Sitting of 27 July 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ABENSUR'S NATURALISATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
MARINE ENGINEERS.
Return [presented 24th July] to be printed.—[No. 316.]
MARINE ENGINEERS.
  CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  Paper [presented 24th July] to be printed.—[No. 317.]
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 325.]
  PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL [H.L.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 236.]
QUESTIONS.

  INLAND REVENUE PROSECUTION (HIGHGATE).
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution last week of Mr. Bandy, by the Inland Revenue, before the Highgate Bench of magistrates, for driving a vehicle without a licence on the 16th May; whether he is aware that it came out in the trial that Mr. Bandy had only on that very day purchased the vehicle and was driving it home for the first time, and that this fact was known to the Inland Revenue and its officer from the 16th May to the 6th July, and yet the prosecution was persisted in and the fact not stated by the Inland Revenue officials at the Court; whether he is aware that the Bench dismissed the summons with the rebuke that the case should never have been brought into Court; and, whether he will inquire into the matter, and take steps to prevent such annoyance and expense to persons from the Inland Revenue officers in future?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Mr. Bandy was observed driving the vehicle on 16th April. Notice was sent to him as to the necessity of taking out a licence, but no licence was taken out till May 18th, after the time allowed by law had expired. The officer who reported the case mentioned the explanation given by Mr. Bandy—that he had only purchased the vehicle on the day in question. This explanation, however, was unfortunately overlooked at the Head

  675
  Office, and a prosecution was ordered. The Board of Inland Revenue much regret that such an oversight should have occurred, and I do not think any action of mine is necessary to prevent its recurrence.

  LOANS TO PARISH AUTHORITIES.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of interest on loans granted to parish authorities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Local Loans Fund, as at present constituted, cannot afford to reduce the rate of interest on local loans. The Government is bound by statute to pay 3 per cent. on all the stock by which the money for making the loans was raised, and, after payment, of this interest and other statutory charges, the fund only just shows a balance on the right side.

  BARRACK ACCOMMODATION (DINGWALT, ROSS-SHIRE.)
  MR. THOMAS HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of adequate barrack accommodation in Dingwall, the county town of Ross-shire, the men of the 3rd battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders (the Ross and Cromarty Militia) have to be annually taken by train to and from Fort George in Inverness-shire, a distance of 28 miles from Dingwall, at a cost of over £200 per annum: that at present there is only barrack accommodation in Dingwall for four sergeants; that the other members of the permanent staff, consisting of two staff sergeants, ten colour sergeants, eight sergeants, and ten drummers, have to find accommodation where they can, at a cost to the country of about £290 per annum; and that the allowance to the sergeants and drummers for such accommodation is only 4d. per diem; whether the Government will increase the allowance to an adequate sum; and whether a scheme for the creation of a depot, with suitable accommodation in Dingwall for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd battalions of the Seaforth Highlanders, is under the consideration of the Govern
  676
  ment; and, if not, whether such a scheme, if submitted, would receive the favourable consideration of the Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The question of removing the headquarters of the Seaforth Highlanders has frequently been considered, but as the quarters at Fort George are suitable and are not required for any other purpose, it has been held that the heavy expense involved in building barracks at Dingwall would not be justified. An increase in the rate of lodging allowance for married soldiers is under consideration.

  BRITISH TRADE ABROAD (COMMERCIA ATTACHÉS).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have recently increased the number of Commercial Attachés in Europe and taken other steps to advance British trade abroad; and, in such case, if he can indicate to the House the nature of the measures which have been adopted by Lord Salisbury and the Foreign Office to increase the demand in neutral markets for the products of British and Irish labour and to enable manufacturers and merchants in the United Kingdom to have the latest and most accurate commercial information?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Since Her Majesty's Government came into power, they have given very attentive consideration to the question of British commercial interests abroad, and in the Consular and Commercial Departments of the Foreign Office we have made the following suggestions, which have received the approval of the Secretary of State:—1. Two new Commercial Attachés will be appointed—one to Germany, the Nether-land, and Scandinavia, to reside at Berlin; the other for Spain and Portugal, to reside at Madrid. The Commercial Attachéship at Paris has been re-organised, and its district will, in future, cover France, Belgium, and

  677
  Switzerland. The Commercial Attaché ship in Russia and Western Asia has also been reconstituted, and the southeastern parts of Europe have been included, while Asia has been excluded from its sphere. 2. A Consul for Lombardy has been appointed to reside at Milan with a special view to the collection of commercial information. The Consular Staff in Siam will be increased by two new appointments; but the exact area of the new Consuls' jurisdictions are not yet fixed. We hope before long to appoint additional British Consuls in Yunnan to promote the interests of British trade in that quarter. Several new Consulships are in course of being created for the new ports that have been opened to foreign trade by the Treaty of Shimonosoki between China and Japan. Mr. Brennen, Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, has been dispatched on a special mission of inquiry to the treaty ports of China, Corea and Japan, to report upon the manner in which British trade has been affected by the recent war. Mr. Austin Lee, who is about to succeed Sir Joseph Crewe as Commercial Attaché at Paris, is engaged in the preparation of a special Report upon the regulations with regard to trade and shipping of the Continental ports competing with the port of London. As a result of communications which have passed between the Foreign Office and the Association of Chambers of Commerce, supplementary instructions are in course of being issued to Her Majesty's Consuls regarding assistance to trade, the collection of samples, and information of a commercial nature. More complete arrangements have recently been made for the immediate publication in the Press of invitations for tenders for work abroad. Arrangements have been made for the official participation of Great Britain in the Exhibitions to be held next year at Brussels and in 1900 at Paris, and Parliament will be asked to make grants for this purpose.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked whether the Government would arrange for a discussion of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked how many commercial attachés there were.
  MR. CURZON: There are two new attachés in Europe, and the spheres of
  678
  the other commercial attachés have been reorganised. I believe that the First Lord of the Treasury is well aware of the views entertained by some hon. Members as to a Debate on the Consular Vote, and I am not at all anxious to avoid it.

  NIGER COMPANY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government can communicate to the House a list of, and any material portions of, the political treaties, exceeding 400 in number, which, according to the statement of the Chairman of the Company at its meeting of the 17th July, have been entered into by the Niger Company with native chiefs; whether there are still sufficient reasons for withholding from the public Sir Claude Macdonald's Report of 1890 regarding the Niger Company's territories, or whether the House can now be furnished at least with those portions of it to which the late Under Secretary of State alluded as in the main highly satisfactory; and whether it is now possible to communicate to the House the remainder of Sir John Kirk's Report, from which an extract only has hitherto been laid before the House?
  MR. CURZON: A list of some of these treaties, numbering over 340, with specimens of the forms in which they were concluded, was given in Vol. T. of the "Map of Africa by Treaty," a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The work in question is now under revision, and will shortly be reissued. Sir Claude Macdonald's Report of 1890, which was described by Sir James Fergusson when Under Secretary of State as of a satisfactory nature, was a confidential document, and it is not proposed to publish it. Sir John Kirk's Report on the Brass River has been laid in full. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to lay any opinions which may have been expressed by him for their confidential information.

  PARCEL POST (CUSTOMS DUTY).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to

  679
  the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why it is that the Customs Duty payable in the country of destination of a parcel sent abroad from the United Kingdom cannot be prepaid, but is collected from the addressee on delivery; and, whether he will direct that the sender of a parcel from this country to any place abroad shall be permitted to prepay in postage stamps the duty chargeable on such parcel in the country of destination?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBUBY,): Customs Duties are as a rule paid by the importer of dutiable goods, so that the addressee of a parcel sent abroad by Parcel Post is under no exceptional disability as distinguished from a recipient by ordinary agency in having to pay duty on the contents when he receives them. Believing however that in some cases it would be a convenience for the sender of a parcel if he could arrange for its delivery to the addressee free of all charges, the Postmaster General has for some time been considering whether such an arrangement would be practicable in connection with the Parcel Post. No decision has yet been arrived at. The difficulty is one which arises rather in connection with the transmission of presents and parcels of that description than with ordinary commercial consignments.

  SKIBBEREEN POOR LAW UNION (RATE COLLECTOR).
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, in the case of Rate Collector Jervois, of the Skibbereen Poor Law Union, the Guardians have unanimously requested the Local Government Board to consider their decision that Mr. Jervois should be called on to resign in consequence of some alleged irregularities in his collection; will he state what the length of Mr. Jervois' service is, and whether the amount of arrears of rate due in his district has decreased since the date of his appointment; and, whether the Local Government Board can now see their way to accede to the request of the Guardians, and at any rate postpone their action so as to give
  680
  the official in question a further period of probation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Guardians have passed a resolution to the effect stated in the first paragraph. Mr. Jervois has had nearly 11 years service as collector. At the date of his appointment there was an arrear of £591, which amount has since been exceeded on three occasions. The average arrear since he entered on his duties has been £464, while the average of his predecessor for the last seven years he held the appointment was £206 and on one occasion stood as low as £46. The Local Government Board have also had in view the fact that only last year Mr. Jervois was threatened with dismissal, but in deference to the wishes of the Guardians was allowed to retain his position on the distinct understanding that if further well-grounded complaints were made against him, they would not permit him to continue in office. The Board now feel it would be contrary to the interests of the ratepayers of the union to allow Mr. Jervois to retain any longer the office of collector.

  POSTMASTER (OLD HEAD OF KINSALE).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether an appointment has yet been made to the postmastership at the Old Head of Kinsale; whether the Secretary to the Post Office, Dublin, has received a memorial signed by the lighthouse keepers, coastguards, Lloyd's signal staff, and the principal residents of the district, recommending for the appointment the daughter of the late postmaster, who assisted in the office for eight years and discharged the duties during the illness of her father; and, in view of the fact that a licensed publican was appointed temporarily to the position after a delay of two months, will he state whether it is legal, or according to the practice of the Department, that a licensed publican should be appointed to the position of postmaster?
  MR. HANBURY: No appointment has yet been made to the Sub-office at Old Head, Kinsale. This office was until

  681
  recently designated Garrylucas and was situate three-quarters of a mile from the village of Old Head, and on the death of the late sub-postmaster the opportunity was taken of removing it from Garrylucas to Old Head. Any memorial which may have been received at Dublin on behalf of the daughter of the late sub-postmaster of Garrylucas will be considered by the Postmaster General before he decides on the appointment. A publican is temporarily carrying on the work of the office. This is contrary to the usual practice of the Department but no one else could be found at Old Head to undertake it.

  TOWNLAND IMPROVEMENT (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a presentment passed at a special road sessions for the construction of a ditch or fence in the townland of Garry-duff, county Monaghan, is actually being carried out in the different townland of Cargabawn; will he state by what authority has this change been made, and whether it is legal to change a contract in this way from one townland to another?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A presentment was passed for certain alterations to a road in the townland of Garryduff. No departure from the terms of the presentment has been authorised by the grand jury, or county surveyor, nor would any work except that approved be accepted from the contractor in discharge of his contract.

  ALDERSHOT (MILITIA ENCAMPMENT).
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether there are sufficient tent boards at Aldershot to provide for the whole of the forces encamped in standing camps during the ensuing autumn; and, if so, whether there is any reason for regular regiments now in camp being ordered to give up their tent boards and hand them over to the Militia?
  Mr. BRODRICK: There are sufficient tent boards at Aldershot to meet all requirements of the Militia as well as
  682
  of the standing camp for regulars at Pirbright. Tent boards are not, as a rule provided for regular troops, but are occasionally issued if recommended on medical grounds. If the General Officer commanding should consider them necessary for any corps, he would without doubt make a demand for them.

  EMIGRANTS' INFORMATION OFFICE.
  MR. JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has now had the opportunity of considering the report of the subcommittee, appointed by the committee of management of the Emigrants' Information Office for the purpose of inquiring into the working of that office; and, if so, whether he has sanctioned the recommendations made in the report referred to; also, if he will permit the publication of the report?
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his con tern plated reorganisation of the Emigrants' Information Office, whether he will consider the advisability of locating the office in the group of buildings in Victoria Street, Westminster, now occupied by the Agents General for the Colonies; and, whether, with a view to increasing the efficiency of the Emigrants' Information Office, he will invite the active co-operation of the Agents General, as the official representatives of the Colonies, in its future management and control?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have communicated the Report on the working of the Emigrants' Information Office to the Agents General for self-governing colonies and am considering their replies, but the whole of them have not yet reached me. The Committee have throughout received much valuable assistance from these gentlemen, and are able to look forward with pleasure to the continuance of their co-operation which they promise to give. But the addition of ten more members to the committee of management is a matter which would require much careful consideration, for large committees do not constitute the best machinery for dealing with a business which largely consists of

  683
  details, and I should be afraid of diminishing the efficiency of a body which is now working admirably. Many of the recommendations made by the committee meet with my concurrence, and as soon as Treasury approval has been obtained for the increased expenditure I shall be in a position to give effect to such of the recommendations as are desirable. The Report, with a few other papers on the subject, shall be given to Parliament with as little delay as possible. The question of the premises to be occupied by the office will have to be dealt with shortly, but the buildings occupied by the Agents General are not Government property, and the rent of adequate accommodation there would, I much fear, be prohibitive.

  LAND JUDGES' COURT (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chief Receiver of the Land Judges' Court, on 30th April 1896, gave directions that a tenant upon Lord Huntingdon's estate should not be allowed to apply in the local County Court to fix a fair rent, but that this must be done by the Land Commission; will he obtain a copy of this ruling, and state why it was made; and who is the County Court Judge affected.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Chief Receiver of the Land Judges' Court that no ruling was made in which the County Court Judge was referred to. An ejectment was taken in the County Court against the tenant in question; his rent was £6 a year and he owed £69 to November 1895. Mr. Justice Ross ordered, with the consent of the owner and petitioner, £57 of this arrear to be struck off, and directed that the tenant should apply to the Sub-commissioners to have a fair rent fixed.

  ULSTER KING OF ARMS (RECORDS).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Records in the Office of Ulster King of Arms in Dublin Castle are kept in a wooden cupboard, and are thereby exposed to irreparable
  684
  loss by fire or accident; and will a safe be provided for them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a fact that the shelving on which the Records referred to are kept is of wood. The question of the safe custody of the Records was specially considered some years ago and the present keeper of the State Papers expressed the opinion that it would be sufficient to do away with the system of open fire places and to substitute hot water pipes in the Tower rooms. This arrangement was carried out.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT, SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  SIR LEWIS McIVER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps steps have been taken with regard to the memorial presented in December 1893, to the Treasury through the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, on behalf of the employees in the Works Department there, praying that the petitioners might be accorded the benefit of superannuation; and what action the Treasury intend to take with regard to the request therein contained?
  MR. HANBURY: The reply of the Treasury to this Memorial was given so far back as the 19th November 1894. In that reply it was stated that—
  "A proposal to review the general arrangements under which workmen in continuous Government employment are engaged on full market rate of wages, and without a claim to pension, is one which affects very large bodies of men, and could not be confined to a particular Department,"
  and that the Treasury were "not prepared to disturb the existing regulations."

  RENEWAL OF LICENCE (DUNBAR).
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that in the burgh of Dunbar a hotel proprietor failed to apply for a renewal of his licence from the magistrates who are the licensing authority in the burgh, and no certificate being granted he obtained a licence from the Inland Revenue; and, whether there is anything to prevent the magis

  685
  trates being habitually passed over, and application being made direct to the Inland Revenue Department?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Inland Revenue have no power to grant a hotel licence without a certificate from the licensing magistrates. In this case the hotel proprietor applied for a certificate, but he inadvertently omitted to lodge his application till some days after the time for so doing had expired, and the licensing magistrates were, therefore, unable to grant a certificate. They, however, endorsed and unanimously supported a memorial from the proprietor to the Board of Inland Revenue, praying to be allowed to carry on his business till he should have another opportunity of applying for a certificate; and the Board, considering that he had failed to obtain a certificate merely because of a technical objection to his application, instructed their officers not to interfere with him in carrying on his business till he should have an opportunity to make another application.

  PORTRANE ASYLUM.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken by the Board of Control in connection with the erection of the new asylum at Portrane; and have tenders been publicly advertised for, or is it the intention of the Board to invite only a limited number of builders to enter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. Tenders for building the new asylum at Portrane were invited by public advertisement, and at the meeting of the Board of Control held on the 21st instant, one of the tenders received was accepted. Arrangements are now in progress for carrying on the work.

  BRISTOL CHANNEL EXCURSION STEAMERS.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the frequent instances in which persons in a state of intoxication are landed from excursion steamers
  686
  plying between Bristol and other ports in the Bristol Channel; and, if so, whether such steamers are under any licensing control as regards the supply of intoxicating liquors to passengers and others on board, and in what authority is the granting and control of such licences vested; whether, if licensed, the licensee of any such steamer would become liable to penalties and forfeiture of licence on conviction of having supplied intoxicating liquors to persons intoxicated; whether the local police of any port or the harbour authority of any port have power to prevent the landing of passengers and other persons from such steamers when such passengers and other persons are undoubtedly intoxicated; and, whether the owners or lessees or such steamers would be liable to penalties on conviction that they or their employees have not exercised reasonable means to prevent passengers from becoming intoxicated whilst on board such steamers by use of liquors the latter may have conveyed on board?
  MR. HANBURY: The sale of intoxicating liquors on these steamer's is carried on under a licence granted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in pursuance of section 45 of the Act 43 & 44 Vic, cap 20. The Licensing Act of 1872 does not apply to these licences, and there are no provisions in the Act under which the licence is granted dealing with the sale of drink to intoxicated persons. As to what powers the police may have, under the Merchant Shipping or other Acts of that kind, I have no information.

  GUARANTEED LAND STOCK (LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what amount of Guaranteed Land Stock has been exchanged for consolidated annuities under Section 15 of the Land (Ireland) Purchase Act of 1891?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On Friday last I stated in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for Cork that the amount of Guaranteed Land Stock held by the National Debt Commissioners was £1,558,862. It now appears that the amount was understated, and that

  687
  it should have been stated to be £1,672,882. This sum includes the stock held by the Bank of Ireland, who act as agents for the National Debt Commissioners.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: That is, about one and a half millions have been exchanged for Consols?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is something like that.

  VENEZUELA.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the statement of the Venezuelan case submitted to the American Commission of Inquiry?
  MR. CURZON: The Venezuelan statement is not yet in our possession. It is being sent home by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, and when received there will be no objection to laying copies before Parliament.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table any information as to the limits and present condition as to the population and otherwise of the "Settlements" within the territory in dispute between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Venezuela?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The definition of settlements and the determination of what constitutes occupation have to be decided in the first place by negotiation and afterwards by detailed inquiry on the spot. I am afraid I have no information which would enable me beforehand to state the limits and conditions of settlements in British Guiana.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid the question was whether Lord Salisbury promised Mr. Olney, in reply to two applications, to consult the right hon. Gentleman and to convey to Mr. Olney the views which he hoped to ascertain from his right hon. Friend. Had any information of this kind been conveyed to the American Government?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINunderstood that his right hon. Friend was asking as to the correspondence which had passed between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Olney. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give notice of the Question.

  POSTAL REGULATIONS (TRANSMISSION OF CHEQUES).
  MR. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why it is that a cheque crossed to payee's account and payable at a specified bank may be written on an ordinary postcard, and so transmitted through the post, whereas it is forbidden by the regulations to transmit an ordinary cheque, crossed and payable as aforesaid, in an open envelope at the halfpenny book-post rate; and, whether he will direct that in future a cheque crossed to payee's account and payable at a specified bank shall be transmissible (as being valueless to any but the person named therein as payee) in an open envelope at the book-rate?
  MR. HANBURY: It does so happen that there is no regulation forbidding the transmission by post of an ordinary postcard on which a cheque crossed or otherwise may have been written, but the Postmaster General has never heard of such a postcard having been sent—[my hon. Friend Mr. Barnes, has however, just shown me one]—and if cheques were so sent it might be the duty of the Postmaster General to take measures to stop the practice. The transmission of paper money of any kind in open envelopes is obviously undesirable and places temptation in the way of officers of the Department and others into whose hands the packets may come. Paper money is defined in the warrant which forbids the transmission of such packets as meaning, inter alia, "all orders and authorities for the payment of money whether negotiable or not," and the Postmaster General is not prepared to take any steps for allowing crossed cheques to be sent in open covers at the book-post rate.
  MR. BARNES: May I ask whether the postcard which I have shown to the right hon. Gentleman has been sent through the Post Office contrary to regulations?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think it is contrary to the regulations at present. But the Postmaster General is of opinion that if it becomes a habit a regulation would have to be framed forbidding it.
  MR. BARNES: At the present moment the sending of such cheques is not forbidden?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir.

  CAVAN AND LEITRIM LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can state at what period the block of 6,100 shares held by the Board of Works as a lien on the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway Company were sold at3/16 the premium, and when the block of 2,578 shares were sold at £2 15s. premium; and, what would have been the reduction in the an anal contribution from the cesspayers in the guaranteeing area in South Leitrim if all these shares had been sold at £2 15s. premium.
  MR. HANBURY: There was a misprint in the report on which my last answer on this subject was based, and the 5 3/16 should have been 5 13/16. The 6,100 shares which realised 5 13/16 were sold at various dates between 25th March 1891 and 30th September 1892. The 2,578 shares were transferred in the present year, 2,525 on the 29th April and 53 on the 14th May. The sales took place a few days before the transfers. If the 6,100 shares had been sold at 7¾, the reduction in the annual contribution of South Leitrim would have been approximately 2¼d. instead of 1¼d. per £ of valuation. In addition to the shares being held as security, the Board also had in respect of them all the powers of sale of an ordinary shareholder. The intention of the Treasury was to realise as soon as the 4 per cent. shares (West Clare) approached par and the 5 per cent. shares a fairly proportionate price. The price of 5 13/16 equals £116 per 100, which was about equal to par for 4 per cent. stock.

  INDEX TO ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. J. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the inquiry he promised to make early in the Session as to the practicability of issuing a new index to the Acts of Parliament prior to 1800, as also of those passed in the years 1800 to 1865 has been held; and, if so, will he give orders to the officials concerned
  690
  to make the necessary preparations for carrying out the work as soon as possible?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have inquired into this matter, and, so far as I am able to judge, the index would not be of such interest or utility to the general public as would justify the expenditure which its issue would involve. But, if I should receive any recommendation from the Statute Law Revision Committee on this subject, of course I will further consider it.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL HOUSES (IRELAND)
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that managers of national schools in Ireland, when they desire to build residences for their teachers, have to provide sites, incur all expenses of title, produce two lay sureties under 45 years of age each holding property worth £400, keep the houses in repair after they are built at their own expense, and pay all taxes; is he aware that the rate now charged for the money advanced is 3½ per cent., though Government can borrow at 2⅛ per cent.; is he aware that the teachers in many parts of Ireland are very much in need of suitable residences; and, will he consider this matter with a view of reducing the rate of interest and removing the difficulties imposed upon managers at the present time, so as to facilitate the erection of houses for the teachers of national schools in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Managers who apply for loans with which to build teachers' residences have to provide sites and to bear the incidental legal expenses, including the cost of the leases, but the sureties need not be worth £400; it is sufficient if they are solvent to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. Moreover, if such a residence is vested in the Commissioners, it is maintained by the State without cost to the manager. The rate of interest charged on these loans is £3 8s. 3d.; the inquiry as to the rate at which the Government borrow money should be addressed to the Treasury. It is true, I believe, that teachers in many parts of Ireland are much in need of suitable residences. There is no limitation to the number of loans

  691
  that may be granted each year for such residences, and the number of applications for loans to build residences since 1875, when the Residences Act came into operation, is 1,175. I have already, in previous answers to questions on this subject, mentioned that very substantial aid is given by the Commissioners to managers in the matter of these loans by contributing one-half of the annual instalment payable in reimbursements of the loans. The borrower accordingly pays only a moiety of the annuity during the outstanding of the loan.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he can make any statement with regard to negotiations with France as to Madagascar; and, whether concessions by the Government of Madagascar made before the recent invasion have been divided into two classes, of which one is to be regarded as void, while the other is to be annulled with compensation?
  MR. CURZON: The negotiations with France as to Madagascar are still pending and I regret that I have at present nothing to add to the last statement which I made on the subject. It is understood that no final decision has yet been taken by the French Government in regard to concessions in the island.

  SAMOA.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if Her Majesty's Government is aware that another King has been elected in Samoa in opposition to Malietoa, at German instigation, in the person of young Tamasese; if he is also aware that Herr Brandeis, whose endeavours to annex Samoa to Germany some years ago were only defeated by the action of the United States, is returning to Samoa next month in the capacity of Chief Justice: if Her Majesty's Government has agreed to the annexation of Samoa by Germany; and, if not, what steps does it propose to take to prevent such annexation?
  MR. CURZON: The answer to all three questions is in the negative.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill will be introduced again next Session; whether, in that case, the names which may have been handed in by Members this year at the Public Rill Office will be inserted in the schedule, or whether a fresh nomination will be necessary; and, whether the Measure will provide for the removal of the property qualification, by which the choice of suitable persons is at present restricted?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir, the Bill will be re-introduced next Session. The Gentlemen whose names have been handed in at the Public Bill Office will not necessarily have to be nominated afresh. As regards the last paragraph, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated, in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs on the 23rd instant, that he is not, at any rate at present, in a position to propose any alteration in the law.

  BAKEHOUSES.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to proceedings under Sub-section (3), of Section (27), of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895; and, whether he can state, in view of the conflicting decisions arrived; at by various magistrates, if the subsection is intended to apply to bakehouses temporarily unoccupied on the 1st of January 1896?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have seen newspaper reports of two cases in which proceedings have been instituted under the sub-section referred to. The question, however, as to the correct interpretation of the sub-section is one of law which I have no authority to decide and which can only be settled by an appeal to the High Court. I understand that in both cases appeals are pending.

  ALDERSHOT (EAST AND WEST CAVALRY BARRACKS).
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, seeing that the drains of the East and West Cavalry Barracks at Aldershot are being overhauled, and that the men and horses have been sent into camp on account of the drains, will he explain why the women and children belonging to these regiments are still occupying the barracks?
  MR. BRODRTCK: The old drains in the Cavalry Barracks at Aldershot have not yet been opened; but it was necessary to remove the men and horses in order to facilitate the laying of new drain pipes. These new pipes have not yet been connected with the buildings. The branches of the drains which drain the married quarters will not be disturbed, so that, with the principal Medical Officer's consent, the women and children are at present left in occupation. Every precaution will be taken in regard to the matter in question.

  PORTSDOWN HILL FORTS (2ND WILTSHIRE REGIMENT).
  MR. CHARLES COLSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the practice prevailing in the Portsmouth district is, that the regiment quartered in the Portsdown Hill Forts, several miles out, shall be moved into the town on any barracks becoming vacant; whether an exception has been made in the case of the 2nd Wiltshire: and, whether the Secretary of State has reason to believe that it is the general wish and desire of the regiment that the usual rule should in their case be strictly adhered to as soon as an opportunity occurs?
  MR. BRODRICK: The distribution of troops within a command is a matter for the General Officer to settle. I believe that the usual practice is as stated in the question. In the case of the Wiltshire Regiment it has been departed from at the request of the Commanding Officer.

  NAZIM PASHA AND THE ARMENIAN COUNCILS.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  694
  for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the action of the Turkish Minister of Police, Nazim Pasha, who summoned the members of the clerical and lay Armenian Councils, and, after stating that he held them personally responsible for any disorders that might occur, threatened them individually with the severest penalties; whether the clerical and lay Armenian Councils, being bodies constituted solely for ecclesiastical purposes, can be properly held responsible for the maintenance of order in the Turkish capital; whether the interference of Nazim Pasha with the members of those Councils, and the threats used by him, contravene the 62nd Article of the Berlin Treaty, which stipulates that no hindrance shall be offered either to the ecclesiastical organisations of the various communions or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs; and, what action has been taken or will be taken by Great Britain and the other contracting Powers?
  MR. CURZON: It would appear from a Report received from Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Constantinople this morning, that a warning of the kind was given to the lay members of the Patriarchal Council, though Mr. Herbert does not mention that the members of the Council were threatened individually with severe penalties. The extent to which they could properly be held responsible for any disorders would, no doubt, depend on evidence of their complicity in them. The warning can scarcely, however, be said to be a contravention of Article LXII. of the Treaty of Berlin. Her Majesty's Government have not yet learned the view of the other signatory Powers on the incident, and must reserve their decision until they do so.

  GOLD COAST (NATIVE AND EUROPEAN DOCTORS).
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will explain the reason for the inequality of treatment which exists between the native and European doctors officially employed on the Gold Coast, under which English surgeons get leave every year, and when they come to Europe, not only have a free passage, but full pay during

  695
  their absence, from the Colony, whereas their native brethren have to wait several years before they can obtain a temporary release from their duties, and have then to pay their passage, and only receive half pay for half the period of their leave.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: This treatment is not peculiar to doctors, but the Colony cannot afford to give the same terms as to leave which are necessary to enable Europeans to work on the Gold Coast, to men, who, being natives, are inured to the climate, and do not want a frequent change to a cold climate.

  LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain why it is that, although an Inquiry under the Labourers Acts was held in February 1895 in Cavan, at which 33 cottages were passed for erection, no arbitration Inquiry has been held; and, can he explain the delay in these proceedings, or state who is to blame in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Provisional Order confirming the Scheme for the erection of 32, not 33, cottages was issued by the Local Government Board in November last. Petitions having since been lodged against the Order, the cases were heard by the Privy Council on the 16th instant, and the confirming Order is expected to be issued immediately. Until this has been done the Arbitrator cannot hold a sitting. There has been no avoidable delay in the proceedings.

  COVENT GARDEN THEATRICAL FUND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner, whether he is aware that a considerable portion of the Covent Garden Theatrical Fund has accrued from the contributions of the charitable public in bygone years; and, whether that fact will bring the fund and its proper management within the official purview of the Charity Commissioners?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: All the information which the Charity Commissioners possess as to this Fund is derived from the Act of 12
  696
  Geo. III., mentioned in the answer to the Question previously put. The Commissioners are not aware that a considerable portion of the Fund is derived from contributions as stated in the Question. But as the Act already mentioned deals with the fund as a benefit society it does not appear that the presence of these contributions would operate to remove the exemption from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners accorded to benefit societies.

  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (COLONIAL JUDGE).
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether any progress has been made in the matter of nominating a Colonial Judge as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
  MR. J. CHAMBEBLAIN: The Chief Justice of the Cape Colony has been appointed a member of the Privy Council. I have received communications on the subject from the Governors of various Colonies of Australasia, and am expecting to hear further in a short time. I have not as yet received any communication from the Governor General of Canada.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS (ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what was the amount of the bill of costs, expenses, and other charges paid or payable by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to their own solicitor for the defence of the action of Harrison against them; and, whether he can give the name of the present contractor employed to attend the Slyne Head Lighthouse stations, and the date of his contract with the Irish Lights Commissioners?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The costs paid by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to their solicitor in Harrison's case were £243 Os. 6d.; the witnesses' expenses were £46 Is. 8d. The present contractor employed to attend the Slyne Head Lighthouse Stations is John King, Slackport, County Galway, whose tender was sanctioned on the 24th August 1895.

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will; consider the subject of Town Tenants, and bring in a Bill next Session dealing with the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government cannot give any pledge to deal with this matter.

  SUPPLEMENTARY FEE GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted the justice of Ireland being paid the amount short paid of the Fee Grant payable to Ireland, the Scotch Office will make a similar demand upon the Treasury on behalf of Scotland for payment of the amount short paid of the Fee Grant to Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Scotch Education Department has repeatedly pressed upon the attention of the Treasury the claim which arises on behalf of Scotland in respect of the supplementary fee grants to England during the financial years from 1802–93. The Treasury have admitted that claim in respect of the financial year.1895–96, and have submitted a supplementary estimate accordingly. The Scotch Education Department is still in communication with the Treasury in regard to the question of the arrears in respect of the preceding years.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (BOYS FOR NAVY).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty will he explain why boys who propose to join the Navy from industrial schools are entered on a form which denotes that they are suffering from some disability; and whether, in view of the advantage of encouraging boys carefully trained in these schools to enter the Navy, steps will be taken to place such lads upon an equal footing with other candidates?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Boys entering the Navy from
  698
  industrial schools execute the same form of engagement as all other boys, and after entry are on precisely the same footing. There is no form of the character alluded to in the first paragraph of the Question.

  NEWBLISS PETTY SESSIONS COURT.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to remove the Petty Sessions Court of Newbliss from the building in that town used as an Orange lodge; what steps the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has taken in regard to the magistrates who joined in an Orange demonstration in Newbliss on the 13th July instant, wearing orange sashes and other party decorations; and, has any correspondence passed between the Lord Chancellor and these magistrates; and, if so, will he have it laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On Tuesday last I stated that the attention of the Lord Chancellor had been drawn to the occupation on the 13th inst. of the justices' room at Newbliss by a number of members of Orange lodges. As to what action, if any, it may be proposed to take in this connection, the matter is obviously one requiring reasonable time for inquiry and consideration; but the Lord Chancellor informs me that he has taken no action, nor does he propose to take any, with regard to the participation of certain magistrates in the demonstration of the 13th inst. by wearing sashes and party decorations. I am not aware whether any correspondence has passed between the Lord Chancellor and these gentlemen; but, in any event, if such a correspondence should take place, I cannot promise to lay it on the Table of the House.

  IRISH TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is prepared to recommend to His Excellency that the approaching celebration of the reign of Her Majesty the Queen as the longest in English history should be signalised by the granting of amnesty to all the

  699
  prisoners confined in prisons in Ireland for agrarian and offences arising out of the agrarian troubles in that country during the last fifteen years?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question is one that should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

  BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,—(1) whether the Board of Poor Law Guardians of Belfast Union had any legal authority for admitting to the workhouse from the district asylum Eliza Jane Hanna, who did not belong to the union of Belfast, and by what authority did the auditor to the Local Government pass the charge of her maintenance on the rates of Belfast; (2) whether he will give the name of the pauper who was exchanged for Eliza Jane Hanna; (3) whether it was at the instance of the Local Government Board or the Board of Control that the system of exchanges between patients in the workhouse and asylum at Belfast was instituted; (4) whether the Local Government Board will make careful inquiry into the matter before it now gives its approval to this system which facilitates the removal of the afflicted poor from properly equipped asylums to places never intended for the reception of such cases; (5) whether he will state what number of such transferred patients were on the 18th instant in Belfast Workhouse, not belonging to Belfast Union but illegally kept there at the expense of the Belfast ratepayers; (6) and what is to be done as to the illegality of the admission and charge of maintenance in these cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Patients in asylums are transferred to the workhouses of the district from which they come under the provisions of the 11th Section of the Act of 1875, but in this case it would seem that instead of being sent to the Antrim Workhouse, to which she was properly chargeable, Hanna was transferred to the Belfast Workhouse in exchange for Margaret Dendinney, a dangerous lunatic requiring Asylum treatment. This transfer appears to have been the result of a private arrangement which existed between the Guardians and the Asylum Governors, but this
  700
  practice was discontinued in March, 1894. It was neither at the instance of the Local Government Board nor of the Board of Control that this system was instituted. The Auditor states it would not be possible for him to verify the chargeability of every person admitted to the workhouse. This is a matter for the Guardians to decide at their next meeting subsequent to such admission. As to the fourth paragraph, communications, I understand, are being carried out between the Guardians and the Asylum Governors with reference to the interchange of inmates. There were twelve transferred patients in Belfast Workhouse on the 18th instant who were not properly chargeable to that Union, and arrangements are being made to re-tranfer them back to the Asylum as soon as possible.

  ABDULLAH PASHA AND CRETAN ASSEMBLY.
  MR. J. G FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Foreign Office have yet received official information respecting the Convocation of the Cretan Assembly at Canea; has any information as to the truth of the statement that Abdullah Pasha, Military Governor, entered the Chamber, together with the Governor General, and officially took part in the proceedings; and, whether in view of the tension of feeling existing in the Assembly, the Ambassadors of the Powers will make adequate representation to the Porte concernimg these departures from established usage.
  MR. CURZON: No Dispatches with regard to the opening of the Cretan Assembly have yet been received from Her Majesty's Consul, and his telegraphic reports do not mention that Abdullah Pasha entered the Chamber with the Governor General and officially took part in the proceedings.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether though this Convocation had met on the 17th inst., no Dispatches had yet been received?
  MR. CURZONsaid that the hon. Member had asked as to the receipt of official information. But neither in telegrams nor in Dispatches was any mention made of the particular incident to which the hon. Member referred.

  CRETAN ASSEMBLY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information as to the truth of the statement that at the opening of the Convocation of Canea, the speech of the Vali was read in the Turkish tongue, though Creek is the language prescribed by the Halifa constitution; and, if so, whether, taking into account the vital importance of inducing both sections of the Assembly to work in harmony, the conduct of the Turkish authorities will form the subject of investigation by the representatives of the Powers?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul in Crete has reported that the Assembly met on the 13th inst., and that contrary to precedent the opening-speech was delivered in Turkish, an innovation against which the Christian deputies remonstrated. The speech was subsequently read in Greek. The representatives of the Powers at Constantinople, when full information has reached them, will no doubt consider whether this matter should form the subject of investigation.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether the Convocation had not met for the past week, and that the suspension was largely owing to the incidents mentioned in the two questions?
  MR. CURZONthought that the information of the hon. Member was incorrect. He believed that the Convocation was sitting at the present time.
  MR. FLYNN: There is no business being done. [Laughter]

  FIGHTING IN CRETE.
  MR FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the unfortunate invasion of Apokorona by the Turkish troops and the fighting consequent upon this breach of the truce previously agreed upon; was this expedition undertaken with the sanction of Abdullah Pasha; and what representations, if any, have been made to the Porte by the Powers?
  MR. CURZON: No detailed information with regard to the fighting in the neighbourhood of Kalyves has been received since the reply given to the
  702
  hon. Member's Question on the 16th instant. Her Majesty's Consul in Crete has reported by telegraph that hostilities continued on the 16th and 17th, and that he had obtained private information that 50 Turkish soldiers had been killed or wounded and that the troops had returned to Kalyves. There was no information as to the losses of the Christians. In the present state of our information it is impossible to say whether the expedition was undertaken with the sanction of Abdullah Pasha, or whether the facts are such as to justify a representation to the Porte.

  EAST LONDON WATER COMPANY.
  MR. H. S. SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he can give the House any information as to the result of his endeavours to obtain from the neighbouring Companies a supply of water for the East London Water Company sufficient to enable it to carry out its obligations to its customers?
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, while the East London Water Company published notices restricting the supply to six hours a day, they did not specify the hours, and last week, in various parts of the East End, water was turned off without any notice whatever. Would the right hon. Gentleman impress on the Company the importance of giving adequate notice as to the hours?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have already done that, and I have put all the pressure I can upon them, and no doubt effect will be given to the representations. I have not yet received any information which enables me to state that a definite arrangement has been made, but I am doing everything that I can to bring about an agreement between the two companies in this matter.

  NAVAL RESERVE VESSEL (KIRKWALL).
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain the grounds upon which he declines to station a Naval Reserve vessel for two or three winter months at Kirkwall?
  MR. MACARTNEY: No public advantage would result from the action suggested in the hon. Member's question.

  PASTOR KHAMIS.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign A flairs, if the inquiries into the case of Pastor Khamis, now imprisoned in Dizza, included any investigation into the nature of the treasonable correspondence carried on by him, or whether the allegations were accepted as correct on the authority of Turkish officials; whether he is aware that the only apparent grounds for the said allegations were letters from the aged pastor to his two sons in this country, asking for pecuniary aid towards his own sub sistence, he being nearly 80 years of age; and, whether these letters were construed by the Turkish officials into applications for funds for the purpose of insurrection?
  MR. CURZON: The inquiries into the case of Pastor Khamis were made by Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Van, who satisfied himself that there were sufficient reasons for the institution of proceedings. As stated in answer to a previous question, besides correspondence a diary containing accusations against the Turkish Government was found in possession of the Pastor.

  ULSTER LANDLORDS (FLAX-GROWING DISTRICTS).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the generous reductions in rent alleged to have been given by Ulster landlords in flax-growing districts, whether such reductions were given in respect of last year's rent upon any, and, if so, how many-, of the large estates in the counties of Antrim and Down, where flax is largely grown?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The counties referred to by myself and by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General on the 20th February and 13th April last were Armagh, Cavan, Donegal, Londonderry, and Tyrone. I have no information as regards Antrim. The estates in Co. Down, particulars of which I had before me when the previous answers were given, were five in number, but I. have no reason to believe that the list was exhaustive.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. E. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, what Bills will be taken on Wednesday and Thursday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member will see that much depends on what is done to-night and to-morrow as to what business will be taken on Wednesday and Thursday. I cannot give the hon. Member a definite answer.

  RHODESIA RISING.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTasked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies had received any request from Sir F. Carrington for military reinforcements, and if so, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to send more troops to South Africa?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the present I have not received any communication of that kind.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information, in addition to what had appeared in the newspapers, with reference to the defeat of the British forces?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I do not believe that there has been any defeat of British forces. [Cheers.] The only information I have is in the following telegram:—
  "Lieutenant-General Goodenough to Mr. Chamberlain. Received 11 p.m., July 26, 1896. July 26.—Following telegram received from Carrington:—(Begins) July 25.—Nicholson engaged enemy to-day in Inugo Gorge; failed to draw them out into open from position in kopjes. Cape boys stormed kopjes. Our casualties seven wounded; British South! Africa Company's Police Troopers W. E. Cheves, W. Bern, R. Heathfield, J. Bell, Corporal J. Porter, and two Capo boys. Nicholson's force expected back here to-night (ends). Christian names will be sent when received."

  COLONIAL VOTE.
  MR. BYRON REEDasked the First Lord of the Treasury when he intended to take the Colonial Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURYreplied that he could not make a

  705
  definite announcement, but he would remind the hon. Member that the Vote had already been discussed on one day, if not on two.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the House had not been promised that an opportunity would be given for a discussion of the affairs of the Transvaal on the Colonial Vote, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to put the Vote down first on one of the days still available for Supply?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TUEA-SURYdid not think that he could do as the hon. Member desired. He would point out that when the Vote was last before the Committee it was competent to hon. Members to raise the South African Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words—
  "this House is of opinion that no further public funds should he voted for making this railway until more clear and definite estimates of its cost are presented."
  He said that they had drifted into the construction of this railway in a most unbusinesslike fashion. There were many persons in this country who had a kind of earth hunger—it was a sort of disease—and their attention in late years had been mainly directed to Africa. The British East Africa Company having given up Uganda as a bad speculation, the Government took it over. The reasons given for that action were, in his opinion, very insufficient. It had been said that we must go to Uganda in order to hasten the suppression of the slave trade, but, as a matter of fact, we should do a great deal more in that direction by putting
  706
  an end to slavery at Mombasa and Zanzibar than could be done by going into the interior of Africa. In Uganda slavery was a domestic institution. He believed that there were more slaves than free men in that country, and, although we had established a protectorate over it, we had done nothing to abolish the system which flourished under our flag. Then pictures had been drawn of vast numbers of Englishmen going to this tropical region as colonists with their wives and children. As a matter of fact, those pictures where wholly fantastic. Even if European men could live in this region, their children could not. The case was very similar to that of India, where they did not find European colonists. Men went to India in order to make money, and returned as soon as they possibly could to England, where their families usually remained during their absence. Another argument used was that we ought to extend the area of our Empire in order to extend the area of our commercial relations. In Uganda, however, there was absolutely no prospect of commerce. Cereals could never be grown there because he supposed that ultimately we should have to put an end to the system of domestic slavery, and about the last thing that a native freeman would think of doing would be to devote himself to agricultural pursuits. Possibly a little cochineal might be obtained in Uganda, but the export trade would mainly be in ivory, which was diminishing in quantity every year in consequence of the destruction of the elephants. Looking at the railway as a matter of speculation, a worse speculation could not be presented to the public than the investment of public money in Uganda. The frontier was too indefinite. At the outset it was distinctly stated that our Protectorate would be limited to Uganda. He stated at the time that it was almost impossible to limit it, and he was right, for he saw the other day in the Gazette that Unyoro was added to it? Where were we to stop? Directly we had taken one place that was given as a reason for taking another; and thus we should go on spreading ourselves over the whole of tropical Africa. How many Europeans were there in Uganda? He did not believe there were 100. We had taken on our shoulders a quantity of Soudanese ruffians, who were about the

  707
  most objectionable set of scoundrels that ever existed. He had no doubt that when they were not under the eye of their officer they went about the country ravishing and stealing. Absurdity followed on absurdity. Having taken this precious Elysium on our shoulders it was now contemplated to make a railway to it. Lake Nyassa was situated about 657 miles from the East Coast. Therefore that would be the length of the railway. It would pass through a country which was practically a desert, and where there was a little grass and water it was inhabited by desperately fierce tribes.
  MR. BITKDETT-COUTTS: They were our police.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member, who was a director of the British East Africa Company, said that these tribes were his police, yet they had been told that a whole caravan had been destroyed by them. [Laughter.] The Under Secretary certainly told the House that that was not the fault of the Masai, but occurred through some little misunderstanding. [Laughter.] At any rate the line would have to pass through the country of these respectable and virtuous Masai, and according to the survey every station would have to be a fortress, and every man employed would have to be armed. The House ought at least to know what would be the cost of the railway. It was stated in 1891 that at a cost of £20,000 to this country a species of survey was made and the figure was put down at £2,240,000. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues reduced that to £1,157,000, which had now been increased to £3,000,000. His own impression was that it would cost more than £5,000,000. He was not surprised at all this, for he had never yet heard that the Foreign Office was gifted in the way of making railroads. If anyone was calculated to make a mess of it it would, he should think, be the Foreign Office. [" Hear, hear! "and laughter.] Tenders were put forward by the Foreign Office for rails and two estimates were sent in—one from Barrow and one from Cardiff. The former was 1s. 6d. per ton higher than the latter, but it was accepted because the Foreign Office thought they would have to send out sleepers which they thought could be obtained near Cardiff. But when they had entered into the con
  708
  tract they were told that English sleepers would be of no use, because they were destroyed by insects. [Laughter.] They, therefore, cancelled the contract, paying compensation, and had to pay 1s. 6d. a ton more than they need for their rails. If this railway did cost £5,000,000, as he believed it would, that meant saddling £150,000 per annum on that country for 30 years. Most railways were expected to pay, but nobody expected this line to pay, and the estimates of traffic made out a large and permanent deficit which might be taken at another £30,000 per annum. If the country was to go into the business of building railways it would be infinitely better they should be built at home. ["Hear, hear!"] Agriculture in England did not want the Government to give facilities for materials to be brought down from the centre of Africa. What it wanted was facilities of communication in England, so as to be able to compete with the foreigner in this country. When we had put every part of England into communication with markets, then we might consider whether money should be wasted in this foolish way in Africa. ["Hear, hear!"] If the British taxpayer was to be called to upon spend money in Africa at all, the money would be better expended upon lines in South Africa instead of in tropical Africa. They were once told that it was necessary to make a railroad to Berber, and, in fact, a large sum of money was expended in the partial construction of the line. But where was that railway now? Why, after constructing a certain portion of it, it was given up as a bad job by the intelligent Government that was then in power, and all that remained of it now was a certain amount of iron, which was being used by the Soudanese in resisting our inroad into their country. ["Hear, hear!"and laughter.] In his opinion the whole system of Protectorates in, Africa was madness, but if we were to embark in mad schemes, let us at all events have some method in our madness. Before we set to work to construct railways, we ought to weigh the advantages and the disadvantages that would result from their being made. The scope of his Amendment was confined to the assertion that at the present moment we had not sufficient data on which to form a judgment of the advantages that would

  709
  result from the construction of the line. Had hon. Members ever heard "of business men setting about the construction of a railroad in the vague way the Government had adopted, without having any estimate of the cost or any survey of the territory through which it was to pass? In his view his Amendment was a throrough business one. He should wish to ask whether the labour employed in the construction of the line was to be African labour.
  MR. CURZON: Yes, if we can get it.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that in that case we were going to avail ourselves of slave labour. We might make what conditions we chose in the arrangements with the masters, but the men employed to do the work would be slaves, who would be brought down to the coast by the Arab traders. During the years that the line would take to construct, the railway would be a perfect hotbed of slavery. In conclusion, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR CHAULES DILKEsaid that in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, he should wish to make two or three observations in connection with the general subject. On the last occasion when the question of the construction of this railway was before the House the hon. Member for Westminster had given as one of the reasons in favour of its construction that it would eventually run along the backbone of Africa, and would afford an unbroken communication between the north and south of that continent. He rather doubted whether all the hon. Members in that House had fully-considered the problem of the future of Africa and the bearing it would have upon this railway. The policy of British communication by railway from Egypt to British South Africa had gone by the board long ago, and it was one that we could no longer hope to see carried out. Such a policy was an intelligible and a real policy which was well worthy of examination and of thought, but it had now entirely passed out of the region of practical politics. It was true that we had entered into an arrangement with the Congo State to give us a right of way through their territories in consideration of our leasing other territories to them, but one-half of that
  710
  agreement had been torn up by Germany and the other half by France. It might, of course, be said that in time of peace we should have no opportunity of acquiring the right of way in question, but that we might obtain it as the result of war. But were we to commence the construction of this line in the hope of being able to complete it after the termination of the next great war in which we might be engaged? He thought that in attempting to open a railway communication from the north to the south of Africa we were engaging in a wild goose chase, and therefore he should second the Amendment. ["Hear!"]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The hon. Member for Northampton commenced his remarks by a criticism of the circumstances under which we found ourselves in Uganda. Those remarks, it seemed to me, might have been more appropriately addressed to gentlemen sitting on his own side of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I addressed them to both sides.
  MR. CURZON: Anyhow, they are not applicable to us. Our position in Uganda is a responsibility which we have inherited, and voluntarily inherited, from our predecessors, and we are now merely carrying to their logical conclusion the steps for the initiation of which they were responsible. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member then indulged in those a priori objections, which he so frequently airs in this House, against any extension of British influence or expansion of the British race. That is one of the special idiosyncrasies of the hon. Member which is quite impervious to argument, and which makes him one of the most perverse, but, I am free to admit, one of the most charming of men. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman has got a most extraordinary conception of the character of the country through which the railway is to run. It is scarcely conceivable that he has ever read even the most elementary work about the nature of the country.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, several.
  MR. CURZON: Then the hon. Gentleman must have an imperfect recollection of what he has read. He described the country as a desert from the coast

  711
  up to the interior, and then a jungle, and he asked how any European colonist could ever go or want to go into such a country. I remember a story that is told in history. When Julius Cæsar landed in this country his Roman patricians, who had never seen anything of this country before, said:—
  "What an extremely undesirable place to live in The climate is not one that will suit us; there are parts of the country which are a desert, and other parts which are a jungle."
  [Laughter.] But in that desert and in that jungle the Roman patricians continued to live and to leave marks of their civilisation and government which endure to this day.
  MR. LABOTJCHERE: Where are they now?[Laughter.]
  MR. CURZON: What are the facts in regard to Uganda? You have a coast fringe which is to some extent unhealthy; then you have a sterile belt some 200 miles across; and then you come to a high, well-watered, fertile country. So far from its being a part of the world in which British colonists could not live, I am informed that British colonists are already arriving there, and that they are starting plantations of coffee. So far from its being the jungle my hon. Friend described, would he be surprised to learn that there is there a cool air, that you wear there the clothing we wear here in the autumn, and that in the winter time you almost invariably require fires at night? The hon. Gentleman once again attributed the lamentable deaths of Sir Gerald Portal and his brother to the effects of the climate of Uganda. Sir Gerald Portal died from an illness contracted in this country, and his brother died from an illness contracted far beyond Uganda. Indeed, gentlemen who have recently been through the country assure me that it is a very healthy part of the world. The next point of the hon. Member was that there can never be any commerce there, and that nothing but ivory ever comes from that part of Africa. That view is not shared by people who have been there. They assure me that there is every chance of cotton, indiarubber, cereals, and coffee being cultivated there. But the question of the advantage of the railway does not solely turn upon the amount of produce likely to be
  712
  exported from the country or the number of passengers who are likely to take tickets upon the line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the other day a point that ought not to be lost sight of. Being in Uganda, as we are, we are compelled to be continually sending up stores and supplies over a considerable extent of country from the sea to the interior. At the present moment all those stores have to be carried on the backs of native porters, which costs us £40,000 a year, but when the railway is in working order it will only cost us £6,000, which will be a saving of £34,000 a year. At present there are only two small steel boats on the lakes—one on the Victoria lake and one on the Albert lake. An order for a steamer for the Victoria lake was very properly given by the late Government. This steamer could only be taken up in pieces and sections on the backs of men. The cost of the transport of that steamer to the lake will be, if it ever gets there, £12,000. Many of these pieces of machinery have been thrown away on the journey, and it is doubtful whether we can ever get the steamer complete. If the railway were made the transport would only cost £1,100. Therefore the saving on Government transport to the lakes will be very considerable when the railway is completed. I go on to the next point of the hon. Gentleman. He seems to have got, I will not say his facts, but his substitutes for facts, wrapt in a jumble of the most impossible and abnormal character. [Laughter.] He asked why the contracts for the rails had been given to a Cardiff firm and not to a Barrow firm. The reason why the contract was given to the Cardiff firm and not to the Barrow firm was that the tender of the Barrow company for shipment at Barrow was £4 13s. 6d. per ton; the tender for shipment at London was £5 Is.; the tender of the Cardiff company for shipment at Cardiff was £4 14s. 9d., and we were obliged to ship at Cardiff because we were getting our coals at Cardiff. His next contention was about the sleepers. He was surprised that we should be getting the sleepers from this country. He also talked about some infringement of a contract and of some compensation having to be paid. There is no truth at all in the latter statements; and as

  713
  regards the sleepers, we were obliged to get them from England because there is no wood in the country of the character that is required for sleepers. We also required creosoted fir sleepers, because steel sleepers would have been liable to be corroded by the saline properties of the air near the coast. The next point my hon. Friend made, and perhaps it was the most extraordinary of all, was that this railway is actually going to turn the parts of Africa through which it is to run into hotbeds of slavery. Well, upon my word. [Laughter.] Up till now the argument which has commended the railway to hon. Gentlemen opposite has been that it would be one of the surest preventives of traffic in slaves, and that it would staunch the supply at its source. I can assure the hon. Gentleman anyway that there will be no slave labour employed on the line, and that his apprehensions in that respect are ill-founded. ["Hear, hear!"] I pass to the hon. Gentleman's next point. Throughout his speech he described this railway as if it were a happy-go-lucky affair which the Government had taken in hand, with no clear idea of where it was going to, what route was going to be adopted, and without the estimates and surveys that ought to have been made. What is the fact? In 1892 Major MacDonnell executed a survey of which a Report was laid before this House. It was a reconnaissance survey. It was executed with unusual care; it confirmed the independent studies made by engineers of the highest character beforehand; and it has been confirmed by the observations of those who have been there since. But it was not in the nature of things a detailed survey. I have sometimes wondered why in the interval between 1893 and 1895, when we started the railway, the late Government did not proceed to the execution of the detailed survey that was required before the railway could be commenced. My impression is that they were engaged in making up their minds whether they should remain in Uganda or scuttle out of it. ["Hear, hear!"] A valuable opportunity was then lost, and we are now carrying out a work which could have been more advantageously initiated by them. The process that is followed
  714
  is this. A party goes ahead upon the trace of Major MacDonnell; then comes a party laying temporary lines, and then a working party laying the rails in their final position. Hon. Members can understand that in these circumstances a margin is wanted over and above the original estimate of Major MacDonnell. But the Government are not departing from Major MacDonnell's observations, nor are they deviating substantially from his figures. There is one other point in regard to which the Government was challenged, and that is as to the reasons for which we have adopted what is known as the Departmental system of construction. The hon. Member talked about this railway as being managed by the Foreign Office, whose officials he regarded as perfectly incapable of constructing such a work. That may be the case under ordinary circumstances, but this railway is being made by a Committee of experts sitting at the Foreign Office. I will give the House the names of the Committee. In the first place, the managing director is Mr. O'Callaghan, a man whose whole life has been spent in railway work in India. The consulting engineer is Sir Alexander Rendel, who is consulting engineer to the India Office, and the other members of the Committee are Sir Montagu Ommanney, Crown Agent for the Colonies, who is familiar with similar business, and Sir John Kirk, whose experience in that part of Africa is exceptionally great. This Committee sits at the Foreign Office, but can scarcely be legitimately described as a Foreign Office Committee. It embodies the most expert and authoritative opinion we can obtain, and to this Committee come week after week the accounts sent home by our local engineers on the spot. Whatever system of construction you apply, whether you build by departmental system or by contract, in the last resort a great deal must depend on the vigilance, the judgment, and the experience of the local engineers, and in the person of Mr. Whitehouse, who has great experience of railways in Africa, in India, and other tropical countries, we have a most excellent man. No firm of contractors and no company working this railway could possibly have applied to the supervision and control of the work done by their engineers on the spot the

  715
  authoritative supervision which is applied by this expert Committee sitting at the Foreign Office. This method of construction is one with which we are very familiar. The hon. Member spoke of it as an experiment made for the first time. That is not so. The Departmental system in this case is only Foreign Office in so far as the expert Committee sit at the Foreign Office. This Departmental system is one under which the majority of our railways in India and at the Cape have been constructed, and under which we have made our railways in Trinidad, in Ceylon, in "Western Australia, and other Colonies. Experience shows us that it is on the whole a smoother and more economical method, and more particularly will it be so in this part of Africa, for the reason that in the first place, we have the advantage, working through Government agency, of the assistance of the Indian Government. For instance, we have got the assistance of 3,000 coolies to start the works with. The Indian Government would never have let those coolies go to work under a company or a contractor. We can get any amount of rolling stock from India; we have, too, the advantage of obtaining engineers and surveyors already trained in somewhat analogous work and with Indian experience. No firm of contractors or company could have commanded these advantages. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite are never tired of telling us that the construction of this railway is going to be threatened and retarded by the raids of the Masai tribes. But if troubles arise, or are likely to arise, surely you will be much more likely to compose them and to get on well with the local chiefs and tribesmen if you have your own officers in charge. ["Hear, hear!"] If you employ contractors what guarantee have you that they will engage men who are experienced in the ways of managing native tribes and in dealing with them dexterously? That reason, if there were no other, would be strong enough to impose on the Government the duty of constructing the railway. I hope I have fairly met the various points raised by the hon. Member, but I would ask the House, in giving their vote on the matter, to consider this—that we have taken over this country for better or for
  716
  worse. We may have been right or we may have been wrong, but that question is not now before the House. It was decided after due consideration, and, I am sure, with a full sense of responsibility, by the late Government, and it has been accepted by the present Government. The whole policy of the British Protectorate in Uganda has been explained, criticised, vindicated, and accepted more than once by overwhelming votes of this House. ["Hear, hear!"] If that be the accepted policy of the country, the necessary corollary of the dominion we have established is that we should have railway communication between the interior and the seaboard. ["Hear, hear!"] That is the whole question in a nutshell. If you do not establish that communication with the Victoria Nyanza, Germany will do so. It is in pursuit of our responsibilities, and of the obligations we have inherited from our predecessors, that we are constructing this railway, and I believe the time will arrive when hon. Gentlemen who make these speeches now will look back with bewildered surprise on the utterances with which they have favoured the House, and will wonder how it was that they "raged so furiously together and imagined such vain things." [Laughter and cheers.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should not have thought it necessary to offer any observations to the House on this matter if the right hon. Gentleman had not made an attack on his predecessors. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the most amiable of men, but he is, I think, in the conduct of his department in this House, sometimes unnecessarily aggressive. [Laughter.] It was quite unnecessary, for the purpose of this Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman should have indulged either in an attack on the late Government or in those references to Germany which he is so constantly making, and which, coming from the Foreign Office, are singularly impolitic. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CURZON: I cannot allow that interpretation to pass. What I said was that one of the main grounds for the construction of a railway to Victoria Nyanza was that if we did not make it Germany would. ["Hear, hear!"]

  717
  There was nothing aggressive in that. ["Hear, hear!"] I was speaking of what is the avowed intention of Germany. The Germans have a perfect right to make the railway through their territory; and our policy should he, and has been, to anticipate them. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is precisely the sort of remark that abroad causes great irritation, and which, I think, should be avoided. It was perfectly unnecessary, and has nothing to do with the argument. It is a remark in invidiam, and it introduces into the discussion a prejudice which is altogether unnecessary. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should have made any reference to Germany at all. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the late Government, the position in which they were placed was a very simple one. I have never altered my opinion that going to Uganda originally was an unwise step—["Hear, hear!"]—and I do not think the case has been improved by the right hon. Gentleman's illustration of the Roman invasion of this country. Julius Cæsar came here, but he went back almost as soon as he came. It was not a permanent occupation, and though the Romans came here and spent a great deal of money with the idea that they were going to get a good return by the pearls they obtained, they got really very little out of the country, and ultimately evacuated it, having got very little profit for the money they had laid out. That illustration does not help the Uganda railway. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] There is an illustration much nearer home in the Congo State. In that State there are means of communication that do not exist in respect to Uganda, and if you consult the parties who are interested in the profits and advantages derived from the Congo, I do not think they will be found to be very considerable. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown some new light on the climate of the Equator. It is apparently necessary there to have an extra great coat, and I suppose the coals being shipped at Cardiff are intended to warm the people at the Equator. [Laughter.] That, however, is an expensive operation under the circumstances. [Laughter.] The position of the late Government with regard to Uganda when they came into Office was, as I have said, a
  718
  very simple one. When they came into Office they found that the East Africa Company was practically insolvent; they had endeavoured to make a settlement in Uganda, and had failed to do so, and had given notice that they were going to abandon the country. The policy of Lord Salisbury was to accept the evacuation of Uganda by the company, but he made no provision whatever for what was to succeed. That was the situation we found when we came into Office. We had to consider what was to be done. There were settlements in Uganda; there were British subjects there involved in the enterprises of the company; and no provision was made as to what was to be done on the retirement of the company; and, under the circumstances, the Government felt that they had no alternative but to make the provision in regard to Uganda that was made in 1892. The late Government agreed—and I believe the hon. Member for Northampton agreed—that a railway was a necessity, but we were of opinion that it must be what is called a light railway. Having regard to the condition of things in Uganda and to the uncertainty of what was to go there and what was to come from there, the notion of laying down a great and expensive line was never entertained by anyone in the world. The Committee of 1895, which was composed of the same gentlemen who reported in 1896, recommended the adoption of a reduced scheme, and that scheme was to cost exactly half the money which it is now proposed to expend. They recommended an expenditure of £1,755,000, but the present estimate is double that sum. I do not see that the House can be asked to assent to such a proposal. Why should they? I confess I am a little sceptical as to the accuracy of the estimate of the traffic on a line which is to have a train once a week upon it, and I am likely to remain so until the line has been at work some time. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual confidence, assures us of the success of the line. I remember that a few months ago Mr. Rhodes told me he was absolutely certain there never could be any native difficulty, either in Matabeleland or Mashonaland. It only shows how very well-informed persons may be mistaken. I require some more solid assurance than that of the right

  719
  hon. Gentleman that in the settlement of Africa no native difficulties are possible or even probable. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman not to be too confident in a matter of this kind. I think it was not wise to have doubled the estimated expenditure upon this line, and I confess that, as between the two reports signed by the same gentlemen, I prefer the report which was made to us and upon which we stated our intention of embarking upon a railway to Uganda. From our point of view the state of things was one which only justified what may be called a tentative railway—a light railway. Of course, if the passenger and goods traffic developed, you might lay down a heavier railway, make stronger bridges, and multiply your trains. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Northampton in his depreciation of railway constructing and building by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office endeavoured to administer Cyprus, and they made such a mess of the matter that we were obliged to take it out of their hands and transfer it to the Colonial Office. I would prefer that this work should be done by the Colonial Office, who have a staff with some knowledge of administration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The staff the Colonial Office employ for such a purpose is the staff of Crown Agents, and the staff of Crown Agents is doing this very work.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Why don't you put this administrative work in the hands of the Colonial Office, which is an administrative Office? The Foreign Office is not an administrative Office, and whenever they have attempted matters of administration we have always found that they have not been successful. I must express my sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at being called upon to pay for a railway which is to be made by the Foreign Office and upon estimates upon which they can place no reliance. In the last report it is distinctly stated that:—
  "it became evident to the Committee, on further examination, that detailed surveys might modify the conclusions of the able officers who had surveyed the route in 1892. The reports of the chief engineer have shown that the ascent from the coast to the tableland will be more expensive than was anticipated. Thence to the broken country of the Mau range the estimates are
  720
  thought to be approximately correct, though the consideration of recent reports on the meteorological and climatic conditions raises doubts regarding the sufficiency of bridging allowed for. As regards the difficult country after the Mau range is reached, the Committee recognise that, in the absence of detailed surveys, there must be an element of uncertainty. They consider that, with the information at present at their disposal, it would be impossible to say that Major Macdonnell's estimate of initial cost may not be exceeded."
  That was the condition of things upon which you are entering upon this expenditure. I do not regard that as a very satisfactory state of things. You are going to make a railway through the Foreign Office upon estimates you admit are absolutely uncertain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit from a financial point of view anything more unsatisfactory than to set to work to make a railway into the centre of Africa without estimate or detailed survey it is difficult to conceive.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, as was his wont, could not make a speech on this subject without attacking the East Africa Company, and the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken cast something of a reflection upon it. He could not, in justice to the gentlemen with whom he had worked on that company and who he had a ways maintained were animated by the highest motives, let the attack pass without saving a word in answer.
  SIR. W. HARCOURT: I made no reflection on the company. I spoke of their misfortunes.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I think he said they were practically bankrupt.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is their misfortune. [Laughter.]
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he would proceed in a moment to show how that arose. The hon. Member for Northampton said the company went into Uganda, found it a bad speculation and retired, and he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that he wished the House to infer that the company, having spent so much money in going into Uganda, were not able to remain there, but were bankrupt. He wished to remind the House that they did not go into the country as a speculation or with any object of their own to serve. They were forced to go there by

  721
  the urgent solicitation of the king and people; they were urged to go by public opinion; they went with the sanction and encouragement of the Government of this country; and when they got there they secured a condition of peace and contentment among the rival factions. In going to Uganda, as throughout the whole career of the Company, they had undertaken national obligations as apart from commercial obligations; and when they asked the Government to recognise this fact and to give them some encouragement and support in their work, it refused. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman how his Government treated the Company with reference to this very railway. He proposed to buy them out for 10s. in the pound, and he knew that it was then determined to build this railway. He knew that the building of the railway would have enabled them to get unlimited capital, but he kept the intention secret, and, having completed the purchase on terms which lost the Company half its capital, he came down the next day and announced the intention of building the railway. It seemed to him that this showed the commercial sharpness, added to the political morality, of an old furniture dealer. [Laughter.] With regard to the remarks of the Member for the Forest of Dean, he always listened to the right hon. Baronet with interest, knowing the great knowledge and industry which he brought to bear on these subjects. On this occasion he observed one omission in his speech, his usual avowal of his own Imperialism. He had never heard the right hon. Baronet speak on subjects of this kind without laying claim to being something of an Imperialist, and he had never known an Imperial project brought before this House without the right hon. Baronet opposing it. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Baronet was like the signpost to which Charles Dickens was compared, which pointed out to others the way to go, and never went it. [Laughter.] The right hon. Baronet shrinks from his
  722
  own ideal. [Sir C. DILKE: "The increase of the Navy."] He was not going into that. The right hon. Baronet confined his speech to an attack on a forecast which he (the speaker) had put forward in reference to the railway on a former occasion, of a backbone of communication running from north to south through Africa, and this Uganda railway forming a link between the centre of that backbone and the finest harbour on the east coast. He had never said that the line of communication must necessarily be a line of railway—it might be a mixed water and rail communication—or that it must be altogether in the hands of this country. England held a predominant position in South Africa, and when England had purchased Delagoa Bay, as they would purchase it—[a laugh]—and when England was permanently established in Egypt—[a laugh]—he saw the right hon. Gentleman smile, but he had never been able to foresee the time when the withdrawal of England from Egypt would not mean the subsidence of that country back into the condition from which the English occupation had raised her. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot go into a discussion on the Egyptian question.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSbowed to the ruling of Mr. Speaker. He was led off by the smile of the right hon. Gentleman. [A laugh.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What I smiled at was the appropriation of Delagoa Bay.
  MR. BURDETT - COUTTS: I did not observe the smile on the right hon. gentleman's countenance. If I had, I should have dwelt on it. [Laughter.] My gaze was fascinated by the smile on the face of the right hon. Gentleman next to him (Mr. J. Morley). [Laughter.] With England holding this predominant position in the north and in the south, it was most inevitable that a line of communication should be established between the two extremes. With regard

  723
  to the strip of territory referred to by the right hon. Baronet, he very much regretted that the Government did not follow up and confirm the foresight which the Company had shown in the making of their treaty with the Congo State with regard to this intervening territory. It was a great loss to have given it up, but he did not for a moment believe that this intervening strip would prevent the line of communication from being eventually completed. It was absurd to suppose that a few miles of territory, far from the coast, at the farthest end of the German possessions, could stand in the way of a great work of civilisation. Would the right hon. Baronet himself maintain that, supposing such a line was completed from the south to one side of that small strip, and from the north to the other side of it, anything could stand in the way of the line being completed across it? The carrying out of this railway would be not only an enormous benefit to the country and a relief to the people from the horrors of slavery, but it was entirely in consonance with the best traditions of English policy. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid they were told that if they did not make this railway Germany would, but he did not believe that Germany paid the slightest attention. There was a great uncertainty as to the country, and there was a complete absence of information as to the line the railway would take. There was the question of the bridges, and whether they would be able to withstand the great floods. Ultimately, no doubt, the cost would be six millions rather than three millions. The right hon. Gentleman held out a prospect of tremendous cultivation, but Sir Gerald Portal had said that there was an entire absence of any natural product except ivory, and possibly coffee, in the country. The strategical advantage of a country 800 or 700 miles from the sea was, he thought, quite worthless; it would be 1,200 or 1,400 miles to Khartoum, and then they would have to get to Alexandria. He should have thought it would have been better to disembark their troops at Suakim, or some other central place. There was also the greatest uncertainty as to the revenue. The higher lands over which it was proposed
  724
  to take the railway were 8,000 feet above the sea, and that part of the route had not been surveyed. He did not say that they were bound to go on with this railway now, although it might be that the Government found themselves tied to what was called a continuity of policy, but he was convinced that the railway would prove enormously difficult to make, and that they would never get a penny out of it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 239: Noes, 86.—(Division List, No. 348.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
MR. ROBERT ASCROFThad given notice to move the following clause:—

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STRIKE OR LOCK-OUT.
(1.) No association or body of employers or workmen (whether registered as trades unions or not) shall, unless they have mutually agreed to some scheme for discussing all disputes and differences before resorting to a strike or lockout, subsidise or support any members who may lock out their workpeople or any members who may leave their employment on strike, unless and until such time as the respective officials of such associations or bodies shall have met and discussed the matters in difference and reduced into writing the grounds of complaint, demand, or matter in dispute.
(2.) In case the officials of any such association or body shall, on an application of the other, neglect to meet and discuss the matters in difference, then the association or body so neglecting shall be bound by the above restriction, but the other association or body shall be freed from such restriction in respect to subsidising or supporting members as and from the time when the strike or lock-out took place.
He said that the Bill had been greatly altered in the Standing Committee. It was now entirely confined to the voluntary settlement of trade disputes. The object of his clause was to give employers

725
and workpeople an opportunity, before the Board of Trade interfered, to exercise their own initiative and formulate their own scheme. But he should not now press the clause. If the Bill needed Amendment, there would he ample opportunity during the life of the present Parliament.
MR. ASCROFT MR. ASCROFT moved in the title of the Bill (" A Bill to make better provision for the settlement of trade disputes,") to insert, after the words "provision for the," the words "prevention and."
SIR C. DILKEsaid that if the Amendment were agreed to by the Government, he would not oppose it, but he thought the words would seem very objectionable to the working classes, though they had no operative force.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. G. T. RITCHIE,)agreed to the objection of the right hon. Bart, but he did not think it necessary to resist the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1,—

REGISTRATION AND POWERS OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.
(1) Any board established either before or after the passing of this Act, which constituted for the purpose of settling disputes between employers and workmen by conciliation or arbitration, or any association body authorised by an agreement in writing (made between employers and workman to deal with such disputes (in this Act referred to as a conciliation board), may apply to the Board of Trade for registration under this Act.
(2.) The application must be accompanied by copies of the constitution, byelaws, and regulations of the conciliation board, with such other information as the Board of Trade may reasonably require.
(3.) The Board of Trade shall keep a register of conciliation boards, and enter therein with respect to each registered board its name and principal office, and such other particulars as the Board of Trade may think expedient.
(4.) Every registered conciliation board shall furnish such returns, reports of its proceedings, and other documents as the Board of Trade may reasonably require.
(5.) The Board of Trade may, on being satisfied that a registered conciliation board has ceased to exist or to act, remove its name from the register.
(5.) Subject to any agreement to the contrary proceedings for conciliation before a registered conciliation board shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations of the board in that behalf.
MR. ASCROFT MR. ASCROFT moved in Subsection (3), after the wont "expedient," to insert the words:
"and any registered conciliation board shall be entitled to have its name removed from the register on sending to the Board of Trade a written application to that effect."
He said that it would remove many difficulties in the way of registration if it were clearly understood that withdrawal from the register could be effected by simple notice.
MR. RITCHIEthought the Amendment unnecessary. It was obvious that the Board of Trade would not keep on the register any Conciliation Board which desired to withdraw its name. But if the House thought it was desirable to insert the words to make it perfectly clear that the Bill was purely voluntary, the Government would not object.
MR. J. BRYCEsaid that the words were quite unnecessary, but they were equally harmless.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2,—

POWERS OF BOARD OF TRADE AS TO TRADE DISPUTES.
(1.) Where a difference exists or is apprehended between an employer, or any class of employers, and workmen, or betweeen different classes of workmen, the Board of Trade may, if they think tit, exercise all or any of the following powers, namely:—

(a) Inquire into the causes and circumstances of the difference;

(b) take steps as to the Board may seem expedient for the purpose of enabling the parties to the difference to meet together, by themselves or representatives, under the presidency of a chairman mutually agreed upon or nominated by the Board of Trade or by some other person or body, with a view to the amicable settlement of the difference;

(c) on the application of employers or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of means available for conciliation in the district or trade and the circumstances of the case, appoint a person or persons to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation;

(d) on the application of both parties to the difference, appoint an arbitrator.

727
(2.) If any person is so appointed to act as conciliator, he shall inquire into the causes and circumstances of the difference by communication with the parties, and otherwise shall endeavour to brine; about a settlement of the difference, and shall report his proceedings to the Board of Trade.
(3.) If a settlement of the difference is effected either by conciliation or by arbitration, a memorandum of the terms thereof shall be drawn up and signed by the parties or their representatives, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to and kept by the Board of Trade.
MR. ASCROFT MR. ASCROFT moved in Sub-section (1), after the words "different classes of workmen," to insert the words "or between different classes of employers." He said that the omission of the words of the Amendment would be fatal to the success of the Bill. It must be popular and command the sympathy and goodwill of the working classes to be a success, and that condition would not be fulfilled if there were any suspicion in the minds of the workpeople that they were treated one way in their disputes, while their employers were to be treated in a different way.
MR. RITCHIEwished that the hon. Member had given a single case in which he thought the Amendment could be of any service. If any dispute between different classes of employers threatened a lock-out or strike, then they would come under the Bill, without the Amendment; and if the disputes did not affect the workpeople, there would be no ground for interference. How could the Board of Trade intervene in a dispute between employers as to the price of any particular goods sold by them? The Amendment was quite unnecessary, and would create false impressions as to the operation of the Bill.
MR. JOHN WILSONsubmitted that there were only two courses open to the President of the Board of Trade—either to accept the Amendment or to withdraw the words applying the Bill to disputes between" different classes of workmen," and so place both employers and workmen on a common level. If this Bill was to be useful at all, it would be in its attracting the minds of the working classes to it, and, therefore, it was important to have regard to the sentiment of the working classes in the matter.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYdid not see any necessity for the Amendment. It was said that if the working classes got it into their heads that a different measure was meted out to them than to the employers, some terrible results would ensue, but from his experience of the working classes he did not believe any such unwise notion was likely to take possession of them. He did not know and had never known a case of any difference between different classes of employers which would be covered by the proposed words.
MR. BRYCElistened with great respect to anything which fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, but they were entirely in the dark as to the kind of case which was contemplated; and it would be rather rash if they were to extend the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade to a class of cases of which they had no knowledge, and as to which they had no reason to think the action of the Board of Trade would be beneficial.
MR. CHARLES FENWICKcould not see why, if the President of the Board of Trade was not prepared to accept the Amendment, he should insist upon retaining the words "or between different classes of workmen." Now, employers sometimes had differences between themselves with regard to work which might, and sometimes did lead to the stoppage of a certain part of work in process of execution. That was not a strike, neither was it a lock-out, and yet, inasmuch as it involved loss of time to the workman, the hardship to him was the same. As the object of the promoters was to prevent, as far as possible, disputes which would lead ultimately either to the injury of the workman on the one hand or the employer on the other, he did not see why they should draw any distinction between them in the Bill.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid he wanted to see a clause inserted by which men should not go on strike while disputes were being discussed. In the early part of 1894 there was a strike in the South Wales coal trade, and when he went down there he found the men had not the smallest notion why they had gone out on strike.
MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not see the relation of the hon. Member's ob

729
servations to the Amendment, which proposed that the Board of Trade should have power to interfere in cases of dispute between different classes of employers.
MR. G. W. WOLFFcould not conceive of any disputes which could arise between different employers which could in any way be settled by such an Amendment. There might be disputes between different employers as to whether they should have a lock-out or not, but these could not come to a head without affecting the workmen, and then the Board of Trade could step in.
MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid that if a dispute between employers were to arise, and as the result of that dispute the workmen ceased to be employed, it would at once be a trade dispute, and the Board of Trade would have power to interfere. He appealed to his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,from his experience on the Conciliation Board of the London Chamber of Commerce, said they had had several cases of disputes between traders, but he had never heard of a case between employers which would be affected by the Amendment. Practically the words would be inoperative.
MR. J. W. LOGANhoped the hon. Member would press the Amendment to a division, because the words could do no harm, and they would show the public outside that in legislating the House of Commons was willing to listen to the voice of the working men in the House.
SIR C. DILKEsaid he disliked the Bill so much that he had not intended to take any part in the controversy at all, but the Debate showed the weakness of the Bill. He believed the Bill gave no power to the Board of Trade to interfere in the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Member for the Bright-side Division.
MR. J. COLVILLEsupported the Amendment. He believed that there were cases of disputes which very seriously affected the interests of employers and their workpeople which would be dealt with by the Amendment.
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERYpointed out that there
730
was a class of workmen who employed subordinate workmen, like the platers in a shipyard. There was no Definition Clause in the Bill, and it might easily happen that a difficulty would arise as to who was the employer and who was the workman. There was a class of persons engaged who were workmen in large factories and who at the same time employed workmen to work under them. If this Amendment was inserted it would cover such cases. He recalled a case in which workmen who employed other workmen had a dispute with another class as to the manner of employing the labourers. If he read the Bill correctly it would fail to reach such cases and to distinguish between the disputes of that character, because there was no Definition Clause to bring such persons under the name of employers. If, however, the Amendment were accepted, there would then be no doubt as to their position. He had listened to the discussion and he had not heard a reason given why the Amendment, if accepted, would cause harm. [Cheers.] If it had the effect claimed for it of causing workmen to undertake methods of conciliation instead of a strike, surely it would be worth inserting in the Bill. [" Hear, hear!"]
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that if he thought the particular class of workmen referred to did not come within the scope of the Bill then some ground might exist for a Definition Clause, or at least for the insertion of words to make the clause plain; but his impression was that there was no doubt about the subject. When the discussion took place in the Grand Committee he was impressed with the objections taken to the insertion of these words, and if the words were necessary to deal, for example, with the case of a sub-contractor and his workmen, he should agree to them, but he thought that the case was already covered by the Bill. The insertion of the Amendment would open the door to cases of disputes as to wages, to disputes about competition rates, and arrangements as to particular markets having to be inquired into by the Board of Trade. He thought that the words proposed were too wide, and he trusted that the House would not widen the scope of the section by inserting words which would introduce a class of disputes

731
never intended to be dealt with by the Bill.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 123; Noes, 203.—(Division List, No. 349.)
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT moved, after Sub-section (3) to insert the following Sub-section:—
"(4.) The Arbitration Act 1889, shall not apply to the settlement by arbitration of any difference or dispute to which this Act applies, but any such arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with such of the provisions of the said Act, or such of the regulations of any conciliation board, or under such other rules or regulations, as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties to the difference or dispute."
He said that he was one of those who regretted that the Government felt it right to abandon Clause 2 in the Standing Committee, and the provisions with regard to arbitration in the Schedules. They had at first intended to ask the Government to restore the clause and to deal in the Bill with arbitration as well as with conciliation. At the same time they recognised that conciliation was the primary and prior object of the Bill, and that they would not be well advised in pressing Amendments to which exception might be taken, though voluntary and not compulsory arbitration was the corollary of conciliation, and if conciliation failed to effect an amicable settlement the parties might well have facilities for arbitration by mutual agreement and the Bill thus be jeopardised. But he thought that the abandonment of Clause 2 had occasioned a difficulty not contemplated by the Board of Trade. That clause modified the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1889, as made applicable to this Bill, and the Debates that had taken place had seemed to show that it was generally thought undesirable that so mercantile and unsuitable an Act as that passed in connection with arbitration in 1889 should be applied to labour disputes. If the Bill before them were passed without his Amendment, the Act of 1889 would apply to all arbitrations. A submission to arbitration, an agreement to refer, would be come irrevocable, and when an award was made it might be enforced by order of
732
a Judge, and finally by imprisonment. It would become possible to administer oaths, penalties for perjury might be incurred, and subpœnas might be issued. It would also be possible to insist on the disclosure of employers' books showing their profits, and of the private documents of Trade Unions. The application of these provisions in the cases contemplated by the Bill was generally felt not to be desirable. The first object of his Amendment then, was to exclude the operation of the Act of 1889, and the second object was to suggest to the parties how they might proceed in cases of arbitration. It permitted them to make their own code by selection from the Act, to adopt the rules of any Conciliation Board, or to make regulations for themselves. The purpose was to encourage arbitration, and to suggest the best modes of procedure, so as to prevent strikes and lock-outs, and facilitate their amicable settlement by voluntary agreements to arbitrate. It had been suggested that the parties might themselves by their agreement, exclude the operation of the Act of 1889. That was, of course, true, but he thought that the parties, from one cause or another, would be unlikely to do so, and that it was best to exclude, the Act, unless expressly adopted, as being unsuitable to such proceedings. The President of the Board of Trade had met his proposal in a very conciliatory spirit, and he hoped that his Amendment would now have the right hon. Gentleman's support, as it had that of the London Conciliation Board.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Government, like his hon. Friend, considered that some of the provisions of the Act of 1889 were inapplicable to disputes such as those with which this Bill purported to deal. The conclusion he had come to was that by far the best course to adopt would be not to lay down any code at all by which the parties to arbitration should be bound, but to leave the matter, as other matters were left in the Bill, to the parties to arrange themselves. The Government had, therefore, thought it wise to exclude Clause 2 of the original Bill from the consideration of the Committee, but, recognising that in many cases conciliation led to arbitration, they thought it desirable to make some provision for the appointment of an arbitrator who would only be appointed on the

733
application of both parties. If an arbitrator were appointed, in any case the Act of 1889 would apply with all its pains and penalties in the absence of an Amendment like that proposed by his hon. Friend. That would discourage arbitration under this Bill, and therefore he thought it desirable to exclude the operation of the Act of 1889, which was never intended to be applied to disputes of the kind which they were now dealing with, and to leave the parties to an arbitration free to draw up their own code.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3,—

POWER FOR BOARD OF TRADE TO AID IN ESTABLISHMENT OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.
If it appears to the Board of Trade that in any district or trade adequate means do not exist for having disputes submitted to a conciliation hoard for the district or trade, they may appoint any person or persons to inquire into the conditions of the district or trade, and to confer with employers and employed, and, if they think fit, with any local authority or body, as to the expediency of establishing a conciliation board for the district or trade.
MR. ASCROFT MR. ASCROFT moved to leave out the word "they" and to insert instead thereof the words "the Board of Trade."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved "That the Bill be read the Third time."
SIR C. DILKEsaid that if no opposition was shown to the Motion it was because time was precious and the end of the Session was approaching. For his part he believed the Bill would do no good, and might even be productive of warm in some cases.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had heard very significant rumours as to the possibility of the provisions for arbitration which had been deleted in Committee being reinstated in the Bill in another place. He hoped the Government would resist any such attempt on the part of the House of Lords.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he had not heard any rumour of the sort.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
As amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
MR. DAVID THOMAS*MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil) moved the following clause:—

SUBSTITUTION OF CLAUSE FOR SUBSECTION 1 OF SECTION 47 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.
"For Sub-section 1 of Section 47 of the principal Act shall be substituted the following Sub-section:—'The parties to the arbitration are in this section deemed to be the owner, agent, or manager of the mine on the one hand and a majority of the workmen employed in the mine on the other.'"
He said that the Bill was intended to provide that certain rules should be made to carry out the Report of the Royal Commission. In the event of arbitration taking place in this matter, the workmen would not be parties to it. He contended that in the case of arbitration the workmen ought to be placed in the same position as the employers. Under the present, law the workmen had no power to initiate special rules, to object to special rules proposed by the Home Office, or to select an arbitrator, as the employers had. He thought the reason for the Amendment was sufficiently obvious, and he would not detain the House at length upon the subject.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,said he hardly thought the hon. Member would expect him to agree to this Amendment. The parties to arbitration under the principal Act were the Secretary of State on the one side and the employer on the other side, and he did not think they could so alter the rule under the principal Act as to make the parties to the arbitration the owner and the workmen.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he would like to induce the hon. Member to withdraw this Amendment, because it would eliminate from the arbitration the most important party to it. If the Amendment were accepted, the Inspector of Mines would be entirely eliminated from the arbitration courts, and the initiation would fall on the workmen.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2,—

REPRESENTATION OF WORKMEN ON ARBITRATION.
Where any matter in difference is referred to arbitration under the principal Act, a majority of the workmen employed in the mine to which the arbitration relates may, on giving such security, if any, as may appear to the arbitrators or umpire sufficient to provide for the costs, appoint any person to represent the workmen, or any class of them, on the arbitration, and any person so appointed shall be entitled to attend and take part in the proceedings of the arbitration to such extent and in such manner as the arbitrators or umpire may direct, and be subject to the same liability with respect to costs as if he were a party to the arbitration.
MR. W. ABRAHAM MR. W. ABRAHAM (Rhondda) moved to omit the words—
"on giving such security, if any, as may appear to the arbitrators or umpire sufficient to provide for the costs."
He said that while it was true this clause gave the workmen what they had not had before, he was afraid the offer of representation was so hampered by conditions that the great majority of workmen of the United Kingdom would be prevented from being represented in this Court of Arbitration. It was in this Court of Arbitration that the proposals of the Home Secretary for the safeguarding the lives of miners had to be considered and approved. Whatever was found to be necessary for the safety of miners was not to be dealt with in the House of Commons, but in this Court of Arbitration. This Chamber would be constituted by the Mines Inspector, as representing the Home Office on the one hand and the mine-owners on the other hand, with power to appoint an umpire. It was necessary that the arbitrator should be a mining engineer, or a person acquainted with the working of the mines. Experience showed that the person usually chosen was a mining engineer. Although the principal Act said that the arbitrator was not to be a person interested in the mine, yet that provision was very easily and invariably got over. Rules had to be enacted for a certain mine, and one of the ablest men in the district was selected as arbitrator for the employer. But when the rules were made for that particular mine they were applicable for the whole district, and the gentleman who had been acting
736
as arbitrator was oftentimes very largely interested in the other mines in the district. As a rule, the gentleman acting on the other side was a mining engineer and a friend of the mine owners. It was to this Court that the workmen were now seeking to get representation with heavy incumbrances and conditions and stumblingblocks. It was possible for the umpire to order one of the parties to pay the whole costs of the arbitration proceedings, and one of the conditions to the workmen being admitted to representation was that they must give security for all these costs, and then the gentleman appointed to represent them could only act under the direction of the arbitrator and umpire. For that meagre privilege the workmen's representative had also to give his personal security for the costs, just as if he were a party to the arbitration. He asked the House to kindly remove these obstacles—these unnecessary, unjust obstacles—in the way of workmen sending representatives to this Court. The proposal in the Bill must be modified, or only rich associations could find their way to the Court. It was only fair that the workmen whose lives were so precious should be represented there. It ought to be as easy for the workmen to make their views heard in these Courts as in the House of Commons. He might be told that once the workmen agreed to pay costs. Yes, their own costs—not all the costs of both parties—and they were prepared to do that again. In his opinion, the Home Secretary was taking a very dangerous course indeed in giving great power to modify the existing law; it almost invited a contest between some of the wealthiest institutions in Great Britain. The employers under the first clause might suggest to the Home Secretary certain changes in the existing rules—including even Rules 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing the whole clause, whereas the only question before the House is whether security shall be given for costs by the representatives of the men.
MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid he was grateful to Mr. Speaker for his leniency, but he was simply endeavouring to explain the effect of his argument. He thought he had said enough, however,

737
to show that, if the condition in the clause was really to be imposed, it would be inflicting a great hardship on miners, and prevent them attending the arbitration with the same freedom that their representatives attended the proceedings in that House. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGANsaid that he had had some experience, when at the Bar, of the consequences of exacting security for costs from poor persons, and in his opinion, to require the representatives of the coal miners to find security for costs would be a denial of justice, and that such a condition would have the effect of making the clause a dead-letter. He knew that there was a strong feeling among his own constituents on the subject, and Mr. Abraham had not spoken at all too strongly, and it would be a considerable concession on the part of the Home Secretary if he accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he would be glad to make a concession on the point if he could see his way, which he was unable to do. He was not altering the constitution of the Court, but giving the workmen a special right, which they had never had before, to appear before the Court. He did not draw the clause. It was drawn by representatives of the employers and employed in concert, and he accepted it, consenting to modify it so as to give the workmen a two-thirds majority. The clause was based on the model of a similar clause in the Factory Act, and in the administration of that Act there had been no complaint of the working of the clause. Nothing more was meant by the clause than that the arbitrator or umpire should have such security as he thought necessary for the costs, "if any." It was merely to guard those interested, and who might have to pay for an expensive arbitration, from its unnecessary prolongation by persons out of whom costs could not be got.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider what he had said and accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda. Perhaps hon. Members might not have had his experience in arbitrations, which might be prolonged for days or even weeks.
738
Under the clause the mine owner proposed special rules; the Home Secretary saw them, and decided whether he could accept them or not. If he did not accept them, then an arbitration took place, in order to see if they could be accepted. The mine owners had a right to propose something; the mine owners were not entitled to do so, but they could appear before the coal owners and the Home Secretary and say what objection they had to a particular rule; but it seemed hard that they could not come into Court without being under a liability to pay, it might be, heavy costs. It was certainly very hard upon the workmen that they should be compelled, in the event of their taking part in an arbitration, to pay every farthing of the costs in certain cases.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Of their own costs only.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid that if the Bill laid that principle down he should be quite satisfied. As he read the Bill, however, it gave the arbitrator power to order the men to give security for the whole costs of the arbitration. He thought that if hon. Members were aware of the hardships to which the workmen were exposed in these matters they would at once accept the Amendment.
SIR W. HARCOURThoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would make it quite clear that the costs to which the work men were to be liabe were not to be the costs of the arbitration in cases where they only came in in order to protect their own interests, and that the only costs the men should be called upon to pay should be their own costs.
THE ATTORNEY GENEEALthought it rather hard upon his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that, this Bill having been sent down by a Standing Committee, he should be hold responsible for any proposal it might contain for imposing costs upon the workmen. His right hon. Friend had intimated to him that, as there might be some doubt as to the meaning of the clause, he was willing to accept a small Amendment which might clear up that doubt. He should therefore propose to amend the clause by inserting in line 5, after the word "costs," the words

739
"occasioned by such representation," the object of which would be to insure that both the security and the liability should be limited to the costs occasioned by the separate representation of the workmen in the arbitration. That was a perfectly just proposal, because, if the workmen chose to come in and take part in the arbitration, they ought to bear the costs occasioned by their taking that action.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that surely it would be unfair to compel the workmen to give security for the costs, while the masters were not required to do so. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he could not consent to omit the word "security" altogether.
MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid that he thought that there was some danger that the requirements of "security" might be so interpreted as virtually to prohibit the workmen from taking part in the arbitration, notwithstanding they night deem their interests involved in it. He ventured to suggest to the Government whether the matter would not be sufficiently met by allowing a subsequent award of costs to be, made, and doing away with the antecedent security.
MR. SAMUEL EVANShoped that the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division would not accept the Amendment suggested by the Attorney General. It would be an exceedingly dangerous Amendment. It would really indicate that the arbitrator ought in all cases to award the costs, against the persons who appeared upon the arbitration, occasioned by their representation. It had already been jointed out that, the coal miners themselves were not parties at all to the arbitration, although the Inquiry might, and did, deal with matters in which they were more deeply interested than anybody else. The sub-section of the original Act provided that the parties were deemed to be the owners, agent and manager on the one hand, and the Inspector of Mines on the other. The Bill provided that there might be representation of the workmen on the arbitration, and, if the words of the clause to which his hon. Friend objected were allowed to stand, the workmen
740
would be put in an invidious and grossly unfair position. Although the arbitration dealt with matters in which they were deeply interested, they must be penalised, so to speak, before they were allowed to appear upon it at all, because they must, before such appearance could be made, first give security for costs. There were provisions of this kind known in the High Court where there were contentious cases, but it was only in the most extreme eases that security for costs was demanded. The effect of the section as it stood would be that the colliers would be told that before they could appear upon the arbitration they must enter into a good and valid bond in a sufficient amount to cover any possible costs occasioned by their representation. It was quite possible that they could not give security to this extent unless they went to a guarantee society. The clause, if allowed to stand as it now appeared, would put the workmen in a less favourable position with reference to arbitration than the mine owners.
MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONobserved that it was rather unfortunate that they were discussing the framing of this clause on the Report stage for the first time. It was framed by agreement between workmen and employers, and he would be quite disposed to accept any modification the Attorney General might suggest, for he admitted that it was not altogether aptly worded. He did not suppose that any hon. Member believed that employers wished to put the workmen in a worse position than that to which they were entitled. He understood it was only desired to guard against costs being unnecessarily incurred by workmen urging claims of an unsubstantial kind.
MR. REGINALD McKENNAconsidered that if the Attorney General looked at the terms of Clause 2 he would see the necessity of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda. The power of the workman to attend the arbitration was such power only as was granted by the arbitrator or umpire. He was to take part in the arbitration to such an extent and in such a manner as the arbitrator or umpire should direct. That was to say the workman's representative was a sort of amicus curiœ, and there was no occasion for him

741
to incur any liability for costs. If the arbitrator decided that the workman's representative was not there for good cause, he could dismiss him from the proceedings. He was not there in any sense as a party, and there was, therefore a distinct necessity for the Amendment.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid the Attorney General had based his argument in favour of the clause and the modification he had suggested solely on the reasonableness of such costs being provided for. The Amendment was directed, not against the payment of such costs, but against security being provided beforehand for the payment of such costs. The argument of the Attorney General was not directed to the necessity of providing security in advance. It seemed to him that, instead of insisting on security being provided, the parties represented should give an undertaking to pay the costs if such costs were, in the result, awarded against them.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONthought the suggestion of the Attorney General would have satisfied the hon. Member for Rhondda if he had to consider himself alone. For his part, he was very desirous that the workmen should have every facility for appearing at the arbitrations. This was the first time such an opportunity had been given them, and he would suggest that the Home Secretary should limit the amount of security for costs so that it would come within the means of any colliers who were appointed on the Arbitration Court. He considered that those who voted against the clause would be doing harm to the cause of the colliers.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he hoped the Government would listen to the representations which had been made from that side of the House. He would remind the House that the workmen had, in the first instance, to combine before they could have a representation, and the majority was not likely to commit themselves to a course of this kind unless they had definitely and deliberately made up their minds that there was some important point which they desired to lay before the arbitrator. The Amendment of the Attorney General did not meet the whole case. The security the workmen
742
would have to provide would be practically unlimited, and they could not expect that a body of poor men would be prepared in any and all circumstances to provide a security so large as the one evidently contemplated by the Bill. In order to meet the objections raised on that side of the House he would suggest that, instead of the words of the Attorney General, the words" of such representation "should be inserted. That would secure that the costs should be absolutely confined to the representation of the workmen.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the intention of the clause was to follow the procedure in the Factory Act, 1894, in regard to the security for costs. He certainly could not accept the Amendment before the House. They wanted to secure that, if an arbitration was necessary, the application on the part of the workmen should be a bona fide one.
MR. ABEL THOMASreminded the Home Secretary that what he contended for was that the workmen ought to pay their own costs in any event and always, but that was not what they were getting here.
MR. BENJAMIN PICK ARDasked the Home Secretary if he meant that, when the workmen appeared on an arbitration, they were to pay simply their own costs, or part of the costs of others connected with the arbitration as well? If an inspector initiated an arbitration, and they were allowed to appear there and ask a few questions, would they be called upon to give security for the costs of that arbitration? They were quite willing to pay their own costs, and they were also quite willing, if they initiated an arbitration, to pay those costs too, if it went against them. But they thought they had no right to be called upon to give security while the colliery proprietor, who was very often represented by a man of straw, was not called upon to give security. If what he had indicated was what the Home Secretary meant, he hoped he would, later on, find words to meet the ease in point.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGANasked the Home Secretary whether he could not in some way limit the costs to which the workmen might be liable—if he was to say

743
that they would be liable for costs not I exceeding £10 or £20 for their appearance? They were merely appearing in the capacity of watching the proceedings between the representative of the Home Secretary and the colliery owner. It-was only in the event of an inspector being of opinion that the colliery proprietor was not taking sufficient precaution for the protection of the lives and limbs of the men that this occasion would arise at all, and then the men had a perfect right to appear there, because they were more interested in the matter than anyone else. It would be quite as logical to ask the Queen's Proctor to be responsible for the costs of the divorce proceedings because he happened to appear in the Court to watch the differences between the parties. The second clause, it appeared to him, was very badly framed, and was most unjust to the men. It provided, in the first place, that the men should give security for costs, and then said that they should be entitled to appoint someone on their behalf, and that someone was also liable to pay the costs if he was called upon to do so.
MAJOR W YN DHAM-QUINsaid he sympathised very deeply with the Amendment of his hon. Friend opposite. He could not help thinking that in many cases a great hardship would fall upon the colliers if, through their inability to bear what seemed to be an uncertain expenditure, they should therefore be debarred from coming forward and attending the arbitration. He thought it would be a wise course if the Home Secretary could see his way to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, and if an arrangement could be made whereby the workmen's representative should feel himself responsible only for a certain amount of money. It would give him more confidence to come forward, and in many cases, therefore, the right man would be found in his place to represent the colliers.
MR. DAVID THOMASdesired to point out that, under the Act of 1887, the majority of the workmen in any mine had the power of appointing a representative to attend and put questions, and so forth, at a coroner's inquest. They paid no costs there, and yet they might prolong the inquiry to any
744
extent, and put the employers and I others to very great expense. He did not say that that constituted a precedent for the present Amendment, but he would suggest that, if the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment, it would be a very small extension indeed of the powers that the workmen had now.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 87.—(Division List, No. 350.)
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that, in accordance with a pledge he gave, he now begged to move, to insert, after the word "costs," the following words, "occasioned by such representation." He understood that this arrangement would meet the views of the workmen, and it was a proposal which he thought ought to be accepted.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought it ought to be "extra costs."
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that this Amendment would leave the door open for the incurring of great expenses by the workmen. There was practically before them an unlimited area of expense. Under these circumstances, bodies of workmen would be deterred from taking before the arbitrators even questions that should come before them. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew better than he did what was the difference between being represented and not being represented. He had often placed his clients in a very different position from what they would have been in if they had not had his aid. The limit now proposed would, as he had said, prevent the workmen from having recourse to those proper means of representation to which they were on every ground justly entitled in a matter which was to them of vital interest. He hoped the Attorney General would see to this. They had as much a right to be represented as the employers. What he asked was that they should be able to make their bargain beforehand with

745
their representatives, so that they would know how much they would have to pay. Then they would know whether they could afford to go into the arbitration or not. He thought that that was a reasonable view to take of the case. He thought they ought not to penalise workmen in the way in which it was proposed to do in these clauses. Having regard to the important interests which were involved, and that this Amendment would cause a great number of workmen to lose privileges which they would otherwise enjoy, he trusted the Attorney General would reconsider the matter.
MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that it was open to be argued that the words were so wide as to involve the whole costs of the arbitration. This would be to place the workmen in a most invidious position. The workmen were comparatively poor, while the employers were rich, and, therefore, if any advantage were to be given, it should be in favour of the workmen rather than the employers.
MR. JOHN WILSONhoped the Attorney General would give some further information, as the words were so full of doubt. What was the meaning of "occasioned"? If the workmen considered their interests were involved so as to call for arbitration, would all the costs be "occasioned "by their representation? ["Hear, hear!"] No matter how long the case might be delayed, the costs would be "occasioned" by their representation. He thought that the effect of this would be to prevent them going on.
MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid some words should be inserted to prevent what was apprehended.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid, it should be distinctly known that the arbitration was between the mine owner and the Crown alone, and that the workmen need only be represented if they thought fit. The costs therefore to them would only be the costs caused by such representation. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to his Amendment.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid they were all agreed on that side of the House as on the other that the Attorney General
746
and the Home Secretary showed every disposition to meet the difficulty. Arbitration was not the best way of dealing with the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] If the matter were decided, as it ought to be decided, by the Homo Secretary, the question of costs would not arise. ["Hear, hear!"] Under such a system the mine owners would be heard, the inspectors would be heard, the workmen would be heard; and it would have this further advantage—that the workmen would incur no costs whatever in looking after matters that vitally concerned them. ["Hear, hear!"]
Amendment agreed to.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN moved to add, after the words last inserted in the clause, the words "not exceeding the sum of twenty pounds." Unless some limit were placed to the amount of security for costs which the arbitrator might require the workmen to enter into, it would be possible for an unfriendly arbitrator, by fixing a large sum, to prevent the workmen from appearing in these disputes, in which the safety of their lives and limbs were concerned.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ENGLANDsaid that if the Amendment were accepted it would be a direction to the arbitrator that security for costs should be given in all cases. In his opinion it would be wiser, in the interest of the workmen, that it should be left to the discretion of the arbitrator to say in each case, "This is a proper case for the workmen to appear in, and no security need be given," or, "This is not a case for the workmen to appear in, and if they do appear security must be given."
MR. McKENNAsaid the arbitrator would not admit the workmen's representatives unless he thought it was right and proper that they should be present at the hearing of the dispute. Therefore, the question of security for costs would only arise in cases where, in the opinion of the arbitrator, the workmen ought to be allowed to appear; but, unless the amount of security were limited, it might happen that the workmen would be deterred from appearing.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid that in all bona fide cases the arbitrator

747
would be able to say, as the clause stood, that he would not require any security for costs from the workmen. But, in cases where an attempt was made to bring before the Court issues of a frivolous nature, it was right that the arbitrator should have the power to require security for costs.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the Amendment ought to be accepted. If it were refused, it might appear to the; workmen that they were being dissuaded from appearing in those arbitrations. But, instead of being dissuaded from appearing, they ought to be persuaded to appear. The object aimed at should be to have the best possible rules for the safety of the lives and limbs of the workmen brought into operation. The workmen had a far larger and more serious interest in the matter than the owners. The owners' interest was of a pecuniary nature; but the workmen risked their lives and limbs every day entering the bowels of the earth to work out the coal. This proposal was not one for the limitation of the costs against the workmen, but merely for the limitation of the security for costs. He himself thought that a £10 limit would be high enough. The hon. Member who had last spoken could not quote a case where the workmen had appeared in these cases vexatiously.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESthought that the practice of arbitrators would be to require in all cases the £20 security for costs. The whole point of both sides would be met if some proviso were inserted to the effect that no security for costs should be required if, in the judgment of the arbitrator, the intervention of the workmen was reasonable.
MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid that when the Home Secretary proposed any special rules, the workmen and employers concerned would meet together to consider them. The point on which alone they would disagree would be the most essential point of all—namely, the mode of carrying out the rules. In case of disagreement the men ought to be in the same position a" the masters for the purpose of appearing before the Arbitration Court. The employers were required to give no security; and what the workmen asked was that the way should be made easy
748
for them to go before the Court, because, after all, it was their lives that were at stake.
SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANthought the Amendment was most reasonable. He had known cases in which, owing to a large sum being required for security for costs, there had been a practical denial of justice. He should like to put the two parties on the same footing.
MR. HERBERT LEWISthought the Amendment was absolutely necessary. If no limit were imposed, the clause would be absolutely worthless for the workmen in whose interest it was devised.
MR. PICKARDappealed to the Attorney General whether he could not accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend with regard to limiting the costs to £20. Let the Government give them some limiting concession, so that the workmen would not be prevented from entering the Court.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he was perfectly willing to consider the question.
MR. J. B. BALFOURsuggested that all that was necessary was that something should be required which would be a guarantee of good faith.
MR. ABEL THOMASwas certain his constituents would much prefer that the security should be limited to £20, even if it was made absolute, than that it should be left to the discretion of the arbitrator in the way suggested.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 171.—(Division List, No. 351.)
MR. SAMUEL EVANS MR. SAMUEL EVANS moved to omit the words—
"to such extent and in such manner as the arbitrators or umpire may direct."
These words, he argued, invited them practically to place a limitation on the appearance of the workmen's representatives in these arbitrations. The Amendment was founded on the contention that there ought not to be any inequality at all between the position of the employers and employed in these arbitrations. The owner, agent, or

749
manager of a mine was allowed to go into the arbitration without any kind of fetter or limitation. These; words were entirely unnecessary, and the arbitrators or umpires would be able to judge as to the proper limits within which the workmen's representatives should be kept. In the Act relative to coroners' inquests in the case of accidents in coal mines, the men were at liberty to appoint any person by the ordinary right of the majority of the workmen. The words, he thought, would be mischievous in their operation.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was sorry these invidious Amendments were being moved to a clause which was not only settled in the Grand Committee, but before it went to the Grand Committee, and had been accepted by himself as an agreed clause. If hon. Gentlemen desired to delay the progress of this Bill—[cries of " No!"and Ministerial cheers]—he declined to meet their objections. He could not accept the Amendment, the words which were proposed to be omitted being identical with those in the Factory Act, and he hoped the House would support him in resisting the proposal.
MR. ABEL THOMASsincerely hoped that this Bill, properly amended, would become law, and he had no intention to obstruct it. He ventured to think that hon. Members on that side of the House who had spoken, and who were interested in mining constituencies, had no other object but to make the Bill a better one than it was. He was convinced that the Home Secretary had had nothing to do with the drawing up of this particular clause, and he exonerated him from any attempt to take advantage of anybody. The miners were allowed to appear on finding security that any costs incurred by their appearance at the arbitration, the Home Secretary's costs, and the owner's costs, should be paid by them—that was the position. These words meant that, in regard to the appearance of the workmen's representatives the arbitrator would have more than the ordinary discretion of an arbitrator or umpire. The clause had not been drafted by lawyers, but by gentlemen who, whilst they knew, no doubt, what the interests of the workmen were, had but little practical knowledge of drafting. These
750
words could have no other meaning except that they gave to the umpire or arbitrator the right to say to the workmen, "You cannot be allowed to discuss this or that matter; it does not concern you at all." At the same time the workmen might have to pay the whole costs of the proceedings. Wishing this to be made a workable Bill, he begged the Home Secretary to reconsider his position.
SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANasked what reason there could be for placing employers on a different footing from the employed? These words would leave it in the power of the umpires to shut the door against the workmen, and to say, "We do not intend to hear you at all."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that a number of questions might be referred, and that in some of these the workmen might be interested and in others not. It was but fair that the tribunal should be at liberty to say to the workmen, "You can be heard on this point or on that point because you are interested in it, but we cannot allow you to be heard on points in which you have no interest. "It should be borne in mind that the workmen were being allowed to go into the arbitration as third parties, which was an unusual course. In this matter the Government were following the analogy of the Factory Acts, which contained provisions which permitted the representatives of the workmen to appear when rule's were; to be made by the Home Office and the employers, and to be heard upon matters in which the workmen were interested upon terms which were the same as those; now proposed. It was thought that under that legislation the workmen's representatives ought not to have a roving commission. He denied that, in a case where a person had a good title; to appear before an umpire, the umpire would have power to order him out of Court.
MR. HER BERT LEWISobserved that the Attorney General had said that an umpire would have no power, if these words were omitted, to limit the representatives of the workmen, who might travel into fields entirely foreign to the workmen's interests. But the House had already sanctioned the principle of security, leaving its application entirely in the discretion of the arbitrators, and

751
in these circumstances the arbitrators would have in their hands the most powerful weapon possible. He held that these words were unnecessary and unfair to the workmen.
MR. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that in the Act regulating coroners' inquests in cases of fatal accidents in coal mines, there were words providing that all appearances and the conduct of such appearances should be subject to the order of the coroner. Those words applied to and controlled all appearances, not only on behalf of the workmen and the relatives of the deceased, but also on behalf of the owners.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that an hon. Member on his side of the House had remarked that this clause had been drafted by gentlemen who knew nothing about drafting. At any rate, they knew something about the working of miners underground, and they understood the interests of the men. If this clause militated against the interests of the men, the representatives of the miners would be the last persons to defend it. But the Amendment had been fully discussed; so had the clause, and the wording had been agreed to. When it was seen, therefore, that the majority of the miners' representatives in the House were agreed as to the formation, construction, and tendency of the clause, he thought it would be compatible with the best interests of the men if they were allowed to offer guidance in this matter, and to be allowed to accept this Bill, not as a full payment of what they considered to be the safety of the miners, but as a large instalment tending in that direction. No man had more regard than he had to the fact that the miners were not so fully represented on the Boards as they ought to be; but he was prepared to acknowledge that there might be matters that came within the arbitration of the Board in which the men had a small interest, and that there were matters in which the arbitrators should have the power to say whether the workmen should take a share in them or not. As it was understood the House should get this Bill through with as little contention as possible, and as the Home Secretary had met their claims largely in the direction of safety, he suggested that
752
the clause might now be allowed to pass. He should not like to see the Bill jeopardised. He was confident that the miners of the country, even with the clause as it stood, would not repudiate it, but, on the contrary, would welcome it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5,—

AMENDMENT OF GENERAL RULES AS TO LAMPS, INSPECTION, AND TAMPING.
(1.) The inspection before the commencement of work required by Rule 4 (i) contained in Section forty-nine of the principal Act, shall extend to all working places in which work is temporarily stopped within any ventilating district in which the men have to work.
(2,) A safety lamp shall not he used in any mine or part of a mine unless it is the property of, or provided by, the owner of the mine, and no portion of any safety lamp shall be removed by any person from the mine while the lamp is in ordinary use.
(3.) In Rule 12 of the general rules contained in Section forty-nine of the principal Act, for the words "nor shall coal or coal dust be used for tamping "shall be substituted the words "and only clay or other non-inflammable substances shall be used for stemming, and shall be provided by the owner of the mine."
MR. W. ABRAHAMasked whether the word "or," in Subsection (2)—("or provided by")—was not a clerical error?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No; it is not a clerical error.
MR. ABRAHAMsaid that his objection to the word "or" was this, that a miner might have to pay for the lamp that the mine owner provided. This was the case at present.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the words "or provided by" did not mean "provided by the owners to the workmen," but that the owners were responsible for providing the lamps.
MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid the question was whether the workmen had to pay for the lamps. Owners undertook to provide lamps for the workmen, and then charged each workman twopence per week for the use of the lamp. If the miner was allowed to buy his own lamp he could get a good one for 9s. or 10s., and in the ordinary condition of things it would hold good for eight or

753
nine years. Heaving regard to safety, however, it was only right that the lamps should be the property of the mine owner. If the miner undertook to provide the lamp he should keep it. The workman had no authority over the lamp, only the privilege of using it; yet he had to pay twopence a week for the use of the lamp. His Amendment was only reasonable, that the mine owner should provide the lamp as long as he remained owner, and pay for it if he kept it in his custody.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid his object and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was the same as that of the Home Secretary. In cases in which he had been professionally interested he had heard inspectors say that in their opinion the lamp ought to be provided by the employer, that those responsible for the safety of the mine might have absolute control over the lamp and prevent the workman taking it home. In a great many mines where the lamps were theirs the men were allowed to take them home. The Home Secretary's object was that the miners should have absolute control over the lamps. How could that be carried out without changing "or" into "and," so that it might run "and the safety lamp shall be the property of and be provided by the owner himself. "If the Inspectors of Mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire were consulted—and he had heard them give evidence on oath—they would be on the side of the hon. Member for Rhondda in this matter. So it was of vital importance that the lamp should belong to and be provided by the owner.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that it was not until he saw the notice on the Paper that his attention was called to the word "or," and the proposal of "and "for it. He had not sufficiently considered what the effect of putting the word "and" would be, and he would not say no to it without further consideration.
MR. J. WILSONsaid that in Scotland the mine owners provided the lamps and kept them entirely under their control, but the men were charged the cost of the lamps. He considered that this system was the best, and should be adopted by the Government.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the owner should not have sole control over the lamp if he was going to charge the workmen for it. The point of his hon. Friend was that if the employer was to have the right to provide the lamps and dictate what lamps should be used, he must provide them at his own expense, and not make the workmen pay.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGANsuggested that the words "unless it is the property of or is sold by the owner" should be inserted.
MR. FENWICKsaid the practice prevailing in the North of England was for the employer to find the lamps, which were his property, and there was practically only one class of safety lamp used throughout the collieries. The employer was, therefore, able to get the best class of safety lamp in existence. The Home Secretary would find that the Reports of the inspectors pointed to the fact that the lamps ought to be the property of the mine owners, and simply let out to the workmen for their use during the day. In the north, miners seemed to be in a most favourable position compared with what they were elsewhere; they not only provided the lamp, but the oil too.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see his way to accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that he had no objection to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid that he thought that some difficulty might arise if the Amendment were accepted in its present form.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that he was quite willing to accept the Amendment at the present moment, but he must ask for further time to consider the matter, and, if he found it necessary to alter the form of it on a future occasion, he must reserve to himself the liberty of doing so. ["Hear, hear!"]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6,—

PROVISION AS TO EXPLOSIVES.
A Secretary of State on "being satisfied that any explosive is or is likely to become dangerous,

755
may, by order, of which notice shall he given in such manner as he may direct, prohibit the use thereof in any mine, or in any class of mines, either absolutely or subject to conditions, and the provisions of the principal Act as to contraventions of general rules shall apply to contraventions of any such prohibitions.
MR. McKENNA*MR. McKENNA moved, after the word "conditions," to insert the following words:—
"and where it appears to any inspector appointed under the Public Act that further precautions are necessary for the safety of the mine by reason of its being dry and dusty, a Secretary of State may make regulations with regard to the watering or damping of the mine, or any ways or places therein."
He was aware that Clause 1 of the Bill provided for the making of special rules for securing the watering of mines, and he believed that in the majority of cases those rules would be sufficient to insure the safe working of the mines; but, in certain cases, in some parts of the country special rules were regarded with suspicion, and they led to costly arbitration. It was proposed that in such cases the Secretary of State should have power to make fresh rules with regard to the watering of the mine. The Royal Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had stated that the only known method of avoiding the danger arising from the presence of coal dust in fiery mines was by watering. The matter was too important to be left entirely to the result of an Arbitration on Special Rules. Where further precaution was necessary the Secretary of State should have power to direct the watering of mines. Unless the House did their duty in this matter, preventable accidents would occur, and hundreds of lives might be lost. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that no doubt the Amendment of the hon. Member was of a moderate character upon the face of it, but it involved large changes and considerable consequences. He need scarcely say that he felt considerable satisfaction at the confidence which the Amendment proposed to place in the Home Office. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done much to promote that confidence which, certainly, a few years ago was not given to the Department. At all events there were very great differences of opinion as to the best way
756
of dealing with the subject of fiery and dusty mines, while, on the other hand, there was some agreement on the question of dealing with explosives. They had, therefore, not the same case for taking the former class of mines out of the special rules and giving exceptional power to the Secretary of State with reference to them as they had in the matter of explosives. It was for that reason, after the most careful consideration, that he decided, in conformity with the decision adopted by his predecessor last year, to limit his request to asking Parliament to deal only with explosives in the manner suggested in the sixth clause, because he thought it would be possible by arrangement, conferences, and by the best advice he could get, to do a great deal in the direction the hon. Member indicated in his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] In principle he did not object to the hon. Member's proposal, though in degree he did, as what he suggested could not be differentiated sufficiently, as could explosives, from the subject of the special rules under Clause 1. That was one of the reasons why he objected to the Amendment, although he could not but be conscious that other objections might be urged to it from many quarters of the House. He could not but feel that the Bill had been treated as one upon which there had been substantial agreement, and that for the sake of insuring its passage those representing one side of the question or the other had refrained from making proposals which they would otherwise have done. Although he admitted that it was not a perfect Bill, it was one which he trusted would do some good, and he earnestly hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press an Amendment which would cause contention or render it more difficult to pass the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] If he objected at the present moment to accepting the Amendment he did so out of no hostility to the principle, nor out of any unwillingness to accept some further responsibility on the part of the Home Office. If the House was willing to intrust greater powers to the Home Office at a future period, he hoped—if he still held his present position—that he and the members of that Department would not be found unwilling to do their best on the subject. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR W. HARCOURTwas sure every interest concerned in this matter would recognise with satisfaction and gratitude the spirit with which the Home Secretary had dealt with this subject. ["Hear, hear!"] He himself had very little to say upon it except what he said in the Grand Committee. He regretted very much that those questions, upon which really the lives of thousands of men depended, should be made to hang upon so unsatisfactory a basis as that of arbitration. There was no one who had any experience whatever of the profession of the law who did not look with horror and dismay on arbitrations. It used to be the practice—he hoped it was not quite so much so now—when an issue was being tried to refer the question to arbitration. What did that mean? It meant delay for months and it meant an addition to the expense. ["Hear, hear!"] What happened was this. Counsel on one side said it was not convenient for him to come next week; counsel on the other side said it was inconvenient for him to come the week after, and the arbitrator wished the matter to be put off for a month. [Laughter.] That was the history of arbitration, and it was not a system on which it was satisfactory to leave such questions as these. ["Hear, hear!"] In Clause 1 they had five heads, all of them of the most serious character, affecting the lives of men, and what was prescribed in reference to them was that special rules had to be made by the Home Office on the advice of its inspectors. Then the matter was to be delayed and referred, to whom? To an arbitrator. Why? Was not the Home Secretary himself, with his competent advisers, the best arbitrator they could get in the matter? ["Hear, hear!"] He spoke as a Home Secretary of the remote past, but he knew very well that in his time he used to see at regular periods all the inspectors of mines. He was therefore able to state that he believed the Home Secretary had the very best information at his disposal to enable him to deal with questions of this character, and no arbitrator they could possibly find anywhere else could be as good as the Home Secretary with the materials at his disposal and advice such as he could obtain. ["Hear, hear!"]
758
He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite concurred in that opinion, and he thought he was only surprised to find in the Grand Committee how universal the opinion was in favour of the Home Secretary having larger powers than were given him under this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The jealousy of the Central Department was in this matter entirely absent. ["Hear, hear!"] No arbitrator they could pick up could be half as experienced as the Home Secretary and his advisers, who were constantly conversant with these questions. If it had not been for the circumstances of the agreement under which this Bill was brought forward, he would certainly have taken issue in the Grand Committee upon the whole question of arbitration. He should like, as he said then, to have got rid of arbitration altogether, and to have left the regulations to have been made out by the man he believed to be the most competent authority—namely, the Home Secretary. It was perfectly true that this system of arbitration had been introduced not only into the Bill but into former Bills which had been proposed on this subject; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite took the bold and wise step in Clause 6 of taking power to the Home Secretary, without arbitration, to deal with the question of explosions. There was no doubt now, after the inquiries that had been made, that by far the most fertile and dangerous cause of explosions in many mines was the coal dust, and upon that subject the Commission presided over by the Colonial Secretary expressed the following opinion:—
"While recommending that every effort should he made to prevent undue accumulations of dust, it appears to your Majesty's Commissioners that the only effectual way of dealing with this source of danger would be a satisfactory system of watering and thoroughly wetting it. This precaution is already largely adopted in Durham, South Wales, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire. In other districts little damping appears to he done."
All that was asked here was that in Clause 6 there should be introduced the same power with reference to damping the coal dust that was given in respect of explosives. It was a remarkable thing that in the report of the Commission the two things were placed on precisely the

759
same footing. The Commissioners stated at the conclusion of their report:—
"We have carefully considered the evidence on this question from all sides, and, while we are of opinion that the only sufficient precaution hitherto suggested against the dangers of coal dust in fiery mines is a complete and satisfactory system of watering, we also feel that the same reasons which have prevented us from recommending a universal and stereo typed rule in regard to the use of gunpowder apply with equal or even greater force to the provision of expensive and probably complicated systems of watering."
Clause 6 only took explosives, and they said, why not take damping as well? It was really the logical conclusion of the Report of the Commission that they should put the two upon the same footing in reference to the making of regulations by the Home Secretary without arbitration. It was, no doubt, giving one additional power to the Home Secretary, but the feeling on the Grand Committee was almost unanimous in favour of a proposal of this kind, and he believed it was the knowledge of this feeling which had encouraged his hon. Friend to bring forward this Amendment. He understood the Home Secretary did not demur to that, but he was unwilling to assume the responsibility of a shorter and more efficient way of dealing with this matter than could be obtained by arbitration. The Home Office was willing to undertake this duty, but the right hon. Gentleman doubted whether or not Parliament was willing to trust the Home Office so far. Personally, he believed Parliament was perfectly willing to trust the Home Office—[cheers]—and, from his knowledge and experience of the Home Office, he was certain that it would be a very capable body for dealing with the question. It would be an impartial body, and would hear all parties interested, and all they had to do was to confer on the Home Secretary powers which would be so useful and beneficial that he ought to possess them. Those were the views which he entertained and which he advanced in the Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his remarks appealed to a consideration of which he was bound to take notice. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was an agreed Bill. That was so broadly speaking, and certainly he would not do anything that would imperil the passing of the Measure.
760
["Hear, hear!"] Strongly as he felt upon the matter under discussion, if he thought there was anything in this, or any other Amendment, that would endanger the Bill, he should not be prepared to support it. But, if, as he hoped, all those interested in this industry were willing to trust the Home Secretary with powers in reference to coal dust and damping, as they had trusted him in the matter of explosives, then he thought they would break no agreement by placing such further powers on the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment was brought forward with the idea of inviting agreement on the question. They were all, of course, equally interested in doing what was best for the protection of the lives of the miners, and he felt sure that if those who represented the mine owners expressed a willingness to accept the Amendment, it would give immense satisfaction in every district where coal was worked. The Home Secretary had stated that he would be willing to undertake the further responsibility for the purpose referred to, and he felt sure the House would be ready to furnish him with the necessary powers. ["Hear, hear!"]
COLONEL BLUNDELLwould suggest to the Home Secretary the formation of a Committee of experienced and able Inspectors to consider the whole question of explosives, and to base his decisions on their recommendations and not on the recommendation of each inspector of a district, who might take very different views. With regard to the Amendment, he strongly urged the right hon. Gentleman not to go beyond the powers he had already taken, and not to touch the question of damping at present.
SIR C. DILKEsaid it was apparent from the remarks of the last speaker and the speech of the Home Secretary, that the mine owners in the House had made up their minds not to accept the Amendment. This rather confirmed the view which some Members had taken, and expressed on the Second Reading, that on the whole it might have been better to delay the subject until next year and bring in a stronger Bill than to hurry the present Measure through. When it was considered how little this Bill did

761
which really could not be done at present under the Rules and Regulations, he thought it would not have been unwise to wait until next Session, and then to bring in a Bill of a very much stronger character than the one now before the House. ["Hear, hear!"] It seemed a little startling that the House of Commons should find itself with its hands so tied that it was unable to take the view of this Amendment, or even of the stronger Amendment which was on the Paper, until two days ago, which he believed it would take if it were unfettered. The discussion had proceeded on the basis that this Amendment was intended to place damping and watering in the same position as explosives. That was not so. This Amendment was a compromise; it left damping and watering for Special Rules in the first case, and it was only in exceptional cases that the power of the Home Secretary was intended to be exercised. The Home Secretary would not necessarily make an order based upon the opinion of one inspector, but he would naturally be guided by the average view of all the Inspectors, the heads of his Department, and the intentions of Parliament. Under the circumstances he regretted that the matter had not been left over until next year; indeed, he believed there would be less loss of life during the existence of the present Parliament if they waited for a stronger Bill.
MR. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that the matters of damping and watering had not hitherto been relegated to arbitration. The system of Special Ruleshad worked very smoothly for nearly a quarter of a century. Nevertheless, he thought some of his hon. Friends were unduly apprehensive of the effects of this proposal. An order of the Secretary of State under the Amendment would only operate in respect of a particular mine, and it was almost inconceivable that that order would be made without a local inquiry which would probably cost some money and take some time. It should be remembered that when provisions restricting the use of explosives were contained in the Bill of 1887 they received the strongest opposition from South Wales, not only from the mine owners, but from the men. On the general question of arbitration, he might, perhaps, be for
762
given for telling the House that, from his own experience at the Home Office, he came to the conclusion that, though Special Rules had in very many cases been established, these arbitration provisions were very rarely resorted to. The only case he could remember, though he would not say it was the only one, was a case in which there was an arbitration as to whether a petroleum engine should be used underground. His hon. and gallant Friend below him proposed that the Home Secretary should be guided entirely by a War Office Committee. He could certainly say that the Home Secretary was at present advised on the question of explosives by gentlemen as competent as those in the service of any Government in the world. It was curious that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not hit upon the most serious objection of all to the present system of arbitration, and that was that what were practically to be private local laws were left to the arrangement of the arbitrator, who was a private person. He thought, there was no doubt that the representatives of the mine owners might, without damage or prejudice to their interests, give way on this point. It was right, perhaps, that their legitimate scruples should lead them to ask for a little longer time to become familiarised with procedure; but he suggested that they would have ample time for that purpose before any executive order was made under this Amendment.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the great majority of explosions had either arisen immediately from coal dust or been intensified in their effects by it. There was no doubt this Amendment was of a drastic character, as it would impose a greater amount of responsibility on the Home Office with a view to affording greater protection to human life; but he did not think it ought to be agreed to hastily. By this proposal responsibility would be shifted from the coal owner to the inspector, and it was a matter of absolute impossibility that the Inspectors should exercise anything like effective supervision in the matter. The only course open to the Inspectors would be to declare every mine in their districts dry and dusty, and that would meet with opposition not merely from the employers I but also from the men. If they did not resort to that procedure, they would only

763
deal with those cases which were brought under their notice, and the effect on the mine owner would be that he would not take so much care, because he would be sheltered under the responsibility of the inspector. There was a great fear that they would be lessening the sense of responsibility on the part of owners by Amendments of this description. There was no proposal so drastic which he would not support if it would tend to the prevention of explosions in mines, but every coal owner, in his own interest, was prepared to take the utmost precautions against explosions. He had had considerable experience in explosions, and he contended that if they imposed this duty upon the Inspectors in the country they would find that it was a duty which could not be effectively performed, and which would at the same time lessen and weaken the sense of responsibility on the part of the mine owners.
MR. TOMLINSONdeprecated the notion that if the mine owners hesitated to accept this Amendment it was because they did not desire to increase the safety of mines. It really was the fact that mine owners, as the hon. and learned Member had said, desired to promote the safety of their mines as far as possible. It could not be lost sight of that in some mines watering was most dangerous, as the roof or floor would not bear the mass of water without risks of other kinds. If the present system of arbitration was superseded it should be by some definite method of inquiry, and the coal owners were perfectly ready to consider any better method by which the system of arbitration might be superseded.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the arguments used by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham might equally well be used against every restriction in favour of safety on our railways, and against every precaution for saving life in dangerous industries. The hon. and learned Member also said that if the Amendment were carried it would remove, the responsibility as to dust in mines from the owners to the Inspectors. He did not believe it would, but even if it did throw more responsibility on the Inspectors, the cost of appointing five or ten additional Inspectors would be a small matter compared with getting rid of the dust altogether, and, by damping,
764
removing the causes of explosion. There was a possibility that a keen competition between owner and owner for supplying coal in certain markets would make them lax in the damping of the mines, if it was left to them to do as it was under the present law, and he did not believe the keenness of competition ought to be any excuse for an owner not damping his mine when an inspector declared that it should be damped. The cost of damping would, after all, be paid by the consumer. It would be added to the price of coal, and as the addition would be very little, it would not affect the question of competition in any degree. Speaker after speaker had admitted that arbitration was often costly, frequently slow, and in many cases unscientific. Why, then, should they look upon arbitration as a blessed word, and allow it to prevail in matters affecting the lives and limbs of workers in mines? The attitude of the House of Commons on the question was that the poor are never but always to be blessed. And why was that its attitude? Because the mine owners and the representatives of the men had decided that the Bill should be got through this Session. He believed that the Bill would, in any case, get through. He believed the Amendment, if accepted, would not mean the rejection, of the Bill. The only effect of the Amendment if carried, would be to strengthen the Bill without endangering its chance of passing. It was said that, by the regulation of explosives, the chief factor in colliery explosions had been disposed of. But he regarded the presence of dust as the potential factor in all explosions. If there were no dust, it would not matter what lights or explosives were used. There were some authorities who held that coal dust might explode under certain atmospheric conditions without being brought into contact with any flame. Parliament had never moved in the restriction of the conditions of dangerous employments until they had had some ghastly evidence of the necessity for action. It would require two or three more explosions like the Hartley and Audley disasters before the House of Commons would grapple properly with this subject of coal dust. Experiments had gone far enough now to justify the House in taking coal dust regulations out of Clause 1 and putting

765
them into Clause 6. There was no reason why more power should not be given to a central authority, if experience proved that the power could be better "exercised so than by a court of arbitration. He objected altogether to the question of damping being settled by a Court of Arbitration, which would be composed in one part of miners who were often reckless of danger, where they did not actually glory in it, and in the other part of mine-owners whose profits were concerned. Arbitration was not only ignorant but unscientific. He hoped the House would follow the lead on this question given by the Leader of the Opposition. Because he believed that democracy has a respect for brains, and that real democracy had brains at its basis, he preferred a centralised Home Office to any board of miners or employers that could be devised
MR. B. BAINBRIDGE,as one who had given a good many years of his life to endeavouring to reduce the number of accidents in mines, desired to inform the House that there were two kinds of accidents in mines. There were a large number of accidents which no Act of Parliament would ever reach, and there were a number of accidents due to explosions which were almost invariably caused by the improper use of gunpower. In his exposition of the subject the hon. Member for Battersea had given way to exaggerations which were entirely due to want of knowledge. He himself did not think much of the general effect and influence of the Bill, but if there was one important point in it, it was the 6th Clause, which gave the Home Secretary large powers with regard to gunpowder. The right hon. Member for Sheffield had mentioned the fact that arbitrations had occurred seldom in the last 20 years. Why had they occurred so infrequently? Simply because the inspectors of mineshad been moderate in their demands. It must not be supposed that mine-owners were not anxiously alive to the danger of explosions. He cordially supported the views of the Home Secretary.
MR. BENJAMIN PICKARDrepudiated the insinuation made by the hon. Member for Battersea, that the miners had no common sense, nor could he allow it to be
766
said that they ran risks and gloried in them. He had never seen a man run a risk knowingly, and never known a man glory in having risks round him. In any case, he should be prevented from running risks, and have such protection as this House would give him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYhoped that the House would allow the Bill to be read a Third time. [cheers.]
SIR JOHN BRUNNERtrusted that the Prime Minister, when he saw this Bill appear in the Upper House, would remember the advice he had formerly given, that legislation by reference should be avoided. There was in this Bill more than one bad case of legislation by reference. He also complained that this Measure placed before every official of the Home Office the temptation to recommend patents either for lamps, explosives, or other material. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make it a rule of the office, and take every precaution to prevent officials at the Home Office from being exposed to the temptation of recommending one patent as against another.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, amid cheers.

TRUCK BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. J. SAMUELwished to know whether the Government intended to proceed with the Bill at that late hour. There were many Amendments of importance on the Paper.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped that some material progress would be made with the Bill before they adjourned.
MR. H. H. ASQUITHtrusted that the discussion would not be prolonged to an unreasonable hour. There were a considerable number of points that required careful consideration.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY,who had an Amendment on the Paper, "To move that the Bill be considered upon this day three months," said that, as the new clause standing in the Home Secretary's name met the wishes of the cotton trade, he did not propose to move his Amendment.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause:—

POWER TO EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF ACT.
"(1.) The Secretary of State, if satisfied that the provisions of this Act are unnecessary for the protection of the workmen employed in any trade or business, cither generally or within any specified area, may, by order under his hand, grant an exemption from those provisions in respect of the persons engaged in that trade or business, either generally or within that area.
(2.) The Secretary of State may at any time amend or revoke any such order.
(3.) Every order made under this section shall be laid as soon as may he before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House, within the next forty days after the order has been so laid before that House, resolves that the order ought to be annulled, the order shall, after the date of that Resolution, be of no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under the order or to the making of a new order."
Clause road a First time.
SIR C. DILKEsaid that it was an unfortunate fact that some of the Lancashire operatives had been divided from others in their view of the operation of this Bill. The spinners had been one way and the weavers the other. It was unfortunate because there was no reason why a distinction should be drawn between one part of the country and another with regard to truck. The Lancashire cotton industry was as a house divided against itself. He did not blame the Home Secretary for having tried to meet the difficulty that was thereby caused, and, if any geographical concession was to be made, this, he admitted, was the least objectionable way of meeting that difficulty. But the reason why it had become necessary to make the concession was, he feared, that certain of the Lancashire operatives had not understood clearly the present condition of the law. He had received resolutions from Lancashire affirming that this Bill would legalise fines and deductions. As
768
a matter of fact there were no fines or deductions made legal by this Bill which were not legal now. The words of the Bill were express upon the subject. Holding, as he did, the strongest possible opinion against all fines and deductions, and looking forward to the time when they would be entirely abolished, because he believed that all remedies short of total abolition must fail, he certainly should not support this Bill if it legalised fines and deductions which were not legal at the present time. With regard to this clause, if a Division were taken he should vote against it.
MR. JOHN RUTHERFORD (Lancashire, Darwen),as representing a constituency which comprised quite a quarter of the looms of Lancashire, desired to support the clause of the right hon. Gentleman. He did so because he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport did not intend to move the clause standing in his name. He believed the clause met with the approval of the representatives of all the operatives engaged in the different branches of the cotton trade, as it enabled the Home Secretary (should he think fit) to exempt by an order that particular cotton industry from the operation of the Bill. The operatives wished to do away with fines altogether, and they objected to this Bill, which recognised and regulated fines. This clause would remove that objection, and therefore he cordially supported it.
MR. PHILIP STANHOPEsaid he had received a letter from the Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers and other subsidiary societies, representing, he believed, about 140,000 operatives, and they having considered the matter very fully, came to the conclusion that while they would accept the clause as a sort of pis-aller, they much preferred to return to the original Bill introduced by the Home Office and modified by an Amendment introduced by an hon. Member from Scotland. He would be obliged to move the Amendment that stood in his name in consequence of the intimation he had received from these societies.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYcontended that to exempt those who did not seek to be protected was not a new departure and not an unreasonable thing. It was in accordance with the Factory Acts, and considering this Bill

769
was brought in to protect certain workmen in certain cases, if representations were received that they did not desire to be protected, he did not think it was unreasonable to take power to the Home Office to exempt them at all events for a time from the operation of the Act.
MR. J. SAMUELasked what would be necessary to exempt workmen from the operation of the Bill, because the matter was left very indefinite.
SIR. MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYexplained that when the Secretary of State was satisfied that in any particular branch of trade certain Acts need not be applied he had the power to exempt them. This power he proposed to take. As the Bill was intended for the protection of the workmen it was hardly likely to be applied if it was generally desired that it should not, be.
MR. G. WHITELEYdenied that the objections of the textile trader had been met, by the Home Secretary, and read a letter dated May 28th enclosing a resolution representing the views of 150,000 of the textile workers of Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire protesting against the Bill becoming law, and, asking, at any rate, for the exemption of the interested parties in the cotton trade. The second letter was dated July 9th, and these were from the representative associations of the Manchester weaving industry.
MR. STANHOPEsaid the letter which he had in his possession was dated 22nd July, so that what the hon. Member bad referred to was ancient history.
MR. G. WHITELEYsaid he had understood from them in the last few days that if the Bill could not be altered, this Amendment would be satisfactory to them. He did not think it was the unanimous desire of the spinners to be placed under this Bill; the spinners were really not affected at all by this Truck Bill. It was a practice which never had been put in force in Lancashire, and it was only in the weaving department of the cotton industry that fining was carried on.
MR. J. WILSON,asked by what machinery the workers could bring their views to the Home Office?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that where there was any real case
770
he did not think he should have any difficulty in satisfying himself. Permission was given to the Home Office with reference also to factory operatives, the linen trades, and other branches of industry,
Clause read a Second time.
On the question, "That the clause be added to the Bill,"
SIR. C. DILKEdesired to ask the Home Secretary whether he was satisfied that the, words "any trade" would do without being guarded? There was, undoubtedly, a difference of opinion between the spinners' organisation, as represented by Mr. Mawdsley, and the weavers' organisation, as represented by Mr. Holmes, and taking power to exempt any trade would seem to him, for instance, to apply to the whole of the cotton trade. Ought they not to say "any trade or any branch of any trade."
SIR. MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaw no objection to adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. SPEAKER: That should have been moved before I put the Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
SIR C. DILKE: I rose immediately before the Question was put, "That the clause be read a Second time."
MR. SPEAKER: I put the Question, "That the clause be read a Second time," and declared the "Ayes" had it before the right hon. Baronet rose.
SIR C. DILKE: I rose at the time, Sir. I think my hon. Friends can bear me out in that. ["Hear, hear!"] In fact, Sir, I rose too soon on purpose to be in time.
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman sat down again, and I put the Question and declared the "Ayes" had it. I then put the Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill," and the right hon. Baronet then rose and addressed the House.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he would undertake that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman should be looked into.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Pill.
MR. HAROLD TENNANTbrought up the following new clause:—

APPLICATION OF 51 & 52 VICT., C. 46, TO OUT-WORKERS.
"Section thirteen, Sub-section two, of the fiftieth and fifty-first years of Victoria, chapter forty-six, shall be deemed to apply to all laundries and places where work is given out by the occupier of a factory or workshop, or by a contractor or sub-contractor."
MR. SPEAKER: I understand this clause is accepted with a slight alteration?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid there was only a clerical alteration made so as to show clearly what the clause really intended to do.
Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill in following amended form:—

DUTIES OF INSPECTORS.
"Sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the Truck Convention Act, 1887 (which relates to the duty of Inspectors), shall apply in the case of a laundry, and in the case of any place where work is given out by the occupier of a factory or workshop, or by a contractor, or sub-eon-tractor, in like manner as it applies in the case of a factory."
Clause 1,—

DEDUCTIONS OR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF FINES.
(1.) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the gross sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman, for or in respect of any fine, unless—

(a) the contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory or workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can be easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and

(b) the contract specifies the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine may be imposed, and the amount of the fine or the particulars from which that amount may be ascertained; and

(c) the fine imposed under the contract is in respect of some act or omission which
772
causes or is likely to cause damage or loss to the employer, or interruption or hindrance to his business; and

(d) the amount of the fine is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(2.) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment, unless—

(a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and

(b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine is imposed and the amount there of are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made.

(3.) This section shall apply to the case of a shop assistant in like manner as it applies to the case of a workman.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "gross"—("from the gross sum ").
SIR C. DILKEasked for an explanation as to why this word was to be left out.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was informed by the legal advisers of the Government that the expression really meant nothing, and it appeared to some Members that the word "gross" was liable to be misunderstood, and might possibly give rise to errors. It was in order to prevent injustice being done that it was proposed to leave out the word.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GEORGE HARWOOD MR. GEORGE HARWOOD (Bolton) moved to leave out Sub-section (a). The description of the Bill as a Truck Bill was a misnomer. It had nothing whatever to do with truck in a technical sense. It merely dealt with fines. Fining was diminishing in all trades as the trades were becoming more organised. He thought sufficient was done by Clause 2, in which provision was made for fines in respect to bad or negligent work, or injury to materials or other property of employers, and there was consequently no necessity for Sub-section (a) of Clause 1. Clause 2 made it a condition of such fining, and a printed notice should be put up. But he thought that in this case, the putting up of a printed notice was not sufficient, and that there should be a distinct agreement in the matter.
MR. STANHOPEpointed out that the object of his hon. friend would he best attained by an Amendment he (Mr. Stanhope) had lower down on the Paper.
MR. BEARWOODsaid he saw that, and wished to withdraw Ins Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to omit the following words from Sub-section (a):—
"contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory, or workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or Factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can he easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop,"
and to insert instead thereof the words—
"terms of the contract are contained in a printed notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to workmen, and in such a position that it may he easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects."
MR. STANHOPEsaid the Amendment afforded a good opportunity to raise the whole question in regard to the printed notice. In the original Bill there was no necessity laid down for the printed notice at all. In that Bill the only stipulation was that the contract should be signed by the workmen, and no kind of objection was raised with respect to that stipulation. But a very strong and a very proper objection was taken by the operatives to the exhibition of the printed notice, which they contended would amount to what had been termed a crystallisation of a system of fines. Now the operatives engaged in cotton trade in north-east Lancashire, at least, were extraordinarily well organised. He believed that 97 per cent. of them were in union, and thus they were well able to take care of themselves. When the question of deductions arose, the unions, therefore, were well able to fight their own battle, and the consequence was that few cases of deductions occurred. He was confident that all hon. Members who represented constituencies in Lancashire would agree with him when he said the operatives were earnestly desirous to get rid altogether
774
of the stipulation with regard to the printed notice, and he hoped, when a division was taken on the question, that those who objected to the Amendment would receive, even at that eleventh hour, some support from hon. Members generally in their effort to strike out this objectionable and obnoxious provision from the Bill.
MR. G. WHITELEYdid not think anyone who had had experience of managing large bodies of workmen would argue it was possible for an employer to have a contract with every single workman in his employ. Many of the employés might be children learning their business, and not able to enter into or to carry out a contract. So far as regarded the cotton trade, it ought to be borne in mind that a good deal of the work in cotton weaving sheds was educational. Children entered the sheds just as they left school, and they had to learn their business, and they did so at the expense of the master. Fines and deductions for bad work were some return to the master for the work that was spoiled by children while they were learning their business. [A laugh.] The hon. Member who laughed was hot a cotton master, but spoke as a gentleman who lived in London. The result of abolishing fines would be that masters would refuse to take the smaller children into their employ. He asked the House to look at this matter, not in a doctrinaire but in a practical light. He hoped the clause would be carried as it was but plus a new clause exempting those workmen who objected to come under the purview of the Bill.
MR. H. H. ASQUITHdesired to point out that the Bill was intended to afford additional protection to the workpeople, not only in the cotton trade but in all trades, against fines and deductions which were at present in too many cases exacted from them without their knowledge or consent. Per the most part it was the unorganised workers who needed protection, and he thought the Home Secretary had done perfectly right in taking the proposed power to himself. Let him take the case of one of the unorganised trades in which protection was really needed, and let him ask the House whether, if the words they were now asking to be omitted were retained in the clause, any real protection would be

775
afforded? For a long period there was a struggle by the common carriers, particularly the railway carriers, to escape from the obligation the common law imposed upon them to look after the safety of the goods intrusted to their charge, and by the construction put on the Carriers Act they were allowed, by just such notice in their office as was contemplated by this clause, and which not half of their customers saw, to impose exemptions which practically rendered them not liable at all. The result was that 40 years ago the carriers were not responsible for the loss of, or damage to, the goods they carried. Due provision was now made for the protection of the traders. If they were going to give protection to traders in this country, why should they deny it to these ignorant, unorganised, and unprotected workmen, many of whom were illiterate, or not accustomed closely to study documents of this kind? It was unfortunate that the Grand Committee, which was not, he thought, on that particular occasion, very fully attended, should have imported these words into the clause, which would very largely neutralise its beneficial effect. He could not conceive a subject in relation to which the House was more entitled to revise the decision of the Grand Committee, a decision which was contrary to the opinion of the Government itself. The principle was a vicious one, which should be extended least of all in the case of people who, ex hypothesi, were unable to protect themselves, and he earnestly hoped the House, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman had said, would reverse this unfortunate decision. ["Hear, hear!"]
COLONEL D ENNYagreed that this was a purely protective Measure, but they ought to take into account the interests of the employers as well as the employés. The proposal in practice would be most difficult to carry out. They had the interest of their employés at heart, but to take his own case, for example, where 3,000 men were employed in a business, it would not be possible to enter into so many individual contracts. In his place of employment the rules of the establishment were placed on the walls where the men could see them, and these rules embodied those sections which dealt with
776
fines. Moreover, the employés were entitled to demand a copy of these rules from their employers, and that was the greatest possible protection to the men.
MR. J. SAMUELsaid there was only one way out of the difficulty, and that was the abolition of fines altogether. He was surprised at the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that the Bill would be a protection to workmen. He was of a different opinion. It merely provided for the bringing prominently under the notice of workmen the terms of contracts with regard to fines. In a memorandum circulated by the Home Secretary in reference to the Bill, it was stated that from 1831 up to 1889 the common impression in the country was that fines were illegal. The original Truck Act of 1831 distinctly stated in its third section that all wages should be paid in their entirety; and that gave rise to the general impression that fines were illegal. Even the late Mr. Brad-laugh, when he was promoting his Bill in 1887, was of that opinion. But there was a case tried in 1889 in which the Judges decided that fines were legal. He would appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw the Bill. If it were passed into law, it would only produce more friction and more strikes. The employer was empowered by the Bill, by simply enumerating the causes of fines, to impose any fines he pleased on his workmen. Was it fair to expect a working man in need of employment, and with a family dependent on him, to carefully consider the terms of this notice? It was a cruel Bill, which would work great injury to the working man. There was no subject on which the working classes were more sensitive than that of fines. He had in his hand a check for one of the large works in his constituency; and if all the fines enumerated there were exacted, the workmen would get no wages at all. But these fines were not exacted as a matter of practice, because of the fear of strikes. Suppose the Members of the House of Commons were fined for every mistake they made.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question is not as to the propriety of imposing fines, but as to whether they

777
shall be binding on the workmen if enumerated in a particular notice and in particular circumstances.
MR. J. SAMUEL,continuing, said that he hoped the Home Secretary would withdraw the Bill, and bring in another for the abolition of fines altogether; and, at any rate, he appealed to him not to press this Amendment.
MR. GEORGE HARWOODpointed out that Clause 2 provides for deductions in respect of bad or negligent work, and of injury to the material or other property of the employer. Those words covered all the ordinary cases in which deductions ought to be made; and if any other cases were to be provided for, they ought to be defined in special and individual written contracts. To give notice by hanging up a list was a mere absurdity; he never knew anyone to read such lists.
MR. WOLFEthought that if a notice was put up at the entrance to the works every one would read it, while if a printed notice or contract was used the workmen, if work was slack, would sign anything without caring what was inside the document.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYappealed to the House to come to a decision. The question had been fairly threshed out.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid the strongest argument against fines had just been brought forward. Take the case of a man whose daily bread depended on getting work. His wife and family were starving; the man entered the office of the works, the notice might be obnoxious and cruel, the fines might be unjust in their character, and yet the man knew that his very existence depended on getting work. It was possible for the employer to frame a notice that would hedge the workmen round by fines in such a way as to affect his wages very seriously. The best thing to do was not to crystallise these fines. In his county it would be impossible for employers to bring out a notice in which the fines were cruel, but in many places labour was not organised in the same way. Of course, some employers were fair-minded men, but Acts of Parliament of this kind were not made for generous employers. Let them not give employers power to force unjust fines upon their workmen.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the Home Secretary was under a misapprehension if he supposed that the mere posting of a notice would constitute a guarantee that a fine was moderate and reasonable. Practically, the principle of this Bill was embodied in the suggested: Amendment of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Mid Durham had said that if an attempt were made in his county to get workmen to agree to fines the whole trade would go out on strike. That was happily true of Durham, but in London and elsewhere there were un skilled labourers who could be compelled to accept fines and deduction. In fact they were springing up in London as thickly as leaves in Vallombrosa. Immediately this Bill came before the Grand Committee, the South London Tramways Company——
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing cases arising under Clause 3.
MR. BURNSsaid he would discuss the effect of the Amendment later on on that clause. A paper was put into the men's hands. They had to sign it, and in that agreement they were asked to pay a shilling a week out of their wages for a suit of clothes they did not want.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the propriety of binding the men by the contract signed by them.
MR. BURNSsaid that assuming the agreement did not fix the fine upon the men, the Home Secretary took a more tyrannical method of enforcing it; it was simply to take a paste-pot and paste up a notice in the stable by which the men would be bound to pay this shilling a week. Whether the Home Secretary liked it or not, his attempt to diminish fines by having this printed notice, would only create other insidious methods of extracting them, and he believed that after 12 months experience of this clause, the Home Secretary would be compelled to bring in a Truck Bill next year to abolish fines altogether. That was the only consistent way, and he trusted hon. Members would discuss it clause after clause until they brought that home to the conscience of the House of Commons.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 60.—(Division List, No. 352.)
MR. HARWOOD MR. HARWOOD moved, in Subsection (c), to leave out the words "which causes or is likely to cause," and to insert instead thereof the words "which has caused." He contended that, if poor people were fined, they should be fined for damage which was proved to be done.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYremarked that the Amendment was not necessary, as it meant exactly the same thing as was meant by the clause.
MR. G. HARWOODthought it ought to be made perfectly clear that a workman was not to be liable to be fined on possible damage, but only on provable damage. That was not clear as the clause now stood.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYpromised that the matter should be cleared up hereafter, and the Amendment was withdrawn.
MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved the following Amendment: To leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words—
"For the purposes of this section the expression 'workman' includes a shop assistant."
He thought the Amendment was necessary as a matter of drafting.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was advised that the words in the clause really carried out the intention of the framers far better than would the suggested alteration of the hon. Member.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2,—

DEDUCTIONS OF PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF DAMAGED GOODS.
(1.) An employer shall not make any contract with any deduction from the gross sum contracted to he paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for or in respect of bad or negligent work or injury to the materials or other property of the employer, unless—

(a) the contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory, or
780
workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or Factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can be easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workmen; and

(b) the deduction or payment to be made under the contact does not exceed the actual or estimated damage or loss occasioned to the employer by the act or omission of the workman, or of some person over whom he has control, or for whom he has by the contract agreed to be responsible; and

(c) the amount of the deduction or payment is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the ease.

(2.) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment unless—

(a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and

(b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the deduction or payment is made and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "gross."
Amendment agreed to.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to omit the following words from paragraph (a) Sub-section (1):—
"contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory, or workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or Factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can be easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop,"
and to insert instead thereof the words—
"terms of the contract are contained in a printed notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to workmen, and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved in paragraph (b) Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "actual or estimated."
MR. J. SAMUELsaid he had an objection to this Amendment, and he suggested therefore, that it should not be entered upon at such a late hour.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS MR. SAMUEL EVANS moved the adjournment of the Debate.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURY: I do not object.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
FINANCE BILL.
Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
SUPPLY [24TH JULY].
Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

  CLASS IV.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £616,077 (including a Supplementary Bum of £3,375), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of national Education in Ireland."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £605, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing' certain School Endowments in Ireland."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,643, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,450, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for a Grant in aid of the Expenses of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."

  CLASS I.
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £137,341 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
  782
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the River Shannon."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,503, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Payments under The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' and the Light Railways (Ireland) Acts, 1889 and 1893."

  CLASS II.
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,597, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."

  CLASS III.
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £41,825, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £75,656, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding £42,258, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the. Irish Land Commission."
  11. "That a sum, not exceeding £77,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries, Allowances, Expenses, and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
  12. "That a sum, not exceeding £66,298, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
  "13. That a sum, not exceeding £70,642, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

  783
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland, and of the Prisons under their control, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
  14. "That a sum, not exceeding £57,749, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."
  15. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,841, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

  CLASS VI.
  16. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,372, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for a Grant in Aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland."
  17. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,774, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances in Ireland."
  Resolutions read a Second time.
  First Resolution postponed.
  Resolutions Two to Six agreed to.
  Resolutions Seven and Eight postponed.
  Resolution Nine agreed to.
  Resolution Ten postponed.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS [EXCISE DUTY].
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN OF WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of an additional excise duty on every light locomotive which is liable to duty, either as a carriage or as a hackney carriage, under section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, at the following rate:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  If the weight of the locomotive exceeds one ton unladen, but does not exceed two tons unladen

  2

  2

  0

  If the weight of the locomotive exceeds two tons unladen

  3

  3

  0

  such excise duty to be paid annually; and the proceeds of such duty to be paid into the Local Taxation Accounts."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Bill would have a peculiar effect in some cases in Ireland, and
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,)was understood to say that the Bill would not apply to Ireland at all. There was no carriage duty in Ireland as in England, and he had avoided making any alteration except in regard to those cases where duty was paid at present.
  MR. J. SAMUELasked if the new licence was to be brought under the Local Taxation Account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Then he thought the discussion ought to be adjourned. There was a great deal of discontent in the non-county boroughs, because they did not receive their just proportion of these grants from the County Council. If motor cars were to be used on the highways within non-county boroughs, the boroughs would suffer a greater injustice

  785
  still. Under the circumstances, he moved: "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion negatived.
  MR. T. LOUGHinquired if the cars would be taxed as private locomotives or as public conveyances. He understood that now private carriages paid £2 2s. each, and a public carriage 15s.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the motor cars would be taxed according to weight.
  MR. JAMES DALY: Will this Bill apply to Ireland? [Laughter and cries of"No, no!"]
  Original Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of an additional excise duty on every light locomotive which is liable to duty, either as a carriage or as a hackney carriage, under Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, at the following rate:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  If the weight of the locomotive exceeds one ton unladen, but does not exceed two tons un laden

  2

  2

  0

  If the weight of the locomotive exceeds two tons unladen

  3

  3

  0

  such excise duty to be paid annually; and the proceeds of such duty to be paid into the Local Taxation Accounts."
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Tomorrow.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Tomorrow
  MILITARY WORKS [MONEY].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.

  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  Clause 1,—

  AMENDMENT OF LAW AS TO RAISING AND PAYMENT OF ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEERS.
  (1.) The power under the Royal Naval Reserve Volunteer Act, 1849, to raise and pay volunteers may, subject to regulations of the Admiralty, be exercised outside the British Islands: Provided that a volunteer shall not be raised or paid outside the British Islands unless he is a British subject serving on a vessel registered in the British Islands.
  (2.) In section one of the said Act the words "in the United Kingdom and the Islands of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, or any of them," and in section nine of the same Act the words "in the United Kingdom or in the Islands of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, and nowhere else, and "are hereby repealed.
  MR. LOUGHasked that some explanation of the Bill should be given.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,said that this was a Bill simply to enable certain naval reserves to obtain their retainers.
  Bill reported without Amendment.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  On the Order for Second reading,
  MR. CALDWELLexplained that the Bill sought to remedy what was said to be a defect in one of the Acts passed in 1892. That defect was that the Act did not give the right to urban authorities to borrow money for the housing of the working classes. Undoubtedly, this Bill would give urban authorities such power. There was, however, an important point to be considered, and it was upon whom would the rating in respect of the housing of the working classes fall? In Scotland, as a rule, the rates were levied one-half upon the owner and one-half upon the occupier, but if the Bill were passed in

  787
  its present form the rates in the burghs would be levied solely upon the occupiers. They ought to have some clear indication from the Government that if they were giving the power to the burghs to assess and borrow money for these purposes, they would give to the occupier in the burghs the same protection which the occupier in the counties had, of being liable for only one-half the rate. The division of rates between owner and occupier was one which might be applied to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. J. SAMUEL MR. J. SAMUEL moved that the Debate be adjourned, on the ground that Scotch Members on that side of the House had gone home under the impression that this Bill would not be taken.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said the Bill was intended merely to repair an error in a previous Act. The Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890 gave the burghs power to borrow. In 1892 an amending Act was passed, but by a slip in amending a clause, the power of borrowing, which the burghs had before, was inadvertently taken away from them. The object of the Bill was to restore those powers to the burghs, and the House would agree that the occasion for establishing a new system of rating was hardly afforded by such a Bill.
  DR. CLARKsaid the Bill was a piece of legislation by implication, and as such it was objectionable.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  MR. T. M. HEALYbegged to ask the Government to give some explanation of their intentions in regard to the grants to be made under this Bill. It would rest with the Treasury to say whether grants were to be made, and whether any scheme was to be adopted. Did the Government mean vigorously to carry out the Measure?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said that it was the intention of the Government to press the Treasury to allow the money to be spent.
  788
  From what had passed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself, he did not think that the Treasury would raise any serious difficulty. He could not say at the moment in what locality the money would be spent, but he had no doubt that the larger part of it would have to go to the congested districts.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
  LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  Bill to grant moneys for the purpose of certain local loans, and for other purposes relating to local loans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read the Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 327.]
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  COMMONS REGULATION (DAEWEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS) moved:—
  "That the order made on the 16th day of March last, That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a Second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a."
  He observed that the Board of Agriculture were sincerely to be congratulated on having brought a difficult matter, which had occupied a long time, to a very satisfactory conclusion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

QUEEN'S REIGN.
LORD BRAYEasked the Government whether, inasmuch as on Wednesday, September 23rd next, the Queen would have reigned, D.V., more days than any other Sovereign of this Realm, in honour of such an auspicious and extraordinary event, they would introduce a Measure to constitute for this year only September 23 a holiday in the same sense as December 26 and certain other days were kept as holidays annually. The noble Lord quoted from a letter he addressed to The Times of September 2, 1885, advocating that the Queen's Jubilee should be celebrated in a manner suitably commemorative of a noble reign; and also from a letter he sent to the Press on September 21, 1895, calling attention to the fact that on the 23rd of
670
that month in the ensuing year the Queen would have reigned longer than any other Sovereign over the English people. He observed that, whatever celebrations or rejoicings might be reserved for the next year, it appeared to him fitting that the particular day on which Her Majesty would have reigned for a longer period than any other Sovereign of the Realm should be kept as a Bank Holiday. He observed that he should like to read two letters which were addressed by him to the public newspapers some years ago, which had a distinct bearing upon the subject of his Question. The motives which led him to propose the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee were precisely the same as those which prompted his present Question:—He addressed the following letter to The Times of September 2, 1885:—
"Sir,—Yet ten months and Queen Victoria (D.V.) will enter her year of jubilee. For celebrating such an event, it would seem fitting that long preparations should be made, not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Empire.
When George III. entered the 50th year of his reign, in 1809, great rejoicings took place in London, debtors were freed from prison, processions, attended by the King in person, were made to St. Paul's, and when the celebration in England had been concluded, it was renewed with extraordinary splendour in India the following year. An eye-witness has just described to me the ceremony at Windsor, where George III. and Queen Charlotte appeared on the terrace amid the cheers of the people. How few living can recollect that day.
If, then, such an event was kept with due honour, with so much more honour should Her Majesty's jubilee be observed, as her reign has surpassed in magnificence the reigns of all her predecessors.
If we place noble monuments on sites that can only be approached by many steps, in point of time are scarce ten months too long to prepare by degrees for the keeping of so glorious a year?
That year—namely, 1886—will be the 300th anniversary of the condemnation to death of Queen Mary Stuart by the last of our English Sovereigns—Elizabeth. Since Elizabeth, no monarch of purely English blood has occupied the English throne; while, on the other hand, the line of Mary Stuart has never ceased to be Sovereign until it has become most precious to us in the person of that great woman and great ruler, our present Queen.
England, scotland, Wales, and Ireland, all four should vie with each other in this celebration. These, as four horses of widely varying tendency and mettle, are attached to the car of the British State. Of all metaphors, the reins of government in the hands of a ruler is the

671
most frequent. Way we extend it and say that in our Sovereign's hand those reins have been held with a skill as marvellous as the difference is great between four peoples of divergent race and ambition.
It would be hard to number the motives which must suggest themselves both to the national and to the Imperial mind for the keeping of the jubilee with honour worthy—they surely must be without number, yet the chief of all must be the sense of gratitude for a co-existence of religious and political liberty unknown outside our Empire.
That such a state of liberty has been brought about by the genius of the British peoples is a commonplace of history. It deserves to be also a commonplace, that it has been advanced by the genius of that exalted person, who for all but seven times seven years has guided our destinies."
All these suggestions were more than carried out, and it had occurred to him that this more extraordinary event even than the Jubilee should he celebrated. Of course, it was not until next year that the sixtieth year of Her Majesty's reign would be completed; nevertheless, on the 23rd September the Queen would have reigned longer, in point of days, than any other sovereign of these realms. He, therefore, on September 21st, 1895. addressed the following letter to The Tablet—

THE QUEEN'S SEXAGESIMAL.
"SIR,—Encouraged by the recollection of the outburst of loyalty which attended the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee, I venture to call attention to the advent of another and still more glorious occasion of Imperial rejoicing in the near future.
"D.V., on September 23 next year our beloved Queen will have reigned longer than any other Sovereign over the English people.
"May I, therefore, in a Catholic paper, as a Catholic conscious of the unspeakable blessings which, have surrounded our religious liberties during their growth beneath the rule of the House of Hanover, be permitted to call public attention to the hope that the Queen's Sexagesimal (if I may so term it) may be celebrated duly and gratefully throughout the length and breadth of the land?
"On September 2nd, 1886, The Times published a letter of mine advocating the observance of Her Majesty's Jubilee year—1886. It is true that the suggestion was followed out not in the fiftieth (i.e., Jubilee year, 1886) but in the fifty-first year, 1887; nevertheless with a splendour and fitting magnificence that had had on parallel in modern chronicles.
"In the Catholic press and from Catholic circles let the present suggestion first come forth. A year's preparation and a year's consideration is scarcely ton long a period for the development of such a project—which is
672
nothing less than the keeping of the sixtieth year of the most glorious reign written on the page of history."
The year on which he ventured to make these remarks was nearly brought to a close. It appeared to him it would be fitting, whatever celebration or rejoicing might be reserved for next year, that the particular day on which Her Majesty had reigned longer than any other sovereign of England, should be kept as a Bank Holiday.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him throughout the whole of the considerations with which he dealt in his observations. I need not say that I imagine the whole House sympathises very deeply with the feelings which induced him to make this suggestion and with the thoughts by which those feelings were excited. But it is a subject obviously of an exceedingly delicate character, and I think the noble Lord will pardon me if I confine myself to the strictly business aspect of his suggestion. A holiday is practically impossible, or exceedingly difficult, unless it is a Bank Holiday. A Bank Holiday cannot be executed except by an Act of Parliament, and the noble Lord may have noticed that in this year and at the present time of the year the passage of an Act of Parliament is not exceedingly easy. I do not mean to say that this business ground is the only ground which weighs in my mind against the proposal of the noble Lord, but I think it is adequate. I think if it should please Parliament to give effect to its loyal sentiments in this particular manner, that the birthday of Her Majesty next year will be a more fitting occasion than the date to which the noble Lord has referred. But in any case the practical objections are very strong and I fear it would be impossible, while sympathising with the feelings of the noble Lord, to adopt his suggestion.

LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
COLLECTING SOCIETIES BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LABOUBERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
House Adjourned at a Quarter before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, Eleven o'clock.