Sitting of 8 July 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  On the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to this Bill,
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid that he desired to express his regret that the other House of Parliament should have struck out of the Bill the Clause relating to the -Women's Franchise: but, as he was aware of the necessity that existed for a proper water supply for Dublin, he would not take any further step in the matter.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the figures of experiments on living animals contained in Return No. 239 of this Session arc obtained from
  1342
  the licensees who perform them, and in that case whether any steps are taken to verify their accuracy; (2) whether each of the "licensed places" was inspected during the year to which the Return relates, and how many of them more than. once; whether any of the visits of inspection were surprise visits, and, if so, how many; and (3) whether he has personally satisfied himself that the licences and certificates are all issued only to such places and persons, and with such objects, as are contemplated by the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): Yes, the returns are obtained from the licensees, and the check, of course, upon them is supplied by the visits of the inspectors, which with a few exceptions, are paid without, notice. Four registered places at which no licences were in force, and the laboratory attached to the Board of Agriculture, winch was only registered on the 1st of December, were unvisited during the year. Five places were visited once ally, eight twice, 25 three times, two four times, three five times, and one six times. No licensee was found during any of these visits to he exceeding his powers. The answer to the last paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that professional professors in Queen's College s in Ireland are placed by The Colleges Act, 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. c. 66), and the College Statutes, as regards appointment, tenure of office, and duties, in the same position as the Arts professors, and that they fulfil the only two conditions laid down by the Superannuation Act of 1859 (22 Vict. c. 26) as qualifying for pensions, namely, appointment by the Crown, and payment from the Consolidated Fund: and whether, considering that the professional as well as the Arts professors in the Scotch Universities receive pensions on retirement, he would explain on what grounds the Treasury, while admitting the right of the Arts professors, refuse to grant pensions to the professional professors in the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Queen's Colleges Act of 1845 does not bear upon the question of the pensionable rights of the professors. These rights (if any) are determined by the Superannuation Act 1859. Section 2 of the latter Act vests the ultimate decision of pension claims in the Treasury, "whose decision shall be final," and in the exercise of this power it has been the invariable practice of the Treasury to decline to admit as pensionable any officer who is not required to give his whole time to the duties of his office. The Queen's College professional professors, who are not so required, are therefore excluded. The grant of pensions to the Scotch University professors was transferred from the control of the Government to that of the Universities by the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889. Before that date they were pensioned, not under the Superannuation Act of 1859, but under the Universities (Scotland) Act 1858, which gave the Treasury no power to require whole time. Their case therefore is not, and never has been, analogous to that of the Queen's College professors.
  MR. LEES KNOWLESasked who was the authority to determine whether the outside occupation of these professors was inconsistent with the performance of their college duties?
  MR. HANBURYsaid the question did not arise whether it was the college as represented by the President of the Council that was the authority to determine whether the outside occupations of these professors were inconsistent with the performance of their college duties. It was a question whether they gave their whole time, and it was admitted that they did not, since they undertook private practice. It was because of that that the Treasury refused them a pension.

  ALDERSHOT REVIEW.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many Staff and Acting Staff Officers were on duty, detached from their own corps, at the Review at Aldershot on 1st July: and, whether he can state, from official reports, or other sources the number of
  1344
  Staff and Acting Staff Officers usually employed with a force of similar strength in the German Army?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Seventeen Officers detached from their corps were employed on the staff at the Aldershot review of the 1st inst. According to the regulations of the German Army, it is estimated by the military authorities that a force of similar constitution and strength would have a staff numbering altogether 92 officers.

  TREATY WITH ABYSSINIA.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an arrangement between the Emperor Menelik and Her Majesty's Government was signed and sealed on the 14th May?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The answer is in the affirmative.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the King to send missions to this country.
  *MR. CURZON: I have not heard of any such intention.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why the second mail for Rathangan, county Kildare, is not sent out from Kildare at the same time as the mails for Fontstown, Dunmurry, and Lackagh, viz., at 8.10 a.m. instead of at 9 a.m.?
  MR. HANBURY: The reason is that the improved service to Rathangan cannot be arranged without additional expense, which is not warranted, as the existing service is conducted at a loss to the Revenue; while in the other three cases it was found practicable to improve the service without incurring expense.

  TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the prisoners Conneeley,

  1345
  Fitzharris, Mullett, and O'Hanlon, now confined in Maryborough Convict Prison, have completed (including the period during which they were detained awaiting trial) over 14 years' imprisonment; (2) whether they are now, and have been since convicted, classed as well-conducted prisoners by the officials in charge of them, and whether the remissions so far earned by their uniform good conduct represent each of i hem as having virtually undergone a legal sentence of over 17 years; and (3) whether, seeing that three other prisoners, named Dowling, Fox, and Diskin, tried and sentenced at the same time, and subjected to similar prison treatment, were released on the ground of impaired health, and died shortly after liberation, lie will order a special report by the medical officers of Mary-borough Prison on the health of the prisoners Connolley, Fitzharris, Mullett, and O'Hanlon?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The fact is, as stated in the first paragraph. All four convicts are now, and have been for some years, classed as well-conducted prisoners. The suggestion in the second part of the second paragraph is correct, if it means that each (if the convicts has earned by good conduct and industry more than the number of marks which would qualify him for release on licence, had Ins sentence been one of 17 years; but the hon. Member is doubtless aware that the sentence on Conneeley was one of 20 years, and that Fitzharris, Mullett, and O'Hanlon were sentenced to penal servitude for life. The health of all four convicts is under constant medical supervision, and so recently as the 6th instant, the Resident Medical Officer of the prison reported that Conneeley would be in his usual health in a day or two; that Fitzharris enjoys fair health; that Mullett is convalescent after an attack of influenza; and that O'Hanlon, who suffers from dyspepsia, enjoys otherwise fair health.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether Army and Navy pensioners are promoted curators at the National
  1346
  Portrait Gallery without examination, but have to pay a fee of 5s. and be examined in the Tate Gallery; and could he explain why such different treatment should exist?
  MR. HANBURY: In the National Gallery, including the Tate Gallery, the posts to which pensioners have been appointed are permanent and pensionable. They have therefore to pass a very simple examination and to pay the small fee mentioned. In the National Portrait Gallery their posts are temporary and non-pensionable and so do not require any examination.

  POSTAL REFORMS.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the proposed alteration in postal rates, which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as probably coming into force on the Jubilee Celebration Day, is yet arranged for; and, if so, when any official intimation of the alteration will be made to the public?
  MR. HANBURY: The alterations in the rates of the Inland Letter and Parcel Posts, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced would conic into force on Jubilee Day, were duly made on that date and were officially announced by public notice.
  GENERAL LAURIEasked when and how this notice was given. He had inquired at a great many post offices and could not find it. If it were posted up at all it must have been in the private offices of the different postmasters?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that the notices were sent out to all postmasters some time before the Jubilee Celebration Day, and in addition public notices were sent out to be posted up in all post offices. He was assured that this had been dime in London.

  GLEBE TENANTS (IRELAND).
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that certain tenant farmers in Ireland, commonly known as glebe tenants, purchased in 1874 their holdings at 22½ and 25 years' purchase

  1347
  of the then rental, and that the rent of 1874 is an impossible one now owing to the great fall in price of farm produce; (2) is he also aware that a number of these tenants have been paying for 23 years interest at a high rate on three-fourths of the purchase money advanced by Government to purchase their holdings; and, (3)as these tenants can no longer pay high interest on the money due to the State, will he consider their case with a view to giving them a share in the benefits of recent land legislation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The average rate at which glebe tenant purchasers purchased their holdings under the Irish Church Act of 1869 may be taken at 22½years' purchase of the rental. The fact is not as stated in the second paragraph. The cases of these tenant purchasers were dealt with by the Land Acts of 1885 and 1887 with the result, generally, that their instalments have since been at a similar rate to those of purchasers under the Ash-bourne Act—the instalments including interest being at the rate of 3⅛per cent. Moreover, Section 26 of the Land Act of last year extended further advantages to Church purchasers as well as to other tenant purchasers. The question in the third paragraph seems, therefore, to have been put in ignorance of the facts.

  LABOURERS' ACTS (IRELAND).
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in recent years farmers in the north of Ireland experience no little difficulty in procuring labourers to assist in the work of the fields; (2) that the scarcity of farm labourers becomes more marked year by year, though wages are as high or higher than formerly; and that, owing to the want of cottages built under the Labourers' Acts, no encouragement exists for young men and women to remain, and they are forced to seek a home in other lands; and, (3) as the province of Ulster contains barely three per cent, of the cottages built under the Labourers' Acts in Ireland, will steps be taken to place agricultural labourers in Ulster on a level, as regards housing accommodation, with agricultural labourers in other parts of the country?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe it is a fact that the supply of labourers in Ulster has been decreasing in recent years, though I have no reason to believe that this represents a state of things peculiar to Ulster, and doubtless there are considerations other than those suggested in the Question which have influenced the emigration of labourers. As regards the second paragraph, in every case in which a complaint has been made to the Local Government Board, of the refusal of the local authority to act upon representations made with the view of putting the Acts into force, the Board have exercised the statutory powers vested in them; but they have no authority to take action in the matter unless these conditions are complied with.

  CLOGHER VALLEY TRAMWAY.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether. he is aware that the employès of the Clogher Valley Tramway Company were from the 3rd to 8th of May engaged unloading coal at Tynan and Aughnacloy; and, if so, how was the safety of the line looked after if the men were absent; is he also aware that about half the permanent-way men have been engaged at work other than that connected with the line; and, can he state whether the Clogher Valley Tramway between Fivemiletown and Brookborough is properly supplied with ballast?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have communicated with the secretary of the Railway Company, and have received the following reply:—
  "Men from permanent-way staff who could be spared for time being were drafted from different gangs to unload locomotive coals for the Company's own use. Staff have not been employed on any but Company's business. Line is properly ballasted between Fivemiletown and Brookborough, and was inspected by Fermanagh County Surveyor one week ago."

  FOREIGN OFFICE EXAMINATIONS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Political Economy has for the last few years been eliminated from the examination of candidates for the Foreign Office; and, if so, whether

  1349
  there is any objection to its being reinstated among the subjects for examination?
  *MR. CITRZON: There are already so many obligatory subjects in the Foreign Office examination——exclusive of those which are optional—that Political Economy was dropped in 1892, when the existing regulations were drawn up. It is not proposed to reinstate it.

  WINCHESTER BARRACKS.
  MR. W. H. MYERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the plans for the rebuilding of Winchester Barracks are ready, and how soon the work will be begun; and if he is aware that part of the ruins of the old barrack buildings are in a dangerous state and on the verge of falling?
  MR. BRODRICK: The site-plan for the new barracks at Winchester has been approved, and the detail plans are in progress. Work will be commenced at as early a date as possible, but the precise time cannot yet be stated. Any portion of the ruins found to be in a dangerous state will be at once removed.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether lie will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between his Department and the Foreign Office relative to the erection of a light at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden; and from what source he proposes to obtain the funds for the erection of such light, since the surplus of the sum surrendered by Egypt from the light dues, over that required for the lights required in the Red Sea, has been granted to the Quarantine Board?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I do not propose to lay the correspondence referred to on the Table. Nor am I at present in a position to say from what fund the cost 4,f placing any light at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden will be defrayed.

  MUZZLING ORDERS.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he
  1350
  is prepared to bring in a Bill giving effect to that part of the Departmental Committee's Report which advises the annual issue of a metal disc, to be worn by the dog when licensed, with a view to reducing the number of stray dogs, and thus avoiding, as in many foreign countries, the necessity for muzzling orders; and whether it may be possible for such legislation to be pressed forward with a view to taking effect as soon as the present muzzling orders can be relaxed?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRIC ULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): A Bill for the purpose of giving effect to those recommendations of the Departmental Committee which cannot be carried out without further legislation is now in course of preparation, and will, I hope, be introduced very shortly. Whether it will be possible for it to be passed into law this Session must depend upon circumstances over which I have no control, but I do not anticipate that any great difference of opinion will arise with regard to its proposals.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  MR. E. BATNBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his statement (made to the deputation from the Mining Association of Great Britain to the Marquess of Salisbury on Friday last) that the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, as drawn, relieves the employer to the extent of 30 per cent. of the cost of compensation, indicates that it is the intention of the Government that this proportion should represent the contribution of the workmen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): This Question refers to what I said in a speech, and I have already intimated to the hon. Member that I thought it was hardly a matter which was worth the attention of the House of Commons. As, however, the Question has been put to me publicly, I have to say that the hon. Member appears to have entirely misunderstood the sense of my observations. What I did say was, that in the Compensation

  1351
  Bill we had excluded the first two weeks as not to be paid for in any case, and I went on to say that the result of that was to exclude altogether 25 per cent., or one-quarter of the whole, of the accidents that took place. I further pointed out that besides these exceptions, amounting to 25 per cent. on the whole number of accidents, we took two weeks off the compensation that was given in the case of all other accidents; and as in the average of the majority of these accidents, which were known as accidents which caused temporary incapacity, the incapacity only lasted six weeks, the effect was to reduce the amount of compensation in such cases by about 30 per cent., and to that statement I adhere.

  CRETE.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether any steps have yet been taken by the representatives of the Great Powers towards securing the promised withdrawal of the Turkish forces from Crete?
  *MR. CURZON: The question of the reorganisation of Crete, including the question of the Turkish garrisons, is under the continued consideration of the Powers; but it has not been found possible to proceed with it at Constantinople pari, passu, with the negotiations for the conclusion of the peace between Turkey and Greece.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any recent information concerning the condition of affairs in Crete; whether Candian refugees representing the mercantile and other classes of that town have made representations to the effect that whilst in other towns in Crete occupied by European troops efficacious measures have been taken to repress disorder in the towns and put a stop to hostilities in the country, in Candia, which is occupied by British troops, the Bashi-Bazouks plunder the houses and shops of Christians and organize raiding expeditions into the neighbouring country; and whether effective steps to cope with this dangerous condition of things will be taken, either by increasing the strength of the garrison or otherwise?
  *MR. CURZON: A telegram from Cretan refugees at Athens was received by Lord Salisbury on Tuesday night. Several of the statements contained in it are not in accordance with the facts as they have been reported to us, but the telegram has been referred to Colonel Chermside for his observations. The Turkish garrison at Candia has already been increased from Canea, but no request has reached us from Colonel Chermside for an increase of the British occupying force.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any attempt was made by the Turkish troops in Candia to prevent the raid on the 26th June, when upwards of a thousand Bashi-Bazouks left that town to attack Mani Kasteli; and whether Turkish troops have been sent to re-inforce the garrison of Candia with the approval of the European admirals?
  *Mr. CURZON: No information bearing on the first part of this question has been received since the telegrams from Colonel Chermside of the 26th and 28th of June, which I have previously communicated to the House. In the latter of those telegrams it is stated that cavalry orderlies were sent to the outposts, but that nevertheless a considerable raid occurred. The two companies of Turkish troops who have gone to reinforce the garrison at Candia have no doubt been sent with the approval of the admirals.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what object has the system of rout marching of European troops in the interior of Crete been ordered; and whether it will be carried out in spite of the Cretan insurgents?
  *MR. CURZON: It is believed that the march of European detachments through the interior of Crete was designed as a pacific measure to reassure the inhabitants and to acquaint them with the intentions of the Powers as regards the future of the- island. Six of the native chiefs, however, requested that the march might be for the present postponed, as they were not quite sure of their control over their own people until the election of chiefs had been finally settled.
  MR. DILLON: Has it, then, been agreed to postpone the march?
  *MR. CURZON: Yes; the march has not taken place.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when the Cretan Papers, dealing with the events of last February, will be distributed?
  *MR. CURZON: I hope the Papers in question will be distributed to-morrow.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is a fact that in the town of Candia, the plundering of the houses of Christians continues daily under the eyes of the European troops?
  *MR. CURZON: No report as to plundering in Candia has reached us from Colonel Chermside since his telegram of 16th June, the substance of which I communicated to the House on the 2nd instant. We do not believe that the statement in the Question can be well founded, but a telegram from Athens containing allegations to the same effect has, as I have already stated in reply to a previous Question, been sent to Colonel Chermside, for his observations.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much discontent has been caused among teachers by the alteration of Rule 154 of the National Education Board, as to promotion from one division to another of the second class without notice; and whether he will recommend that for the future notice shall be given before an examination is required for a promotion, hitherto dependent on the efficiency of the school, and that the new rule shall not come into force without a reasonably delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The subject-matter of this question will come before the Commissioners at their meeting to be held on the 20th instant, and I am not prepared to make any statement in reference to it until I have been furnished with the observations of the Commissioners.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  1354
  Ireland (1) in view of the evidence given before the Committee on Manual Instruction, and also of the strong representations made by the Commissioners of National Education showing the disastrous effects of maintaining the present high standard of average attendance at school in order to qualify for an assistant teacher, whether he will make a representation to the Treasury with a view to secure sufficient funds to enable the Commissioners to meet the expenditure which would result from a reduction of the average necessary from 70 to 60; and (2) whether he can state the average attendance necessary to qualify for a second teacher in English schools?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can only repeat what I have already stated in answer to former Questions put to me by the hon. Member, that I shall be prepared again to bring this matter before the Treasury in connection with the Estimates for the year 1898–99, should the Commissioners so desire. I have no information as to the second paragraph.

  SCHOOL FEE GRANT (IRELAND.)
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated average attendance on which 10s. a head was hypothetically allowed in calculating the arrears of school fee grant due to Ireland in respect of the financial years ending 31st March 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR (for the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER): With the permission of the House I will reply to this Question. The school grant, under the terms of the Education Act, 1892, only commenced after the financial year ended March 31, 1892. Accordingly, the financial year 1892–93 was the first for which the sum of 10s. a head was allowed on the basis of the annual average daily attendance of pupils over three and under 15 years of age. The year 1891–92 was that in which a grant in aid, amounting to £90,000, was voted by Parliament for the Teachers' Pension Fund. The average attendance on which the 10s. a head was calculated in respect of the years 1892 to 1896 was as follows:—For the year 1892, 470,794; 1893, 503, 002; 1894, 502, 200; 1895, 495, 897; 1896, 510, 000.

  DONEGAL RAILWAY.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain for what reason the Board of Works in Ireland insisted that the extensions of the Donegal Railway authorisad by Parliament in 1896 should be constructed as a separate undertaking; whether there is any precedent for such a requirement by the Board of Works, and under what Act the Board obtained power to so require; and whether there is any precedent for extensions in two directions, divided by thirty-two miles of the existing line, being constructed and worked as a single separate undertaking.
  MR. HANBURY: The Donegal Company of themselves by their Bill provided that the extensions referred to should be a separate undertaking in the recital of the original Bill the words used are:—
  "it is expedient that the Company should he authorised to raise additional capital for the purposes of this Act, and should be authorised to construct the said railways as a separate undertaking with separate capital."
  I do not know whether there is any exact precedent covering extensions in two directions. Extensions in one direction can be easily found; for instance, the City of Dublin Junction Railway is a separate undertaking from the Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway.

  ROYAL BRITISH NURSES' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. W. T. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether his attention has been called to the serious complaints recently made in the Press by the Incorporated Medical Practitioners' Association, and by the matrons of many important hospitals, as to the mismanagement of the. Royal British Nurses' Association (an Association holding a Royal Charter) by the officials of that body, and to the allegations of irregular and improper administration of the affairs of the Association; and whether, with a view to instituting a public inquiry into the matter, he will consider documentary evidence in support of such complaints and allegations if laid before him?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State has had a representation made to him with regard to this matter; but it does not appear to be one in which he has any jurisdiction, and, as at present advised, he cannot undertake to consider the complaints with a view to instituting an inquiry.

  WATERFORD DUNGARVAN AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. S. MORRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Waterford Dungarvan and Lismore Railway has been sold to the Rosslare Railway Company, or the Board of Works mortgage transferred to them; and (2) whether any Bill will be introduced relating to the matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is No. In answer to the second paragraph, I cannot obviously give such a large pledge as the Question implies. No Bill will be introduced during this Session at any rate.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, he wished to ask whether the negotiations indicated by the Question were in progress; had the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the resolution passed by the Corporation of Waterford, the Harbour Board, and by all the Public Boards of the City, strongly condemning any sale to the Rosslare Company; and whether he was also aware that public opinion was strongly against the sale?
  MR. HANBURY: Of course I have received these resolutions, and I am aware that some injury will be done to the city of Waterford by the sale of this line, but, of course, we have to consider the interests of the whole district.
  MR. P. J. POWER: If this line be sold, will it be necessary to introduce a Bill upon the subject?
  MR. HANBURY: That I cannot say, but this company are not the only persons who are concerned.
  MR. T. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentlman give the House an opportunity of pronouncing upon this sale before it is completed?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; I do not think so. The only opportunity will arise upon the Board of Works Vote, which must be taken to-morrow. I have already

  1357
  explained that, in considering this question, the interests of the locality concerned have been taken into consideration, and I will do my very utmost, by consulting the representatives and others, to see that the Interests of the locality are thoroughly protected.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the expenditure will commence (if the sum allocated last Session for the construction of light railways in Ireland; and, whether he is aware that in the congested districts employment is required; and that many inquiries have been made as to when and where the proposed railways will be commenced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Expenditure under the Act of last year has already commenced in connection with some of the smaller schemes. It is expected that tenders will be invited for the construction of the Buncrana-Cardonagh Railway in the course of a few days. I shall be prepared to give further information to-morrow in the discussion (in the Estimates.

  ARMY FORAGE SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the -War Office whether he can state what decision has been arrived at by the inquiry respecting the supply of foreign meat, oats, and hay to the troops in Ireland; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of said Report, or furnish them to Members of the House?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): A statement upon this subject will be made when the War Office Estimate is under discussion.
  MR. FIELDasked at about what date the reply might be expected. They had already waited a long time for it.
  MR POWELL WILLIAMSsaid that he understood that the War office Estimate was not likely to be taken, at any rate, within a fortnight; but the Question was one for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to decide.

  KHAMA'S TERRITORY.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Ins attention has been called to any complaint made by the Chief Khama respecting the establishment of huts for the sale of liquor in connection with the railway through his territory, and in contravention of the agreement made between him and the Chartered Company
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The only complaint of this sort of which I am aware is one made by Khama in February last of the sale of liquor at Magalapse siding by persons who held no liquor licence whatever. The Assistant Commissioner reported that a detachment of police had already been sent to the place, and that there should be no room for further complaint, though he feared that such illicit practices had been going on previously.

  DISPENSERS (POOR LAW UNIONS).
  MR. A. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state why the standard of qualification for appointment as dispenser to a Poor Law Union has been reduced, so that persons other than those possessing a statutory qualification in pharmacy are now eligible for such appointments; and whether, having regard to the special technical training required in such dispensers, the Local Government. Board will take steps to obtain for the sick poor in the various unions under their jurisdiction the security afforded by dispensers possessing a statutory qualification to dispense medicines?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The Local Government Board in June, 1895, issued an order by which compounders of medicines duly qualified in accordance with the regulations for the Army—Medical Staff Corps were recognised as qualified for appointment as dispensers by Boards of Guardians. The Board had previously issued similar orders as regards particular cases. The order referred to was not issued without careful consideration. The compounding in the Army, I am advised, is most satisfactory,

  1359
  and I see no sufficient reason for altering the order with regard to this qualification.

  BELMULLET UNION.
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the cost of outdoor relief in the Belmullet Union during the months of May and June averaged £23 10s. per week, while the average for the corresponding months of last year was only £2 5s.; that the cost of outdoor relief for the week ending the 19th June was £37 10s., while the cost in the corresponding week of 1896 was only £3 2s. 6d.; and (2) whether, seeing that that this large increase is due to the existence of famine and fever in the Union, it is the intention of the Government to provide any special relief to ease the burden of the local rates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statistics of the outdoor relief expenditure given in the first paragraph of the Question are practically correct. With regard to the second paragraph, as the relief expenditure will be, to a great extent, a charge on the Union at large, the poorer Electoral Divisions, where distress prevails, will only have to pay a small portion of the cost; but whether the total expenditure will involve a rate over the entire Union next year of uncollectable dimensions is a matter which can best be decided when the Estimate for the new rate is submitted at the conclusion of the financial year ending 29th September next.
  MR. CRILLYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the conclusion of the Local Board of Guardians was that at the end of the financial year in September the rate would be 12s 8d. in the £1?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That may possibly be the conclusion of the Board of Guardians, but when the time comes the Government will, of course, consider the matter.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can issue instructions to the Local Government Board officials that, in view of the outbreak of typhus fever on the Island of Iniskea, in the Belmullet Union, a temporary structure
  1360
  to serve the purposes of a hospital should be erected on the island, so that the fever-stricken persons might be isolated from the other portion of the population, and might, without danger to those who have escaped the epidemic, be nursed back to convalescence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Guardians have already applied to the Commissioners of National Education for the use of the school-house on the island for the purpose indicated in the Question, and this application, which was supported by the Local Government Board, has, I understand, been complied with. The Board have further advised the Guardians of their powers, under Section 155 of the Public Health Act, to provide temporary places for the treatment and reception of the sick or convalescent, and the Congested Districts Board have placed at the disposal of the Guardians a large shed on the island for this purpose.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is his latest information as to the condition of Miss Kenny and Miss M'Alister, the two trained nurses belonging to the City of Dublin Hospital, who are now suffering from fever in the Belmullet Hospital, as a consequence of attending the fever stricken patients on the Island of Iniskea?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yesterday I was informed that one of the nurses was doing well, but that the condition of the other was not satisfactory.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what number of special nurses have been, and are, engaged in attending the fever patients on Iniskea Island; and (2) what has been the cost per week to the Belmullet Union of dealing with the epidemic?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The staff of paid nurses at present on the island consists of two trained and two untrained nurses. The nursing is under the direction of a temporary medical officer specially engaged for attending to the island during the continuance of the fever. The guardians have power to appoint as many additional nurses as the medical staff recommends, and the inspectors of the Local Government Board are advising them in the matter

  1361
  It is impossible to give the information indicated in the second paragraph without making local inquiry which may occupy some days.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the epidemic of typhus fever which has now for some time been raging on the island of Iniskea, in the Belmullet Union, has extended to the mainland; and, if so, can he give the number of cases reported by the authorities as having broken out on the mainland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Two cases of fever were reported to the Local Government Board last week as having occurred on the mainland and both were removed to hospital. The Board have not since heard of the occurrence of other cases.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the recent appointment of eight additional Assistant Land Commissioners, whether lie will consent to a Return giving the names, residences, former occupations, previous experience of land cultivation, and so forth, in continuation of the Return furnished on the Motion of the Member for South Down?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No objection will be offered to the further Return indicated in the Question if the hon. Member will move for it in the usual way.

  NEW HEBRIDES.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the future of the New Hebrides has formed or will form a subject of consultation with the Australasian Premiers during their stay in London; and, whether he is aware that the Australian Colonies are strongly and unanimously of opinion that this important and valuable group of islands, so close to their shores, should be saved from the threatened danger of a permanent foreign occupation?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been resolved that the interchange of views with the Australasian Premiers with
  1362
  regard to the future of the New Hebrides should be confidential, and I am not able to make any statement at present as to the subjects discussed. The position of the New Hebrides has had the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government for sonic time past.

  ELECTION OF MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH (YORKSHIRE).
  MR. HELDER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the recent elections of Medical Officers of Health, especially for the urban district of Keswick and the borough of Brighouse (Yorks); and whether lie is aware that for both of these posts, although there were candidates possessing special diplomas in sanitary science and special training in public health work, the candidates appointed in both districts were non-possessors of any special diploma in public health, and had not received any special training in this particular department.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have received reports of the recent appointments of Medical Officer of Health by the Urban District Council of Keswick, and the Town Council of the borough of Brighouse. I have no information as to the qualifications of the other candidates for these appointments, but in both cases the candidates appointed possessed the qualifications prescribed by statute. The Act only requires that a Medical Officer of Health should be the holder of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine, when the district for which he is appointed has, according to the last published census, a population of 50,000 or more. The population of Keswick in 1891 was 3,905 and of Brighouse, 20,666.

  MOROCCO PORTS (CONSULAR CHARGES).
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Britannic Majesty's Consuls at the port of Morocco are demanding from British ships visiting these ports a fee of 10s. for attesting the

  1363
  signature of the agents on the manifests of the British vessels: under what authority such demand is made: whether he is aware that the Consuls of other nations make no such charge for the same duty as regards vessels under their respective flags; and, if he will give instructions that the same course be adopted by our Consuls?
  *MR. CURZON: The fee of 10s. on the manifests of British vessels is only charged on exports from the ports of Morocco, and is levied under the Consular Fees Order in Council of 1892. The consent of the Treasury was obtained to the waiver of a similar fee on the manifests of imports in March of last year, but the same commission was not extended to exports. I will, however, consult Sir Arthur Nicolson as to the working of the present system.

  AGRICULTURAL RATING ACT, 1896.
  MR. COMPTON RICKETT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with respect to the Agricultural Act, 1896, in the case of a Union, such as Scarborough, comprising several parishes, some of which have agricultural land and some have not, should the annual amount received by the spending authority (the Board of Guardians), under the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, be credited to the common fund of the Union, or should it be credited to the parishes in the Union separately, in proportion to the agricultural land in those parishes respectively that have agricultural land; and do the words "their share," in Section 3 of the above Act, refer to the share in the annual grant paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority, the guardians, or to the share of the several parishes in a Union in that sum after it has been received by the spending authority?
  MR. CHAPLIN: In reply to the Question, it may be said that in one sense the annual grant referred to is credited to both. What happens under Section 3 of the Agricultural Rates Act is this: the amount of the grant is paid to the spending authority—i.e. the Guardians of the Union. This amount is then to be deducted from the total amount that the spending authority
  1364
  would require to raise by rates, if this grant were not payable. The sum which remains after the deduction is to be raised by contributions from the different parishes, taking into account the amount of agricultural land in each of them, This is accomplished by raising the sum not on the rateable, but on the assessable, value of the parishes, the assessable value meaning the rateable value reduced by an amount equal to one-half of the rateable value of the agricultural land in each parish. The benefit to a parish with agricultural land will be derived not from the distribution of the grant directly to each parish—in proportion to its agricultural land (the grant being paid into the common fund)—but from the fact that they will br called upon for a lesser contribution to the rates in proportion to the amount of their agricultural land. The words "their share" refer to the spending authority.

  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government have offered to accept the line of the River Peneius as the new fronties, which would restore to Turkey about one-fifth of the territory ceded by Turkey to Greece in 1886?
  *MR. CURZON: I think the House will agree that, while negotiations are proceeding at Constantinople, it would be undesirable to make any public statement about specific details, which might only tend to create a false impression.

  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD (CHILDREN'S COMMITTEE).
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in compliance with the request contained in a memorial addressed to him by Lord Peel on behalf of the State Children's Aid Association, he will take steps to secure that the Children's Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board shall be strengthened by the nomination thereon of men and women experienced in dealing with children and interested in educational matters?
  MR. CHAPLIN: There are at present no vacancies in the number of nominated Managers, but when it again becomes necessary for the Local Government Board to nominate members, in March of next year, or if before that time the number of elected Managers should be increased, I shall certainly, in making such nominations, have regard to the new duties with regard to children which now devolve on the Managers.

  POST OFFICE DUTY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the arrangement of giving to postmen and officials nine clear hours off duty is frequently disregarded; and whether this complaint will be remedied?
  MR. HANBURY: There are some cases in which it has not yet been found practicable to afford a clear interval of nine hours off duty to postmen and sorters. But these cases are being considered with a view to arrangements being made to carry into effect, so far as the circumstances will admit, the recommendations of the Committee on Post Office Establishments.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE MEDAL.
  MR. F. J. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can see his way to recommend to Her Majesty that the medal in commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee, which it is proposed to confer upon chairmen of county councils, mayors, and provosts, should be also conferred upon chairmen of hoards of guardians of the poor, and the chairmen1 of urban and rural district councils?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is no proposal to confer this, medal on the chairmen of county councils, boards of guardians, or rural district councils. The medal will be conferred upon the Lord Mayors, the Lord Provosts, and the mayors and provosts.

  ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared
  1366
  to take any step to facilitate a settlement of the dispute in the Engineering Trade, so as to avert the great misfortune of a widespread cessation of work in a great industry?
  MR. RITCHIE: If the intervention of the Board of Trade is asked for I shall be happy to consider the application; but I do not think any action of the Department in this direction would at present be serviceable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will appoint a day next week for taking the Foreign Office Vote. [Opposition cheers.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand from communications which the right hon. Gentleman has sent to me that there is a desire in many parts of the House that an opportunity should be given in Supply to discuss the Foreign Office Vote. Of course it is the desire of the Government, as far as they can, to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. By an arrangement Friday werk is allocated to the Post Office Vote, which is of peculiar importance this year, in consequence of the Report of the Commission on Post Office matters. It would be inconvenient to alter that arrangement, but I would suggest that we might take some day early in the week after next for the Foreign Office Vote if that would suit the views of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall probably put down the Colonial Office Vote for the same date. It might be Monday week, but I cannot pledge myself absolutely until I see what progress is made with the Workmen's Compensation Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR W. HARCOURTsignified his assent to the arrangement suggested.
MR. ROBERTSONasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether as on former occasions he would place in the tea room the plans in connection with new proposals of the Naval Works Bill.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he should be very happy to do so.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,), in asking leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate military manœuvres, said the Bill had been brought forward at this period of the Session in consequence of the very strong encouragement which the Government received from various quarters of the House. There had been, as was well known, complete unanimity among military authorities inside and outside the House with regard to this question, and there had been indications from almost every quarter that there was a desire that Parliament should give our troops the same opportunities for manœuvres as were given to Foreign armies. Last year a Bill was introduced which was based almost word for word on Measures which had passed the House on previous occasions and which had worked without friction. They had believed that such a course would have given satisfaction, but they found that that view was erroneous and that when the Measure was to be made permanent there was a desire that its provisions should contain, not the maximum that might be necessary, but the minimum that would be necessary in order to carry out the manœuvres. The short Measure they were now introducing would give to the military authorities that minimum, and he hoped it would meet nearly all the criticisms which were passed on the Measure of last Session. The scope of the Bill was that an Order in Council should be made authorising the holding of manœuvres, that local commissions would then be appointed by local bodies, to which the Secretary of State would be allowed to add local gentlemen, owners, or occupiers of land, who would, however, be in a minority on the commission. The Measure would extend to Scotland and to Ireland in deference to the wishes expressed last year. All lands would be placed on the same footing with the exception of appurtenances of dwelling-houses and enclosed woods. Common lands and private lands would be treated alike in that respect. In deference to the fear expressed lest the same land should be too often taken they had put a proviso into the Bill that the same limits should not be specified for the manœuvres more than once in five years.
1368
In a similar spirit they had dealt with compensation on the lines urged upon them last year, and compensation would be given by the Government for any damage to person or property, or for interference with rights caused by the manœuvres, or any operations incidental thereto. They believed those words would cover the whole of the claims made upon them last year. Then, also in deference to the strongly expressed desire on the other side of the House that manœuvres should not take place without the actual authority of the House being invoked, they now proposed that a Resolution should be passed in Parliament in each year authorising the holding of the manœuvres if they were to be held. Penalties had been reduced to the lowest possible amount. There would be a penalty of 40s. for wilful obstruction to the manœuvres or for entering without authority into a camp, and a penalty of £5 for wilful damage to telegraph wires, flags, or distinguishing marks, and those penalties would be enforced by the ordinary law and not by any extraordinary tribunal. It might possibly be urged that that House had already given them this year a large tract of country on which to manœuvre, but he had explained at the time that, although that tract was absolutely necessary in order to enable cavalry to be properly trained, no tract which the Government could supply would enable our Generals and transport officers to get the experience which was necessary. They asked the House to pass the Bill this Session, because unless that was done they would be placed in the same position as they were in last year, when the money provided for the manœuvres had to be returned to the Exchequer. The Bill was regarded by the military authorities as being absolutely necessary in order to prevent our troops from being at a disadvantage as compared with those of foreign countries. He begged to move that leave be given to bring in the Bill. (Cheers.)
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid there could be no doubt whatever as to the very great importance of the object which the Government had in view in introducing this Measure—he would even use so strong a word as supreme importance—in the interests of the efficiency of

1369
the Army. Perhaps the higher officers in an even greater degree than the other branches of the service recognised the extreme importance of some better means than we had now of exercising the troops. He trusted from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had been able to meet in many respects the objections that were brought against the previous Measure, and, if so, he thought he would have very little difficulty in passing the Bill through the House that Session. Speaking for inns-self, he should be glad to do all he could to assist in passing it into law, and trusted it would meet with the general approbation of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
Question put, "That leave be given to to bring in a Bill to facilitate Military Manœuvres."
The house divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 39.—(Division List, No. 280.)
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodriek, Mr. Powell-Williams, and the First Lord of the Treasury; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 306.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [6th July] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.
  Clause 1,—

  LIABILITY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO WORKMEN FOR INJURIES.
  (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act, such compensation shall be payable whether the injury occasioned arises from the act of the employer or of some person in his employ, or from the act of a stranger thereto. Provided that where such injury shall be occasioned by the act of a stranger under
  1370
  circumstances creating a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may at his option proceed. either at law against such person to recover damages or against his employer for compensated under this, and if he be compensated under ties Act the employer shall be entitled to enforce in the name of the workman all rights of action possessed by him against the person occasioning such injury as aforesaid.
  (2.) Provided that:—

  (a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed;

  (b) When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the amount of damages due from such employer may, at the request of the persons claiming compensation, be settled by arbitration in accordance with the second schedule to this Act, or may at the option of such persons be recovered from such employer by the same proceedings as were open to such persons before the commencement of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to pay compensation independently of this Act, except in cases of such personal negligence or wilful act

  (c) If it be proved that time accident is solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of a workman, any compensation claimed in respect of injury to that workman shall be disallowed.

  (3.) If any question arises as to whether the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of time employer, or of any person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, or whether the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in time course of the employment of the workman injured, or whether the accident was solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman in respect of whose injuries compensation is claimed, or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, or otherwise as to the liability for compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, and any question as to whether the employment is one to which tins Act applies, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the second schedule to this Act. Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening- thereof, and the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within twelve months from the time of death. Provided always that the want of such

  1371
  notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or that such absence was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause. Notices shall be served in the manner provided for by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, Section seven.
  (4.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after ascertaining the views of the employers and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment is on the whole not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, Eave as aforesaid, this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act. No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.
  If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable thereout the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act.
  (5.) The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall in every year make a report of his proceedings under this Act, and that report shall be laid before Parliament.
  (6.) If any workmen or their representatives shall submit to the said Registrar primâ facie evidence that the provisions of any scheme are no longer so favourable to the workman as the provisions of this Act, or that the provisions of such scheme are being violated, or that the same is not being fairly administered by the employers, or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking the certificate, then he shall examine into the complaint, and, if satisfied that good cause exists for such complaint, shall, unless the cause of complaint is removed, revoke the certificate.
  (7) Whenever a scheme has been certified as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the employer to answer all inquiries and to furnish all such accounts as may from time to time be required by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  And which Amendment was to leave out the following words from Sub-section (4),—
  "If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable thereout, the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act."—(Mr. Wolff.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words from the word If,' to the word 'payable,' in line 19, both inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JAMES JOICEYresumed the Debate. He said that if the clause remained he was satisfied that there would be no inducement whatever to any employer to formulate a scheme with his workmen to be substituted for the Act. He had discussed the point with some gentlemen who were not only legal experts, but had a large experience in milling matters, and they confirmed him in his view that if this clause remained as it was it was hopeless to expect that any employer would join with his workmen in producing a scheme that could be carried out for their mutual benefit. When a scheme was approved of by the Registrar of Friendly Societies it was substituted for the Act; and the employer was brought as completely under the operation of the scheme as if the scheme were embodied in the Act itself. What did that lead them to? Supposing a scheme was adopted, that the workmen contributed as much as the employer, and that the whole sum went into the revenues of the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund. Out of this fund was to come not only compensation for accidents, but superannuation and payments during illness. Supposing there was a sufficient surplus to pay compensation for accidents, but not to pay superannuation or sick allowances, would the employer be expected to contribute something more in order to give the compensation which was provided by the scheme adopted by the employer and workmen, and sanctioned by the Registrar of Friendly Societies? Supposing, again, that under the scheme, payment from the fund were made for two or three years to a workman who had sustained an accident, would those payments be taken into consideration if the fund became insolvent, or would the employer be expected to contribute the whole of the compensation for which he was liable under the Act, and would get no credit for the payments made previously? It was quite possible that a scheme might be adopted under which the employer was to pay a certain sum in the case of death by accident. In the event of any one being killed it might be decided that instead of handing over the whole amount to the widow and children, which was usually a very unwise course to pursue, because a lump sum was

  1373
  spent quickly with little or no benefit to the widow or children, a certain number of payments should be made. Supposing a serious accident took place, causing the death of 150 or 200 people, and involving the payment of £40,000 in compensation; and supposing that after the money had been paid to the common fund it became insolvent some few months later—the employer would be required to pay this enormous sum of compensation a second time. With this clause in the Bill there would be no contracting out at all.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid when the second reading and Committee stages of the Bill were taken the House was on pleasure bent, and not able to give proper attention to a novel and complicated Measure of this kind. In view of the great principles involved, it was necessary to make as clear as possible the intention and probable result of this Bill. The other night the Colonial Secretary mentioned, with that ingenuous air which he knew so well how to assume, that he had a kindly feeling for the joint schemes and hoped that they would continue and increase. But what inducement would there be for the employer to enter into them? There was nothing to prevent the Colonial Secretary, some two or three years hence, when he had completed that assimilation of the Tory Party which was now going on—[laughter and cheers]—from telling the House that the workmen ought not to pay anything towards their maintenance during sickness, and proposing to throw the whole burden on the employer. The employer, with his experience of what had become these mutual funds to-day, was not likely to start new ones. The Colonial Secretary had said that in his view the contribution of the employers to these funds was insufficient and ought to be increased. But in what degree? If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed at the last General Election to increase that contribution in the degree now proposed, the right hon. Gentleman would not now be sitting on the Treasury Bench. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The amount now subscribed annually to the South Wales Miners' Provident Fund was £65,000, of which the employers subscribed £12,500. The Colonial Secretary had declared that the burden placed on the coal trade by
  1374
  the Bill would not be 3d. a ton. Supposing it was only 1½d. per ton, that would represent a charge of £100,000 on the coalowners of South Wales instead of the present charge of £12,500. That Miners' Provident Fund had secured the industrial peace of South Wales for more than 20 years. The effect of the Bill would be to destroy that fund and bring about disputes between employers and employed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the policy of the Bill, and not the particular Amendment before the House.
  MR. MACLEANsaid that the burden thrown upon the employers would make it necessary for them to put some of it on the men. The Government were evidently determined to impose this burden; and their supporters were willing to vote for it, as it would apply only to some trades. But hon. Members should remember that their turn would come. The turn of the shipowners was actually fixed for next year. [Cheers.]
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTregarded the speech just delivered ! as one severe indictment against the whole principle of the Bill, and he repudiated its insinuations altogether. He should vote against the Amendment if only in consequence of that speech, which had for its object, not so much the insertion of any special amendment as the defeat of this important Bill, which large numbers of workpeople were waiting for outside the House of Commons.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWtaunted the hon. Member for Leicester that his speech contained not one remark relevant to the Amendment. For his own part he regarded the insertion of the four lines which the hon. Member for Belfast moved to have expunged as the death-blow of contract, ing-out. If they remained in the Bill no capable and intelligent employer of labour would ever dare to contract out. 1The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary put the case of a fund to which the employer paid £1,000 and the workmen £1,000, and showed that the workmen would be benefited if such a fund existed. But no employer of labour was likely to enter into any scheme of contracting-out which would

  1375
  render him liable for the same amount as he would be liable for under the Bill. What he imagined would happen under the portion of the section already dealt with, would be this:—There might be a fund of £1,500 raised, £750 of which would be paid by the employer, and £750 of which would be contributed by the workmen. That would be £500 more than the case the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. A workman undoubtedly would be better off under a fund of £1,500 than under a fund of only £1,000 contributed by the employer. Now they were told that, suppose such a fund as this was in existence and a difficulty occurred and the whole fund was swept away, then the whole liability under this Bill to its full amount would be placed once more on the shoulder of the employer. That entirely militated against the possibility of contracting out. It seemed to him that these four lines constituted an overwhelming obstacle in the way of the possibility of contracting out, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was right when he said that if they passed this clause as it was, it meant the death-blow of contracting-out.
  MR. HENRY SETON - KARRconsidered the speech of the late Home Secretary on Tuesday night as one of the strongest arguments in support of the Amendment. He shared the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Amendment was in favour of contracting out and in favour, naturally, of the friendly societies, but for that reason he proposed, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, to vote for the Amendment. The Colonial Secretary based his whole argument against the Amendment on the assumption that the employers' contribution to any scheme must be the same as under the Bill. He could not find any words in the Bill to that effect. The employers' contribution was not the whole part of the scheme; it also embraced the workmen's contribution. Hon. Members must clear their minds of cant, and he could not agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that employers did not altogether consider the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation under the Bill was uncertain, and particularly in dangerous trades. It could not accurately be ascertained or
  1376
  insured against, as in the colliery industry; and one inducement to an employer to enter a scheme was that he would know practically what his liability was. He would contribute a certain amount to the scheme, and that would be supplemented by the workmen's contribution. Therefore, he submitted, it could not be said on that ground again that the contribution of the employer must be as large as under the Bill. A fortiori, it followed, if these four lines remained in the clause, that one inducement would be taken away from the employer to enter into any scheme. The whole argument of the Colonial Secretary was founded on a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman said the amount an employer must pay to any scheme was the measure of the compensation he must pay under the Act. If so, he should like to have words put into the Act which would make that perfectly clear. Those four lines, unless taken out, would, he submitted, make it impossible for any employer to go into any scheme. He would like to say a word about contracting out, and the attitude of lion. Members opposite with regard to the principle. It was perfectly well known that hon. Members opposite were opposing the Bill because they hated contracting out. ["Hear, hear!"] They did not want to encourage the friendly societies. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That at least was his impression, and he should like to be convinced to the contrary. What was the real principle on which the objection rested? It was due to a feeling which existed many years ago, and which had now passed away — namely, that no workman should be bribed, coerced, or terrorised into making an unfair bargain, that he should be compelled to sell his life or his health for more money, that he should be compelled, so to speak, to coin his blood. That was the feeling which he believed had actuated many hon. Members in the past towards the principle of contracting out, but it was absolutely groundless now. No man under the existing law could be bribed, coerced or terrorised to go into any scheme which was not favourable to himself. Thus there was no argument on that ground against this Amendment. One of the great objections he had entertained to the details of the Bill—

  1377
  and in this he shared the apprehensions of his hon friends—was that he believed it would, particularly if these four lines were included, deal a death-blow to the mutual friendly societies. If an employer, entering into a scheme by which he gave the workman benefits outside the Bill, and by which he knew that his liability was defined, found by the insertion of these four lines that in some other circumstances lie would be compelled to pay an uncertain amount of compensation by the Bill, what, lie asked, would be the inducement for the employer to go into the scheme I The House was debating an important Amendment, and if it could make employer and employed get rid of litigation, form a scheme in which no lawyers could interfere, and according to which employers and workmen were alone responsible, in which compensation was paid without any question being asked and litigation entered upon, then many dangers incident to the Bill would be avoided. But the introduction of these lines would prevent tins, and would render the whole clause absurd and impossible of operation, while, at the same time, inflicting a serious injury on the industrial employers of the country. That was the reason why he supported the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the speech of the hon. Member was very important. He did not agree with the hon. Member, however, that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, in voting against this Amendment, would desire in any way to discourage friendly societies.—[Cheers.]—He was disposed to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said that the words in the clause would, to a large extent, if not altogether, prevent contracting-out. [Cheers.] That was a very clear issue, and he did not believe that there was any answer to the arguments on that point. But, after all, the process of conversion ought always to be easy—[laughter]—and if the adoption of the view that contracting-out should not be permitted was facilitated by this particular form of words introduced in the clause he did not think, if they secured the substance, the House ought to object to the methods. It was because the clause as at present drawn would discourage, if not destroy, the principle of contracting-out in connection with all
  1378
  schemes of the character referred to that the Opposition would maintain the clause as it was, and would oppose the Amendment.
  MR. T. W. LEGHsaid that, having listened to the debate, and particularly to the statement of the Colonial Secretary, he failed to see the necessity for the retention of this sub-section. If the employers were to be responsible for the whole amount under the scheme, as well as for compensation, it was plain that the contributions of the men were in the nature of an optional and superfluous luxury. The only explanation he could suggest for the appearance of the sub-section was, that it was either put in the clause to please hon. Members opposite or because the Government were not entirely of one mind on this Question. [Ironical cheers.] It was important that the supporters of the Government should be reassured on this point by the Attorney General. [Ironical laughter and cheers.] What the Debate had done was to point out the somewhat ridiculous position in which, as a party, the Unionists now found themselves. [Ironical laughter.] Two or three years ago contracting-out was one of the principal battle cries of their party; but now they were engaged in furthering the progress of a measure the obvious result of which would be to put an end to these arrangements altogether. [Ironical Opposition cheers.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that the Leader of the Opposition thought it was desirable to make the process of conversion easy. Not being desirous to be converted—[laughter]—not having yet arrived at that happy stage, he heartily supported the Amendment. It was true, as the last speaker said, that it was only a few years ago when the whole of the Unionist party rallied on the great battle cry of contracting out. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] They were then told that they were vindicating individual liberty and maintaining not only the rights of capitalists, but the liberty of the workers. Although he had received one or two lessons in his life as to the somewhat doubtful character of party pledges—[ironical laughter]—he did really believe for once, at any rate, that they had a solid and substantial cry with which they might with confidence go to

  1379
  the country. [Ironical cheers.] The platforms rang with this cry; the principle of contracting out attained absolutely sacred limits—[laughter]—but where did the Unionist party now find itself They found that words had been put into the Bill which made contracting, out an absolute impossibility. ["Hear, hear!"] To tell him, or any one else, that any employer would be fool enough to enter into contracting out schemes in face of a provision like this was really trifling with the intelligence of men. [Laughter.] He hoped that some, at any rate, of the Unionist Members would adhere to their pledges of a few years ago.
  MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid that if this proviso was left in the clause contracting out would be absolutely impossible. One of the great advantages of contracting out was to promote the friendly feeling which ought to exist between employer and employed, and if contracting out was not in the future to be permitted, litigation, arbitration and friction would destroy this friendly feeling which they were all anxious to promote and foster; any scheme under the Bill as it stood was not for the advantage of the employer so much as it was for the advantage of the employed, because in accordance with the words of the sub-section no scheme could possibly obtain sanction unless it was not less favourable to the men than the terms of the Bill, and there was no likelihood of any scheme being authorised unless it was more favourable to the men than the terms of the Bill. He thought that one of the great objects in connection with contracting-out was that the employer might in some form or other be able to gauge his liability, and to know the amount of compensation which he was likely to be liable for. If such a scheme was adopted it would be for the advantage of the employed that in such a scheme the liability of the employer might to some extent be limited. He looked with great fear on the results of the Bill so far the colliery employers were concerned. He knew from personal experience what the results of colliery accidents meant. He knew of one case in which 200 miners lost their lives. In ordinary circumstances, apart from the loss of business, there would be the compensation under this Bill, and such compensation would, he believed, mean the close of the mine, the loss
  1380
  of business in the district, and the loss of work for the men. He thought that in some form or another the amount of compensation should have been limited in the case of these big accidents.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member's observations did not bear on the Motion before the House.
  MR. LEES KNOWLESwas simply going to say that if such a scheme as that referred to in the sub-section were to be authorised, then the employers' liability might to some extent be limited in the case of accidents, such as the one to which he had alluded.
  *MR. J. WILSONhad no hesitation whatever in saying that this clause was most unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. He had said before that he supported the principle of the Bill, and spoke in its favour on the First Reading; but be also warned the Government that if in the slightest degree the principle of contracting out was tampered with he would have no hesitation in voting boldly against the Bill. Now this clause most emphatically did away with contracting out. He had no hesitation, as an employer of great experience, in saving so. There would he no more friendly societies; no more friendly arrangements would be made. He said so in spite of the heroic speech of the Leader of the House. [A laugh.] It was a truly heroic speech; but it was like the Charge of the Six Hundred at Balaclava. That was magnificent, but it was not war, neither did his speech mean business. [Laughter and Opposition cheers.] If the Leader of the House meant to convince his colleagues, he would advise them to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast. He was not afraid to go to his constituents, because, while he had supported this Bill in principle, he would not support anything that was unfair and unjust.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said he did not rise to continue the discussion on the merits of the Amendment. The Debate had been sufficiently prolonged. But he did rise to repeat the protest made by the Leader of the House the other night against speeches suggesting

  1381
  that there had been any inconsistency on the part of the Government—[Opposition, laughter]—in supporting the clause as it, now stood and their action on the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Those who had taken the pains to study the Debates with reference to the Dudley clause and who knew the conditions attached to that clause, those who remembered that hon. Members behind hint actually moved Amendments making the employers responsible for the solvency and efficiency of schemes under the Dudley clause, would at any rate have a little better knowledge of what the true facts were than those who said that, because the Government had intended that as far as possible no scheme should deprive the workman of his compensation under the Bill, they were acting inconsistently with anything they had previously done. [" Hear, hear ! He did not intend to go over the arguments again. He believed that when this matter came to be reviewed hereafter, upon sound considerations of humanity and good feeling and a desire for the benefit of the workman, the masters would be led very generally to make contracts and arrangements which would free them from the responsibility of submitting to arbitration and which would at the same time interest the workmen and effectually protect the masters against malingering. In fact, there were many circumstances under which the masters might feel that it was their interest to go into a scheme; and, notwithstanding all that had been said, he hoped the House would support the Government in their adherence to the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid they were face to face with a critical situation. He sincerely trusted that the Opposition would not exploit the character of the situation forced upon the Government by the reactionary rump of their own Party—[laughter]—but would really discuss the question before the House in the light of their own action in this matter three or four years ago. The Opposition were correct when they said that they had been consistently opposed to contracting out, and although they might chaff the Government and twit them with having been inconsistent, that ought not to induce them to vote for the Amendment moved on the other side. He
  1382
  sincerely trusted that, whatever view the Opposition as a whole might have about the Amendment, and the reason which induced I he Government to oppose it, they would not depart one jot from the consistent attitude they had taken up against contracting out. ["Hear, hear!"] Having said that, he now wished to say a word to some of the Gentlemen who supported Lord Dudley's Amendment. He would like to point out that those who (lid so were inconsistent in opposing the Government now, because Lord Dudley's words, or rather so much of his Amendment as could be applied to the Bill under discussion, were these,—
  "Provided also that in case the insurance fund is insufficient to provide the agreed compensation, and the employer is unwilling to make up the deficiency, the agreement for contracting out shall be considered void.''
  Now to that extent the Attorney General was thoroughly well within his right in claiming that in the special words of this Bill the Government were not inconsistent to the extent the right hon. Member for Thanet said they were. The right Mender for Thanet seemed to know a little more about the electoral mind of his friends a few years ago than what the circumstances justified. But what had he in his hand at that moment? The fact was that the Government view on contracting out had fluctuated in accordance with electoral exigiencies, because in 1892 every Conservative candidate—
  Several HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"
  MR. BURNS: Yes, that was the question. The Government were twitted with inconsistency. ["Hear, hear!"] They were twitted with running away from the position they had hitherto adopted on this point. Well, he had been looking at the election addresses of Conservative Members in 1892; and this was what was issued in a stereotyped form for the whole of the candidates in London of the Conservative Party,—
  "I would advocate an improvement and amendment of the Employers' Liability Act, making it impossible for the workman to contract himself outside its provisions, and making it easier for hint to put forward his just claims to compensation."
  An HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?
  "MR. BURNS: The hon. Member for Clapham and the Conservative candidate

  1383
  who opposed me, and I have a number of others which it is not necessary to read. The fact was that in 1892 no contracting out was the platform on which many Conservative candidates went to the electorate. It was true they changed to some extent in 1895; but that was no reason why the men who wanted to stick to their pledges with regard to contracting out, and really carrying out Lord Dudley's Amendment in so far as the Bill could possibly do it—that was no reason why they should desert the Government at the eleventh hour and join in the attack which had been made in the hope that the Government Bill would be destroyed. He should support the Government [cheers]—as against some of their own reactionary forwards, because he preferred Philip sober to Philip drunk. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"]
  MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid he had given the matter some little consideration, and he objected to contracting out most entirely. But he thought that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were giving a somewhat unfair interpretation of the clause. He did not think the clause was at all so clearly

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brassey, Albert

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Brigg, John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Darling, Charles John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davitt, Michael

  Ascroft, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burt, Thomas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doughty, George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Caldwell, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Drucker, A.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Campbell, James A.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Cayzer, Charles William

  Dunn, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW (Leeds

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Evershed, Sydney

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)

  Colville. John

  Fielden, Thomas

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Commins, Andrew

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Bemrose, Henry Howe

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bethell, Commander

  Cox, Robert

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Bhownaggree, M. M.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Biddulph, Michael

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Billson, Alfred

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Foster, Sir Walter. (Derby Co.)

  a step in the direction of abandoning the policy of contracting out as some thought. It went on the assumption that employers would not do anything more for their employés than they were bound to do under the provisions of a compensation Bill. But he himself knew many employers who did a great deal more for their employés at present than they were at all bound to do by law; and why should they not follow the same course after the passing of this Measure? There were various channels which would be still open for arrangements between employers and employés, and he, for one, believed there would still be a legitimate future for contracting out, and that it would not be an injurious future for the workmen. He would like to point out that the clause did not put the employer in a worse position; it simply stipulated that the employer should not evade his responsibilities under the Bill.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:—Ayes, 278; Noes, 63.—(Division List—No. 281—appended.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brassey, Albert

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Brigg, John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Darling, Charles John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davitt, Michael

  Ascroft, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burt, Thomas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doughty, George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Caldwell, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Drucker, A.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Campbell, James A.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Cayzer, Charles William

  Dunn, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW (Leeds

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Evershed, Sydney

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)

  Colville. John

  Fielden, Thomas

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Commins, Andrew

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Bemrose, Henry Howe

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bethell, Commander

  Cox, Robert

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Bhownaggree, M. M.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Biddulph, Michael

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Billson, Alfred

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Foster, Sir Walter. (Derby Co.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'tn)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Fowler, Matthew (Durham)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Fry, Lewis

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lough, Thomas

  Robinson Brooke

  Gilhooly, James

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round James

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Rutherford, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Gold, Charles

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Scott, Charles Prestwich

  Gordon, John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Goschen, Rt. H.n. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  McArthur, William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McCalmont, Maj-Gen. (Ant'm, N

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C

  Souttar, Robinson

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Spicer, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Greene. W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gretton, John

  McLeod, John

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Greville, Captain

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stock, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Milton, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Strauss, Arthur

  Harwood, George

  Monk, Charles James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Morgan, Hn. Frd. (Monmthsh.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir G. O (Denbs.

  Thomas Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Holden, Angus

  Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Holland, Hn. Lionel Raleigh

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Horniman, Frederick john

  Morris, Samuel

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John

  Usborne, Thomas

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Murnaghan, George

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Walton, John Lawson

  Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Kemp, George

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Kenny, William

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Kenrick, William

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kenyon, James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Willox, John Archibald

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

  Pender, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Lambert, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon

  Woodall, William

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wyndham, George

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Leng, Sir John

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col.A.R. (Essex)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Long,Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  NOES.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Bowles, T. Gilson (King's Lynn

  Denny, Colonel

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Coddington, Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bond, Edward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gedge, Sydney

  1386

  1387

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cityof Lond)

  Knowles, Lees

  Smith, James. Parker (Lanark)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Hardy Laurence

  McKillop, James

  Thorburn, Walter

  Havelock-Allan, General Sir H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Heath, James

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Helder, Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Mount, William George

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Howard, Joseph

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Quitter, William Cuthbert

  Jenkin, Sir John Jones

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Legh and Mr. Wolff.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Kimber, Henry

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Resolution agreed to.

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) to leave out the word "thereout," and to insert the words "under the scheme."— (Attorney General.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to leave out Sub-section (5). The intention was to put the clause with regard to the Report of the Registrar at the end of the section. There was no principle involved. This was only a drafting Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScould not agree with that remark. As the clause stood the responsibility of deciding on a scheme was to be put on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but now the Attorney General spoke of a chief Registrar. That seemed to imply that local Registrars were to decide on the merits of schemes, and that another official who was named for the first time was to make a report to Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid there was a chief or principal Registrar who now made an annual report to Parliament. It was intended that to save a duplication of reports these reports should be included in the Paper which was now annually submitted to Parliament.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words
  "Any workmen or their representatives shall submit to the said Registrar prima facie evidence that,"
  and to insert the words—
  "complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workmen of any employer."
  1388
  He explained that this and several subsequent Amendments to Sub-section (6) were proposed with the object of showing clearly who should apply to the Registrar in the event of a desire to put an end to a scheme or to make an alteration in a scheme.
  MR. J. WILSONwas desirous of knowing how these complaints were to be carried from the workman to the Registrar. Would it be necessary that three-fourths of the majority of the workmen should be in favour of the scheme? The proposal was very vague, and did not make it clear as to the machinery to be used. He hoped the Attorney General and the Colonial Secretary would indicate to them by what form of machinery the complaint made by the workmen could be conveyed to the Registrar? Would it, for instance, be competent for the trades union agent in an office in London to snake a complaint on behalf of workmen in the far-off North of Scotland or remote parts of England? Would it be necessary for 300 out of 500 men to make a complaint? What he asked was the form of the machinery that would be set in motion as to the complaint when it was made?
  MR. ROBERT ASCROFTthought the Amendment would be a very commendable improvement if the clause stood as it was, requiring prima facie evidence; it would cause an immense amount of trouble and do a great deal of injury. All that was now required was that complaint should be made on behalf of the workmen.
  SIR ROBERT REIDwas understood to object to the words "by or on behalf of the workmen."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALventured to make an appeal to hon. Members to take these drafting Amendments a little

  1389
  bit more shortly. It was thought that the clause might be construed more widely than intended, and, therefore, those words were suggested. They wished to leave the Registrar unfettered and to give the power more to one workman, so that if it was an important matter the Registrar could deal with it, and if it was a trumpery matter he might refuse to deal with it. He could assure the House there was no evil design.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYwarned the Attorney General that representation might be made in such a way as not to give the true views of the workmen.
  MR. BURNScould see nothing to take exception to in the words proposed which would give to the plaintiff a better status than he would have under the Bill as it stood. ["Hear, hear!"] The Registrar would differentiate between trivial and serious complaints whether from one man or a thousand.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Bill as it stood required the production of primâ facie evidence, but this Amendment, which removed the last rag of protection from the employer, would allow the Registrar to proceed without any evidence at all. The Government did not require that there should be the smallest tittle of primâ facie evidence. They did not propose to require any evidence at all. The mere tittle tattle of the workshop, the discontent of one workman was to cause the whole of the scheme, over which so much trouble had been taken, to be reconsidered by the Registrar.
  COLONEL DENNYthought the Attorney General had hardly considered the effect of this Amendment. What the House ought certainly to provide for was the protection of the majority of the workmen. His own belief was that no such scheme would come into existence; but if one did, it ought to have a chance. He did not think it was fair that an official in the position of the Registrar should be asked to interpret what the meaning of the Government was. He ought to have more definite instructions. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6), after the word "longer," to insert the words "on the whole."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "workman," and to insert the word "workmen and such employer and their dependants."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "same," and to insert the word "scheme."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "employers," and to insert the word "employer."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the words "then he," and to insert the words "the Registrar."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. WILSON MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs) moved in Sub-section (6) after the word certificate," to insert the words,
  "whereupon time funds of the scheme shall be distributed as may be arranged between the employer and workman, or as may be determined by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the event of a difference of opinion."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (7) after the word "all," to insert the word "such."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved in Sub-section (7), after the word "accounts," to insert the words "in regard to the scheme." It seemed to him that the expression "such accounts," used in the Bill, might involve an inquiry into the solvency of

  1391
  the employer. He thought it should be made clear that the accounts to be looked into were the accounts of the particular scheme only.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (7) to leave out the words "from time to time."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (7), after the word "be," to insert the words "made or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved at the end of Sub-section (7) to add the words,
  "The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shall include in his annual report the particulars of the proceedings of the Registrar under this Act."
  He said that this was carrying out what he had promised on behalf of the Home Secretary.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil) moved to leave out Clause 2. He said that under the clause the owner of a piece of land who was working the coal might let a contract for sinking a shaft, and might go away and absent himself from the country, leaving the sub-contractor in sole control of the work; and if any accident happened to a man or men working in the shaft, the sub-contractor alone would be liable to them. He apprehended that was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He understood that the object of the 13il1 was to protect the workmen, and that the employer should be the person liable to pay compensation for injuries to workmen. He had submitted the clause to four or five Members of the Bar, and not one of them had been able to thoroughly understand it. If the clause had any meaning at all, he submitted it was to make the sub-contractor liable. He thought the clause should be struck out, because it was unintelligible and obscure, and would involve everybody in considerable litigation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he did not think the hon. Member would
  1392
  consider him guilty of discourtesy if he did not argue this matter afresh. It was quite impossible for the Government to agree to strike out the clause. This question of sub-contracting formed the subject of a long discussion in 1893, and the Government had adopted this clause because it seemed to them on the whole to approximate as nearly as possible to a solution of the question. As far as the Government could judge the clause carried out the considered opinion of the country on this question. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid he thought his hon. Friend was under a misapprehension as to the effect of this clause. It would not relieve the Subcontractor from anything for which he was not now liable, or impose any liability which he did not now bear. The clause as it stood would cover 99 cases out of a hundred.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 2,—

  SUB-CONTRACTING.
  Where any person in the execution of any work within the scope of his trade or business, and for the purpose of executing such work, is in occupation of or has control over the place or premises in or upon which such work is to be done, he shall be liable to any workman engaged in the execution of the work therein or thereupon for the amount of any claim which such workman may have tinder this Act, or in respect of personal negligence or wilful act independently of this Act, against any sub-contractor. Provided that any person liable under this section shall be entitled to indemnity against any other person who would have been liable independently of this section. All questions arising under this section shall be settled by arbitration in manner provided by this Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved, after the word "where," to insert the words, "in an employment to which this Act applies."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to omit the words,—
  "All questions arising under this section shall be settled by arbitration in manner provided by this Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3,—

  LIABILITY OF CONTRACTOR FOR EXTRANEOUS WORK.
  Where an employer who is the owner or occupier of any premises has engaged or contracted with any other person to execute any work, act, or thing in, upon, or about such premises not within the scope of the trade or business of such employer, and such other person employs or directs and controls the workmen engaged in such work, act, or thing. then, in the event of any of such workmen being injured whilst so engaged, such other person shall be deemed to be the employer of such workmen for the purposes of this Act, and not the owner or occupier of the premises.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to leave out Clause 3. He said the clause was not only unnecessary, but dangerous. The probable liability was covered by the contract of employment and by the sub-contractor's clause of the Bill, and if the words of the clause were inserted, it might limit the right of the workman against the individual employer which he was entitled to have as well as the right of remedy against the chief employer. It therefore hampered the Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid the clause interfered with the object of the Bill.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid he desired to support what the Attorney General had sail. He thought the clause was desirable for the protection of the employer, but as the principle of making the employer liable for the Act of any stranger had been adopted, the clause was quite unnecessary, and would complicate the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; clause struck out.
  Clause 4,—

  COMPENSATION TO WORKMEN IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF EMPLOYER.
  Where any employer becomes liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman or his representatives in respect of any accident, and is entitled to any sum from insurers in respect of such liability, then in the event of the bankruptcy or liquidation (,f such employer such workman or representative shall have a charge upon the sum aforesaid for the payment of the money so due to him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to leave out the words, "to any workman or his representatives."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee) moved, after the words, "sum of," to insert the words,—
  "Sum of money for or in respect of the work or employment in the course of which the accident took place."
  In other words, said the hon. Member, he desired to extend the scope of the clause by giving the workmen not only a charge upon money received and due to the employer from insurers, but a charge on any debt due to the employer in respect of the work in the course of which the accident happened. It was something like the labour lien which obtained in the United States.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Amendment would involve an inquiry which could not possibly be traced out and would lead to complications far beyond any advantage it would confer on the workman.
  SIR R. REIDhoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press this to a Division. It was a wide extension of the proposition that had been accepted that there should be a lien on the insurance fund. Most of them wanted to get the Bill through to-night, and this Amendment would lead to wide discussion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: After the words "in respect of," to insert the words "the amount due to a workman under."
  To leave out the words "in the event of the bankruptcy or liquidation of such employer," and to insert
  "employer becoming bankrupt, or making a composition or arrangement with his creditors, or if the employer is a company, of the company having commenced to be wound up."
  To leave out the words "or representative."
  Before the word "charge," to insert tin word "first."
  To leave out the words "money so due," and to insert the words "amount so due."—(Attorney General.)
  MR. ASCROFT MR. ASCROFT moved to leave out the words "to him," and to insert the words
  "and the judge of the County Court of the district may direct the insurers to pay such sum into the Post Office Savings Bank in the same of the Registrar of such court."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he thought the Amendment was a useful one, but it was suggested by the Post, Office authorities that an addition should be made which he would accordingly move when these words were agreed to.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to add after the words last inserted the words
  "and the provisions in the first schedule thereto, with reference to investment in the Post Office Savings Bank of any sum allotted as compensation, shall be applied to any sum so directed to be paid."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURon behalf of Mr. URE (Linlithgow) moved after the words last inserted to add,—
  "In the application of this Act to Scotland, the words 'have a first charge upon' shall mean 'be preferentially entitled to.'"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he understood his hon. and learned Friend desired to add these words simply to make the Bill in accordance with the law of Scotland, and he was quite satisfied therefore to accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ALFRED BILLSON MR. ALFRED BILLSON (Halifax) moved after the words last inserted to add the words:—
  "All compensation payable under this Act shall have the like priority in payment in case of bankruptcy or winding up as wages under the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act 1888, or any other Act for the time being regulating the priority of wages in bankruptcy or winding up."
  They had heard on the introduction of the Bill that it was to provide for what the Colonial Secretary happily called the wounded soldiers of industry, and that that provision should come from the trade. Nobody supposed, however, that the provision was coining out of the profits of the employer, but out of new charges or new means of revenue, either by the reduction of wages or the increase of prices. The object which they had in
  1396
  moving this Amendment was to take care that the workman got the provision which was made. It was said that, this was not a question between an employer and the injured workman, but between the workman and his fellow sufferers the other creditors. But the other creditors came in voluntarily to do business with the firm because they chose to trust it. Moreover the injured workman was not to get his remedy all at once, but by means of payments week by week, and he could never press for a lump sum. They did not ask the House to require the employer to set aside a sum, but that this was to be a matter of preference between this particular creditor, the injured workman, and the other creditors. There was also the question of debenture holders. He pointed out that they did not allow the workman to commute his payment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not know whether the hon. Member for Halifax was to be considered a friend of the Bill.
  MR. BILLSON: Certainly.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINaccepted the hon. Member's declaration, but he must protest against the hon. Member's Amendment as being altogether unfriendly to the Bill. This was one of the Amendments moved in Committee and discussed in Committee. He did not know whether there was a Division upon it.
  *SIR C. DILKE: There was.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the Committee had decided by a large majority against the proposal, and it was hardly fair, and certainly it was contrary to precedent, to bring up on Report a matter that had been decided in Committee—[cries of "No, no!"]—and make over again exactly the same speeches in support of it. The Bill provided that the workman should have the first charge on the insurance, but to give him further a preferential claim on the estate as against creditors who might be in no better position than the workman would not be an unfair arrangement.
  SIR R. REIDsaid the object of the Report stage was to give an opportunity for considering important matters, and his view was that the Amendment raised an important question. Unless the Amendment were adopted an injured workman in receipt of 10s. a week from

  1397
  an employer as compensation for an accident would, in the event of the bankruptcy of that employer, have his weekly allowance stopped, and have to wait perhaps for years before he got a, dividend from the estate.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid that if the compensation were to take precedence over all other claims in the case of bankruptcy it would ruin the credit of the employer—it would prevent him from getting raw material on credit, or the temporary loan necessary to tide him over a time of difficulty, and it would also render impossible the rapid winding-up of bankruptcy estates.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he could not understand the position taken tip by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries. [Ministerial laughter.] In Committee he had moved an Amendment which was but a mere fragment of the Amendment now before the House. He proposed to make the compensation a preferential charge on a portion of the assets of the employer—that portion winch he had earned with the help of the labour of the workman. His hon. and learned Friend advised him to withdraw the Amendment, and, in deference 16 his hon. and learned Friend, he did withdraw it—[laughter]—and now his hon. and learned Friend supported a much larger extension of that Amendment. [Laughter.]
  MR. J. WILSONsaid that if the Government desired to be consistent, they should, according to the doctrine of the Colonial Secretary, have refused to accept on Report any Amendment to any principle inserted in the Bill by vote or by compromise in Committee. He said the Bill sprang from the principle that when a work man was injured in the course of his employment he had a claim on the industry in which he was engaged before anyone else. Why then should an injured workman stand in the same category with ordinary creditor? The ordinary creditor traded with his eyes open; he knew the risks; but it was different with the workman, he had no means of knowing the financial condition of his employer. Again, the wages of a workman in full health had a. preferential claim on an estate in bankruptcy, and it that were right and just—and who would dispute it?—surely it was right and
  1398
  just, surely there was a greater reason, that the compensation of a disabled workman should be placed above the claim of any other creditor? Pressure had been brought to bear on the Government to induce them to change their position in regard to certain points. But the workmen had sent no deputations to terrorise the Government, and he asked the Government to consider, not so much whether it was consistent with their action on the Committee stage, but whether it was right and just that compensation for accident should have the same preferential treatment as wages?
  Question put, "That those words be I there inserted." The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 212.—(Division List, No. 282.)
  MR. ASCROFT MR. ASCROFT moved to add after the words last inserted the following words:
  "Every employer who insures against liability under this Act or the Employers' Liability Act 1880 in respect of injuries sustained by the workmen in his employment shall cause a notice containing the name and address of the insurance office with which lie insures to be kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to the workmen, and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by such workmen."
  If the name of the insurance office were posted at the works, said the hon. Member, an opportunity would be given to the workpeople, in case they could not get defective machinery made right by the employer, to communicate with the insurance office, who would call the attention of the employer to it and have the matter remedied. Such a provision as this would in all probability prevent a great number of accidents. In his own constituency within the last few days an accident had occurred, through dangerous machinery not being fenced, by which a workman had lost his life. At the coroner's inquest the factory inspector stated that he had never known of a worse case of negligence, and the coroner told the jury that they ought to bring in a verdict of manslaughter against the employer. These cases, he admitted, were few and far between, but, at the same time, if anything could be done by which the workmen's safety could be assured it ought to be done, and he therefore proposed the adoption of this Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): could not agree to the insertion of these words. He quite understood and sympathised with the object of his hon. Friend, but he failed to see how the position of the workman would be materially improved by this Amendment, whilst it would certainly impose a troublesome and onerous condition upon the employer. If any practical object could be served by the Amendment he should not resist it, but he was of opinion that no substantial end would be gained by it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The House divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 213.—(Division List, No. 283.)
  Clause 5,—

  APPLICATION OF ACT AND DEFINITIONS.
  (1.) This Act shall apply only to employment on, in, or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work, and to employment on, in, or about any building exceeding thirty feet in height, which is building constructed, demolished, or repaired by means of a scaffolding, or on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is being used for the purpose of the construction, demolition, or repair thereof.
  (2.) In this Act—
  "Railway" means the railway of any railway company to which the Regulation of Railways Act 1873 applies, and "railway "and" railway company "have the same meaning as in that Act, and includes light railways made under the Light Railways Act 1896.
  "Factory" has the same meaning as in the Factory and Workshop Acts 1878 to 1891, and also includes any dock, wharf, quay, warehouse, machinery, or plant, to which any provision of the Factory Acts is applied by the Factory and Workshop Act 1895, and every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power.
  "Mine" means a mine to which the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872 applies.
  "Quarry" means a quarry under the Quarries Act 1894.
  "Engineering work" means any work of construction or alteration of a railroad, harbour, dock, canal, or sewer, and includes any other work on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is used for the purpose of the construction or alteration thereof.
  "Employer" includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate.
  1400
  "Workman" includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether his agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing."
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1), after the words "This Act shall apply only to employment," to insert the words "by the undertakers as hereinafter defined." He said that the object of the Amendment was to make it perfectly clear that the person liable to pay compensation was the person really employing the injured man.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the word "undertakers" had a proper legal construction?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that it was the word adopted by the draftsman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1) after the words "employment on," to insert the word "or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to leave out the words "or about." He said that the Bill was not intended to apply to outworkers.
  MR. ASQUITHdid not agree that the words would be sufficiently comprehensive amended as proposed, and classes of workmen would be excluded who should have the benefit of the Bill. For instance, taking the case of railway employés. Of those employed by railway companies a considerable number were those the main part of whose work was not carried on on the railway at all, or only for a certain comparatively limited number of hours, the men who were engaged in loading and unloading vans. This was an important class of railway servants and, moreover, they were engaged in a very hazardous occupation, and were just as liable to suffer injury in unloading-vans in a crowded street as in the comparatively greater seclusion and security of the railway goods depot. Under such circumstances it would be an entire novelty, it would be news to the working classes to know that this class would be

  1401
  entirely excluded from the Bill except as regarded the comparatively small number of hours they were employed on the premises of the company. He did not wish to argue on the logical consistency of the lines of obstruction drawn in the Bill, but he was quite sure that no man exposed to these risks could be convinced that he was not as fully entitled to compensation as the men engaged in shunting, or the porters whose work was to put passengers' luggage in a train. This was an illustration, and he might multiply such illustrations. Take another instance from the building trade. Very properly the Government had included building operations within the scope of the Bill, though he wished they had not included the limitations they had inserted. The words at present were "on, in, or about any building," and if the word "about" were left out a builder's workman would only be entitled to compensation if actually in or on the building itself. But a man might be employed on the ground immediately adjoining, and a very large proportion of accidents occurred to men in this situation from the fall of materials.
  *MR. SPEAKERreminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was a separate Amendment in regard to buildings which would come on later.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he believed the Government were going to apply the same Amendment, but he only used the reference to building as an illustration of his argument. These were familiar and obvious cases, illustrating what would happen if the Amendment were adopted. This was not a matter to divide the two sides of the House, and he appealed to the Government, in the interest of the Bill, and crediting them with a desire to make it a large and comprehensive Measure, not to introduce a discrimination for which it was impossible to find any reason in justice, and which would produce a deep and widespread sense of injustice. He might add, in order to dispel the notion if it existed anywhere, that the liability under the Bill was too comprehensive, that by the language of the first clause the only responsibility imposed on the employer was in respect to accidents "arising out of and in the course of the employment." These were limiting words; it would have to be shown that the accident occurred within
  1402
  that area, and the area was sufficiently narrow. It was not the proper way to define the area and then further limit that area, as would be the result of this Amendment, rendering the Bill a. much less satisfactory and comprehensive Measure. He hoped the Home Secretary would reconsider his proposal.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid this was rather in the nature of a drafting Amendment. It was not intended to narrow the scope of the Bill to the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it would. He was not particularly anxious for the Amendment, and would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he gathered from the fact of railways being included in the industries enumerated, that the Bill was intended for the protection of all persons connected with the trade of carrying goods or passengers for inland transit. It teas impossible to distinguish on any principle of reason, between the transit of goods by railway and the transit of goods by water way. In both cases you deal with a department of trade connected with the carriage of goods or passengers, and in both cases you were dealing with a distinctly inland traffic, and you have the same class, of persons brought into contact with the goods. There was no reason why the protection extended to men employed in the railway transit should not be extended to the men employed in handling the goods covered by canals, rivers, and inland waters. Three tests the Home Secretary applied to the industries included in his Bill. First, that there should be a considerable degree of risk; secondly, the investment of a large amount of capital in the undertaking; and thirdly, facilities for insurance. Now, those who -were employed in the carriage of goods by canals and rivers were exposed to a. considerable degree of risk; the carriage of such goods was an undertaking in a few hands, and required the investment of large capital, and the risks could be easily covered by insurance. So, then, the argument for the inclusion of canal and river carrying trade within the scale of the Bill was considerably advanced. One objection he anticipated. It might be said that

  1403
  this was a branch of the shipping trade of the country; but that was an argument that would scarcely be used by any hon. Member familiar with the Merchant Shipping, and Navigation Acts. They applied to sea, faring vessels, and this purely inland branch of trade did not come within the provision of those Acts. The Amendment proposed a large concession, but it was a reasonable one, and would add largely to the popularity and acceptability of the Bill. He moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "railway," to insert the words-
  "or in or about any vessels ordinarily employed and whilst employed in the carriage of passengers or goods upon any inland waters."
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he thought this proposal was made in Committee.
  MR. WALTON: No.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid notice of it was given if it was not moved. Of course, it was very easy, as he had admitted at the beginning of these discussions, to discover certain industries closely allied to those included in the Bill, as to which it was rather difficult to draw any logically clear line of distinction. But the definitions in the clause fairly met the necessities of the ease. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked that the Bill should apply to all the canals and rivers in the country, to all boats carrying goods or passengers, to all steamers on the Thames and other rivers, and all ferry-boats wherever they were to be found. It was a large extension, and he hoped the House would not insert it in the Bill. From the first it had been admitted that the Bill had only a limited application, though it applied to half the working population of the country, and he had hoped that, by the discussions in Committee as regards the industries included, they had settled the scope of the Bill. He trusted the House would not make further extensions.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLthought the Government were right in opposing this extension. Circumstances did not justify this inclusion. On inland waters the risk was not great, and the loss of life in the trade very small. A very large amount of the canal traffic was not conducted by the canal companies, but by small trades owning a few boats.
  COLONEL, DENNYsaid the acceptance of the amendment would interfere with the Merchant Shipping Act. For example, vessels sailing from Glasgow to Manchester come under the scope of this Bill at one particular part of their voyage, namely, while passing along the Ship Canal, and so would vessels on passing Gravesend on their way to to the port London. This would lead to great mischief and confusion, and the Government were only fulfilling a pledge they gave to ship owners by declining to accept the Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONunderstood the Amendment would not apply to the vessels mentioned by the lion. Member, because these came under the definition of sea-going vessels. Now, a large part, if not the bnlk, of the canals were under the control of the railway companies, and it was a ridiculous thing that men working on one part of a railway company's undertaking should be able to claim compensation, while men engaged on another part of the same company's undertaking should be excluded.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid that whether the canals belonged to the railway companies or whether it was the fact that the largest and most important of the canals were independent concerns, however that might be, the Amendment was not going to place liability upon those great corporations, because those canal undertakings were simply toll-taking undertakings, and the vessels would ply, along their waterways, and in or about which accidents might happen, belonged in a great number of cases to independent owners.
  MR. BURNSthought the arguments of the hon. Member for Wigan were excellent arguments why the Amendment should be accepted. Where a man owned five or six monkey barges at work Ion a canal and called into his service a man and woman and sometimes two or three children to work the barge, and an accident befalls, he ought to be liable for the consequences. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock ought to know perfectly well there was no possible chance of the sea-going industry being included, having regard to the conditions would differentiate a barge and lighter from a sea-going vessel. If the Amendment

  1405
  were adopted, only one thing was necessary to prevent its being extended to merchant vessels which go to sea, and that was to add on the words, "all vessels the officers of which are granted certificates by the Board of Trade shall be exempted." He could not see why the Home Secretary should not accept the Amendment plus the words he suggested.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the Amendment proposed to apply the Bill to an entirely new kind of industry. Whatever cause there might be for extending the Bill to sea-going vessels, there was much less ground for applying it to vessels in inland waters. This inland water trade was an immense trade, and to apply the Bill to every barge and every boat on every river in the United Kingdom would probably be to bring in a class as large as all who were already brought within its sweep. [A laugh.] The point he wished to emphasise was, that this was a proposal to extend the Bill to an entirely new industry. The Government wished to restrict its scope. If in introducing a principle of this kind they were going to extend it to everybody there would be more to be said for the Bill, and still more if the liability was to be on the nation at large. ["Hear, hear!"] But it was impossible to suppose that this principle could he introduced into the Bill now. The Bill had been restricted to certain employers, upon those employers all the burden of the Bill would be thrown, and certainly, although he had always the greatest respect for Amendments moved by his hon. Friend opposite, he was afraid it would be impossible to vote for this one.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."—The House divided—Ayes, 80; Noes, 168.—(Division List, No. 284.)
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  MR. LIONEL HOLLAND MR. LIONEL HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley) moved in Subsection (1), after the word "railway," to insert the words ''or tramway." He did not intend to raise a debate on the question of the inclusion of tramways. That question was debated on the Committee stage, and lie was not going
  1406
  to say anything further as to the general expediency of including tramways in this Act, except that it seemed to hint that as many of the tramways were owned by Municipal Authorities, and of the remainder the chief part were owned by substantial companies, they were in every sense undertakings which might be safely included. But the point lie wished to raise was an entirely different one. When he first read the Bill he thought it was the intention of the framers of the measure to include tramways. That intention was, of course, negatived; in fact, the Government refused to include them on the Committee stage. He doubted, however, whether as a matter of fact on the terms of the Bill as now drawn, tramways were not already included within the provisions of the Bill; and in this view he believed he was supported by a fair amount of Legal Opinion. A railway was defined in the Bill as the railway of any Railway Companies to which the Regulation of RailwaysAct,1873. A railway was to have the same meaning as in the Act of 1873, but when he looked at that Act he found no definition of railway at all. A railway company was defined as including any person being the owner or lessee of, or working, any railway in the United Kingdom, con strutted or carried on under the powers of any Act of Parliament. For the definition of a railway one had to hark back to the Railway Regulations Acts of 1868 and 1871, and there it was said, "a railway is the whole or any portion of a railway or tramway whether worked by steam or otherwise, which has been authorised by any special Act of Parliament or by any certificate under any Act of Parliament." From the point of view of law tramways were under the Railway Regulations Act, and were subject also to the control of the Railway Commissioners, although that control had not been exercised. His contention, therefore, was that it was probable that if the Bill did not specifically exclude tramways they were, as a matter of fact, included, and he submitted that tramways were eminently undertakings which could suitably he included in the provisions of the Bill. He begged to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "railway," to insert the words "or tramway."
  MR. B. L. COHENsupported the Amendment. While he appreciated the desire of the Government not to extend the operation of the Bill, he submitted to the Attorney General that there were no body of men more deserving of being brought under the Bill than the employés of tramways. They fulfilled almost every condition laid down by the Government which entitled men to compensation. Tramways were in few instances owned by small owners, and their working would become the more dangerous the more electric traction became developed. Almost every accident which befell a tramway employé was the result of his following his employment. Lastly, the accidents to which the men fell victims arose, in almost every instance, from circumstances beyond their control, and from risks which they incurred in the service and for the advantage of their employers. He, therefore, hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment.
  SIR A. FORWOODremarked that every day the use of mechanical power on tramways was increasing, and he could not see any difference between a tramway worked by such power and a railway. He therefore moved to amend the Amendment by substituting "including" for "or" and adding after tramway "worked by mechanical power."
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Debate might with advantage be taken upon the Amendment as it stood.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALadmitted that there were no more deserving body of employés than tramway men. He could not, however, accept the Amendment, because if he agreed to this extension of the provisions of the Bill the Government would be bombarded with with all kinds of suggestions in the direction of extensions. Whether they were right or wrong they must adhere to the line they had laid down. It was not possible for him to accept the words "or tramways," and in order to save discussion he might say now that even if those words were carried he could not assent to the words "worked by mechanical power."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that all parties in the House were agreed that this extension might reasonably be
  1408
  made. He gladly supported the extension of the operation of the Bill to mechanical tramways, and between such tramways and light railways there was absolutely no distinction whatever. He regretted that the Attorney General, in a matter which did not affect a large number of men, but still a very deserving class, had not seen his way to accept the proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft) moved in Sub-section (1), after the word "quarry" to insert the word "agricultural." He explained that the Amendments would admit agricultural labourers to the benefits of the measure. The strongest argument in favour of the proposition, which must commend itself to every Member of the House, was that the agricultural labourer of all classes of workmen was the least able by reason of the smallness of the wages he earned to provide against accidents. Admittedly the wages of an agricultural labourer was barely a living wage, and that being so the men had not the wherewithal to join a Provident Society. If it were possible to do it these men were entitled to inclusion. But it was objected to that this would have the effect of enlarging too much the scope of the Bill, that the Bill was an experiment, and if it was successful the time would then come for extending its scope. He thought that the answer to that was, that if included it would not add anything to the burden of the agriculturists according to the statement of the Home Secretary. If the Bill were to be an experimental one he respectfully asked the Government why agriculture should not be included in the experiment; he doubted whether the dangerous trades would give much instruction to the Government. He did not see how accidents in coal mines were going to afford much guidance as to what was going to happen in the agricultural districts. He had no desire to repeat the arguments used on former occasions, but he should not be doing his duty if he did not give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering, whether they would include the agricultural labourers within the scope of the Bill. He thought the agricultural labourer would be exceedingly

  1409
  grateful if lie were included. If he were excluded it would give some colour to statements made on the other side, that while the Government wished to guard certain classes of toilers and workers, they did not care to include the agricultural labourers.
  MR. EDWARD MORTONsaid when this proposal was last before the House it was argued that it would. bear hardly on small farmers; hut when the Government was passing last year an Act through that House to aid distressed agriculture, they were told that the benefit of that Act would go to the tenant-farmer. Now the benefit given to the farmer under that Act would reach four times the amount that would be necessary for him to expend in insuring all the agricultural labourers on his farm at the highest rate of insurance.
  MR. TOMLINSONexpressed his regret that the Government had not included some great system of insurance.
  MR. M. BIDDULPHhoped if the Government could not include agriculture in this Bill, they would soon introduce another Bill to remove the exclusion.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid there was no class in the community that were more necessary to be protected than the agricultural labourers, and now the lion. Member came forward with his belated Amendment after the battle mad been twice fought over.
  MR. HARRY FOSTERsaid he had all along advocated the inclusion of agriculturists.
  MR. BROADHURSThoped, if the hon. Member were in earnest, he would take a Division. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsuggested that if the Government could not include all the agricultural labourers, they might at least make a compromise, and include those men employed on the large farms.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he knew from experience that there were many small holders whose yearly earnings were not more than the wages of a superior labourer, and he was satisfied that there was no analogy between the agricultural industry and the great industries dealt with in the Bill. Agriculturists were in a different position
  1410
  altogether to railway companies, mine owners and factory owners, and he could not help thinking that any hon. Member who had had experience of rural life would agree that the conditions were altogether different. At this stage of the Bill the Government could not make any further concessions to the many claims that had been made for inclusion in the Bill, and they could not accept this Amendment.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERTsaid the agricultural labourers were the worst paid in the whole community of labour. They had provident funds of their own, and were absolutely unable to lay up may money whereby to provide against accident. It was contended by the Government that the agricultural industry would not allow of an extra charge being put upon it; but the Government had not considered other industries from that point of view. They had put a charge upon them whether distressed or not. ["Hear, hear!"] In many cases of small holders, it would, no doubt, be impossible for them to pay down a lump sum, but he was inclined to think that the Government might very well carry out the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Horncastle Division in Committee—that if a tenant farmer brought to his landlord the receipt of the premium for insurance against accidents to labourers, the landlord should pay the compensation or the farmer be entitled to deduct it from the rent. If compensation for injury were to be a tax on one industry why not on all, mid if it were to he a tax on the agricultural industry, why should it not fall on the landlords? ["Hear. hear!"] The Government had a chance of settling this matter now, and if they did not do so, it would be made the rallying cry in many agricultural constituencies.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: How about Petersfield?
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he did not wish to be drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman —[laughter]— into an in-relevant interruption; but be thought that election was a very encouraging sign to hon. Gentlemen sitting on his side of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] They were told that agriculture could be dealt with in another Bill, but by the addition of one word to this Bill, the

  1411
  Government could settle the matter, and bring a very deserving class under the purview of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he would be recognised as a strenuous supporter of the Bill, but he wished to plead earnestly for the inclusion of the agricultural labourer. In his constituency the farms were larger on the average than in any other Scotch constituency, and probably in any English constituency. He believed the average was about 230 acres. It stood to reason that in a farm of that size much machinery must be used, and from time to time many accidents had been brought to his notice. That morning he had received a letter from the Inspector of Factories asking him to move for a return of the accidents which had happened to agricultural labourers. In view of the very serious accidents which occurred almost constantly, it was of the utmost importance that the House and the country should realise that here was a great opportunity for the Government to give compensation for them; but the Government were afraid to extend what they maintained was to be a great boon to the working classes, to the largest class of labourers in the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. FREDERICK WILSONsaid that the House during the present week had emphasised the need of protection to agricultural labourers in a very remarkable way. Only on Tuesday last it had unanimously passed a modest measure—the Accidents from Chaff Cutters Bill, the object of which was to prevent injuries to agricultural labourers. On one day the House declared the need of agricultural labourers for protective legislation, on the next it was asked to declare that labourers should be excluded from the compensation given to coal miners and others. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HARRY FOSTERsaid that as the Government declined to make any further concession he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  Question put, "That the word Agricultural' be there inserted:" — The House divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 141.—[Division List, No. 285].
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1) after the word "employment," to insert the words "by the undertakers as hereinafter defined."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "exceeding," and to insert the words "which exceeds."
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member for Dumfries-shire had an. Amendment on this point on the. Paper, and he had better argue it now, as the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment-would defeat the object of it, by affirming that there should be some limit of height.
  MR. SOUTTARsaid that the Amendment which he had put down proposed to leave out the words "exceeding thirty feet in height." He contended that the words of the clause were ambiguous. Did the Government mean that buildings, when finished, should be of the height of 30 feet, or intend that no compensation should be claimed by any workman unless he was working on a building which had reached the height of 30 feet? It had been said that small builders would be excluded from the Bill by the stipulation. Small builders were not people who built small houses, but who took sub-contracts on other people's buildings, and did jobbing work generally. The inclusion of the words he wished to omit would not help small builders, but would injure workmen employed by big builders. When workmen were employed on a building 30 feet 6 inches in height their lives and limbs would be at the risk of the insurance company, but when engaged on a building only 29 feet 6 inches or 30 feet in height their lives and limbs would be at their own peril. The insurance companies only would benefit by the clause. They would draft their policies precisely on the lines of the Bill, and fight everything which did not seem to be within the four corners of it. The consequences would be that in many cases working men in the country would be uninsured whether their employers were little builders or big builders. There was after larger percentage of accidents in the country than in towns because there was,

  1413
  less supervision. The more general the Act was in its application the more smoothly it would work. ["Hear, hear!"
  MR. RENSHAWsaid he believed the result of leaving out these limiting words would be to drive the jobbing builders to the great cities. It was because he believed that if they did not take some steps to preserve the position at present occupied by comparatively small builders in the rural parts of the country that he hoped the Government would keep these limiting words in the Bill. He regarded them as of the greatest possible importance.
  MR. BURNSsaid the only interpretation which could be put upon the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew was that the building trade in the country districts was maintained simply because the builders now had an opportunity of injuring their workmen—[cries of "Oh!"]—and subjecting them to a condition of industry that was not allowed in the large towns. The limit of 30ft. would exclude nearly all the dock sheds that were erected in the large towns, nearly all the railway sheds, many market buildings, and other large sheds and warehouses. It seemed ridiculous that they should exclude buildings of 30ft. in height, and say nothing about buildings 30ft. in depth. He could not understand why the Government had fixed this limit. The Government wanted to restrict the Bill as much as possible, and this arbitrary limit could not be defended.
  MR. J. SAMUELthought they ought to have some answer from t he Government. The small builders were more or less jobbing men. He pointed out that in the north of England the bulk of the two-storey houses were only 30ft. high. He thought it a great hardship that bricklayers, joiners, and others engaged on houses 30ft. high should be excluded front the provisions of the Bill. He thought the exclusion would give very great dissatisfaction.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid it would be within the recollection of the House that when the Bill passed through Committee there was an addition made in respect of buildings, and the Bill in its present form was therefore larger in its scope than when it was introduced into the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government assented to the addition of buildings with this limitation of 30ft.,
  1414
  which was well known under the Factory Act of 1895. They did not say that it was altogether a logical definition, but what they said was that in applying this Act to various trades they were taking the already established definition. If they were continually pressed to extend the Bill in further directions they could only answer that they really could not consent to do it. They quite admitted that the Bill was not in the shape which legislation affecting this subject would ultimately take, and that all the trades which would ultimately come in were not yet included.
  MR. BUXTONsaid he was afraid that as the Bill now stood in regard to this matter it would certainly lead to a great deal of litigation. There was no logical difference between the right of a man to compensation when lie fell off a scaffolding 30ft. high and when he fell off a scaffolding 29ft. high. The question would arise also at It particular moment when a building was being constructed or demolished as to whether compensation was due. There were many cases in which it would be almost impossible to say what was the height of a scaffolding. Moreover, the scaffolding at one side of a-building might be of a different height from the scaffolding on the other side.
  MR. WILLIAM BOUSFIELDsaid that probably the Home Secretary would remember that this was a point which in Committee the Government promised they would consider on the Report stage. No doubt the Government had taken -the line of least resistance in getting the Bill through, but it seemed to hint that this was one of the cases in which the action taken by the Government was not altogther happy. He did not advocate the extension of the Bill. It was of small importance how large or how narrow the boundaries of the Bill were when if left the House, for the Bill was to a certain extent experimental. It was intended to apply a new principle to certain definite trades, and all the House was concerned with was that the experiment should be a definite and fair one. But lie thought the line that was drawn ill this case was about the shadowiest and most nebulous that could be drawn, and it was certain to lead to a tremendous amount of dispute and discussion in the Law Courts.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid it was due to the Home Secretary to hear witness to the very handsome manner in which he had redeemed his pledge in Committee. He had an Amendment down to include within the Bill all branches of the building trade. The Home Secretary said it was impossible for the Government to accept that Amendment, but that if it were withdrawn he would undertake to bring in an Amendment that would go some distance towards meeting the case submitted. The right hon. Gentleman gave rather more than he had promised, and he remembered that the whole Committee was well satisfied. [Cries of"No!"] Then he would say a great number of the Committee were well satisfied with the Amendment inserted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government had admitted that the line they had drawn in the present case was most anomalous, and they only justified it by the fact that it was the language used by the late Home Secretary's Act of 1895. But under that Act there had been many difficulties; and, indeed, divergencies and differences of opinion must occur until they made a clean sweep of the whole of the exceptions which were made in this Bill, and provided that compensation should be paid to all and everyone injured in the course of employment.
  MR. PARKER SMITHdid not think the line drawn was quite satisfactory. The real distinction ought to be, not as to the height of the building at the time of the accident, but the final height of the building as it was intended to be.
  *MR. A. D. PROVANDobserved that the building trade was included within the scope of the Bill because it was a dangerous trade, but the most dangerous part of that trade would be excluded by the language of the clause. For instance, it provided that the Bill should only apply to buildings 30ft. in height while being constructed or demolished if scaffolding were made use of. But there were few cases of demolition where scaffolding was used at all. It was one of the most dangerous branches of the building trade, in which many accidents occurred, and yet a. pan injured in such work would by this Bill be excluded from any compensation what-
  1416
  ever, no matter how high the building was. The Home Secretary had told them that this 30ft. limit had been taken from the Factory Act of 1895. But the Factory Act had nothing to do with the demolition of buildings at all, so that there was no possible connection between the two cases no therefore suggested to the right lion. Gentleman that he must make some change in this clause to meet the case of the demolition of structures, otherwise the Bill would apply to the least dangerous part of the building trade and not to the most dangerous part, although the building trade itself had been included because it was dangerous. If the clause were not altered and made fixed and definite, it would lead to that very litigation which they were all desirous to avoid, and that, too, to an extent it was impossible at present to conceive. He hoped the Home Secretary would make some change in the direction suggested, but, if not, then he trusted the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire would go to a Division on his Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words which exceeds' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 111.—(Division List, No. 286.)
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "which," and insert the word "and."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  MR. TENNANT MR. TENNANT moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "repaired by means of a scaffolding." The Amendment was not an extension of the Bill because the Government were kind enough in Committee to accept the words he moved, "demolish," and, later, "demolition." He was informed that in the demolition of buildings scaffolding was very rarely employed. He understood that when the Government accepted the words "demolish" and "demolition" they really meant the Amendment to be effective, and, therefore, in the interests of the Bill, he maintained that the Government should accept the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, whatever might be the view as to the use of scaffolding in demolition works, it would be quite impossible to leave out the words as they stood, for, as the

  1417
  construction of the clause stood, they governed, not only demolition, but repairs also. He would not say but if in another place an endeavour should be made to make a special exception in reference to demolishing, something might be said in favour of it.
  MR. TENNANTsaid if the Home Secretary would give some undertaking that in another place the word "demolished" should be transposed, and come in after the word "scaffolding," or in some way the object should be effected, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BURNSappealed to the Government not to reject this very sensible Amendment. As the clause stood, it would almost exclude the work of demolition from the Bill, and the workmen who were technically known as "housebreakers"—not those whose nocturnal occupations excite the interest of the dice, Init the men who were engaged in pulling down buildings—would laugh at the idea of using scaffolding. If, for instance, workmen were engaged in pulling down a shot tower, their work would be more dangerous if they used scaffolding than if they dispensed with it. There was no reason why house-breakers should not have the benefit of the Bill, and such compensation in case of injury as it offered. If the suggestion of the hon. Member were accepted, there was no reason why "demolishing" should not be defined in a way to remove the objection indicated by means of Amendment in another place.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid these words were added to please hon. Gentlemen opposite. It appeared now that the position of the words "by means of a scaffolding," made the clause unsatisfactory, and though he could not undertake to accept the exact proposal now made, the point raised was well worthy of consideration, and he would undertake that that consideration should be given to it.
  MR. TENNANTsaid after what had fallen from the Home Secretary he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR A. FORWOODsaid he should occupy the attention of the House but a few moments in moving the
  1418
  insertion of the proviso of which he had given notice. Both sides of the House had expressed satisfaction with the general principle of the Bill; in fact, so strong had been the feeling of the House expressed on behalf of the Bill that a long time had been occupied at each stage in preventing contracting out of the Bill by workmen. The object of his proposal was to enable employers, if they wished to do so, to contract themselves into the Act, giving their workmen the benefits it conferred. There were many employments in the country, many descriptions of work, comparatively non-dangerous iii character, insurance in respect to which would be very small in amount, and lie was satisfied that many employers would be willing to protect themselves by the small cost of insurance and give their men the benefit of the provisions of the Act. He therefore hoped the Government would allow the insertion of this proviso to enable employers to apply the Act to their trade should they think fit to do so by agreement with their men. He proposed, at the end of Subsection (1), to insert,—
  "Provided that it shall be lawful for any employer engaged in an employment to which this Act does not apply to elect that it shall thenceforward apply to the workman in his employment in the same manner as if it had been expressly made applicable thereto, but no right to damages which may have accrued to any-workman before such election has been made shall be in any way affected thereby. Such election on the part of any employer shall be signified by contract in writing, signed by the employer, or an agent on his behalf, and the workmen, or by notice kept constantly affixed in such place or places open to the workmen, and in such position that it may be easily seen and read, and copied by any workman affected thereby. Such election shall also be forthwith notified by the employer to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. When once an election has been made under this provision it shall not be revocable without the consent in writing of the workmen affected thereby and with the approval of the said Registrar."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped his right hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of dividing on his proposal after an explanation which he hoped would be sufficient. So far as the substance of the Amendment was concerned, enabling masters and men by agreement to come under the terms of the Act, there was no difficulty about it. Employers could do this at once. No

  1419
  objection could be raised; if workmen thought it would be advantageous to them there would be no legal objection to the parties agreeing for the purpose. Therefore, so far as the substance of the matter was concerned, and if employer and workmen agreed, as was contemplated by his right hon. Friend's Amendment, such a contract might be signed and carried out. Then the Amendment went on to impose restrictions which would not be in the interest of the parties, putting difficulties in the way of making other arrangements which both sides might consider desirable. Although it was, of course, desirable that employers and workmen should be induced to agree upon the terms in the Bill, this proviso was not required for the purpose, and the restrictions would be harmful to the object in view.
  SIR A. FORWOOD, after the explanation, desired to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "applies," to insert the words "and includes a light railway made under the Light Railways Act 1896." To leave out the words "that Act, and include light railways made under the Light Railways Act, 1896," and to insert the words "the said Acts of 1873 and 1896."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  *MR. J. A: PEASE*MR. J. A: PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside) moved, in Sub-section (2), after the words "mechanical power," to insert the words,—
  "and every shipbuilding yard, whether or not such shipbuilding yard is one wherein or within the close or curtilage or precincts of which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used, and vessels under construction or repair, and any other employment in which iron or steel plates, bars, or girders are fixed or riveted."
  This Amendment was one which in discussion on Committee stage the Government undertook to consider. It was not outside the principle of the Bill, it was not an extension to other industries, but it would enable all the men engaged upon work connected with a shipbuilding yard to be brought under the provisions of the Bill. The Amendment included
  1420
  those workmen who, owing to a technical definition in the Factory Act of 1878, would be excluded, but who worked in an industry which it was proposed should be covered by the provisions of the Bill. At the present moment, owing to a definition in the Factory Acts, any man engaged in a shipyard in which there was no mechanical power employed would be excluded, and his object was that all those who were engaged in the selected industries which the Government had brought within the scope of the Bill, wheresoever they might work, might be included. As the Bill stood, in the case of any vessel which was launched or came into a waterway to be repaired, all the workmen who were taken out of the yard and placed in the vessel would no longer come under the provisions of the Bill; and, again, any men who were moved from the yard to follow their employment in riveting or plating on land outside a yard which was defined as a factory would similarly be exempted. This question affected an enormous number of Wien. The Bill affected thousands of men. There were 108 shipyards in the country. In 1891, when the tonnage was not nearly what it was now, the shipwrights numbered 62,717, and to-day we were building at the rate of 1,400,000 tons a year, or 80 per cent. of the tonnage of the world. The men in the Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders' Association, mainly platers and riveters, numbered 41,000. The unskilled labourers and apprentices engaged in the shipyards numbered 45,100. Besides these classes there were thousands of joiners, riggers, framers, and engineers. Many of these would be exempted more than half their time if the Amendment was rejected. The different classes of labour employed in and about a ship would be one day apparently under the Bill, and the next day they would be excluded, because they happened to be working where there was no machinery or in a water-way. How easy it would be for an employer to escape the liabilities of this Bill ! He had only to concentrate his machinery in one yard, have a roadway separating the place where the machinery was situated from that where the ship was being built, and he could evade the Bill. Most riveting was done by hand. It was quite easy for an employer to purchase his material ready to be placed on the vessel, and as soon as

  1421
  the man crossed the road from having bored the plates with machinery and went to rivet the plates on the hull he would no longer be within the Bill. A. vessel's hull might be constructed, and the frame then launched, or a vessel requiring reconstruction or repair might be brought into a dry dock, and the men employed in the work would never come under the Bill at all. Again, in many cognate industries, such as in boiler work, where exactly the same kind of work was performed, in bridge-work, gasometers, caissons, and pontoons, the same individual was engaged. He had to follow his employment from works in which machinery was situated: he left a less hazardous employment where he could obtain compensation, and went to a more hazardous situation, where he would receive no compensation. The moment he was sent out to erect a gasometer in a gas works he was no longer compensated. Take as an illustration the man who injured his finger when temporarily riveting a gasometer plate in a yard would receive compensation, the man who smashed his hand in permanently fixing the plate when erecting the gasometer in the gasworks would receive nothing. If a loan was engaged in building a caisson in order to support a bridge to span a river, whilst preparing the work where there was machinery He was compensated, but the moment he had to undertake his difficult and hazardous calling in connection with the permanent erection of the caisson to support the bridge he no longer received compensation in the case of an accident. The Bill aimed at including the most hazardous occupations, but the most hazardous portions of the platers' work, conducted often outside yards where there was mechanical power, prevented compensation being paid. The labourers were divided into two Classes: "helpers," and "general labourers." The former numbered 12,000, and being on piece work they were often driven hard by the platers, and every year had to carry heavier materials, thus their work tended to become more dangerous. The number of accidents met with by these men averaged 1581 per cent. a year. The Labourers on a railway line, included in the Bill, only 77 met with accidents: therefore, these labourers had an occupation 16 times more hazardous than those
  1422
  on railways. In the Boiler and Iron Shipbuilders' Association 80' were on the funds after having received two years' sick pay, the average amount of sick pay being £24,700 per year. Three per cent of these men were on sick pay; this percentage was greater than almost any other class of labour, greater than even ironfounders, who had to manipulate hot metal. The work of riggers obviously was not only hazardous but the nature of the injury was most serious. The number of days each rigger was off work averaged 42, as against 9'8 in ironworks, where hot metal was worked, and 24 in the building trades. The attitude of the Government, if they resisted this Amendment, would not only be illogical and unjust, but inexpedient, for the same man would be treated differently meeting with the same accident but in different places. Such an injustice would be a fruitful source of friction and litigation between employers and employed. Some employer might even arrange their yards and apportion their work with an eye to evade liability. He believed that although the Colonial Secretary had said in 1892:—
  "The recognition of the universality of the right to compensation would lie impossible, as well as unjust, to throw the burden invariably and exclusively upon the employer."
  Yet the employer would sooner this injustice were done hint than that he should not know what his liability was as between his employés. He appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment, as it in no sense was an extension of the principle, but would be only a mere act of justice to the men engaged in the shipbuilding industry.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had shown to the House, what they all probably knew, that there were, outside the actual operations of a shipbuilding yard, which was included in flue Factory Acts, men engaged in almost identically the same work who were not technically at that moment factory hands, but who were just its liable to accident as some of those who would come under the protection of the Bill. He admitted all that, but, at the same time, he was not prepared to admit that he was either illogical or unjust if lie declined to accept the Amendment. They had taken their stand upon

  1423
  the definition of these industries as laid down in the well-known Factory Acts, and if they were to begin, either in the direction of shipbuilding yards or other kinds of factories, to take individual and particular instances where, by the custom of the trade, similar work was done outside those factories, they would land themselves in endless discussions and be opening out a field which would surprise some of those who at the present moment had not found themselves included in the provisions of the Bill. He was quite ready to admit a very great deal of what his hon. Friend opposite said, and it might be illogical to refuse to compensate those whose case he had brought forward. But, for his own part, he thought the most logical, as well as the most just, position was to say that they had taken a wide range in that they had included all those industries which were defined by the Factory Acts to be factories, and that that was a limit to which they ought to adhere. He must, therefore, decline to accept the Amendment.
  *MR. J. WILSONwished to say he represented a constituency who were largely engaged in shipbuilding and engineering, and thought his hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, had put his case very fairly before the Committee. There was no doubt whatever that the men who were working in these engineering shops and shipbuilding yards and who were called upon to go outside—perhaps into a dry dock or into mid stream—for the purpose of completing their work of fitting out a vessel should be within the purview of the Bill. An accident which. took place on the Clyde some time ago would illustrate the hardship which would be inflicted upon these men if the Amendment were not accepted. On that occasion a vessel was launched on which were a number of men who lied been engaged in the yard in her construction and who were required to be on board for the purpose of completing her. The vessel capsized, and yet the dependants of these men, who were huried into eternity, would not have received the benefits of the Bill. [Laughter.] He hoped the Government would take this matter into their serious consideration, and see whether they could not embrace within the purview of the Bill those workmen who were required to go outside their
  1424
  shops or yards to complete the work upon which they were engaged.
  COLONEL DENNY, speaking as a shipbuilder, said he agreed with his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. He knew it was very difficult for the Government to deal with this matter without bringing in other cases, but he should be prepared to sacrifice a great deal before he would consent to do what would be a manifest injustice. In shipbuilding work it was not possible to differentiate between the men who were engaged inside the yard or shop and those engaged outside, because they were identically the same men and engaged on identically the same work. ["Hear, hear!"] Yet, according to the definition laid down by the Home Secretary, the men engaged outside the yard would not come within the operations of the Bill. He did not believe that any shipbuilder would wish to differentiate between the men in this way. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew it was not advisable to delay the progress of the Bill, but there was another place where this Amendment might be inserted, so as to prevent an invidious distinction being drawn between the saw e men when working inside the yard and when doing the same kind of work for the same employer outside the yard.
  MR. MORTONexpressed disappointment at the action of the Government in refusing this Amendment. The late Home Secretary was, he believed, the first Minister to include Government employés in a Bill of this kind, and he was glad that the present Home Secretary had followed his right lion Friend's example. If an Amendment similar to tins were not accepted by the Government, a large part of the advantage resulting from the inclusion of Government employés within the scope of the Bill would be lost. There was an enormous quantity of most dangerous dockyard work done in vessels afloat, while there were diving operations in connection with vessels in the process of being constructed or mended. These cases would be excluded under the terms of the Bill unless this Amendment was accepted; and he hoped that in another place, if not now, the Government might see their way to give effect to the Amendment.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for

  1425
  Kilmarnock Burghs that there was absolutely no reason why men should be compensated for an accident inside a work and not compensated for an accident outside the same work. Speaking, he believed, for all the shipbuilders in the House, they were entirely of the same opinion. [Opposition. cheers.] Was a man employed in a shipbuilding yard 01:, side the regular yard in a different position with regard to the Bill than the sailor or agricultural labourer? Was it possible to include in the Bill shipbuilding hands outside the yards without including all those trades now left out? He believed that whatever trades were left out of the Rill now must be included before another year passed; and this was the reason why he could not vote for the Amendment. But in justice and logic there was no reason why a man should be compensated for an accident inside a work while another man belong-to the same yard should not he compensated for an accident in connection with work outside. He should like to have a pledge from the Government that they would amend the Bill in another place. [Cries of "Now!"]
  MR. W. ALLANsaid that the plea of the Home Secretary was illogical. The definition of "factory" in the Bill included "any dock," and a man, therefore, working in a dock was to be compensated. Suppose some men in a shipyard were sent to work in a dock to repair a vessel. They did the same kind of work as they did in a shipyard. Were these men to be exempted from the operations of the Bill when the men working in the yard were to come within its operation?
  MR. BURNSremarked that not only representatives of the workmen, lint generous-hearted employers of labour who knew the technical illogicality of this Bill had offered to conic within the purview of the Bill if Government would only consent. If, therefore, the Amendment were resisted in the House Of Lords—and he could conceive Lord Londonderry resisting it if he were a shipbuilder—the Government could put up their man and tell him that the Amendment was pressed and forced upon them not alone in the interest of labour, but also in the interest of the just and equitable working of a Bill which had fur its object not only the compensation
  1426
  of the workmen, but —where contracting-out schemes prevailed—the harmonious carrying out of those schemes. It was most creditable to some of the largest shipbuilders that they insisted on the Government accepting an Amendment whose rejection would cause many employers, and certainly all workmen, to regret it, and he hoped the House of Lords would allow it to pass in order to make the as humane, as consistent, and as logical as it might be. It would be still better if the Government would save them the trouble of running the gauntlet of the House of Lords, where so many innocents had been killed. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PARKER SMITHhoped the Government would favourably consider the Amendment. As connected with one of the largest shipbuilding establishments in the country, it seemed to him entirely impossible to draw any line between ships in course of construction, whether in the yard or afloat outside. One half of the work was done on shore; then the vessel was launched, and exactly the same kind of work continued to be done on her, either lying in the dock or in the fairway of the river, and the same men were engaged in doing the same kind of work. How could they reasonably draw the line aid say that in case of an accident before launching, or while the ship was lying in a dock which happened to be within the yard, the case came under the but that if the accident happened outside the yard while the ship was lying in the river, then there was no liability at all? ["Hear, hear!"] It was rather curious to note the way in which a ship had been considered, or rather had not been considered. It seemed to come somewhat under the head of an engineering work, no doubt; but he thought ships were sufficiently important to be treated by themselves, and lie hoped the Government might devise some principle similar to what they had adopted in the case of buildings. They had taken a line including buildings over a certain size; and he thought they might draw the line so as to include all ships in the course of construction if over a certain size. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it was impossible for the

  1427
  Government to ignore the fact that four Members, personally concerned in the shipbuilding interest, had successively risen to express their strong desire that the Amendment should be accepted. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, they had never denied, on the contrary, they had admitted over and over again, that it was difficult to justify the distinction drawn in the Bill between one industry and another. But if that were to be a conclusive argument, the Bill ought to have been rejected long ago. The Government had felt that some line must be drawn, and the inevitable effect of that was that cases would fall on either side of the line which it was very difficult to distinguish on principle. ["Hear, hear?"] But there did seem to be this peculiarity in the present case—a peculiarity which perhaps could be matched in other instances, but which hardly existed to the same degree—namely, that it was the same individual occupied on precisely the same work, under the same master, and on the same piece of goods, who on one day or week came under the Bill and the next day or week did not come under the Bill. He admitted that was a peculiarity which deserved careful consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought, however, that they would be ill-advised if they attempted to deal with the difficulty now; and although he was giving no specific promise as to what they might be able to do on another occasion in another place, if the House would so far repose confidence in the Government as to trust them, at all events with a desire to do their best in the matter, perhaps the subject might now be left in their hands. He hoped that after this indication of the views, or of the provisional views of the Government, the hon. Member opposite would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. VICARY GIBBSasked if Government intended to do their best to include not only shipbuilding yards mentioned in the first part of the Amendment, but other employments mentioned in the second part, in which iron and steel plates and girders were used. If the latter were to be included, there was no reason why all sorts of trades should not also come in.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, of course it must be distinctly understood that no Amendment which the Government would willingly accept would greatly extend the lines of the Bill as already laid down. The whole of the argument for the Amendment went on the hypothesis that there were certain marks differentiating this case from other cases. If, on examination, that appeared to be the case, and that those marks could be made the basis of a statutory distinction in the Bill, then it was a point with which the Government might deal. But they did not intend to give any great extension to the general scope of the Measure as already laid down.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that after the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman which he understood to be that the object of the Amendment would receive favourable consideration in another place by the Government, he would ask leave on that understanding to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL MR. HARRY SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse) moved in Subsection (2), after the words "or other mechanical power," to insert the words—
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act to the contrary, the word dock,' for the purpose of this Act, shall be held to include any place where ships are loaded or unloaded."
  He said that many men were engaged in loading and unloading vessels in other places than docks, wharves, and quays—in streams, for instance, where the vessel was not stationary, and the machinery used was not so applicable to the work. He hoped the Government would extend the protection of the Bill to these men. He would accept any modification which the Government desired.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that this Amendment was an object-lesson of the difficulties caused by attempting to extend the Bill in any direction. The principle of the Amendment was that wherever a ship was loaded or unloaded the workmen were to be brought under the Bill. The Government could not accept such a wide Amendment, and he feared that it would be impossible to meet the hon. Member half way.
  MR. BUXTONsaid that all the arguments which the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted with respect to the last Amendment practically applied to this also. When a ship was attached to the quay the men engaged in unloading her were to come under the Bill, when the ship was moored in mid-stream they were not—though the same men, the same work, and the same employer were concerned in both cases. The only reason why they were not included in the Act of 1895 was that there was no time just before the General Election when by general assent the Bill was agreed to. He hoped that the Government, having met very fairly the last Amendment, would see their way to deal with this Amendment which was on all fours with the former.
  MR. J. SAMUELsaid the ships in deep water berths were moved, loaded and unloaded by the same Wino who should come under the Bill—that was to say the men employed on the wharves. These men from the wharves were taken away to unload these ships, and while doing so, under the same employers, they would not come under the provisions of this Bill. He hoped that the Government would see their way to include them.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that it was pointed out in the Grand Committee on which he sat that it would he impossible to draw the line between a ship in midstream and elsewhere.
  MR. H. SAMUELasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 177.—(Division List, No. 287.)
  Amendments made: Sub-section (2) after the word "alteration," insert the words "for repair." Leave out the word "on," and insert the words "for the construction, alteration, or repair of." Leave out the words "for the purpose of the construction or alteration thereof" and after the words "is used" to insert—
  "'Undertakers' in the case of a railway means the railway company; in the ease of a factory, quarry, or laundry means the occupier thereof within the meaning of flu Factory and
  1430
  Workshop Acts, 1873 to 1895; in the case of a mine means the owner thereof within the meaning of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1857, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, as the case may be; and in the case of an engineering work means the person undertaking the construction, alteration, or repair; and in the case of a building means the persons undertaking the construction, alteration, or repair."
  After the word "unincorporate," insect the words "and the legal personal representative of a deceased employer."
  At the end of Sub-section (2) to add:
  "Any reference to a workout, who has been injured shall, where, the workman is dead, include a reference to his legal pars anal representative or to his dependants, or other person to whom compensation is payable."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the words,—
  "'Dependants' means—(a) In England and Ireland, such members of the workman's family specified in the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 as acre wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of the workman at the time of, or immediately prior to, has death; and (b) in Scotland, such of the persons entitled according to the law of Scotland to sue the employer for damages or scotland in respect of the death of the workman as were wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of the workman at the time of, or immediately prior to, his death."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid that he understood this would ha the proper time to move an Amendment which stood in his name, namely: Leave out the words "members of the workman's family specified in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846," and insert
  "persons, being the wife, husband, parent, grandparent, stepfather, stepmother, child, grandchild, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, or sister of the workman."
  The hon. Member said that the practical effect of the Amendment was to include a brother or sister among the dependants for whom the Bill made provision. In many cases where the father or mother had been removed by death the brother or sister became the bread-winner for whole family. Cases of that kind must have the sympathy of the House because they appealed to the best feelings of our nature. ["Hear, hear."] The only objection urged against his Amendment

  1431
  in Committee was that the Government had in their definition followed Lord Campbell's Act. But that was passed more than 50 years ago, and he saw no reason why the House should regard that as a binding precedent. It was only in cases where the deceased workman had been the bread winner of brothers and sisters that the Act would apply. The sentiments of the community would be outraged if in cases of that kind where a workman was killed the brothers or sisters dependent upon him were left entirely without maintenance.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the point of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment was to include both "brother and sister." They had already expressed their view that they thought they had gone far enough, having regard to the interests concerned, and he was afraid they must adhere to that decision.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. TOMLINSON MR. TOMLINSON moved, after the words last inserted, to add,—
  "'Total incapacity' means loss of sight, or of both legs or of both arms, or any other injury of such a nature as to permanently incapacitate the workman from earning wages at the kind of work on which he was employed;
  "'Partial incapacity' means loss of one eye, one leg or arm or hand, or any other injury of such a nature as to permanently incapacitate the workman front earning full wages at the work on which he was employed."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)said that no difference was made in the scale of compensation between total and partial incapacity, and therefore no definition of the two forms of incapacity was required.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MORTON MR. MORTON moved, "That further proceeding, on consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. He confessed that the progress they had made that night had not been quite so rapid as he had hoped, and though he was quite sure on both sides of the House there was a great desire to further the Bill, the discussion had perhaps been in some cases more
  1432
  fitted to the Committee than the Report stage of the Bill. He thought everybody would feel that it would be very inconvenient that the Debate should go over Monday. They still had a great deal of work to do, and he would earnestly beg the House not to waste a moment's time. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6,—

  APPLICATION TO WORKMEN IN EMPLOYMENT OF CROWN.
  (1.) This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to any employment by or under the Crown to which this Act would apply if the employer were a private person.
  (2.) The Treasury may, by warrant laid before Parliament, modify for the purposes of this Act their warrant made under section one of the Superannuation Act 1887.
  MR. MORTON (on behalf of Mr. KEARLEY)MR. MORTON (on behalf of Mr. KEARLEY) moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "not," with the object of making the Act apply to persons in the Naval or Military service of the Crown. It would be impossible, of course, to bring within the scope of the Bill private soldiers killed in warfare, because getting killed was a necessary part of their employment. Therefore there was a second Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend to exclude men employed on active service. But there was a large number of cases of employments under the Crown which ought to be brought within the scope of the Bill.
  MR. PARKER SMITHrose to order. He asked whether it was in order for the hon. Member, who was not a Minister of the Crown, to move an Amendment which would lead to increased charges on the Treasury. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think that objection is valid. The Amendment would certainly increase the charges on the Treasury, and therefore cannot be moved at this stage of the Bill.
  Clause 7,—

  PROVISION AS TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
  Any contract existing at the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right to compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of and in the course of Iris employment, shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue

  1433
  after the time at which the workman's contract of service would determine if notice of the determination thereof were given at the commencement of this Act.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft) moved to insert at the beginning of the clause, "subject to the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section (4), of this Act."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Amendment was quite unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being Midnight, further proceeding (in Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

  LAND TRANSFER [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Resolution reported,—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any deficiency in the Insurance Fund which may be established under any Act of the present Session to establish a Real Representative and to amend the Land Transfer Act 1875."

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th July] further adjourned till Monday next.
  FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Mutiny next.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Committee deferral till Monday next.
  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Further proceeding, on consideration its amended (by the Standing Committee) deferred till Wednesday next.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRE LAND) ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. Clause 1:
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Monday next.

  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. D. CHILLYobjected
  MR. JOHN HUTTONappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsupported the appeal on the ground that the Bill w one to promote the interests of the d serving poor, which was an object whit should commend itself to the ho Member.
  DR. TANNERsaid that he should not object to the Bill, and hoped that the same consideration would be shown to Irish Bills.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W RUSSELL,)said that it wits very important Bill, raising very important issues, and as it created a fie: Imperial charge, it must be discussed some other time than after midnight.
  MR. J. HUTTON MR. J. HUTTON moved that the Order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  PRISONERS' PERSONAL CORRECTION PROHIBITION BILL.
  On the order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that, in view of the promises of the Home Secretary that the prison rules with respect flogging should be amended, he moved that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order for Second Reading road, at discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  TITHE REDEMPTION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) (CASUAL VACANCIES) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.
  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  POLICE PENSIONS AND SERVICE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  JURORS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  RAILWAY RETURN TICKETS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRE LAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  House Adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'Clock.

VOLUNTEERS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES, the EARL Of MORLEY, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

EXPLANATION of 26 & 27 VICT. c. 65, ss. 24, 27.
For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the power under section twenty-four of the Volunteer Act 1863, to make rules with respect to a volunteer corps shall extend, and be deemed to have always extended, to rules for securing the efficiency of the members of the corps, and that a fine for the breach of any rule made under that power shall not be deemed to be a civil debt.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I have to propose an Amendment to this clause, which has been prepared with the object of placing a limitation, and I think a desirable limitation, on the power conferred by this Bill of recovering fines from Volunteers by means of proceedings in a Court of summary jurisdiction. I explained to the House the other evening that the object of the Bill is to make it clear that the power conferred by Section 24 of the Volunteer Act 1863, extends to making rules which have reference not only to the management of the property or the finances or the civil affairs of the corps, but also to rules affecting the efficiency of the corps. Under the operation of Sections 27 and 28 of the Act of I863, lines imposed under any of these rules may be recovered by proceedings before a Court of summary jurisdiction, and it has been argued, and I think argued with some force, that, given general powers of making rules of this character, and also an unrestricted power of recovery in a Court of summary jurisdiction, there would be nothing to prevent that which is now a civil liability being dealt with as if it were a criminal offence. ["Hear, hear!"] In order to meet this objection I propose to insert the words
1334
of which I have given notice, the effect of which will be to limit the provision for recovery of fines to fines imposed under rules made for the purpose of securing the efficiency of the corps, so that the power may not extend to fines imposed in connection with the management of the finances, or what might be spoken of as the domestic affairs of the corps. I feel sure that the Amendment will commend itself to the noble Earl (Earl of Wemyss), who, I know, takes an interest in the Bill. I beg to move to leave out the words, "rule made under that power," and to insert the words, such rule for securing efficiency."
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that when the Bill first appeared there stood in the second clause, winch his noble Friend had given notice to omit, the very ugly word "imprisonment," and his fear was that under this Bill Volunteers would lose their civil rights and be put in a different position from other civilians. The whole life and soul of the Volunteer force was its civil character; it was never under military law, except when called out for duty; in other respects Volunteers were in the position of other civilians. But the Bill, he feared, would have placed Volunteers in a different position from other civilians who were not liable to imprisonment for non-payment of debt except under special circumstances where a Court found a man could pay and refused to pay. Otherwise imprisonment for debt had been abolished, and it seemed to him unreasonable to bring it into play again against Volunteers. To the Amendment of his noble Friend he offered no objection, thanking him for his endeavour to meet his wishes, and anything he might have to say upon the Bill he would reserve for the Third Reading.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl will understand that the power to recover fines by proceedings in a Court of summary jurisdiction will be limited strictly to fines for an offence which, when committed by a Volunteer, virtually amounts to a denial of his services to the country after he has received at the expense of the corps certain advantages in consideration of those services forthcoming when required. That is distinctly a fraud on the part of the Volunteer.
Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2,—

TERMINATION OF IMPRISONMENT.
If, before the expiration of the term of such imprisonment, such a proportion of the fine be paid that the term of imprisonment suffered is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved the omission of this clause. He said it was inserted in the House of Commons, and, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, it came before the House in a shape in which it could not possibly be allowed to stand. Since then attention had been called to the fact that a Bill promoted by the Home Department was now before the other House dealing with the prisons question, in one clause of which power would be taken in cases of persons imprisoned for non-payment of fines to accept a portion of the amount and to reduce the term of imprisonment by a number of days bearing the same proportion to the whole length of the term as the sum paid bore to the whole amount of the fine. The point was one which could be more conveniently dealt with by amendment of the general law, and therefore he proposed to omit t he clause altogether.
Clause struck out.
Clause 3,—

SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the Volunteer Act 1897.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendment to be received Tomorrow; and Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 150.)

EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Order for Third Reading,
THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked whether this Bill was absolutely on all fours with the Agricultural Holdings Act with reference to tenants' improvements?
LORD REAYsaid the Bill was absolutely identical with the Market Gardeners Act, 1895, with such alterations as suited the conditions peculiar to Scotland.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to allow returning officers at municipal elections in Scotland to make the same claim on the use of buildings used as public schools as they were now able to do in Parliamentary elections, County Council elections, and Parish Council elections. For some reason or other the provision was omitted in regard to municipal elections, and the Scotch Education Department acre therefore in a difficulty as to counting the days when the school was so used for municipal elections when making up the number of school attendances. In each year 400 openings were required as a condition of the school grant, and under the Code, whenever a schoolroom was used for other purposes under statutory powers, the day when the school was so used was counted as day when the school was opened. The sole object of the Bill was to place returning officers, in t he case of municipal elections, in the same position as in the ease of the other elections mentioned.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CHAFF-CUTTING MACHINES (ACCIDENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. 151.)
VERMINOUS PERSONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Monday next—(The Earl of Stamford).—[No. 152.]

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS.
The following Questions stood upon the Notice Paper:—
LORD WANTAGE: To ask the Lord President of the Council the following Questions with reference to the format of Associations of Voluntary Schools:
Whether the Education Department will take steps to prevent the supporters and managers of Voluntary Schools in Berkshire from being deprived of their right to have effect given to their choice of the county as the area of association:
Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, prior to the meeting of the Oxford Diocesan Conference in May last, the rural deans issued circulars to the correspondents of the school managers throughout the county of Berks asking them to ascertain if their co-managers were willing to join an association of schools for the county; and (if willing to join such an association) to elect two representatives to be thereafter summoned to a meeting by the rural deans for the purpose of electing two delegates for each rural deanery, such delegates to form the governing body of the county association. That, the consent of the managers having been so obtained to a county association, the Oxford Diocesan Conference met and passed a resolution that the area should be the diocese and not the county. That, thereupon, the representatives whom the managers elected for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of a county association were induced in many cases to proceed with the election of delegates for a diocesan scheme without any fresh application to the managers for authority to consent to such an important change:
And whether returns are being made to the Education Department that the managers have selected the diocese as the area of association notwithstanding the above facts, and in disregard of the resolution to the contrary passed at a meeting of school managers for the county held at Reading on the 12th instant;
1338
and of the important Petition to the Department signed by the Lord Lieutenant, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the County Council, all the County and Borough Members in Berks, and a large number of the Magistrates and Members of the County Council?
LORD HENEAGE: To ask the Lord President of the Council:
Whether any Voluntary Schools Associations have yet been sanctioned by the Education Department under the Voluntary Schools Act 1897?
Whether it is intended to extend the period for the formation of such associations under the Act in consequence of the delay and difficulties which have arisen by the attempt to force a purely diocesan association on the Church of England Schools in the county of Lincoln and other counties:
Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Lincolnshire Diocesan Board of Education had formulated a scheme for a county undenominational Association which had received the general approval of the lay and clerical managers of schools in the rural parishes throughout the county:
Whether the following statements circulated through the rural deans are accurate, namely, that a diocesan Association had been formed in Lincolnshire under Section (1), (3), of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, before the 2nd of June; that if a school is not associated speedily it will be too late for this year's grant as an associated school; and that a. school not associated is acting in opposition to the wish of the Education Department, whilst a school which associates this year with a diocesan association can withdraw next year and be in no worse position:
And, further, what steps the Government propose to take for the assistance and protection of undenominational schools, as well as British and other mixed schools which are only technically Church of England schools, in those counties where diocesan associations may be formed, especially in Lincolnshire?
TETE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said he had received a letter from the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and from two or three other members of the Episcopal Bench who wished to address their Lordships on the subject of these Questions,

1339
stating that they had been summoned by Her Majesty to Windsor, and were therefore unable to attend in their places that day. Under these circumstances they asked him to request the noble Lords to postpone their Questions until they were able to attend.
LORD WANTAGEsaid he at once acceded to the request made by the Lord Chancellor, and would postpone his Questions until Monday.
LORD HENEAGEalso signified his acquiescence in this course.
*VISCOUNT PORTMANasked the President of the Council whether the question of the larger area for associated Voluntary schools was to be decided by the votes of a majority of schools in a county, or by those of a majority in the diocese of which such county formed a part? He said this was a. very simple matter, which could very easily be decided for them by the Lord President. The diocese of Salisbury consisted of the whole county of Dorset and a large portion of the county of Wilts. The portion of the county of Wilts had declared their preference for the diocesan area, but the county of Dorset was divided as nearly as possible evenly on the question. He had taken a. great deal of trouble to ascertain the wishes of school managers, and he had answers from 115 schools in support of the county area, and from 112 schools in support of the diocesan area. He understood the right rev, Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury wished to count against the wishes of Dorset the wishes of the Wiltshire schools, who were, he understood, all in favour of the diocesan area. The purport of his question was whether the Lord President would allow the wishes of the Wiltshire schools to swamp the very marked wishes of the Dorset schools?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): In reply to my noble Friend, I have to say that provisional approval has already been given to a diocesan association for the diocese of Salisbury. That, however, will not preclude the formation of a county association for the county of Dorset, if a sufficient number of managers of school in the county should appear to be in favour of such an association. I understand that it is the wish of the Bisho1 of Salisbury himself that if my noble
1340
Friend is able to obtain sufficient support to the county scheme which he proposes, that scheme should be approved, as it is far from his wish that any school should be forced into an association to which it objects to belong.

DELAGOA BAY ARBITRATION.
THE EARL OF MAYOasked Her Majesty's Government whether they had any information as to the award concerning the Delagoa. Bay Railway, or whether they could say when that award was likely to be made public. It would be in their Lordships' recollection, he said, that some years ago the Portuguese Government seized the Delagoa Bay Railway, and that the bondholders interested in the matter managed to get it referred to arbitration. The arbitration had almost become ancient history now, and he supposed that the arbitrators would, in the sweet by-and-bye, give their award. He thought the amount in which Englishmen were interested was £743,000 odd. There was a question answered the other day in another place, when it was stated that the long delay which had taken place was due in equal proportions to the successive applications of both parties. He was credibly informed that the Portuguese were the people who had put in other claims and so delayed the arbitration.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am afraid that arbitrations are emulating the ancient reputation of the Court of Chancery, and if there were a. Dickens in these days to write about them, a Jarndyce against Jarndyce might be found without difficulty in their records. The delay, I quite agree with my noble Friend, is something quite extraordinary, but when he asks me to apportion the responsibility of delay between the two sides of the case, I am wholly unable to do so. It is obvious that any delay that has taken place has taken place with the sanction of the tribunal, and I do not think you can go beyond its decision in order to blame the party, whoever it may be, by whose application any delay has happened. If my noble Friend asks me what the prospects of the arbitration are, I have to answer to him that I am informed that the decision will be speedily

1341
given—["hear, hear!"]—but I am afraid I shall not carry much comfort to his mind if I tell him that the sonic information has been supplied to me foi several years past. [Laughter.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: And also to me.
THE PRIME MINISTER: And also to the noble Lord opposite. [Laughter.] Therefore I fear I must leave my noble Friend to such consolation as he may be able to obtain from the reflection that after all he is supporting the sacred principle of arbitration. [Laughter.]
House Adjourned at Five Minutes before Five o'Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.