Sitting of 13 February 1894

QUESTIONS.

  BALLYSHANNON SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE.
  MR. BARTON (Armagh, Mid): On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Ballyshannon School Attendance Committee consists of eight persons, and that the Town Commissioners unanimously suggested that the Commissioners of National Education should appoint the Rev. B. Kelly, P.P., the Rev. Canon M'Kenna, P.P., the Rev. S. G. Cochrane, Church of Ireland, and the Rev. Andrew Lowry, Presbyterian, managers of four schools within the townships; whether ho is aware that the Rev. Andrew Lowry is a manager of a large Presbyterian school
  380
  within the township; whether the Commissioners of National Education acceded to the suggestion of the Town Commissioners; and, if not, why; and in what way have the Commissioners of National Education by their appointments turned the scale in favour of the Presbyterian minority in this township?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): (1.) The population of Ballyshannon consists of—Roman Catholics, 78·4; Protestant Episcopalians, 15·8; Presbyterians, 4·0; Methodists, 1·8. The Local Authority fixed the number of members of the School Attendance Committee at eight; and the constitution of this committee, as finally settled by the Commissioners, is as follows:—Roman Catholics, 5; Protestant Episcopalians, 2; Presbyterians, I; Methodists, O. The Town Commissioners, after making the appointments of their one-half of the Committee, suggested to the Commissioners of National Education the making of the appointments of the other half by the selection of the gentlemen named in the question; and in doing so the Town Commissioners acted ultra vires, the Act giving them no authority to make suggestions as to the members to be appointed on the Commissioners' half of the Committee. (2.) The Rev. Andrew Lowry is, as stated in the question, a school manager. (3.) The Commissioners did not accede to the suggestion as to the appointment of that clergyman; as the one place on the Committee to which a Presbyterian could be appointed had already been given by the Local Authority to a Presbyterian, who, moreover, was not a manager. (4.) The complaint is, that the Commissioners turned the scale in favour of the Presbyterian minority; but the fact is that the scale was so turned by the Local Authority in their appointment of the one Presbyterian member on the Committee before the case came under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education at all.

  SIAM.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House the cause of the delay in presenting to

  381
  Parliament Papers relating to the blockade of the coast of Siam, which have been frequently promised?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): It was promised that the Papers with reference to Siam would include those relating to the blockade, but it is not desirable to lay these Papers while negotiations between France and Siam are still proceeding.

  THE CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether a decision has been come to by the Secretary of State in Council in regard to the sea transport of troops to and from India: and whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence with the Government of India on the subject.?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.): The Admiralty have made certain proposals which have been referred to the Government of India for their Report, which is expected early in March. No decision has been arrived at. As soon as the Correspondence is complete the Secretary of State will consider whether there is any objection to its being presented to Parliament.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Will the House have an opportunity of seeing the Correspondence before a final determination is arrived at?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No, I should think the determination is likely to be taken before; the Correspondence is laid.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that the system in vogue up to the present time of conveying the troops by State transport has proved cheaper than private transport?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I should like to have notice of that question.

  IRISH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether School Attendance Committees appointed
  382
  in Ireland, in disregard of the section of the Statute requiring that one-half at least of the persons appointed should be managers or patrons of schools when I such persons are available, are legally constituted: in how many instances has the Statute not been complied with; and whether such School Attendance Committees can legally perform their duties: and, if not, what course the Government intend to take to carry out "The Irish Education Act, 1892"?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am advised that under the provision of the Act referred to not less than one-half of the school committee should, where available, be managers or patrons of schools, and that where this has not been done the committees are not legally constituted. The Irish Government has now in preparation, and will bring in at the earliest opportunity in the approaching Session, a measure to remedy the defects which have been experienced in the Act of 1892, and which are set forth in a communication recently addressed to me by the Commissioners of National Education. This communication I will lay upon the Table of the House to-day.

  THE KINSALE FISHERY DISPUTE.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet received any Report from the Fisheries Commissioners who investigated the matters in dispute between the Scotch fishermen and the Irish fishermen at Kinsale; and whether the application of the Kinsale fishermen for an Order directing a close season for mackerel fishing has been or will be complied with?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries respecting the herring and mackerel fisheries at Kinsale was submitted to the Lord Lieutenant last year, and I shall, in all probability, bring in a Bill at the earliest possible moment in the next Session, giving effect to the recommendations of the Inspectors.
  MR. CARSON: Has the Report been published, or is it available for hon. Members in any way?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Certainly it has not been published; but I will see if it can be laid before the House.

  INDIAN FINANCE.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Secretary of State had exhausted the borrowing power recently granted to the extent of £10,000,000 before he decided to disregard the wishes of the Government of India, and to sell drafts at a rate below that agreed upon?
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No. The power to borrow £10,000,000 was granted by Parliament because it was necessary to enable the Secretary of State in Council to meet any liabilities that might fall upon him in this country; not for the purpose of supporting the plan of refusing to sell bills below a certain rate.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: May I ask what amount has been borrowed?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: £500,000.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: May I further ask if this action of the Secretary of State was taken with the concurrence of the Government of India or in spite of its remonstrance?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make a statement with regard to Indian finance at the end of questions, and I would rather not make any answer before he does so.

  SIR COLIN SCOTT MONCRIEFF'S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE WELSH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the statements made by Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff, Under Secretary for Scotland, before the Welsh Land Commission, represent the views of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Highland crofter question?
  [The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper, and were answered at the same time.]
  DR. MACGREGOR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he authorised the evidence recently tendered to the Welsh Land Commission by the Under Secretary for Scotland, Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff (as reported in the daily Press), in reference to the laud question in the Highlands, and the working of the Crofters' Act there; if not, what steps will he take to
  384
  counteract the effects of such statements; and does the Government intend to implement promises already made to amend the Crofters' Act in the coming Session?
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the newspaper reports of the evidence regarding the operation of the Crofters' Act, tendered to the Welsh Land Commission by the Under Secretary for Scotland on behalf of the Scotch Office; and whether these reports correctly represent the evidence given and the views held at the Scotch Office on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): In reply to these questions, I may say that the reports in the public Press of Sir Colin Moncrieff's evidence before the Welsh Land Commission were very much condensed; and, to be rightly judged of, that evidence requires to be read in extenso. The figures and statistics regarding the operations of the Crofters' Commission since 1886 which Sir Colin put forward are, so far as I have been able to examine them, substantially correct. Among other matters he spoke of the increased readiness to pay their rents shown by crofters whose farms had been dealt with by the Commission. As regards the future policy of the Government, Sir Colin Moncrieff empowers me to say that he expressed no opinion, and made no statement. Sir Colin distinctly stated that the extension of the benefits of the Crofters' Act to crofting leaseholders was generally and strongly desired in the Highlands. It is the intention of the Government so to extend it. It is likewise the intention of the Government to carry out the policy of Parliament with regard to the enlargement of crofters' holdings, and for that purpose they appointed what is commonly called the Deer Forest Commission, which is making a complete and minute investigation embracing the whole of the crofting counties. There is one point on which it is extremely important that the Welsh Laud Commission should have full information; and that is the effect on the industry, energy, and self-reliance of the crofters, as shown in the improved cultivation of their farms and rebuilding of their houses, which has followed upon security of tenure and a fair rent. On

  385
  this point, I have received most favourable accounts from most reliable quarters. On this matter, and generally on the whole question, Sheriff Brand, the Chairman of the Crofters' Commission, has been invited to give evidence before the Welsh Commission. I am glad to say that he has consented, and I have reason to believe that further evidence will be given from an unofficial quarter of high authority.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask when the official evidence will he placed at the disposal of Members of this House?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I believe a volume is about to he issued: I will inquire.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Will the Crofters' Act he amended in the forthcoming Session?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have every hope that the Crofters' Act will be extended to leaseholders next Session.

  HAY AND STRAW FOR THE ARMY.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what is the total quantity of hay and straw, including straw for mattresses, supplied for all branches of the Army at Home stations during the year 1893: and how much of this quantity was imported from abroad?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBBLL-BANNERMAN, Stilling, &c.): The total quantity of bay and straw supplied for all branches of the Army at Home stations during L893 was 28,000 tons of hay and 24,000 tons of straw. It is impossible to say how much of this is home and how much foreign produce.

  MEAT SUPPLIES FOR THE LONDON GARRISON
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can under take to send an expert at uncertain intervals to examine the meat at Chelsea Barracks supplied for the London garrison, and to report how much, if any, of it is either foreign or colonial?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is an expert in meat stationed at Chelsea, and there is a second on the Staff of the General Officer commanding the Home District, and, in addition, an expert visits all stations at uncertain
  386
  intervals to examine the supply of meat, and sec that it in every way complies with the conditions of the contract. Not more than 60 per cent. of the meat supplied to the Army is permitted to be foreign or colonial imported meat: and this is only allowed during the winter, as such meat is not received at other times.
  MR. J. BURNS: May I ask whether the expert referred to by the light hon. Gentleman is a practical butcher or veterinary surgeon, or whether he is simply an officer?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He is an officer, but not "simply" an officer, for he has technical knowledge on the subject.
  MR. J. BURNS: Will the Secretary for War consider the advisability of appointing men who have had salesmen's experience to examine this meat—men who really can tell good meat from bad?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have men who can tell good meat from bad: and I think we are very well served in this particular by the officers appointed for the purpose.

  "METCALF v. HOLDEN BROTHERS."
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of "Metcalf v Holden Brothers, "which was decided in the Clitheroe County Court on the 2nd of December last: whether such decision is in accordance with the provisions of "The Employer's and Workmen's Act, 1875," Clause 11, Section 3; and whether he is aware that an application for permission to appeal against the said verdict was refused?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): My attention has been called to this case by the question of my hon. Friend, and I have made such inquiry as I could do at, short notice. A somewhat intricate point of law was involved, on which I myself should have thought that the case of "Warburton v. Heyworth," decided in 1880 by the Court of Appeal, pointed to a different decision from that given by the learned Judge. But I must point out to my hon. Friend that I have no jurisdiction to review or question the Judgments of County Court

  387
  Judges in any case. I understand that leave to appeal was refused.

  ACCIDENTS AT DEPTFORD STATION.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Coroner's Jury who inquired into the death of Samuel Overy, an engine driver of the South Eastern Railway, who was killed at the archway of the engine shed at Deptford Station on 2nd November last; whether he is aware that the jury found that the archway was a source of danger owing to the width of the engines entering by it having been increased; and whether any steps have been taken by the Railway Company to make the place safer for their workmen?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): In reply to a similar question put to mo by my hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire, that the Board of Trade had communicated with the Railway Company when they received notice of the accident, and drew special attention to the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, the General Manager informed us that the matter would be brought to the attention of his Directors at their next meeting. I have communicated again with the company, and am assured that the necessary plans are being pressed forward to remedy the evil complained of.

  BRITISH SHIPS AT RIO.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Brazilian Government have appointed a safe anchorage and a safe landing quay at Rio; whether he is aware that insurgent ships are in the habit of taking refuge among British merchant vessels and drawing the Government fire upon them; whether he is prepared to instruct our officers to prevent the insurgents from taking refuge amongst our ships, and to protect British ships and lighters containing their cargo in going to the landing-place; whether ho is aware that such protection has been given by German and American men-of-war, and whether he will instruct our officers to concert with the officers of these nations measures for the general protection;
  388
  whether he is aware that our officers have repeatedly interfered with the discretion of the captains of merchant vessels in endeavouring to get their cargoes discharged; and whether, if he is unable to give any assistance to British ships, he will instruct our officers to leave merchant captains to act in accordance with their own judgment?
  SIR E. GREY: In response to representations from the foreign Representatives, the Brazilian Government made a change of landing-place on December 16th, and subsequently promised to remove the guns from the Island of Bom Jesua until a safer anchorage than the one then available could be assigned. The British senior naval officer was instructed by telegraph on the 10th to report on the statements that insurgent vessels were in the habit of sheltering themselves among merchant vessels, and he has had, and still has, authority to protect British goods and lighters carrying British goods from seizure or interference when engaged in legitimate business. Such protection cannot be given within the zone of fire when the combatants are engaged. We have no information to the effect that the instructions to the German and United States Naval Authorities direct them to give a greater degree of protection than is accorded to the Naval Authorities of the other Powers. The measures taken have been decided upon at conferences of the senior naval officers, including the French, Austrian, Italian, and United States. The British Naval Authorities have refused assistance in cases where, owing to the firing between the combatants, the discharging of the cargoes would have endangered the lives of the seamen of Her Majesty's ships and of the merchant vessels. With reference to the last paragraph of the question, I have to say that we cannot undertake to send instructions differing from those which have been sent already.

  THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS SCHOOLS.
  COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now inform the House as to the day on which he will state the manner in which the Christian Brothers Schools will be enabled to share in Educational Grants?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Various embarrassments, as I have already stated, have arisen in connection with the working of the Irish Education Act of 1892, and I am not at this moment in a position to make any announcement as to the determination of the Government in the matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make the announcement this Session?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot undertake to do so now.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman assured me, in answer to five or six questions persistently put, that he would make an announcement on this subject before the end of the present Session?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to my answers he will find that they were all of a hopeful character. I said that I hoped to he able to make an announcement, but I am now unable to do so.

  WARRANT OFFICERS AS BARRACK WARDENS.
  MR. W. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Warrant and Non-Commissioned Officers now serving in the Army who have over 21 years' service can register their names through their Commanding Officers for employment as Barrack Wardens, as promulgated in Army Order 21 of the current month?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Warrant Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers not below the rank of sergeant who have over 21 years' service can register their names for appointment as Barrack Wardens, but, their appointment to that, position will not he considered until after their discharge to pension.

  WORKING HOURS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, on the introduction, by Order in Council of August, 1890, of the seven-hour working day into the Departments of State, any opportunity of retirement was afforded to such Civil servants as might, object to the extra hour's daily attendance thereby required; whether the Treasury will now give
  390
  facilities for retirement to such Civil servants: whether the terms of retirement will have regard to the equitable claims of those who, in consequence of the change, desire to determine their employment; and whether, in cases where Departmental reorganisation would be facilitated, or no additional burden imposed on the taxpayer, abolition terms will be conceded?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Treasury holds, with the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, that, as there is no contract between the State and the Civil servant limiting the hours he shall be called upon to attend, any Civil servant who is required by the head of his Department to attend seven hours instead of six has no option but to obey. The Treasury has no power under the Superannuation Acts to pension persons who might wish to retire in preference to serving seven hours, unless their retirement would be otherwise permissible under those Acts. Lastly, the Treasury considers itself bound, after the declaration of the Royal Commission against abolition terms, to refuse all additions of years which may be proposed on the ground of re-organisation of office.

  SIR GERALD PORTAL.
  MR. HULSE: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the Mission to Uganda, by the late Sir Gerald Portal, was revised by him prior to his decease; and when such Report, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The Report from Uganda is complete, and will be laid upon the Table before a Supplementary Estimate, in which Uganda will be included, is presented to the House. I cannot mention this subject and this Report, without adding one word—in which I believe I shall express the sentiment of the whole House—expressive of the deep grief of the Government at the loss that we have sustained by the death of Sir Gerald Portal. He performed a very great, service to the public in his Mission to Uganda with an ability and energy that command our admiration, and, speaking generally, I feel that in the removal of a gentleman of so high a

  391
  character and gifted with such distinguished qulities the country has sustained a heavy loss, and in all probability will remain without very valuable services which it would have been in his power and also in his inclination to render.

  THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First of the Treasury when the names of the gentlemen appointed to act on the Commission to inquire into the financial relations of England and Ireland will be published; and when the first sittings of the Commission will take place?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We hope that the list of the names of the gentlemen to serve on this body will be completed within a fortnight or three weeks.

  FEES ON MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether ho is aware that the Clerk of the Peace for Durham charges newly-appointed Justices a fee of £5s. on being sworn; whether there is any legal charge whatever; and whether he will inquire into the matter? At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fees charged upon newly-appointed Justices by the Clerk of the Peace for Shropshire on their taking the oaths of office; whether it is correct that a fee of £5 as is charged; whether any legal charge whatever can be made; and, if so, how much; and whether he will inquire into the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Clerk of the Peace for Durham that no fees are charged, but it has been the practice for a great number of years for the Clerk of the Peace to receive an honorarium from each Justice sworn in at Quarter Sessions—£5 5s. for County Justices, and £2 2s. for Borough Justices. It does not appear to be suggested that the fee can be recovered at law from any Justice who declines to pay it. I may, at the same time, give a similar answer to the question relating to the case of Shropshire.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
  392
  whether his attention has been called to the fees charged in Lancashire by Clerks of the Peace upon the newly-appointed Justices, whether the fees vary from £6 6s. to £10 10s., in the latter case including luncheon and entrance fees; whether there is any legal charge whatever; and whether ho will inquire into the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): I am informed that the fee charged in Lancaster to a newly appointed Justice is £1 1s., and that this sum is paid over by the Clerk of the Peace to the County Treasurer and carrried to the credit of the County Fund. The fee is charged under a scale of fees approved by the Court of Annual General Session in April, 1862, and certified by the then Home Secretary in pursuance of the Statute 11 & 12 Vict., c. 43, s. 30. There is also a fee paid on the issuing and execution of the writ of dedimus potestatem. This writ can be issued either in person or by any solicitor on behalf of the person appointed. When the Clerk of the Peace has been asked to take it out the charges have been £3 8s. 6d. in fees to the cursitor of the Chancery Court and the Sealkeeper, and £1 16s. for the professional charges of the Clerk of the Peace. It is only in a small number of cases that this writ has of late years been taken out by the Clerk of the Peace. There is a luncheon club at Preston, with an entrance fee of two guineas, and an annual subscription of one guinea, but membership of this club is entirely optional, and the Clerk of the Peace, who is hon. Treasurer, has no interest in the sums paid to it.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Can the Clerk legally charge the £3 8s. 6d.?
  MR. BRYCE: I presume so. These are fees which he does not receive himself, but are paid to officials of the Chancery Court.
  MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.): Are they statutory charges, and can they be recovered in a Court of Justice?
  MR. BRYCE: I presume they can be recovered; but I am not prepared to say whether they are statutory charges or whether their origin is to be found elsewhere. No doubt they are charged according to old custom on the issue of the writ.
  MR. CAINE: Have Chairmen of Quarter Sessions a right to refuse to swear in Magistrates who declined to pay the fees?
  MR. BRYCE: It is not for me to decide that question. Notice should he given of such a question as that.

  COTTAGE ACCOMMODATION FOR AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I hog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the Reports of the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the Royal Commission on Labour, in regard to the important question of cottage accommodation for the agricultural labourer, which said Reports, while stating that on the estates of the large landowners and in the close villages the cottages are of sufficient size, in proper sanitary condition, and well kept up, state that in the open villages, and where land is held by small speculators, there are large numbers of cottages which are unlit for human habitation; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I am aware of the Reports of the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the Royal Commission on Labour in regard to the question of cottage accommodation for agricultural labourers. The Sanitary Authorities have full powers for the purpose of dealing with cottages which are in an insanitary condition. The Reports referred to are considered by the Local Government Board in connection with the annual Reports of the Medical Officers of Health which they are now receiving, and the attention of the Sanitary Authority will be drawn to the subject when this appears to be necessary.

  THE COLLISIONS WITH FRENCH TROOPS IN WEST AFRICA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the report of a second attack by a French force upon British troops in West Africa is correct; and whether he can give the House any information upon the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The information at present in our possession is very meagre. We are expecting further news shortly; and I would prefer, therefore, to await Despatches before making any statement on the subject.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further information has been received from the French Government as to the first unfortunate incident that occurred in West Africa?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot answer that question without notice. If the hon. Member will put it down I will inquire.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: With regard to the Local Government Bill, it may be for the convenience of the House that I should state what are our intentions. It is expected that the Bill will return from the House of Lords in the course of to-night, and, in order that "we may lose no time, in case the business of this House should be disposed of before the business in the House of Lords, and before that Bill is set free, we should propose to suspend the Sitting of this House until a later hour, in order that the Motion may be made to print the Amendments of the Lords, so as to lose no lime in their consideration. But, at the same time, we do not think that the House could be expected to take those Amendments to-morrow at 12 o'clock. They will be circulated, I hope, in the morning, but the time for perusing them would be scanty: and, although we have not, as a rule, the privilege of observing that Wednesday Sabbath which is usual in another place, to-morrow there will be no sitting, in case the proceedings on the Employers' Liability Bill are finished tonight, as we have every reason to believe will be the case.

  THE INDIAN CURRENCY.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I have received notice from my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who is not now here, of a question of great importance, and I wish now to give the answer I was prepared to make. The question

  395
  was, whether the Government intended to make any change in their present policy in reference to Indian currency. The answer I have to make is this—there is no intention of re-opening the Indian Mints to the free coinage of silver or of returning to a minimum rate for the sale of bills. It is not intended to impose a special tax on the importation of silver, and no change in the present policy of the Indian Government is in contemplation. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire asked a question about the loan recently authorised by a Bill of this House, and I will give the figures of that. The borrowing powers granted by the Act 56 & 57 Vict., c. 70, extended to £10,000,000, India bills were issued under this Act on February 3, 1894, to the extent of £2,500,000, and the outstanding powers under the Act are £7,500,000. Of the sum raised by these bills £2,000,000 has been applied in repayment of temporary loans raised under previous Acts. Adding that to the £7,500,000, the present outstanding borrowing powers of the Indian Government are £9,500,000.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I desire to ask whether the present course adopted by the Secretary for India is adopted in concurrence and after consultation with the Government of India, or whether it was adopted in spite of the Government of India?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a question I cannot answer without notice.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: Then I will out it down.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Lords Reasons read, and Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendment in page 2, line 13, after "compensation," to insert—
  "(2.) The foregoing enactment shall not apply to any agreement for assurance against injury which has been made between workmen and their employer before the date of the passing of this Act, and which subsequently to the said date shall be approved by two-thirds of the said workmen voting in the prescribed manner, or to any future accession of workmen in the same service to such agreement. Provided that any workman shall be free to release himself therefrom by giving due notice.
  (3.) Nor shall it apply to any such agreement made after the passing of this Act which shall
  396
  have been approved as aforesaid, and in respect to which the Board of Trade shall have certified—

  i That it provides reasonable compensation in all cases of injury from whatever cause incurred in the course of employment:

  ii. That the compensation is paid from a fund to which the employer contributes not less than one-third:

  Provided that the Board of Trade shall not certify as aforesaid in any ease where in their judgment the ordinary course of business or employment is such that by reason of frequent changes of workmen it is not possible to ascertain the free opinion of the workmen employed.
  Provided also that in case the insurance fund is insufficient to provide the agreed compensation, and the employer is unwilling to make up the deficiency, the agreement shall be considered void, and the workman shall have the same remedy that he would have had if he had not entered into it.
  Provided also that the employer shall not make it a condition of engagement with the workman that he shall enter into such agreement.
  (4.) The Board of Trade may make rules for taking the votes of workmen by secret ballot in such a way as to ensure that they vote freely and without constraint; and it may from time to time, at its discretion, require such votes to be taken anew after the lapse of any period of not less than three years; but in the case of seamen and others employed afloat, the Board may make such provision for enabling them to give their votes freely and without constraint as shall in its judgment be suitable to the requirements of their employment,"
  road a second time.
  *MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)said, he rose for the purpose of moving as an Amendment in line 1, after the word "not," to insert the words "until the expiration of three years after the passing of this Act." As all the points had been argued and re-argued over and over again in this and the Upper House, he would state, in a very few words only, his reasons for moving this Amendment. The object of the Amendment was to suspend the operation of the Bill for a period of three years, with regard to the insurance funds at present in existence, but not with regard to future funds. It had always been the wish of many Members of the House belonging to the Liberal Party, who had acted together on this Bill, of whom he was one, that nothing should be done to endanger the passing of the Bill, or the adoption of any of its leading principles. But, at the same time, they wished to reasonably protect

  397
  the interests of those working men whom they represented, and who desired to keep up the funds from which they thought, rightly or wrongly, they enjoyed greater benefits than they would be likely to get from this Bill alone. Looking at the present condition of the question, and the attitude which had been taken up in another place, he and his friends believed the only practical way of obtaining these objects was the adoption of this Amendment. On a previous stage of the Rill he seconded the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe. He had done so, as he stated at the time, because he felt, as he felt now, perfectly sure that if the Hill were to pass in the form in which it left this House in the first instance, the Loudon and North Western Railway Company, at all events—for he was not competent to speak of other companies and firms—would withdraw their subscriptions to the insurance fund which they had established, and the men would lose from £15,000 to £17,000 a year. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe, which dealt only with existing funds, was rejected, and it then became a question for the consideration of him and his friends what course if was best for them to take with a view to preserve the insurance funds of the men they directly represented, and, at the same time, to give to the other workers of the country this most beneficial act of legislation. When that Amendment was defeated, a number of these Members of the House, including himself, felt it their duty to tell their constituents publicly and plainly that they felt it would be quite useless for them to attempt to get the House to reverse the decision it had deliberately arrived at on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe, and equally that they could not support any Amendment which would extend beyond the existing funds, or which would endanger the passing of the Bill in any way. Charges of selfishness had been made against the members of these insurance funds, because, as it was said, they tried to protect their own funds at the expense of the great mass of workers of the country, who did not wish to have any such system at all. But he denied that altogether. It was a most unjust accusation. He had recently seen a great deal of the men of the London and North Western Railway on all parts of the line,
  398
  and the feeling he found unanimously animating them was that, however strongly they desired to keep up their existing funds, they wished in every possible way to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and that they did not desire to stand in the way of the general working classes of the country. As he had said, he and his friends could not ask the House to reverse the decision arrived at on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe, and still less to reverse the decision on the Amendment moved in another place by-Lord Dudley, which Amendment had been rejected by the Commons by a very largo majority on the first occasion that the Bill came down from the Lords. On the other hand, looking at the attitude taken up by the Directors of the London and North Western Railway, it was perfectly clear that the men would lose £17,000 a year if the Bill were passed in its present form; and that if nothing were done to amend the Bill somewhat the Bill itself would be lost. His object was simply to secure to the men what they had now got, which they believed to be of great advantage. If the operation of the Act could be postponed for three years they believed that the Directors of some of the companies and the large employers would have time to turn round, and would experience what the working of the Act was. In his opinion, he believed they would find what they found with regard to the Act of 1880—namely, that its effect would be much more limited than they imagined. He thought the Directors of the London and North Western Company must feel, when they came to consider it in future, and within the period of three years, that probably there was no money which they spent more beneficially for the shareholders, for the Company, and for the men, than their subscriptions to these funds; further, he hoped and believed that they would follow certain examples before them. Lord Londonderry, on the Second Reading of the Hill in the House of Lords on November 30, said, before any Amendments had been made—
  "He had heard it stated that if the Bill, as it existed at present, became law, the owners, in all probability, would withdraw their subscriptions to the insurance funds. Whether the Bill passed as it stood or not, unless some circumstances of an altogether unforeseen character arose, he would in no way depart in the future from the policy he had pursued in the past."

  399
  That was Lord Londonderry's declaration; he being' at the head of a number of collieries, which, ho understood, had funds of this description for the insurance of their men. Then it was also stated in another place that at the meeting of the Loudon, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, Mr. Laing, the Chairman, while guarding himself by saying that it was only his individual opinion, and was not binding upon the Directors, expressed the hope that their funds would nor be interfered with. It seemed incredible, therefore, that the London and North Western Company and other employers would, with such examples before them, withdraw their present subscriptions. He believed the effect of this arrangement would be satisfactory to a large majority of the members of those Insurance Societies, and that, if carried, it would preserve to the employés of the London and North Western Railway, and others who had kindred Societies, the advantages which they now enjoyed; and it would at the same time give the working classes generally the full benefit of the Act. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment; and if they should do so, and the Bill was not accepted in another place and was thrown out, they would know on whom the responsibility rested.
  MR. LOCKWOODsaid, he did not know whether it was necessary, as a matter of formality, that the Amendment should require to be seconded, but he would be very glad to do so in a very few sentences if the House would allow him. He appeared, however, in a very different position from that of his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment, for he (Mr. Lockwood) had opposed on a former occasion the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Crewe, and he then stated that he would very much rather the Bill passed as it was originally drawn by the Government. But it was now a question of accepting the Bill in this amended form or losing it altogether, so far as the present Session was concerned. He did not propose to refer to what had taken place in the other House. He did not think the observations made there, if repeated here, would tend to promote that feeling which must prevail if a compromise was to be brought about. The constituency he represented felt keenly
  400
  in respect of this matter of contracting out of the Act. When the Division took place upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe, his hon. Friend and Colleague the senior Member for York, who sat on the other side of the House, voted as he had voted, and he now thought his hon. Friend felt as strongly as he did in favour of the Bill as originally drawn by the Government. But were they to lose this Bill? There might be some who thought it would be almost as good from a political point of view to have the passing of this Bill rendered impossible by what had taken place in the House of Lords as to pass the Bill. That was the politician's way of looking at the matter. The Amendment was temporary in its character, and involved no forfeiture of principle. It was a mere postponement. If the experience of the three years should show that this condition of things ought to be prolonged, then let it be prolonged; but if, on the other hand, the experiment should be found to be not a good one, every person interested in the question, he felt, looking at it from the point of view of the men affected by the legislation, would give their adhesion to the Bill as the Government wished to have it. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 1. after the word "not," to insert the words "until the expiration of three years after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Cobb,)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I do not propose to trouble the House with more than a few observations on the present occasion, because the only subject now before us, the question of contracting out, has been so repeatedly and so thoroughly discussed in all its aspects in previous Debates that it would be an unwarrantable waste of the time of the House and an encroachment on its patience if I were to attempt to restate even in outline the argument on one side or the other. The position which the Government have taken up from the first, and to which they adhere, is this: that there shall be no permanent exemption by private arrangement between master and man,

  401
  or between any body of employers and their employés, from the scope of genera] law which this House has sanctioned. J have stated again and again, until I am tired of stating them, the grounds upon which the Government have taken up this position. In our view, this is Bill not merely to give compensation for accidents, but to give protection to life and limb. We are told, I know, that a Bill making an employer liable, as this Bill does, for the negligent acts of any of his men will not substantially increase the incentives to the employer to exercise care. J confess I think that is a most preposterous argument. It is surely impossible in reason to contend that, when for the first time you impose this larger measure of liability on the employer—although I agree that in some cases he may be made, liable for negligent acts, which no amount of fore sight or care can prevent—it is a, most unreasonable proposition that, with this larger measure of liability for the first time imposed upon him, he will not have a hundredfold greater inducements than now to gee that his business is carried on with greater care and supervision in the interests of the safety and health of his men, and it is upon that ground that the Government have insisted throughout that there should be no contracting out of the Bill. I know it has been said — the argument was used in another place, and it has been used here—that the inducement of which I speak will not really be operative, because the employer can get rid of his pecuniary liability by insuring himself outside. That is an argument, in my opinion, which, although it is entitled to consideration, has, in reality, nothing like the weight which is attached to it. Now, in the first place, the employer will find, I am confident, that his best and cheapest, as well as the most effective, insurance against the increased liability imposed upon him by this Bill is to take steps that his industrial operations are carried on properly and with all reasonable care. In the next place, surely any one conversant with business must know that the negligent and careless employer will not be able to effect insurances at all, or will only be able to effect them upon such onerous and extravagant terms that it will not be worth his while to do so. A Life
  402
  Insurance Company before taking a risk upon a life takes the most accurate means for investigating what is the health and what are the habits and antecedents of the person proposing to be insured. In the same way, is it to be supposed that when these large liabilities are going to be undertaken by Insurance Companies they will not, take care, in the fist instance, by due inquiry and inspection, to ascertain and insist that reasonably safe and healthy conditions prevail in the works before they accept a risk? And lastly, Sir—I wish to dispose of this point at once—it is said that by the encouragement to insurance litigation will be increased. But any one conversant with litigation will be perfectly well aware that Insurance Companies, on grounds of policy, are, as a rule, the last persons to engage in litigation and to bring cases into Court unnecessarily. It must not be forgotten that the nominal defendant in these cases in which insurance has been effected will not be the Insurance Company, but will be the employer; whatever odium attaches to the exposure of an imperfect system of industrial supervision will fall upon his shoulders: and the sanction of public opinion will thus be added to the enforcement of the law. I think these considerations are sufficient to justify me in the opinion—without going over the whole ground again—that this Bill, in imposing upon employers a largely increased measure of responsibility, will supply them at the same time with substantial incentives to take care of the lives and health of those in their service. That being so, it follows that the Government cannot consent to accept, either in the larger form in which it was proposed by the Karl of Dudley, or in the more limited form in which it was proposed by the hon. Member for Crewe, any amendment of the Bill which will have the effect of putting permanently outside the scope of its provisions any body of workmen in this country. To do so would, in our judgment, be to render the Bill to that body of persons absolutely nugatory, and it would be offering to employers an inducement, as this Amendment of Lord Dudley's does, a, very large inducement to make arrangements with their men which would have the effect of every year enlarging the area of exemption from its

  403
  provisions. Now let me pass from that to say one word on the other aspect of the question specially brought before us by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby—I mean the relation of the Bill to existing mutual insurance arrangements. Here, again, the Government have maintained from the first a perfectly consistent position. We are represented, I know, as being the subservient tools of what it is the fashion to call a "cruel organisation"—a happy phrase which, I fancy, has sunk pretty deeply into the minds of the Trade Unionists throughout the country. In that capacity, in that supposed capacity, we have been represented as indirectly, but none the less effectively, aiming by this Bill a blow at the existence of mutual arrangements between employers and workmen, under which workmen receive compensation, not only when accidents are caused by negligence, but also for injuries from whatever source they may arise. The position of the Government from the first has been diametrically opposite to the view attributed to them. In the speech I had the honour of making when I introduced this Bill, now nearly a year ago, I stated distinctly, so far as I was concerned, that both J, personally, and the Government looked with the greatest friendship and favour upon these mutual arrangements, and that if we thought the introduction of this Bill would seriously affect existing funds, or would prevent the institution of similar funds under equally favourable conditions in the future, we should pause before recommending it to the consideration of the House. [Laughter.] That statement, I see, is received with laughter. Whether the laughter proceeds from the view that I was insincere in the profession of my opinion, or whether it proceeds from the view that the Government were so stupid that they did not understand the intention and effect of their own Bill, I am equally prepared to deal with it, and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so. We have been told, I see, in another place — to which apparently freedom has fled and found her last refuge—that this is an issue raised between what is called freedom of contract upon the one side and legal coercion upon the other. The Government are represented, when they oppose these various proposed forms of contracting
  404
  out, as if they were striking a deadly blow at freedom of contract between masters and men. [Cheers.]Yes, Sir; but why have those who cheer that sentiment, and those who command surely a subservient majority enough in another place—why, if they think so, have they not the courage of their opinions? There is a simple way of raising the issue: Let them strike out of the Bill the clause which prohibits contracting out; then I agree you will have got freedom of contract. But what is the use of telling us you believe in freedom of contract between masters and men when you do not venture to take that which is the only logical step? Look at this Amendment of Lord Dudley's with what I can only describe as its grotesquely elaborated scaffolding of safeguards and limitations; why, it reeks with distrust of freedom of contract. It is a clause which in every line, and almost every word, embodies the confession on the part of those who framed it, and those who have sought to pass it, that they cannot, in a matter of this kind, trust masters and men to make their own bargain. Ex hypothesi, the employer and employed being perfectly agreed, you call in a Government Department to say whether their bargain is a just one, and then you say you are the advocates of freedom of contract. There is no such issue raised by the Bill, nor by the Amendment now before the House. The only question is, whether the Bill, if it passes as it stands, with these words added to it, will seriously impair either existing or future funds. Now we are told, and I confess I was really surprised at the statement made, with apparent deliberation, by distinguished persons of great authority, that this Bill prohibits the creation of such funds. ["Hear, hear !"] There is one hon. Member, at any rate, on the other side of the House who thinks that is the case. The Bill does nothing of the kind; the hon. Gentleman who cheers that statement cannot point to a single provision in the Bill which prohibits the creation of such funds. On the contrary, the Bill contains express provisions for the protection of the funds, by enacting that where an employer has contributed to a fund, and where, nevertheless, a workman takes advantage of his legal right, and has resort to legal proceedings, the employer shall have credit, by way of deduction or set-

  405
  off from the damages recovered, of the whole of his contribution to the sum received from the fund. How is it possible, then, to say that the Bill prohibits the creation of these funds? What it does is a different thing. It says it shall not be a condition of this or any other contract that a man shall deprive himself prospectively for all lime to come of his legal rights. It is a fair matter of argument whether a provision of that kind would have the effect of interfering with the funds; but, in my opinion, it would not; and I say it would not, because experience has shown that it would not. The London and North Western Railway has one of these funds —not by any means the best. I trust that if this Hill passes with the Amendment proposed the Directors and Managers of that railway will use the opportunity given to them to revise the conditions of that fund in many particulars. That company makes it a condition of membership that a man shall contract himself out of the law. Side by side you have got the Great Eastern Railway Company contributing with equal liberality to a fund from which the members derive greater advantages; and it does not make it a condition that the members shall contract themselves out of the law. Taking these two cases alone, who is to say, upon any principle of logic or common sense, that an Act of Parliament which prohibits contracting out in the future will strike at the root of the funds? I will take the case of the miners' funds. A few weeks ago I had a deputation of miners representing various parts of the country — South Wales, Monmouthshire, and Western Lancashire—who are connected with a miners' fund to which the contributions of the employers do not exceed 25 per cent., and it is a condition of membership that the men shall contract themselves out of the law; but in Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, and I think I am right in saying over the great part of the Midland coalfield, contracting out is entirely unknown, and in those counties the contributions of the masters are quite as liberal as they are when contracting out is enforced. ["No, no!"]Well, certainly it is so in a large number of cases; and I could easily multiply these illustrations. I say if you are to rest upon arguments derived from experience, it
  406
  shows that contracting out is not a condition of the foundation and effectual maintenance of these arrangements between employer and employed. Speaking on behalf of the Government, and being, as I say, friendly and well-disposed to these funds, because they have in many instances provided compensation which otherwise could not have been obtained, I deny that the intention of the Bill is, or that its effect will be, to discourage the formation of such funds or put an end to them. I have said enough to show why the Government cannot accept any Amendment which would permanently exclude from the operation of the Bill either the members of these Mutual Societies or any other bodies of workmen. And now before I sit down I will say a word with reference to the Amendment which the hon. Member has just moved. I do not disguise that I should have preferred the Bill—we should all have preferred the Bill—to pass entirely and exactly in the form in which it originally left this House. So far as we on this Bench are concerned, I can assure the House that we will not now, nor at any later stage—if there be a later stage— consent to any change whatsoever in the Bill which, in our opinion, will impair the vital principle which J have endeavoured to explain. At the same time, when this proposal to give a time limit to existing funds was first brought to my notice—I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, who is a very hearty supporter of the Bill, and a strong opponent of contracting out—I felt, and feel still, that it might afford a reasonable basis for arrangement upon this ground, and this ground alone: we find apprehensions are entertained widely among the members of these funds that the immediate effect of the passing of this Bill, which puts an end to their contracts, ipso facto would be to cause the employers to withdraw their contributions. I think the employers would be ill-advised in doing so. Their resolution to do so is founded upon an incorrect apprehension of the Bill, and upon a most imperfect forecast of its results; but we know that at least in one case,—? I do not know of more than one— employers have expressed their intention of taking this course. I speak with the most absolute conviction, as far as one can have conviction about something

  407
  relating to the future, when I say that I believe, if you allow a reasonable opportunity for employers and employed to realise their relations and their position to one another under the new law, the danger, which is undoubtedly a real danger at the present moment—that in precipitation and in haste subscriptions might be withdrawn and valuable arrangements be destroyed—will altogether disappear. It is upon that ground, and upon that ground alone, in order to give a reasonable time for those employers and employed who are at present parties to arrangements of this kind to adjust themselves to the new state of the law, and to realise its extent, and to see, as we hope and believe they will, that it is in no sense hostile or prejudicial to their existing relations, it is from that point of view alone that the Government are disposed to advise the House to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has proposed. I need not, say that if that Amendment be accepted it will then become our duty to move the omission from the proposed clause of the whole of the third sub-section. I forbear from making any comments upon that sub-section at the present moment, and I will only say that it contains a principle which, in any shape or form, the Government can never ask the House to assent to. The effect of the acceptance of the Amendment will be that during a period of three years from the passing of this Bill those existing arrangements, if validated by the votes of two-thirds of the men, will remain undisturbed, and at the end of that period these bodies of men, like all other workmen, will fall within the scope of the general law, and become entitled to what we conceive to be the substantial benefits of the Bill for which we are asking the support of the House of Commons. I hope I have made clear the position which the Government take in the matter, and I trust the House will see its way to accept the advice which we have given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): The course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in making a speech in no sense confined to the Amendment actually before us—although it is not one of which I shall make any complaint —will oblige me to make my observations on this Amendment rather more
  408
  extended in character than I had contemplated; for, after all, it was only when the right hon. Gentleman reached the very close of his speech that he dealt at large with the general principles that, he tells us, underlie the policy of the Government in dealing with this measure. It was only at that period of his argument that he touched, even in the smallest degree, upon the Amendment which is actually before us. It will be convenient, however, that I should reverse the order adopted, by the right hon. Gentleman, and should deal first with the Amendment we are nominally discussing, and then should say what appears to be necessary with regard to the broader aspects of the case as now presented on behalf of the Government. With regard to the Amendment itself, three gentlemen have spoken upon it. Three gentlemen have announced their intention of supporting it, and of these three two have told us that they disapprove of it. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he prefers the Bill without the Amendment. The learned Gentleman who preceded the right hon. Gentleman told us that he prefers the Bill without the Amendment; and it is left to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to say what is, I suppose, all that can be said in its favour. To what does that amount? Even he, the author and father of the Amendment, had hardly anything to say, except that he had no hope of persuading the majority of the House to rescind the decision to which they came on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crewe, and that the only chance of saving any portion of the system which his constituents so highly valued was to suggest the ludicrously inadequate proposal which is now before us. It is perfectly well known that if this House could vote by ballot upon this question there would be no—[Cries of "Oh, oh !"]—let me put it this way, then, as I observe that way hurts the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite—if this House had to decide the question by the predilection of hon. Members and of the House, strictly considering the Bill, and not considering what Party capital can be made out of a quarrel with the Lords— if that were the only question, there is no doubt that the House would reverse the decision to which it came, and

  409
  we should be found not less ready than our predecessors to maintain the traditions of freedom of contract. If the hon. Member for Rugby could persuade the Home Secretary that he is ill-advised in the policy he has pursued, the Amendment which the Lords have sent down would he accepted by the whole House. Whether I am right or wrong in my estimate of the position, it will, at all events, be allowed that if there be any value whatever, as we think there is, in the liberty to contract out of the Act under the conditions proposed in Lord Dudley's Amendment, the objects which we seek to attain are in no sense attained by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby. It is said by those who support the Amendment that, after all, you must give the employers time to turn round, and that if three years were given for considering the situation, the result would he that some new device would he contrived which would be as beneficial to the workmen on the London and North Western and the London and Brighton lines as that which they now enjoy. But what new fact can come to either men or employers on this question? Both have tried the arrangement: both say they like it; and the masters say they mean to give it up. I can quite understand the necessity for delay if there were an opening for new arrangements, but there is no such opening in the Bill. Under this Bill you have taken away every inducement to the masters to come to an arrangement with their men, and no meditation for three years, for six years, or for 12 years, is likely to alter the opinions which common sense and regard for their own interests are calculated to dictate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby has said that, much as he is in love with the system on the London and North Western, he has always been opposed to the creation of a similar system in other cases. Whoever heard of such an announcement as that ! The hon. Member says that the system in operation among his constituents is an excellent system, a beneficial and valuable system, which should in any ease be preserved; but to extend it, to give a single other workman in the country the benefit of that system, would he monstrous, inequitable, and contrary to the tradition of the Party to which ho belongs. We all feel for the position of the hon. Gen-
  410
  tleman between the Government Whips on tin; one side, and his own constituents on the other; but I should have thought that any course was preferable to the one of coming down to this House and making a proposal like this, supported by arguments like that I have endeavoured, not incorrectly, to repeat to the House. I have answered, such as they are, all the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment, and it is only necessary for mo on that branch of the topic to say that I, for my part, should regard any such plan as no compromise at all, as giving nothing to the workmen of this country that they have a right to demand, and as hardly giving anything even to the employés of these works where these great systems of insurance are already in existence. That being my view about the Amendment, I should have preferred to have deferred any more general remarks upon this subject until a later stage of our discussion: hut as the right hon. Gentleman has given us his general views, it will he more respectful to him were I at once, even very briefly, to reply to them. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government are maintaining the altitude which upon this subject they have held from the beginning—that their great object is to protect the lives and limbs of the workmen, and that they have not had in view primarily the giving of compensation for injuries—which is a very proper object for any Government to have in view— but to increase the care which employers use towards their workmen. But for the Governmental this stage of the discussion to tell us they have thought of nothing but the care exercised by employers, and not had primarily in view the extension of the system of compensation for injuries, surely implies, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, an astonishing forgetfulness of his own previous speeches on the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer back to his speech on the introduction of the Bill, he will see that his main contention on behalf of the Government from the beginning was that the workmen of this country were at a great disadvantage its regarded the doctrine of common employment, and that, it was only fair and just that they should be put on the same footing as the general public with reference to compensation for injuries. That

  411
  is quite a different argument to that which the Government now use. The reason employers have to give compensation to the public for injuries is not primarily because that makes employers careful; but because certain individuals suffer injury for which they should be compensated, and when the right hon. Gentleman sought to extend the principles of the existing law, under which we are now acting, to the general law as to workmen, of course it was in the original view of the Government for the same purpose— namely, to compensate those unfortunate persons who are deprived by some unfortunate accident of the capacity of earning their own living. Well, Sir, if that was the view of the Government, why is it they have changed? They have changed their opinion for this reason, and for this reason alone: that if they were to argue this question upon the ground that the main purpose of this Bill is 1o compensate for injuries, it is impossible to resist the Amendment of the House of Lords, because that Amendment greatly extends the capacity of the Bill to give compensation in cases of death or accident. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to answer the arguments of those who say that if this be the main purpose of the Government they ought to forbid insurance by the employer, as undoubtedly they ought to be consistent. The right hon. Gentleman was very severe on those who do not logically carry out to the bitter end the principles of freedom of contract which they profess. Let him carry out to the bitter end the principles he had expressed in regard to the carelessness of employers. If your real object is to penalise to the utmost limit of your power any employer who is responsible in the smallest degree for any accident, you must forbid him to insure. It is your only course; but you dare not take it. If you do not, what becomes of those arguments with regard to the effect on the employer of forbidding contracting out? They vanish altogether, for the responsibility falls on the Insurance Company, and the employer is relieved. It is said that the employer would not be able to insure unless he is a good employer—that if he is known to be a bad employer no Insurance Company will have any dealing with him. How is an Insurance Company to know whether an employer is taking the proper
  412
  precautions required in his trade? I think they can ascertain. If they can, so can Government Inspectors, and if Government Inspectors can see that all the proper precautions are being taken under the existing law, then I want to know what is the use of this additional precaution which you seem to think this Bill will provide against injury to workmen? If it is in the power of the Insurance Company to discover that a master is not using all proper precautions, it must be in the power of the Government to do the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman says:— "It is all very well to say that this Bill, if carried without Lord Dudley's Amendment, will destroy these Mutual Insurance Companies, but there is very good evidence that it will not." What does the right hon. Gentleman's evidence consist of? It consists of two cases. He noted the case of the Great Eastern Railway, and the case of the great Mining Associations in the North of England. With regard to the Great Eastern Railway, I believe the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly justified in relying upon that as an argument for showing that if the old law was amended so as to prevent contracting out the Great Eastern Railway Company would, no doubt, continue its subscriptions; but when he talks of the Great Northern Insurance Association, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment that Association is insolvent, largely because the employers have withdrawn their subscriptions in view of the policy of the Government? A more extraordinary instance to bring forward in proof of the view that this Bill will not destroy contracting out I never heard. The right hon. Gentleman's whole argument is vitiated by the fact that by this Bill you are calling into existence new conditions which will make the employers review their position. If this Bill gives the working man all you think it will give in the way of compensation, it must involve considerably greater sacrifices on the part of the masters, and if it does that, of course the masters will have a motive for reconsidering the privileges they have hitherto given to their men. It will, I am afraid, induce them to carry out and pursue the course which the London and North Western Company have distinctly asserted they mean to pursue. There is

  413
  one other argument which the right hon. Gentleman used. He said, "What an iniquitous thing it is, what an abuse of Governmental functions it is, to bring in a Government inspection in cases of this kind!"' This Government surely, of all others, ought not to bring forward that argument. They love Departmental Committees; and if I am told that the Board of Trade have not at their command a sufficient staff to carry out their duty, then I say, What becomes of all the great reforms which the right hon. Gentleman the President of that Board has told us he has lately carried out? What becomes of those labour bureaus, and all the great machinery he has been framing, if that Board is incapable of carrying out the simple, functions which under Lord Dudley's Amendment are intrusted to it? But, Sir, I want to make an appeal, not to the right hon. Gentleman, not to his colleagues, but to one or two gentlemen, or, at any rate, to one of them, whom I see sitting on the other side of the House, and who represents a great mining constituency in Northumberland. I recollect a very impressive speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Northumberland, and another, not less impressive, delivered by one of his colleagues who is now a Member of the Government, upon the subject of the Eight Hours Mining Bill. On what grounds was that Bill objected to by the two Representatives of the great mining industry of Northumberland? They said, in effect, "Why deprive us of what we value? We, the miners of Northumberland, do not deny that the Eight Hours Bill might do some good for you, but it is a very bad thing for us. Let us keep the privilege to which we attach so great a value."' Well, Sir, that argument impressed me, who have never been an advocate of the subject then under discussion, and I believe it impressed many of those who voted in favour of a general eight hours miners' day: but, if that argument be of value with regard to miners of Northumberland, why is it not to be of any value in the case of that great body of workmen who enjoy the privileges of these Insurance Associations in great railways and elsewhere. I know I may appeal not merely to the generosity, but to the sense of justice of the hon. Member for Northumberland, and J would ask
  414
  him, if he is going to support the Government to-night, whether he has reflected that by doing so—whatever be the collateral advantages of a quarrel with the House of Lords—lie will have aimed a blow at the interests of his brother workmen, which they will feel keenly and bitterly, and which they will not easily forget. Justice and generosity are on one side in this conflict, and it would be sheer insanity in this House, while professing outwardly with the lips to have a, regard for these Associations, deliberately to take a, course which even its strongest advocates can find no adequate reason for supporting, and which every dictate of common sense must induce us to believe will work with fatal effect to the Associations which exist, already, and will prevent for all time the reconstruction and embodiment of Associations of a similar nature in other parts of the country. Sir, I have travelled beyond the Amendment, following the example of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is only necessary for mo to say in conclusion that I think that the Government in their general resistance to the attitude taken up by the House of Lords are taking a course which they will not find it so easy as they suppose to defend before the constituencies of the country. I, at all events, Mr. Speaker, may speak openly upon this point, for I represent a, purely working man's constituency in Lancashire. I have within the last few days made a, speech to them entirely confined to this subject. I gave them my views with the same candour with which I have expressed them tonight, and I have no reason to believe that any considerable body of them dissent from the wisdom and justice of the course which I then said I should pursue. In these circumstances, I shall resist to the best of my power this illusory pretence of a compromise, and will do what I can to persuade the Government and the House from adopting a proposal which, I think, must have a, fatal effect on the future interests of the working classes of this country.
  *MR. W. S. B. M'LARENsaid, he regretted he could not agree with his two hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rugby and York, in the Amendment they had moved and seconded, to allow existing Mutual Insurance Societies, of which contracting

  415
  out was the basis, to continue only for; three years. He regretted they had taken this course. They had given them no reason to suppose that in three years the views of the employers would have altered. The theory upon which the Amendment was based was, of course, that after three years' experience of the operation of the Act, after watching how other employers were affected by the new Act, and how other Societies, such as that of the Great Eastern Railway—which did not involve contracting out—prospered, the employers in the cases now under consideration would modify their views, and would waive the condition of contracting out. He admitted that if this should prove to be the case, the Amendment would have been justified. But no evidence had been given to lead them to suppose that this would happen. Ho fully granted that where one of those Societies existed without the condition of contracting out, it was much better for the men. He wished this could be the case with them all, but his hon. Friends had not given them any reason to suppose that what they desired would happen. They were prepared to take the risk. He was not. That was the difference between them. They might find in throe years they had been mistaken, and then these Societies would come to an end as abrupt as that which would befall them if the Bill passed in its old form. The risk was too great. He attached too great importance to these Societies not to desire that they should be enabled to continue permanently if the men so desired, and he wished to leave the whole responsibility on the men themselves. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said that he would not consent to any words which would permanently exclude men from the Act. But no one proposed such words, for his (Mr. M'Laren's) clause, and also Lord Dudley's, gave the men the light every three years to bring the question again to the vote. What they desired was to leave the responsibility to the men themselves, and if they desired to continue' these Societies for successive periods of three years, he could not consent to compulsorily ending them at the close of the first three years. It had been said that the House could not go back upon its decision, but he did not see any reason why it should not. No
  416
  decision come to in that House was irrevocable, and when they remembered that the House decided to prohibit contracting out under existing conditions by the narrow majority of 18—and that that majority was gained, not by argument in the House, but in the Lobby by the influence of the Whips—surely they might well be asked to reconsider their position. It would be said that three years' time was better than nothing at all, and that the House of Commons might have changed its mind by that time. He only hoped that would be so. When they came to a Division, however, he would vote against his hon. Friend's Amendment, in the hope that the House would decide that existing Societies should be allowed to continue in their present form where the men might so desire.
  MR. WOODSsaid, he deeply regretted the position he found himself in with regard to this Amendment. He would much rather that the Government had seen their way to have gone the whole way in opposition to the Lords. Their going half-way was not in harmony with their past procedure on this important measure. The conduct of the Home Secretary had met with the fullest approval of the working classes up to this stage; and he (Mr. Woods) very much regretted that a proposition should be made in this House to shelve the whole thing for three years. As a Representative of 50,000 or 60,000 miners in this House, he knew that they felt most strongly upon this important question; and if it became a question of losing this Bill altogether, to accepting the terms of the Lords, he believed they would prefer to lose the Bill, because they did not think it would be lost for long, since the action of public opinion would soon force its passage into law. He rose to say this on behalf of the Lancashire miners, and he thought in speaking he represented 300,000 of the National Federation— [Cries of "Question!"]—he believed this Amendment would not be approved by those men. It was all very well to say that those who were engaged in nine-tenths of the industry of the country would have the benefit of the Act; but let them contrast with other industries the case of the miners who, owing to this condition of employment, were not to have the benefit of the Act. By them the Act in this shape could not be re-

  417
  ceived with approval. He thought the Government would have done better to have kept on in their original way. They had no guarantee that, even if this Amendment were passed, the passing of the Hill would be facilitated in the Lords, and they would then be in the position that, while the Government had surrendered, the measure would not have progressed. Of course, he could not vote in the Division on this occasion. He had been paired since the termination of the coal trade look-out last year; bill if he bad the right to vote, ho should certainly have voted against the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and be would have done that with the approval of his constituents and of the working classes of the country. This was not a protection Bill for employers. It was a Bill intended to protect the rights of the working men of England; and were they to go back and tell those men that under this law they were to remain under the conditions that at present prevailed? It was not contracting out that was so objectionable. There was the greater question of the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. It was for that reason he would like to see the Government fight in this matter; if they did so, they would have the support of the working men of this country. He rose for the purpose of making clear his views on the question. If he were in a position enabling him to vote, it would be with great reluctance he would find himself in the opposite Lobby to that of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as be believed by giving such a vote he would give a stronger support to the whole Bill than he otherwise could do, and render it, certain that it would be accomplished and inscribed on the Statute Book of the country.
  MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's)said, the hon. Member who had just sat down claimed to represent the mines of Lancashire. He also represented a constituency in that part of the country, and, as he had recently- bad interviews with some of the miners who were among his supporters, be would like to inform the hon. Member and the House that a good many of those minors were not in favour of the Amendment. When the Member for the Ince Division came down and said that these men were in favour of destroying the Mutual Insurance Socie-
  418
  ties he was very much mistaken. The hon. Member was wrong in thinking that it was sought to deprive them of any privileges. The Home Secretary had said the Bill was going to increase the incentive on the part of employers to protect their workmen. They could not make anything larger than it. was; and the incentive at present was so great that to say this Bill would increase it was political cant of the purest water. He did not rise for the purpose of giving an elaborate answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He rose chiefly to answer the arguments of the hon. Member who came from the same part of Lancashire as himself. He was anxious to know, however, how the three years' limit was going to do any good whatever to the men who wanted to contract out of this Act? He did not see how the Amendment would in any way benefit the men who enjoyed the advantages of mutual insurance, and desired to continue enjoying them. Instead of withdrawing the right now, the hon. Member would withdraw it three years hence. It seemed to him that the present Amendment formed a kind of excuse on the part of the hon. Member who proposed it for running away from the position taken up by the hon. Member for Crewe. He could say, from the expressions of opinion which be had heard from the men themselves, that they wore not in agreement with the views of the hon. Member for the Ince Division. For that hon. Member to say that they were was to say what was untrue and unfounded —though, of course, he did not accuse the hon. Member of any want of sincerity. Ho wished the men to have the right they now enjoyed; and, for that reason, he was in favour of the hon. Member for Crewe's proposal. All the facts, he could assure the House, were appreciated by the workmen. If the Government wore treating this matter from a purely Party point of view, in the hope of catching the votes of the workmen at the General Election, they would find at the polls that they had been misled by some of their followers; and that they would lose rather than gain, because they had greatly mistaken the views entertained by the working classes on this question.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down told them that this

  419
  Bill had the approval of the working men, who understood it.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he was referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he inferred from that that those who did not appreciate the Member for Crewe's Amendment did not understand the issue raised by the Amendment. He left that matter to be settled between the hon. Member and those of his constituents for whom he spoke with such ability in this House. He (Mr. Fenwick) never cared to speak in this House simply for speaking sake, and if it had not been that he had been challenged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) he should have been content to give a silent vote on this question. The Leader of the Opposition twitted the Members for Rugby and York with supporting an Amendment of which they disapproved. Well, he (Mr. Fenwick) had known the Leader of the Opposition himself to be compelled to take a course which amounted to choosing the lesser of two evils. That was their position in this matter. They would have preferred the Bill in the form in which it loft this House; but, as the friends of the Leader of the Opposition in another place had altered it, they wore driven to choose the lesser of two evils— whether they would wreck the Bill entirely, or accept it with a time limit. In these circumstances, he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, in the hope that wiser counsels would prevail when the Bill returned to the other House, and that the Lords would then allow it to pass without amendment. Before referring to the matter upon which the Leader of the Opposition directly appealed to him, he would like to say a word on another question. Referring to the arrangement which existed among the miners in Northumberland and Durham, the Leader of the Opposition interrogating the Home Secretary asked him whether he was aware that the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund in those counties was insolvent, and whether he was aware that that insolvency was due to the withdrawal of the employers' contribution in face of the present proposal of the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was in error. The failure of the contribu-
  420
  tion of the employers dated, he believed, as far back as the refusal of the workmen to contract themselves out of the Act.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid, he was very glad to have that correction. It materially altered the situation. Of course, it was more than 13 years since the employers, many of them, withdrew their contributions from that fund, and the fund existed without any sacrifice of right on the part of the workmen. Many of the employers who withdrew their contributions in 1880, after the fears which had been created by the passing of that Act had subsided and it was found by experience that the measure was not such an evil as had been expected, came back again and gave over their contributions —many of them, not the whole of them, he admitted. It was scarcely fair to say that the fund was insolvent. It was not insolvent in the sense that the fund or the management were unable to meet any claims that occurred from day to day or from month to month. Actuarially, no doubt—having regard to contingencies arising from explosions and so forth—it might be called insolvent, but the right hon. Gentleman himself could not point to a single Mutual Insurance Fund that was not in a similar position. Even the London and North Western Association, which had been championed so much in these Debates, was in no better position than the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund in the North of England. One of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues—a gentleman representing a division of Cumberland—in addressing a meeting of miners in the North of England, was reputed to have said that the effect of the Bill as it had left the House of Commons would have been to destroy such Associations as the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund. It was pretty evident that that hon. Member did not know what he was talking about —if he was correctly reported—for that fund existed for the protection of the workmen who had, in addition, every advantage which the law afforded. The Leader of the Opposition had referred to the report of a speech he (Mr. Fenwick) delivered in the House on a previous occasion on a totally different subject from that they were now considering. Without going into that speech, or the reasons which prompted it, he (Mr. Fenwick) would only say that he was of the same opinion to-day on this matter as

  421
  he was on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman saw some close connection between the question that was then under consideration and the matter they were now debating. There was not the slightest connection, not the slightest similarity, between the two cases. Of what would they deprive any member of the working class community by the passing of this Hill? The Leader of the Opposition was careful enough not to reply to a part of the arguments of the Home Secretary. He had passed over without notice the crux of the very able argument of the Home Secretary. The friends of the Leader of the Opposition out of the House never wearied of telling them that the Bill would put an end once and for all to Mutual Insurance Societies if it passed in the form in which it left the House. Nothing of the kind. He (Mr. Fenwick) had not heard in all the arguments that had been addressed to the House or in the country by gentlemen in opposition, a word which went to show how, in any sense, the passing of the Bill would prohibit the formation of Mutual Insurance Societies. The hon. Member who last addressed the House appeared to attach considerable importance to the two thirds majority in the Lords Amendment. He (Mr. Fenwick) was at a loss to understand how the hon. Member, or any of his friends who supported that principle, could describe themselves as the advocates of individual freedom, or of freedom of contract. He (Mr. Fenwick) had no hesitation in frankly stating to the House that he was a Trades Unionist. He believed thoroughly in the principle of Trades Unionism, and in the good effects which Labour Organisations had produced in the interests of the workmen; but what would be the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite if he and his friends said that the Trades Unionists in the country, believing thoroughly in the principle of Trades Unionism, demanded the passing of a law which would enable two-thirds of the workmen in any industry to compel the remaining one-third to join a Union?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there was no such parallel between that ease and the proposal under Lord Dudley's Amendment.
  MR. FENWICK: Not under the revised edition, but the present form of the Amendment was equally bad in that
  422
  respect. The right hon. Gentleman had supported Lord Dudley's Amendment in the first instance without the proviso that, a man could free himself by giving notice. But what was the meaning of Lord Dudley's Amendment—what would be the effect of it in its amended form? It would be, that any member of the minority who gave notice of his intention to remain outside the arrangement would give that which was tantamount to a notice to leave his employment.
  An hon. MEMBER: Why?
  MR. FENWICK: For the reason that no employer would undertake to maintain two such arrangements. The practical effect, therefore, would be to compel every man where two-thirds were in favour of the principle to become a member of such an Organisation. Gentlemen who asked "Why?" had not had, he feared, the close connection with workmen and employers which some of them unfortunately had had. It was because, in his own judgment and that of those with whom ho was accustomed to act, this would be the result that they were most decidedly opposed to the Lords Amendment. To get rid of the deadlock, much as they disliked the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, strongly as they were opposed to contracting out in any shape or form— and in this respect they but echoed the expression of opinion which had been given by the organised workers in various parts of the country, almost without a dissentient voice— in order that time might be given to employers and workmen connected with these Associations to discover what was likely from experience to be the effect of the operation of the Act, they would make the concession of inserting the time limit in the Bill. He was satisfied of this: that instead of the Act operating against the development of mutual insurance, it would have very decidedly an opposite effect, because, as soon as the Bill was passed, workmen and employers alike would be influenced, as they were in Northumberland and in Durham, to establish a, Mutual Association whereby workmen were not compelled to give up any protection which the law afforded them, and were also compensated for any accident that occurred, whether due to the negligence of employers or fellow-work-men, or of the workman himself. That

  423
  was a condition of things which operated to-day in the North of England, and that, he believed, would he the condition of things which would operate in other parts of the country. But they were told that this measure would give rise to considerable litigation. Well, it was a curious fact that in the North of England in the largest collieries, such as Lord Londonderry's and the collieries owned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street, where the employers contributed generously to the fund as compared with other employers, there had scarcely, in the working of the whole 13 years, been a case of litigation, clearly proving that where the employers treated their workmen in a spirit of generosity there was the least disposition on the part of the workmen to take advantage of such employer; and his own opinion was that if a Bill were to pass prohibiting contracting out, it would load to a greater development of such organisations, and tend greatly to smooth over many labour difficulties, and to foster good relations between employers and employed. And this was not the least of the influences which operated in his mind, leading him to decide to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby.
  MR. D. PLUNKET: I will not detain the House at any great length, but I desire to make a few observations in part for the purpose of removing some misapprehension which, I think, may have been produced by the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby, who proposed this Amendment; and in part also to join in the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for Crowe to the Member for Rugby and the Government that they will not go any further in support of this Amendment. I suppose it has scarcely ever happened in the House before that on an important occasion, with reference to an important Bill, at an important crisis of politics, an Amendment should have been proposed by a private Member and adopted by the Representatives of the Government which has not during the Debate taking place upon it received the hearty or willing support of any Member who has spoken. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called attention to the fact that that was the case when he spoke. Then, by his own speech, he demon-
  424
  strates that the Opposition, represented by himself, do not desire that the Amendment shall be pressed. The hon. Member for the Ince Division, who claims to speak for a large number of working men, said that if he were able to vote on this occasion he should vote against the Amendment, for the reason that the working men do not desire to have it at all. Ho not only chides the Government for their inconsistency in the course they are taking, but declares that his friends would rather that the whole Bill should be lost than that such an Amendment as this should be introduced into it. The hon. Member who has just sat down gives an unwilling assent to the Amendment, but at the same time declares that the Bill would be much better without it, and ho does not desire that it should be inserted. Then, let me ask, why is this Amendment to be proceeded with? I say it is not the right way to deal with a measure of importance to the working community of this country, that with regard to what is to be put into the Bill you should not act in accordance with the desires of the Representatives of these people as expressed in the House, but simply, as I aver, for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of Party interests of the moment for the purpose of making it easier for some of the supporters of the Government to extricate themselves from a difficulty, and at the same time making a little more decent and tolerable the action to be founded on the conduct of the House of Lords. Just consider the absurd position in which the Government and their supporters would find themselves if they had no Amendment to stand between them and the other House, and if the issue were put, as the hon. Member for Crewe said, fairly and squarely before this House ! The Amendment is practically the same as that adopted in November on the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe. The result of the Debate and of the pressure put upon the Government by their supporters on that occasion, as described by the hon. Member for Crewe just now—and that hon. Member, certainly, is a reliable witness on that subject—was that the Amendment was carried by only 19 votes, the majority including 57 Members from Ireland, which country, according to the hon. Member for Battersea (Hansard, 10th November, 1893, page

  425
  693), has no appreciable interest in the subject, because 7o per cent. of its population are engaged in agriculture. If 75 per cent. of the 57 Irish Members had abstained from voting, the Government would have been in a minority of 29. That would have been a great misfortune for the agitation launched with so much bombast and rodomontade against the House of Lords. The first plank in the platform of this great attack on the House of Lords is an Amendment carried by a majority of 19 in this House against the protests of all the working men who are most interested, and carried by the votes of those whom their own supporters tell them have comparatively little interest in the matter. Sir, the thing is perfectly ridiculous; and the agitation will die upon the instant, if it has not fallen stillborn. But what I want to submit is that the hon. Member for Rugby has entirely misrepresented the attitude taken towards the Amendment of the Directors of the London and North Western Railway and the views of the men themselves. The hon. Member said he was anxious—and I think some of the other speakers have repeated the remark—to give the Directors of the London and North Western Railway Company, and other companies who may be similarly situated, an opportunity of "turning round," and also of seeing how harmlessly this Act will work, and how unnecessary it will be to make any alteration in the present insurance system. But we do not want time to "turn round." We have had experience of this Society for 13 years. We know all about it; and as to any information we might receive by the working of this Bill, of this we are certain: that no such addition would be made to the liability of the company under any possible number of actions that could be brought under this Bill as would approach the sum of £22,000, which we now pay in support of the Society. That is not the ground upon which we take the caveat. We know that our £22,000 is not at all commensurate with any damages we should have to suffer. As I explained before, we made our bargain with our men at that time, and are willing to adhere to it if the conditions of the matter remain as they were then; but it is absurd to suppose that if the conditions are changed, and if the Directors are to be subject to actions, to
  426
  threats of actions, and to friction and discontent resulting from such actions and threats, that we shall adhere to our bargain and go on contributing the largo sum we now give to the fund. But I rose not so so much to re-state the view which on a former occasion I had the opportunity of expressing as of stating the view of the men themselves. On hearing that the hon. Member for Rugby intended to move this Amendment I wrote to the Secretary of our Mutual Insurance Society asking him what would be the views of those ho represented on this subject, and I have received this reply—
  "From the men's point of view I think the idea of a time limit to the existing arrangements would he altogether unsatisfactory, as it would simply mean the certain loss of the advantages for which they are fighting at the end of three years, or whatever other period might be fixed upon.
  "In principle such a course appears to be altogether inconsistent.
  "If the arrangement is a good and beneficial one and desired by the men. why limit it to three years: but, on the other hand, if it is not of such a benefit to the men as claimed for it, why allow it to remain in operation for the time named?"
  I would venture to accentuate that argument. The Home Secretary says it is not a matter of compensation at all, but to prevent injury to life and limb. If so, he has no right to accept an Amendment which allows this danger to exist for three years. The writer goes on to say—
  "It might be a temporary advantage to the men to continue the arrangement as long as possible; but when they know the system has to go within a limited time, I do not think they would be at all anxious to defer the change, as the future would be one of doubt and uncertainty to them, and, of course, in the meantime they could hardly be expected to take much interest in a system that had been doomed, or in funds from which they are unlikely to derive any benefit in the future.
  "It cannot be asserted that such a period is needed for experimental purposes, as the Society can point to an experience of upwards of 12 years, and a time allowance for winding up the affairs of the Society is equally unnecessary, inasmuch as this could be done at the present time as well as at the end of a period of three years."
  I thank the House for having allowed me to read that letter, for it states in a nutshell the practical bearings of this question. I challenge anyone to dispute the common-sense arguments put forward in that letter, written on behalf of the working men themselves. But this Amendment is put forward, or supported, without any view to such practical con-

  427
  siderations. It is a mere Party move designed to afford a means of escape to hon. Gentlemen who formerly supported the Member for Crewe and who would not refuse to vote for him again if this issue were put fairly and squarely as ho desires to put it. I dare say it is for another reason too. What is the meaning of this period of three years? What justice, or reason, or logic is there in fixing a period of three years? I do not know whether it has entered into the astute calculations of the gentleman who first suggested this Amendment, but a period of three years is just the period which will safely carry any representative of voters who would be injured by the passing of the Bill over the probable chances of the next General Election. One year might be enough, but then it might not. Two years would probably do the trick, but they might not; but three years will surely carry hon. Gentlemen over that unpleasant period. But I do not believe the Amendment will serve this purpose. I do not believe it will deceive working men. Working men are not to be dealt with as if they were children. The workmen of the London and North Western Railway are as intelligent, as brave, as independent, and as honest a set of men as can be found in the United Kingdom, and they will not be humbugged by such a device. Every hon. Gentleman who votes for the Amendment in order to extricate himself as he hopes from an electioneering difficulty will practically sign the death warrant of a Society as far as he can do so the preservation of which is earnestly desired, I believe, by every one of its members.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): I shall occupy the attention of the House for a very short time on this occasion, having had an opportunity previously of saying at considerable length what I feel in regard to the matter. Although I would not say anything in deprecation of the discussion, I feel that the Amendment itself has a very unreal character. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) has spoken with some severity of the conduct of the hon. Member for Rugby, who very characteristically, after running away from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe, has now run away from his own. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin suggests that
  428
  an Amendment which has not a single supporter in the House upon its merits must be a wire-puller's Amendment to tide over the personal difficulties of the hon. Member for Rugby. I confess I am disposed to take a more favourable view of the situation. The hon. Member is very successful when ho approaches the Government with an Amendment, and on a previous occasion he very nearly involved the two Houses in a conflict by an injudicious Amendment which he proposed. He has now come down as a peacemaker, and he wishes to propitiate the House, which he fears he has offended, by a previous Amendment. If the hon. Member had been present I should have appealed to him, in view of the fact that his Amendment satisfies no one—that we of the Opposition are going to vote against it, and that those whom it is intended to conciliate do not like it at all —to withdraw it in order that we might fight out a broad and important issue in a way which everyone can understand, and without any connection with those electoral devices which after all, I think, are not very creditable. I say that the Government do not like the Amendment, though they accept it in deference to the influence of the hon. Member for Rugby. I wish I knew exactly what the view of the Government was in regard to this Bill. Do they really attach importance to it? Is it really, as sometimes we have been told, a new charter for the working classes, or is it, on the contrary, a mere counter in the political game? Is it merely a bono of contention which they have unearthed with regard to ulterior purposes, in order to promote that quarrel of which we hear so much in some of the Gladstone organs? If it be not the latter, if it be that it is bonâ fide their sense of the importance of this Bill, I venture to urge upon them that whatever happens to these Amendments, that even if the strongest of all of them were accepted, there would still remain for the benefit of the working classes of this country 99–100ths of the Bill. If I say that the effect of the first of these Amendments, from the point of view of the Government, would only be to diminish by 1 per cent. the value of the Bill, I am not sure I have not put it too high. What is the state of the case? None of these Amendments affect men who desire to have the Bill and do not want anything

  429
  else. None of these Amendments would prevent any such person having the full enjoyment of the Bill. That is absolutely certain. All the pretence which was raised in the earlier discussion as to the possibility of companies like the London and North Western, Messrs. Armstrong's at Newcastle, or manufacturers like Messrs. Chance at Birmingham, coercing their workpeople into accepting these agreements has been entirely surrendered. It is ludicrous in view of the facts to put forward any contention of that kind. In every way by which opinion can be tested, the opinion of the men has been tested. It has been taken by ballot, by public meeting, and by their own Representatives in this House. If really these men are being coerced, what are we to think of the wisdom of the hon. Member for Crewe and of the hon. Member for Rugby, who actually are going to vote against their Party in order to ensure that their constituents shall be coerced against their will? That argument falls to the ground, and we are face to face with the fact that the only men who would lose the advantages of the Bill are men who would surrender them of their own absolute free will, knowing exactly what they do, and, rightly or wrongly, preferring something else. If the Government and the House seriously believe that it is of great importance to the working classes of this country that common employment should be abolished; that provisions about unhealthy trades should be inserted; that seamen should be brought under the operation of the Employers' Liability Bill, why do they refuse to give this power to 99 out of every 100 working men because there is one in 100 who prefers to have something else? It is a most monstrous supposition that the Government can really be in earnest in telling us that they value this Bill, when they are willing to throw over 99 per cent. of the working classes in so slight a cause as that. Why did the Government object to Lord Dudley's old Amendment? We know now, not from the reasons given us to-night, but for the reasons given to the Lords. The reason for disagreement was formally communicated to the Lords, and those Amendments were drawn up by a Committee, of which the Home Secretary was the most important Member. The reason was that it was undesirable to allow employers to contract themselves
  430
  out of the obligations of the Bill without finding an adequate substitute. The principle is gone. All this fine talk about the lives and limbs of 300,000 miners, which the hon. Gentleman below me professes to represent, goes to the wall if all you have to consider is whether an adequate substitute can be found for the compensation provided by the Bill. It has nothing to do with this question of negligence. That has been altogether dropped. All we have to consider is an adequate substitute as a necessary condition to any contracting out of the Bill. I will not ask the House to consider directly whether there is an adequate substitute. Let me return for a moment to the argument of the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Woods). What is the argument with which he and his friends go to the country, where, unfortunately, there is no one to meet them face to face? You can well imagine that if a meeting of working men, who have not had time carefully to consider the details of this Bill, were told it was a measure which was going to protect their lives, and that a proposal had been made by the Lords which would destroy that protection, they would naturally be very indignant with the Lords and very anxious to see the success of the measure. I have proved again and again in this House that this Bill does nothing for the security of the workman. I defy the hon. Member for Ince to point to one single case of an accident in any colliery which care on the part of the employer could have prevented, and for which the employer would not under the present law be liable. All this Bill does is to make the employer answerable for the negligence of his workmen, over whom he has no control. It would be perfectly absurd to say that a mine-owner could have any control over 300 men, or it may be 3,000 men, employed many of them miles away from him underground, the carelessness of one of whom may bring about an accident for which this Bill makes the employer liable. I do not complain of that, because I am anxious that the man injured should have compensation; but I assert that the fact of our using the employer as the channel through which compensation shall come does not make him more careful in cases in which no care on his part can possibly prevent accident. It is not honest or fair to go

  431
  to working men and tell them that this is a question of life and limb; it is not a question of life and limb; it is a question of pecuniary compensation. The question in all these matters is whether they will take the compensation which the Bill undoubtedly proposes to give them for cases of accident caused by the negligence of the employer or his servants, or whether they will prefer to throw up the Bill and take compensation such as is offered them under some of these voluntary arrangements for every accident, whether caused by negligence or not. I have been addressing public meetings. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) assumed just now to speak for the working classes of the country. I protest against any one man having the presumption to say that he speaks for the working classes.
  MR. WOODS: I can only confirm that statement by the fact that for the last seven or eight years the Trades Union Congress, which represents all the trades of the country, have passed resolutions to that effect.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, if the hon. Member had said that he spoke for the Trades Union Congress, I should have admitted his right to speak for them; but I beg to inform him, as ho appears not to know it, that there is a great difference between the Trades Union Congress and the whole of the working classes of this country. In the first place, the Trades Union Congress does not profess to speak for more than a fraction of the working classes of this country, and no more than a fraction of the working classes of this country are at the present time connected, through their Trades Union, with the Trades Union Congress. I say that the working classes of this country are divided upon this question as upon many others. At all events, we and the Opposition who lake an interest in the matter have not failed to go before them and fully to explain and fairly to defend our views. I am bound to say that from my own experience I believe that the working classes are on our side. When addressing large meetings almost exclusively of working men I have never found more than one or two dissentient voices to the principles to which I have endeavoured to obtain assent, although I have been addressing audiences composed in a large proportion of members of the political
  432
  Party to which I am opposed. I will not enterupon the question in what proportions the working classes are divided. Assuming that only 1 per cent. of them want to make these arrangements, why forbid them from making them? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that he does not forbid them. He has told us again to-night that he is in favour of these arrangements, that he is most friendly to them. He must mean these arrangements which we are discussing—for otherwise his argument would be irrelevant—namely, arrangements by which, in return for contracting out of the Act by the workman, he obtains certain advantages from the insurance fund to which his employer contributes.
  *MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I meant nothing of the kind, and I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that I was in favour of mutual arrangements whereby both the employer and the workman contributed to a fund from which the workman might get compensation for all injuries. I did not say I approved of arrangements of which contracting out was a term. On the contrary, my argument was that contracting out had been shown by experience not to be of the essence of such arrangements.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I can only say that my right hon. Friend's statement that he was friendly to these arrangements was not in the slightest degree relevant to his argument. His argument was that these arrangements would not be destroyed by the Bill; and that if they thought they would be destroyed, the Government would not be inclined to press the Bill. But all these arrangements which we have been discussing all this time will be destroyed by the Bill. The Bill will make illegal any such arrangement as that which now exists between the London and North Western Railway Company and its workmen. When my right hon. Friend says he believes these arrangements will not be destroyed, perhaps he means that he believes some other arrangements will be substituted for them. But that is a totally different thing, and I do not think that is quite a frank way of meeting the argument which is addressed to him. I say that he told the House that he was friendly to these arrangements. Now it appears that he is not, and that he

  433
  intends to destroy them; but he thinks that when he has destroyed them, the parties to these arrangements will make some other and equally good arrangements. I say that he is again going hack upon the statement he has made on every occasion on which he has addressed the House, in which he puts his opinion as to what these people will do against their own solemn statement of what they will do. In spite of what the Directors of the London and North Western Rail-way have said, the Home Secretary persists in believing that they will not do what they say they will do. Of course, he is entitled to hold that opinion if he likes, but, that will not satisfy the men who have entered into these arrangements. They do not believe that the company will consent to pay these largo sums after they have lost the one great advantage for which they have hitherto expended them. That one great advantage has been the prevention of litigation with their workpeople and the maintenance of friendly terms between them. According to the Home Secretary, they are to lose that and at the same time keep up their contributions to the fund. It is clear that the Home Secretary does not credit the employers of this country with common sense if he supposes that they are going to carry on business on such a system as that. If they are not likely to continue the present arrangements, what ground has the right hon. Gentleman for supposing that other agreements will be made of the kind he suggests? It has been pointed out that where these agreements exist at present they affect only the liability of the employer for his own negligence; but it is well-known that the accidents arising from the negligence of the employer do not amount to a mere fractional percentage of the whole accidents that occur. Of course, where the employer, by taking some particular precaution, can save life, he would be an absolute scoundrel if he did not take that precaution; consequently, the accidents which now occur, and which are due to the negligence of the employer, are very few indeed, so few that it may well be that a company like the Great Eastern Railway Company have not thought it necessary to take them into account. Take the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. J. Burns)—the case of the shunters. Accidents to shunters have, I believe, hardly ever been of such
  434
  a character as to form a ground for damages where an action has been brought, because in almost every case it has been shown that the accident was due either to the negligence of another workman or to the contributory negligence of the poor man who was injured. The Bill of the Government, undoubtedly, in all cases in which the accident is due to the negligence of a fellow-workman, would give a right of action. The number of cases would, therefore, be very much larger, and the company would be no longer able to treat the matter as of no importance. My own conviction is, that if this Bill passes its present shape you will not only destroy the existing arrangements, but you will prevent the possibility of future arrangements. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) admits that he does not want these arrangements, whereby without the aid of the law provision is made for all accidents.
  Mr. FENWICK: I am not sure, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman is provided with evidence on that point, because, to the best of my knowledge, I never said so.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend said so this evening. What I say is, that my hon. Friend does not desire that these arrangements should be continued whereby without legislation these advantages are secured to working men. That was undoubtedly the whole of his argument. At all events, those who believe, as I do, that it is of infinitely greater importance to the working classes that they should get universal compensation than that any further responsibility than already lies upon the employer should be attempted to be placed on his shoulders will not accept that argument. They will feel that a policy such as that would be fatal to the real interests of the workmen. While I would not give anything for such an Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb), which would only leave the matter hung up for three years unsettled, and would certainly not permit, of any future arrangements being made, on the other hand, I do hope that even now, at the last moment, the House of Commons may see fit to agree in principle with the Amendment which has come down from the House of Lords, and in which it cannot be denied there is an adequate substitute for the compensation

  435
  provided under the Bill. I admit that there was something in the argument of the Home Secretary when the Amendment of Lord Dudley was first before the House. It was said that the contribution of the employer was too small. The House of Lords have now met that objection, and have raised the amount of the employer's contribution from one-quarter to one-third. My right hon. Friend also complained that under the Amendment the establishment of bogus funds might be possible. That is provided for in the amended Amendment, because in that he will find that wherever the fund is insufficient for the purpose, and the employer is unwilling to make up the deficiency, the workman shall, necessarily ipso facto, fall back on all the rights which are conferred upon him by the Bill, so that in no circumstances can he be worse off, while he may be much better off than under the Bill. I think the issue under these circumstances is a very broad one. It is whether those who are going to have all the advantages of this Bill will not be satisfied to take them, unless they can prevent a certain number of their fellows from getting advantages outside it? Nobody will he deprived of any of the advantages of this Bill by Lord Dudley's Amendment. On the other hand, if that Amendment is not passed there are many workmen in this country who will find themselves deprived of advantages which they know perfectly well how to appreciate.
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, he supposed the Amendment had been put forward in the interests of Party exigencies. Personally, he should have preferred no such arrangement, and he assured the House that the bulk of workmen, whether belonging to Trades Unions or to Friendly Societies, were united in opposition to the principle of contracting out, and did not desire that it should be recognised for three years, or even for three months. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had told them no man had a right to assume that he was the Representative of the working class opinion in that House. Possibly, he was correct in saying so, but he might add that if he wanted to know the political opinions of Birmingham he would have said that the right hon. Gentleman, by virtue of his majority at the last Election, represented those opinions with fair accuracy. But at the
  436
  same time, if he wanted to know the opinions of the working classes of Birmingham, irrespective of politics, he would go to the Trades Council, to which, on industrial questions, he would defer, just as much as he would defer on the political opinions of Birmingham to the right hon. Gentleman. Now, it seemed to him that the balance of Party advantage rested in rejecting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, and he regretted that the Government had accepted this proposal to compromise with the other place, for he believed that if the Bill were dropped in consequence of its mutilation by the House of Lords they would be able to pass an even stronger Bill after the next General Election. Representing, as he claimed to do, some, at any rate, of the working classes, he ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the workmen contended that mutual insurance fostered neglect and inefficient inspection of machinery; and they objected to the co-operation of masters in the establishment and maintenance of insurance schemes. It surely would not be suggested that the House of Lords had a greater right to speak with authority on these questions than the Trades Union Congress. There was no comparison on that point between the two bodies. As to the masters, their chief object in co-operating in these schemes was to chloroform their workmen by the agency of these Societies against those "cruel organisations"—Trades Unions. It was to him a matter of extreme regret that the right hon. Member for Birmingham no longer took the same view as he expressed in 1884. He must apologise for referring to the right hon. Gentleman's utterances in that year, for he did not believe in statesmanship by Press-cutting agency. Still, at times, it was convenient to refer to past speeches, and he wished to say that when the right hon. Gentleman made his brilliant speech in that year on the Merchant Shipping Bill every workman who spoke the English tongue cordially agreed with the sentiments to which he gave such forcible expression. The Duke of Argyll, as quoted by the right hon. Member in 1884, in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill, had stated that care for life was less eager and wakeful than care for property, and that insurance relaxed the motives of self-interest, which were the strongest

  437
  incitements to precaution. The right hon. Gentleman went one better than that, and declared that legislators were beginning to realise that to promote security it was necessary to give to all persons concerned a direct personal and direct pecuniary interest in its maintenance. Well, if they established Mutual Insurance Societies into which workmen would be forced against their will they destroyed that direct personal and pecuniary interest. It was all very well to talk about a two-thirds majority being required before contracting out was possible, but there were plenty of ways of securing that majority. They had, for instance, only to call a meeting of railway employés, to place a Director in the chair, to pack the gathering with station masters, inspectors, foremen, and gangers, and, worst of all, with men whose one idea was to got promotion; they wanted only a polite speech from the chairman pointing out that it would be to the interest of the men to contract out, and their end was attained. They might have a secret ballot, but it would prove a farce. In these days the men were brought into daily contact with Directors, managers, and foremen; and secrecy on these questions was practically impossible, even if it could be ensured on other social and political questions. What was the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches in 1884? Although, unfortunately, his Bill did not pass, it had the same effect as would ensue from the passing of this Employers' Liability Bill; and to the right hon. Gentleman more than to any other man was credit due for having reduced the deaths and casualties which he then attributed to the over-insurance and under-manning of ships.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Not under-manning.
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, that interruption only strengthened his point. The right hon. Gentleman attributed these deaths to over-insurance, but he also, in a later part of his speech, referred to the subject of under-manning. The fact remained, that in 1884 the number of deaths from wrecks and of casualties was three and a half times as many as at the present time; and he ventured to assert that if this Bill were passed without the Lords Amendment it would make masters put their ships and machinery in order, and lead to salutary results, just as the speeches of the right
  438
  hon. Gentleman effected good in 1884. It had been said that this Bill would not reduce the; number of shunters' accidents; but he was convinced that if the London and North Western Company were to employ more shunters, paying their wages with the £22,000 which they now contributed to their mutual insurance fund, the number of accidents would soon be reduced by 50 per cent. How could the right, hon. Gentleman reconcile his reactionary attitude of to-day with his declarations of 1884? How could he reconcile his present disparaging statements as to Trades Unionism with the eloquent words he used to Mr. Harford's deputation of railway servants, who asked for an Employers' Liability Bill plus non-contracting out? The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion agreed with the deputation; why had he since altered his views? Now he came to another speech. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University seemed to think that the Irish Members had no right to vote upon this question, on the ground that the Bill did not apply to Ireland to the same extent as to England; but if it was wrong for them to vote, it must be equally wrong fort he Conservative Members for agricultural constituencies, and they would, he hoped, abstain. What were the reasons advanced by the right hon. Member for Dublin University for the vote he was about to give? He did not represent docker or engineer; but he happened to be one of the Directors of the London and North Western. Would he vote in his capacity as Member for Dublin University? Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman and himself were in precisely the same position—one was as much an agitator on this question as the other—and, therefore, the sooner they both left off talking about disinterestedness the better. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his temperate speech, which offered a marked contrast to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in another place, had referred to himself as the Representative of a great Lancashire industrial constituency. Undoubtedly, the operatives of Lancashire supported Conservative views to a greater extent than those in other parts of Great Britain; but he doubted greatly whether the right hon. Gentleman represented the views of the textile operatives of Lancashire when he supported the principle of contracting out, and surely it

  439
  would not be said that on this point the Leader of the Opposition was more representative of the textile operatives' mind than Mr. Mawdesley, and the whole of the Lancashire textile Trades Union. No workmen in the Trade Union movement had been more persistent opponents of that principle than the very operatives whom the right hon. Gentleman represented politically. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the three years' time limit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby as a proposal that would do no good; that it was but a mere pretence at compromise. The fact was, that three years was too long a period of grace to give the men of the London and North Western Railway. It was far more generous treatment than they deserved, because, to speak frankly and strongly, these men had been the industrial Judas Iscariots to the rest of the working classes and to the working-class movement. It was said that when certain people fell out honest men would get their rights. It was evident that long before the three years had expired they would see those railway men coming forward to ask for the abolition of contracting out, for at a meeting of many of the men on the previous evening at Camden Town a resolution was carried, by two to one, against the continuance of the present system, and in favour of the Government measure. With regard to the Amendment of Lord Dudley in another place, if that were carried, contracting out would be universally extended, and many of the Unions and Friendly Societies connected with the Organisations of unskilled labourers would no longer be able to exist. He hoped, therefore, that this standing incentive to universal contracting out would be resisted by the Government, and that the Government, if they could see their way to do so, would reduce the three years' limit to two years, or even to one year. He was perfectly convinced that if the other House rejected the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby—which did not at all vitiate the principle of the Bill—if the Lords insisted by such a course of action in causing the Bill to be dropped, he could assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Trade Unionists, who numbered 1,500,000, would be joined by a combination more serious both in numbers and influence—by the Friendly Societies,
  440
  which numbered more than 4,000,000 members. For these men believed that the real object of the masters in promoting the mutual insurance schemes was to prejudice the workmen, to damage the Friendly Societies, and to injure the cause of Trade Unionism, which had for its object the raising of wages and the reduction of the hours of labour. Though he did not pretend to be a prophet, he would make one prediction. If the Opposition should succeed in throwing out the Bill in another place, and the Government resolved, as he hoped they would do, to stick to the measure, and to fight the House of Lords and the Opposition on the question, they would increase their present prospective majority of 20 or 30 at the next Election to 100 or 150. A sure way of achieving that result was to get "that cruel combination" of the House of Lords on the one side, and the industrial Judas Iscariots on the other, to throw out the Bill, which was a distinct advantage to the working classes.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, that he did not intend to detain the House by any lengthened observations; but he wished to say at once that he was decidedly in favour of the Amendment. A great deal had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposed to the Employers' Liability Bill to the effect that he and others were keeping the men from their insurance funds, and by doing so were imposing an injustice on a section of the working men. He did not believe that there was any section of the working men of this country opposed to the Bill. He had watched many of the movements got up for the purpose of getting resolutions against the Bill, and he had found, in almost every case, that the movers in these movements were men in the pay of the Railway Companies, and not in the pay of the workmen at all. They were men who received their wages direct from the Railway Companies to go round the country advising the working men that it would be more beneficial to them to contract out of the Act. The reason he supported the Amendment was, that he knew that a large number of workers were members of Insurance Clubs, and that if they ceased to be members to-morrow, they would be left with out that protection from accidents which the Employers' Liability Bill would give. These men were in

  441
  a different position from the men who were members of Friendly Societies. He was prepared to say that the bulk of the men of the London and North Western Railway were not members of any Friendly Society. They had to depend entirely on their insurance fund; and it was for that reason that he supported the Amendment which allowed three years to enable these men, if their employers desired to withdraw their contributions, to establish their Friendly Societies, and get the protection for them which other workmen enjoyed. A great deal had been said about meetings held in various parts of the country for and against the Bill. He had addressed more meetings during the past five weeks than any other Member of the House—meetings in Liverpool, Cardiff, Newport, and in various towns in the North of England and Scotland—meetings which were entirely composed of working men, and at every one of which the working men were unanimously in their opinion against contracting out. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the Leader of the Opposition had told the House that they had addressed large meetings at which they expressed their views on the Employers' Liability Bill, and at which they were favourably received by the working men. He had read with considerable interest the speeches of those gentlemen; and he noticed that every time they spoke on this subject they said that what they were in favour of was not the Employers' Liability Bill, but a, measure which would cover all cases of accident. That was, no doubt, a very tempting bait to hold out to meetings of working men. They said, "We are not in favour of the Government Bill, but we are in favour of covering all accidents, so that you may get compensation for all accidents without having to call in the lawyer." He was certain that if the Leader of the Opposition had declared in plain language to the working men who attended his meetings that ho meant an insurance fund for which the working man who had been injured would receive a small weekly sum, the working men would have opposed any such scheme. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Battersea dealing with the right, hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham. Ho remembered, in 188 4, when the right hon. Gentleman created such a sensation in the country on this
  442
  question of insurance, that he attended some of the right hon. Gentleman's meetings. He had heard him declare that, the only way to prevent loss of life at sea was to do away with the insurance placed upon ships, and it, was in consequence of that attitude of the right hon. Gentleman that, the shipowners stirred up an agitation against the Bill which he introduced, and which was shelved in favour of a Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman was now all for insurance. That seemed inconsistent on his part. He wished to tell the Government that they had nothing to fear upon this question. The Members of the Opposition would find, to their sorrow, that the working men on whom they were depending to uphold the system of contracting out were rotten reeds. They would find that their attitude towards this Bill would not help them in the estimation of the working classes, because he was confident that, every man in this country who was a Trades Unionist was opposed to the principle of contracting out. It had been said that the Trades Unions did not represent the bulk of the working men of the country. He was prepared to say that the Trades Unions by a large majority represented the working class feeling of this country. The question must not be judged from the number of men represented at the Trades Congress in any year. It had been said that 1,500,000 men were represented at the Congress, but there were hundreds and thousands of working men besides who were not represented at the Congress, because their Societies were not sufficiently large to send delegates to represent them. He believed that he should be safe in saying that there were no less than 250,000 working men, besides the 1,500,000, who were indirectly represented at, the Congress. Thou there were also thousands of working men who were guided by the opinions of the Trades Unions; while there were only 100,000 or 150,000 men altogether who were in favour of contracting out. For these reasons he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. HULSEsaid, he rose to support the Amendments which had been inserted in this measure in the Upper House, and he wished to explain his position, and to give any reasons why he cordially supported the great principle

  443
  which was apparently at issue between the two Houses. He had the honour to represent a city which, though somewhat small in point of numbers, contained a large number proportionately of railway men and employés, and it had been his pleasure and his duty to meet the majority of them recently at social gatherings, when this question of paramount importance naturally came under discussion. So far he had not received a single request, either verbal or otherwise, to oppose the principle of "contracting out," which appeared to him to be in thorough accord with the wishes of the more intelligent of the working classes. To the best of his belief the London and South Western had no mutual insurance fund such as the Loudon and North Western had, consequently the desire, so far as the men were concerned, was to uphold the freedom of contract, and to make similar provision for themselves, such as their more fortunate confreres on the London and North Western system had been able to develop and to maintain with such successful results. He deplored the attempt to make political capital out of trade disputes, and it did seem extraordinary that this particular question should be made a Party one, and an attempt introduced to deprecate the action of the other branch of the Legislature when they were merely contending for the right of freedom of contracts, the discouragement of unnecessary litigation, and the provision for all kinds of accidents, without the consideration of legal responsibility, and the doctrine of contributory negligence. Under this Bill, as amended in another place, every working man in the United Kingdom had the absolute right to every advantage it offered, and had the option of relinquishing that right only when he could make a better bargain for himself by means of a mutual or domestic insurance scheme. He fully believed that it was to the interests of the working man generally to have the option of contracting out, for he was confident it was more desirable to obtain compensation by voluntary effort, and by a system of mutual insurance, rather than by going to law and enriching the lawyers, for any system of insurance was preferable to litigation. His point was this—that by an Act of Parliament there would always be a legal defence of some kind set up in the cases
  444
  of accidents which had occurred without definite or actual carelessness, whereas by a system of insurance every victim at once received his quota, and in the unfortunate event of his death his relations got- compensation. He was well aware that the Trades Unions were opposed to the Amendment inserted by Lord Dudley, and the only reason that could be suggested why they, or rather their official bodies, should oppose the principle is either that they, the officials, had formed a political alliance with Her Majesty's Government or that they desired to force a larger number of men into their Unions to give them additional strength and funds to act as a prosecuting Society against the various Insurance Companies in which the employers would perforce be compelled to protect themselves. Under the present system it appeared to him—and he would venture respectfully to draw the attention of the House to it— the provision of a common insurance fund, complying with the requirements of the Board of Trade, worked by a Joint Board of masters and men, and giving relief to all kinds of injuries and providing for the widow and orphans, was a better policy in the interests of labour than the absolute necessity of being forced into costly litigation before any sum could be recovered. Lord Farrer, speaking in another place, with the experience of a lifetime devoted to the interests of his Party and of the working classes, had shown in the Upper House, and in the London County Council, that he did not permit common sense and experience to be blinded by Party prejudice or to controvert the facts of every-day life at the behests of the Trades Union leaders. In his able speech in another place, in setting out the folly of passing this measure as insisted upon by the Government, his Lordship pointed out what would be the result of their policy upon the employers and the position forced by the Government upon the employé. Not being a lawyer, he had no right to suggest to the House what the defences to the new provisions would bel; but he had seen and read sufficient of the proceedings, as recorded in the Press, to know how often verdicts under the old Act had been set aside, on the ground of some legal quibble or technicality. He could quote a case of a working man, who had obtained a verdict for £50, who was brought before the Divisional Court; that Court con-

  445
  firmed the previous judgment, and only allowed an appeal on condition that the man was allowed £1 a week till the appeal was heard. The company in question carried the appeal to the House of Lords, with the result that the verdict of the County Court and of the Divisional Court was reversed. The£50 originally awarded to the plaintiff had long since been exhausted in the passage of the Bill from Court to Court, and the defendant's solicitors naturally had a heavy hill of costs to pay, whilst the plaintiff had to appear before the House of Lords in formâ pauperis. That was only one illustration of the folly of forcing men into the Law Courts when they might obtain compensation by a policy of mutual or domestic insurance. Lord Farrer made it clear that this measure would force every employer to vote outside Insurance Companies, with the usual result. As his Lordship pointed out, the conduct of defence in an action for damages would not rest with the employer, who might conceivably have a heart, but with the Insurance Companies. Hon. Members did not need to he reminded that companies and Corporations did not. possess a, heart or a soul—they had only their duty to their shareholders to consider. In nine cases out of ten the cases would be fought, and the working man would, even when he gained a verdict, be considerably out of pocket in lighting a wealthy company, whose very existence and profits depended upon the number of actions they were able successfully to resist, whereas the clause which had been again inserted in another place, and was likely to be adhered to, might well be termed a policy of domestic insurance: which had no office expenses to defray, no Directors' salaries to provide, no dividends for those who found the money, as the provision made by masters and men would in itself increase for their own benefit; and no better illustration could be shown of their wisdom than by the large amount of nearly £350,000 which stood to the credit of one branch of the Welsh Miners' Provident Society, whilst the Durham miners, who preferred to take their chance under the Act and not to join in a, common fund, found themselves very much out of pocket, and had been successful in but few cases which they had brought against the masters who employed them.
  446
  If ever there was a case where Party prejudice had been brought to bear against that common sense and practical experience it has now: and he earnestly appealed to the light hon. Gentleman in charge of this measure to assume a more conciliatory attitude, to dissociate himself from those who were endeavouring to bind him a slave to their chariot wheels, and who were seeking to raise a Party cry against the other branch of the Legislature, and he would thereby foster and encourage that mutual policy of self-help and domestic insurance which had received the sanction and the support of so large a- number of the leading Members of this House.
  MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)said, ho was glad to hear the hon. Member for Battersea repeat, though in a somewhat more flowery way, the reason which he had given during the Committee stage of the Bill for the attitude taken up by the Trades Unions in regard to this clause. The hon. Member said that the masters wanted to chloroform the workmen against the Trades Unions. In the Committee stage the hon. Member had said more bluntly that where those mutual arrangements between master and workmen existed the Trades Unions did not flourish. Many reasons had been advanced against contracting out, but they might all be reduced to this one and sole reason—that these mutual insurance schemes brought such goodwill between masters and men that the Trades Unions found it difficult to prosper. He had always been a friend to Trades Unions. He had recognised for many years the very important work they had accomplished in raising the condition of the industrial classes, and he was not at all sure that if the Mutual Insurance Societies were going to destroy the Trades Unions, he would not rather have the Trades Unions than the Insurance Societies. But he had some opportunities of asserting the feelings of the working classes, and he believed that in this matter the Trades Unions had made a mistake: that they were stretching almost to breaking point the allegiance of their supporters; that they had in a number of ways recently been exercising an authority which had been felt hardly by their members: and that, they were now making the biggest mistake of all in bringing pressure to bear

  447
  successfully on the Government to prevent the spread of this mutual assurance system simply and solely because that system tended to weaken their ranks. He believed that this action of the Trades Unions would tend still further to make their influence felt, for the Unionist Party, in upholding the right to contract out, were supported by two-thirds or three-fourths of the working classes of the country. But the words "contracting out" were really a misnomer as a description of what the Unionist Party were contending for. They were not contending for contracting out in the ordinary sense of the words. No one desired to leave a single working man free to rid himself of the benefits of the Act. What they desired was, that the working men should be allowed in the future, as in the past, to make the best terms they could, and to obtain by mutual arrangements greater benefits than this Bill proposed to confer on them. That was what the Unionist Party contended for, and, that being so, they were opposed to the Amendment before the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 213.—(Division List, No. 435.)
  *MR. ASQUITH: I beg, Sir, to move the omission from the clause of the whole of Sub-section (3), and I trust, as the question in all its aspects has been so fully debated already in the course of the evening, there may be a disposition to take a Division at once.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (3). —(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question put, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 219.—(Division List, No. 436.)
  MR. ASQUITH: On Sub-section (4) I move to omit, in the third line, all the words from the word "and" to the end of the sub-section. This is consequential upon what the House has already done.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a consequential Amendment; and perhaps I may express the opinion that we should
  448
  take the Divisions that have been taken as representing the views of the House, and not take any other Division.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words from the word "constraint," in line 3 of Sub-section (4), to the end of the Lords Amendment.—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Sub-section."
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. W. B. MCLAREN: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do with Clause 13? That is inconsistent with what has been done.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot do anything but deal with the Lords Amendments.
  Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Acts of Colonial Legislatures [Colonial Acts Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 483.]
  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 484.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn till Thursday,—(Mr. Marjoribanks,) —put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at ten minutes before Eight o'clock till Thursday.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, several others agreed to, with Amendments, and a consequential Amendment to the Bill, and several others disagreed to, for which the Commons assign Reasons: The said Amendments and Reasons to be printed, and to be considered on Friday next. (No. 300.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No 297.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord President [E. Kimberley.]
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in moving that the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the further consideration of the Poor Law Clauses, said, that he owed their Lordships some explanation and apology for the course which he had adopted in making this Motion. Some time ago he had met his friend "The Man in the Street," who was always better informed than any other person, who told him that their Lordships were likely, under the guidance of his noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that House, to deal effectively with the Poor Law Clauses of the Bill. The other night, to his great surprise, the Duke of Devonshire took the compound householder under his protecting wing, and the Marquess of Salisbury then threw up the sponge in a way that practically left the Poor Law administration in the position proposed by the Bill, with the exception of an Amendment moved by Lord Selborne with regard to the qualification of elected persons, and barring the remedy suggested by his noble Friend the Duke of Devonshire, that if the com-
  354
  pound householder voted away the rates too freely his landlord would raise his rent. That was, in his opinion, no remedy at all. The man should be made himself to feel responsibility more directly than he would by the raising of his rent. The suggestion showed a forgetfulness of what had passed in legislation during the last 20 years. For could anyone doubt that if that remedy were resorted to the same result would follow as had been seen in Ireland and in parts of Scotland? Therefore, he passed by that remedy as worth nothing. He was, indeed, starting for his home in the North, but had felt compelled to remain for the Third Reading, having received a letter from a Member of that House bearing an historic name—a name always associated with true liberty, and not such spurious liberty as was represented by the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. He referred to Earl Grey, and as that nobleman was now 91 years of age he was really a grand old man. Lord Grey had written to him in these words—
  "I am more distressed than I thought I could now be by any public event by what I gather now from the newspapers to be the probable passing of that most mischievous Lavish Councils Bill with the Poor Law Clauses left to work all the evil sure to follow from the proposal of the Government. I had hoped, from Balfour's letter in The Times in reply to mine, that his Party meant to use their power in the Lords to prevent this act of wanton folly being committed, but I gather from the newspapers that this hope is to be disappointed, and that no material improvement in this worst part of a detestable measure is to be seriously attempted, and that we are, in consequence, to have it passed in a shape"—mark this, my Lords—"that will make its effects absolutely disastrous to the whole social system of the nation. In these circumstances is it not the duty of independent Peers to make a determined effort to avert so great a calamity.' Pray consider whether you cannot do something. Would it not be a natural course to insist that the subject of the administration should not be dealt with in this Bill, but reserved for future and more careful consideration? And for this purpose on the Report stage a Motion might be made for omitting this part of the Bill altogether. A strong effort on the part of the independent Peers might still carry such a Motion. Pray consider whether you cannot do something for this purpose. I have very imperfectly expressed my feeling of dismay at the prospect before us if nothing effectual is done to avert the threatened calamity."
  Lord Grey spoke in the earlier part of the letter of the Act of 1834 as the greatest and most successful piece of

  355
  legislation of the century. Their Lordships would understand that upon receiving such a letter as that ho felt it to be his duty to bring the views of so distinguished a Member of that House before their Lordships, and that must be his apology for interfering at this time. What Lord Grey dreaded was that the effect of this legislation would be to bring back the state of things which existed in this country before the Act of 1834 was passed. The Poor Law Clauses of the Bill would most seriously affect that most successful piece of legislation, which had proved to be neither more nor less than the salvation of the working people of England. There was great danger that the sound principle of the Poor Law would be set aside in the present day as the result of agitation by people out-of-doors. People who had not been obliged to go as ho had into these matters could have no idea of the state of degradation to which the people of this country had been reduced by the maladministration of the Act of Elizabeth. The Poor Law Act of 1834 was passed after full inquiry. The evidence then given showed that relief was given in aid of wages. The amount of that relief depended on the wants of the employer. The labourers were reduced to a state of slavery, and 20 were knocked down in one week to 10 farmers for 5s.; at Taunton labourers received a portion of their wages out of the poor rates. Men would say, if they did not like their work, they would go and get 12s. a week by working on the roads, and their wives were anxious they should become paupers rather than work as labourers. At Kettering men said they must have their 10s. or 12s., and expressed themselves that they "Would not be such fools as to work," saying "Blast work—damn me if I work." Wages were paid out of the parish funds, and farmers consequently turned off the regular hands in order to hire men by auction, the difference being, of course, paid out of the rates. The Act of 1834 caused a revolution and dragged the labourers of this country out of the mire. That was the Act which Parliament was now undermining by this measure. The Committee of the House of Commons appointed in 1838 to consider the working of the then new Poor Law administration made a Report, in which they said—
  356
  "The Committee are convinced that the utmost benefit has resulted from the general adoption of this system of relief (relief of able-bodied paupers in the workhouse), and they strongly recommend that it should in future be adhered to, subject to such occasional departures from the ordinary rule, under the pressure of special circumstances, as it appears that the Local Hoards have been ready to adopt and the Commissioners to sanction in cases of real necessity."
  The result appeared from a contrast of well administered and badly administered parishes. Sir Albert Pell, a great authority, had given him an instance from his own parish of Hazelworth as a reason for not giving way on this question of outdoor relief. In 1834 the population was 13,500—
  EARL SPENCER: You are talking of the Union, not the parish.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSaccepted the correction. Of that number 11 were receiving outdoor relief, and 100 were in the workhouse. Eighteen months ago 32 only were receiving outdoor and 62 indoor relief. £60,000 had been saved to the ratepayers, and 2d. in the £1 was all that was required for outdoor relief. He had asked Sir Albert Pell whether the law had been harshly administered and people possibly driven out of the parish, and he replied that that was not the case; that none had left the parish, and wages which were 10s. in 1869 had been raised to 13s. So much for a country parish under proper administration of the existing Poor Law of 1834. He would next take London under good administration. A great deal had been said about the state of poverty in the East End parishes—St. George's-in-the East, Bethnal Green, and others. There was now a wild scheme for the equalisation of rates, by which those parishes which were well administered would have to pay for those parishes which were badly administered. For example, in St. George's-in-the-East there was no outdoor relief; in White-chapel during the last 20 years the expenditure on account of outdoor relief had been reduced from £7,000 to £100; and these reforms were the result of sound administration of the Poor Law, unaccompanied by the slightest cruelty or hardship. In contrast to these examples were Chelsea, where £253 was

  357
  spent on outdoor relief; St. George's, Hanover Square, where £279 was spent: and Westminster, where £108 was spent; while in Stepney it was only £22. He had shown their Lordships the dreadful state into which this country had fallen down to 1834, and the good results in raising the condition of the people both in country and town under a proper administration of the existing law. Mr. Wilkins, the late clerk to the St. James's Vestry, had well laid down the principle on which the Poor Law should be administered. It was the principle which permeated the whole of the recommendations of the Poor Law Commissioners. Mr. Wilkins, in his Memorandum on the Poor Law, said—
  "Any attempt to alleviate distress, whether chronic or transient, must, to be effectual, be based upon a well-established administration of the Poor Law: that is, making a discrimination between those who are able and willing' to work and those who are not."
  Nowadays there was a great danger of this principle being set aside, in the great gush of sentiment which prevailed. There was no one of their Lordships who, if by sacrificing a large part of his possessions could make the poor better and happier, would not willingly do it; but principles were sounder than sentiment; and a, firm administration of the law, making the position of the man who sought relief less desirable than that of the man who did not, was in many cases what Shakespeare called being "cruel only to be kind." There was, no doubt, a great want of employment; but it, was not greater now than in 1887, and it should be remembered that the condition of the unemployed was being used as an argument by those who desired great social revolutions. The great question at present was whether they could look for safety to the Government of the day? One of the first acts of Mr. Fowler's administration was to lower the qualification of Guardians from £23 or £30 to £5. The result in Poplar, whore there was no plural voting, was that relief in the able-bodied had gone up; outdoor and indoor relief had increased; and workshops had been established at the expense of the ratepayers. The climax of this sort of thing was reached in the programme of a committee which had
  358
  been formed in Battersea for the purpose of electing Guardians, and with which Mr. Champion was connected. On this question, however, Mr. John Burns appeared to hold sounder views than Her Majesty's Government. He had said—
  "Every man who has been out of work cheers the man who is in favour of outdoor relief. Every loafer at the street corner who lives on it, says 'Three cheers for a pound a week out relief.' I have always been against it except when administered with the greatest rigidity and given to the right people. If Social Democrats were to promise, as some Guardians—not the labour Guardians—did at the last election, that outdoor relief would be generously administered, where would our poor rates be.' Every democrat would be clamouring for money and spending it at the 'Pig and Whistle.' It means the complete prostitution and degradation of those whom we (night to raise and educate by better means."
  Lord Palmerston said, when the franchise was lowered, that politicians would no longer play to the stalls and boxes, but would in future play to the gallery. The present Government, by their recent legislation, seemed to be playing to neither the boxes, stalls, nor gallery, but to the casual ward. There was not only the example in England—there was the object-lesson of what happened in France in 1848. M. Louis Blanc then established the atéliers nationaux in response to demands for employment. The result was that there was a stoppage of private trade, a demoralisation of the working classes, and an impending bankruptcy of the Government. Of course, the national workshops had to be abandoned. On February 28, 1848, there were supposed to be 8,000 working men out of employment in Paris. The workshops having been established, there were, on March 15, 14,000 unemployed; and on April 1, 40,000; on April 16, 66,000, costing 94,500 francs daily. On May 25 there were 87,000 unemployed, and on June 20, 115,000, when 3,000,000 francs were voted, with more to follow. On June 28 the workshops were closed, and an insurrection in the streets of Paris followed, when 12,000 workmen were killed and Cavaignae was made Dictator. He remembered Mr. George Smythe, who happened to be in Paris at that time, saying that he found the streets of Paris flowing with blood as the result of all this, Their Lordships ought to have this

  359
  lesson in their minds in considering the measure now before them. Before concluding he would say a word as to their Lordships' position with regard to the abnormal legislation of this most abnormal Session. Ho road the other day, in a speech of Sir Charles Russell's, an insinuation that their Lordships had not dealt fairly with certain measures sent up to them by the other House. He seemed to regard those measures as a sort of immaculate conception of another place, and that it would be sacrilege to touch or lay a finger upon them. But he was happy to say their Lordships had hitherto dealt boldly and courageously with the measures sent up to them. They had in one instance saved the Empire from disruption. In the case of the Employers' Liability Bill they had affirmed the principle of freedom of contract, which was the very life blood of a commercial nation, and he hoped that when that Bill came back to them they would not enter into any foolish compromises which would absolutely set aside that principle. He could not imagine a better election cry than "Liberty and the Lords!" On this Bill their Lordships had also shown themselves to be defenders of the great Liberal principle that taxation and representation should go together, and ho hoped their Lordships would be induced to follow the advice of Lord Grey, and deal with this great measure in a wise, statesmanlike, and prudent manner. If by any act of their Lordships they could save the beneficent Bill of 1834 from mutilation and maladministration they would save this country from misfortune, and the people of this country from being pauperised, demoralised, and degraded as they had been before 1834.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out from ("be") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the further consideration of the Poor Law Clauses").—(The Lord Wemyss [E. Wemyss].)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): In reference to the last words of my noble Friend's speech, I would remind him that the maladminis-
  360
  tration which we all know existed in the Poor Law before 1834, if I am not forgetting altogether the history of the matter, was when that law was administered by Justices of the Peace. It is not always a perfect security for good administration if you place the matter in the hands of persons who do not belong to those whom my noble Friend regards with such terrible apprehension. Whatever else may happen, I do not think it would be unsafe to predict—although pre-dictions are said to be dangerous—that we shall not return to the state of administration of the Poor Law which prevailed before 1834. I think that is very improbable indeed. My noble Friend has no doubt put before us some of those very obvious reflections which would occur to anybody when a change was about to be made in the administration of the law, which undoubtedly would place great power in the hands of those who stood much nearer to the probable recipients of relief. But my noble Friend quite omits from view that there is such a thing as making your institutions conform to the general spirit of the time in which you live. I think it is probable that my noble Friend regrets that the franchise was lowered.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I resisted it as long as I could.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have no doubt that ho voted against the extension of the Parliamentary franchise, and opposed it on grounds similar to those now advanced with reference to this extension. It would be quite useless to go now into the subject of the Parliamentary franchise. A great many people in 1867, whose opinion was not in general to be disregarded, did apprehend very terrible results from the lowering of the Parliamentary franchise. Let mo say this to my noble Friend: If those who now possess the franchise had acted in the extravagant manner in which my noble Friend now expects those to act who under this Bill will have this parish franchise, then no doubt the country would have been placed in a position of the most absolute peril, and society would have been disorganised.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I have no doubt it will.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Nobody would doubt that my noble Friend thinks so. But does anybody suppose at the present moment, and after our experience of some years of the Parliamentary franchise, that whatever changes are made, we are on the eve of a revolution in which the whole framework of society will be destroyed? Nobody expects anything of the kind. Why are we to conclude that the very same people, who have exercised the Parliamentary franchise with no danger to society, are to act in a totally different manner when they have to exercise the parish franchise under this Bill? The idea is neither rational nor in accordance with probability. If I were to enter upon an augury with regard to the administration of the Poor Law, I should imagine that the direction which these new Boards would lake would be in the form of granting some kind of pensions in old age to those who have not been able to make provision for old age. I should not be surprised if an attempt were made to draw some distinction between those who are commonly regarded as the deserving poor and those who may be considered as not deserving at all. Those are the directions which it is not altogether improbable that changes in the Poor Law may take, but I have not the smallest belief in the whole population of this country—or what is the main population of the country—those who live by the labour of their hands—being so absolutely blind to the consequences that would ensue as to embark upon a system of indiscriminate relief and indiscriminate works. My noble Friend fears that blood will be flowing in the streets in consequence of this Bill. His imagination is very vivid, but I think rather baseless. Then, I was rather surprised at the remark of my noble Friend that we were not even playing to the gallery, but to the casual wards. That does not convey to my mind a very precise notion of the administration of the Poor Law. If there is one thing that is more certain than another, I think it is that the labouring classes of this country will not have the slightest sympathy with the vagrants who drift into the casual wards. Therefore, my noble Friend will permit me to say I think that is not a very apposite remark. I do not think it necessary at this period of the Bill to go into any general dis-
  362
  quisition on the Poor Law provisions in the Bill. I do not believe it would be possible for any length of time to maintain the administration of the Poor Law on a perfectly different footing as regards those who are elected to the Boards of Guardians from the basis on which you have placed the election of the administrators of any of the other institutions in the country. It is quite out of the question that any such system could be maintained. That, of course, is merely an opinion of my own, and it may be prompted by my natural wish to represent the measure of the Government in its proper light. But the subject is not new to us. It has often been suggested that these changes should be made, and I believe that the apprehensions of people for whom I feel great respect are much exaggerated. It is possible to take a fairer view of the measure which we are now carrying into effect. Upon the whole, I believe it is far more likely that we shall be able to preserve the administration of the Poor Law upon a sound footing if we have the sympathy of the population whose affairs have to be administered—if we show that we do not intend to embark upon a most Quixotic, enterprise, and sever this portion of the local administration from all the rest of the administration of the country, and if we in this particular matter do not evince a spirit of distrust of the people, which we do not manifest with regard to other institutions. I will not trouble the House again with other reasons, but these are the main principles on which I support the Bill, and recommend it to your Lordships.
  *EARL FORTESCUE,speaking with an experience of more than half a century upon a Board of Guardians, of which over 30 years as Chairman, confirmed his noble Friend's view of the danger of putting the disposal of the rates into the hands of people who did not pay them, and upon whom Her Majesty's Government had taken particular pains to avoid imposing them. Though Mr. Fowler's statement about the general payment of rates in the rents might hold good in towns and populous places, it was baseless as regarded the rural parts of the country. Rates were essentially different from

  363
  taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his calculations, and taxation was spread over the whole nation directly and indirectly, whereas rates were all levied locally. It actually happened in one parish, before the reform of the Poor Law in 1834, that the whole property of the parish was insufficient to pay the rates required. When the noble Earl spoke of the maladministration of the old Poor Law by Justices of the Peace it should be remembered that the great reform then made was in placing the election of those who had to administer the rates in the hands of those who paid them. It did not follow that because there had been some maladministration by the Justices in former times therefore Parliament should go to the other extreme of putting the power into the hands of people who had paid and were to pay no part of the rates. Surely there was an intelligible interval between the independent Magistrates who were not obliged to appeal to any elected body for authority in giving the relief, and the mass of the non-rate-paying inhabitants of the country. He spoke not only with knowledge of Poor Law as a Guardian, but also as having had to do with the general administration throughout England when Secretary of the Poor Law Board. He could not believe that the system established by this Bill would lead quite to the extent of demoralisation and degradation which prevailed in former times. Still, on looking back to his earlier experience he had observed that latterly greater reluctance had been shown in some places in giving orders for the workhouse; and children who were perfectly able to assist their indigent parents, and were compellable by law to do so, had more seldom had demands made upon them. But with the tendencies to relaxation now visible it was a very unwise and dangerous thing to place the administration of local rates practically in the hands of those who did not now and would not hereafter pay them. Sir Edwin Chadwick, in his masterly Report on the conditions under the old Poor Law, stated his strong conviction that wages had been kept down, and prophesied that they would rise under a better system of administration. Wages were kept down in two ways; the means of employers were diminished by the
  364
  outrageous demand for rates, and those who received part of their money from the rates and only part from their employers could afford to under-bid others who had to live by their industry. Exactly what was predicted in that Report, and which the law founded on that Report was intended to remedy, took place. Wages had risen, according to the Report on the working of the new Poor Law in 1838. He had never forgotten a statement of Sir Edwin Chadwick of his having elicited from a large slop-seller that
  "he could not afford to employ any woman who was not either on the parish or on the streets":
  he would not pay, whether for piece or day work, what was called a living wage, and it had to be supplemented either by petty doles from parish rates or by the unhappy recipients' shame. An extensive system of outdoor relief was not only pecuniarily wasteful, but, which was far more serious, had a distinctly degrading and demoralising tendency. It encouraged lying, trickery, and false pretences of all sorts in order to obtain relief, or increased relief; and it discouraged the honest and independent labourer who sought to live by his industry and thrift.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not like to let the Debate pass without taking notice of a fallacy which the Loader of the House has repeated, for he has certainly not mentioned for the first time that we ought to look with perfect freedom from apprehension at this extension of parochial power to those who pay no rates because a similar extension has taken place with respect to the Imperial franchise. I should have thought it must have been obvious to anyone that the enormous mixture of classes and interests of all kinds which take part in providing Imperial government furnishes us with no guide whatever as to what we are to ex-poet when you take so small an area as a parish and hand over the whole discretion of what money shall be raised and what money shall be spent to those who contribute to it nothing themselves. I quite agree that we may easily exaggerate the evil. There are two faults in political prediction which are often committed—one is the laying on of the colours too thickly; and the other is to imagine that the evil results which you apprehend will occur immediately. But

  365
  it takes a long time for a political poison to work; and I think it is very likely that for a long time to come we shall not see the results of this measure. I still, however, entertain apprehensions as to the passing of the Poor Law Clauses without practically any legislation affecting the predominance of the compounder over large areas of the country. Practically, all attempt to remedy the evil of compounding has been, perforce, abandoned in this House, and the result is that in many places the compounder will have the absolute dominion. There is no doubt that yon would not expect such a state of things in any other circumstances. If it were proposed that the people of Essex should determine what the people of Suffolk should pay, the people of Essex paying nothing themselves, you would say that it was the most monstrous proposal ever suggested. In the same way, if the people of St. Martin's should tax the people of St. Anne's, the people of St. Martin's paying nothing, again you would say it was a monstrous proposal: but you say that the community which pays shall be governed by the community which does not pay, because they happen to live on the same area of soil, and you say that is a perfectly natural and safe operation. I cannot believe that is the case. What the precise form of the evil will be I do not venture to predict. I believe, with the Leader of the House, that we shall not repeat history and come to the precise form of evil which was caused by the liberality of the Justices prior to 1834, but that great extravagance, that a great burden on the ratepayer, may be the result of this Pill I fully believe. I believe that the ratepayer this been left wholly without defence—[The Earl of WEMYSS: It is entirely his own fault]—and the consequence will be that taking these provisions, with, I must say, some of the provisions of the Allotments Clauses, it is a new burden, disability, and disadvantage to the owning and occupying of land inflicted at a time when, of all times in this century, the agricultural industry can suffer them the least. And the result of all additional burdens on the owing and occupying of laud is to aggregate land in larger estates. You find violent Radicals, who bate the large owners of laud, think that
  366
  they can diminish the large ownership of land by adding to the burdens under which land suffers. They are very foolish people. The operation is precisely the reverse. The large landowner is the man who can defend himself, and who can bear without being crushed the additional burdens you place upon him. The small landowner, especially in this season of trial, will be crushed out of existence by the additional burdens you are placing on him. His property will be purchased by the large landowner, and the growth of large estates, which you profess, no doubt sincerely enough, to dislike, will only increase more and more by the very operation of the policy which yon are here carrying out in order to attack it. That seems to be one of the great evils which you have to fear. I have already indicated another—that you are discouraging, and fatally discouraging, the easier and the more educated classes from taking part in local government. That is a serious evil which will also increase. How far there may be other evils I will not venture to predict. It is possible that in countries where great industrial conflicts are going on, if a majority of the population are interested as labourers in those conflicts and are the masters of the situation, strike pay will be thrown upon the rates, and that the campaign of the strikers will be conducted at the expense of the ratepayers. If that should be so, the increase and prolongation of industrial conflicts will be terribly aggravated, lint all these evils, it appears to me, will be the result of having undertaken a vast revolution of this kind hastily and hurriedly, with little preparation, with no inquiry, and with no fair opportunity to the people of this country to express their opinion as to the nature of the changes that are being made. I deeply regret that this should be done, but I do not think the remedy which Lord Grey proposed is one that would benefit our legislation or permanently avert the evil which has been created. Lord Grey's advice is the voice of the statesmanship of the past speaking from a very long distance to what may be called, with charity, the statesmanship of the present. The experience of the past, how-over, is of very little good to us under these new conditions. The most noticeable feature in our modern controversies

  367
  is the utter powerlessness of language or representations to influence the people of this country. They bear around them such a din of controversy that they have learnt to disbelieve in words and will only believe in facts, and my opinion is that it would be of very little use to put off these clauses, even if we were resolved to do so. They would only acquire an intense value, and a most exaggerated value, in the eyes of those from whom they were being kept, and they would be forced at some political crisis or other through Parliament by the power which would be created by the exaggerated hopes which our own action would encourage and had produced. It is a painful conclusion to come to, but it is one which we cannot resist, that, after measures have been taken up by a very large portion of the people of this country, and have been recommended by great authority, and great advantages have been attached to them, very serious evils—evils possibly as great as the measures themselves could bring about— have resulted from their having been refused. I do not, therefore, recommend the course which Lord Grey and Lord Wemyss advise. I deeply regret that it has not been in the power of this House to apply a remedy—I do not say that circumstances would possibly have admitted it—to the evil of compounding, which threatens the security and the honest working of our Poor Law system; but I do not think that now it will be wise to take any other course except to send down the Bill to the other House with the alterations which we have suggested for their consideration. I should not like to close this Debate without expressing the sense which must be common to all your Lordships of the great skill, judgment, courtesy, and patience in the course of these deliberations which have distinguished the Leader of the House in carrying this measure through the House. It has been a measure of great detail, which must have caused him infinite labour to master in addition to the other great labours he has in hand; and I am sure that, whatever differences of opinion there may be with regard to the Bill, we shall all agree that we could not have had a better guide in our deliberations than the noble Lord has proved himself to be.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would not press the Motion, as his object had been obtained by procuring a discussion upon the Poor Law Clauses in the Bill.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAdesired, before the House proceeded to read the Bill a third time, to call attention to a matter of public importance. He wished to enter his most emphatic protest against gross misrepresentations which had been made in the country not only by prominent politicians, but by responsible Members of Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the Amendments which, in the exercise of their public duty, their Lordships had introduced into the Bill in that House. He particularly referred to the statements of the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce), who at Liverpool on the 9th instant said—
  "This was the Body"—their Lordships' House —"which had just deprived thousands of parishes of a Parish Council by raising the limit of population to 500."
  This statement was grossly misleading and entirely untrue. Not a single parish had been debarred from having a Council by the clause if it chose. Their Lordships had conferred upon small parishes the choice whether they would adopt the simple and inexpensive machinery of a parish meeting, also provided by the Bill, or the more cumbrous and costly electoral machinery of a Parish Council. Ho had written to Mr. Bryce on the subject, to ask him if he was correctly reported. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that he had been reported with substantial accuracy, but he went on to say that since he had received the letter he had seen one by Lord Denbigh which led him to think that the meaning which had been put on his words was, of course, not his meaning. What other meaning could be put on the words except the meaning suggested by Lord Denbigh, who had taken the words in their natural sense? A different meaning could only be arrived at by a process of Jesuitical mental reservation. Mr. Bryce also made the statement that their Lordships had refused to the Parish Councils the right to use rooms in schools receiving grants of public money. It was only

  369
  necessary for him to read the clause dealing with this point to show how incorrect this statement also was. The clause provided that—
  "4.—(1.) In any rural parish in which there; is no suitable public room which can be used free of charge for the purposes in this section mentioned, the parochial electors and the Parish Council shall be entitled to use, free of charge, at all reasonable times, and after reasonable notice, for the purpose of—

  (a) the parish meeting or any meeting of the Parish Council; or

  (b) any inquiry for parochial purposes by the Local Government Hoard or any other Government Department or Local Authority;

  any suitable room in the schoolhouse of any public elementary school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament";
  and yet the right hon. Gentleman said that this House had refused to Parish Councils the right to use rooms in schools receiving grants of public money. He did not know what mental reservation the right hon. Gentleman made when he uttered that statement. At all events, it had been commented on in its natural sense by Liberal newspapers all over the country, which asked their readers to believe that their Lordships had debarred thousands of places front possessing Parish Councils by the Amendments they had made in the Hill, or had denied them the use of schoolrooms. The noble Marquess opposite, in his conciliatory speech introducing the measure, said—
  "This is essentially a Bill to be discussed in Committee. As we have in this House so many noble Lords who are acquainted with the details of local administration it may be expected that the discussion will be full and fruitful."
  That statement made in good faith was accepted in good faith, and their Lordships had endeavoured to improve the Bill and make it more workable—to make it more beneficial to the labourers without being unjust to the tenant-farmers. Noble Lords on his side of the House had no reason to dread the advent of Parish Councils. They had been the pioneers of the movement for small holdings; and years before the agricultural labourer had a vote ho possessed allotments on many of their Lord ships' estates, let at agricultural rents, a fact he particularly recommended to the Lord Chamberlain, who was always telling them about his allotments, but forgot to
  370
  state the rents at which he let them. He had no desire to be misunderstood. If the Government, possessing no policy to put before the country, and having an absolutely blank record in regard to legislative achievements, chose to organise an attack on an integral branch of that Constitution, which they of all people were most bound to defend, it was very desirable to know whether that warfare was to be conducted by responsible Members of the Ministry with the poisoned weapons of calumny and misrepresentation? He appealed to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whom he believed to be personally incapable of either, to inform their Lordships whether the words of his right hon. Colleague were fair and true, and, if not, to repudiate them on behalf of the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before I answer the noble Earl I must acknowledge the very kind way in which the noble Marquess the Loader of the Opposition was pleased to speak of me. I must say I appreciate his words very highly its coming from him. The noble Marquess has occupied the highest positions in the country and occupies now a position of great power and authority in this House, and any opinions expressed by him are always much appreciated, and in this case fall, I can assure him, upon no ungrateful heart. If, in the conduct of the Bill through your Lordships' I rouse, I have been fortunate enough to exhibit courtesy and patience, I am, on the other hand, indebted to the whole House for the extreme forbearance and kindness with which I have myself been treated. With regard to the remarks of the last speaker, I wish to say that no one would regret more than I should that the cause of the Party to which I belong should be fought with any weapons poisoned or calumnious: but I cannot help thinking, however, that the noble Earl opposite has used, in reference to my right hon. Colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy, phrases which are entirely unwarranted. The quotation from Mr. Bryce's speech is, I think, correct, and Mr. Bryce himself admits that his words in the broad way in which ho stated the proposition which they conveyed, that these parishes had been deprived by the Amendment of the noble Earl of Parish Councils, were liable to be misunderstood.

  371
  I have nothing to add upon that point. The noble Earl opposite will admit that a very considerable change has been made in the Bill, owing to the Amendment which has been inserted. In the view of Her Majesty's Government a large proportion of the 4,439 parishes which are brought within the scope of the exception inserted in the Bill will be placed at a very considerable disadvantage as compared with those parishes which will have Parish Councils under the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA: Why?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Surely there is a great difference in having to fight a battle every two or three years when the question may be raised again? It is a great advantage to have a Parish Council secured to a parish by Statute, and not to have to fight for the Parish Council at such short intervals. No one can possibly argue that the two categories of parishes are placed on the same footing. I have no information as to whether the words attributed to my right hon. Colleague, Mr. Bryce, in regard to the use of schoolrooms, are accurately reported or not; but if the words which have been referred to by the noble Earl are a correct report, it is but fair to say that the Amendments of your Lordships have not deprived Parish Councils of the right to use the rooms of schools receiving grants of public money.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, in regard to the latter point, that if the House deserved vituperation on account of the change that had been made as to the use of schoolrooms, no one deserved that vituperation more than the Member of their Lordships' House upon whose Motion the change was made. He should not have expected that matter to be represented otherwise than with candour and judgment by the right hon. Gentleman to whom reference had been made. Even if the language used meant something different from what it literally expressed, he could not help thinking that it was not right or candid to speak of the Amendment which the House had made about the use of schoolrooms in the tone reported to have been employed by that right hon. Gentleman. The Bill as it now stood went not only as far as, but even a little farther, upon that point than the measure as the
  The Earl of Kimberley
  372
  Government thought right to introduce it into the other House, inasmuch as it now permitted the use of the rooms for public inquiries. People might reasonably be expected not to refuse to recognise the motive which prompted a proposal, even if they did not agree with its substance. The motive for declining to assent to an unlimited and indefinite conversion of those schoolrooms into parish offices, for purposes unconnected with education, was to keep them, as far as might be, for their proper uses, and to prevent heavy burdens being thrown upon managers and on the schoolmasters and mistresses who had the charge of them for those uses. He could not help hoping that when the matter came to be considered in another place the changes which had been effected in that House would be considered in a different temper from that in which they had been spoken out-of-doors.
  Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a", with the Amendments.
  On question, that the Bill do pass?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, ho would not propose Amendments at that stage which made any substantial alteration in the sense or wording of the Bill. His Amendments simply made the meaning clearer, and he would move them with the permission of the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): This House is very strict in not allowing Amendments on Third Readings without notice unless merely verbal or drafting. That is a matter which I have always watched narrowly, and in that I have had the support of your Lordships. I have looked through these Amendments, and I think they fairly come within that category mentioned by the noble Earl, and may be proposed on Third Reading.
  Verbal Amendments.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his Amendments referred to matters which had already been dealt with, but it seemed rather hard that the Parish Councils should not have the opportunity of appointing Vestry clerks, if they liked, to be clerks of the Councils. That would very often be an economical course—the Vestry clerk would get

  373
  something from his own employers and something in addition from the Council. He did not know why the liberty of the Parish Councils should be limited in that respect, as the qualifications were the same in both cases. Then another mutter was that the Councils should appoint their treasurers without remuneration, and, having; so provided, the clause went on to say that he should give security. Surely the treasurer would consider that a bad joke was being played upon him if they gave him nothing and required him to find security. One of those conditions should be withdrawn—either give him something or do not ask him to provide security.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, with regard to the first, point, of the Assistant Overseer being clerk, that was done to save expense. He was always a paid officer, and that being the case it was thought desirable that the parish should not make another appointment, but should employ that paid officer as their clerk. No doubt some Assistant Overseers were unsatisfactory officers, but in that case they could be dismissed and other persons employed. Then, with regard to the treasurer, the provision seemed at first sight extraordinary; but he would point out that treasurers to Hoards of Guardians never received any salary, but always gave security, and the reason was that they were bankers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But you will not get bankers here.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the persons appointed would be of two different classes. In urban districts —often considerable towns—the balance in the treasurers' hands would be quite sufficient for bankers to be appointed without remuneration. In those cases it was very desirable that they should be able to act, giving security. But in small parishes it would be unreasonable to appoint a treasurer without remuneration. Therefore, the words as to giving remuneration might be left out. There was no necessity why a treasurer should be formally appointed, for the money might be kept without it. That was the explanation of the clause, which to himself at first sight seemed strange, but there was more sense in it than appeared. Unless, therefore, the noble Marquess attached great importance to
  374
  these Amendments, he thought the clause was desirable on the score of expense.
  Verbal Amendments.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYproposed several Amendments.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had no objection to them.
  Verbal Amendments.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, when he moved his Amendment yesterday making personal payment of the rates a qualification for members of Parish Councils and Boards of Guardians, including the District Councils, he had overlooked the fact that the same qualifications would be required on the same principle under the 23rd clause for District Councillors in urban districts. At present they must be rated for some property within the district at not less than £15 if the population was under 20,000, and not less than £30 if it was more. The effect of his Amendment was that they should be personally rated as in the case of Guardians. There was the additional reason that in the larger districts that would give an abundance of choice. He would move the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, with an addition, to give the same right to any occupier to claim to be personally rated in an urban district, as he would have in a, rural parish. He had thought that this was sufficiently provided for by the amendment already made in the 3rd clause; but, on reference to the words of that clause, they seemed to be confined to rural parishes. He moved, therefore, after the word ("Councillor"), in line 28, to put in the words—
  ("Provided that any occupier of rateable property in an urban district may claim to be personally rated in the same manner as is hereinafter provided").
  In respect to occupiers in a rural parish, he moved the Amendment on the Paper.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the present qualification of a Municipal Councillor under the Act of 1882 was that he must be a burgess or upon the non-resident roll and possessed of certain property rated at not less than £15 under

  375
  a certain population, and not less than £30 if above that.
  Verbal Amendments.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment in page 33, line 3, to leave out "made a separate area," and to substitute the words "separated from the rest of the district." He need not trouble the House with reasons, as the Amendment was agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the Bill provided that upon disqualification the Council should declare the membership to be vacant, and should take stops to have a new election. Clearly that ought to be applied in the case of original elections as to supervening ones.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the disqualification must be pronounced on a Petition according to the provisions in the Municipal Corporations Act which was incorporated here, and it would be quite out of the question to place in the hands of the Boards of Guardians the right of determining whether members were qualified or not. There was a defect in the clause, and he would suggest, in substitution for "his," the words "becomes disqualified." It would then be the duty of the Board of Guardians, when the disqualification was pronounced upon the procedure under the Municipal Corporations Act, to declare the office vacant; but to give to the Board of Guardians the power of determining whether a member was qualified or not would be entirely contrary to the principles of the Municipal Corporations Act, and would be placing in their hands a power which they ought not to have.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Privilege Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 301.)

COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, the object of this
  376
  Bill is mainly to correct an error which has taken place in the Colony of New South Wales. In the course of last year a Bill was passed in New South Wales for the reform of the electoral law of that colony providing, among other things, for the redistribution of seats. After that Bill had passed the Colonial Legislature the Governor took the advice of his Attorney General as to whether it was one which ought to be reserved for Her Majesty's approval. The Attorney General advised that it was not a Bill which need be so reserved. The Governor in consequence immediately gave his assent to it, and sent it home in the usual way. When it came to this country considerable doubt arose as to whether the Bill was valid or not in consequence of its not having been treated as a reserved Bill. Steps were then taken to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and those learned persons advised me that the Act is, under the circumstances, invalid, because under two Imperial Statutes Acts of this kind, and especially those dealing with the redistribution of seats and other electoral questions, are required to be treated as reserved Bills, and sent home in that form for Her Majesty's approval. Under those circumstances, it has been necessary to take steps to give the Act the validity which at present is wanting. The matter is one of extreme urgency, inasmuch as the Bill came into operation in the Colonies as soon as the Governor had given his assent to it, and the redistribution of seats was at once proceeded with, as well as the preparation of Registers for a General Election, which will take place next month. A Proclamation has been issued under the authority of this Act to bring the new electoral system into operation. Consequently, if validity is not immediately given to this Bill great confusion and inconvenience will be caused to the Colony of New South Wales. I need say no more, I am sure, to convince your Lordships that it is desirable Parliament should take steps without delay to prevent such great inconvenience being caused to the colony. This unfortunate mistake was made apparently through error. I may be asked whether Her Majesty might not have given her Assent to the Bill now. No doubt she might; but all the proceedings under it would still have been invalid,

  377
  because the Bill would only come into operation from the date of the Assent being known in the Colony, and it is necessary that it should be made valid from the time it was signed by the Governor. Curiously enough, a similar case has occurred in Western Australia, since the Bill has been sent home, and there is some doubt with regard to Mills connected with Victoria and other Colonies. To meet all such cases the scope of the Bill now before your Lordships is extended beyond the Colony of New South Wales. Therefore, as there are only a few days remaining of the Session, it is necessary that I should ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders in order that the Bill may be passed and sent down to the House of Commons to-day.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I only rise to express my entire concurrence in the steps which the noble Marquess has taken, and in his plea of urgency for the Bill. It is, of course, necessary that the Bill should be passed through both Houses as rapidly as possible. In these days of telegraph it will be known almost by this time in the Colonies that this Bill has been introduced to cure a blot, and it is most desirable that it should be passed to secure the validity of the Colonial Act before any action is taken to dispute that validity and to set aside any steps taken in the Colony under the Act. I consider the noble Marquess has acted very prudently in sweeping into his net all the Australian Colonies. In view, however, of the entirely different relations that now exist between these great Colonies and the Mother Country as compared with the state of things that existed when the Imperial Acts to which the noble Marquess referred were passed, I would suggest that the noble Lord should consider whether the time has not arrived when the question of the power of reservation might with advantage be dealt with, and whether the necessity for reserving Bills might not be dispensed with, so far as small alterations in the constitution of the Electoral Bodies in the Colonies are concerned. I confess that I am of opinion that, in small matters, it is not worth while to retain
  378
  this power of reservation, and I would suggest that this point should receive the consideration of the noble Marquess.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ROYAL MARINES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL RUSSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any appointments had been made from the November examination of candidates for the Royal Marines; and, if so, whether he would publish the names of the successful candidates, with the marks obtained by them? He said, the list of successful candidates had not been published, although they had been informed privately of their success, and they had had no opportunity of comparing their marks with those obtained by unsuccessful candidates. This had given rise to considerable dissatisfaction, and he therefore begged to ask the question he had placed on the Paper.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, in answer to the question put to me by the noble Earl, I have to say that seven gentlemen from among the candidates in the Sandhurst examination in November have been approved by the Commissioners of the Admiralty for commissions in the Royal Marines, and they will be gazetted immediately. One gentleman, in addition to those above mentioned, has been approved for a Service commission upon the same terms as a Queen's cadet for Sandhurst. The names will be published in The Gazette, and the marks obtained can be learnt from the Civil Service Commissioners or from the Admiralty if necessary. The marks are considered to he a confidential matter, and are not, therefore, generally published.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In moving that the House do adjourn, I may mention that it is proposed to take the Amendments of the House of Commons to the Scotch Fisheries Bill on Friday. If we receive back the Employers' Liability Bill from the House of

  379
  Commons on Thursday, the Government propose to consider on Monday any Amendments that may be made in the Bill. We shall have to meet formally on Thursday to receive any such Amendments.
  Moved, "That this House do now adjourn."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the House would not object to the short notice that had been given in respect of the consideration of the Amendments to the Scotch Fisheries Bill. He was glad, however, that such notice had been given, in order that the Scotch Peers might have the earliest opportunity of knowing that the Motion was made on that day. As the noble Earl was aware, great changes had been made in the Bill and much interest was taken in Scotland in the matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.