who think that people are the best judges of their own interests, and who believe that when masters and men agree to a particular course of conduct which has been developed and improved during a long series of years, it is better for both parties than anything Ministers can devise or public men invent. I do deprecate most sincerely the arbitrary way in which men say: "We will not allow this course to be followed; we will set the agreements aside." I apologise for having detained the House so long, but I can assure the House that if I had said all that I had in my mind I should have spoken much longer. I do not, however, wish to prevent the Bill reaching its Committee stage, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not yet said his last word to the House.
      Mr. Asquith rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
      Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a Division. The Bill was a very important one, and probably some

      1223
      hon. Members would desire to move Instructions to the Committee. Time should therefore be allowed them to do so. They all desired to make the Bill more capable of doing good than it would prove in its present form. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Debate be adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

    RATING OF MACHINERY BILL. (No. 1.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      MR. TOMLINSON: Are the Government prepared to give facilities for making progress with this Bill, the SECOND READING of which was passed by a large majority, on the understanding that it would be pushed forward?
      *SIR W. FOSTER: The Government are anxious that the Bill should, as soon as possible, be committed to the Grand Committee.
      MR. TOMLINSON: Will the Order for Committee be put in such a position on the Orders of the Day as to enable us to discuss it?
      SIR W. FOSTER: That I cannot say.
      Committee deferred till Friday.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 290.)
      Read a second time, and committed.

      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Hackney, Hammersmith, and Poplar, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 318.]

      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Altrincham and Bowdon, Barnet, Bridgend, and Taunton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 319,]

      PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. (No. 286.)
      Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended to be considered To-morrow.
    POLITICAL OFFICES PENSION ACT (1869)

      REPEAL BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Alpheus Morton, Bill to repeal "The Political Offices Pension Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alpheus Morton, Mr. William Allan, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Stewart Wallace.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 320.]

      WAYS AND MEANS.
      Resolutions [24th April] reported, and agreed to:—Resolutions agreed to:—-Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mellor, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Hibbert.

      TREASURY CHEST FUND BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to reduce the Limit of the Balance of the Treasury Chest Fund, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir John Hibbert.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 321.]

      SEAMEN'S PROVISIONS BILL.—(No. 191.)
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      EAST INDIA FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
      Order [19th April] for Address for Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and instead thereof:—
      Address for "Return of the East India Financial Statement for 1893–l4, and of the debate and proceedings thereon in the Legislative Council of India on 30th March, 1893."—(Mr. Naoroji.)
      House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 29).)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."
  LORD NORTON, before the House went into Committee on this Bill, wished to say a few words upon it. It seemed to him, in the first place, a most objectionable piece of patchwork legislation upon a subject of very great importance. Some consolidation of the various Acts on the Statute Book relating to it was necessary in order to guard against gross abuses and great mischief arising, us was acknowledged by the fact that for throe years Consolidation Bills had come before their Lordships and had met with no opposition. Instead of guarding against the Statute Book becoming more and more loaded with this patchwork legislation, they were now proceeding with another little Bill on the subject, not only complicating the law, but it had the additional disadvantage and mischief of legislating for Scotland only upon a subject in which England was equally interested. It certainly showed that for carrying out Home Rule a separate Legislature was not required if subjects of equal interest to England and Scotland were to be treated separately and fragmentarily for the two countries without any reason whatever. If these little one-clause Bills were dangerous in themselves, more especially were they so at a time like the present, when the attention of Parliament was engrossed by the consideration of a subject of enormous importance to the Empire, and they were consequently slipped through almost without Parliament knowing anything of them. They simply provided food for the lawyers to the great embarrassment of those engaged in carrying out an important public work. The one object of this little Bill for amending the Reforma-
  1118
  tory Law in Scotland was simply to enact one clause out of the Consolidation Bill which their Lordships had had for three years before them—nothing more nor less. Being actually a clause which they had considered equally applicable to England and Scotland, it was now made the subject of a Bill for Scotland alone. The existing law under the Act of 1866, which the Bill proposed to amend upon this particular point, was that a youthful offender—a child criminal—might, after being committed for 10 days to prison, be sent to a reformatory. However, if consolidation could not be effected, and if they were to deal with the subject by patchwork, be would ask leave to introduce another Bill for England very much like that now before them for Scotland, only expressed, he thought, in better language, because it would not only propose that children convicted of criminal offences might be sent elsewhere than to prison, but, it would entirely separate the penal treatment of such children from their school training. He thought the greatest possible mischief would be done by this Bill, providing by its language that, in addition to any other punishment, the children were to be sent to school; that was to say, that the school was to be part of their punishment, and the criminal character of the children's treatment was to continue throughout the whole period until the age of 19; in fact, they were to be educated as criminals. That was so mischievous that he would rather see reformatories given up altogether than have the children's education so carried out. He was simply protesting against the Bill, and did not propose attempting to amend it. On the contrary, he would try, as he had said, to introduce a parole Bill for England upon the subject, but, as he thought, better worded. He wished Lord Balfour bad himself introduced this Bill into their Lordships' House, for he was quite convinced he would have introduced it in a much better shape. It was, he repeated, one of those little Bills which came before the Standing Committee almost every day, and were passed by the other House—which was at present occupied with a great measure which engrossed its attention—certainly without any adequate discussion whatever. He merely desired now to give notice that he would ask their Lordships' leave

  1119
  to introduce a parole Bill for England at the earliest opportunity.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  *LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, there are some Amendments which will have to be put into the Bill. Probably it would be more convenient that they should be postponed until we get to the Standing Committee stage. I understand the Home Office agree to this course.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I may mention that it has been pointed out that it will be more convenient the Order for the meeting of the House on Tuesdays at half-past 5 shall apply for the rest of the Session. Therefore, I beg to propose that that shall be the order of proceeding.
  Motion agreed to.

POLICE DISABILITIES (REMOVAL) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD VERNONsaid, as their Lordships were aware, before a Bill with the same title as that to which he had to call their attention was enrolled in the Statute Book in 1887, police constables did not enjoy the same privileges as other citizens at Parliamentary elections, and their Lordships would, he was sure, agree that the Conservative Party, and those who specially interested themselves in extending the franchise to the police, deserved great credit for their efforts in that direction. The Bill, for which he was now asking a Second Reading, was only one step further in the same direction. It proposed to give police constables the right to vote at municipal, County Council, School Board, and all other elections, for which they had the same qualifica-
  1120
  tions as were required of any other citizens. It seemed almost incredible that in days gone by anyone should have been found to object to the police constable having the right to vote; and he could only imagine that such a restriction was imposed as a sop to timorous Tories, a species of politicians which, they might congratulate themselves, had now become almost as extinct as the dodo. Those who opposed the extension of the franchise to policemen said that as constables were custodians of the public peace they should not be allowed to take part in what might prove to be heated political contests in which they might be tempted to act as partisans. The Conservatives, by passing the Bill of 1887, with the full approval of the Liberals, had conclusively proved that they entertained none of the fears which actuated those who formerly deprived police constables of the right to vote, enjoyed by their fellow-countrymen. But this was not to be wondered at. It was a recognised desideratum of representative government that all the possible intelligence, virtue, and property of the nation should be enlisted to maintain its Institutions. Police constables are, at any rate, supposed to have more than an ordinary share of intelligence and virtue, and he should imagine that, as a body, they possessed their fair proportion of the nation's wealth. They were, as a rule, picked men—sober, honest, and of good character, and the public trusted the care of their lives and property to them. If at any time the exercise of the franchise induced them to fail in the performance of their duties as custodians of the peace, they were not fit to hold the position of trust they now enjoyed. He felt sure their Lordships would agree that it would be a great injustice even to insinuate that policemen would fail to do anything to shake the confidence of the public in this direction. If their Lordships, as legislators, even suggested the possibility of policemen abusing the right of exercising the franchise which others possessed, how could they hope that other people should feel security in the honesty and uprightness of the men who were appointed to watch over and protect their Jives and property? Every consideration by which groundless terrors might be removed added something to human happiness; and surely a dread anticipation

  1121
  of men voting for individuals because they happened to belong to Watch Committees which controlled their actions in the performance of their official duties was a groundless cause for alarm. Such an argument might apply with equal force to all people employed by Municipal Authorities, County Councils, or School Boards—all the employés of such Bodies voted for those who controlled them, or whom they wished to control them; and surely if officials and clerks were deemed competent to decide such questions without being unduly influenced by personal or Party interests, it might justly be said that policemen should have equal rights with their fellow-countrymen in that respect, and should not be placed in a lower category of citizenship. The great end of Government was to give every man his own; and the police constable might surely claim to have equal rights with others in regard to the power of voting. But they had not even suggested claiming the right to vote in local elections, and had suffered the disability patiently and uncomplainingly for half a century, knowing that any criminal or any man whom they arrested might taunt them by saying that policemen were not considered sufficiently honest to be trusted with a vote. He was, of course, in saying that, alluding to the time anterior to the extension of the franchise to them in 1887; and they might be taunted in the same way with regard to their power of voting at local elections at the present time. Their Lordships would agree that they ought to have, at any rate, as much confidence in policemen as in prospective or ex-criminals who might come out of prison and exercise the franchise, while the men who were trusted to protect the lives and property of the public from such individuals were not supposed to be sufficiently honest to do so. He was aware that it would be rather contrary to precedent for members of the Conservative Party to agree with a Bill initiated by the Liberals; but, at the same time, as this measure was only one step further in following the lead of the Conservative Party themselves, he considered the Opposition would get quite their fair share of the credit for having passed it. For that reason he trusted their Lordships would remove the exist-
  1122
  ing anomalous condition of things and that no opposition would be offered to the Bill by the Conservative Party. At first there was, he believed, a certain amount of opposition made to it in the other House by Members who had actually forwarded the interests and advocated the claims of the police when the franchise was extended to them in regard to Parliamentary elections, but hoped that would be now withdrawn. The police had held large meetings and had signed petitions on the subject, and they fully expected that the Party which had studied their interests on the former occasion in the House of Commons would not oppose them now in their Lordships' House. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Vernon.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord contains so many appeals to the Party to which I belong that I feel it-would hardly be courteous in me to allow the Bill to be read a second time without observation. The noble Lord said that policemen had been deprived of their votes by the fears of timorous Tories, and that the species of timorous Tory has disappeared; but I beg to assure him that the species of Tory has not disappeared, and I should say they are not more timorous than other people. But I demur entirely to the general tenour of the remarks of the noble Lord, which were to the effect that it was due to the Conservative Party that those who served under Government were excluded from the franchise. The exclusion of policemen from the franchise is only the survival of a principle which at one time extensively prevailed, that these who serve under Government should be excluded from the franchise; but I have a very distinct recollection from my knowledge of what was done at one time in the House of Commons that the removal of that restriction came from the other side. I quite agree with all the noble Lord has said about policemen, and I am not in the least afraid of the manner in which they will exercise their votes, but I can hardly join with him in the belief as to the taunts and opprobrium to which they have been exposed, because they

  1123
  were deprived of a vote. The noble Lord spoke of the inferior condition of policemen in this respect to the ex-criminal, who when he came out of prison could exercise the franchise, while the policeman could not. I will ask the noble Lord to remember that there is one small but estimable class of society which is entirely excluded from the Parliamentary vote, which has been so excluded for many centuries, and which has no prospect of obtaining it. Yet I doubt whether the noble Lord would say that that class is inferior to the ex-convict or policeman. That unfortunate class is represented by those who sit upon the Benches in your Lordships' House. Whatever opprobrium or sorrow or damage the policeman may have suffered in the past in regard to the franchise, it is nothing to that which rests upon the shoulders of the unfortunate beings who constitute your Lordships' House, and who are subject to the disability under which the noble Lord says the policeman frets so much.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL [H.L.] (No. 24.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 69.)
  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 27.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 25.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 70.)
  CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 40.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment.

  REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 59.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.