Sitting of 30 March 1893

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Copy ordered—
"Of Returns of the names, objects, or business, places where business is or was conducted, date of registration, number of persons who signed the Memorandum of Association, total number of shares taken up by such subscribers, nominal capital, number of shares into which it is divided, number of shares taken up, amount of calls made on each share, and the total amount of calls received of all joint Stock Companies formed since the 1st day of January 1892 to the 31st day of December 1892, inclusive, distinguishing whether the Companies are limited or unlimited, and also the number of shareholders in each of the said Companies at the date of the last Return, and whether still in operation or being wound up: "
"Of the total number having their registered offices in the City of London, or within five miles of the General Post Office:"
"And, of the total number and the paid-up capital of all registered Companies which are belie red to be carrying on business at the present time."—(Mr. Burt.)
Copy presented accordingly: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many lighthouses off the coast of Ireland are the keepers deprived of the opportunity of attending religious services on Sundays; what would be the cost of making these lighthouses relieving stations; and if he will cause arrangements to be made by which the light-keepers on these stations will in future be permitted to attend their religious duties on occasional Sundays?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): There are 10 rock stations off the coast of Ireland where the keepers are unable to attend a church on Sundays. I have received no estimate of the cost of making these stations relieving stations. I should be glad if some
  1494
  satisfactory arrangement could be made whereby light-keepers at rock stations could be afforded facilities for church attendance. There are, however, serious practical difficulties in the way. As I have already stated, the Commissioners of Irish Lights are quite aware of the desirability of making some of the more exposed lighthouses relieving stations, and the matter is under careful consideration.

  THE BRITISH RESIDENT AT HYDERABAD.
  MR. NAOROJI: In the absence of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the present British Resident at the Court of Hyderabad has been accepting as intermediary between himself and His Highness, the Nizam, a person of notoriously blemished antecedents and character, and well known to be hostile to the responsible Minister of State; whether he is aware that this person, named Surwur Jung, has, under the countenance of the Resident, succeeded in obtaining for himself all the real power in the Hyderabad State and completely paralysing the Ministry; whether he is aware that an action for defamation has been under trial before a subordinate of the Resident against the printer of a libellous pamphlet, of which Surwur Jung has been practically admitted to be the author, the complainant being the Home Secretary to the Hyderabad State; that Surwur Jung has compassed the suspension of the complainant from his office while the case is sub judice, has prevented him from having access to his own witnesses, has supported the defence by vast sums of money taken from the Public Treasury and from the trust funds of minors under his charge, and has established a reign of terror amongst witnesses whereby the course of justice is gravely prejudiced; whether he is aware that the complainant's counsel has presented a Petition to the Resident's Court, setting forth the contempts of Court which have been thus committed, but that the Resident has neither prevented nor punished such contempts; whether he is aware that during all the period covered by these matters the Resident has been receiving Surwur Jung in private conference at the

  1495
  British Residency, and that by means of the influence thus conferred upon him, Surwur Jung has now succeeded in extorting 100,000 rupees from the Minister by false pretences, with which offence he now stands charged before His Highness the Nizam; and whether, in the interests of public justice, Her Majesty's Government will urge on the Government of India the necessity of Surwur Jung being removed from the influential position which he has acquired under the Resident's support?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): To Clause 1 of my hon. Friend's question the answer is, no; and to Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the answer is also in the negative.

  THE OLD SAND HEAD, KINSALE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that another steamer, the Kilburne, was wrecked at the Old Head of Kinsale on Sunday morning last in a fog; and if, in view of these repeated occurrences, and the danger to seamen, he will consider the necessity of securing the most perfect light that can be devised for this most dangerous part of the Irish coast?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received from Lloyd's an intimation of the casualty to the Kilburne. This is attributed by them to the inefficiency of the fog signal recently established at the Old Head of Kinsale. This intimation has been forwarded by me to the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

  DISPARITY IN POLICE COURT SENTENCES.
  MR. PERCY THORNTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case tried at the South Western Police Court, on Monday, the 13th instant, before Mr. Denman, in which two youths, named Cuddy and Pereira, were sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, for an alleged assault upon a woman on Clapham Common, and to the fact that at the same Police Court, on the following Wednesday, two other youths named Montague and Milstead were charged before Mr. Haden Corser with the same offence, and that, although
  1496
  the prosecutrix said that Milstead was the one who kicked her while she was down on the ground, these two latter were discharged, whilst the other two youths, who bear excellent characters, are sent to prison for six months for the same offence; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances, with a view to Cuddy and Pereira being immediately released from custody?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have obtained Reports from the two learned Magistrates upon these cases, and find that in the case of Cuddy and Pereira the evidence of the prosecutrix was corroborated by an independent witness, whereas in the case of Montague and Milstead her evidence was uncorroborated, and as she appeared to have been drinking the Magistrate thought himself justified in giving the prisoners the benefit of the doubt, and discharged them. The prisoners Cuddy and Pereira made no serious denial to the charge when before the Magistrate, and called no witnesses. The assault was considered by the Magistrate as brutal and unprovoked. Under these circumstances I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  BONDS FOR POSTMASTERS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that at some provincial towns postmasters require postmen to give guarantee bonds; and whether it is a fact that the requirement of guarantee bonds has been given up in London and elsewhere?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. So far as I am aware the diversity of practice has given rise to no complaint, but attention having been called to the matter I will see whether the practice in the country cannot be assimilated to that in London.

  THE REVISION OF RAILWAY RATES.
  SIR JAMES WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Acts, 1891 and 1892, apply to

  1497
  every railway in the United Kingdom: and, if they do not, whether he will make a Return containing a complete list of Railway Companies whoso maximum rates and charges have not yet undergone revision in pursuance of Section 24 of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888"?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Confirmation Act, 1891 and 1892, apply to all railways which were opened for traffic at the time when they were introduced. Eleven other railways have been subsequently opened, and Schedules affecting these are, at present, under my consideration. About 80 other railways have been since incorporated, but they; have not yet been completed and opened for traffic.

  ST. CATHERINE'S POINT LIGHTHOUSE.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the first cost of the installation of the electric light at St. Catherine's Point Lighthouse, including cost of buildings; and what is the annual cost of maintenance?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The first cost of converting to an electric light the oil light at St. Catherine's Point, including cost of such additional buildings as were required, was £12,767 2s. 4d., and the average annual cost of maintenance of the converted station during the last three years is £1,155 8s. 3d.

  WARREN'S CHARITY, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Charity Commission whether the new scheme for the management of Warren's Charity, Hemel Hempstead, has, as yet, been finally settled by the Charity Commissioners; and, if not, whether they would arrange that the trustees should be elected as in the scheme recently approved by them for Sunningwell, Berkshire; whether the new scheme for Warren's Charity provides that, so far as the funds are applicable to educational purposes, they are to be applied solely for the promotion of Church of England teaching, and whether this is contrary to the founder's will; and if the new scheme has not been submitted to any meeting of the
  1498
  inhabitants of Hemel Hempstead, whether time will be given, in order that it may be so submitted, before any final approval is given?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Notice of the proposed scheme for Warren's Charity at Hemel Hemp-stead was published in the locality on the 11th instant, with an intimation that during 21 days from that date any objections and suggestions respecting the scheme would be received. Until that period has expired, it would be premature for the Commissioners to enter into any definite engagement with regard to any modification of the proposed composition of the body of trustees; but, in view of the fact that the expiration of the period coincides with the Easter Vacation, the Commissioners will not finally settle the scheme until after the 20th of April next, and, meantime, will carefully consider any representations made to them by the inhabitants of Hemel Hempstead. The scheme proposes to provide that the funds of the charity, so far as applicable for educational purposes, shall be applied to the promotion of Church of England teaching in connection with public elementary schools. This provision is in accordance with the will of the founder, who expressly directed that the beneficiaries of his educational charity should be members of the Church of England.

  THE BRIGSTOCK DIVORCE SUIT.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his. attention has been called to the attempted hushing up of the Brigstock divorce case, to the admission of the petitioner's counsel that he intentionally suppressed the title of the co-respondent, and the statement of the Judge that the proper execution of the provisions of the Law might he impeded; and whether any means can be adopted to prevent a repetition of such practices in the future?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no knowledge of the matter except such as is to be gained from reading the newspapers, nor have I any jurisdiction to make the inquiries into or to control the procedure of the Divorce Court. It is the duty of the Queen's Proctor to intervene where there has been connivance or collusion

  1499
  and I understand that the learned President has referred it to him to inquire whether there is any such ground for intervention in the present case.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: In the absence of the hon. Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Labour Commission has finished taking evidence; and, if so, when will the Report be ready for presentation?
  MR. ASQUITH; I understand the Labour Commission do not propose taking any further evidence, and that the preparation of the Report is being proceeded with. I am unable to say when the Report will be ready for presentation, as much will depend on the progress of the printing of the work.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: When was the evidence closed?
  MR. ASQUITH: A month or six weeks ago.

  POOR LAW ELECTION RIOTS IN SLIGO.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that serious riots occurred at Dromore West, County Sligo, on the 18th instant, when the police were distributing the voting papers for the election of a Poor Law Guardian; that the Rev. J. J. Kelly, P.P., led a riotous mob upon the occasion; that the Riot Act was read; and that it required the presence of the County Inspector and two District Inspectors with a force of 100 armed men to subsequently collect the papers; is he aware that the Rev. J. J. Kelly, P.P., was, upon a former occasion, convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but subsequently released on a plea of ill-health; and whether the Government has taken any steps in connection with these riots?
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. From the information in the hands of the Irish Government it would appear that the facts are correctly stated. The question of proceeding against the persons identified as taking part in the rioting in now under the consideration of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that some years ago this House passed a Bill enabling these elections to be conducted by ballot, and that it was thrown out by the House of Lords?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no doubt that statement is correct.
  MR. DANE: Is it a fact that Mr. Kelly was sent to prison on a former occasion?
  MR. ASQUITH: He was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace, and in default of doing so was sent to prison. He was released by Lord Ashbourne, Lord Chancellor under the late Government.
  MR. DANE: On the plea of ill-health.

  SCREENING SIDE LIGHTS.
  MR. HOUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a letter from the Secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, pointing out that by the enforcement of the new Order in Council in reference to the screening of side lights in passenger vessels after the 1st of May next, while it is not enforced in vessels other than passenger vessels nor in foreign vessels, is to send vessels to sea whose lights are screened on different principles; whether he is aware that this want of uniformity is likely to enormously increase the risk of collision, with its consequent danger to life, and in the event of collision to contribute largely to contradictory verdicts in the Law Courts of this and other countries; whether he has received protests from other Associations and individuals against the enforcement of this Order; and, if so, whether he will give the names; and whether, under the circumstances, he will suspend the said Order in Council until it has received the approval of and been adopted by the Foreign Powers?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The answer to the first and third paragraphs is in the affirmative. In respect to the second paragraph there has been for some time past an entire absence of uniformity, and it is to remedy this and its consequent dangers that the Order, which was explanatory only, was promulgated. Steps have been taken to communicate it to

  1501
  Foreign Powers. There is no intention of suspending the Order, and I see no reason why it should be suspended.

  LIGHTING THE BRISTOL CHANNEL.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the promised improvement in the lighting and marking of the Bristol Channel and the south coast of Ireland is being carried out; and whether the moneys collected as light dues from ships for this purpose have been so expended?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A commencement has been made with the improvement in the lighting and marking of the Bristol Channel, and it will be further proceeded with as funds permit. With regard to the south coast of Ireland, I am not aware to what promise the hon. Member refers. All moneys collected as light dues are paid into the Mercantile Marine Fund, and expended strictly in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Acts.

  SEVERE PENALTIES UPON A SCOTCH POACHER,
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a farm servant, named M'Pherson, living at the Culnach, in Aberdeenshire, was recently fined £4 under the Poaching Acts for being in possession of two grouse, and that he was subsequently proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Department in reference to the same offence, and fined £10 at their instance for not having a licence; and whether he will remit this fine, which has pressed very heavily on a poor man with a wife and family to support?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): A complaint was lodged against John M'Pherson under the Day Trespass Act for snaring grouse. He admitted his guilt, and, in order to avoid prosecution, paid a voluntary fine and expenses of £3 2s., which were accepted. The facts as to the subsequent prosecution under the Game Certificates Act are correctly stated. It does not appear whether the previous proceedings were known to the Inland Revenue officials,
  1502
  and, in any case, I have myself no power to remit a fine of the kind; but the circumstances appear fully to warrant my bringing the case under the notice of the Revenue Authorities, and ask their favourable consideration of it.

  TRADES UNION REPORTS TO THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could state to the House how many Trades Union Societies make Reports to the Labour Department concerning the condition of trade; what has been their monthly average number since the present Administration has been in Office; what is the average monthly number of members reported as being without employment; and how it compares with the corresponding period (August to February inclusive) in 1889–90 and 1891–92; and what is the average number of trades reported as good in the first-named period compared to that in the two last-named under the late Administration?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A large and increasing number of Unions are in correspondence with the Board of Trade; but those furnishing the numbers of unemployed during the last three years are from 19 to 23. The number giving this information for the last six months has been 22 to 23. The average number of members reported as being without employment was, in 1889–90, 3,795; in 1890–91,6,523; in 1891–2, 11,317; and in 1892–3, 23,624. This last figure includes four more Unions than in the previous year. The hon. Member will see that there is no such increase as 115,000 unemployed in these Unions, as stated by him on Tuesday last. The number of trades reported from month to month as good will be found in the Report of the Labour Correspondent. Any attempt at averages would be misleading. I have given the hon. Gentleman these particulars; but I respectfully submit that the time of the House ought not to be occupied with these details, which are already published and accessible to Members of the House.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: In reference to the closing observations of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask

  1503
  him whether he does not think it an important matter to a Member representing an industrial constituency that there is an enormous increase in the number of unemployed since the right hon. Gentleman has been at the Board of Trade—some-thing like 24,000; and that scarcely any trade in the country has been reported good since the present Administration has held Office?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The decline has been steady, as I have pointed out, in the 20 odd Unions since 1890, and I do think it is important that hon. Members should inform themselves of these particulars. As the figures are in print, there is no reason why the time of the House should be occupied with questions of this kind.

  ALLEGED ATTEMPTED SUICIDE IN THE IRISH CHANNEL.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the newspapers of Monday, 27th instant, to the effect that a young lady, crossing from Ireland to Now Milford in charge of two Roman Catholic nuns, leaped overboard from the steamboat when in mid-channel, apparently intending suicide, but having been rescued by the crew was, after being resuscitated, returned to the custody of the nuns, and was taken by them, upon landing at New Milford, to London, travelling for the South of France, where she was to be immured in a convent; whether the proper course in the case of attempted suicide would have been to have placed the person attempting it in the care of the police on arriving in port, so that the magistrate there might have made inquiry into the circumstances of the case; whether this course was followed in this case; and, if not, who is to be held to blame for its being omitted; whether it can be ascertained what was the real name and the actual destination of this young female, and from what place she was brought before being taken on board the steamboat at Waterford; and whether he will cause full inquiry to be made from the steamboat authorities at Waterford and New Milford, as well as from the captain of the vessel, and inform this House of the result thereof?
  MR. SEXTON: Before the question is answered, I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, an inquiry on the subject. The question suggests that a young lady was travelling from Ireland, in charge of two Roman Catholic nuns, to the South of France, where, according: to the terms at the end of the first paragraph of the question, "she was to be immured in a convent," and in a further paragraph inquiry is made as to her real name. It will be observed that the suggestion is that these nuns were conveying the young lady under a false name from Ireland to France to be there immured—that is imprisoned—against her will in a convent. I wish to ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled, under the cover of a question as to matters of fact, to give currency to an assumption which, in the first place, is untrue in fact, which, in the second place, is libellous upon the Religious Orders of the Roman Catholic Church, and which, in the third place, is deeply offensive to a great body of Members of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The words which may be justly held to give offence are these—"immured in a convent," and I think they had better have been omitted certainly. If my attention had been drawn to them, I think I should have ordered them to be omitted.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I may say that I only used the words in the sense in which they appeared in the public prints.
  MR. ASQUTTH: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to by the hon. Member. I have received a Report from the Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire, from which it appears that the young lady was a person of unsound mind who was being sent in charge of two sisters of mercy to an institution in France for the cure of the mentally afflicted. During the voyage from Ireland she escaped from her attendants and threw herself overboard, but was rescued. The matter was reported to the police by the captain as soon as the vessel arrived at Milford, and the constable on the spot seems to have satisfied himself that the lady was insane and properly cared for, and that no action on his part was necessary. I am in communication with the Irish Government with the object of obtaining further particulars, and especially of discovering

  1505
  whether the removal of the lady was in accordance with the Lunacy Laws.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you would think it proper to suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should now express his regret for the imputation.
  MR. SPEAKER: The expression of opinion I have indicated I consider sufficiently disposes of the matter.

  THE HOME RULE BILL SCHEDULES.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is he aware that very great uneasiness prevails in Ireland, among civil servants and officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, at the non-production of the Schedules to the Bill for the amendment of provisions for the Government of Ireland; and will he undertake to place these Schedules in the hands of Members before the House adjourns over Easter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The Schedule of this Bill relating to the Police has been distributed to-day. The Schedule relating to the Civil Service has been postponed at the wish of members of the Civil Service itself, who are anxious that it should not be laid on the Table until my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had an opportunity of seeing them in Ireland, and he has gone to Dublin for that among other purposes.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the sum of £17,371, for repayments to baronies in Ireland under "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883" (as printed in the Civil Service Estimates for 1892-3, page 20), is included in the item "Railways, £141,000," on page 4 of the Return (No. 91 of the present Session), showing the effect of the financial proposals in the Government of Ireland Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My answer is simply "Yes." If the hon. Member wishes to see the particulars I shall be happy to show them to him.

  THE EQUALISATION OF METROPOLITAN RATES.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's
  1506
  Government is prepared, during the present Session, to bring in and proceed with a measure for the better equalisation of rates in the Metropolis, in accordance with the Resolution lately passed by this House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The subject is under what I may call, not the passive, but the active consideration, of the Government, and we hope to produce shortly a measure for giving effect to the Resolution of the House.

  THE LAND VALUES BILL.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the importance attached to the Land Values Bill, which is the first Order for Wednesday, 12th April, he can see his way to exempt that day from the operation of his Resolution taking the time of the House for Government Business?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That matter also is under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. TOMLINSON: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to make exceptions only for the Bills supported on the Ministerial side of the House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In order to remove what I think is an unfounded suspicion, I propose to make a slight amendment in my Motion, which will except from the Motion—and therefore from the discretion of the Government— the day on which the Eight Hours Miners Bill stands for discussion, and which, with respect to other Wednesdays, will not give any special grace or exception.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  SIR CHARLES PEARSON: In the absence of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, under the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill, the present staff of the Fishery Board, in so far as they are members of the Civil Service, will be secured in their rights and privileges as such members, notwithstanding the transference of their service to the new Fishery Board?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government have no intention of interfering with the rights and privileges of the staff of the Board, and will further secure these, if necessary, by Amendments on the Bill.

  THE PORT OF LONDON SANITARY AUTHORITY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he is aware that the Custom House Authorities have given the Port of London Sanitary Authority peremptory notice that they will not, after the 30th inst., allow the Sanitary Officers the use of the Custom House at Gravesend for the purpose of inspecting vessels coming into port; whether he is aware that this apparently unnecessary alteration of arrangements will not only put the Sanitary Authority to considerable extra expense, but greatly inconvenience shipowners and traders by causing a double detention; and will he give further time for consideration before the alteration is enforced? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to express any opinion on the subject, but I would remind him of the importance of these inspections in view of the possible return of cholera.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): It is a subject as to which I have no personal knowledge, but I promise that immediate inquiry shall be made.

  CORK TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the Postmaster General if the vacancy in the Cork Telegraph Office has yet been filled; and, if so, is it by an officer of the Cork establishment?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It has been filled up by a member of the staff at Cork.

  THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, I have to submit to you a question with reference to a letter addressed yesterday by the Serjeant-at-Arms of this House to the editor of The Daily Chronicle, and published in that paper to-day. The letter is in these terms:—
  1508
  "The Editor of The Daily Chronicle. Dear Sir,—As Mr. T. W. Russell stated in the House this morning that the expression of which he complained was written by a member of your staff having access to the House of Commons, it is my duty to ask you, if that is the case, to warn the person concerned that his conduct has been an abuse of the privilege which has been granted to him, and that very serious notice must be taken of it if anything of the kind occurs again.—I remain, yours faithfully, H. D. ERSKINE, Serjeant-at-Arms. House of Commons, March 29."
  Sir, the first question I venture to respectfully submit to you is whether the Serjeant-at-Arms in this matter has acted upon his own initiative or under your direction? In the second place, I wish to ask you, having regard to the fact that the leader writers of The Times newspaper have special rights of access to this House, whether any letter has been addressed, or will be addressed, by the Serjeant-at-Arms to the editor of The Times in reference to language recently used in that journal, and which the House, by a unanimous vote, has adjudged to be a breach of privilege, the language in The Chronicle not having been so condemned? And, finally, I have to ask, in view of the fact that Mr. T. W. Russell, on Thursday last, in a public speech used these words—
  "If Mr. Gladstone was likely to be defeated, he would only have to appeal for a Vote of Confidence to his 80 Irish mercenaries,"
  what is the nature of the authority which entitled the Serjeant-at-Arms of this House to threaten with penalties a. journalist for the use of language not more untrue, and certainly much less offensive, than the language used immediately before by the complaining Member himself, not in regard to an individual Member, but in regard to 80 Members of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have seen the letter of the Serjeant-at-Arms. The Serjeant-at-Arms brought me the letter, of which I entirely approve. But perhaps I may state to the House that the letter was never intended to be published. It was a private and a friendly letter to the editor, and was, I am given to understand, marked "private." That very much alters the case. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that the Press has a very keen sense of its responsibilities as well as of its rights. There are gentlemen who are allowed the privilege of admission into the Lobby. In this case the objection

  1509
  was not against the word "mercenary," but against a description of some supposed personal characteristic of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone. I must say that such words were grossly offensive. I think the Serjeant-at-Arms did his duty in writing a private and friendly letter to the editor expressing the hope that the remarks of the member of his staff would be couched in more decent language than they were on this occasion. The letter was shown to me before it was sent out, but I did not take the initiative as the hon. Gentleman says. But I entirely approve, and I am willing to share any responsibility that attaches to the letter. With reference to The Times case, the House came to the conclusion that the words used amounted to a breach of privilege. In the case of The Daily Chronicle referred to yesterday, the House did not come to a similar Resolution in consequence of the attitude of the hon. Member who brought the matter before the House, and the condemnation expressed by the Prime Minister, with the terms of which, I understand, the hon. Member was entirely satisfied. It is possible to distinguish between the two cases. As to the third question, I am sorry to say I do not know what reference was made to 80 paid mercenaries. This is the first time I have heard of it.
  MR. SEXTON: My point was that the complaining Member had himself before, in a public speech, described 80 Members of this House as 80 Irish mercenaries, and I ask whether he can be allowed with impunity to use such language when less offensive language used towards himself entitles the Serjeant-at-Arms to threaten journalists as he has done in the letter I have read?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to say that I used no such language regarding any Members of this House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is in The Times.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain what I did say. I attended a meeting against the Home Rule Bill, in the parish of Marylebone, on last Thursday night, and a very short account—some 20 or 30 lines of what I said—appeared in The Times I certainly spoke for an hour, and no one can say that any speech of one hour can be adequately reported in 20 or 30 lines. I was arguing on the 9th clause of the
  1510
  Home Rule Bill, and, assuming that the Bill had passed, and an entirely new state of affairs had arisen, I pointed out that 80 Irish Members might be brought in here to defeat or to pass Bills in opposition to the will of English Members. Some one called out "mercenaries," and I said that if such a state of affairs was brought about, the word "mercenaries" might be properly applied. I was called upon to withdraw the expression and I declined to do so. Now, I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the expression had j no reference to this House. My argument was a purely hypothetical argument.
  MR. SEXTON: I am now satisfied to leave the matter to the judgment and appreciation of the House.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interruption of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill yesterday afternoon in somewhat peculiar circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to altering his Motion with reference to the holidays, and to curtail them so that the interrupted Debate shall be taken on Tuesday next, or whether he will give another day?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The subject might possibly be one for consideration, but the hon. Gentleman assumes that we are in possession of powers which we have not got.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask whether, considering the extremely pressing nature of the matter, the right hon. Gentleman will not make some arrangement for a Wednesday or Saturday Sitting for the purpose of reading the Bill a second time after the Recess?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be so good, in the first place, as to refer to the names of the promoters on the back of the Bill?
  MR. SEXTON: I will ask whether, in view of the circumstances in which the Debate was interrupted, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirableness of giving a Saturday Sitting or adjourn the Business of the House some day at 10 o'clock, or at an hour when the Debate on the Second Reading can be concluded?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Let me point out that I am not in a position to command all the time of the House. I think the question is premature.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman exempt from the Motion which he is about to make that Wednesday upon which stands a Tenants' Eviction Bill in the name of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Harrington)?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am afraid the exemption cannot be made.

  THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury cannot see his way to allow the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill to stand over until after the Recess, so that the Second Reading may be taken after Easter; or whether he intends to adopt the unprecedented course of forcing the Second Reading at a late hour on the eve of Good Friday?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This is a matter which the Government, under the influence of strong conviction as to what they owe to the people of England who are interested in the subject, and as to what the House owes, feel bound respectfully to press.
  MR. TOMLINSON: At what hour does the right hon. Gentleman intend to move the Adjournment, so that Members may be able to exercise their immemorial privilege and raise various questions on the Motion?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Motion will be made immediately after the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: In that case, if the Debate on the Bill lasts until 12 o'clock, the Adjournment will be moved in dumb show?
  MR. SETON-KARR: I hope the Government will put off the discussion on the Bill until after Easter. The measure is not opposed in any part of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman therefore is certain to get the Second Reading without any opposition, more time ought to be given for its consideration.
  MR. BARTLEY: If the Debate on the Bill lasts until 12 o'clock, and the Motion to adjourn till Thursday is opposed and cannot be put, are we to sit on Good Friday?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have been just informed from the Opposition side of the House that this Bill is not opposed, and therefore I entertain no doubt that there will be no disposition to prolong the Debate to such an hour as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Though the Bill is not opposed, there are a great many points which have not been raised as yet, and upon which Members desire to speak.
  SIR F. POWELL: Although the Debate has lasted some hours, only five Members have taken part in it.

MOTIONS.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).

    RESOLUTION.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I rise to make the proposal which stands in my name. As there appears to be a suspicion on the opposite side of the House with regard to the Business to be taken upon the exempted Wednesdays to which I referred the other day, I beg to withdraw what I formerly said, and I will exempt from the Motion I intend to make Wednesday, May 3rd, when the Miners Eight Hours Bill will be taken. What we ask with regard to Wednesdays is that we should have the same rights as in regard to the Tuesdays. I am very sensible that we are making a considerable demand. The question is whether that demand is justified by the state and the requirements of Public Business. I am sensible that it is possible to raise two questions on this Motion, one as to the necessity—the amount of necessity— which we find actually existing, and the other—if hon. Gentlemen are inclined to widen the field of discussion—as to how that necessity has come about. I intend to avoid the last-named subject. I find that considerable warmth and great consumption of time results from the method in which various Members have thought it their duty to discuss the subject of Procedure during the present Session. On the subject of the mode in which the present difficulty has been brought about, I might say that even I am conscious of having within me the materials of what

    1513
    is called a fighting speech, which, at whatever cost to myself, I have the strongest desire to suppress. There can be no justification, so far as I am concerned, for setting a bad example in the discussion of a question which appears to me to be a strictly limited question, and one capable of being disposed of in a short time. I shall, therefore, speak solely of the necessity which exists, reserving for myself and every one else full liberty of opinion as to the mode in which that necessity has been brought out, and as to the responsibility for it. The necessity itself may be said to stand thus: Now, in the Speech from the Throne, the Sovereign announced, on the part of the Administration, the intention to introduce 12 Bills to the consideration of Parliament. These were measures of sufficient importance to warrant their being brought under the notice of Parliament in that which is the most formal manner. Of those Bills seven have been introduced; four have not been introduced, and remain as they were on the day the Speech was read; and the remaining one, having been happily exempted from the stigma of being a Bill of a contentious character, has made considerable progress—I refer to the Hours of Railway Servants Bill. Although that is a Bill of great importance within its own sphere, still it is also a Bill which evidently constitutes a very small portion of the entire Business of the Session. I will not go over the names of all these Bills, but I may perhaps mention, without the slightest imputation or desire to draw advantage unfairly, that the Irish Government Bill has been declared by the Leader of the Opposition to be a Bill of itself which will require the whole time of the Session. A Bill of that kind cannot possibly be lightly dealt with. It is an elementary and imperative duty of the Government to do everything in their power, by soliciting the House, if necessary, as we now do, for an additional grant of time, to secure competent and ample discussion for that Bill. Behind that are many other measures of the greatest importance. I might mention, by way of specimen, the Bill introduced for the purpose of further amending the Local Government of this country by establishing Parish Councils. That is a Bill which it would be unworthy of this
    1514
    House to deal lightly with, and it is amply sufficient to justify a liberal sacrifice of the facilities now given to private Members in order to secure a reasonable and effective and practical discussion, and also a judgment of the House on the other main propositions of the Government. I am not aware that we have lost any opportunity that was open to us to bring forward our Bills. From the pressure of circumstances, the time consumed in dealing with those subjects that the House has had to encounter before Easter, and which formerly were hardly reckoned in the consumption of Parliamentary time, has become of late increasingly formidable, and has grown to an unprecedented degree. Taking the last six years, I find that, as regards the Supplementary Estimates, not including the Vote on Account, the average time consumed has been seven days, but, as there are one or two points that may be open to discussion as to what should be set down, I propose to give an additional day in order to get rid of all dispute as to the accuracy of the calculation. With regard to the Address, it is not possible to make the calculation upon the same basis, because, owing to an inconvenient practice which had been gradually growing up and which became, I will not say flagrant, but grave and serious—the late Government, from a souse of public duty, entirely altered the form of the Address, withdrew, and justifiably withdrew, from the old practice of referring in the Address to every matter contained in the Speech, and gave the House nothing to discuss except a proposal to return thanks to the Crown for the gracious Speech from the Throne. We have only had two years' experience of that altered system, but the experience of those two years gives an average of three days for disposing of the Address. If we add these three days to the eight days devoted to the Supplementary Estimates, and the first Votes for the Army and Navy, at the outside I reckon 11 days as the sum total of the deductions made of late years from Parliamentary time by those impediments to the progress of Legislative Business. This year, instead of 11 days for these two subjects, the Address alone took 10 days and Supply, apart from the Vote on Account, 13 days.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Not 13 complete days.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, certainly not; neither were the others complete days. The 13 days and the 10 days together make 23 days, instead of 11 taken away from the time at the disposal of the Government in which to put forward their programme of legislation. Not a single contested Bill, and only one Bill of any importance, has received a Second Reading. Four of the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech have not been introduced, and seven have not received a Second Reading. From day to day, and chiefly from the Opposition side of the House, special invitations come to us to undertake new subjects of legislation. "Are you going to do this?" or "Are you going to do that?"—these inquiries being almost in the nature of obliging invitations. There is no doubt whatever of the tendency to widen and enlarge the legislative programme of the Government. The state of things which I have laid before the House appears to me to impose upon us the necessity for such propositions as that which I have placed, Sir, in your hands. After all, the question is whether the duties of this House to the country are to be discharged or not. There is only one way in which they can be discharged, and it is by such a large and liberal allocation of time to the proposals of the Government as will enable us to submit to the fullest consideration all the propositions we have made and upon most, if not the whole, of which we hope to secure the judgment of the House. On this case of necessity I entirely rely, and on the obligation which, I believe, this House is as conscious of as any previous House of Commons to make the utmost progress that circumstances will permit with the performance of its great duties, and to allow no secondary object to intervene to prevent us from making effectual way upon the only road towards the full discharge of our duties to the country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That after Easter, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (except on Wednesday, the 3rd of May) Government Business have precedence of the Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day: That on Fridays the House do meet at Two o'clock, and the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the sittings of Tuesdays and Wednesdays and the morning sittings of
    1516
    Fridays; provided always, that whenever the Government of Ireland Bill is appointed on Friday, except for proceedings in Committee, the House do meet at Three o'clock, and that Bill do have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before I come to traverse the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman has based his Motion, let me, for one moment, call the attention of the House to what the Motion really is. It is a Motion which almost entirely deprives hon. Members of their right to bring forward any independent proposal or to move Resolutions of a more abstract character. This Motion, which practically hands the House over, bound and defenceless, to the Government, is brought forward at a period of the year which makes the proposal almost absolutely unprecedented—not only in the amount of liberty of which it deprives private Members, but in the scope and magnitude of its claims as regards the time at which it is to come into operation. Last year it was my duty, on behalf of the Government, to obtain certain concessions from the House as regards time before Easter. The Resolution was not limited specifically to Easter. The Opposition of that day said, "You are asking for these privileges up to a day considerably beyond Easter; we will give you the privileges, but not for a day beyond Easter; and if you want further privileges after that, you must come to us again." But what limit is there to the present proposal? None whatever, either as regards time or as regards the measures which will come under the operation of the Resolution. As regards time, it operates not until Whitsuntide, not until the end of the Session, but to the end of the Autumn Session, if, by any chance, an adjournment is made from August to October. There is no enumeration in this Resolution of the proposals for which the Government asks the time of the House. Perhaps they will say that the Queen's Speech gives an indication of the measures for which they are asking for time. ["Hear, hear!"] I hear some hon. Gentlemen say" Hear, hear." They were not in the House yesterday, I suppose, when the Government endeavoured to adopt, or did adopt, a measure not in the Queen's Speech—a

    1517
    measure of which we had no suspicion or ground for believing, until half an hour before our proceedings closed, that it was intended to be adopted as a Government measure at all. Let us not deceive ourselves. What the Government are asking for now is not only the whole time of private Members, but they request it for an indefinite period, and for indefinite and absolutely unknown measures. The House of Commons has never been asked, and has never granted to any Government at this time of the year, privileges of this kind; and if the House of Commons now, in a moment of weakness, is going to make this unprecedented concession, I think private Members on both sides of the House, and not least the private Members on the other side, who are always consumed with a special ardour for legislation, may have, in future years, when the balance of Parties is perhaps somewhat differently arranged, considerable reason to rue the precedent which they are now setting. So much for the proposal of the Government—so much for the strange manner in which the Government, who are responsible for the Business of this House, think that Business ought to be conducted. Now, as to the justification which they have brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman, in terms elaborately and studiously peaceable, hinted dimly and distantly at obstruction, but rested most of his claim upon two propositions—first, that the amount of time taken up to the present by the House had been of so exceptional a character that exceptional means were required to redress the balance; and secondly, he rested it upon the special necessities of the Government for carrying on the great legislative programme which they announced in the Queen's Speech. The right hon. Gentleman was very inadequate in his general review of the situation. I will first take the point which he has dealt with, and then say a word about a point which he has not dealt with. As regards the point which he has dealt with—namely, the amount of time taken up by the House in discussing the necessary Supply and the Queen's Speech—I must say that my own researches have led me to very different conclusion from that which the right hon. Gentleman laid before the House. He tells us in reference to
    1518
    Supply that this year our proceedings have taken up part, of 13 days. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman followed the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and included the day upon which the Chairman was moved into the Chair—a peaceable operation which occupied about three-quarters of a minute.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not include that day. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Saturday was devoted to Supply, and, the Friday having been occupied in disputing about the Saturday Sitting, I have reckoned that as given to Supply.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am extremely obliged by the candour of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did so for this reason, that instead of seven days, which I conceive to be the strict measure, I allowed eight days, which gave a margin.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps you will allow me for my purposes, and subject to the explanation which has been given, to say that 12 days were occupied in discussions of Supply this year. In those 12 days, the right hon. Gentleman has not included, and he had a perfect right to exclude it, the discussion on the Vote on Account. But I also have a perfect right, for the purposes of comparison, to include the discussion on the Vote on Account. I believe that the Vote on Account took practically part of one day, with the exception of yesterday, when it took very little time. If the Patronage Secretary will look through Hansard, as I did the other day, with regard to the time taken up by Supply last year, including the discussions on the Vote on Account, I believe he will find that parts of 16 days were taken up by these proceedings, and he will see that no less than three days were taken up by Supply. But in many years, when the Supplementary Estimates are few and the subjects raised trifling, three or four days might be an excessive amount of time to allow. When, however, the Supplementary Estimates raise, as they do this year, questions of unusual and almost unprecedented magnitude, no comparison can be of the slightest value as between this year and last. I mention four—Uganda, the new Naval Programme, the Evicted Tenants

    1519
    Commission, and the new system of payment with regard to the Law Officers. Every one of these questions, either by the fault or the misfortune of the Government, were raised on the Supplementary Estimates, and hon. Members generally could not wait to discuss them until a more remote or more convenient season. The right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the Debate on the Queen's Speech, was not more happy. He reminded us of the change made in the form of the Address, and probably it would be unfair for the purposes of comparison to go back to the days before the change was made; but my recollection is that in the six years on which he based his average of the time that should be taken by the Queen's Speech was one year in which the Address was allowed to run through, owing to peculiar circumstances to which I need not further refer. To include that year among the years on which he bases his average is putting a strain upon our statistical consciences. If the Government find themselves embarrassed as regards their business, it is because they have started a method of doing it which is wholly novel in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has talked of the seven measures which have been introduced. Did any Government, since Governments began—did it ever occur to any Government to introduce seven measures like the Local Veto Bill, like the Home Rule Bill, like the Welsh Suspensory Bill, like the Registration Bill, like the Parish Councils Bill, and like the Employers' Liability Bill, before Easter, and ask the House to consider them on their First Reading? The motives which may have animated the right hon. Gentleman I have no doubt are excellent from his own point of view, and I am not complaining of them. He has a very difficult Party to manage. He has a Party composed of various sections and wanting many and varying things, each of them concerned in their own particular crotchets, and all of them totally indifferent to the crotchets of the others. I think it very likely that, the right hon. Gentleman has done the very best thing from his own point of view; but if that be the way to manage the Liberal Party, it is not the way to manage the House of Commons. If you insist upon attempting to manage the House of Commons, with a view not to
    1520
    the Business of the country, but to your own Party wire-pulling exigencies, it is absolutely inevitable that you will find yourselves in the bog in the manner in which you now describe yourselves to be. The proposal, for the reasons I have given—partly from its nature, and partly from its alleged justification—is one which, in my opinion, the House of Commons should reject. I am not sure that the time at which the proposal is brought forward, and the time to which it refers, are not almost the worst part of it. We are asked on the Thursday before Good Friday to pass a Resolution which hands us over to the Government for the Thursday after Easter Day. We are asked, when a half-manned and a half-competent Assembly, to give up our liberties, in order that we may be trampled upon, in an also half-manned Assembly, on Thursday next, after a week's holiday. Surely, the Government must fee!, when they ask the House of Commons thus to give up its privileges, they should ask it at a time when the verdict given in the Lobbies would represent the real opinions of this Assembly. Does any one pretend that that is the case, or can be the case, on the Thursday afternoon before Good Friday, at half-past 5? Sir, the thing is absurd. Still more absurd, and still more unjustifiable is it to ask us that this rule shall come into operation on the Thursday after Easter, and on that day that the House shall begin the discussion on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill. We all know what the object of the Government is. They wish to rush that measure. I confess I should have thought, when they are dealing with a Constitutional change—whether it be good or bad, whether it be desirable or undesirable; but at all events the most momentous change which has ever been proposed by any Government since England had a Constitution—I should have thought that they would have taken some care that the people of the country should be able to discuss and acquaint themselves with the measure, and that the House of Commons should not be asked to discuss it at a time when hon. Members cannot be present in large numbers. But the Government take a different course. They are quite aware of the extreme embarrassment and inconvenience they will cause to those

    1521
    Members who had got meetings in the country to address by the procedure they have adopted. Possibly, that inconvenience may have been one of their motives. Possibly, they thought they might hamper the agitation, of which they are afraid, by the proceedings in which they have indulged. Sir, they have made a mistake, and my belief is that nothing will point better the speeches of those hon. Members who are going about the country to expose the Home Rule Bill than the obvious intention of the Government, even at the cost of the liberties of the House of Commons, force it prematurely through our Debates.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he heard cries of "Divide!" but they were not going to divide for some Hours. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said he could have made a fighting speech. Some of the hon. Members of the Opposition were disposed to make righting speeches, to show that they resented in every way this infraction upon the liberties and rights of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward statistics to show that what he was proposing was not worse than what was done in previous years. Such a comparison was of little value, unless all the incidents and circumstances were taken into account. This year private Members had had 16 days of the time of the House, and he believed they were to have one more to discuss the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill. Last year private Members had 39 days at their disposal. The iniquity of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that it was gerrymandering the time of the House. The Government had power to take every Wednesday, but they were not compelled to utilise those days. The result would be that if any Radical measure, which the Government desired to see passed, was down for a particular Wednesday, that day would not be taken, but on the Wednesdays when measures were down in which the Opposition took an interest the exigencies of the public service would require the Home Rule Bill to be proceeded with on those days. The very fact that such a construction might be put on the intentions of the Government ought to make them pause before proposing the change, and the House certainly ought not to give them
    1522
    the power to act in this unfair and partial manner. If the House had any courage left it would resist to the uttermost the despotism with which everything was now being carried on. The parrot cry of "obstruction" was absolute rubbish, and the position in which the Government found themselves was due to the systematic tyranny of their small majority. During the last two months there had been scarcely a measure of importance that had been carried through or was likely to become law. The object of the Government seemed to have been to bring in a large number of abortive Bills, and the Prime Minister had said that 12 measures were mentioned in the Queen's Speech. The right hon. Gentleman knew that never in the history of Parliament had 12 gigantic and revolutionary measures been carried in a single Session. Such a thing was an absolute impossibility. Those Bills were introduced, not with a view of their passing, but simply in order to keep the different sections of the Radical Party together. Of all these measures, however, the only one likely to become law was the Employers' Liability Bill, because hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House were anxious to pass a fair and proper measure for placing the liability of employers and workmen on a better and more satisfactory basis than at present. He need not refer to the Home Rule Bill because they all knew what was going to happen to that. The Local Veto Bill, however, was not likely to get a further stage. He might say the same with regard to the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, which, however, had served its purpose in having wasted a great deal of the time of the House. He ventured to assert that, to bring in these Bills simply for the purpose of keeping friends and i allies together, to abolish the Twelve o'Clock Rule, to make the House sit on Saturdays time after time, to do away with the Easter Holidays, and then to propose to take the whole of the time be-longing to private Members for the purpose be had mentioned, was not fair treatment of the House of Commons, and not paying proper respect to that Assembly, and he would also say that no one but the right hon. Gentleman would have been allowed to carry out such a course of procedure had it been proposed

    1523
    by any other hon. Member of the House. But what, he asked, was the main object of this arrangement? There could only be one reason for the feverish haste exhibited by the Prime Minister. It was, as had been stated by the Leader of the Opposition, to prevent the country from understanding the real meaning and ultimate aim and object of the miserable Home Rule Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government. That was the reason why the House of Commons was being dragooned and trampled on in this way. The Government were like a man who, by false or fraudulent pretences, had got hold of an open cheque for a large amount, and who, in a state of great anxiety, rushed as fast as possible to the bank to get the cash before he could be found out. The Government had, under false pretences, got a majority of that House with an open cheque from the country, and having filled it in with their abominable Home Rule Bill, which the country did not understand, were hurrying on the Second Reading of the measure before it could be understood that its effect would be to absolutely ruin and beggar the nation which had enabled them to bring it on. Therefore in this matter time was a part of the bargain. When the Prime Minister was asked to receive a deputation from Ireland on the subject of the Home Rule Bill, he put the deputation off, and although he at last did consent to receive another deputation——
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never declined to see them. On the contrary, the moment they wrote to me, sending me their very able document couched in most proper language, I at once telegraphed back to them, telling them I should be most happy to see them.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought that was an afterthought. He believed, however, there was a deputation of Irish Unionists which was declined an audience of the Prime Minister, but which was received by an influential nobleman, and received in quite another spirit to that displayed by the right hon. Gentleman. He would, however, refer to the Unionists' meeting proposed to be held in the Albert Hall on the 22nd of April—such a meeting as was never proposed in this country, and which would prove a remarkable illustration of the power of Ulster against the Home Rule measure. What was
    1524
    meant by the action of the Government was that if, by any possible means, the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill could be taken before that date it could then be said that the country had decided on the principle of Home Rule, and therefore that meeting would be of no use as an indication of the feeling of the country. The Opposition were, however, trying to prevent such a result, and it was for this reason they took the attitude they had assumed. If they were proposing to pull down Westminster Abbey, that proposal would be discussed with greater care and attention, and with more time at the disposal of the House, than they were likely to get in regard to the Prime Minister's proposal to pull down the Empire, which it had taken so many centuries to build up. The question for the House was— would it allow the feverish anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to carry all before it? Was the right hon. Gentleman likely to add laurels to his crown by these interferencs with the privileges of Parliament? Was it not enough in one Session to bring in measures to upset the Empire, disestablish the Church, rob the publicans, and sow discord in the parishes of the country? If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in accomplishing a tenth of the work he had set before himself he would have raised for himself a monument bigger than any other man had had in the history of the world, and that monument would be the piled-up ruins of the greatest Empire that had ever existed. It had always been said that Radicalism was synonymous with despotism, and they had a proof of that statement in the attempt which the right hon. Gentleman now made to ride roughshod over the minority in the House of Commons. There were, however, more than 300 Members of that House who would not agree to the system of Radical despotism which the right hon. Gentleman sought to enforce, and which, although objected to when the Conservatives were accused of it, was now strenuously supported by the followers of the Prime Minister. The Opposition would resist this system of despotism in every way, and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in carrying his Resolution, his opponents would use every form of the House against him. They asserted that this Motion was unnecessary; that it had been brought about by the

    1525
    desire of the Government to do what was impossible, and they resisted it because they believed the measures the Government wished to pass were destructive of the best interests of the country, and because they wished to save the country even when it was brought to the brink of a precipice by one imperious and impatient man, who was old enough to be wiser.
    SIR J. GOLDSMIDwished to say a few words from the point of view of an ordinary private Member. He remembered that four years ago, when the present Government was in Opposition, some two or three months later in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister objected to the time of the House being taken by the Government, because, he said, it would be infringing the privileges of private Members more than was fair to those Members. He (Sir J. Goldsmid) said at the time that there were precedents for the demand—namely, those of the years 1882 and 1883, and at the request of the right hon. Gentleman he had furnished him with a list of them. Further, he had lately been searching amongst the records, and had failed to find any precedent for the whole time of the House being taken by the Government as early as the beginning of April. The reasons might be imperious—he would not say anything on that subject, though he might have a strong opinion with regard to it. He really did think, however, from the point of view of private Members, who, after all, had initiated most valuable legislation in past years, that it was a very serious matter to set the example of taking the whole of the time four or five months before the ordinary end of the Session. It seemed to him to be well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be fairer to the House not to take the whole time, but to leave, say, the ordinary Fridays without Morning Sittings to private Members. Experience showed that when Fridays were left wholly untouched the subjects which private Members brought before the House were dealt with in a rapid and intelligent manner. If, however, the present proposal of the Government were adopted in all probability there would be no Friday night sittings. The work of the House was so exhausting that Mem-
    1526
    bers would rather give up everything than bring on Motions on Friday after a Morning Sitting. It came to this, that private Members this Session had not been allowed six weeks of time to bring forward the questions in which they were interested—because they must remember that in the early part of the Session the whole of the time of the House was devoted to the discussion on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman, who on previous occasions had vindicated the rights of private Members, proposed now to take away from them those rights to a greater extent than had ever been known in the history of Parliament. He (Sir J. Goldsmid) trusted he had not said anything which would jar on the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. S. EVANSdid not propose to lengthen this unreal Debate, but wished to put a definite question to the Government. He did not think it was a very great hardship that after Easter private Members should be deprived of the time at their disposal for the carrying of Bills, because no private Member's Bill introduced after Easter had the ghost of a chance of passing. He would, however, like to mention one Bill which had passed the Second Reading without a Division and which had gone through the Standing Committee on Law. [The hon. Member was understood to refer to the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill.] He wished to acknowledge the assistance they had had in the Committee from the Government, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and the Under Secretary for the Home Department. He wished to ask if the Government would undertake to carry that measure through the Report stage and Third Reading? He did not suppose there would be any opposition to it at all. There was one notice on the Paper with regard to it, but he did not suppose it would be proceeded with, and there bad been no opposition to it until now.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: All the usual facilities will be given for Bills which have passed through the Grand Committee.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I am not at all inclined to acquiesce in what was said by the hon. Gentleman who has just put a question to the

    1527
    Prime Minister when he spoke of the unreality of this Debate. If there be anything unreal in the Debate, it must be due, I think, to the Government who have brought forward a proposition which practically revolutionises the whole practice of Parliament at a time when they must have known that a vast number of Members are absent, to-morrow being Good Friday. I will not go into the question constantly raised when subjects of this kind are before the House, that is to say the question of obstruction of Public Business. I know something of obstruction, because I happened to be a Member of the House at the time your honoured predecessor, Sir, occupied the Chair, and in the capacity of Whip I happened to have a great deal to do with the management of a great political Party. A great deal has happened since those days, and I am familiar with the proceedings which have taken place. I have long been a Member of this Assembly, for which I have a deep affection. It is, therefore, natural that I should speak warmly on this matter. This is not the time to enter into altercations with one side of the House or the other. I cannot agree with the Prime Minister when he endeavoured to indicate how it is and why it is that the necessity has arisen for this Motion, and how it is and why it is that Her Majesty's Government have encountered such a grievous block in Public Business as to feel it desirable to make such a Motion as this. It must be obvious to every one who has had six months' experience of the management of business in this House that the position in which the Government is placed is due to the extraordinary number of measures they have produced and paraded. The right hon. Gentleman near me has said it is not for us to inquire into the motives of the Government. Well, whatever the motives of the Government, whatever the urgency, the result is unfortunate for the good name of this Assembly. What is their method? It is that of electioneering by a novel and modern system—by programme. That is an unfortunate method, because it necessitates these expedients—it necessitates the introduction of a large number of measures, anyone of which would require a whole Session to pass. When there is a demand
    1528
    from any particular section of the House for a measure, that measure is pulled down from its place, paraded for a moment, and then hung up again. The Government are giving us an object lesson in how not to get through the Business of Parliament. I do not deny that the strongest measures have been adopted from time to time for taking the time of private Members when the exigences of business have demanded it; but I say that this is the first occasion on which the whole time of the House has been taken by the Government at this early period of the Session. All the time to the end of the Session is swept away by the Government, the only time-left to private Members being the miserable driblet on Friday evening.. That, I say, is handing the House over to a bondage which makes an absurdity of Parliamentary proceedings. What position does that place hon. Members in with regard to the pledges they have given their constituents and which they may honourably wish to keep? How do I find myself placed? I do not wish to be egotistical, but I take my own case as a concrete example of what this revolutionary Motion will mean. I may confess that throughout my chequered career I have always been, most unfortunate in lotteries and games of chance, and have long given them up. as vulgar and indifferent amusements.. It may hardly be believed, but I have never been once successful even in the lottery that gives a place to a fair occupant of the Ladies' Gallery. But for once fortune smiled upon me. Out of 400 Members who ballotted at the commencement of the Session, I came out seventh, and I took the first place on April 19 for a measure of great importance to the fruit-growing industry. What do I find? I find all my chances swept away. We have had a great many agricultural discussions already this Session, and I think if there ever was a Government on the Front Bench opposite who ought to give facilities for the discussion of agricultural questions it is the present Government, who take so much interest in the agricultural labourer. We heard a great deal at the General Election of what would happen to the agricultural labourer in Kent and Sussex if hon. Gentlemen opposite were returned to power. Well, what has

    1529
    happened? I secured the best avail- able day after Easter for the discussion of my Bill, and I find that my chances are utterly and absolutely swept away. I shall never have the opportunity this Session of standing here to urge the claims of this great industry, and to put my case upon its merits, whatever they may be. I say that is a barbarous state of things. But, after all, there is something more to be considered than my convenience when we are dealing with such a preposterous Motion as this. We have to consider the future good name of this Assembly, and, as one who has sat in the House for 28 years, I say that such a Motion as this, involving a harsh and tyrannical proceeding on the part of the Government, will injure the future good name of the House more than any proposal ever submitted. I am not myself in favour of long nights or of obstructive proceedings, or of boasting or threatening, which I consider are signs of inherent weakness; but as an old Member of this House, beyond and apart from any inconvenience which hon. Members may suffer, I deeply regret the Motion proposed to-day, considering, as I do, that it, is an obvious attempt by the right hon. Gentleman to put his heel down on the throats of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. It was in that sense alone that I wish to be taken, in view of the language that has been used outside the House, not by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by others who sit with him. I deeply regret that the Government have been, I was going to say foolish enough, to put forward such a demand, for in the end they will make nothing by it. Not only will they gain nothing by it, but I believe that serious loss will accrue to the good name of this House, as regards the quietude and decorum of its proceedings. As any decision which may be taken this evening with our attenuated numbers will be more or less a farce, I could not sit here without making as strong a protest as language can convey against the Motion.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): No one who has had the honour of sitting in this House for a considerable number of years, as I have, could have done so with-
    1530
    out being able to bear testimony to the uniformly kindly and courteous manner in which the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken conducted the affairs of his Department when acting as Whip to the Conservative Party. Though I must endeavour to disprove one or two statements he made, at the same time I should like to reciprocate the feeling expressed by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to upholding the character of the House, maintaining the freedom of its Debates, and not impairing any of its ancient privileges. But I must say to the right hon. Baronet, and I must say to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that somehow or other, their transfer across the floor of the House seems to have had a marvellous effect on their memories, seeing that they describe the Motion as involving a 'perfectly novel proceeding. They have forgotten what occurred during the Administration of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that it was absolutely unprecedented to put down 12 important measures in the Queen's Speech.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My complaint was not as to what was in the Queen's Speech, but of this method of introducing six or eight measures, all of the most extraordinary controversial character.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman criticised severely the number of measures in the Queen's Speech ["No, no!"] I am in the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's memory has, no doubt, been refreshed, and he now recollects what took place at the commencement of the Session of 1891, when the Government of the day put 11 measures into the Queen's Speech—11 measures of a highly controversial character, dealing with the Irish Land system, Local Government in Ireland, Local Government in England, Employers' Liability, and a vast number of other highly important subjects. The right hon. Gentleman criticises the mode in which our Bills have been brought forward.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is all I criticise.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Perhaps we might criticise the manner in which opposition has been offered to the introduction of these measures—the manner in which a Second Reading Debate has

    1531
    been forced on on the occasion of the introduction of every Bill we have brought forward. But the discussion is on the Motion before the House. The right hon. Baronet who has just sat down has stated this to be a novel proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says that no such Motion has ever been presented before so early in the Session. Well, we have now reached 30th March. On 22nd March, 1887, the then Leader of the House, the late Mr. Smith, proposed and carried a Resolution that the introduction and several stages of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ire-land) Bill should have precedence of all Orders of the day and Notices of Motion whenever the Bill should be set down. [Opposition cheers.] Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cheer that, and I can assure them that the Government consider that the Bill for the better Government of Ireland is quite as important as the measure to which they gave precedence. I know the significance of cheers of hon. Members opposite. They imply that the precedence was confined to the Crimes Act. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad I have correctly interpreted the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They took the whole time of the House, and occupied it —subject to necessary interruptions for Supply—with that Bill until the 8th July, when it was read a third time.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Who occupied the time?
    Mr. H. H. FOWLER: On the 4th July an Order was passed, also on the Motion of Mr. Smith, that for the remainder of the Session the Government Orders of the Day should have priority on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; therefore, the combined effect of the two Resolutions —the one passed in March and the other in July—was that the Government took precedence for their measures for the whole of the Session. I am not criticising the action of the Government of that day. I do not say whether or not they were justified, but I do maintain that it is not a correct statement to say it is a novel proposition for the Government to ask for the whole of the time of the House. But that is not the only occasion on which the Government of that day took that course. I have quoted 1887; but in 1891 the Government passed almost as strong a Resolution in regard
    1532
    to the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill. Therefore for another Irish Bill the Government took precedence in this way. In 1891, so early as 15th June, they took precedence for their measures for the rest of the Session. Whether it be right or wrong, there is nothing novel in the proceeding now proposed. One hon. Member has complained of our interfering with the right of private Members, but he seems to forget that the Government will have to propose Supply, and that that will afford hon. Gentlemen the opportunity they say they are anxious for of discussing the policy of the Government. I do not wish to trouble the House with statistics, but I have a paper before me which shows that the late Government during their term of Office systematically encroached on the privileges of private Members by appropriating the time of the House. This question is not, how-over, to be settled by reference to what has been done in the past. Though we are perfectly justified in repudiating the charge that we are proposing something new, still I think the time has come when, in the opinion of a largo section in the country, and a large section in the House, the question of a redistribution of the time of the House requires to be carefully considered, the allocation of so large an amount to private Members being unfair to the legislation which the Government, and the Government alone, under the altereld condition of Parliamentary life, could successfully carry out. It was the practice of the late Government, very early in the Session, to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. The Resolution before the House does not interfere with Friday, so that the point at issue between us is the taking of Tuesday evening and Wednesday. Well, I submit to the House, and submit with some confidence, that, although hon. Members may dread the programme of the Government, and although that programme includes some measures which they themselves mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, when they advised the Sovereign, the Bills we propose are a complete justification for asking for the time of the House in order to enable us to dispose of our Bills. The private Member, I know, is a very delicate matter on which to touch. I do not

    1533
    wish to undervalue the academic discussions which take place on Tuesday nights; but, even with the Government pledged to make a House, there has been a count-out on one night, and we know that there would have been counts-out on several occasions if the Government had not made a House. Really the whole controversy now gathers round the proposal to take Wednesdays for the rest of the Session. In view of the desire which exists in the country that the measures the Government have pledged themselves to submit should be considered by Parliament, it is not only a duty, but the first duty, of the Government to ask the House to give them facilities by which, and by which alone, those measures can be submitted to the early consideration of the House. Re-member that, in making this proposal, we are not violating any precedent, or departing from any established practice of the House. We are only asking the House to make existing precedents more effective.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down save the Government are only following precedent in this matter. But we consider that applying this Motion to all Government Bills, and not to any particular Bill, is a most violent breach of all precedent. In fact it is worse than the Closure, because the Closure only stops discussion which has taken place for a certain time upon a particular Bill, but the present proposal of the Government will practically stop all discussion upon any Bill, except their own Bills, for the rest of the Session. But, Sir, I rise in a spirit of peace for the purpose of making a suggestion that will test the sincerity of this question, and which will test the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman who has just down. The right hon. Gentleman referred to precedents. Let him follow them. Here is an Amendment which has been placed upon the Paper, which practically is to the effect that precedents shall be followed, and that the Motion shall apply only to the Government of Ireland Bill. Here is a, proposal—and I rise to refer to it after only a moment's consideration—by which we can possibly bring the present difficulty to an end. Here is a compromise. Let the Government apply
    1534
    this Motion solely to the Bill for the better Government of Ireland. If they will do that they will he following the precedents that have been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. If they do not absent to that proposal it will show that, as far as they are concerned, precedents are absolutely useless. In a spirit of fair play let me urge this consideration on the right hon. Gentleman, that this Debate is not one without an aim, but one which as deeply affects our Parliamentary practice as any question of Closure, or any question affecting our Rules. If that is so, I once more urge that which must come home to them, and that which has been so eloquently urged by previous speakers, that this is not the time, on the last Thursday before Easter, when the matter can he fairly discussed. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite show from the very slight character of their speeches that they do not grasp the full importance of the change proposed. I would, therefore, suggest that they should agree to this Motion so far as it concerns the Government of Ireland Bill. That will not deprive them of the power of making any further proposal to the House that they may think necessary at a future time.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I should be extremely glad to meet the right hon. Gentleman in what he calls a policy of peace, but he appears to misapprehend the points of view in which the President of the Local Government Board quoted from the precedents of former days. He argued that there had been times when the Government had, in point of fact, taken the whole of the time of the House from private Members. I want upon this subject to say that we cannot be bound strictly by the precedent of former times. [Ironical cheers.] Most certainly we cannot be bound by them. Who made those precedents, and what were the precedents before they were made? If I may make use of a bull, I would say that those precedents were new when they were made, and we consider ourselves as entitled as those who went before us to make precedents. I have had opportunities of communicating with many young Members of this House, who have lately entered it for the first time, and there is no feeling among them stronger than one of disappointment, I may almost say of disgust, at the difficulty there is in con-

    1535
    ducting Public Business, and in discharging the duties which they undertook to perform when they were sent here to represent their constituents. Therefore, it is legitimate and proper for the Government to do that which they consider essential to carry out such a purpose. If it be the fact that in former or in present days precedents are not sufficient to give effect to such a purpose, it is our duty, and it is our right, to establish such a precedent for the advantage of this generation and those who come after us. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Oh! If you are going to alter the law of the House as was done in the case of the Closure, we must have a longer time for the discussion." Certainly, if we were going to propose a Standing Order as in the case of the Closure, we should have a much longer discussion, but that is not the intention of the Government. We do not propose to alter the Standing Orders of or the ordinary Rules of Debate, but, following the example of previous Governments, we have proposed to do that which is necessary for the proper conduct of Business during the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should take the time of the House only for the Irish Bill. I am sorry to say that we cannot accept that proposal because there are other measures which the Government have introduced which they regard as being equal in importance to the Government of Ireland Bill.
    An hon. MEMBER: What Bills—Local Option?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, Local Option. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that, because they have allied themselves with the publicans, the country will agree with them. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that their friends in the liquor trade make a great deal of noise, and have a great deal less strength than they imagine. I do not envy them the alliance they have made. But these are questions which the Government think it of great importance to submit to the judgment of Parliament. I hear gentlemen sometimes talk of the Government as if it were a separate entity from other Members of the House. But what, after all, is the function of Members of this House? No doubt in one sense the Government are the Executive Government of the Queen, but they
    1536
    have another position in the House of Commons. In the matter of legislative action they are the representatives and the organ of the majority of the House, returned by the majority of the people of England— [loud cries of "No!"]—if you will allow me to use the phrase to which you are so attached, the majority of the United Kingdom. You do not repudiate the United Kingdom. I suppose that you are not Separatists to the extent which, in moments of oblivion, you apppear to be. In that capacity it is the duty of the Government to submit to the House the policy that commends itself to that majority. That is the position which the Government hold. They are submitting their measures as measures, that they believe commend themselves to the majority of the House of Commons. If they find a condition of things which makes it impossible to carry out their measures, then it is necessary for them to apply to the House for assistance. Is it true or not that the Government are placed in a position of difficulty and almost impossibility in giving effect to any of their measures? I have always observed that there are nothing so interesting as the confessions of remarkable characters. We have the Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau; and the Confessions of an Opium Eater by De Quincy. But I read the other day the Confessions of an Obstructionist, by Himself. It would be impossible for me to describe more accurately the course which has been pursued, and which we are promised will be pursued, in the future. I found them in a provincial paper, and desire to refer to them in all good humour. It is the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), who last week addressed his constituents, and, in a spirit of self-approbation, pointed out what had been the object of his energetic operations in this House. The hon. Gentleman said—
    "I have been told that I am a Corsair and an Obstructionist, and no doubt I have thought it necessary to make some remarks of a lengthy and interesting character in regard to the abstraction of money from your pockets."
    Nothing can be more frank and candid.
    "And no doubt I have felt it to be my duty to join with those who have done everything they could—and have not concealed it either —to prevent the Second Heading of the Home Rule Bill before the country has had a fair opportunity of considering it."

    1537
    But that is not all. You are not asked to confine this process to the Irish Home Rule Bill merely—
    "But it is not only on account of the principles involved in that most nefarious measure that we opposed it; it was because we felt that as soon as that measure had been got out of the way others would follow."
    Now, that is the true opium-eating to distraction. So you will see that the operation is that the Estimates are to be used to obstruct the Home Rule Bill, and that the Home Rule Bill is to be used to obstruct other measures, and that by the combined obstruction of all three— upon the Estimates, upon the Home Rule Bill, and upon other Bills—you are to prevent the Government or anybody else carrying any measure at all. I conclude this interesting statement, because it really candidly reveals what in fact we always knew before.
    "I can tell you that the Government have opposed to them as bold, as able, as tenacious, as courageous, and as determined a Tory Party as ever stood upon the floor of any House of Commons."
    That, I have no doubt, is true, but I should like to see the modus operandi of this determined and tenacious Tory Party.
    "Before they pass these revolutions, they propose"—
    that is, all the measures we have before the House—
    before they pass one of them—they will have a tough job to get through."
    Yes, we shall have to deal with the bold Corsair and others.
    "The efforts we have made have not been without results in the past. I believe they will have still greater results in the future; and my advice to you all is, if you want to prevent this Bill (the Local Veto Bill) from becoming law and to prevent any of the other revolutionary measures from becoming law, concentrate your efforts on the Home Rule Bill which is to come before them all. That is what I intend to do."
    There are, first of all, to be lengthy and interesting discussions upon the Estimates. That is to prevent the Home Rule Bill coming on till the latest possible moment. Then, when the Home Rule Bill comes on, that is to be used to prevent anything else coming on. That is the plan of campaign, which we have to meet. We have had pathetic appeals made by the right hon. Gentleman to us to regard the character of the House of Commons. I have been nearly as long in the House
    1538
    as the right hon. Gentleman, and I have as great an interest and desire to keep up the character of the House of Commons as he has. But the way to keep it up is to prevent the success of operations such as that. And it is in order that we may deal with proceedings such as those which have been described in the speech from which I have quoted that the Government have thought it necessary to ask at the hands of the House of Commons, in the name of that majority in the country and in the House which has sent us here to promote a policy of reform of great importance, that we have proposed what I perfectly admit to be a larger demand than has ever been made before. But I say that the necessity was never greater in consequence of the magnitude, and, as we believe, of the importance of the measures which we have brought forward, and necessary, on account of the deliberate manner in which it has been proposed to delay, to defeat, and to obstruct that policy.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced his speech by saying that he desired peace as much as anybody in this House, and that he acknowledged gratefully the tone in which my right hon. Friend spoke on this subject. Those peaceful views lasted for about two minutes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ended by what is nothing more than a declaration of war—and I might say, war without quarter—against the minority in this House, who are only 40 votes less than the majority. If the right hon. Gentleman wants peace, and wants to make progress with his Business, I can tell him that, in spite of all these Resolutions on the Paper, he and his colleagues will have to adopt a totally different attitude to that which they seem inclined to take up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not say that I speak as one having no experience of opposition to Governments with much larger majorities, and he knows perfectly well that the resources of even a small minority are very extensive, and have often before now baffled and embarrassed arbitrary Governments, and he can measure to himself what can be the resources of a minority of over 300 Members of the House of Commons in resisting what everybody in the country, who has any qualification to be

    1539
    called impartial, can see to be the most despotic and the most tyrannical measure against the minority in the House that has ever been known in the annals of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he was making a larger demand than had ever been made before. Why does he not make that demand in a full House? Why does he make such an admittedly unprecedented demand upon the House in such circumstances as those? Nothing could be more contemptuous than the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. He said that he did not care about the precedents of which the President of the Local Government Board had been speaking for half an hour. He said, "We mind no precedents." Very well, Sir, if all precedents are to be set aside and a new practice is to be introduced into our procedure, which will have a far more wide-reaching effect very likely, if adopted, than the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagines, then why cannot the Government act in a Parliamentary and constitutional manner and take the sense of the House of Commons at large, when it is fully constituted, instead of endeavouring by this backway and byway, by this purlieu of Parliamentary procedure, to smite a minority, and to trample it down at a moment when it cannot properly defend itself? You are endeavouring to alter the procedure of Parliament in a manner totally unprecedented when Parliament has had only two days' notice of the immense change to be made in that procedure, and the dangerous and unparalleled precedents which are being set up by the tyranny of the majority. The fault of the Radical Party has always been that they have never understood anything but the brute force of numbers. You see it in their local organisations, and you see it in the conduct of the Government in this House, because it is absurd to call this Government a Liberal Government. It is a Radical Home Rule Government, and they adopt, in treating their opponents, a happy combination of the ordinary Radical brute force of numbers, mixed up with Irish ingredients, which are always very useful in silencing opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that every young Member coming into this House now is disgusted with the dilatory
    1540
    proceedings of Parliament, and I rather think he intimated they were disgusted at the dilatory proceedings of the Opposition. It is not only to-day that young men come into Parliament and are disgusted with the dilatory proceedings of the Opposition. I entered Parliament in 1874, and I was then very often supremely disgusted with the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman when he endeavoured in any and every possible way and form to baffle the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, and to prevent any measures being passed into law. The right hon. Gentleman might recollect that it is useless for a Government—and especially for a Government which has not a colossal or overwhelming majority— to think that they can drive the House of Commons into any procedure which they like. The resources of Parliament, the precedents for action in Parliament to resist such procedure, are too numerous and too effective; and I think not only the serried array of large numbers on this side of the House, but the experience, and skill, and ingenuity, and eloquence of my right hon. Friends on these Benches will be able to make out before the House of Commons and the country a tremendous case against the ruin you are seeking to bring about, not only in the Constitution of the country, but absolute ruin to the ordinary, decent, and Parliamentary proceedings which have been so long the honour of this Assembly. A Motion of this kind, brought forward without notice, on the last day before the Easter holidays, when you knew that not even your own Party would be fully behind you, and when you knew that two-thirds of the Opposition must have gone away—is that what you think to be honourable practice? The only adjective which would properly describe such practice is one which I must not use in this House. But to come to the actual Motion itself, I do not suppose that we care very much on this side of the House, as far as our powers of limiting your powers for mischief are concerned, if you insist on passing this Motion. In the first place, you are obviously guided by a total want of reflection as to the length of your tenure of Office. Although I protest against this departure from the proceedings of the House of Commons, knowing the lengths to which you have gone in oppo-

    1541
    sition to a Government before, I should never be surprised if a future Government made use against you of the particular precedent in procedure which yon are now proposing to adopt. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are most unwise in refusing any offer, any hint, of some modification of their extreme proposal. I do not believe that if the Government and their supporters are prepared to treat the minority of the House of Commons in what I call a Parliamentary manner, a gentlemanlike manner, they will rind that their Business will be subjected to any unusual delay or that there will be any unusual artifice to defeat it. We are perfectly strong enough to meet them within all reasonable and legitimate limits; and just as we do not fear the real effect of this Resolution, so we do not require to have recourse to proceedings which of course we have known in the old days with the Irish Party and which on more than one occasion have been closely imitated by the Radical Party. But if the right hon. Gentleman will not consider us, and if he treats with scorn and with hostile declarations all reasonable offers on the part of the Opposition, he is greatly mistaken if he thinks he will make more rapid progress with his Business. Does he recollect what has taken place? The First Lord of the Treasury and his colleagues thought they would rush the Home Rule Bill through the House for Second Reading before Easter. Have they done it? Were they more in a position to do that than they are to rush through this Procedure Resolution in order to rush their other measures? You not only were not able to rush your Home Rule Bill—because the Opposition acted on the principle that it must be fairly considered by the country before it could be rushed through the House of Commons—you not only failed to do that, but you collapsed so entirely in the attempt that you have not actually gone to a Second Reading with any of the Newcastle Programme. I believe myself that if you had only adopted a different attitude, and had not tried to over-ride the minority by sheer force of numbers, the state of your Government Business would have been in a much better position. So far as I am concerned—and I believe I speak the sentiments of my hon. Friends around
    1542
    me—we shall not be deterred by one inch from offering to your measures what Parliamentary opposition we are capable of stimulating and provoking, and that is putting the opposition very fine. We shall not be deterred for one instant from that course, and this particular Resolution will not embarrass our efforts. If you like to force the noses of the House of Commons to the grindstone of Government Business, the only people who will be most wearied will be your own supporters. If you like to muzzle private Member?, and to keep them muzzled for the whole Session, the only people who will be unlikely to give you that affectionate support which they have given you before are your own active Radical Members, who have crowded the Order Book with measures to benefit all mankind. The only persons you do not injure are the minority whom you strive to overcome. Their powers remain as strong, as diversified, and as vigorous as ever. You, haying refused to listen to any compromise or modification, have only encouraged the Opposition to oppose your measures more strongly, perhaps, than they would have done, because they must be convinced that by resorting to desperate proceedings your measures must be of a desperate character. These are the principles which we not only proclaim in this House, but which we shall proclaim to a larger and wider audience. I have no doubt that it is in order to prevent the Unionists of Great Britain from holding large numbers of meetings, or, at any rate, to interfere with such a process, that you have shortened the Easter holidays, and are going to take the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill immediately the House reassembles. If you think that mean and petty manœuvres like that will succeed with the English people you have formed a very poor conception of them. These are all manœuvres which can be exposed. More than that, it is fair to suggest to the English people that under all these proceedings of yours are concealed most dangerous objects, and they are animated by the worst possible motives which, as I have said before, are not, only destructive of every Institution in this country— the Church, the Union, the House of Lords—but. even of the procedure of the House of Commons itself and all the traditional rights of minorities in this

    1543
    House, which have been one of the most sacred traditions of the House of Commons—these are all to be swept away. I have been within a few months of 20 years in this House, and I have never heard or seen a Prime Minister go to such lengths in revolutionary procedure, not only as regards legislation, but as; regards the House of Commons, as the First Lord of the Treasury, in his eagerness, is now going. When the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, in 1880, he would no more have thought of pro-posing a Resolution like this to the House than he would have thought of proposing some scheme taken from Bedlam or Hanwell Lunatic Asylum. What is the difference between this House and the House of Commons in 1880? In 1880 I think you had a majority of between 120 and 130, largely composed of English Members. What is your majority now? It is a majority of 40, composed entirely of Irish Members, and that majority of 40 Irish Members is to over-ride in all the arrangements of the House a majority of over 80 English Members. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman has got to face; that is the position which is to be put before the country; and I conclude by saying that, although you may force this Resolution down the throat of the House of Commons by the sheer brute force of numbers, it will not forward your Business or help you to carry your measures.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, they had had two voices from the Treasury Bench already. The President of the Local Government Board came down with his pocket full of what he called precedents for that Motion, but which turned out to be no precedents at all; and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up immediately afterwards and asked, "Who cares for precedents?" Yes, but why did the President of the Local Government Board waste a quarter of an hour in laying them before the House? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were quite fit to make precedents. They were; but then another Member of the Government ought not to be put up to attempt to prove that the Government were acting according to precedent in the course they proposed to take. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted fairly and squarely that this was
    1544
    an unprecedented Motion. He had made no attempt to conceal that, and what he (Mr. Russell) wanted to direct the attention of the House to was this: The whole proceedings of the Government concerning the time of the House this Session had been of an unprecedented character. They had already had the Twelve o'Clock Rule suspended five or six times, which never was the case so early in the Session before. They had had two Saturday Sittings before Easter, which was totally unprecedented. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in all these unprecedented proceedings, what had he gained in Business? Had he found that his attempt to coerce the House of Commons brought him any profit? Had he not rather found, what he already ought to have known from his long Parliamentary experience, that the House of Commons was an Assembly that could not be coerced? It might be led to do what was right, but it was impossible for even a stronger Government than this to drive it into what was known to be wrong. What was the cause of the difficulty in which the Government found themselves placed? The real cause was the overloading of the Parliamentary ship. The President of the Local Government Board had said that when the Opposition were in Office they had put as many Bills in the Queen's Speech as the present Government had. But that was not the point. It might be true they had put as many Bills into the Queen's Speech, but they had never attempted to introduce all those Bills before Easter, and thus waste the precious time before Easter on the introduction of these Bills. They had, in the first place, the Home Rule Bill—a measure which not only gave a Parliament to Ireland, but disintegrated and confused the Parliament! of England, and he asked in all sincerity ' was that not a measure which was almost sufficient, with the necessity of taking Supply, to occupy the whole Session? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the Bill itself would be almost sufficient work for any Session of Parliament? But see what was crowded on to that. There was a proposal dealing with the Welsh Church, touching the susceptibilities of every Churchman in the Kingdom, and perfectly certain to meet with the sternest resistance. Then

    1545
    there was the Bill dealing with public-houses—a measure of a most contentious character, and likely to produce very great discussion in the country. The effect of that Bill was seen on those (the Government) Benches already. Already three Members of the Gladstonian majority, although they had pledged themselves to it a few months ago, had given notice that they could not redeem their pledges in that House. There was also the Registration Bill, no doubt a measure of great utility, but the Government had made it a Franchise Bill almost as much as a Registration Bill, so that it was certain to meet with opposition. In fact, the only two measures laid on the Table which could be said to be of a non-contentious character were the Employers' Liability Bill and the Parish Councils Bill. ["No, no!"] Well, they were not so contentions as the other Bills, and would be treated fairly by the House. These Bills were jostling each other; they wore introduced by the Government to satisfy the separate grievances of their supporters, but they satisfied nobody. He would ask this question: Why were they there discussing a Motion of that character? Why were they there at all? Why was it that yesterday for the first time in the modern history of Parliament, hon. Members of the House found themselves discussing a private Member's Bill in Passion week? They were there that evening, and they were there the previous day, because the Government desired to take a private Member's Bill, not a clause of which they approved, in order to burke the Debate on the Second Reading of a measure of their own, and that, too, on one of the most contentious subjects. What the Government expected to gain he did not know. They were laving Bills on the Table, but they could not have any idea of passing them. They were simply published as what he might call a revised edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. They were not intended to pass, but were intended to satisfy those who drew up the Newcastle Programme. The Government, however, were mistaken if they thought that these people would be satisfied with the more introduction of Bills, and they would find they would have to pay in different coin. What the noble Lord had said was true. The
    1546
    Government was trying with its slender majority to carry this coercive measure in the House of Commons. The Government which had denounced coercion in all the moods and tenses was endeavouring to coerce the House of Commons. He saw perfectly well that they could carry the Motion by their majority, and all he could say was that he hoped both sections of the Opposition would not lie calmly or tamely down under this coercion. There was an easy way of curing it: Let hon. Members refuse to pair, and vote against this policy. If hon. Gentlemen who passed such Resolutions and went straight off leaving other Members to fight the battle, found that that could be done no longer because of the refusal to pair, the tone of the Treasury Bench would change immediately. The Members of the Opposition had the matter in their own hands, and he hoped they would not lie down, but fight like men in support of a great cause.
    MR. Buchanan rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that there are several Amendments to the Motion on the Paper. I think, however, it is almost time that some of them should be moved.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR C. DALRYMPLEsaid, it had been made perfectly plain that this Motion was not going to be accepted in silence. He confessed he thought the difference of opinion as to precedents on the Government Bench was it remarkable one. The President of the Board of Trade had quoted a variety of precedents, according to which he imagined the Government to be acting; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand had declined to be guided by precedents. There was one thing that no gentleman had had the hardihood to quote a precedent for, and that was the taking of Wednesdays immediately after an early Easter. The President of the Local Government Board had not asserted it was ever done before.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It was done for the Crimes Act.
    SIR C. DALRYMPLEsaid, it was only done in one special case for a Bill of an exceptional character, and not with

    1547
    the intention of robbing private Members entirely of their rights. Whilst the present Government was absolutely at the mercy of small sections of its own Party, private Members were free men, and on the whole were somewhat more disinterested in the measures they brought forward. His experience was that the measures of Governments, as a rule, were the result of reckless election pledges, whereas the Bills of private Members were the result of hard work and patient thought. He had been successful in obtaining the 26th April for bringing forward a Bill which proposed to carry out the recommendations of a Royal Commission which sat for five years, and of which he was almost the only survivor; but his opportunity, like that of his right hon. Friend, would also be swept away. They were living under it coercion Government; and of all the tyrannies on God's earth, there was nothing more severe. He warned the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the weapon they were now forging against the minority might hereafter be used against themselves with deadly effect. He should be sorry to think that any succeeding Government would take a leaf out of the book of this Government in its monstrous proceedings, but still the weapon they were now forging might hereafter be very mischievous to themselves. The Government had now taken almost all their time from private Members, and the next step, he supposed, would be to close their mouths. They had had a little experience of that during the present Session, Members below the Gangway making systematic efforts to drown the expression of opinion on the part of the Conservative Members. He did not think any good work would be done in that House until there was some authoritative arrangement as to the way in which Members sat on different sides of the House. He entered his earnest protest against the proposal of the Government, which was of such an oppressive character that he believed it would defeat the object for which it was brought forward, and would not conduce to the rapid progress of the measures before Parliament.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the House could not fail to have been struck by the remarkable contrast
    1548
    between the tone of the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first speech was conciliatory; the latter speech was aggressive. The first called a parley; the latter sounded a charge. The First Lord of the Treasury said he could have made a fighting speech, but would not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proved to them by his speech that he would have made a fighting speech, but could not. The only pointed part of the latter right hon. Gentleman's speech consisted of quotations. They had had from him references to the Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau— whoso works he should be surprised to see in any decent library not a reference library—and the Confessions of an Opium Eater. There was one book of confessions which the right hon. Gentleman omitted to mention—The Confessions of a Thug. They all felt and knew that this Resolution placed upon the Table was "Thuggery." It was of the same order as that process which took place in India when an apparently respectable person in the guise sometimes of a minister—it might not be of the Crown—accompanied an honest and unsuspecting merchant, and, in a moment when suspicion was lulled, threw the fatal cord around his neck and strangled him. That was what was intended to be done with the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman did his best to give point to his speech by quotations from his (Mr. Bowies'). But for some reason he had omitted some of the very best points in that speech. He had omitted, in particular, a description which he rather prided himself on, of an inflated "Stiggins," introducing a Temperance Bill to the notice of a popular assembly. The right hon. Gentleman also adverted to the fact that he (Mr. Bowles) stated he had been called a "Corsair," but he did not tell the House that he complained of it. He did not take it as a title of praise. He complained that ribald newspapers had called him a Corsair, an obstructionist, and other evil names. He expected that treatment from a ribald Press, but did not expect to hear those terms of reproach repeated by a ribald politician. He was a humble follower of the right hon. Gentleman in the art of political vituperation, but he trusted that in time he might be able to

    1549
    ruffle it with the best of them. He had not yet repented, either of his speech or of his conduct which he frankly avowed in that speech. If he were inclined to repent, he should say with St. Augustin— "Lord, convert me, but not yet." Coming to the subject of the Rules proposed to be suspended, he had looked up precedents extending from 1878 to 1888, including the classical periods of the First Lord of the Treasury's two last Administrations with regard to this matter of the claiming of Tuesdays and Wednesdays by the Government for their own Business. He found that it had been occasionally done, but always under one of two conditions. He was confining himself to the Liberal Administrations of 1880-85 and 1886. No demand for precedence for all Government Business had ever been made, except either in the months of July and August, at the end of the Session in order to wind up the Session, or if at an earlier period, not for Government Business generally, but for one special purpose alone—for a Debate on the Address, or for one of those Acts relating to Ireland, the object of which was to put into the pockets of one set of Irishmen something out of somebody else's pockets, or for coercing Irishmen. They were not unreasonable; they admitted the very great importance of the measure for the government of Ireland, and claimed that it should have the freest, fullest, and fairest discussion, and in order to secure that discussion; they were not inclined to resist the proposal that the Government should take the time of the House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when that measure had precedence, but they claimed that that proposal should not be extended to other matters.
    SIR J. GORST: Before the House proceeds to discuss the Amendments to this Resolution, of which notice has been given, I wish to call their attention for a few moments to one part of the Government Programme, which is commonly called labour legislation, and to make a representation, and appeal to the Government themselves. This is an appropriate occasion for making it, and it is probably the last chance, if this Resolution be passed, that any Member will get for making such an appeal. The Government has introduced either in the
    1550
    Speech from the Throne or by Bills a considerable number of what are known as labour measures, and to that none of us on this side of the House can possibly take exception or objection, because they are for the most part Bills which many of my hon. Friends sitting on this side of the House has spent the last two years in going about the country and recommending to their constituencies. We rejoiced to see those Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government, but our pleasure would be very much enhanced if there was the slightest chance of more than one or two of them becoming law in the present Session.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We want to read one of them a second time to-night.
    SIR J. GORST: I am only going to call attention to the mode in which these labour Bills have been treated, and the opportunities there have been for discussion of these matters of such transcendent and enormous importance. Of all the labour Bills which the Government have introduced, there are only two with which they have made any progress whatever: one is the Bill dealing with the hours of railway servants and the other is the Employers' Liability Bill. I would like to ask that, before the Government take the whole time of the House, they will give us an assurance that their conduct in the future shall not resemble upon these questions their conduct in the past. The Bill dealing with the hours of railway servants is no doubt one of very great importance. It is important in three distinct aspects: It is important, first of all, to the railway servants themselves, who complain of the excessively long hours to which under some companies they are subjected; secondly, to the public, whose safety is jeopardised; and, thirdly—and in this aspect it is far more important—because it raises that great question of the conditions under which, and the extent to which, the State should interfere with the hours of labour of adult males. The fact is, this Bill has never been discussed in this House at all. It has never been discussed even in this Parliament. It is quite true that it was discussed in the last Parliament, and a Select Committee recommended a certain Bill, and I believe the Bill which the Government brought in is simply the recommendation of the Committee of the last Parliament. Surely it is important

    1551
    that the present Parliament, which is expressly returned to deal, among other things, with these kinds of matters, should express its opinion upon these various points; and if there are Members in the House, as there are, who consider that the provisions of the Government Bill are not adequate for the protection of railway servants, it certainly is desirable that those Members should be heard. I speak with some warmth on this subject, because this particular mode of conducting labour legislation has received the stamp of the Prime Minister, even in this House to-night, because the right hon. Gentleman at the meeting at the Foreign Office was reported to have referred with immense admiration to the President of the Board of Trade for having conducted the Bill in that fashion. The right hon. Gentleman praised the action of the House in passing en bloc a Bill of this importance without any discussion whatever. Is that the way in which this House should deal with labour Bills? If the House is to abdicate its functions, if Members are only called upon to regard the ukase which comes out of the pigeon-holes of a Government Department, we might as well be Russian legislators. The conduct of the Government with respect to the Employers' Liability Bill has been even more reprehensible. That Bill is correctly described by the hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire as the greatest and most vital question that would be discussed during the present Session, and that statement was cheered by the Treasury Bench and the Members behind it. Therefore, I think I am justified in assuming that, in the opinion of the Government and their supporters, that measure is the greatest and most vital that would be discussed during the present Session. There is another particular in which that Bill is important; it is almost the only one of the Government Bills yet introduced which has much chance of becoming law during the present Session, and it is essentially deserving of attention. Having established the importance of the measure, let us consider for a moment how the Government have treated this measure which was said by them to be so vital and important. It was brought on for Second Reading on February 20, and was taken when the House was exhausted by the
    1552
    discussion on the Registration Bills for England and Scotland. The only speeches made on that occasion were the speech of the Home Secretary and the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The Government were urged to continue the Debate on the next Government night, but they declined to do so, because they had pledged themselves to waste that night in the introduction of the Welsh Suspensory Bill, that abortive attempt of which, it is understood, we shall hear no more. This vital and important question was not again brought under consideration until March 24, when only a part of a Morning Sitting was devoted to it, and now the Government invite the House to conclude the discussion on this vital and important question the day before the Easter holidays, when everybody, from the Speaker to the doorkeeper of the House, is anxious to get away, and when Members can only debate the subject in a very thin House, and under the most depressing and discouraging circumstances. That is the way in which the Government have treated the labour Bills with which they have made progress already. I said I rose for the purpose of making this appeal. This is the last appeal I can ever make, because we are muzzled and strangled after to-day, and I am only expressing my most earnest hope that, in the interests of the people of the country at large, when the Government have got the whole command of the time of the House, they will allow reasonable time for discussion on these most important and vital measures. Their treatment of the Railway Servants Bill and of the Employers' Liability Bill should serve as an object-lesson to those Members who specially represent the working classes, who are not blinded by Party prejudice, and should show how little some Party leaders care for social questions when they cannot make Party capital out of them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the zeal which he has shown for the achievement of labour legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware that every moment he occupied in his speech he was retarding the possibility of the House discussing one of those Bills

    1553
    which he himself has described as the most vital and important that Her Majesty's Government proposes. I am not going to follow him at any length, but I think it very desirable that this matter should be plainly and clearly stated, so that the country may understand what the facts are. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the measure relating to the hours of railway servants, and he seems to complain that that measure has actually got, through a Grand Committee without opposition, and is now in a position to be considered on Report, and read a third time. How did that measure get to the Grand Committee? Whenever it was before the House for Second Reading—I am certain I am right in saying that on two occasions —hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to its being proceeded with, although it was a non-contentious measure, and although it was founded on the Report of a Select Committee, and although it was known that in its essential features it would have been proposed to this House by the late President of the Board of Trade. It was only by a special appeal made by that right hon. Gentleman to hon. Members behind him that the Bill obtained a Second Reading at all, and was sent to the Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he and others mean to raise important questions with reference to this Hill. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman himself sat upon the Grand Committee, and had an opportunity of raising every one of these questions, and, as I am informed by I those who were present, he did not on one single occasion go to a Division. Now I come to the measure in which I myself am concerned—the Employers' Liability Hill. I do not in the least degree quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman as to the expressions he has used with reference to the magnitude, importance, and urgency of that question. It is the first of all the Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government which they have brought on for a Second Reading, and they have shown by taking that step what an important position they themselves attribute to it in their own Programme. I moved the Second Reading of that Bill on the 20th February, not at any late hour of the evening—the Debate, if I remember
    1554
    aright, began about 10 o'clock. I am afraid I made rather a long speech myself, I do not complain of the length of the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who followed, but the Government, on the first opportunity that was open to them—after they had introduced the Welsh Suspensors Bill and one other Bill, and after the Business of Supply had been reached—put down the resumption of this Debate, and this Debate would have been resumed on Monday, 20th March, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would have allowed us to get the Supplementary Estimates, which we had a right to expect. Yes, the zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite for economy and prolonged debate on every item of the Supplementary Estimates was so great that this vital and important question, which the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe he and those behind him are so anxious to put in the forefront, was postponed until the 27th March. On that date the Government again put down this Bill for the Second Reading, and it was announced as being first for that day. Now, how was Monday, the 27th March, occupied?—in what I venture to call one of the most futile and theatrical demonstrations which this House has lately witnessed—the discussion of that farcical Vote of Censure on the Irish Government. As the last chance of obtaining this Bill, upon which we set the greatest store, we have put it down again for to-night, but what chance do hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite give us of bringing it on? The Debate on this Motion has already occupied some of the best hours of the evening; we have not vet approached the first of the Amendments put down. I make the charge deliberately, and I am prepared to substantiate it inside and outside this House, that if the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill is not taken to-night, if the House rises for the Easter Vacation without having accomplished that important task, the responsibility lies on the Party opposite.
    MR. H. MATTHEWS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to me to have totally misapprehended the grounds and the meaning of the complaint made by my right hon. Friend. His complaint is that the Employers' Liability Bill has been put down for this evening at all, that it

    1555
    has been put down for an evening when most of those who are interested in the question are not here, and are necessarily absent from the House. One would really think, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons was no longer a deliberative Assembly. I thought that the whole principle on which the House of Commons is based is that we are taught by each other and by the clash and conflict of debate, but the right hon. Gentleman makes it a ground of complaint against us that we do not think vital and important measures should be put down at a time when many of those who are interested in the Debate, and whose opinions are most valuable, are necessarily absent. He calls that waste of opportunities. He actually has the courage to make it a ground of reproach against the Opposition in this House, that the Employers' Liability Bill did not succeed in obtaining a hearing on the 27th March. But why did the Government and the right hon. Gentleman, in his great zeal for the interests of labour, in his overwhelming interest in this vital and important question, set down a Bill of this magnitude and importance after a Vote of Censure on the Government had been given notice of?
    MR. ASQUITH: Before.
    MR. MATTHEWS: But it was on the Paper for that night, and that is one of the opportunities that the right hon. Gentleman charges us with wasting. The right hon. Gentleman is good enough, with that supreme contempt which appears to fill his mind for everybody's opinions except his own, to call that Vote of Censure a farcical Motion. It was a Vote of Censure which imputed to the Government that they had neglected the means in their power for preserving law and order in Ireland, and that they had neglected to enforce the law of the land. He may call that a farcical Vote of Censure, and he treated it so lightly that he put down this measure of vital importance at the fag end of a Debate which he must have known would be a long Debate. The complaint against the right hon. Gentleman and the Government is this: That they disregard the value of the deliberations of the House of Commons by putting down Bills "which there is no intention whatever to
    1556
    obstruct, which there is no intention even to oppose in any serious or acrid manner, and that they put them down for nights when full, fair, and satisfactory discussion of them is impossible. It is childish for the Government to put down for Maundy Thursday such a measure as the Employers' Liability Bill, when they must have known that a long discussion would take place upon the extraordinary Motion by which they propose to monopolise almost the whole of the time of the House henceforward. They must have known that this would prevent a complete and satisfactory discussion of that important Bill to-day, and it is childish on their part to turn round and say. that the Opposition are responsible for such a state of things. No, Sir; these reproaches of the right hon. Gentleman are made really without any foundation at all. I do not know personally much about the Railway Servants Hours of Labour Bill, as I have not long returned to the House of Commons; but from what I can gather, what the right hon. Gentleman complains of in regard to this measure, is that hon. Members on this side of the House object to a discussion of a Bill of this sort being taken at midnight, I reiterate the complaint of my hon. Friend. Are labour questions to be relegated by the Government to the hours after midnight when many Members are absent, when the speeches cannot be listened to and certainly will not be reported, and, therefore, when the discussions must be unsatisfactory? Are we to be reproached, forsooth, because we desire that questions of this importance and magnitude should not be discussed at an hour and in a manner which will not be satisfactory to those who take an interest in these things? Ultimately, as I understand, the patience of the House was exhausted and no opportunity having been given for a reasonable discussion of that Bill, it was allowed to go to a second reading without a Division. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us that a discussion in Committee upstairs will throw as much light upon a subject as a discussion in this House? My experience of that tribunal does not lead to a belief that arguments there are urged with the force, fullness, and completeness that they are in this House. Sir, the charge which is made by the right hon. Gentleman that we are answerable for the manner in

    1557
    which both of those labour questions are treated is an altogether groundless one. If the House is to fulfil its functions with regard to legislation, it must have an opportunity given it not for hurried discussion put at the end of other Debates which have exhausted the strength, the attention, and the energies of the House, but for discussion which shall commence when our energies are fresh and on days properly set apart for the purpose. That has not been so with regard to the Employers' Liability Bill. I remained in the House to-night in order to take part in a discussion of that Bill if it came on, and I do not think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not very scrupulous or careful in the charges he makes, will charge me with obstruction or having unduly taken up the time of the House, for I have spoken only on one or two occasions. I think the Employers' Liability Bill is one at the discussion of which I may ask the House to allow me to be present. I shall not oppose going on with discussion this evening, but I do protest that it is neither fair nor right to go on with the Bill on such a day as this, and to approach it at such an hour, and I say that the Government have not treated fairly those who take an interest in the subject.
    MR. JACKSONwho rose amid cries of "Divide!" said: I desire to say a few words, and I hope hon. Members will not think I am going to occupy them very long. It was my duty for some time to be to a considerable extent, under the Leader of the House, largely responsible for the arrangement of the Business of the House. A good many charges have been made against the Opposition to-night, and the President of the Local Government Board was, I think, not very happy in the precedents he quoted to the House, because I venture to say, and I shall endeavour to show, that the Motion which is now made is absolutely unprecedented in two respects in the annals of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Resolution that was passed in 1891, and he also pointed out that on a certain occasion 12 measures had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but he did not tell us what happened to
    1558
    those 12 measures, or whether they were all passed through Parliament. I venture to express my opinion that, so far as regards the arrangement of the Business of this House, it is comparatively easy to lead the House of Commons, but the man is unborn who can drive the House of Commons; and I will venture to say, if I may do so with respect, that the Business of the House is not facilitated by speeches such as we have listened to from that Bench. I have sometimes wondered at those speeches. I have listened to one or two speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that made mo think they were uttered for the purpose of creating opposition on this side of the House. I do not think that that is a method which will ultimately forward the Business of the Government. The late Mr. Smith was frequently charged with taking much too sanguine a view of the ability of the Government to get measures through this House. It is true that he took a sanguine view, but it is also true that he endeavoured to carry these measures by conciliating every part of the House. I am afraid that has not been done on the present occasion. We have been charged with obstruction, but we are prepared to justify our conduct to the country. The Home Secretary said that there had been discussion of every detail of the Supplementary Estimates. Not since I have been in the House have there been any Supplementary Estimates presented that raised so many questions of a contentious character as those presented this year, I may tell the right, hon. Gentleman there were several Members on this. Bench who desired to raise questions, on the Supplementary Estimates, but who postponed the discussion of those questions in order to enable the Government to get through Business, and those discussions at present stand adjourned. But I rise for the purpose of moving an Amendment which I hope the Government will see their way to adopt. I venture to say that the Government gain nothing by making so unprecedented, and so large, a demand upon the confidence of the House as they make by this Motion. The Motion is unprecedented in two respects: In the first place, there is no precedent for a Government at so early a period as the 30th March asking for the whole time of the House for

    1559
    Government Business; and, in the second place, it is unprecedented because it fixes no limit of time within which the Motion is to operate, and it makes no discrimination as to the Bills to which it is to apply. On former occasions the Opposition has always demanded from the Government, when Motions of this kind have been made, that the Government should, at all events, not take from Members the whole of their power at once. I propose to move, after the word "Easter," the insertion of the words "until Whitsuntide," which will have the effect of limiting the operation of the Motion to the weeks between Easter and Whitsuntide. If the Government accept this Amendment, they will not be precluded from asking at the latter period for further facilities if they find it necessary. The Motion is also unwarranted by the circumstances of the scale. By accepting the Amendment the Government will get the House out of what I cannot but feel is a great difficulty; and if I may venture to say so, there are times when it is wise in a Government to make some little concession to the opinion of the House, even though it may be only one side of the House.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "Easter," to insert the words' "until Whitsuntide."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman has not been in the House this afternoon.
    MR. JACKSON: I was here the whole time.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a proposal of this kind to the Government, which the Government said they could not accept.
    MR. JACKSON: That was a proposal to limit the Motion to one Bill.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, and this proposal will limit it to half of that Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Home Rule Bill will be read a third time before Whitsuntide? If he is ready to give us that assurance, the Government might accept his Amendment. The late Chancellor of
    1560
    the Exchequer made a proposal that we should limit the Motion to the Irish Home Rule Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman comes forward, after what I must call a waste of time, and waste of time the very object of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge has stated.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in imputing improper motives to those Members who protest against the Motion?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not say they are improper. I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen think they are proper motives. I dare say they have good reason for desiring to postpone the Bill. This Amendment is most extraordinary. It means that before the Irish Bill is carried we are to have another obstructive night. The hon. Gentleman cannot be serious in making that proposal, and I can only regard the Amendment as another part of the method of prolonging discussion.
    MR. KNOWLESsaid, he had been waiting for some time to say a few words on this subject, especially with regard to the time after Whitsuntide. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had twice swept aside the olive branch which had been offered to him across the Table with as little consideration as he had swept aside the precedents of the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman, in an earlier part of the Debate, seemed to sympathise with private Members, and especially with the younger Members of the House. He (Mr. Knowles) had never done anything that might be called obstructive, and he had had the good fortune to put five Acts of Parliament upon the Statute Book, so that he felt he had some right to make a few remarks upon the proposal of the Government to take the whole time of the House. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would later call the attention of the House to the fact that only one private Member belonging to his own Party had joined in the appeal made on behalf of private Members. No doubt one reason why others had not spoken was that Members

    1561
    opposite had the ear of the Government. They could obtain from the Government privately what Members of the Opposition tried to obtain publicly. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. S. Evans) had described the Debate as an unreal Debate. The Debate, however, was real as far as that hon. Member was concerned, because he had made one request which the Government had immediately granted. The Government were adopting a sort of pick-and-choose policy. They had allowed one of their own supporters to retain his rights yesterday, when they might have put down some business of their own, and they had excepted from the operation of the Motion the Wednesday on which the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill was to be discussed. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members would not let him speak he should certainly move the Adjournment of the House. He would point out that, unless the Government accepted the Amendment, they would actually set on one side one of the Rules of the House—namely, Rule 112, which provided that after Whitsuntide private Members' Bills should be arranged on the Notice Paper so as to give priority to those which were most advanced. Private Members, therefore, had a special reason for keeping their Wednesdays after Whitsuntide. He hoped that upon this ground alone the Government would be willing to accept the Amendment. He himself had a Bill down the first Order of the Day, in progress in Committee—and it was in a similar position on the Wednesday of the Dissolution—on Wednesday 31st May, and, of course, his rights were to be swept away by the present arbitrary proposal. He hoped that even now, at the eleventh hour, the olive branch which had been extended across the Table by his right hon. Friend would be accepted by the Government.
    Mr. Oldroyd rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: I will put that proposal as far as this Amendment is concerned.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: — Ayes 176; Noes 84.—(Division List, No. 53.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: — Ayes 83; Noes 172.—(Division List, No. 54.)
    Mr. Brunner rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: I wish to act as fairly as possible, but there does appear to me to be one Amendment on the Paper which needs a vote of the House, and that is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Preston.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, and he hoped that now the right hon. Gentleman would feel able to accept that which, at au earlier period of the evening, he said he could not agree to when the conditions, no doubt, were somewhat different. The main object of the Government in putting down the Motion that night was to prevent the Employers' Liability Bill from being properly discussed, as was clearly shown by the great anxiety of the Government to put on the shoulders of the Opposition the responsibility for that result. The Government might well accept at 8 o'clock that which they refused at 5.30. The Opposition had done their best to protest against these labour questions being brought on at the fagend of the night; that was the motive which had actuated their Party with regard to this Employers' Liability Bill, They had some little experience in the late Parliament, when they brought in a Bill on the subject.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to Order, Sir. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Resolution before the House deals with Government Business generally, and the object of the Amendment is to confine its operation to one Bill. The hon. Member must direct his remarks to the Amendment.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he would confine himself to the Amendment. He objected to the Government taking so large an amount of public time. He did so because, in the first place, labour questions ought to have a better oppor-

    1563
    tunity of being discussed than they would have under the Resolution as it stood; and, secondly, because hitherto there had been no opportunity of discussing them. He feared the Government would not allow labour questions to be discussed, because in the last Parliament a Bill like the Employers' Liability Bill was thrown out through the action of Mr. Broadhurst, who had had his reward. Others, however, might have the same objection Mr. Broadhurst had. He was expecting to have heard some reasons given why the Government should have made so large a proposal. The Opposition were perfectly prepared to let the Irish Home Rule Bill be discussed—they wanted it to be discussed—they wanted the country to understand it; but they objected to a lot of other measures being read a first time and never proceeded with. No reason had been given by either the Prime Minister or by any other Member of the House why the Government should ask for so much time. The President of the Local Government Board, who was an old-fashioned politician, gave some precedents; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer gagged him, and said, "I will not be bound by them; I am Leader of the House now, and I will make my own precedents." The House had been treated with absolute contempt. Reasons, no doubt, were given for this step at the Foreign Office, but only a minority of the Ministerial Party was at the Foreign Office, because the Irish Members were not there, and therefore, for all that was known, the Government were making proposals that had the support of a minority 40 less in number than the Opposition. Their opposition to this proposal was completely justified therefore. It was a suspicious thing that the Irish Members were not at the Foreign Office meeting. ["Order!"] He thought he was in order in enforcing these facts. The Prime Minister distinctly stated that the Irish Members were absent from the Foreign Office because they maintained their independence of both Parties. The fact was that they had tasted the iron of the right hon. Gentleman's Government before.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise again to Order. Has this anything to do with the Amendment?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better keep more strictly to the Amendment, which is whether the Motion should extend to Government Business or be limited to one Bill.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, his argument was twofold. He wanted the Government Business limited to the Irish Bill; and, in the second place, he contended that Ministers had no right to apply such a Resolution to English and Scotch Business, because so far as England and Scotland were concerned they were in a minority. He must refer to the meeting at the Foreign Office, because he had some suspicion that the Home Rule Bill, after all, was to be crowded out, and he wanted to have it properly brought on. It was suggested that the Home Rule Bill should be discussed for no more than three days, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought that was a reasonable suggestion—that it was sound advice.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: My remark applied only to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton that very few speeches should be made from the Treasury Bench. I think that extremely sound advice, and I hope that it will he followed.
    MR. HANBURY: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to pick and choose, but I referred to the hon. Member's advice generally.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is usual in this House when a gentleman explains his own speech for that explanation to be accepted.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he perfectly accepted the explanation of what the right hon. Gentleman meant, but he could not deny what he was reported to have said. What he objected to in this instance, was that Government Business meant not the Business of the country, but Party Business, and Party Business of which no definition was given, so that it was possible for the Government to repeat their conduct of the previous day, and take over Bills which were not Government Bills. Surely, if they took over the time of the House it should he devoted to purely Government Business. Supply was most important; private

    1565
    Members ought to have an opportunity of discussing various grievances, but no provision was made for meeting that necessity. Much of this waste of time might have been avoided if——
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he should confine his remarks strictly to the terms of the Amendment.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, it was extremely difficult to discuss a large Motion of that kind and at the same time to keep to the particular Amendment before the House. He would add that he bad objected in the first place to the Resolution coming on that day, because it stood in the way of discussing the Employers' Liability Bill; and, in the second place, he opposed it because no reasons had been advanced in support of it, and because this was a new departure, and the Government declined to be guided by any precedent whatever. This proposal, for a short time, would put a weapon into the hands of the Government which would probably be used for a longer time by those now opposed to it. It was a tyrannical proposal, and would justify the Opposition in protesting vigorously for the rest of the Session—as they protested that night— against the measures of the Government.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, to leave out the words "Government Business." and insert the words "the various stages of the Government of Ireland Bill." — (Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Government Business' stand part of the Question."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: In dealing with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, I think I shall do my best to preserve order by taking no notice of observations which were perfectly irrelevant. We have practically been discussing the Amendment for four and a half hours. We first had the speech—a very moderate and certainly not an offensive speech—from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who always promotes with courtesy the views he entertains. We are asked why this power should be given to the Government, not only with regard to the Home Bill, but with regard
    1566
    to other measures proposed by the Government. The answer has been given in one sentence by the hon. Member for Preston. He says that the power ought to be given to the Government for measures which have the support of the people of the United Kingdom. In our opinion these measures have the support of the people of the United Kingdom. We represent the majority in this House, and, as we believe, the majority in the United Kingdom. We, therefore, ask for time to promote not only the Home Rule Bill, but other measures for the advancement and benefit of other parts of the United Kingdom. These are some of the reasons why I cannot assent to this Amendment.
    Mr. J. Havelock Wilson rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with the profoundest regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. For the reasons which I have already had the honour of laying before the House, I regard this proposal as an unprecedented and monstrous proposal. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to throw his recollection back to a period, not far removed, when much smaller proposals were made by the late Government. He complains of three hours being taken up now, but he himself was responsible for three days being taken up under similar, or nearly similar, circumstances.
    An hon. MEMBER: Four days.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not complain of the time.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You complained over and over again of the time.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I complained that I should have to give now an answer which I gave three or four hours ago. I do not complain of the length of the discussion as to time.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Complaints of the time taken by the discussion have come from the right hon. Gentleman, and through the mouth of the Home Secretary and the mouth of the President of the Local Government Board; and the right

    1567
    hon. Gentleman has caused the Closure to be moved by his satellites.
    MR. BURNIE: I wish to ask the Speaker whether we are to be called satellites?
    MR. SPEAKER: Satellites is a very harmless expression.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is an astronomical metaphor, not of a very offensive description, but I can assure the hon. Member that when I used the word I had not him in my mind. All I wish to point out is that, when the Government complain that the discussion of this unprecedented proposal has taken three hours, the right hon. Gentleman himself took four days to discuss a proposal in the form this would take if it were modified as proposed by my hon. Friend's Amendment. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, who has done everything he could to embitter this controversy and to make the minority feel that, whatever resources they have, they certainly have nothing to look for either in courtesy on consideration from the majority—the right hon. Gentleman has now an opportunity of showing that at all events he is prepared to modify the Resolution so as to bring it into harmony with the great traditions of our Debates. If the right hon. Gentleman conceives himself, in the absence of the Prime Minister— who, like so many other hon. Members, has left for his holidays—to have sufficient authority to deal with this question, I think an opportunity he ought, in the interests of his Party, to avail himself of is now open to him. He might turn this into a proposal which the minority would not only not resist, but which they would think came fairly within the rights, and even the duties, of those who are responsible for legislation in this House. In the absence of any concession of that kind, the bitterness of feeling which he has driven into the minds of the Opposition cannot but bear fruit in the Debates during the remainder of the Session. I do not believe Government Business will profit by the Motion, and I am perfectly certain the traditions of the House will gravely, and perhaps permanently, suffer.
    MR. HAYES FISHERsaid, that if the Government did not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and if the Resolution were adopted as it stood, it would give to future Governments one of the most dangerous weapons a Government could have in its power. The Resolution amounted to this—it gave the Government power to take up the Bill of any private Member they pleased, and give it the title of Government Business. The Opposition was naturally suspicious when they saw the Resolution on the Paper; but the Prime Minister had aggravated these suspicions. The right hon. Gentleman was asked what was Government Business within the meaning of the Resolution, and he said—
    "It would be in the power of the Government to take up any Bills of any private Members, but it is not our intention to do so at present."
    But the Opposition wanted to know when it would be the intention to take up private Members' Bills, and what private Members' Bills would they take up? If the Government were actuated by an intense hostility against the Church—if they determined to desperately resist any effort of a private Member to bring forward measures in the interest of the Church——
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask whether the attitude of political Parties of this country towards the Church of the country bears directly on the question before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is illustrating his definition of Government Business.
    MR. HAYES FISHERsaid, that these points of Order come mostly from new Members, who were ignorant on points of Order. He was saying that under this Resolution it was possible for the Government to pick and choose amongst private Members' Bills, and to say in regard to any measure, like a measure in, the interest of the Church, that it was inconvenient to them, and to put down Government Business on the Wednesday the Bill had a place. The Resolution, if passed, would therefore destroy the inherently equal privileges amongst private Members, and would place in the hands of the Government a weapon they should not possess. He regretted that Unionist

    1569
    Members were not present he sufficient numbers to defeat this tyrannical Resolution which proposed to put a most dangerous weapon into the hands of the most impractical sot of Ministers that ever sat on the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. Havelock Wilson rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 70.—(Division List, No. 56.)
    MR. ROBY: I beg to move that the Main Question be now put.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is still an Amendment before the House.
    Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Government Business' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 73.—(Division List, No. 57.)
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
    Main Question put accordingly.
    The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 75.—(Division List, No. 58.)
    Resolved, That after Easter, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, except Wednesday the 3rd of May, Government Business have precedence of the Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day: That on Fridays the House do meet at Two o'clock, and the provisions of Standing Order 50 be extended to the sittings of Tuesdays and Wednesdays and the morning sittings of Fridays: provided always, that whenever the Government of Ireland Bill is appointed on Friday, except for proceedings in Committee, the House do meet at Three o'clock, and that Bill do have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions.

EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY BILL.—(No.118.)

  SECOND HEADING. [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. "That no amendment of the Law relating to
  1570
  Employers' Liability will be final or satisfactory which does not provide compensation to work men for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment, and not caused by their own acts or default,'"—(Mr. Chamberlain.]
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR J. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, he rose to support the Bill as drafted by the Government. There were many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who were very anxious that he should not take up a large amount of the time of that Sitting, and he would promise these Gentlemen that if they would consent to shorten their speeches he, for his part, would compress his remarks as much as possible. But he did think that the seamen of this country were entitled to some consideration from the House. When the previous Employers' Liability Bill was before the House of Commons there was no one to represent the seamen. They had no organisation, they had no one in Parliament to put their views before the Government, or they would have been included in the Act of 1880. Why, he asked, did the shipowners object to the seamen having the benefit of the Employers' Liability Bill? The shipowners contended that it was not right to hold them responsible for accidents which occurred on board their ships over which they had no control. He submitted that the shipowner in that respect was in no different position from the mine owner. The shipowners said they provided their servants with a proper ship and equipment, with a captain who had got a Board of Trade certificate, and that, therefore, when they had sent their vessels on their voyage their responsibility should be at an end. He contended that a mine owner was much in the same position. Take Lord Londonderry or the Earl of Durham or any other large mine owners who had large numbers of mines. It was not possible for them to be at all times at their mines, and he ventured to say that many mine owners in this country never saw their mines from one year's end to another. They, however, did everything to make the mines safe. They appointed a manager who had obtained a Government certifi-

  1571
  cate, but in the event of an accident through the neglect of that manager it would not avail the owner of the mine very much to go into Court and plead that he was not in the mine when the accident occurred. He contended that as long as a captain was on board a ship the shipowner was represented by that captain; in fact, the shipowner was in a much better position altogether than the mine owner, because the captain of a vessel had powers which were not possessed by the manager of a mine. He had the power, for instance, to put any other crew in irons who disobeyed his orders; he had the power to direct the crew to go aloft, no matter how great the danger might be, and in the event of their refusing, he could put them in prison. It would be possible for owners and managers of cotton and other mills to set up the same plea as the shipowners, and say that because they were not immediately in the mill that they ought not to be held responsible for any accident that might occur through the neglect of their manager. The shipowners said that they ought not to be held responsible for any accidents that occurred on board their ship when outside the United Kingdom. But he would point out that the shipowners were responsible at the present time for the acts of their captain on the high sea and abroad. If two ships collided with each other, and one of the ships foundered, if the vessel that foundered was not in fault, the owner of the vessel that caused the collision was held responsible for the vessel that had been sunk, and also for the lives of the men who were on board the latter vessel. The shipowner was not on board, yet the law as it stood at the present time held him responsible.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Only up to a certain limit.
  MR. J. H. WILSONsaid, it was time that this responsibility was limited to the extent of £10 per ton. He wanted to put another case. If a ship was taking in cargo abroad—it might be taking in machinery or casks or run— if any injury was sustained to this machinery by the neglect of the captain to provide proper equipment to take that cargo on board, although the owner of the ship was not there he was at the present time held responsible for any damage.
  1572
  Yet it was now asked that the shipowner should not be held responsible for the lives and limbs of the men who sailed in his ship. The sailors were under entirely different laws compared with other working men. They had no right to tell their officers on board ship that to perform a certain work would be dangerous, but at all times they must be obedient to the lawful commands of the officers of the ship, and were not allowed to exercise any judgment of their own as were other workmen. Three years ago he remembered a barque arriving in the Tyne from San Francisco. During the voyage home complaints were made by the crew about the food. The captain replied in sharp words and promised to work the men up for their impertinence in complaining. He ordered three of them to go aloft and scrape the mizen gaff. The ship was rolling and pitching at (he time, and the men objected, as it was dangerous. They said they would do the work if the gaff was lowered on to the deck, and thereupon they wore entered in the ship's log as having wilfully disobeyed the "lawful" commands of the master. In this case the safety of the ship was not involved in the least, nor was it necessary to grease or scrape the gaff for the purpose of the navigation of the ship; but the order was simply given in order to punish the men. An apprentice was ultimately ordered aloft to do the work, and he, being afraid of disobeying the captain, did the work, and at the end of the voyage, after the men had signed clear of the ship and had received their wages, they were arrested for disobeying the lawful commands of the master, taken before two shipowning Magistrates and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment without the option of a fine. If the men had consented to do the work and an accident had occurred, the shipowner would not have been held responsible, nor would the captain, because their defence would have been that in the superior judgment of the captain it was safe to do the work. The shipowner pointed out that the captain very often died abroad—a ship went out of the United Kingdom, the captain died abroad; the British Consul appointed someone in his place whom the men had not seen and of whom they knew nothing. Was not this harder on the sailors than on the shipowner? They were bound

  1573
  by their articles for 12 mouths. No matter whom the Consul appointed they were bound to serve, perhaps knowing at the time that their lives were in danger, whereas in the case of the shipowner all he risked was the loss of property. Then, if the crew during the voyage discovered that the captain was incompetent, they had no right to object to him, however much their lives might be in danger. Here was a case in point. A vessel signed articles in Glasgow to go a voyage to Sydney, New South Wales. From the time of leaving the United Kingdom until they got to the Cape of Good Hope all went well, but after that they encountered a succession of gales in running the eastern longitude, and they shipped a number of heavy seas. The captain lost his head and became so incompetent that he was unable to give any orders whatever. For several days he remained below, and drank whisky and prayed. The management of the vessel was left in the hands of the chief officer, and under the circumstances the crew resolved to refuse to obey any further orders the captain might give. They further got up a petition, which was signed by all the crew, including the second officer, and read it to the captain, deposing him, and recognising the chief officer for the time being. This was done in the shipowner's interests as well as in the interests of the lives of the men on board. The chief officer navigated the vessel to Sydney, and on the arrival at that port the first man on shore was the captain, who obtained warrants for the arrest of the crew. They were tried and sentenced to one month's imprisonment each; but so indignant was the public against this treatment meted out to the crew, that the adjournment of the New South Wales Parliament was moved in order to call attention of the House of the Colonial Government to the case, and in two days the men were liberated. Still they had to go on board the ship, and serve with the captain they believed to be incompetent. They were told that this measure, if applied to seamen, should be limited to the United Kingdom. But of what use would it be to seamen if that proposal were adopted? When a ship arrived in port there was no further use for the crew, they were paid and discharged, and they were not taken on again until the vessel was prepared to go
  1574
  abroad. The restriction of the Bill to the United Kingdom would mean that as soon as the three mile limit from the British coast was passed no liability would attach to the shipowner. He was glad the Government did not propose to make the Bill a sham by providing that it should only apply to seamen within the United Kingdom. There were, however, many accidents occurring against which the shipowners had no protection. The shipowners said they were obliged by law to protect the sailors, but that he denied. There was an Act which provided that a shipowner, before sending his vessel to sea, should make her seaworthy, and if he was guilty of sending her to sea in an unseaworthy condition, he was liable to be sent to prison. But the Act in no way provided for compensation for injuries that might be sustained by the men on board during a voyage. Actions bad been brought to obtain compensation for injuries, but the Courts had defined unseaworthiness in a very different way to the definition of the representatives of the men. Accidents occurred through the insufficient protection of machinery—as, for instance, through neglect to place guards over the cog-wheels of winches. A case had been brought to his notice in which a man had been serving on a steamer which was considered by the men undermanned. In getting the vessel under weigh one evening the man was sent to put a rope under the end of the winch. Owing to there not being sufficient men on board he was compelled to put on steam, drive the winch, and keep hold of the rope at the same time. In stooping to get hold of the ropes his fingers were dragged into the cogs, which were not protected by guards. In this case it could not he said that the ship was not seaworthy, as the owners would contend that they had the regular number of men on board; that was to say, the number which was usually carried by steamers of her tonnage, and there was no law that defined what was the number of men which vessels should carry. They would also contend that a guard not being over the cogs would in no way affect the seaworthiness of the vessel, and that, therefore, no compensation could be recovered. The injured man could not recover under Lord Campbell's Act, as it was only a case of injuries,

  1575
  and not of death. A case was brought under his notice a few days ago whore a seaman was injured under the following circumstances:—He was steering the vessel in heavy weather; the vessel was pitching and diving into a head sea. When this was the case it was very difficult for one man to hold the wheel where there was no steam stearing gear, as, owing to the wheel chains probably being slack, there was very great pressure on the rudder. He had known two men thrown over the wheel and injured under such circumstances. The steamer in question, being so short-handed, could only afford one man at the wheel. The vessel gave a heavy pitch and jerked the wheel out of the man's hand; the man was thrown against the cogs, with the result that half his hand was taken off. Had there been a guard on the cogs his hand would, in all probability, not have been injured. Now, in this case the owners were responsible. In the first place they should have allowed two men to be at the wheel in such stormy weather, and in the second place the cogs should have been covered with a guard. The injured man could not sue for compensation in this case, because the "Employers' Liability Act" did not apply. They could not sue on the ground that the vessel was unseaworthy, in consequence of undermanning, because the owners would no doubt get a sufficient number of captains to prove that she carried the usual number of hands for a vessel of her size, and, as he had already stated, the law did not define how many should be carried. The man could not sue for compensation on the grounds of defective equipment, because there was no law which entitled him to do so, and the owners would try to prove that it was one of the "perils of the sea," which he contended was altogether wrong. Under the "Employers' Liability Act" (if extended to seamen), they would be able to sue in such cases. The shipowners during the past four weeks had been very energetic in getting up Petitions to the House, in which they gave reasons why, in their opinion, this Bill should not apply to seamen. One of their ideas was this: "Owing to the floating and moving character of the shipowners' property upon which the men are employed, the ship is often and suddenly placed, by
  1576
  reason of fog, storm, snow, ice, and currents, or by reason of some accident or breakdown to hull or machinery, in various situations of the utmost difficulty and danger, such as are in their character, number, and variety practically unknown in the management of property on shore. Under these circumstances of sudden difficulty and danger serious mistakes and errors of judgment may be, and often are, committed by those on board ship, which, being brought before a sympathetic tribunal, would be construed into legal negligence, rendering the shipowner liable to enormous damages in many eases." He had known cases where, in foggy weather, the danger was not so much from the fog as to the desire of the captain to make speed. Two ships belonging to the same company sometimes left a certain port together, both bound for the United Kingdom. During their passage they met with foggy weather (and in these days of keen competition the owners always gave preference to captains who made the fastest passages). The Board of Trade Regulation, however, was that in foggy weather ships should only proceed at a certain rate of speed, so as to enable the officers to have proper control of the vessels. He had known cases where the position of the telegraph on the ship had been dead slow, whereas private instructions had been given to the engineer to give her full speed; and, as a proof, he had seen the firemen working away as hard as they could to keep up the steam. In the event of a collision and an inquiry being hold, the evidence given would be that the vessel was going slow. And why did captains do this? Simply because they knew that if the other ship got into port before they did the owners would take them to task and say, "The other vessel left at the same time as you did, and has arrived here two days earlier than you. If you cannot make a faster passage we will have to find someone else who can." And he contended that if the responsibility was put on the shoulders of the owners they would not drive their captains to risk the lives of the men as they did at the present time.
  MR. CAYZER: Will the hon. Member give the cases he refers to?
  MR. J. H. WILSON: If the hon. Member wants cases I can give him two or three hundred.
  MR. CAYZER: I should be satisfied with one.
  MR. J. H. WILSONsaid, that if the hon. Member would apply to him privately he would give him any number of cases. He was referring to a class of steamers known as "tramps." Then the shipowners said—
  "Owing to the fact of most of the casualties to shipping happening at sea, the effect of some act of neglect by a seaman (which is comparatively trifling in itself) is often to cause a large loss of life by drowning, thus obviously making the responsibility in such case of the shipowner enormously greater than that of the employers on shore."
  Further on they said—
  "The pecuniary responsibility of shipowners under this intended Act will be enormous, amounting in the case of the total loss of large vessels, with all or nearly all hands, to upwards of £100,000, and proportionately for vessels of smaller size, and this, in many cases, by reason of some trifling negligence which the shipowner can do absolutely nothing to guard himself against."
  Large vessels carrying 300 or 400 hands were referred to as throwing enormous responsibility on the shipowners. But it must be remembered that vessels of the size of the New York and the Paris were by no means numerous, and that most of the vessels were of the tramp class, carrying only 15 or 20 hands. The majority of the vessels engaged in the passenger traffic did not carry more than 120 hands. Therefore, the responsibility of the shipowners would not be so great as they would like to make out. He was certain, however, if their responsibility was increased, there would not be so many lives lost as there were at the present time. The shipowners in their petition said—
  "Seamen have many privileges and pecuniary advantages granted in consequence of the special character and risk of their employment not enjoyed by workmen on shore."
  What were these privileges? The first one quoted was—
  "Medical and surgical attendance free of cost during voyage."
  But none of the smaller vessels carried doctors. The only vessels that carried medical men were the great passenger vessels, and he ventured to say that there was not one captain out of 20 who could set about or dress a wound. He would
  1578
  be able to understand that there would be something in the claim as to surgical attendance if the shipowners only required their captains to go through a course of ambulance lessons. The shipowners next said the men received hospital expenses, but that was nothing to the credit of the shipowners, the hospitals as a rule being maintained by voluntary contributions; then as to the statement that the shipowners defrayed "funeral expenses in case of death during voyage," it was certainly a great consolation to a man to know that in case of death at sea the shipowner would put himself to the enormous expense of having him sewn up in two yards of canvas with a fire-bar worth about 3d. at his feet, and thrown overboard. If the man died in a foreign port, it would not be the shipowner who would be put to the expense of his interment. Whatever was due to the dead man in the shape of wages would be taken to defray the funeral expenses. The shipowner, he contended, had no more right to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill than any other employer. He was not prepared to admit the claim of the shipowner that so many accidents which took place on board ship occurred through "the act of God." It was not an "act of God" to tell the engineer privately to put on full steam whilst the engine-room indicator below registered "slow." Such a proceeding was clearly the act of the shipowner or his representative to get the ship to go faster than she ought to go. He did not wish the House to believe that he was making a general charge against all shipowners, because he was not. He was making a charge against a certain class of men who were not shipowners, but shipmongers, who managed other people's property and tried to get as much out of it as they could at the risk of the lives and limbs of the men who sailed on board the vessels. Ship owners should be held responsible for the overloading of their ships in foreign ports. A captain had told him a short time ago that his employer was in the habit of sending him his instructions in a letter, and pinning to that letter a separate piece of paper with the direction on it that he must take in as much cargo as ever he could. "Mind you fill her up—put plenty into her," was the instruction, which clearly meant

  1579
  that the vessel was to be overloaded. If the instruction was not obeyed, when the captain returned with his ship he would be met with the reproach, "Oh! Captain So-and-so used to take so much more cargo than you," and then he would be told, "We have no further use for your services." It was said that the shipowner would experience difficulty in getting evidence when compensation was claimed under the Act. But surely that difficulty would be much greater on the part of the men. The captains and mates never deserted their ships abroad, but the sailors and firemen very often did, as they objected to being starved and having their lives endangered. Furthermore, when a ship arrived in the United Kingdom, she might touch at several ports, and the men might be paid off in London and Glasgow and scattered about, so that it would be impossible to collect them for the purpose of giving evidence. He had no objection to a time being fixed within which a seaman must give notice of action. He would suggest that it ought to be within the power of a seaman to give his notice abroad—say, to the British Consul. It might be said that if a ship foundered and all on board were lost except three, the three might conspire to set up a plea that the loss of the ship had been due to the captain's negligence. He had had much experience of Board of Trade inquiries, and he did not believe that during the last 15 years there had been more than two cases in which the Board of Trade had decided that a ship was lost through the fault of the captain. He did not, however, believe that there had not been many cases in which ships had sunk through the negligence of the owner or the captain, and he regarded the Board of Trade inquiries as bogus inquiries. The shipowners wore, in his opinion, setting up a very weak case on this point. Was it possible to imagine that if three men went into Court in persuance of an arrangement to tell one straight story, they would not break down when subjected to searching cross-examination by a skilful lawyer? Sailors did not make the very best witnesses, and the conspiracy dodge would not be successful. With reference to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), there was a time when the sailors of the
  1580
  country looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as "the sweet little cherub that sits up aloft and keeps watch o'er the life of poor Jack." A change, however, had set in, and the right hon. Gentleman never referred to the sailors now. He (Mr. Wilson) remembered reading with great pleasure a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in 1883, in which he attacked the shipowners in a very savage manner, and told them a good deal that was very proper and some things that were very exaggerated. That speech did more to put a stop to the loss of life at sea than had been done for a great many years. Ever since that speech was delivered the loss of life at sea had gone down considerably. The right hon. Gentleman said that the only way in which the lives of seamen could be protected was by throwing a certain amount of responsibility upon owners of ships. He said, also, that shipowners made a profit out of the loss of their vessels. That was perfectly true at that time, and it was true now. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed that there should be an insurance scheme, and that the employers should insure against accidents. This was what his Amendment really meant. He (Mr. Wilson) could see great dangers in connection with such a scheme. For instance, it would mean that the good employer who took every precaution to conduct his business with due regard to the safety of the men he employed would have to be taxed to pay for the damage done by the bad employer. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill contained more pitfalls than the present Act. Would the Amendment remove these pitfalls? The employer was to pay compensation for all accidents except those in which the workman was himself to blame. Of course, the workman would have to prove his case in a Court of Law. He would have to employ a solicitor, who would have to call in a Queen's Counsel —because one could not work without the other, the legal profession being in this respect one of the best Trades Unions in the country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not get much support from Members who called themselves the friends of the working man. It was not money the working men wanted, but protection for their lives and limbs. They wished to be placed upon the same level as ordinary citizens, and

  1581
  he hoped that the House would not accept any Amendment which would leave them in a worse position than any other workman.
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLANDsaid, nobody could welcome the hon. Member who had just sat down to the House of Commons as a representative of the seamen more than did the shipowners. He must, however, express his regret that the hon. Member had not made the somewhat harrowing statements to which he had just given utterance before the Committee of 1886, where he could have been cross-examined.
  MR. J. WILSON: I gave evidence before the Committee of 1885.
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLANDsaid, he was perfectly aware of that; but whereas the statements the hon. Member has made now were of that broadest possible character the statements he made before the Select Committee in 1886 were of the most slender character. As a Member of that Committee, he (Sir T. Sutherland) must express his great regret that a measure to amend the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 had not long since become the law of the land. The late Government introduced a Bill on the subject in 1888. That Bill was, in his opinion, of an extremely honest character, because it proceeded strictly upon the lines of the Report made by the Select Committee. If that Bill had not been—he would not say obstructed, because that was a except word which one never used under the greatest provocation—if it had not been too elaborately discussed, and had been allowed to go before a Grand Committee, he felt certain that it would have emerged from that Committee as a most useful and valuable measure. The present Government had, for reasons which no doubt were satisfactory to themselves, completely and entirely thrown overboard the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1886. That Committee was presided over by Lord Brassey, whose well-known sympathies with working men certainly ensured that the direction and tendency of the Committee's Report would not be unfavourable to the working men. The
  1582
  Government had, however, thrown the Report overboard in order to please a certain section of the Trades Unionists. The opinions of the representatives of these Trades Unions were not upheld by the evidence given before the Committee, and many Members would remember that during the discussions on the Bill of 1888 the late Mr. Bradlaugh absolutely pulverised Mr. Broadhurst when the latter brought forward the views of these Trades Unionists on the matter. Notwithstanding the intentions of the Government, he believed the measure would scarcely meet the views of the more advanced section of Trades Unionists whose ideas and policy would, he believed, in the future approach very nearly to those enunciated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. However, he (Sir T. Sutherland) did not think the views of that right hon. Gentleman were consistent with the spirit of the Act of 1880. The intention of that Act was not to penalise employers, or place unnecessary burdens on them, or to discourage enterprise, but to guard against the negligence of employers, to protect workmen from the meanness of the employer, and to ensure a vigilant supervision with the object of securing the utmost possible safety for the men. That being so, whilst he could not regard the Amendment of his right hon. Friend with favour, he regretted that the Government had not adhered somewhat more closely to the recommendations of the Committee. At the same time, he was willing to admit that in perhaps one or two of the proposals they had made they were justified and, indeed, entitled to praise. For example, he did not quarrel with the principle they had adopted in the Bill for the settlement of questions arising out of what was called "common employment." He did not quarrel with that, although he regarded the principle as one manifestly unfair to the employer. Everybody, of course, knew what common employment meant. It meant that the workman in an employer's service should be in the same position with regard to claim for compensation as an outsider in the event of an accident occurring. The admission of that doctrine was not altogether fair to the employer, and he could quote innumerable cases in proof of that assertion. Only the other day, as some coal was

  1583
  being lowered in buckets through a ventilator, into the stokehole of a ship, a heavy piece fell out of a bucket, and at that very moment an unfortunate man happened to pass under the ventilator, with the result, of course, that his skull was smashed. Under the Bill they were now considering that accident would inevitably be held by a jury to come under the doctrine of common employment, yet he would defy anyone to show that the accident would have been prevented by the employer whatever precautions he had taken, or whatever amount of expenditure he had incurred. Although he thought that common employment under the Bill would operate unfairly to the employer, he admitted, as a mere question of practical expediency in getting a measure of this kind passed through the House, it was advisable to adopt it, or something like it, because by so doing they would satisfy a sentimental idea on the part of Trades Unions, and put an end to what was undoubtedly an agitation with regard to that particular matter. Although he held that the adoption of the new principle was unfair to employers, he did not think that in the long run this part of the Bill would involve great, or serious, or practical burden or risk so far as regards the employer's interest. When he came to another principle the Government bad adopted, he found himself entirely at issue with them—he referred to the principle of contracting out of the Act. Here he was at issue with them, because it was shown by the clearest evidence before the Committee that the utmost possible benefit had accrued to workmen in connection with the funds which had been mutually established between employers and employed. It was shown, however, that only had the existence of these funds profited the workmen from a financial point of view, but that it had induced a mutual good understanding, which had been of the greatest possible advantage. It had induced a system of benevolent co-operation between employers and employed in the establishment of funds, to which in a vast number of cases employers had contributed in no niggardly degree. The policy of the Bill was to break up benevolent arrangements already in existence, the advantages of which had been proved before the Select Committee of 1886. It would
  1584
  break up existing funds, and prevent any such arrangement between employers and employed coming into existence in the future; it was a policy which put the working man in manacles, which told him that he did not know his own interests, and that he was incapable, with all the assistance that was given him by his Unions, of looking after himself. It was tolerably well-known that he himself had had something to do with the employment of labour, and it might, perhaps, be supposed that he had some direct or indirect interest in the existence of the arrangements which this Bill would certainly eventually destroy. But that was not so. In the service of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, with which he was associated, there was no accident or benevolent fund, and every workman was under the operation of the Employers' Liability Act, which the country did not insure against. But he would venture to quote from his experience in connection with a fund of a different kind to show how these arrangements between employer and employed might prove of the utmost benefit to all concerned. Before the Employers' Liability Act was passed there was established for a limited portion of the Peninsular and Oriental service— the less fluctuating part of it—a life insurance fund, towards which the company undertook to contribute one-half the premiums year by year, paying the total amount into an insurance office, and recovering contributions from officers and engineers from month to month in the shape most convenient to them. There bad been already paid £200,000 on the deaths of contributors, and there was an equal, if not larger, sum standing to the credit of the men in the service of the company at the present time. With the evidence given before the Select Committee, and with the evidence of his own experience, he said that the Government were making a great mistake in discouraging voluntary co-operation between masters and workmen for benevolent purposes, and the discouragement of voluntary association between them would be the certain result of the Bill as it stood. The Select Committee, after examining the evidence in the most exhaustive manner, came to the conclusion that undoubtedly such co-operation ought

  1585
  not to be prevented or hindered, and that in the interests of the workmen menus should be found of securing for the workman a quid pro quo for his contributions. He understood the Home Secretary to say the other day that he had declined to introduce that principle into the Bill because of the enormous difficulty which would beset any Government Department in attempting to form an adequate judgment upon such a question. He did not suggest that the task was an easy one, or by any means free from difficulty. At the outset of the Committee's inquiry, he was strongly opposed to any permission to contract out of the Act; but, after hearing the evidence on both sides, he ultimately arrived at the conclusion that it was not only politic, but necessary, that men should have the power of being their own masters in matters of this kind. He arrived, too, at the conclusion that, difficult as it might be—and the Home Secretary seemed to say it was impossible—yet, if half a dozen of them sat down to discuss the value of existing arrangements, such as those which obtained on some of our large railways, they would be able to determine whether or not the working man had a quid pro quo; and having determined that fact in regard to cases actually existing, an equal number of business men would be able to lay down some general principle which would enable employers and employed to know upon what terms they could in future enter into such arrangements. He said distinctly, and from the point of view of the interests of the workmen, and not at all from the point of view of the employer, that the Bill of the late Government was decidedly superior in this respect to the Bill before the House. Now he came more particularly to that part of the question with which he might be supposed to have greater familiarity —he came to the application of the Bill to seamen, a subject dealt with very fully by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. The first observation he had to make with regard to the language of the Bill on this subject was that the wording, so far as it had reference to seamen, appeared to him in principle greatly at variance with the wording as to workpeople in general. The word used was "seamen," and that was to be taken as including every one employed
  1586
  on a ship. This comprehensive word "seamen" included, therefore, captains and officers, men whose income varied from £300 to perhaps £1,000 a year. Thus there was an enormous inconsistency in the Bill, because, when it referred to workmen, it was limited in its character. It did not include foremen, clerks, superintendents, or managers, although this class of men only received about half the pay of commanders and engineers on board large steam vessels. Surely, then, it was necessary to put some interpretation upon the word "seamen." That might appear a mere detail which could, no doubt, be attended to in Committee. But the fact remained that the Government had made a great departure from the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1886 with regard to the extension of the Act to seamen. He believed he was right in stating that there were one or two Members of the Committee who were practical seamen. Most assuredly Lord Brassey was one of them, and, after hearing all the evidence, including that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, they came to the unanimous conclusion that owners of ships should be only held responsible for accidents under the Employers' Liability Act when those accidents occurred in home ports, or when they could be traced to defective equipment. The intention of the Act of 1880 was not to penalise employers, but to ensure that everything that was humanly possible for the employer to do should be done by him in order to secure the safety of life. Under these circumstances, it appeared almost ridiculous for hon. Members to come there and suggest that there was some analogy between the owner of mines and the owner of ships, in so far as the possibility of protecting life was concerned. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough drew a comparison between Lord Londonderry as a mine owner and the owner of a ship. But the analogy did not hold good. If Lord Londonderry's mines could be sent to sea for a certain number of months every year the analogy might apply, but there was nothing to prevent any owner from living in his mine when he chose. But he did not wish to labour the point; he only wished to show the application of the ideas of the Select Committee of 1886. He would take for example the case of a modern

  1587
  steamer engaged in trade between this country and Australia. In the course of a year that vessel would probably cover a distance of something like 70,000 nautical miles, and her stay in home ports of the United Kingdom would in that period be limited to 10 or 12 weeks. Therefore, for 40 weeks she would be absolutely out of the knowledge, and certainly out of the practical care, of the shipowners. The Select Committee of 1886 said that when a ship was in port the owner should be responsible in the same way as the owner of a mine for any accident or damage; but that when the ship was away he should only be responsible in the case where it could be shown the equipment was faulty. But this Bill involved an entirely different responsibility. It threw it upon the shipowner, when no care and no expenditure on his part, however great, could provide against the accident. He would quote a popular example—the case of a vessel shipwrecked. In the great majority of cases with which he was acquainted, shipwrecks had occurred through some temporary act of negligence on the part of most experienced officers—men holding the highest certificates, both of service and of merit. They had occurred from some momentary error of judgment or some casual absence of caution, due perhaps to the fact that the officers in charge had navigated the same coasts so frequently. He could give many instances illustrative of this fact; but he would quote only one. It was the case of a new vessel in the Peninsular and Oriental Line, making her first voyage from China to Bombay. When off the Malabar coast, at a time when the captain on the bridge was looking out for the Bombay Lighthouse, the vessel went on shore and became a perfect wreck. It was light, or rather twilight, and the coast was distinctly visible. The captain had been 30 years navigating that coast; but some peculiarity in the condition of the atmosphere prevented him from accurately judging the distance of his vessel from the shore. Now, that accident, and many other accidents of the same kind, involving as they had unhappily done great loss of life, could not have been prevented by any care or forethought or liberality of expenditure on the part of the owners. In the views he was expressing on this point he was not
  1588
  actuated entirely by zeal for the shipowners. The loss of life in our Mercantile Marine at the present time was happily small in proportion to the business done. It had in the last few years declined enormously. But this Bill cast on shipowners an unfair responsibility; it was entirely inconsistent with the Act of 1880 and with the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee of 1886. It would, if it were passed, be followed by universal insurance on the part of the shipowners, and the cost of that insurance would, sooner or later—a part of it at any rate, if not the entire expense—fall upon the wages of the seamen. He contended that if this new unfair responsibility was put upon the shoulders of the shipowner it would not benefit the seamen, and it would give the finishing stroke to what he might call the smaller class of shipowner. He believed he might appeal to the fair sense of the House, that in view of the circumstances and the conditions of this Bill, he had not said a single unnecessary word in support of his argument. He, however, took the view which so many hon. Members of the House took, that it was desirable by every possible means to facilitate the Business of the House, and, therefore, he would not attempt further criticisms on other important points to which, if the time had afforded, he would have been glad to call attention. He hoped these matters might be dealt with more effectually in Committee.
  Mr. James Bow lands rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: The Debate has occupied only a short time, and I cannot put such a Motion unless hon. Members who wish to speak are content to waive their speeches.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. PROVANDsaid, that if a workman had to go to the High Court to recover over £100 under this Act, then the whole of the amount he would receive as compensation would go into the pockets of the lawyers. He also wished to draw attention to the inadequate description of those to whom the Bill would apply. He further desired to notice Clause 8, which applied to Scotland. At the present time they had

  1589
  not in Scotland the power of trying actions under the Employers' Liability Act by a jury; and this clause in the Bill did not give the power. He hoped the Home Secretary would see that this defect was remedied.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have stated that the matter will be attended to in Committee.
  MR. PROVANDsaid, he had not heard or read any statement to that effect by the Home Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken counsel of persons in Scotland who had a knowledge of the subject, they would have told him that actions under the present Act were so costly that it was almost impossible for a workman to recover anything at all. He protested against a Bill of this kind being rushed through the House in this way. This was one of the most important Bills that had been brought before the House this Session. It was a Bill they ought to have had time to discuss. They had only had three scraps of evenings given to it. To-night they were to have it closured by consent, he supposed it might be called. It was impossible to consider the Bill under the circumstances. It ought to be put down as a first Order, and then, no doubt, a Second Reading would be got after a single night's Debate. He protested against it, and when the Bill came before Committee there ought to be every latitude permitted to those who desired to speak upon it.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he heartily endorsed the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and was very glad to find sitting behind the Government one hon. Member who had a certain amount of independence of spirit to protest against a measure like this being rushed through the House of Commons. The Government would not succeed in rushing through the Second Reading that night. This was, in his opinion, the only sound and beneficial measure which the Government had introduced, with the exception of the Bill
  1590
  to regulate the hours of railway servants, and now that the Government had the whole of the time of the House at their disposal he hoped they would allow plenty of time for the consideration of the measure. He congratulated the Government on introducing the Bill, for by the Bill they had for the first time since their accession to Office justified their existence as a Liberal Government. He desired to support the principle of the Bill and also the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. No intimation had been given by the Government with regard to the Amendment, and he wished now to ask the Government what their attitude was towards it. The Homo Secretary, in his speech introducing the Bill and before hearing the arguments on the Amendment, said that he was opposed to it because it introduced the principle of industrial insurance, and he also said that it would be taking away from the employer an incentive to take proper precautions against accident. He wished to point out to the Home Secretary that in his Bill he had answered that argument, inasmuch as the abolition of the doctrine of common employment—one of the most important principles of the measure—would make a wholesale system of industrial insurance a necessity, because the employer would not otherwise be able to face the liability which would be imposed on him. Those who were criticising the provisions of the Bill wore assisting the Government. Accidents in mines caused by the negligence of one workman in which two or three hundred men were killed or injured were unfortunately rather common. The employer under the existing law was not liable for an accident of that kind; but by the abolition, of the doctrine of common employment he would be liable in future in such an accident for an enormous amount of damages, which he could not possibly meet except under a system of industrial insurance. Another argument in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is that it would provide not for 40 or 50 per cent., but for 80 or 90 per cent. of the accidents which occur. They were not going to assist merely by sitting silent. Had it not been for the action of those who now sat on the Government Benches the amending Act would have been passed in 1888, and

  1591
  the working men would have been enjoying the advantages of it for four years already. The late Government tried to amend the existing Act by modifying the doctrine of common employment in favour of the working man, and by preventing contracting out except in cases exempted by the arbitration of the Board of Trade. [Cries of "Divide, divide! "] He was going on till he had done. The Home Secretary had said that if the Amendment were accepted there would be no incentive to employers to exercise due care and vigilance for the prevention of accidents. Did they look upon an employer of labour as an inhuman monster or as an ordinary individual subject to ordinary feelings and sentiments? Surely the fact that a man was employing a large number of workers in factory or mine, and desired them to labour in safety, was a sufficient incentive to him to take precautions that they should not be injured? But supposing the employer was the inhuman monster the Home Secretary would have the House to believe, the abolition of the doctrine of common employment—which meant the worker was insured against all accidents—would be sufficient to induce him to take the greatest possible care to prevent accidents.
  Mr. Grove rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: A quarter of an hour ago I expressed the view that if the Debate is closed to-night it must be by mutual arrangement.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid that, so far as he was concerned, he could not consent to such an arrangement, as there were several hon. Members around him who desired to speak. Nearly every Member who had taken part in the Debate had spoken from the other side of the House. He did not understand the action of the Government in regard to this question of employers' liability. If they were going to do away with the doctrine of common employment they should make their Bill cover accidents of every kind. With
  1592
  regard to contracting out, if he understood the Home Secretary aright——
  Mr. Diamond rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: I said a few minutes ago that if the Debate is to be closed to-night it must be by mutual consent. If I am given to understand that there are a large number of hon. Members desiring to speak on both sides of the House—if that is the case, then the Debate must go on. If hon. Members can deny themselves the right to speak, or defer it, the Debate may be brought to a close to-night.
  MR. SETON-KARR (resuming his speech)said, this was a question of great importance to him, as he represented 9,000 workers in his constituency and had had a great deal of correspondence with them about the Bill. Hon. Members on the other side had not a monopoly of the representation of the working classes. In his constituency large numbers of workers were members of Insurance Societies to which the employers subscribed, and he had had a letter from the secretary of one of these Societies, consisting of 10,000 members, stating that the men desired to be left as they were, and did not want any change made which would jeopardise their Insurance Societies.
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 10th April.

  ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn until Thursday 6th April.
  House adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Thursday, 6th April.