Sitting of 12 July 1897

ROSSLARE RAILWAY (APOLOGY).
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he desired to correct a statement that lie had inadvertently made on Friday last to the effect that the Town Clerk of Birmingham was a member of a syndicate that wanted to purchase the Rosslare Railway. That official had written to him stating that there was no foundation whatever for the statement, and therefore lie wished to with, draw it, and to express his regret for having made it. ["Hear, hear!"]
MERSEY CHANNELS BILL
Lords' Amendments to to be Considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
QUESTIONS.

  ASHBOURNE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON:: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Ashbourne Board of Guardians have for some time held their meetings in licensed premises, contrary to law; whether any steps have been taken in the matter by the Local Government Board: and whether it is intended that any steps should be taken to put a stop to this illegality?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The question of the present place of meeting of the Ashbourne Board of Guardians has been the subject of correspondence between the Local Government Beard and the Guardians, and the Board have repeatedly urged that arrangements should he made for the meetings to be made elsewhere. It is alleged by the Guardians that the law is not contravened. They stated in May 1896 that an arrangement was made with the owner' of the board room whereby the hoard room and offices were, prior to the last licensing session, separately let tri the. Guardians who were thenceforth to have the exclusive use of them, and that they had not been included in the premises in respect of winch the licence was granted to the proprietress of the "Green Man" Hotel. The district auditor has made a disallowance; of certain rents which have been paid in respect of the promises referred, and the question as to the legality of the disallowance has been raised by an appeal which is under the consideration of the Board.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland can he state the total number of applications for reinstatement by evicted tenants under
1582
the Land Act 1890; how many have been acceded to by the landlords; and, can the Government do anything before the powers of the Act expire to promote settlements?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The number of applications received by the Land Commissioners under the 47th Section of the Act of 1896 is 507, in 16 of which the applications have been acceded to by the landlords. At the same time, may state that settlements have been effected with evicted tenants in a considerable number of cases quite independently of the provisions of the Act of last year. Thus in the quarter ended March 31 last, the number of farms retaken by the former tenants was 158, and for the 12 months ended December 31 1896, the number was 627. In 1895 the number was 605, and there were 590 settlements in 1894. These numbers do not include cases of relating to relatives or friends of evicted tenants with the consent of, or by arrangement with, the latter. It is not the intention of the Government to undertake further legislation for the purpose of promoting settlements with evicted tenants.
MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could do anything in the matter pending legislation.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will do anything that lies in my power in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

POSTAGE RATES
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether, at the Postal Union Congress held a Washington, Great Britain proposed or announced her intention to reduce the postage to all parts of the world (Foreign and Colonial) from 2½d. to 2d. per letter (2) whether he is aware that about 53,000,000 letters are dispatched annually to Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia, and of this number of letters only 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 go to our Colonies and India; (3) whether in consequence of the refusal of the Foreign Governments to permit England to reduce her postage rates from 2½d. to 2d he has called the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention

1583
to the fact that a saving of 53,000,000 halfpennies will be effected, and that the cost of establishing Imperial penny postage will only amount to 30,000,000 halfpennies; and (4) whether he will propose to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the saving through the rejection of Great Britain's proposal shall he devoted to establishing penny postage to all parts of the Empire, and, whether he will consent to establish ocean penny postage to our Colonies if he receives the written consent of the Prime Ministers and Governments concerned?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): it is the fact that, in accordance with the instructions which they received, the British Delegates at the recent Postal Congress announced the intention of her Majesty's Government to fix the English equivalent of 25 centimes at 2d. instead of 2½d. The Postmaster General is aware that about 53,000,000 letters (including post-cards) are dispatched annually abroad, and that about 12,000,000 of this number go to our Colonies and India. The last two paragraphs of the Question relate to matters of policy, of a kind which would require the attention of the Government, and could not in any case be conveniently answered within the limits of a reply to a question. This must also be my answer to the hon. Member's other Question.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the British Officers at present quartered at Carmen, Island of Crete, send and receive a number of private letters from Malta; that these letters travel invariably by one of Her Majesty's ships, free of cost, to the Malta Post Office, yet the postal officials at the latter place rule that all these letters must be stamped with a stamp, though the Malta inland rate is alleged to be only a halfpenny?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has no information as to the postage charged on any private letters from Malta for British Officers quartered at Canea which may be conveyed by Her Majesty's ships. But as 2½d., or the equivalent of 25 centimes, where no agreement exists to the contrary, is the universal postage of the world from and to countries included in the Postal
1584
Union, he thinks it most probable that the authorities at Malta require the letters to bear this postage. The post office of the island is not administered by the Imperial Post Office.

CHESTER MILITARY DISTRICT.
SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Major DALBIAC), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is usual in the case of promotion or appointment of an officer to the command of a battalion to take into consideration the opinion and reports of his commanding officer concerning his fitness and ability; and, if so, upon what grounds did the General Officer commanding at Chester recommend for command the officer now commanding the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, in direct disregard of the reports concerning him by his own commanding officer, and why did be repeatedly refuse to see the commanding officer of the battalion on the subject when an interview was requested; and whether he is aware that the commanding officer had preferred serious charges against him (the officer now commanding the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers) and demanded a Court of inquiry to investigate the matter, which application was entirely ignored by the General Officer commanding at Chester?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The General Officer Commanding the District did duly consider the report of the officer commanding the corps and also that of the Colonel commanding the regimental district hi forwarding it. Considerable friction appears to have existed between the officer commanding and the officer reported on, and, after considering the reports, the General Officer Commanding, in the exercise of his discretion, recommended the appointment of the present Commanding Officer of the 3rd Battalion, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to interfere with the discretion so exercised. The General Officer Commanding denies that he has refused to give an interview to the officer who objected to the appointment. The granting or not of a Court of Inquiry

1585
was entirely A matter for the consideration of the General Officer Commanding, and not for that of the officer applying for it.

NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the practical withdrawal by the National Telephone Company of call room facilities at the Law Courts, arid to the fact that subscribers are now excluded, except by special payment, from facilities they have hitherto enjoyed; whether, having regard to the extreme importance to the administration of justice of communication to and from the Law Courts, representation will be made by the Post Office to the National Telephone Company upon the matter; and, whether the National Telephone Company has withdrawn several of its call rooms in the Metropolis, although subscribers have entered into contracts with the Company in good faith that the call room facilities through. out London would not he curtailed?
MR. HANBURY: The attention of the Postmaster General has not been specially called to the withdrawal by the National Telephone Company of facilities at the Law Courts, but he has received representations in regard to the withdrawal by the Company of some of its call rooms in the Metropolis. He is in communication with the Company On the subject, and he will make inquiry with regard to the case of the Law Courts.

HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what has been the recent increase in horses am I in men in the Horse and Field Artillery of the I3ritish Army, taken together; and what was the effective strength in men of the Horse Artillery and Field Artillery, together, in 1897 as compared with 1895?
MR. BRODRICK: The recent increase of establishment of the Horse and Field Artillery taken together has been 191 men, 66 horses, and six guns. The establishment of men for the Horse and
1586
Field Artillery on the British establishment is 8,912 in 1897, against 8,721 in 1895. The effective strength is a varying quantity; by the latest returns it was 138 under establishment.

PLAGUE BACILLUS (INDIA).
MR. T. M. HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. VESEY KNOX), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board Whether his attention has been called to the Bacteriological Report and the Dispatch of 10th March from the Government of India, showing that mice inoculated with an infusion from grain infected by the plague bacillus died in sonic cases though the grain had been for 13 days free from fresh infection, and that the bacilli might at a later date re-acquire toxic properties under favourable conditions: and whether he can state what steps have been taken to prevent the introduction of the plague into the United Kingdom?
MR. CHAPLIN: My attention has been drawn to the Report and Dispatch referred to. From the Report it would appear that an experiment in which mice were deliberately injected beneath the skin with preparations of nine different species of grain, which had been purposely infected with microbes of bubonic plague, one single mouse, injected with one of these nine preparations died after 24 hours, whilst all the others survived. As regards the mouse that died it is stated that it "showed no appearances microscopically or otherwise, of having succumbed to bubonic infection," and I am advised that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from such a result. I do not gather that the Report shows "that the bacilli aright at a later date re-acquire toxic properties under favourable conditions." What the Report says, is that the Government of India are advised that the experiments are not conclusive, since such re-acquirement of toxic properties may be possible. The steps which have been taken to prevent the introduction of plague into England and Wales are embodied in an Order relating to Plague, Cholera and Yellow Fever, which was issued by the Local Government Board in November 1896. These regulations were brought under the direct notice of every Urban,

1587
Rural and Port Sanitary authority in England and Wales. I have also instructed Medical Inspectors of the Department to pay special visits to a number of ports which are in somewhat frequent communication with ports of India.

MATABELELAND RISING.
MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to grant a medal to the soldiers who have suppressed the rising in Matabeleland; how many Hussars or other regular troops now remain in or near Buluwayo; and when is it the intention of the Government to order these soldiers back to Natal?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): An Army order was issued on the 1st inst approving tile grant of a medal to the forces engaged in the operations of 1896. Only 200 Hussars remain in Rhodesia. In May it was decided to move them to Mashonaland to act in support of the police. The troops will be withdrawn as soon as the circumstances permit.

TELEGRAPH CHARGES.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether when a house is situated a few yards beyond the three-miles' limit, within which all charges for the delivery of telegrams are abolished, the recipient of a telegram is properly charged 3d. per mile for four miles; (2) whether it was the intention of the Government in abolishing the charges within the three miles to count the surcharge over them into the fourth mile; and (3) whether consideration will be given to the propriety of making the surcharge for delivery begin from the three-mile limit?
MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first two questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. In charging from the office door, in the case of telegrams delivered at a distance exceeding three miles, the Department is following the practice which previously obtained in the case of telegrams delivered by man and horse. There has already been a liberal extension of the area of
1588
free delivery, and before any further concession can be made in the direction indicated by the hon. Member it will be necessary to see what is the effect upon the revenue of the changes already made.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES, asked why they had adopted the practice that had previously obtained in the case of telegrams delivered by man and horse.
MR. HANBURY: Well, I believe that the idea is that most of the telegrams that have to be delivered beyond the three-mile limit will have to be sent by man and horse.

BALLYSHANNON DISPENSARY COMMITTEE.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Deland whether be is aware that the Dispensary Committee of Ballyshannon consists of eleven elected members, of whom eight are Catholics and three am Protestants, and of twenty ex-officio members, of whom no fewer than fourteen are Protestants and six Catholics, being the Poor Law Guardians ex-officio and elected who reside in the district; and whether, having regard to the fact that there is a Protestant majority of eight ill the Dispensary Committee of a district where the Catholics number nine-tenths of the population, and have an overwhelmingly larger valuation on which rates are levied than the Protestants, he will consider the propriety of advising the Local Government Board, in exercise of the powers vested in them, to allow the number of the members of the Dispensary Committee to be increased, and to confer on the guardians of the union the power of co-opting additional members on the Ballyshannon Dispensary Committee?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that the Committee of Management of the Ballyshannon Dispensary Committee consists of 31members, of whom 11 are elected Guardians. I have no information as to their religious opinions, nor does the question of religion enter into consideration in the constitution of these Committees. The Local Government Board, at the request of the Guardians, recently increased the number

1589
of members of the Ballyshannon Committee to 31, in order that all the Guardians qualified to be members might included, and as there are sufficient Guardians qualified to act on the Committee no ratepayers have been elected. It is not proposed to take any further action in this matter, as no representation has been made to the Local Government Board that the sick poor require additional facilities for obtaining medical relief tickets.

WRECK (INDIAN TROOPSHIP "WARREN HASTINGS").
MR. PERCY THORNTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to give official recognition on the part of the Government of India to the brave conduct of the officers and engineers of the Indian marine who were successful in saving the lives as well as salving a large amount of the property of the officers and troops in the wreck of the steamer warren Hastings?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Government of India have already recognised in their marine orders the excellent conduct of the officers and men of the Royal Indian Marine steamer Warren, Hastings. The question of specially recognising the exceptional services of individual officers and men is also under their consideration.
MR. THORNTONasked whether a Dispatch had been received from the Government of India?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid that was the case. He forgot the exact form in which the communication came.

CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND).
MR T. M. HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the Trish Government have received from the: Derry Chamber of Commerce a memorial hi favour of a draft Bill to amend the law relating to Civil Bill Courts in Ireland by Mr. A. M. Munn, the Clerk of the Crown for County Perry; and (2) whether he will be able to introduce a Bill containing some or all of the amend-
1590
ments in the law suggested by Mr. Munn?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No communication has been received of the nature indicated in the first paragraph of the Question.

OUTRAGES AT POONA.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Governor of Bombay has confirmed the nomination of Ganguhdar Tilak, of Poona, editor of the Mahratta and Kesari journals of Poona, to the Legislative Council; and, whether lie is aware that Ganguhdar besides publishing attacks upon the British Authorities in his papers has himself made speeches inciting to rebellion; if so, whether the Government of propose to take any action in this matter?
MR. W. T. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary State for India whether he is aware the Ganguhdar Tilak, whose election to the Legislative Council of Bombay is reported to be confirmed by Lord Sandhurst, was some years ago sentenced to a double term of imprisonment for being concerned in a conspiracy to defame a native statesman, Ras Bahdur W. Burvè, minister of tin important native state; and, whether the acceptance of this election to the Legislative Council by Lord Sandhurst was concurred in by his two colleagues, who, together with Lord Sandhurst constitute the Government of Bombay?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is true that the nomination of Ganguhdar Tilak to the Legislative Council has been confirmed by the Governor of Bombay, in whom alone the right of confirming or rejecting is vested under die rules. Gatrguhdar Tilak was nominated in 1895 to the satin: position, and. he was again nominated in 1897. It is also true that Ganguhdar Tilak was some years ago sentenced to imprisonment, that he is the editor of two newspapers, and that he has recently made the speech alluded to; but the question whether the articles which have appeared in those newspapers are seditious, and whether that speech contained an incitement to rebellion is a

1591
matter of law, as to which the Government of Bombay has not at present arrived at any final opinion.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Does the noble Lord propose to take any action in regard to this nomination?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I certainly think it would be premature to express an opinion at present.
MR. MACNEILLasked by whom this gentleman was nominated.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid he believed he was nominated by the Central Municipal Authority of Bombay.

TATE GALLERY OF BRITISH ART.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements have been made with reference to the transference of a certain portion of the National collection of pictures to the Tate Gallery of British Art?
MR. HANBURY: Ninety-seven pictures of the Modern British School have been transferred from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery, where they are now hung. The general principle of selection adopted by the trustees and director has been to transfer to the Tate Gallery all works by British painters born after 1790. But certain exceptions have been made to this rule. For instance, almost all the pictures by Sir Edwin Landseer have been retained in the National Gallery, and on the other hand a few small paintings by Constable (born 1776) and a few examples of Wilkie (born 1785) have been removed to the Tate Gallery. All pictures of the earlier British School, including the works of Hogarth, Wilson, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Morland, Copley, Romney, Stothard, Opie, Crome, Lawrence, Turner, and others, will remain in the National Gallery, and have been hung in the western wing of the building. I may add that the Tate Gallery will also contain not only Mr. Tate's own gift of modern British pictures, but also the modern British pictures and sculptures bought by the Chantrey trustees out of their trust fund, and at present housed at South Kensington.
DR. FARQUHARSONasked when the transfer would be made.
MR. HANBURY: I think very shortly.

ROYAL MARINES.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) will he explain why the Royal Marine Artillery with their guns had no representation in the Naval portion of the Procession on the 22nd ultimo, and why no Marine brigade took part in the Review at Aldershot on the 1st instant, in accordance with the precedent of 1887; (2) who is responsible for the result that the Royal Marine Forces were the only branch of the regular service unrepresented in the Procession in London or at the Review at Aldershot; and, (3) whether lie is aware that this exclusion is keenly felt by all ranks of a service which has fought, both by sea and land, with the Navy and with the Army, in all parts of the world for more than two centuries?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): As regards the first question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have repeatedly stated the case of the Jubilee procession in London. It was a mounted procession in which no Infantry of any kind was represented, and the only exception made was in favour of the small contingent of bluejackets with their field guns. The Royal Marine Artillery do not, I am informed, parade with field guns. It is not true that the Royal Marine forces were the only branch of the Regular service unrepresented in the procession. Time whole of the Infantry of the Line were unrepresented in the sense of the hon. and gallant Member's question. The Garrison Artillery, like the Royal Marine Artillery, were not in the procession, but were represented by a stationary detachment of troops. On the route of the procession the Marines were strongly represented, there being a battalion of Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry posted at prominent positions. The Marine forces mounted one of the few guards of honour which were mounted on that day. As regards Aldershot, the difference between this year and 1887 was that in the present year ships were mobilised in such numbers as has never been the case before; and, of course, the flower of the force of Royal Marines was employed in the ships. It was held that no thoroughly representative brigade could have been sent to the review, and rather than that the Marines

1593
should be represented there in any manner which would not do the fullest justice to their splendid reputation—["hear, hear"]—it was better that they shun Id not be present at all. Till the hon. and gallant Member put his question on the notice paper, I had not heard the slightest whisper of any feeling such as that suggested in his last paragraph. My information is to the contrary, and I cannot believe that the Marines would consider for one moment that there could be neglect or slight where none most assuredly was intended nor could be intended. ["Hear, hear!"]

CLOUGHOULA NATIONAL SCHOOL (IRELAND).
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that pupils were recently expelled from Cloughoula male National School (Mill Street district) by order of the managers, on the grounds of insufficient accommodation; (2) what number of pupils is the school certified to accommodate, what is the average attendance, and what number were in attendance when the pupils were expelled; and (3) whether the Commissioners of Education have taken any steps to have the school enlarged; if so, with what result?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are substantially its stated in the first paragraph. The manager of the school in question is manager also of the Mill Street National School in the same locality, and he explains that the children concerned belonged to the neighbourhood of the latter school which hits ample accommodation for them. The Cloughoula school is certified to accommodate 56 pupils; the average daily attendance for the quarter ended 30th June was 71 and the average attendance at the time of the expulsion of pupils was 72. The Commissioners made an offer to the manager of a grant-in-aid of the cost of enlargement of the school, and the manager has expressed his intention to enlarge the premises at a future date when practicable.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the increment due after 1st
1594
April 1897, will be paid according to the new scale, 1s. 6d. per week, to Irish postmen; and, if so, from what date?
MR. HANBURY: The new scales took effect from the 1st of April last. On that date the postmen's pay was increased by the proportion of any increment which they had earned at the old rate of 1s. a year, arid they are now qualifying for an increment at the new rate of 1s. 6d. a year which they will receive on the 1st April next.

STATE OF JHALLAWAR.
MR. HERBERT ROBERT'S: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government have come to a final decision as to the sub-division and settlement of the State of Jhallawar; if so, whether lie will state what the arrangement is; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers relating to the present condition of affairs in the State?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The general outline of the final decision regarding Jhallawar is as follows:—The claim of the Kotah State under tier treaties and engagements of 1838 to recover possession of its ancient territories then assigned to Jhallawar is held to have been established. The other portions of Jhallawar, consisting of Clem Mahler and the Shahabab Pergunnah, will regranted by the British Government to a selected member of the Kotah branch of Zalim Singh I's family. An exchange, however, of Jhalrapatan for Shahabad will be effected under suitable conditions in order to retain the town of that name as the capital of the new State of Jhallawar. The decision was announced in Durbar on June 5, and when I receive a report of the proceedings of the Government of India I shall be happy to lay further papers relating to Jhallawar on the Table of the House.

ELECTION LAW.
SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department whether, under tire circumstances, he will consider whether the time has now arrived when the disqualifications which have been imposed upon persons for offences committed against the Law of Elections at the late general election may be remitted?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): This question has already been considered by me, but I have not felt justified in advising any interference in favour of persons suffering disabilities in connection with offences against the Election Law.

ERASMUS SMITH ENDOWMENTS.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to give the information as to the finance of the Erasmus Smith Endowments, promised on 28th January 1897?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: By the courtesy of the governors of these schools I was informed in January last that their gross income for the year ended let May 1896, was, £7,618 17s. 10d. I am unable to supply the further information desired by the hon. and learned Gentle: man's Question of the 28th January, nor have I any means of obtaining it.

PRISON SYSTEM (SCOTLAND).
MR. THOMAS HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, since his replies in Nay last to questions relating to the prison system in Scotland, fresh instructions to prison officials, regarding the association of criminals and the supervision of associated prisoners by warders, have been issued by the authorities in Scotland; and, if so, whether lie will lay a copy of such instructions upon the Table of the House?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that the revisal of the instructions to prison officers was begun by them in January, and completed by the end of April last; and that the new instructions, as finally revised and approved, have now been printed and circulated. These instructions are issued in terms of No. 8 of the Rules for Prisons in Scotland, which have been laid before Parliament; and, as such instructions are voluminous and liable to be changed from time to time, it has never been the custom, and I do not now
1596
propose to lay them on the Table of the House. If, however, the hon. Member will call at the Scottish Office, I am sure the Secretary for Scotland will he happy to show him a copy of the instructions.

LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT 1870.
MR. E. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board is obtaining Returns under the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth schedules of the Life Assurance Companies Act 1870, from those members of Lloyds and others who have issued policies of assurances upon human life within the United Kingdom; and whether such persons who have begun such business since the passing of the Act are required to make the deposit of £20,000 specified in the third section thereof?
MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Returns referred to by the hon. Member are obtained from all companies which, to the knowledge of the Board of Trade, issue or are liable under policies of assurance upon human life within the United Kingdom, and all companies which, to their knowledge, have begun such business since the Life Assurance Companies Act 1870 have been required to make the deposit of £20,000. The term "company" under the Act means "any person or persons," but the Board of Trade have no information that any member of Lloyds or other individual has issued or incurred any liability under such policies except as a member of a life assurance office.

GIBRALTAR (SANITARY WORKS).
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when the Papers relating to the sanitary works at Gibraltar will be laid upon the Table?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Con-suiting Engineer has not yet furnished me with his reply to the allegations made by the Sanitary Commissioners. The Papers will be laid as soon as they have been received and considered.

HORSHAM BURIAL DISTRICT JOINT COMMITTEE.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government

1597
Board, if he intends during the present Session of Parliament to bring in a Bill to deal with the legal difficulties with regard to the exercise of borrowing powers by joint burial committees appointed under Section 53 of The Local Government Act, 1894, which in August of last rear the Board stated, in answer to an application from the Horsham Burial District Joint Committee, required legislation to meet them?
MR. CHAPLIN: I have haul short Bill prepared on the subject, and. I will consult with my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, as to tile possibility of introducing and fussing it during the present session.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork Co., W. (Mr. JAMES GILHOOLY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the defective postal arrangements between Schell and Crookhaven; and, if so, whether 110 intends to improve them?
Mr. HANBURY: Since the Question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the 11th March last, full inquiry has been made, as to the possibility of improving the mail service to Schull and Crookhaven, but it is found that the conveyance of the mails from Skibbereen railway instead of by road, as desired, would involve a very large increase of expense which the advantage to be gained is altogether insufficient to warrant; an answer the above effect was sent to the hon. Member on the 31st March.

NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
MR. T. M. HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry, beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will call the attention of the. National Board to the desirability of allowing children in the Irish-speaking districts, who are asked by the Inspectors to explain the subject, matter of the lessons read, to give their explanations in Irish, in which they can more readily express their ideas?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will draw the attention of the Commissioners of National Education to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, but I need hardly say that the matter is one entirely for them to decide and not for me.

QUEENS DIAMOND JUBILEE.
MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if additional pay has been given to the members of the military hands who gave so much pleasure by their services on Jubilee Day?
MR. BRODRICK: It is not intended to make any difference between the bandsmen and the other soldiers in the award of a special allowance for service on Jubilee Day.

SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER COMPANY.
*MR. R. K. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company is only giving an intermittent supply of water to many of the large blocks of workmen's dwellings in certain parts of West Southwark, and is creating a grave danger to public health; and whether he proposes to take ally, and if so what, measures to compel the company at once to comply with the law, and give constant supply?
MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have received no complaints of the water supply being intermittent in the cases referred to, and I have therefore no compulsory powers of interference even if the facts were as stated. But when notice was given of the Question I instructed General Scott to inquiries into the matter. The company do not admit the allegations, and I am informed to-day by the company that the buildings in West Southwark continue to be well supplied with water and no complaint exists.
MR. CAUSTON: I should like to state that my Question was based on official statements made by the Clerk to the Vestry of St. George the Martyr.

LAMBETH WATERWORKS COMPANY.
MR. C. E. TRITTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the great inconvenience and danger to which the inhabitants of Norwood have been lately exposed by the failure in the water supply, he will represent very strongly to the Lambeth Waterworks Company the necessity of immediate notice being given to consumers in future should it be found necessary for any reason to restrict or discontinue the ordinary supply?
MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the Lambeth Water Company and impressed upon them the great importance of giving early notice, so far as circumstances will permit, of any probable deficiency in the water supply of their district. I think I should add that the deficiency in the water supply was very sudden, that it was occasioned by causes which could not have been foreseen, and was at an end after five or six days. Under such circumstances it would have been very difficult to give notice to the many thousands of water consumers in the district in time to be id practical service.

RECOVERY OF DEBTS (MARRIED WOMEN).
LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of Farmery v. Rosse, given about two months ago; and whether the effect of that decision is substantially to exempt a married woman from the ordinary process of law for the recovery of debts; and, if so, whether the Government will consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to amend the law?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): My attention has not been called to the case, and I can find no report of it. Perhaps my noble Friend will communicate with me.

WELSH LAND COMMISSION.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have taken, or are about to take, steps towards the construction of a scheme for
1600
granting advances out of the public Exchequer at a low rate of interest to embarrassed Irish landlords, to enable them to get rid of existing encumbrances on their property; and whether lie will also consider the question of introducing a similar scheme to render assistance to tile small occupying freeholders in Wales, whose condition is referred to in both the majority and minority Reports of the Royal Commission on Land in Wales, and in reference to winch the Commissioners are unanimous in recommending the Government to render them assistance by the advance of money?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)was understood to say that no such policy had been undertaken in the case of Ireland, and that it would be time to make a declaration of the policy of the Government in regard to Wales when the Government made any declaration in regard to Ireland.

ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.
SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has any information whether the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral propose to remove a monument erected by King George III. at the request of Parliament to the memory of a distinguished naval officer. Captain Burgess, of the Ardent, who fell in the service of his country at the battle of Camperdown, in order to erect in its place a memorial subscribed for by private individuals to the memory of the late President of the Royal Academy; whether it is within the competence of any ecclesiastical authorities to interfere with public monuments erected by the Sovereign and Parliament in honour of those who have died for their country; and whether there is any opportunity of discussing the subject on any Vote in Committee of Supply?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my hon. Friend, I. have to say that I am informed there is no legal objection to the course which was proposed to be taken with regard to Captain Burgess's monument, but the Dean and Chapter, after reviewing all the circumstances of the case, have decided not to remove it. ["Hear,

1601
hear?"] I pronounce no opinion on the matter myself, but I think it ought to be stated, in justice to the Dean and Chapter, that they only intended to move the monument down to the crypt of the Cathedral, where are the monuments of Lord Nelson and Lord Napier of Magdala, heroes near wham I think any warrior might be proud to lay his bones.
SIR ELLIOTT LEES: The objection was not to the removal of the monument to the crypt, but to its removal in order to make way for another monument.

BRITISH NAVY. (GIFT OF IRONCLAD BY CAPE COLONY.)
SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice—(1) whether he can make any statement as to the spontaneous offer of the Cape Colony to make a contribution to the Royal Navy by the gift of a first-class ironclad unfettered by any conditions; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that no such offer has ever before been made by any self-governing colony, he will consider the propriety of affording the House at the proper time a suitable opportunity of formally thanking the Cape Colony. [Cheers.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: My statement can be very simple. The House may remember that on June 2nd, before the departure of Sir Gordon Sprigg from the Cape, the Cape Assembly passed a resolution by which the Prime Minister was authorised to take provisional steps to arrange some basis of contribution by the colony towards the Imperial Navy. In pursuance of that resolution, Sir Gordon Sprigg called on me on Saturday and made the offer of a contribution on the part of the Cape Colony of the cost of a first-class battleship. [Cheers.] No conditions, except the necessary ratification by the Cape Assembly, were attached to the proposed most public spirited and generous contribution to Imperial defence. In reply to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, I will certainly at the proper time consult with my colleagues as to the propriety of affording Parliament a suitable opportunity of formally thanking the Government of Cape Colony. [Cheers]

WORKMEN (COMPENSATION BILL).
MR. EDWARD MORTONasked the Home Secretary whether he was aware that on the 1st June last an Amendment was moved in Committee on the Workmen's Compensation Bill, which would have had the effect of admitting to the benefits of that Bill persons serving in the army and navy, except when they were on active service; whether he was aware that in speaking on this Amendment the Secretary for the Colonies on behalf of the Government stated that the Government were willing to consider the matter?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is out of order in thus referring to the Debates.
MR. MORTON: On the point of order may I point out that we have reached a point on the report stage of that Bill, when an Amendment dealing with this matter would have to be moved if it be moved at all, and can only be moved by the Government, and on the occasion to which I referred, an undertaking was given that the Government might be able to deal with the matter on the report stage.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is under a mistake in saying that such an Amendment can only be moved by the Government. I understand he is referring to an Amendment which would be out of order because it would increase taxation. That would be out of order on the report stage from whatever portion of the House it was moved.

BUSINESS OF TILE HOUSE.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the time Treasury whether he will tell the House what will be the business after the conclusion of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill. I would mention that the First Reading of the Naval Works Rill was taken without discussion, and I hope therefore that the Second Reading will be brought on as a First Order.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My hope is that the Bill which we are now engaged upon will be concluded to-night, and I think there is a general desire that it should be, It is a Measure which everybody will admit ought to be got through without undue

1603
delay to another place, if for no other reason, for our Own convenience. [Laughter.] If my hopes are fulfilled in that respect to-night I shall propose to devote to-morrow, first, to the Committee stage of the Foreign Prison-made Goods Bill, secondly, to the Committee of my right hon. Friend's kill for dealing with London water; and thirdly to what remains to be dealt with of the report stage of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill. If that programme succeeds, I should meet the right hon. Gentlemen's views by taking the Naval Works Bill first on Wednesday.
MR. JAMES BRYCE: asked when it was proposed to take the report stage of the Public Health (Scotland) Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he could not give any pledge on that subject at present.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEasked when the Scotch Education Bill would be taken.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As at present advised I see no prospect of taking it this week, at all events.
MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether the Scotch Education Bill or the Public Health (Scotland) Bill would be taken first.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he could not pledge himself on the point, but as at present advised his view was that the Scotch Education Bill stood before the Public Health (Scotland) Bill.

COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,),in asking leave to introduce a Bill dealing with Cotton Cloth Factories said it was only a one-clause Bill, and arose out of a request made last Session by the employers and employed alike, that there should be a Committee to consider the operation of the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889, and how it could be improved. As a result of the enquiry made by that Committee certain conclusions had been arrived at which, he believed, were acceptable both to employers and employed,
1604
and he had been urged from both quarters to introduce this short Bill this Session. He believed that no controversy would be aroused by the Measure and trusted that it would not take up much of the time of the House.
Bill to give power to make regulations with i the respect to Cotton Cloth Factories, ordered to be brought in by Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings; presented accordingly, and Read the First tune; to be Read a Second tune upon Thursday, and to be printed—[Bill 310.]

CHURCH PATRONAGE TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed.—[Bill 309.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  Clause 8,—

  COMMENCEMENT OF ACT AND SHORT TITLE.
  (1.) This Act shall come into operation on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.
  (2.) This Act may be cited as the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
  MR. JOHN WILSONto leave out the words "thirty-first day of March," and to insert the words "first day of July." He said he had no desire to unnecessarily impede the operation of the Bill or to prevent workmen getting its benefits as soon as possible. He had always been in favour of universal compensation for all accidents, but seeing that the Government in the Bill had made the employer responsible not only for accidents over which he had control, but for all accidents over which he had no control, he I thought the time allowed for the Bill

  1605
  to come into operation was too short, and his Amendment asked for the reasonable extension of three months more. The first reason in support of the Amendment was that the men's societies would be abolished and the funds would have to be divided, and that would take some tone. He did not believe that my new associations would be formed; in fact, the workmen themselves did not believe it, but if they were to be formed, time should be given for the purpose. Secondly, the clauses of this Bill were so far-reaching that the employer would find it difficult to insure against accidents. No insurance society would take a risk for more than £5,000, which was a ridiculous sum in the case of this Bill, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that the employers should have time to form associations to come to the rescue. He believed that if time was not given for the purpose of forming associations many employers would not insure at all, but would run the risk of an occident, and in that way the workmen might be defrauded of their compensation. Another reason was that coal owners, in order to keep their collieries going, required to enter into contracts for at least a year. On those grounds he thought it was fair and reasonable that the time at which the Bill would come into Operation should be extended from the 1st of March to the 1st of July.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)said the Government recognised the desirability of giving all parties concerned ample time for the consideration of their position before the Act came into operation. What his hon. Friend had said about that was perfectly true, but he would remind his hon. Friend that when it was proposed in Committee that the operation of the Act should be postponed till the 1st of July 1898, he, on behalf of the Government, then said that it would not be fair, having regard to the interests of all concerned in the operation of the Bill, to postpone its coming into effect for so long a time; and his proposal that the 31st of March should be the date met with the general acceptance of the Committee. The Government were not disposed to agree to any further extension of the period. He believed there would be ample time for the employers to make
  1606
  their arrangements both in regard to contracts and to any alterations that might be necessary in existing societies.
  MR. SETON-KARR, in supporting the appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision, said that more time was required by the employers to consider the new burdens imposed upon them by the Bill. The Measure when once passed would be difficult to alter, and it would be impossible to repeal it, and therefore full time should be given to the employers to realise their position. This was all the more necessary because since the Bill was in Committee the Colonial Secretary had made an important statement in which he quoted certain figures, which according to an authority consulted by the employers of labour were not correct. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the exclusion of the first two weeks would reduce the number of accidents for which compensation had to be paid by 25 per cent., and the liability by 30 per cent. Now Mr. Niesson, a very high authority, had calculated that the exclusion of the two weeks would only reduce the liability by 2½ per cent. There was a very wide difference between 2½ per cent. and 30 per cont.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into these calculations. The question before the House is whether the Bill is to come into operation in March or in July.
  MR. SETON-KARRsubmitted that his argument was to show why time should be given so that the correct calculations could be ascertained.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to state that, but he cannot go into detail.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid his point was that it was necessary before the Act came into operation that the large industries should have time to consider their position, and if necessary to federate. This was a large question for the workmen as well as for the employer, because it affected the industries upon which the former were dependent for their living, and he therefore spoke as much on behalf of the men he represented as the masters in his constituency. They simply asked for three months in addition to the three months granted in Committee, believing that three months would not be enough. They originally

  1607
  asked for twelve months, and now they ask for six. As this did not touch the principle of the Bill ample time should be given by the Government.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYalso urged that more time should be allowed to the employers to carefully consider schemes of insurance and safeguard their interests under the Bill. In speaking of the contracting out clause, the Colonial Secretary said it would of course be necessary to consider many matters in connection with it; and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "I cannot help thinking that should the Bill be passed, time should be given before it is put into operation for these matters to be considered."
  He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be referring to an intention on the part of the Government to allow employers a little more time to devise new schemes. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Government whether they could not see their way, mainly for the purpose of promoting the easy working of the Bill, to give the three months now asked for.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONbelieved that without some scheme of insurance this Bill could not be carried out, and would work injuriously both to workmen and employers. It appeared to him that three months was far too short a time to allow for the reconstruction of old schemes or for the creation of new. He believed that a system of compensation for all accidents must lead to some system of State insurance. Supposing it should happen that between now and next Session the authorities in charge of the Bill had evidence before them which led them to think that it was desirable that some further scheme of insurance should be established; the extension of time now asked for would allow that to be done next Session. A workman of great experience in the management of these schemes had deliberately expressed the opinion that the Bill by itself would be by no means so beneficial to the workmen who came under it as the existing schemes were, and if that was the case there would be a desire in sonic, quarters among those brought under the operation of the Bill to supplement it in some way or other. Surely it was not too
  1608
  much to ask that the operation of so revolutionary a measure should be postponed so that employers would have time to turn round and consider their position.
  Amendment negatived.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  SCALE AND CONDITIONS OF COMPENSATION—SCALE.
  (1.) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be—

  (a) where death results from the injury—

  (i.) if the workman leaves dependants, a sum equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum; and

  (ii.) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds;

  (b) in case of total or partial incapacity for work resulting from the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings at that employment during the previous twelve months, but if the period of his engagement has been less than twelve months, then the average during the period of his actual engagement, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.

  (2.) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment, regard shall be had to the difference between the amount of the weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the amount which he is able to earn after the accident.
  (3.) The payment shall be made on the application of the person entitled thereto, or his authorised representatives.
  (4.) The payment shall, in case of death, be made to the legal person representative of the workman, or, if he has no legal personal representative, to his dependants, or, if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due.
  (5.) The expression "dependants" in this schedule means such members of the workman's family specified in the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, as were wholly or in part dependant upon the cunnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death; and any question as to who is a dependant, or as to the amount payable to each dependant shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
  (6.) Tile sum allotted as compensation may be invested or otherwise applied for his benefit as directed by the committee or other arbitrator.
  (7.) Any sum ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested may he ordered to be invested in whole Or in part in the Post Office Savings Bank by the Registrar of the County Court in his name as Registrar.
  (8.) Any sum so ordered to be invested may be accepted by the Postmaster-General as a deposit in the name of the Registrar an such, and the provisions of any statute or regulations respecting the limits of deposits in savings bunk, and the declaration to be made by a depositor, shall not apply to such sums.
  (9.) No part of any money invested in the name of the Registrar of any County Court in the Post Office Savings Bank under this Act, shall be paid out to any Registrar, except upon authority addressed to the Postmaster General by the Treasury or by the Judge.
  (10.) Any person deriving any benefit under any moneys paid into a Post Office Savings Bank under the provisions of this Act, may nevertheless open an account in a Post Office Savings Bank or in any other savings lank in his own name, without being liable to any penalties imposed by any statute or regulations in respect of the opening of accounts in two savings banks, or of two accounts in the same savings bank.
  (11.) Any weekly payment may be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and on such review many be ended, diminished, or increased, subject to the maximum above provided, and the amount or pay-cant shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
  (12.) Where any weekly payment his been continued for not less than twelve months the liability there for may, on the application of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum, to be settled by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application.
  (13.) A weekly payment shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law.
  (14.) In the application of the Act and of this schedule to Scotland the expression "dependants" means tile persons who, according to the law of Scotland, are entitled to sue the employer for damages or solatium in respect of the death of the workman, and who are wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH SIR HENRY HOWORTH (Salford, S.) moved, in Sub-section (a), Section (1), to leave out the words "if the workman leave dependants," which would necessitate also, he said, the omission of the second sub-section. He wished to make a strong appeal to his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to reconsider the position of the Government in this question. It seemed to him that the principle of having two scales of compensation,
  1610
  dependent not upon the wages a man received, nor upon the risks he ran, nor upon the kind of occupation he was engaged in, hut dependent entirely on the adventitious fact that he might or might not have a number of people dependent upon him was absolutely indefensible on economical and other grounds, and would certainly lead to very disastrous results in trades in which the occupation was a dangerous one. It must inevitably lead in such cases to the exclusion from employment of married men and with children. The Bill put a tremendous penalty on the employer who employed married men. In collieries especially, where a large number of the employés were men with families, the risk that would be run in employing such men would be a very serious and awkward one, and for the sake of the men employed, apart altogether from the enormously enhanced cost of working, coal, he would appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision as to the scale of compensation.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYcould not think his hon. Friend was in earnest in proposing this Amendment. His argument was that an inducement was held out to employers to employ men who had no dependants. In the first place, that argument was not borne out by the experience of the relief societies, which recognised the principle followed in the Bill, and he had not heard that the effect of the rules of those societies had been to induce employers to select only those men who had no dependants. If the liabilities were the same, whether there were dependants or not, a further question would arise as to who was to have the money. Surely that was a practical question. He could hardly think that employers would be willing to agree to an Amendment which imposed the same liability whether there were dependants or not.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick) moved an Amendment applying the scale of compensation payable in case of death where the workman leaves dependants "wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of or immediately prior to his death." This had to be read

  1611
  in connection with a subsequent Amendment as follows:—
  "If the workman leaves dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of or immediately prior to his death, such sum not exceeding in any case the amount specified in the preceding sub-section as the arbitrators may consider reasonable and proportionate to the injury to such dependants."
  The scheme of the Bill was to divide the cases into two classes—the case where the workman left dependants, and the case where he did not. The object of the Amendment was to introduce a third class—the case where the workman left people partly dependent—the principle being that, whereas the scale might be quite reasonable for the case of the father of a family leaving persons wholly dependent, many cases would arise in which the earnings of the person killed formed only a small part of the earnings of the so-called dependants., and, therefore, under the scale of the Bill the amount to be paid to those partial dependants would be much larger than anything they actually lost by the death of the workman. In the case of a man over 65 there would rarely be anyone except his wife wholly dependent upon him, and in that case it would be arguable whether the scale of the Bill was not excessive; while, in the case of young persons earning 5s. or so a week, the amount given by the scale would represent perhaps a dozen years' wages of the child killed. The scheme in the Bill seemed to look simply to the case of the full-grown man in the prime of life, and there was reason to fear that if it stood as it was the effect might be serious in discouraging the employment of old men. The limitation of dependants was taken from the Fatal Accidents Act, but that Act included the principle of the present Amendment. It did not contain any minimum, but it gave power to the jury to award a less sum so as to cover the actual loss of the person. He thought that in this Bill, one way or another, a similar provision ought to be made, and that not merely the case of grown-up men but the case of old men and children ought to be considered; and he believed that the suggestion in the Amendment, without drawing any arbitrary or hard and fast line, such as the age of 65 or 12s. a week, would give discretion to the
  1612
  arbitrator to meet the requirements of justice by reducing the amount of compensation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)said that he did not dispute for a moment the importance of the question raised by his hon. Friend and the reasonableness of the arguments Which he had advanced in support of the Amendment. The fact was that this Amendment and other Amendments on the Paper to which reference had been made, raised the question of scale under the Bill in case of death; and there was this peculiarity about the scale, that the minimum had been fixed at £150. To that extent the discretion of the arbitrator, which they had endeavoured to preserve throughout the Bill, had been limited. He was bound to admit that he saw in that a certain inconsistency. The Government held very strongly to the view that in dealing with the different complexities of trade it was impossible to stereotype terms and put them into a statute; they must allow a certain freedom to the judge or arbitrator who had to decide a case of doubt. In most cases they had, he thought, preserved that freedom of the arbitrator. But in the present case the freedom of the arbitrator had been limited by the schedule, and, as a rule, there were two questions which undoubtedly arose. The first was the case where the minimum fixed might be more than the value of the deceased to the dependants who were to benefit; and it was conceivable, therefore, that the death of the workman might actually be an advantage to time persons who were interested in his wages. Certainly, at first sight, there appeared to be an anomaly. The second case was that where the wages of the person killed did not amount to the sum which would justify the compensation given. Take the case of an old man who was in casual employment, and earning 5s. a week. On his death £150 had to be paid to his dependents just the same as if he were a workman in full health, earning 30s. or 40s. a week. That also constituted an anomaly. He thought his hon. friend would see that the Government appreciated the difficulty that had been raised. He did not look, however, on the proposal of his

  1613
  hon. friend as being at first sight absolutely satisfactory. He thought that the division which the hon. Member had proposed between those who were wholly and those who were partially dependent was rather arbitrary. For instance, suppose that a wife was dependent upon her husband, hut that she earned by charing an occasional 2s. a week. She would be only partially dependent, but it would be very hard to make a distinction between a wife in that position and another woman who was wholly dependent. The difference between wholly and partially in that case was very trifling, and one which it was impossible to deal with in the terms of a Bill. There were other exceptional csses which suggested themselves to his mind, and they went to show how extremely difficult it was to find words to do absolute justice in all these cases. He was bound to say, however, that, having recognised these difficulties, and having departed from the principles of the Bill by limiting the discretion of the arbitrator in this one case by fixing the minimum at £150, the Government had raised some difficulties which he thought had not been fully discussed on previous stages of the Bill, and which they ought to endeavour to meet. While he did not feel justified on behalf of the Government in accepting the Amendment, he hoped that his hon. Friend would see that the Government were alive to the difficulties raised, and he trusted that they might be able in the course of further consideration of the Bill to be able by some means to give effect to the suggestion.
  MR. A. CRIPPSsaid that the Amendment proposed that there should be discrimination between the cases of "wholly dependent" in the case of a workman killed, and where the dependent on the workman was "partially dependent." The Colonial Secretary had pointed out that in some cases the person who was partially dependent might be entitled to substantially the same amount of compensation as a person wholly dependent. This case was dealt with in the Amendment, because in that case the arbitrator was to have full discretion. It was only a question of taking away the minimum, and if the arbitrator thought it right in any particular case to
  1614
  give the same measure of compensation as the Bill would give, where a dependent was wholly dependent this would be within the discretion of the arbitrator; and he hoped that on further consideration the right hon. Gentleman would see that the possible injustice to which he referred would not in any circumstances arise if the whole of the Amendment of the hon. Member were accepted. This case had been in the mind of those who had prepared the Amendment, and the whole of the Amendment looked at as one was carefully worded. They must discriminate in the Bill in order to get a fair measure of compensation; this was all that the hon. Member proposed as regarded that portion of his Amendment. The other point referred to by the Colonial Secretary was, he thought, of equal importance, but it rested on a different principle. It was not a question whether a dependent was partially dependent on a workman, but whether the compensation was not out of proportion to the earnings of the workman at the date of his death. This point was not immediately dealt with in the Amendment, but still it was essential that it should be considered. The point had been raised on the Committee stage, and the Colonial Secretary acknowledged the difficulty. Supposing they had a work woman or a child earning 5s. a week, then they had a minimum compensation of £150; thus they gave 13 years' wages as compensation in a case of that kind. No one would suggest that this would be fair. Again, suppose a case of compensation between workmen and workmen, not employer and employed. Was it fair that the fellow workmen in that particular case should provide 13 years' compensation? It would be far more fair in all these cases that the amount of compensation should be proportioned to the earnings of the person injured or killed. If in all cases they apportioned the compensation to the amount of earnings they attained a fair and self-acting system. No one would suggest that they ought to give £150 as a minimum in the case he had suggested. He hoped that the Colonial Secretary would consider these two points, not in any way with a view to cutting down the terms of compensation under the Bill, but in order that they

  1615
  might establish a fair adjustment and to apportion the amount of award to the proportion of the injury.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid he wished to reply to the previous speaker on two points he had made in connection with the case of a child earning 5s. a week, and the supposed injustice as between workman and workman. As to the injustice between workman and workman, he might be allowed to point out that in their relief societies the workmen entailed that injustice upon themselves now, because there was no distinction made as to the amount of relief between die man who had a wife and several children and the man who had no wife. It might be argued that in strict justice there ought to be a differential rate of compensation, according to a man's earning power and the number of persons dependent on him, but that would raise another serious complication, and cause a great bar to cases being promptly dealt with. The Bill had been very much altered since it was brought forward, and they had now another alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies; and he would like to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them exactly what they had to meet in these amendments. This matter was fully discussed in Committee; the right hon. Gentleman heard the same arguments; and if it was necessary, as he said, to make some alteration to meet what he called the justice of the case, why was the Amendment not put down on the Paper? In his own opinion it was not necessary; but if the right hon. Gentleman had anything of the kind in mind, he could not have been impressed by the arguments brought forward that evening, because there was nothing new in them; the same arguments and the same objections were all used at the Committee stage. As to the case of the child earning 5s. a week, was there not such a thing as prospective dependence upon a son He could understand the case of a father of a family dying and leaving a son who was earning low wages and the widow struggling on till the boy grew up The widow had what he called a prospective right in that boy—she was depending on him for support in her old age. Now, if this Bill was intended to meet injuries sustained, that was a case
  1616
  which should receive some consideration when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his proposals. He hoped that if the Secretary intended to carry out the ideas he had suggested, he would give them some outline beforehand so that they might have time to consider it, and not leave it to the fag-end of the session, when there would not be full opportunity to study the whole bearings of the question. He feared that the benefit of the Bill to the workman was being very much minimised, and if the right hon. Gentleman did bring for ward an alteration that would authorise the committee or the arbitrator to inquire how much a family was dependent on the injured workman, wholly or partially, then it must tend to further minimise the benefit that was intended to accrue to the workman. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider any idea he might have in his mind, which was no doubt intended to mollify hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the employer's point of view. He did not think there was any need for them to fear, for he believed that every iota of benefit that went to the workman would in the long run be most assuredly paid for by the workman himself. They must look at this thing as straight as they could. Workmen must not be deluded—at least, he was not deluded—into thinking they were going to get any great gifts from the employer, because he believed that the relations between wages and prices were so close that any benefit paid by the employer would come out of wages in the end. Let them speak plainly. It might be that the employer was the best and the most necessary channel through which the workman could receive this money; but let them fully recognise that the money winch came through would ultimately come from the workman from the producing power of the workman. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the right hon. Gentleman mould not bring forward any alteration to produce complications. Too many complications had been produced in the Bill already, and this would make another. Let any hon. Member bring before his mind a county like Durham where there were between 70,000 and 80,000 men down in the mines; let him consider that from 17,000 to 18,000 accidents occurred in a year, and if

  1617
  10,000 of these had to be decided by a committee or by arbitration as what the workman was to receive based on his earning power for the time being, it was obvious that the court or committee would become so congested with arrears of work that it would be many months perhaps before any money was paid to the sufferer. Anything of this kind must tend to check the speedy operation of the Bill. He certainly thought that this was a point upon which the decision of the committee might be fairly maintained, and he urged the Government to maintain it.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid in supporting the Amendment, and in putting down an Amendment of a similar nature on the Paper, he had no desire to minimise the fair and just compensation payable under the Bill. It had been said that this matter was fully discussed in Committee. He ventured to differ. A very short discussion took place late in the evening. The point raised was admitted to be a very important one, and the Government went so far as to say that it was a point which had escaped their attention, and they would, between Committee and Report stage, look into it and see what could be done. He did not for a moment complain of what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had said, so far as the merits of the case were concerned, but there was some justice in the complaint of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he did think, after what passed in Committee, that it was a pity the Government had not seen their way to put down on the Paper the Amendment by which they would desire to meet the case. It was an important matter. Let him put a case which had not been mentioned at all. The case of the child earning a few shillings a week had been spoken of. Take the case of a man with half-a-dozen full-grown sons working in a colliery or a glass-blowing factory. The old couple were dependent on the sons, each of whom perhaps contributed 2s. a week to their parents, who might be able to do some trifling work besides. If one of these sons was killed, as the Bill now stood these parents would be entitled to receive a minimum of £150—all discretion to reduce would be taken away from the arbitrator. Yet look at the parents'
  1618
  loss by actuarial figures. Two shillings a week was £5 a year; three years' payments were £15; therefore, on a simple calculation, a payment of fifteen or twenty years would more than meet the justice of the case. Yet the arbitrator was absolutely prevented from awarding the old couple less than £150. As he said in Committee, the Bill was altogether one-sided. Here was a case of absolute injustice—it was lavish generosity at the expense of the employer, or rather at the expense of the employé. The Amendment he had put down, and that of his hon. Friend, were intended to meet this case. It took away nothing from the workman, it merely gave the arbitrator a fair discretion. There was another view to be taken, viz., that they were putting a very high premium on the death of an able-bodied man. To his old parents that man would be worth four or five times as much when dead as he was when alive. ["Oh!"] He was no doubt putting it perhaps in what some people would think a brutal way. But it was the simple fact of the case; and he thought, therefore, that it was appoint winch the Government should meet. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had met these arguments in a fair and conciliatory spirit; but there had been month or more between the Committee and the report stage, and he confessed he should have liked to know in what way they proposed to meet a point in the Bill which must be met if anything like justice was to be done. The right hon. Gentleman would see that in his Amendment he had practically embodied the same point as his hon. Friend, and he should like to know if there was anything in the words set down that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept in regard to this point. He did not believe that the Amendment would have the effect of complicating the proceedings before the arbitrator.
  SIR W. HARCOURTthought the House ought to have a clearer declaration from the Government with regard to the alteration which they proposed to make in the Bill. They ought to be told how and why this alteration was to be made. Did the Government intend to abandon the minimum altogether, or did they intend to fix a lower minimum?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYwished to make it clear that the Government had no intention of abandoning the minimum. What they thought was that the words in the Bill appeared to limit the discretion of the arbitrator. [Sir W. HARCOURT: "Of course, it would not be a minimum if the arbitrator had the power to award a smaller sum!"] His right hon. Friend had shown that in certain cases it would not be just that the arbitrator should have no discretion. As yet, however, the Government had not found any form of words which would meet the necessities of the case.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSThad heard the statement of the Colonial Secretary with considerable alarm. The arguments used by the hon. Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for St. Helens showed that they did not understand labour matters. They seemed to think that a boy who was just entering upon a life of labour was to be reckoned of less value to his family than a man who had been working for a number of years. That was quite wrong. A poor widow left with children dependent upon her labour counted the days up to the time when her eldest boy was able to work, and when he was at work she counted the months that must elapse before he would get an advance of wages. In the lad, in fact, lay her chief hope. In the case of a man who had worked for 30 years, so much of his capital—that was, his capacity for work—had gone. The lad of 16 had all those years to the good, and was therefore of greater value to Ids family. He wanted the Colonial Secretary to consider the following case: A member of a family was often dependent upon a family contribution for the greater part of his or her maintenance. Supposing three brothers contributed and one of them was killed, the survivors might not be able to subscribe a sufficient amount to keep the dependent member of the family out of the workhouse. What would be clone in a case of that kind were the proposal of the hon. Member for the Partick Division accepted?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINexplained that the suggestion that had been made was that the arbitrator should be given discretion to take into account all the circumstances of the case, and to
  1620
  award a less sum if the circumstances of the case should warrant it, but only under those conditions. In the case put by the hon. Member the arbitrator would, lie presumed, award the full sum.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that that assurance relieved his anxiety in a Measure. The Bill contained very much that was good, and he wished to preserve as much of it as possible, and to leave in it as little as possible that was vague.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid he did not think anybody wished to deprive the arbitrator of the discretion and power to give an old widow the prospective value of the earnings of her son whom she had lost by an accident. That, however, did not cover the whole case, and if they were to speak of surrenders they must refer to a contention which had been repeatedly made on the Committee stage, that justice forbade that anyone should be pecuniarily the gainer by the death of a workman. If there was to be a minimum it should be that sum which under the old law a jury would have given when a ease was brought before it, and such a sum being variable could not be fixed in a Bill. Ho thought therefore that it would be best to give an unfettered discretion to the arbitrator.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY MR. LAURENCE HARDY moved in paragraph (i), Sub-section (a), after the words "a sum equal to his earnings," to insert the words "at that employment." He thought these words were required in order to deal with cases where the employment had not been for three years.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Amendment would not read, and could not be inserted at this point. The House had decided that the sum was either to be equal to the earnings during three years, or to be the sum of £150, and they thought that was the proper way of dealing with the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.) moved to insert in the

  1621
  same paragraph after the words "preceding the injury," the words
  "at that employment, if employed for three years, and, if for a less period, then for the amount of three years' earnings calculated at the rate of his actual earnings during the period employed."
  He thought the compensation should be based not upon the workman's previous earnings, but on what he would probably have earned if he had continued his work.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that the words could not be inserted; the words if inserted would have to be "at his employment," or "at the employment." If the hon. Member wished the earnings to be calculated on a different principle he would suggest that lie should put forward his Amendment at the end of the sub-section.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONpointed out that sonic Amendment was necessary as a workman might be employed by two employers, from one of whom he received 2s. 6d. a week, and from the other 30s. The question arose as to what should be paid if he was killed whilst in the employment of the employer who paid him 2s. 6d. a week.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEcited the case of a man who might have been earning £200 or £300 a year as a teacher but who had lost his situation through drunkenness. Having become a tramp the man might be found a situation by the Church Army at 15s. a week, while his average of earnings for three years would be much more than that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.) moved in paragraph (i), Sub-section (a) to insert after the words "three hundred pounds," the words:—
  "and such sum shall be paid in the following manner: (1) By a sum of ten pounds for medical attendance and burial; (2) by weekly payments for fifty-two weeks of two-thirds of his average earnings during the three years next preceding the injury; (3) by a sum at the end of fifty-two weeks equal to the balance of the total amount due for compensation under this Act."
  He proposed this Amendment really in the interests of the workmen, but he would also point out that in the
  1622
  case of the smaller employers a lump sum might be a very heavy burden. He would also point out that it was probable that in the majority of cases, after a fatal accident, the relatives of the deceased workman would remove to friends at a distance; and in these circumstances the weekly payments would give rise to considerable difficulty mid inconvenience. He knew it had been suggested that the decision of the question whether it would be better to give a lump sum or weekly payments should be left in the hands of the arbitrator. But he objected to any increase in the burden that was already placed on the arbitrator, and besides it would be very difficult for the arbitrator to decide in particular cases whether a lump sum should be given or weekly payments. He would point out that what the widow of the workman killed would first want was a small sum to defray medical and funeral expenses; secondly, provision for some time in the shape of weekly payments, and then after a period of about 12 months, a capital sum which might be devoted to secure for her a permanent livelihood. He believed the best interest of a working man's family would be served by some such arrangement, and he thought that instead of leaving the matter at the discretion of the arbitrator, an automatic system should be provided.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that Subsection (6) of the schedule gave the arbitrator discretion to carry out the arrangement suggested in the Amendment if he thought it desirable in any particular case. The words of the Sub-section were:—
  "The sum allotted as compensation may be invested or otherwise employed for his benefit, as directed by the committee or other arbitrator."
  *SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid the object of the hon. Baronet was an excellent one. Any one that had experience of the way in which the sums paid in the lump as compensation to widows were spent would venture to assert that some such scheme was desirable. When he pointed out that in the event of any large accident in which there were 200 lives lost, a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 would be thrown into one village, it would be seen how

  1623
  desirable it was that the arbitrator should have discretion to deal with the mode of paying the compensation as he thought proper. As his hon. Friend the Member for the Lichfield Division had pointed out, Sub-section (6) gave full power to the arbitrator to make an arrangement such as the hon. Baronet suggested if he thought fit; but as it might be desirable in some cases to give a lump sum rather than weekly payments, it would not be well to fix a hard and fast rule.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought the object of his hon. Friend was one that would be appreciated everywhere. He confessed that at first he was inclined to accept the Amendment, although it was always objectionable and dangerous to adopt anything in the nature of a stereotyped rule; but on further consideration he had come to the conclusion that Sub-section (6) left to the arbitrator a discretion to make such a disposition of the money as his hon. Friend proposed.
  Sat W. HOULDSWORTHasked what would be done with the money in case such an arrangement as he proposed was made.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that in that case the £150 or whatever the sum might be would be paid over and invested in the Post Office, and be withdrawn in instalments.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid the labour representatives appreciated the intentions of the hon. Baronet, in moving the Amendment; but they thought it would be well to allow Subsection (6) to regulate the distribution of the money.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that in order to meet the point of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that the earnings on which the amount of compensation was to be based should be the earnings in the employment in which the workman was at the time of his death. He moved to insert in line 8 after "injury," the words, "in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of his death if he has been so long employed."
  *MR. JOHN WILSONasked whether the Attorney General
  1624
  meant the employment under an employer for all the industry, or for one branch only of the industry. A man, for instance, might be earning 5s. or 6s. a day in one branch of an industry for two years, and then owing to some change in that branch of the industry he might be put to something else at which he earned only 3s. a day. In such a case as that would the compensation be reckoned on the 3s. a day or on the whole sum the man earned during the three years?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he had endeavoured to meet the particular case mentioned by his hon. Friend behind him, but if hon. Members opposite had any objection to the Amendment he would withdraw it.
  *SIR JAMES JOICEYthought there was something in the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham, and he advised the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. BENJAMIN PICKARDalso supported the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  Amendmenlt, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Sub-section (b), to leave out the words, "in case of," and to insert the word "where."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in the same paragraph to leave out the word "resulting," and to insert the word "results."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELL*COLONEL BLUNDELL moved in paragraph (b) to leave out the word "second," and to insert the word "sixth." He said that the object of this Amendment was to indirectly induce employers and employed to form mutual relief societies, and so secure to the employed the guarantee of en association that if injured, ho and his would receive the money compensation promised, irrespective of the solvency of the employer; while it would secure to the employer that the supervision of the fellow workmen would be brought to bear upon workmen suffering from bruises and

  1625
  slight strains, owing to their having an interest in the funds which paid them. With regard to the necessity for such mutual associations, in the relief societies of this country, in Germany, and in New Zealand, the workmen had a direct pecuniary interest in the economical administration of accident funds, although their systems differed in detail if in this country the workman was absolutely severed from all pecuniary interest in accident funds, mid these funds were paid for by the employer almost alone, there was a great temptation to a workman to prolong his case, if he was at all given to idleness. The exclusion of compensation for the first fortnight was so small as to be useless as against such prolongation. The House would have noticed the great difference between the calculations of the Home Office and of the employers in respect of the compensation that would be payable. The Home Office in estimating the cost took the average wage of ail the workers as the guide; but the relief societies took the past as their guide, and found that the average wage of all the workers did not represent the average wage of the injured, but that the injured were chiefly derived from those earning higher wages and working in more dangerous places. This was specially the case in coal milting. The Home Office, too, did not appear in its calculations of the incidence per ton of the cost of accident to have taken into consideration the liability falling upon the fund from past serious accidents. If in the Act the whole cost was thrown upon the employer, how would the arbitration work referred to in the second schedule? It had been the experience in many cases of arbitration between employers and employed that they were so well conducted that the arbitrator was hardly employed at all. The employer could hardly feel confidence in the representatives of the workman on the arbitration dispensing the moneys which had to provide, and which they as well as those injured would regard as drawn from a sort of consolidated find whose dimensions they probably exaggerated absurdly. If they looked at the experience of Germany they found that the Germans had made the mistake of paying too much in small injuries, for this had led to a postponement of the cure. It had, in fact, en-
  1626
  couraged malingering. The Government by throwing away self-help parted with the only means whereby that evil could be checked. Anything to be successful must be done mutually. Let employers and employed pay half and half, and then they could safely go as far as they liked but if one paid all and the other had au equal right to dispense, the scheme would not succeed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the argument of his hon. Friend really went to the question whether or not a longer period than two weeks should be taken before the allowance could be paid. If the argument was that if a longer period was to Le taken there must be back payments of the amount, then there was a forcible objection to the extension of the time, and if the argument was that the employer should not be made responsible until the actual payments began, then there should be as short a period as possible.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in Committee the House was almost evenly divided on the question whether the payment of compensation should not begin immediately after the accident, or whether there should be an interval of two weeks before the employer should be held to be liable at all. He thought that if any change was to be made in the Bill it should be made in the direction of making the payments to begin on the very earliest day after the accident.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid the question was not so simple as the Attorney General seemed to suppose. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had suggested that the two weeks taken off would reduce the liabilities of the employers by 30 per cent., but the calculation of that eminent authority, Mr. Neison, showed that the relief in these circumstances would be very small indeed.
  *MR. J. WILSONrose to order. He submitted that this matter was provided for in a former section of the Bill. Sub-section (20) provided that the period should be two weeks.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That point has already been taken. The hon. Gentleman is in order.
  MR. TOMLINSON, continuing, said that he should be very glad if the figures in relation to this matter would work out

  1627
  as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had made them.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the meaning of the language he used to the deputation had been entirely misconceived. He never said that tins deduction of two weeks was equal to 25 per cent. of the value of the compensation. He said it was equivalent to 25 per cent. of the total number of accidents, and he agreed with Mr. Neison that that was equivalent to five per cent. of the value of compensation. Then he went on to say that it not merely knocked out all accidents which lasted two weeks, but that it also knocked off two weeks from the duration of the compensation in regard to all other accidents—that was to say, that in regard to 75 per cent, of the total number of accidents it knocked off two weeks of compensation, and, as the average term of compensation was found by the Miners' Relief Society and other associations to be six weeks, from these accidents the deduction amounted to 30 per cent. These were the two statements he made.
  *MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGEsaid he would like to submit the hon. Gentleman's exact words, and then the House would be able to gauge whether he was justified in the interpretation he had put on them. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I daresay it is well known to most here that the result of that is to exclude altogether at least 25 per cent. of all the accidents that take place, and to exclude two weeks' compensation from all the rest. As the average of incapacity is very small in the vast majority of cases, this practically reduces the amount of compensation by something like 30 per cent."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear. The first statement is 25 per cent. of the number. The second statement is 30 per cent. reduction of the compensation payable in the great majority of accidents.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGEsaid that though he accepted the explanation, he was justified in his interpretation. This Amendment really dealt with one of the most important principles in the Bill—namely, what proportion should the employer bear as compared with the burden imposed on the workman. On the one side there was two weeks to be borne by the workman and on the other side the rest
  1628
  to be borne by the employer. As he had said, he thought this a very unjust burden. The right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, on the same occasion, used the following important words:—
  "I think the most important of all the points to which reference has been made, and one which has already given us an immense deal of anxiety and continues to occupy our attention is the question of the prevention of malingering."
  He suggested that one of the surest ways of reducing malingering was to extend the two weeks to a longer period.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (b), leave out "at that employment."
  Leave out: "Then the average during the period of his actual engagement," and insert—
  "If he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been engaged in the same employment."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved in Sub-section (b), after "pound," insert—
  "provided that no such payment shall continue for a longer period than three hundred and sixty-five weeks."
  He contended that it was of the greatest importance that the question of this weekly allowance to the workman should be left in such a position as to give a sufficient amount to the workman, and at the same time would be defined in some way and made capable of being insured against. Of course any number of hard cases could be quoted in which the fixing of a maximum would tell hardly, cases in which the incapacity was permanent; but the principle that hard cases made bad law came in here. They could not take into consideration individual and exceptional cases in laying down a general rule in this way. He thought it important from the point of view of insurance, to have a maximum as definite as possible, and they must make a general estimate of what they thought it fair to impose as a maximum and exclude considerations of possible hard cases, and he submitted that the general rule framed in the Amendment was a satisfactory one to establish.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAINhoped his hon. Friend would not press the amendment. He must say that it was discouraging to the Government to find that having made a concession to meet the views of hon. Members in the Committee stage, and that concession having been accepted, it was now proposed to upset the arrangement and to introduce quite a different principle. He did not think it was to the advantage of the workman that there should be this maximum established, nor would it be fair to the workman. If they took a case of permanent injury an, t incapacity, such payment as would he included in a payment of 365 weeks might be a very insufficient compensation. It was said that this change was necessary in order that the insurance might he effective. That was an argument advanced with reference to commutation, and it had some weight with the Government, but it was one which could not be advanced in regard to the present Amendment. In the first place, insurance offices had plenty of definiteness in their arrangements. They only wanted to know what the average was, and in this case there was ample means at the disposal of the insurance offices to enable them to say how many accidents involving permanent and total incapacity were likely to come forward for compensation. They would be able to make an exact calculation front the returns in the different trades, such as was afforded, for example, by the returns of the miners' relief societies. That was one reason, and the second reason was, if it was insufficient they always had the opportunity, if an accident was going on for an indefinite time, of coming forward under the commutation clause. He thought the Government had gone quite as far as they could be expected to go.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had explained it, the employer would have the opportunity to go forward and commute, but as he read the words, lie would have no opportunity at all of doing so unless the arbitrator agreed to let him have it. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "Hear, hear!"] Then it was not a commutation clause absolutely but only potentially and what his hon. Friend proposed was that there should be an absolute limit and that limit, in his opinion, was a
  1630
  generous one. As the words stood, the weekly payment might go on for an indefinite period, only to be increased by the life of the persons injured.
  MR. CRIPPSthought that the Colonial Secretary hardly appreciated what was intended to he guarded against by the Amendment. Why should they limit the liability in the case of the rich employer who was aide to commute and leave it unlimited in the case of the poorer employer who could not afford to commute because lie could not afford the expense of commutation? They might have an employer by no means a rich man, very little richer than his workman. The workman might be permanently injured by some stranger over whose acts the employer had no control at all. What was the result? A man, equally poor, who had a wife and children dependent upon hint, had to provide during the whole lifetime of another under the terms of this Bill. He said without any hesitation that that, as a matter of principle, was not right. The small employer would not be able to insure at all, because the expense of keeping a small account would be greater than any benefit the insurance company would be able to derive from it; and it was exactly in the case of the small employer that it was specially hard there should be no limit of liability at all.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWhoped there would be some definite assurance from the Government, because the words as they stood had raised a great deal of doubt in the minds of employers in various industries. It was important that the House should be invited to consider the limitation of 365 weeks from the point of view submitted by tile hon. and learned Member for Stroud; especially in the interests of the small employer, who would he by far the most injured by the provisions of this Bill, it should be made perfectly clear that the liability in respect of an accident was only to run for seven years and no longer.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid that there was only one conclusion to be drawn from the argument which had been addressed to the House, that whatever was done with this Amendment the Bill could not he made to operate fairly and justly unless it was accompanied by State insurance. The only employments that were exempt from difficulty on that

  1631
  account were the large ones, employing a large number of persons entitling them to become their own insurers. But if they took an employment liable to some sudden catastrophe, or a small employer without capital, it was manifest that in these cases the employers would very often be left in a very unfair position.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: Does the Colonial Secretary mean to insert the words "be ordered to" when we come to section 12?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, those words are not to be moved.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR A. HICKMAN*SIR A. HICKMAN moved at the end of Sub-section (b), to insert the following proviso:—
  "The workman shall produce, when so required, to the employer a certificate, from a duly qualified medical practitioner appointed and paid by the employer for that purpose, that his incapacity for work occasioned by the accident continues; and, in the event of such certificate being refused, he shall be entitled to appeal to the arbitrator."
  He said that these requirements were found to be necessary by universal experience. In arrangements between workmen and employers it was always customary, and in Mutual Benefit Societies and Friendly Societies rules existed towards this end. He quoted from the rules of the Oddfellows, the Free Foresters, and the Free Gardeners, showing that a certificate should not only be produced, but that the person disabled should be visited every week by one of the officers. The rules of those societies had been made by the men for their own government, and had been in operation for many years; if they had been found to be irksome no one could doubt that they would have been modified long ago. A workman's certificate could be produced by the man's wife or child, and it might be taken for granted that the employer would not insist unnecessarily upon the production of a certificate, because every certificate was to be provided at his expense. Without some such provision as this the Bill would be absolutely unworkable. He had supported the Bill from the beginning, and he had not advocated any change which would in any degree lessen the advantages to be received by
  1632
  the men. In making this proposal he was doing it in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill. He was willing to accept anything which should provide that a workman should go to a surgery to be examined.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid there was nothing unreasonable in the hon. Baronet's asking for some form of words to carry out the object of the Amendment he had put on the Paper. There was nothing at all in the Bill by way of precaution against malingering. He was not prepared to say that workmen were greater malingerers than anybody else; lie should say that Members of Parliament under similar circumstances would be as great malingerers as workmen. [Laughter.] But it was a precaution that was found to be necessary in the case of every fund where benefits during incapacity were given. He held in his hand the rules of the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund, a great relief fund in connection with the miners of Durham and Northumberland. That fund, though contributed to by the employers, was altogether managed by the men, and the rules specially provided for the renewal of the medical certificate every fortnight if deemed necessary by the local committee. He was not tied to any particular form of words—he had an Amendment down on the Paper which provided for the same thing as the hon. Baronet's; but lie thought everybody would agree that it was perfectly reasonable that there should be some precaution of this kind to insure that the compensation should not be continued when the workman was not really any longer incapable of working. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid he should not have taken part in this discussion had it not been for a few of the speeches they had heard that afternoon on the necessity of employers providing for workmen. They had about 100,000 men in the district of Wales which he had the honour to represent, and they paid for their own doctor. They had agreed on a principle, and the representatives of the Welsh miners were not afraid of their men being so dishonest as was represented by some hon. Members on both sides of the House. [An hon. MEMBER: "Nothing has been said about dishonesty!"] The men

  1633
  he represented were not opposed to certificates required for a reasonable time—they were not in the least afraid of such a provision, because they themselves required those certificates from their fellow men. But where hon. Members missed the point was here—these societies provided their own medical officers, and it was by the medical officers which the society provided that the men were examined. The proposal now made was that the employer who had not provided the workmen with any medical assistance, should be allowed to provide them with a medical detective. ["Hear, hear!"] If the right hon. Gentleman would say that the medical officer should be an impartial man provided by the State, they would agree to it at once—["Hear, hear!"]—but to allow the employer to provide a medical detective was most unreasonable.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid he perceived that the Home Secretary had an Amendment down which indicated that the Secretary of State should provide medical practitioners for this purpose. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, because there was serious objection on the part of the men to the appointment of the examining doctor by the employer. Much had been said about malingering; but doctors could malinger as well as workmen. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he had listened carefully to what had been said by hon. Members on both sides about the Amendment, which was not necessarily a controversial one. ["Hear, hear!"] He said it was admitted by both sides that something of the kind suggested should be provided for; the only question was how they sly mid proceed. It was admitted that all these relief associations found it necessary to require frequent examinations of the workmen who were claiming compensation. Therefore, it might be fairly claimed that when the employer paid compensation in place of the association, he should have exactly the same right as the association now had, and that he also should he entitled to have frequent examination if he thought fit to demand it. He did not mean to say that lie liked the exact form of the Amendment,
  1634
  but as he understood the proposal it was that if the employer thought necessary he should at his own expense appoint a doctor who should examine the injured person from time to time. Suppose, however, that upon the report of this doctor the employer alleged that the man was malingering, or was no longer incapacitated, the report of that doctor did not count for anything; it did not lead to the withdrawal of compensation until the report of the employer's doctor had been confirmed by the arbitrator, who might call in what he might call the State doctor; and the result of that was that the State doctor would only be called upon in a case in which there was a dispute between the doctor employed by the employer and the workman. It would be very undesirable, in his opinion, that the State doctor should be called in upon every possible occasion. It was a little too much to ask, as he understood the bin. Member to ask, that the State doctor should be called in to act as the weekly examiner of every incapacitated workman at the demand of the employer. If that were done, instead of there being one State doctor, or even more, in a district, they would want to employ all t lie doctors in the district for the purpose. And it would be absolutely unnecessary, because he ventured to say that although a clause of this kind might give power to the employer to demand such an examination, there would be many cases in which he would not think of demanding it. ["Hear, hear!] As the employer would have to pay for the examination, it was quite certain that he would never employ a doctor unless he thought there was reasonable cause to suppose that the workman was no longer incapacitated. Therefore on the whole the object of his hon. Friend's Amendment appeared to he a reasonable one; and the only question lie should ask would be—was it so drawn that the demand might be used to the unnecessary annoyance of the workman? ["Hear, hear!"] If so, let them try to prevent that. He found that in the Amendment it was S proposed that the workman should, if required, produce to Ids employer a medical certificate. Now he was going to test the matter by an extreme case. He was assuming an employer who wanted to make a bad use of this provision. In that case he might require the

  1635
  workman—as a mere matter of annoy-once, and in the hope that the workman might be tired out—to produce a certificate every week; and that meant that a man who was more or less incapacitated would have to attend somewhere or another once a week to obtain this certificate. Now that appeared to him to be going farther than was necessary—["hear, hear?"]—and he should have thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for St. Helens would be found to be better, because all lie required was that the workman should from time to time, if required by the employer, submit himself for examination. He had not got to produce a certificate necessarily, he had from time to time, when required, to submit himself to a medical practitioner, and if he refused (as he was going to suggest) without due reason to submit himself to examination, then the compensation payable would be suspended until he complied. He thought, however, that even if the Government accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens, he would probably not object to give an appeal to the arbitrator if the workmen objected altogether to the examination; and he thought, if they inserted words to that effect, it would get rid of any possibility of a provision of this kind being used by the employer to harass the workmen—because if the workman thought it was evidently unnecessary and absurd that he should be called upon to submit to examination under the particular circumstances of the case, he would put the case before the arbitrator, and the employer would be at once told that he was not to make the requisition. ["Hear, hear!"] On the whole, then, he thought that the object could be accomplished, and that they ought to accomplish it, and as at present advised lie thought it best to accept with a slight amendment the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid if the right hon. Gentleman could produce a scheme to carry out this to the full, every Member representing workmen would accept it. ["Hear, hear!"] All the Trade Unions had the strictest possible regulations; and in addition, in many Unions they had visiting members whose duty it was to keep an eye on the sick member to see that he was doing his best to get well
  1636
  as soon as possible. The only doubt they had with regard to this Amendment was this—that instead of employing a doctor who knew the progress of the case and was thoroughly acquainted with it, the employer might select one who had no special responsibility as to the consequences of a too early return to work, and he might even be in reality the doctor of the insurance company in which the employer was insured. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in the case he names, the report of the employer's doctor could not have any effective result? All it would do would be to inform the employer, who would have to take certain steps if he wished to withdraw the compensation. It would be a double process. The right hon. Gentleman hoped that his hon. friend (Sir A. Hickman) would withdraw his Amendment, and suggested that the exact form of words to be adopted should be considered on the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. HARRISON*MR. HARRISON (Plymouth) moved to insert at the end of Sub-section (1):—
  "(c) Where such injury within twelve calendar months from the occurrence of the accident causing such injury directly causes to the workman the loss by physical separation, whether by accident or surgical operation consequent thereon, of a hand or a foot, or the complete and irrecoverable loss of sight of an eye, a payment for each such loss as aforosaid equal to 50 per cent. of the amount that would have been payable had death resulted from the injury under Seethe, 1 (a), Sub-sections (1), (2), provided the aggregate amount payable in respect of the accident causing such losses to such workman shall not exceed the maximum compensation payable under Section (1) (a), Sub-sections (1) and (2)."
  He said the object of the Motion was to insert in this schedule, which in effect constituted the terms and conditions of a statutory policy of insurance between workman and employer, a fixed amount of compensation for the physical loss by accident of a hand or a foot, or the irrecoverable loss of an eye. The Motion proposed 50 per cent. of the amount pay able at death for each such loss, and in no ease exceeding the total maximum payable under the Act. The weekly compensation

  1637
  was limited by the words Of the Bill to "the duration of incapacity." The duration of incapacity from work in the case of too injury to an eye followed by its loss might, be a few weeks only, and it would be urged that the workman might not be incapacitated, after the actual loss of the eye, from work; lout yet under the Bill he would receive no compensation for such loss unless the Bill was intended as proposed by the Motion. For that reason alone the proposal should be adopted. There was not a single accident policy issued, whether for personal accident, employers' liability, or accidents to workmen, but what contained conditions to the effect of those mentioned in the Motion. Workmen Accident Fluid policies contained similar provisions. Further, the provisions would encourage assurance, as in its absence the offices would charge larger premiums, even if they did not refuse them altogether.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the Government could not entertain the Amendment without going much further, and entering into minute detail.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. W. LEGH MR. T. W. LEGH (Lancashire, Newton) moved to add at the end of Sub-section (1):—
  Every workman directly employed and paid by some person other than the undertaker, as hereinbefore defined, Shull from time to time, when required so to do, furnish full particulars as to the amount of his weekly earning to any employer who may be liable to pay compensation to such workman under the provisions of this Act."
  He instanced the ease of a hewer of coal in Lancashire where it was difficult for the employer to know the amount of a man's earnings, and urged that, while the proposal would be slightly to the benefit of the employer, there would be nothing inquisitorial. He believed the Amendment would be a real advantage to both parties.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that he could not see that this Amendment would be of much advantage to the employer, and it might lie a great annoyance to the workpeople. if the hon. Member could not trust the injured workman to state what his earnings had been, how could he trust him to make this return, winch would probably be perfunctorily filled up,
  1638
  because no one would see the importance of it until the accident had occurred. The employer had the right to go to the arbitrator if he thought the workman had exaggerated the amount of his wages.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Sub-section (2), before the word "weekly," to insert the word "average."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in the same sub-section, before the word "amount," to insert the word "average."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR JOICEY*SIR JOICEY moved, at the end of Sub-section (2), after the word "accident," to insert the words—
  "and to any payment which he may receive from the employer in respect of his injury, and to the value of any house or fuel with which he lay is, provided by the employer during the incapacity."
  He said that this Amendment only affected the Northumberland and Durham districts. It had long been the custom there, when a workman in a mine was incapacitated by an accident, to give him during the period of his incapacity his house-rent, coal, rates and taxes, and compensation known as ''smart-money." This system load worked well and had given satisfaction, both to employers and workmen. To a certain extent the Bill would interfere with the system; and his Amendment provided that the contribution which he had mentioned should be taken into account by the arbitrator in fixing the compensation under the Bill. The supposed wages of the workmen were, say, 26s. a week, and in case of incapacity by accident, the arbitration would be able to award half the wage, or 13s. a week. But the Northumberland and Durham miner would receive, apart from the Bill, rent, coal, rates and taxes, amounting to, say, 5s. a week, and "smart-money" amounting to another 5s. a week. Perhaps it would be contended that the rent, coal, rates and taxes were really a

  1639
  part of the man's wages; and on that basis the wages would be not 26s. but 31s. per week. Then the arbitrator would be able to award 15s 6d. a week. But the workman would continue to have the benefit of his house and coal; and if he got the "smart-money'' as well he would be receiving 35s. 6d. a week from his employer instead of the 31s. he was supposed to have been earning before the accident. The arbitrator was to take account of the difference between the man's earnings before the accident and what lie was able to earn afterwards; and that very thing being specifically mentioned, the arbitrator would be bound to consider no other circumstance. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be accepted, or some localities would be placed under a great disadvantage.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that he was very sorry that the hon. Baronet had raised this question. The custom to which he had alluded was peculiar to one part of the country, and it would have been better to leave it out of the discussion. He was glad to hear the hon. Baronet state that house-rent, rates, taxes and coal were part of the men's wages. The statement would no doubt be of use to the miners in their future dealings with the hon. Baronet Putting them, as the hon. Baronet did, as worth 5s. a week, meant 1s. a day on each working day. The average wage of the workmen included in this Bill was a great deal less in the county of Durham than 26s. a week. The hon. Baronet had made a threat that if this Amendment were accepted the miners of Durham and Northumberland might prepare themselves for having their houses and coal taken away, at least when they were injured, and might have the smart money taken from them.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid lie did not mean anything of the kind.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid if that was so, why was this Amendment brought forward? He would like the Government to understand the relations which existed at present. These things had been part of their wages during the whole of his fife, and for a longer time than that, and if these words were inserted into the Bill it would disturb the wage relations of Durham and Northumberland. They
  1640
  had got on peacefully in those counties, but this Amendment would disturb their peaceful relations, and he suggested to the hon. Baronet that it would be wise to withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYagreed that it would be desirable if his hon. Friend opposite would not press the Amendment. It had been a matter of controversy not only between political economists, but between practical men as to whether smart money, houses, or fuel were or were not technically part of wages. He gathered that the hon. Baronet did not dispute that.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid that was undoubtedly so, but his point was, were the wages to continue after incapacity?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that if these things were part of the earnings they would be considered by the arbitrator, but, in any case, he did not think it desirable to insert the words proposed. It would be much better not to complicate the Bill, especially as there appeared to be some doubt attaching to the meaning of the suggested provision, which might have a disastrous effect on the relations between capital and labour in Northumberland and Durham.
  MR. CHARLES FENWICKsaid he regretted exceedingly that this Amendment should ever have been put upon the Paper. It would have a tendency to disturb the existing relations between the workmen and their employers. If the Amendment were pressed to a division one effect would be that the workmen, at least in the two counties which had been mentioned, would demand an immediate advance of wages equivalent to the value of their house and coal, and if it was taken on the estimate which the employers themselves had been pleased to put upon the value of these allowances, he thought the workmen would have the best of the bargain.
  MR. PICKARDsaid this did not affect only the miners of Durham and Northumberland but of Lancashire and Yorkshire also. If the matter was pressed it would simply lead to a strike.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to omit Sub-Section (3).
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RILDEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RILDEY moved to insert in Sub-Section (4) after the words "if he has no legal personal representative, to" the words "or for the benefit of."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to add at the end of Sub-Section (4) the words—
  "and if made to the legal personal representative, shall be paid by him to or for the benefit of the dependent or other person entitled thereto under this Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RILDEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RILDEY moved to omit the first part of Section (5), from the beginning down to "prior to his death; and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY the following Amendments to Clause 1 were agreed to:—
  In Sub-section (6) after the word "compensation," insert the words "to a dependant."
  Leave out the words "his benefit," and insert the words "the benefit of the person entitled thereto."
  Leave out the word "directed," and insert the words "agreed, or as ordered."
  In Sub-section (7) after the word "sum," insert the words "which is agreed or is."
  Leave out the words "be ordered to."
  In Sub-section (8) leave out the words "so ordered to be," and insert the words "to be so."
  After the words "may be," insert the words:—
  "invested in the purchase of an annuity from the National Debt Commissioners through the Post Office Savings Bank, or be."
  In Sub-section (9) after the word "judge," insert the words "of the county court."
  *SIR F. POWELL*SIR F. POWELL (Wigan) moved at the end of Sub-section (10) to insert:—
  "If the incapacity of the workman is continued or aggravated by excess or misconduct on his part, the arbitrator shall have power to diminish or end the payment."
  He remarked that this was in accordance with the rules of the Northumberland and Durham, and the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Permanent Relief Societies. The German law was much more severe. The intention was to secure regularity of life on the part of persons in receipt of compensation, and to secure that there should not be waste of money arising from the workman's misconduct.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the words the hon. Baronet wished to insert were unnecessary and might be dangerous.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the object of the Amendment was already provided for in the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. SETON-KARR MR. SETON-KARR moved to add at the end of Sub-section (10):—
  "Any workman claiming compensation under this Act shall, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself for examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid for by the employer. If the workman refuses to submit himself to such examination, or otherwise obstructs the same, his right to such weekly payments shall be suspended until such examination has taken place."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, on behalf of the Government, accepted the Amendment with the addition of the words:—
  "provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator, whose decision shall be final."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR A. HICKMAN SIR A. HICKMAN moved in. Subsection (10) to add after the words last inserted:—
  "in the case of a workman who is not disabled, lie shall attend at the house or surgery for the purpose of such examination."

  1643
  He submitted that when an employer had to pay his workmen half wages while the injury lasted, it was a small return that the workman should take the trouble to walk down to the surgery and submit himself to examination. There could be no hardship in it, and indeed it was an arrangement which had subsisted for many years in connection with the Friendly Societies.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINreally thought that his hon. Friend was carrying this legislation into too much detail. The Government in any case could not accept the words he proposed to add. Look at the number of questions that would arise if the words were made part of the statute. They would first of all have to decide whether he was disabled or not, and that was a question they would have to go to arbitration about. It would be a separate arbitration as to whether he was in a state in which he could move to the surgery or whether he was to be visited in his own house. Then there would be the difficulty that they would have to find out where the num was in order to inform him of the address of the surgeon on whom he was expected to call. Surely, too, the surgeon's residence must be at a reasonable distance from Hit, workman; otherwise it would be a harassing demand. It was much better to leave all this to the common sense of both workmen and employers. In the ordinary case the workman would not object to an arrangement to which lie was accustomed in his own friendly society.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FENWICKsaid he had some difficulty in following the argument that when application was made by a workman or an employer for commutation of liability the arbitrator would have the right in his discretion to refuse power to commute. He was advised this was not so under the provisions of this subsection, that the workman's employer could apply to the arbitrator to fix the sum to settle his liability, and the workman, if he did not desire to take such lump sum, would have no power to object to commutation on the employer's application, the only question would lie the amount of the sum to be paid. In many cases it would be a decided advantage to the workman to receive the large sum,
  1644
  but, as the House might conceive, there were circumstances in which the workman would not desire that, and where it would not be to his advantage to take the lump sum, and in such a case the workman should have the right to have his case heard before an impartial arbitrator. On the other hand, lie could understand that an application from a workman to have the account settled by a lump sum might he opposed to the wish of the employer, and there again the objector should have the right to show cause why the arbitrator should refuse the application. The commutation should proceed upon a mutual application, but as he was advised the application was not to be mutual, but if made on behalf of the workman or on behalf of the employer, the arbitrator had no alternative but to grant the application and proceed to settle the sum to be paid on settlement of the account. To meet his view lie moved to strike out Sub-section (12).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcould quite understand the feeling of the hon. Member from his point of view, but lie reminded the hon. Member that in Committee this sub-section was adopted as a compromise after considerable discussion, and, as such, accepted on both sides. ["No!"] He quite agreed there was difference of opinion, but it was the sense of a large number of Members. The hon. Gentleman was, he thought, rightly advised that as the clause stood the discretion of the arbitrator was as to the amount, and this was the ordinary and natural meaning to he attached to the words, "the arbitrator may on the application of one party or the other," anti that, he thought, was the general sense of those who supported the Amendmene in Committee, and he did not think the House should go back on the decision of the Committee.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had clearly stated what had happened. Neither he or his hon. Friend objected to the principle of commutation in itself, but they objected to its being forced upon the workman, the object they had in view was that employer and workman, having agreed, should apply to the arbitrator to have the amount settled. There were cases where commutation might be a benefit to the workman and not acceptable to the employer, but as the sub-section

  1645
  was drawn the workman would have the right to receive a lump sum on making application to the arbitrator. That would not be fair to the employer, for lie might think the man was near the point when he might start work, that the state of his health permitted this and so there would be no need for commutation. If the thing could be arranged on lines of mutuality, if the parties agreed to commutation and arranged the amount between themselves or on the decision of the arbitrator that would meet the desired end. Much had been said about the permanent relief funds throughout the country, and experience on this point was certainly in favour of mutuality in application. If a man received 8s. a week from the Relief Fund and desired to have the weekly sum commuted into a lump sum he submitted his proposal, and if it was approved then arrangements were made as to the amount that should be paid. Tim Government should understand that as far as commuting was concerned they were not opposed to it, but simply they objected to it being competent for the employer or the workman to go to the arbitrator and say, "I want this sum commuted between the two extremes." It might be unfair to the workman who might be permanently injured. He knew of a man who line been disabled for twenty-five years and was yet living but unable to work. It would be an absolute injustice to allow an employer to say "I will commute the payments for which I am liable in thin case for a lump sum that may be lese than the payments over six years." If there were no maximum fixed the arbitrator might take into his cognisance and consideration the probability of the man being ill for more than six years. It was with the view of making provision for such a case the omission of the sub-section was moved, but if the Government would suggest the insertion of any words giving the sub-section the character desired the Motion would not be persisted in.
  *MR. THOMAS BURTagreed with his hon. Friends, but the question before the House now was the retention or rejection of the sub-section, though an alternative might be offered in the direction suggested. Considering how fully this subject was discussed in Committee, it was undesirable to re-argue
  1646
  the subject at length now. A Division might he taken to test the opinion of the House, though, for his own part he did not advise that course. Possibly the Government might see their way to give these applications a mutual character in the sense advocated by his hon. Friends.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid the Government did not want to have a Division on this question if it could be avoided. The position was this. It was perfectly, true that, speaking as a layman, and therefore ignorantly, he was under the impression that "may" meant "may," and left a certain amount of discretion with the arbitrator to refuse the application, but lie gathered from what the Attorney General had said that that was not the case, and that practically the arbitrator would have no discretion to refuse when the application was made to him by either party. So far, he admitted, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the section. But then the Government came under a pledge, or an assurance, not to disturb the arrangement arrived at. It was discussed at some length, and, on the whole, must be regarded as a compromise, and they could not attempt to deal with any possible case that might be imagined to arise. But, at the same time—and it must not be taken as committing the Government to anything more—he was quite ready to pledge himself to give this subject his personal consideration, with a view to seeing if it could be met by Amendment inserted in another place. He did not give any pledge that any alteration should be made.
  MR. FENWICKhaving expressed satisfaction with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman,
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNA MR. REGINALD MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.) moved an Amendment providing that where any weekly payment, had been continued for not less than twelve months "and the injured workman is not wholly incapacitated for work," the liability may be redeemed by payment of a lump sum. With reference to the assurance which the Colonial Secretary had just given, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether this form of words was not exactly the kind of

  1647
  concession which he might reasonably make to Members on the Opposition side. The effect of the words would be to assure to every workman who was totally incapacitated for every kind of work, so, long as the incapacity lasted, a weekly pension. A lump sum for such a man was perfectly useless. In these exceptional eases an immense hardship would be inflicted on injured workmen if they were not provided with a. weekly payment instead of a lump sum.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought that from the workman's point of view this Amendment would be inadvisable. If this Amendment, were adopted, how-every much the injured workman might wish to obtain, £200 wherewith to set up his wife in business, the arbitrator would be absolutely debarred from hearing the application.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid he felt strongly on this point, and he, did not think that the answer of the Attorney General met the necessities of the case. This matter was dealt with here as though it was a, new subject; but it, had been already thrashed out in every country in the world, and it had been settled in the way here suggested. Monstrous injustice would be done, and frightful hardships would ensue if the matter was not settled in the way suggested by the Amendment. He knew that there was a desire to hurry the Bill through that evening, but the more it was hoped that this Bill would be extended and applied to other trades; the more the House ought now to settle these questions in the way indicated.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid there was no desire to hurry this Bill through, if by so doing they would commit what the right hon. Gentleman called a monstrous injustice and a frightful hardship. He called that a monstrous misuse of language, and a frightful abuse of invective. [Laughter.] What was this monstrous abuse? The Government were going to give the injured workman compensation which he had never received before. It was true that that compensation might not be in a. particular and very exceptional case as much as they should like to see it; but whatever it was it was all in addition to what he had now. The House was not dealing hero with absolute rights; it was dealing with questions of expediency and humanity; and the Government thought on both
  1648
  grounds it was desirable to give injured persons compensation to which they had no legal right or moral right at present. The House had made a great advance in reference to this particular point which had been fully discussed in. Committee. A compromise was arrived at which, on the whole, was fairly satisfactory, and it was not possible now to review the whole matter, because if it was to be reviewed from one point of view it must be reviewed from the other as well. The Government must, therefore, resist any changes in the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (12), after the word "application," insert the words "by or on behalf."
  After the word "settled," insert "in default of agreement."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) moved in Sub-section (12) to omit the words—
  "but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the data of the application."
  Personally ho was opposed to commutation, especially to unfair and unequal commutation. The words he proposed to omit were inconsistent with the idea of commutation. A man incapacitated for work might live for many years, and if he was only to receive six years' allowance they were practically depriving him of a very great part of that compensation which by the previous position of the Bill the House had declared to be due to him. The arbitrator should be left to fix the amount without any limit, to decide in each case what should be the fair capital value of the allowance. This proviso was entirely in the interests of the employer. If they had a maximum limit surely they ought to have a minimum limit; but there was no minimum limit in this Bill. He objected to the proviso as unfair, as unilateral, and as drawn entirely in the interests of the employer, because there was no corresponding limit which might operate in the interests of the workmen. The proviso would operate most harshly in the very cases which

  1649
  appealed most strongly to their sympathies, and which had, he thought, the greatest claim—the case that was, where a man's life was completely wrecked and where he would never again be capable of any work at all. In the case of that man, what an absurd thing it would be to give a sum which would not produce anything like the equivalent of the allowance which in a previous part of the Bill they declared to be suitable in such a case. If these words were allowed to remain the result would inevitably he that at the end of seven years a man would be left absolutely without resources.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised again a question that hail been discussed many times that evening and many times previously. It was perfectly true that, in one sense, this deprived the workman of what he might call in an exceptional case, the full value of the weekly payments for his life. But to say that it was unilateral seemed to him to disregard the terms of the clause. The majority of the House had decided that commutation was desirable, and it was pointed out in the course of the discussion that unless there was some limit insurance would be more difficult, and that it was very much to the interest of the workman that he should be able to get his commutation at once, and know how much it was going to be. While a great boon was given to the workman, far more than had ever been proposed by any other system of legislation in connection with this subject of compensation for accidents, it was felt it was quite right to have a limit. It would be quite impossible to take an exceptional case of weekly payments and say there should he no limit. The result of accepting the hon. and learned Member's suggestion would be to leave the amount of commutation wholly at large, and to deprive one side to this compromise of whatever justice or advantage they might think had been given to them by the compromise having been accepted in this form. It was perfectly obvious that the Government could not accept this Amendment, which would be, in his opinion, not to keep faith with, at any rate, one set of the parties by whom this clause was agreed to in the shape it now stood.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked if the Attorney General would consider the bearing of Clause G of the Bill upon this Amendment. The Government spoke as though all the proposals which were being made to the House by these words were proposals to give the workmen something which they had never had before. He ventured to say that the calculations lie had seen showed that five-sixths of what the Government workmen got now would be taken away from them. If they looked at Clause 6 they would find that the Treasury took power to modify the warrants made under tile Superannuation Act. Under these warrants at the present time, he ventured to assert, the men, in sonic cases, would get five or six times as much as under the commutation proposals of the Bill.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid it had been made clear by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that if this maximum sum were left in, the workman might be left without assistance in the most dire and necessitous hour, and when he most required such help as this Bill might give him. There were a number of workmen who would be injured but who owing to their provident habits, had saved some little capital, would not feel very much the need of this Bill in the first year they were out; but after they had been out a year, there came up an arbitration case and there was a sum fixed which these men must take as commutation. Then there came an hour when he needed support most, and when, his own capital having gone, he found the support of this Bill refused to him. If the Government desired to make this Bill all round as acceptable as it was when it was brought in, they would remove the limit, and invest the arbitrator with a discretion to give such a sum as he thought would meet the necessities of the case. He thought that the Attorney General ought to tell them why the Government had fixed this arbitrary period of six years, arid by what mode of reasoning they had arrived at this sum.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGEwas anxious to say a word in the interests of the working man. It was to the interest of the workman to know that an employer had some wool on his back, and the only way to assure that was to enable the employer to insure against the

  1651
  burdens of this Bill. He had taken pains to inquire from the insurance company with whom he had insured since 1880 as to whether they would, without a clause of this sort, give an assurance against the burdens of this Bill, and he was informed that there would be so much uncertainty as to the consequences of the Act that they would absolutely decline to give that assurance unless this limit was introduced.
  *MR. MCKENNAwould submit to the Attorney General a direct case—that of a lad earning 10s. a week, who was injured by the careless act of an employer or some person for whose actions the employer was responsible. In such a case as that, the lad, after this Bill became law, could not proceed under the Employers' Liability Act. His remedy would be solely under this Bill, and his remedy under this clause would amount to three and a half years' wages. That was to say that a lad who was injured and totally incapacitated for life from doing any work whatever, would receive under this Bill the maximum compensation of £91. If this Bill did not pass into law, such a lad would be entitled to go before a jury and to receive an amount of compensation which he submitted would be vastly more than such a sum as £91. The House by this paragraph in the schedule, and by a sub-clause of Clause 1, would be actually taking away from the workman a remedy he already possessed, and would be limiting the rights of a man who was totally incapacitated to the paltry sum—in the case he had named—of £91.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid he did not understand that the House was taking away any man's common-law rights.
  *MR. MCKENNA: Yes, it is.
  MR STUART-WORTLEYdid not understand anything of the kind. He did not believe any jury would ever give such sums as the compensation that would be obtained under the present Bill, which went transcendently beyond anything contained in the pedantic proposals previously laid before the House for the solution of the employer's liability question.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid they had been led to believe that under this Bill the workman was to receive something he never could
  1652
  receive before. ["Hear, hear!"] It was perfectly true also that some of the things the workman was entitled to before would be taken away. This Bill, they were told, was an experimental Bill. Certainly, the House must allow that the Government must have well thought out this matter before they made their original proposals. But since then it appeared to him that strong influences had made them change considerably their original views. Allow him to remind the House that he was one of the supporters of the Bill, and he was one of the men who were grateful for it. He was entitled, therefore, to say this, that they were justified in looking to the Government to fulfil their first intentions. ["Hear hear!"] Now if this Amendment was to be rejected, the permanency of the Bill was totally done away with, it would be a temporary relief Bill. The rejection of the Amendment would place hundreds of workmen in tins position, that although they might be permanently injured not one of them would be entitled to a permanent compensation. Permanent compensation would be limited in some of the most extreme cases, and where the money was most needed. ["Hear, hear!"] He was sorry that after the Government had gone so far, and raised the expectations of the workmen as they, had done, they should do anything to disappoint those expectations. They had laid down a new foundation, as it were, in the legislation of this country, and he was sorry they did not adhere to it. It was comforting, indeed, that the compromise they were asked to make was not a compromise in which he and those whom he represented had any part. It was a compromise between the Government and some other people who were not representing the workmen of this country—a compromise that was helping to dwindle away the rights which thousands of workmen were led to expect after the promises made by Government when laying down the lines of the Bill. He did not suppose they had now any hope of carrying the Amendment; but the Government would pardon him for saying that their credit with the British nation would stand much better if they had stood to their original Bill and kept to the principle of permanent compensation instead of allowing it to be dwindled away into a temporary relief Bill.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he did not at all Wonder that cases of permanent disability raised the acute sympathy of the hon. Member for Rhondda. But after all they must look at the matter from both sides—from the side of the man who was hurt and from that of the man who had got to pay. If injury came to a man through the personal negligence or culpability of the employer, then of course the rights of the man were not limited at all by the section, for lie still had every right which a jury at common law would give him. The cases they were dealing with were those in which the accident had happened in the course of work, with no personal fault, of the employer at all. Surely in such cases it was an. entirely unreasonable penalty to put on the employer such a liability as, for instance, in the melancholy case quoted by the hon. Member for Durham When he spoke of a man who had been permanently incapacitated for 25 years. Surely to put on the employer the liability to pay half-wages for 25 years to a man who had the misfortune to be hurt by no kind of fault on the part of an. employer was going entirely beyond the bounds of justice. They were giving in such cases a very great advantage to the workman. They were giving him in cases where at present lie got nothing at all, at least 3½ years' half-pay, surely that was ample under the circumstances.
  MR. D. F. GODDARDfully agreed that in this Bill the Government were giving the working men advantages they never enjoyed before. But, after all, that was not the point at issue. The point was, as it seemed to hint, that the restriction put upon commutation was distinctly against the idea of the Bill from the first so far as he ball understood it. The idea of the Bill had been that a man who had been injured in his employment was to be adequately compensated for that accident. In the original scheme of the Government there was no clause like this at all. There was no question of the commutation of the payment to a mall but as had been already stated, this was arrived at by some kind of compromise—he did not exactly know between whom, but there was a compromise that there should be the possibility of paying down the compensation in a lump sum rather
  1654
  than by continuous weekly payments. But he ventured to say that there was no compromise on the question of a limit to the commutation. As far as he could understand, that limit had been put in without any adequate reason, and certainly without any fair explanation to the House as to why it was fixed at 312 weeks. ["Hear, hear!"] He felt strongly that to limit the commutation in tins way would he a real injustice to the men. Take the case of a man who by au accident had been rendered blind. He would never be able to work any more so as to earn his living. He asked any reasonable man, would it be fair compensation to that poor blind man if he got seven years' compensation? What was to happen to him at the end of seven years, except to fall back on the rates and perhaps to go into a workhouse. If there was to be any limitation at all, six years after one year of weekly payments was far too small. But he felt that it was wrong to set up any limitation of this sort. They had established a court of arbitration—let them have confidence in the arbitrator. The working men had already expressed their willingness to trust to arbitration, and he begged the Government not to disfigure their Bill which offered such a great boon to workmen, by continuing the words whose rejection had been moved.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEYunderstood that the Government I had justified this provision, because they were giving something that was quite new to the working men of this country. Well, that nit doubt was perfectly true as regarded workpeople outside their own employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all!"] Not all probably, but most. But he wanted to know how the Government proposed to apply this to their own workpeople. Under the sixth clause Crown employés were entitled to the benefit of the Bill. At the same time there was a reference in the clause to the fact that there existed a warrant under which Government employés were entitled in the event of permanent disablement to a certain amount of compensation. He would endeavour to point out what the effect of this sub-section would be if applied to men in the permanent employment of the Admiralty or the War Department.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I suppose the hon. Member assumes that there will be no scheme for men under the Government?
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he assumed nothing. He should be glad to be told what the scheme was; but he was entitled to look at the case in the absence of a scheme and see how it would apply. Under the warrant, a Crown workman, if permanently incapacitated, became entitled to two-fifths of his weekly wages. If Government employs were still going to be treated on that basis he had not much to say. ["Hear, hear!] But this was the occasion to ask for an assurance. He only knew this—that if the Government took advantage of this provision the workmen in their employment would fare very badly in future as compared with the present. The Attorney General seemed to think the case was hardly capable of being discussed at all. Here was the warrant, and here was the provision the Government were making for the workmen of other people. Now what would happen if Government employés were treated in the same way as those in private employment? A Government employé in receipt of £1 a week would get now, if totally disabled, a pension of 8s. a week, but under the Bill he would get a capital sum of £156, which, if invested at 3 per cent., would only bring him in 1s. 9d. a week. In his constituency the Admiralty employed about 22,000, and therefore he was anxious to know whether the Government proposed to make any modification in the warrant.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Question!
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that to him and his constituents this was a most important question. What he asked was, "Did the Government intend to modify the warrant so far as regarded their own employés, or was the warrant to stand good?"
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the hon. Member for Devonport, in common with many other hon. Gentlemen, seemed to imagine that this Bill was intended to provide for every workman large sums of money which he might invest in Consols and live happily for the rest of his life. [A laugh.] The Bill did not offer to the workman anything as an act of justice, but it offered him
  1656
  something on the ground of pure generosity. [Cries of "No, no!" and cheers.] Yes; the accident might have arisen through an earthquake, and still the employer was liable. In a case like that, where the accident fell equally on the employer and employed, justice demanded that the workmen should bear half the loss. But justice was put aside, and it was now a case of generosity. The Government felt, however, that there must be a limit to the generosity, especially as in the generosity the money of the employer was used. He imagined no one desired to absolutely ruin the employer and stop all employment. The only way to avoid that was to leave the employer some chance of insuring against the new risks about to be put upon him, and the only possibility of doing that was to put some check upon the amount that the employer had to pay under the Bill. In his opinion the limit of seven years was a very fair one. He was surprised hon. Gentlemen opposite complained. He was especially surprised that the representatives of dockyard constituencies should complain. The cannibals in the dockyards never ceased their whimpering. They had been treated by successive Governments with the utmost generosity; they were not entitled to a farthing more than they had got, and he hoped to goodness this Government would not give them another farthing. [Laughter and cheers.]
  SIR J. BRUNNERsaid it seemed to him that his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean was quite right when he pointed out that the particular words which it was now proposed to omit had an effect upon Clause 6 as amended in Committee. He gathered from the gestures of the Attorney General while the hon. Member for Devonport was speaking, that it was not intended to diminish any of the advantages which workmen employed by the Government now had. If the Attorney General would give an assurance in words as well as in gestures it would be on record, and, he believed, the scruples of the hon. Member for Devonport would be satisfied.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he could only speak with the indulgence of the House. He certainly did think that the observations of the hon. Member for Devonport were scarcely germane, but he

  1657
  had certainly no hesitation in answering the question. It had already been before him as a Law Officer of the Crown whether or not the warrant to which the hon. Member for Devonport had referred would be a scheme under the Act. There was not the slightest intention to deprive Government workmen of a single sixpence, on the contrary, the intention was to turn the warrant into a scheme under the Act so that its advantages would be secured to those employés.
  SIR J. BRUNNERsaid the statement of the hon. Member for Devonport was that Government servants were now entitled to much more than the Bill would give them. The assurance he asked for was that nothing would be taken from them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I cannot say more than I have said.
  *MR. LIONEL HOLLANDpointed out that the six years' limit might be fair in the majority of cases, but it was admitted by the terms of the clause that it would not be universally fair, that there might be cases in which the purchase value of six years would be inequitable, and, therefore, the clause proposed that the arbitrator should be empowered to revise the limit. But he was only able to revise it to the detriment of the workman. [Opposition cheers]. He was to have unlimited power to cut down the period from 312 payments to ten and give a merely nominal sum, a peppercorn compensation, for the injuries a workman had received. It required some ingenuity to conceive a case in which it would be fair to give a workman less than six years' present money value of his annuity. It was perfectly clear that in 99 eases out of 100, a workman must be a loser from a pecuniary point of view, though they might be the gainers in other ways under the clause. It would be only in the case of very old men that the annuity would not be worth more than six years money value. In this connection he thought the arbitrator should have wider discretion to deal with special cases of hardship. It was obvious that there were cases in which six years' compensation would be admitted theoretically by everybody in that House to be too low. Take the case of a youth of 14 or 15. His injuries might unfit him for the rest
  1658
  of his life, and yet the utmost the arbitrator could give him was £39. There were bound to be cases of this kind, where the loss would be far greater than it would be to a man of mature age. Apart from this clause the youth was to receive compensation on the basis of the wages he was earning. It might be difficult to remove this inequality, but it was not impossible to prevent the further inequality that the annuity of a youth would be commuted on the same basis of years' purchase as a man of 60 or 70. In any case the employer must be a gainer by a limit being placed on the discretion of the arbitrator.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 89.—(Division List, No. 289.)
  MR. J. W. WILSON MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.) moved to omit from Section (12) the words,—
  "but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application,"
  and to insert,—
  "such lump sum, together with the weekly payments already made, shall not exceed three hundred and sixty-four times the weekly payment originally fixed."
  He pointed out that in many cases the weekly payments would be of more use than a lump sum. This clause gave a distinct advantage to the employer to apply for commutation. He thought it was a pity to offer a premium on commuting, and he would take away the inducement to commute.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that by Sub-section (11) of the Schedule the amount of the weekly payment might be increased as well as diminished. The Amendment, in their judgment, would go directly against the compromising arrangement, and they could not consent to it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to insert, at the end of Subsection (12), the words,—
  "and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested as above-mentioned."
  MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert the words "or otherwise applied" after the word "invested."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid there was no objection to that.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. J. WILSON MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs) moved to add at the end of Sub-section (12) the words,—
  "or by the purchase by the employer for the workman of an annuity or annuities certified in writing by the County Court Judge to be of at least equivalent value."
  As far as he could see, the Bill only gave power to invest in the Post Office, and he supposed if the money could be lodged there it could also be withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid if these words had any meaning it was that the employer was to purchase an annuity which was equivalent to the amount of the weekly payment. Of course that would be commutation.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to omit Sub-section (14).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: To add at the end of the Schedule,—
  "where compensation under this Act is assured by a friendly society, and the scheme of such society has been certified under this Act, the provisions of section sixteen and section forty-one of the Friendly Societies Act 1896 shall not apply to such society in respect of such scheme."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (14), to insert, "and the expression 'Registrar of the County Court' means sheriff of the county."—(Mr. Ure.)

SECOND SCHEDULE.

  ARBITRATION.
  The following provisions shall apply for settling any matter which under this Act is to be settled by arbitration:—

  (1.) If any committee, representative of an employer and his workmen exists with power to settle matters under this Act in the case
  1660
  of the employer and workmen, the matter shall, unless either party objects, by notice in waiting sent to the other party before the committee meet to consider the matter, be settled by the arbitration of such committee, or be referred by them in their discretion to an arbitrator.

  (2.) If either party so objects, or there is no such committee, the matter shall be settled by a single arbitrator or conciliation board agreed on by the parties, or in the absence of agreement, by the County Court Judge, or if in England the Lord Chancellor certifies that under the circumstances of the particular district it is not convenient that the County Court Judge should be called upon to act as arbitrator, by a single arbitrator appointed by such County Court Judge.

  (3.) In cases in which the County Court Judge or an arbitrator appointed by him is the arbitrator, the workman or his representative may deliver to the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which he resides a statement of the nature of his claim, with his name and address and that of the employer, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to give notice of the said claim to the employer, and to make the necessary arrangements for the arbitration, and give notice thereof to both parties, and all such claims may be amended by the arbitrator on such terms as to adjournment or otherwise as he thinks just, in order that the questions in dispute may be disposed of.

  (4.) Any arbitrator other than the County Court Judge shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury.

  (5.) The Arbitration Act 1889 shall not apply to any arbitration under this Act; but an arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the County Court Judge, and the decision of the Judge on any question of law, either on such submission, or in any case where he himself acts as arbitrator under this Act, shall, subject to a right of appeal in every such case by any party to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, be final and the County Court Judge, or the arbitrator appointed by him, shall, when sitting as arbitrator, have the same powers of procuring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents as if the claim for compensation had been made by plaint in the County Court.

  (6.) In any proceedings under this Act no party or other person shall appear or be attended by counsel or solicitor except by the leave of the court or arbitrator, or on any appeal to the Court of Appeal.

  (7.) The cost of the arbitration shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator.

  (8.) Where the amount of compensation under this Act shall have been ascertained, or any weekly payments varied, or any other matter decided, under this Act, either by a committee or by an arbitrator or by agreement, a memorandum thereof shall be sent by the said committee or arbitrator, or by any party interested, to the Registrar of the County Court for the district in which any person entitled to such compensation resides, who shall, on being satisfied as to its genuineness,

  1661
  record such memorandum in a special register without charge, and thereupon the said memorandum shall for all purposes be enforceable as a County Court judgment. Provided that the County Court Judge may at any time rectify such register.

  (9.) The duty of a County Court Judge under this Act shall, subject to rules of court, be part of the duties of the County Court, and the officers of the court shall act accordingly.

  (10.) Any sum awarded as compensation shall be paid on the receipt of the person entitled, and his solicitor or agent shall not he entitled to recover from him, or to china a lien on the amount recovered for, any costs except such as have been awarded by the arbitrator.

  (11.) The Secretary of State, at the request of any committee, judge, or other arbitrator, shall appoint a legally qualified medical practitioner to report on any matter which seems material to any question arising in the arbitration; and the expense of any such medical practitioner shall, subject to Treasury regulations, be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.

  (12.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland "sheriff" shall be substituted for "County Court Judge," "Sheriff Court" for "County Court," and "act of sederunt" for "rules of court." Any award or ageement as to compensation under this Act may be recorded in the books of council and session or sheriff court books, and shall be enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral. Any application to the Sheriff as arbitrator shall be heard, tried, and determined summarily in the manner provided by the fifty-second section of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1876, subject to the declaration that it shall be competent to either party to require the Sheriff to state a case on any question of law determined by him, and his decision thereon in such case may be submitted to either division of the Court of Session, who, if they consider that the point involved is of general importance, may hear and determine the Same finally, and remit to the Sheriff with instructions as to the judgment to be pronounced.

  (13.) In the application of this schedule to Ireland the expression "County Omit Judge" shall include the Recorder of any city or town.

  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he proposed to call attention to the legal dangers which awaited the unwary practitioners in the various processes prescribed by the second schedule. In the first place the heading "arbitration" was not merely superfluous but dangerous, and he moved to omit. Lawyers would recognise that some of the processes set forth in the schedule were not correctly described as "arbitration," some being more than arbitration and some being less. The danger was that in cases of disputes settled in an informal manner by a trade committee—no witnesses being examined and no
  1662
  oaths being administered—it might be argued before the Courts that as the settlement did not comply with the ordinary forms of arbitration, it was invalid, and should therefore be set aside. He therefore proposed that the heading "arbitration" should be struck out.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the word "arbitration" was not operative, but was merely descriptive, and if it should turn out not to properly describe the schedule, it could be changed in another place.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. WALTON MR. WALTON moved to omit the words "by arbitration" front the opening sentence of the schedule:—
  "The following provisions shall apply for settling any matter which, under this Act, is to be settled by arbitration."
  on the ground that as some of the processes prescribed by the schedule were not accurately described as arbitration, the use of the word "arbitration" was dangerous to the stability of the settlement.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Government did not wish to strike out the words. It was, possible that simple procedure might be adopted, but it was necessary that the decision come to should be binding on the workman. If the workman decided to be dealt with by a member of the Committee, and did not demand more formal arbitration, the decision of the member of the Committee would be binding.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESrose to support the Amendment, when—
  MR. GRANT LAWSON, on a point of order, said the Amendment was contrary to what had already been decided by the House that "the matter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Schedule of the Act."
  *MR. SPEAKERruled the Amendment out of order.
  Amendments made: Sub-section (1) after "employer," insert "or employers," after "and Ids," insert "or theirs."—(Colonel Denny.)
  *SIR C. DILKE*SIR C. DILKE moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "party," to insert the words "within a fortnight from the occurrence of the accident, or at any later time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he did not object at all to the spirit of the Amendment, but he suggested that it should read "Unless either party within a fortnight of the occurrence of the accident objects." "And later time" would complicate matters. The Amendment would be more appropriate in a subsequent line of the sub-section.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR C. DILKE*SIR C. DILKE moved to insert, after the word "party," the words "within a fortnight of the occurrence of the accident."
  MR. PARKER SMITHdid not quite understand how this would come in.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the workman would be allowed a fortnight after the accident in which to object to the Committee.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONpointed out that the Bill did not refer to accidents which did not injure a man for more than a fortnight.
  MR. CRIPPSsuggested the words "within a fortnight or any later time."
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that was practically the Amendment on the Paper. He would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment in order to move the words on the Paper.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR C. DILKE*SIR C. DILKE moved, after the word "party," to insert the words "within a fortnight from the occurrence of the accident, or at any later time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he had every desire to meet the right hon. Baronet, but he thought that the words "within a fortnight" were misleading. He thought the best way would be to require notice in writing to be sent to the other party with or on receipt of the claim.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR C. DILKE*SIR C. DILKE moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Committee," to insert the words—
  "or the committee fail to settle the matter within three months from the occurrence of the accident, or, in case of death, from the time of death."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsuggested the substitution of the words "within three months of the date of the claim," for "within three months of the occurrence of the accident."
  MR. PARKER SMITHthought this was a very summary way of taking things out of the hands of the Committee.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), to leave out "or Conciliation Board."
  Leave out—
  "or if in England the Lord Chancellor certifies that, under the circumstances of the particular district, it is not convenient that the County Court Judge should be called upon to act as arbitrator, by a single arbitrator appointed by such County Court Judge,"
  and insert—
  "of the district in which the accident occurred according to the procedure prescribed by rules of court."
  In Sub-section (3) leave out "his representative," and insert "some person on his behalf."—(Attorney General.)
  MR. WALTON MR. WALTON moved, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert—
  "In any claim under this Act in which the claimant charges that the employer or the person for whom he is responsible has been guilty of personal negligence or of some wilful act causing the injury of which he complains, the County Court Judge may, in his discretion, and shall in all cases, at the request of either party, appoint two assessors to sit with him or with the arbitrator whom he may appoint to determine such claim, or he may, if he thinks proper, in accordance with rules of court to be framed for the purpose, transfer the said claim to be tried by a Judge and special jury of the High Court."
  The object of the Amendment, he explained, was first of all to give to persons who were charged with offences under the common law as it now stood, by the procedure of this Act, the same rights which they at present possessed,

  1665
  and also to provide for greater flexibility and greater efficiency on the part of the tribunal which this legislation constituted. As the Bill stood the workman had his option in the case in which he charged personal negligence. He might proceed by action at common law or by claim under this Act. If he proceeded by action at common law the employer who was charged with personal negligence, or the manager of his undertaking who had a similar charge against him, had access to trial by jury or by a Judge of the High Court, or a trial before all the supreme tribunals of the country. But if the workman chose to proceed by means of a claim under this Act, although he was charging common law liability, he might force the defendant to trial before a County Court Judge or his nominee. The County Court might know nothing of the subject matter. The investigation might involve intricate inquiry into the system of management of the work, and this gentleman be called upon without any professional assistance to determine a question of very great nicety. To meet that emergency he proposed that it should be the duty of the County Court Judge, at the expense of either party, to appoint assessors, who should have the requisite technical knowledge, to assist him in that investigation. He submitted that no tribunal would be efficient where it consisted of a single individual unacquainted with the subject-matter which the investigation raised. There was another class of cases in which a wilful charge of misconduct or negligence was made against an employer of labour or his principal official, which might be cases of the utmost gravity. It was possible that in such an inquiry the whole professional career of the defendant might be at stake, and tire County Court Judge might properly shrink from undertaking an investigation with such responsibility without the assistance of a jury. He proposed in such a case that the County Court Judge might, if he thought it proper and entirely at his discretion, make arrangements to give the defendant an opportunity of appealing to the opinion of his fellows in accordance with the well recognised institutions of the country. In both these cases some provision should be made to relieve the defendant from
  1666
  the difficulty in which he was placed under the existing law, either in accordance with the terms of this Amendment or some similar machinery. He begged to move the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas sorry to find himself opposed to his hon. and learned Friend, but the only effect of the Amendment would be to enormously and unnecessarily increase the expenses of these cases. If a workman desired to charge the master, it was quite true he could take two proceedings, but if he took proceedings under the Act, he must, of course, abandon the case of personal negligence and wilful misconduct. Therefore it was only in cases in which he wished to allege personal negligence or wilful misconduct that he would take proceedings at law. These proceedings at the present time could be brought either in the County Court or in the High Court subject to the ordinary rules. Why in this Bill, which was to provide for compensation, leaving the remedy at common law where it was, they should go out of their way to make the procedure more complicated and expensive, he could not understand. He could not assent to an Amendment which would have a direct invitation to increased expenses, and render more complicated the procedure in those cases which workmen had to bring against their masters.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (4) leave out "other Man," and insert "appointed by." In Sub-section (5) leave out the words,—
  "subject to a right of appeal in every such case by any party to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal,"
  and insert,—
  "unless within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of court either party appeals to the Court of Appeal."—(The Attorney General.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to leave out Sub-section (6.) He said be had had a great many representations made on behalf of workmen and by County Court Judges of great experience against the insertion of this sub-section, and he was able to supplement what they said by his own personal experience.

  1667
  If a man were not allowed to go to a solicitor, but was driven to consult somebody else, then he would probably fall into the hands of the worst and most grasping set of men whom lie knew in connection with such matters. In his younger, or rather in his earlier days, he had a good deal of experience of such men; clerks who had been struck off the rolls, men who had been dismissed by their employers, and he could say there were no worse cases of robbery of the working classes than had arisen out of the after of such men to get up cases either on commission or for a lump sum, the Court having no control over such men, and no means of checking their costs. More than one County Court Judge had pointed out the better way would be to allow solicitors to appear but to control them in matters of costs by rules of court or other means to see that only moderate costs were charged. If this paragraph were allowed to stand, in the event of any great accident occurring, he feared that the workmen would get into the hands of the lowest class of so-called legal advisers that existed.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid the present proposal was practically the omission of the paragraph, which was put in after a Debate raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, who proposed very much the same as the words now included. The actual words were put in on the Motion of the Secretary for the Colonies with the general assent of the whole of the Committee. He thought that nothing that the Attorney General had said interfered at all with the judgment the Committee had very wisely exercised. He did not believe that the working classes would fall into the hands of such people as had been described except in rare and exceptional cases, and they would gain by the exclusion of the legal profession in proceedings before the arbitrator; it would he a very great gain indeed. The Amendment moved in Committee followed the lines of the procedure in the Registration Courts, and the exclusion of learned counsel from the Registration Courts worked very well indeed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid there might be exceptional cases and what was wanted was proper advice from a solicitor.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked were the Government willing to confine their proposal to taking out counsel?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: No.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that the Government wished to go back entirely on the settlement which excluded both solicitors and counsel. The workman should be represented either personally or by his Trades Union secretary, just the representation the working classes had upon inquests out of the evidence at which proceedings in certain cases were decided at the present time. At an inquest a man represented himself, or in the case where he was a member of an organised trade he was admirably represented by the Trades Union secretary, while, on the other hand, the master in large trades was represented by the manager, or mining agent, or sonic person in a similar position. He believed it was the original intention of the Government that these proceedings should not be litigation, but really arbitration on the merits of the case, and he was sure that the working classes would gain more by the original Amendment than they would by the proposal supposed to be made in their interest by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid it was the Secretary of State for the Colonies who added this paragraph, of winch the Committee very generally approved. The House should save the Attorney General from the extreme pressure to which he might have been subjected by the legal trades union in the interests of lucrative employment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Nothing of the kind.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid it could easily be understood that they could bring pressure—he did not say they had.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think it is only right that I should say that no communication has been made to me on behalf of the Bar, and I think my word ought to fie taken when I say that County Court Judges who know the working of cases under the Employers' Liability Act have pointed out this to me. ["Hear, hear!]
  MR. BROADHURSTassured the Attorney General that he was always ready to accept his word. He only said that one could easily understand that great pressure might have been brought to bear in connection with tins paragraph.

  1669
  This was a considerable concession to the laity in Committee, and it was distinctly understood that if a man wished for a legal representative in his case he could obtain this assistance by leave of the arbitrator. There were thousands of cases in which the representative of a trade union could serve his client as well as the legal profession; and, therefore, he hoped that the Colonial Secretary would stand by the clause.
  MR. ABEL THOMAShoped that the Government would stand by the Amendment. He had a large experience in county courts, and he had seen many cases where the Judge had been helped by the advice given to him by solicitors and counsel. When a Trade Union secretary conducted a case in Court, he very often could not render this assistance, and again and again he had found that Trade Union secretaries were most anxious to employ either solicitor or counsel. In hundreds of cases which would come before the arbitrator or the County Court Judge, the question would simply be the measure of damages, and he was certain that neither employers or workmen would be foolish enough to employ barristers or solicitors for cases of that kind. They would employ solicitors and counsel when there was some real or fancied difficulty in the law. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would adhere to the Amendment.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE, on the other hand, hoped that the House would take a different view, and that it would discourage the intervention of the legal profession in these affairs and would leave them to be settled by the intervention of the Trade Union secretary. There was in the House of Commons an enormous legal element, an clement so large as to make it in some respects an unpopular Assembly. [Cries of "Oh, oh !" and ironical cheers.] It was one of the misfortunes of the House of Commons that it was held up to popular criticism as being largely composed of lawyers who entered it in order to advance their own professional prospects. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] One thing the House ought to avoid, therefore, was the imputation that it yielded to the clamour of an interested class. He hoped that the Colonial Secretary would take a wider
  1670
  view of this question, and would stand firm by the position he assumed in Committee.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he had not heard those charges against the House of Commons which the hon. Member appeared to have met with in his peregrinations throughout the country. [Laughter.] If, however, such a charge had been brought to his notice, he should say that whatever might be the case as to the House of Commons, in the other democratic Assemblies, such as the Legislatures of the United States, and our self-governing colonies, the number of lawyers was very much greater in proportion than it was here. Coming to the point before the House, he was not ashamed to say that he had changed his mind. He had not changed his mind as to the object, but as to the method. The object was to reduce costs, and he was one of those who, perhaps rather hastily, thought that might be accomplished by excluding the legal profession. He had, however come to the conclusion that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was right, and that that might involve very great hardship on the working classes in many cases, and would prevent them from having the best possible assistance and throw them into the hands of the very people against whom it was most desirable to protect them. But in order to secure what, after all, was the object they had in view, he thought precautions had been taken which would be sufficient. He would point out in the first place that, in the schedule as it stood, it was impossible for any solicitor or agent to recover any costs from the person entitled to compensation except such as had been awarded by the arbitrator. But his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had another Amendment down on the Paper, under which it was proposed that the costs, whether before an arbitrator or in the County Court, should not exceed the limit prescribed by the rules of the Court, and the intention was to take care that that limit was an extremely moderate one. Under these circumstances and having regard also to the fact that appeals are not likely to be very numerous, he thought they might rest assured that the object the House had in view would be sufficiently secured.
  *MR. MCKENNA, on a point of order, asked, if this Amendment were carried,

  1671
  whether he should be in order in moving the Amendment standing in his name?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The whole of the words will go.
  *MR. MCKENNA: Shall I be able to move it as a separate Amendment?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will, but not in the precise words standing on the Paper.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that when the Colonial Secretary stated that the workman might be deprived of the assistance of counsel or solicitor when he perhaps most sorely needed it, he had forgotten that in the latter portion of this paragraph such assistance could be had with the leave of the Court or arbitrator. He thought it might be assumed that if such assistance were of great importance to the workman the Court or arbitrator would be quite willing to grant it.
  MR. J. WILSON, speaking as an employer, expressed great disappointment at the speech of the Colonial Secretary. He had always understood that the whole inducement for employers making such sacrifices as were entailed by this Bill was that there would be no more legal expenses. The right hon. Gentleman said that the old Employers' Liability Bill was a Lawyers' Employment Bill, and that he would take good care that this Bill would not be of that character. Personally, he thought this would be more of a Lawyers' Employment Bill than the old one.
  MR. PICKARDasked whether, if this clause were taken out, it would compel a working man in every case to have a solicitor or counsel?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Certainly not.
  MR. PICKARD: Would it, if it were not in the Bill, debar any workman from being represented by anyone he likes?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am quite willing that a workman should be represented by anyone he likes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. MCKENNA*MR. MCKENNA moved, in Sub-section (6), to insert the words—
  "in any proceedings under this Act any party may appear by any person on his behalf."
  1672
  The reason he desired to move this Amendment was this. Under the present County Court rules no person might appear except by counsel or solicitor, except by leave of the Court, and as the leave of the Court in the last paragraph had not been considered satisfactory in the case of solicitor or counsel, he submitted it was equally not satisfactory in the case of an injured workman wishing to be represented by a miners' agent or Trades Union secretary. He desired that there should be the same unrestricted right for the workman to employ his own agent as there was now to employ a solicitor or counsel.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsuggested that the words of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment should be preceded by the words, "In any arbitration under this Act."
  *MR. MCKENNA: I accept that.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he had no objection at all to accept the Amendment. He thought it would probably be better to put in the words "duly appointed." There ought to be some safeguard against having people jumping up and saying they were entitled to appear. The Amendment would then read:—
  "In any arbitration under this Act any party may appear by any person duly appointed on his behalf."
  *MR. MCKENNA: I am quite ready to accept those words.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (7) insert:—
  "The costs, whether before an arbitrator or in the County Court, shall not exceed the limit prescribed by rules of court."
  MR. WALTON MR. WALTON moved after the words last added to insert:—
  "Rules shall be framed for the regulation of proceedings under this Act by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England, assisted by a committee of three County Court Judges to be appointed by them, subject to the sanction and approval of such rules by the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
  He said that as far as he could gather from the Amendment on the Paper, he

  1673
  did not see anything as to the constitution of the Committee, or defining the scope within which the rules were to be framed. Unless the Attorney General indicated some mode in which the Committee was to be appointed and what would be the scope of its action, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. As a matter of fact the rules would he either the rules of the High Court or those of the County Court, and there were constituted authorities for making such rules.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At end of Subsection (9) insert:—
  "No fee shall be payable by any party in respect of any proceeding under this Act in the County Court prior to the award."
  In Sub-section (10) leave out "amount recovered," and insert "said sum awarded."
  Leave out "by the arbitrator," and insert "in the arbitration."
  In Sub-section (11) leave out the words,
  "at the request of any committee, judge, or other arbitrator, shall appoint a legally qualified medical practitioner,"
  and insert,
  "may appoint legally qualified medical practitioners for the purposes of this Act, and any committee, arbitrator, or judge may, subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, appoint any such."—(Sir Matthew While Ridley.)
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall) moved in Sub-section (11) to insert the words "no awards given under this Act shall be liable to stamp duty."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid there was no necessity for the Amendment, the award would not require a stamp.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FENWICK (on behalf of Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,)MR. FENWICK (on behalf of Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee) moved at the end of Sub-section (11) to insert:—
  "(12) The arbitrator shall state briefly in writing the probable cause of the accident, the nature of the employment in which it took place, and the defects, if any, in the premises, machinery, plant, precautions, or arrangements which, in his opinion, contributed to the accident, and a copy of such statement shall be sent by the arbitrator to the Home Secretary, and a summary of such statement shall be annually published."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that when this Amendment was discussed in Committee it was pointed out that this duty would be quite foreign to the function of the arbitrator. If the Amendment were accepted, the arbitrator would have to conduct large investigations into matters he need not otherwise inquire into.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid that there was the additional drawback to the adoption of the Amendment that it would necessarily increase the cost of all these proceedings.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (12), after "this" ["this schedule"] insert ''Act and this."—(Mr. McKillop.)
  After ''County Court," insert "'action for 'plaint,' 'sheriff court' for 'registrar of the County Court.'"—(Mr. Ure.)
  Leave out "recorded," and insert "competently recorded for execution."—(Mr. J. Wilson, Falkirk Burghs.)
  After "1876," insert,—
  "save only that parties may be represented by any person authorised in writing to appear for them, and."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  After "party," insert the words,—
  "within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Act of Parliament."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. J. WILSONsaid that his Amendment to insert after "party" "on special cause shown," was one of very considerable importance, and he did not mean to slur it over because they were fast approaching Twelve

  1675
  o'clock. [Laughter and cheers.] This part of the schedule was slipped into the Bill by the Lord Advocate upon the last day of the Committee stage, when most of the employers had left Westminster, not expecting that any Amendment of importance would be accepted. [Interruption.] He did not intend to sit down, and the longer he was interrupted the longer he would stand in his place. [Laughter and cries of "Hear, hear!"] His Amendment simply meant that on special cause being shown, the sheriff might state a case on any question of law determined by him, and his decision in such ease might be submitted to either division of the Court of Session. The greatest evil that employers in Scotland had had to submit to was that cases under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 had been taken direct to the Court of Session. That involved a very large sum of money, and the object was that employers might compromise frivolous cases rather than defend them.
  And, it being midnight, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
POOR LAW BILL.
Second Beading deferred till Tomorrow.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
SUPPLY [9TH JULY].
Report deferred till Monday next.
POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Committee deferred till Monday next.
NAVAL WORKS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th July] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday, next.
FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended, deferred sill To-morrow.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
Consideration, as amended (by Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday 26th July.
SERVICE FRANCHISE BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

YORKSHIRE CORONERS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE TO BE SEPARATE COUNTIES IN RESPECT OF THE CORONERS ACTS.
For all the purposes of the Coroners Acts 1844, 1860, 1887, and 1892, the ridings of Yorkshire shall respectively be separate counties, and the county council of each riding shall, to the exclusion of any other authority, be the county authority fur all the purposes of those Acts:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the alteration in manner provided by law of the district of any coroner which is immediately before the commencement of this Act situate partly in one and partly in another of the ridings.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2,—

JURISDICTION AND REMUNERATION OF CORONERS.
The coroner for such district in any of the ridings as the chairmen for the time being of the county councils of the three ridings, or the majority of them may front time to time determine, shall have and exercise jurisdiction and perform the duties of coroner throughout York Castle deemed to be in all the said ridings, and his remuneration for the performance of such duties shall be fixed, and such remuneration and his disbursements shall be paid by the county council of the riding in which such district is situate.
MR. JOHN HUTTON MR. JOHN HUTTON (York, Richmond) moved the omission of the clause.
Motion agreed to; clause struck out.
Clause 3,—

RIGHTS OF EXISTING COUNTY CORONERS.
Nothing herein contained shall affect the rights, duties, powers, or liabilities of any county coroner holding office at the commencement of this Act.
MR. JOHN HUTTON MR. JOHN HUTTON moved at the end of the clause to add:—
"and any such coroner whose district shall, after the passing of this Act, have become divided into two districts shall for the purposes of section five of the Coroners' Act 1844 be deemed to be resident in each of such districts."
MR. EUGENE CREAN MR. EUGENE CREAN (Queen's County, Ossory) moved "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Motion to report progress agreed to.
Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) (CASUAL VACANCIES) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Read the Third time, and passed.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [I7th February] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
HIGHWAYS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
COUNTY COUNCILS (ADVANCES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
TITHE REDEMPTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading, deferred till Tomorrow.
POLICE PENSIONS AND SERVICE BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
RAILWAY RETURN TICKETS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

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

VISCOUNT DILLON.
Petiton of Harold Arthur, Viscount Dillon, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; Read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
LORD CREMORNE (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered and directed that a certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lord Cremorne to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland. And it is hereby also Ordered that the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

TITHE RENTCHARGE (IRELAND).
*THE EARL OF BELMORErose to move—
"That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider and report (1) to what extent the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge in Ireland (exclusive of cases where the tithe rentcharge has been purchased for cash) are reasonably entitled to a reduction in the present annual amount of such tithe rentcharge (including the amount of outstanding annuities in cases where the tithe rentcharge has been commuted), having regard (1) to the fall in the amount of the tithe rentcharge in England during recent years; (2) to the fall in the market price in Ireland of the articles on which such tithe rentcharge was originally fixed; (3) to the reductions of lay tithe rentcharge which have been made on this basis in Ireland; and (4) upon any other grounds: (2)
1542
whether, and to what extent, such ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge could be reduced or extinguished at the present time (or at some future date) without material prejudice to the security of the loans at present charged upon the Irish Church Estate."
He said the subject which he was going to ask their Lordships' attention to was one which had been very often before that House in the last ten years. As long ago as the 2nd July 1888—more than nine years since—the late Lord Waterford brought that matter of Irish tithe rentcharge before their Lordships' House, and from the answer which he received from the present Lord Lieutenant, who was then the Lord Privy Seal, and had charge of the business of that House, it was no doubt hoped, and he believed the Government fully intended that the question should have been dealt with before this time. But somehow or other nothing was done except in one respect which he would mention, in the Land Act of last year, and that matter, like the Delagoa Bay Arbitration which they heard of the other night, and which was always going to be concluded immediately, still dragged on its weary way. Before he went into the merits and history of the question he should just like to say one word as regarded the form of inquiry which he asked for. In his notice he had asked for a Royal Commission. With regard to a Royal Commission, all he had to say was that he put that way of conducting the inquiry as an alternative to what had been originally suggested by his Irish Friends—namely, a Select Committee of that House or a Joint Committee. He thought the matter was so very technical that besides the difficulty of getting a Committee together at this time of the Session, it would really not be a good tribunal to inquire into the matter which was one almost entirely of figures. Of course, he knew there was a question of policy behind the figures, but what they wanted to inquire into was the figures of the matter. So long as they got a tribunal that consisted of skilled persons who were able to deal with the evidence of experts, who were familiar with the work of accountants and actuaries that would quite satisfy them, whether it be a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee or any other tribunal the Government would appoint. With regard to the history of the Irish Tithe Question, until

1543
1823 the tithe was always paid in kind by the occupiers of the land, whether they were tenants or whether they were landlords fanning their own land. In that year an Act was passed which provided for the voluntary commutation of the tithes, and he believed when the tithe was so voluntarily commuted, although the tenant-occupier still continued to pay tithes, he could deduct it from the landlord. That Act did not appear to have worked very well, and there were some other Acts passed in the time of George IV. and William IV. which he need not allude to, as they were Acts of machinery. In the year I838 it was decided, for reasons which would be familiar to their Lordships, that the tithe rent should be compulsorily commuted into cash payments, and that the payment in future should be made by the landlord and not by the tenants. The landlord, if he chose, had the power to add the amount to the rent, and in the case of leases on his own estate it was done, but in eases where there were no leases and where the amount was really very small, very often the landlord did not think it worth while to alter the rent. The tithe, however, would still lie subject to revision periodically. III the year 1872, three years after the Irish Church Act was passed, a Bill was brought into Parliament by Mr. Gladstone's Government, and by this Bill the power which had belonged to the payers or owners of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharges in Ireland to get revision from time to time was taken away, and tithe rentcharge was for all time fixed at the then rate, which happened to be higher than it ever had been. That Bill no doubt attracted very little attention; as far as they could learn it was not explained to Parliament. It was passed sub silencio, and he was bound to say that at that time, as there was every prospect of a rising market, nobody thought they would be injured by it and nobody objected to it. Since that time a great fall in prices had occurred, and while the owners or payers of land tithes could get a large reduction by going before a County Court Judge, the owners of ecclesiastical tithes were tied down in the high rate at which they stood in 1872. He wished to read to their Lordships a statement by a gentleman who was a much greater authority as regarded the equity of the case than
1544
he was. He meant Mr. Murrough O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien, who was one of the Land Commissioners in Ireland, was not looked upon as a landlord's friend; but at the same time there was no doubt there was no living man who better understood this Irish Tithe Rentcharge Question than did Mr. O'Brien, because in the early days of the Irish Church Act he was one of the officers of the Church Commissioners' Court, whose duty it particularly was to value in the case of Irish Church land, and he had a thorough practical knowledge of the whole question of the finances of the Irish Church. What he was going to read was a statement by Mr. O'Brien in the form of an extract from a supplementary memorandum handed in by him to the Financial Relations Commission of 1895, relative to the Irish Church Estate. Mr. O'Brien said in that paper:—
"The principal part of the property consisted of tithe rentcharge amounting to £410,000 a year, and perpetuity and other rents amounting to £131,000.
"Tithe rentcharges, though a first charge on the land, were difficult to identify, costly to collect, and not easily saleable in the open market. As a rule, they were not worth more than 17 years' purchase.
"Perpetuity rents were not worth more than 21 years' purchase (see O'Conor Don's Report to Bessborough Commissioners, page 42), and as the Church rents were variable with corn prices they are not worth as much as ordinary fee-farm rents.
"The Church Act, however, fixed the price of tithe rentcharge at 22½ and that of perpetuity rents at 25 years' purchase, thus adding (£410,000 x 5·5 and £31,000 x 4) £2,779,000 to the then market value of these securities.
"The value of the Church Fund was thus artificially swollen, to the detriment of the owners of property subject to these charges.
"By the Church Amendment Act 1872, s. 6 (3) the right of varying the rentcharge was taken away. But for this Act the rentcharge of £410,000 would now only he worth £287,000, and its capital value at 17 years' purchase would be £4,879,000 instead of £9,225,000.
"In fact, by the Church Acts, a capital sum of £4,870,000 was imposed on the payers of tithe rentcharge and perpetuity rents in excess of the present market value of these securities.
"On the fund thus swollen were placed charges that had hitherto been paid out of the Imperial revenue, and subsequently other charges which must have been paid, if at all, from the same source.
"£372,331 was paid out of the Church Fund in lieu of the Maynooth grant hitherto paid out of the Imperial revenue, and £773,767 for the Regium Donum, which had been a charge on the Imperial revenue since the time of Charles the Second.

1545
"The whole Church Fund has since been practically allocated for purposes which would otherwise have had to be met by grants from the Imperial revenue to meet temporary emergencies, such as famine and exceptional distress, or political emergencies affecting the peace of the United Kingdom; or to provide for the educational wants of Ireland, a primary want which, having regard to the history of education in Ireland and to her large contribution to the Imperial revenue, should have been paid from that source."
Mr. O'Brien thus showed that one class of British taxpayers alone had to meet in an indirect form the heavy charges which should have been paid out of the Imperial revenue. He wished to draw the attention of their Lordships to the fall in the value and prices of wheat, barley, and oats upon some of which the valuation of tithe was based in some parishes and upon others in other parishes. Not to trouble the House with the full figures, he gave the results. The table he held in his hand disclosed the following facts:—The average price of wheat for the year 1896 was 49·9 per cent. below its average price in the year 1872; its average price for seven years ended 1896 was 45·2 per cent. below its average price for seven years ended 1872; the average price of oats for the year 1896 was 27·4 per cent. below its average price in the year 1872; its average price for seven years ended 1896 was 22·3 per cent. below its average price for seven years ended 1872; the average price of barley for the year 1896 was 37·0 per cent. below its average price in the year 1872; its average price for seven years ended 1896 was 29·2 per cent. below its average price for seven years ended 1872. As indicated in his Motion, there were three heads into which he divided tithe, and in the first part of his Motion he asked for inquiry,
"To what extent the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge in Ireland (exclusive of cases where the tithe rentcharge has been purchased for cash) are reasonably entitled to a reduction in the present annual amount of such tithe rentcharge (including the amount of outstanding annuities in cases where the tithe rentcharge has been committed, having regard (1) to the fall in the amount of the tithe rentcharge in England during recent years; (2) to the fall in the market price in Ireland of the articles on which such tithe rentcharge was originally fixed; (3) to the reductions of lay tithe rentcharge which have been made on this basis in Ireland; and (4) upon any other grounds."
1546
This notice showed that in dealing with tithe rent-charge it was necessary to divide it under three heads, and the first of these was the uncoil-minted tithe. A. House of Commons Paper gave the last information published by the Irish Land Commission, and showed that, on 1st April 1896, it was of the annual value of £167,014. The tithe annuities, that was to say, tithe commuted into a fixed sum, and then, by a paper process, turned into terminable annuities, being 2s. 6d. in the pound higher than the original tithe, and running over 52 years, amounted to the annual value of £165,868, so that the difference between those two heads was about £1,200. Those together amounted to £332,882, and if they deducted that sum from the original £410,000 a year which the tithe was in 1869, they would find that the tithe rentcharge and tithe rentcharge annuities which had been redeemed for cash were of the annual value of £77,118. That was therefore the annual amount which had been sold for cash or redeemed tinder the Land Purchase Acts. If they multiplied that £332,882 by 2½ the number of years' purchase at which tithe, etc., is redeemable (except in cases of sales in the Land Purchase Court, when it is only 20 years' purchase for uncommitted tithe), they got the amount of £7,489,845, or, say, 7½ millions, as the present capital value of the tithe rent-charge, including the terminable annuities. If Parliament would do all that they wanted, the sum concerned would be under 7½ millions, and, after all, that was not a very fearful sum for Parliament to deal with in doing justice to the unfortunate owners and tithe payers of Ireland. Passing on from that, he would tell their Lordships, first, practically what they did not ask, and then what they did ask. They did not propose to open the question with regard to the sum of £77,118 which had been redeemed for cash, but were willing to let byegones be byegones; for although they had had in selling to tenants or redeeming a great deal of loss, yet they recognised as a matter of public convenience that they could not attempt to reopen that matter. But, with regard to the amount of £165,868 (the terminable tithe rentcharge annuities) the Treasury said that they regarded that as a closed account, and at the time of the

1547
Arrears Act, which was the first time that he discovered they so regarded it, they refused to make any allowance to those landlords who had converted their tithes into annuities, while they did make a reduction to those who had not, on account of what they would lose by the Arrears Act. This transaction of commutation was not for the benefit of the landowners, but was for the convenience of the Government Department, and to make more secure the great loans which had been advanced from the funds to commute the life interest of the clergy of the Irish Church, a sum amounting to no less than nine millions sterling. That was only a paper transaction, and no cash passed, and he claimed, as did Lord Waterford nine years ago, that that should be dealt with in the same manner as the tithe. He thought it was unfair to the owner of one estate that he should be dealt with in one way while upon another estate, as was pointed out by his noble Friend (Lord Lansdowne) the other night on Lord Inchiquin's Motion, he was dealt with in another way. As regards the uncommuted tithe of £167,000 a year, they asked, first that the Act of 1872 should be repealed; but in repealing that Act it was necessary to point out that there were certain improvements in the machinery required if equal justice was to be done to all. It appeared that in the machinery for varying tithe rentcharge, and which still applied to lay tithe-owners, there were many curious features, and there were pitfalls which were very difficult to understand. One of the conditions was that the parish out of which the tithe arose must be all situated in one county, and if the parish was situated in two counties, which in the part of the country where he lived was a very common thing indeed, then the payers of the tithe rentcharge were prevented from going into Court at all. Then it was provided that no less than three payers of tithe rentcharge in one particular parish must join in application, and in giving notice to get the tithe rentcharge varied. If there were only two in the parish, they could not move, or if one of the three made a mistake in the serving of his notices the other two were upset, and it was very difficult, and sometimes almost impossible, to get anything done. That was a mere matter of machinery, upon which he would not
1548
dwell, but which lie would commend to the notice of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne). In regard to the, second head of his notice, whether, and to what extent, such ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge could be reduced or extinguished at the present time (or at some future date) without material prejudice to the security of the loans at present charged upon the Irish Church Estate, he was quite aware there was matter of policy underlying it which was quite outside the limits of this inquiry and into which he did not propose to go, but he desired to give a few figures in reference to the finance of the matter. He believed originally there was charged on the Irish Church Fund, not merely on the tithe rentcharge but on all the funds, a sum of nine millions to commute the life interest of the clergy of the Irish Church. That was a sinking fund loan, and he understood that in 4½ years (i.e., by December 1901), that loan would entirely be repaid, and that in consequence a very large sum of money, amounting to £328,000 a year, would be set free. According to the statement set out in the Land Commission Report, 1896, the charge on the fund of about £328,000 a year, payable to the National Debt Commissioners, would terminate in 1901. This amount being set free, would, of course, greatly increase the security of many other loans raised for other purposes. He had read from Mr. O'Brien's statement that some of those loans were made to purchasers which in the ordinary course would have been charged to Imperial revenue; but he was quite ready to admit that the great loan of nine millions for the Irish clergy stood on quite a different footing. It was to buy up the life interests of the clergy, and such payments, had the Church Act not passed, they would have been entitled to receive in perpetuity. He could not say for a moment that it was not quite fair that this loan should have been charged to the fund; but he did say that when that loan had been repaid, he felt that it would no longer be fair that one limited class of the taxpayers in Ireland should have to meet all the other charges which, but for the accidental existence of that fund, would have been charged on the Imperial revenue. He admitted that it was quite true that, whether the landlord paid tithe or the tenant, it came out of the land. Academically, he did not

1549
wish to dispute that proposition; but if the tithe had not been put upon the landlord in 1838, and the farmers had had to pay it now, he did not suppose it would be disputed that there would have been such an agitation for relief as it would have been impossible to resist. ["Hear, hear!"] Having gone over the merits of the case, he would tell their Lordships why he now brought the matter forward. He had told his friends in the Landlords' Convention in Ireland that he had done all that he possibly could for them in getting the concession in the Act of 1896 but he was pressed to bring this matter forward again, and there was one reason why he could not refuse—because, if the Local Government Bill which had been promised for next year was brought in, he supposed they would find that every fund of that sort would be swept into its net in some way or another and he wished that the just claims should be established before the balance of the Irish Church Fund was appropriated for other matters. In conclusion, he had only once more to refer to Lord Waterford's Debate on the question in 1888. In that year Lord Waterford brought the matter before the House, and made a very powerful speech. He was supported by the late Lord Fitzgerald (who was then one of the Lords of Appeal) and by the late Lord Milltown, who hail been one of the Commissioners of Earl Cowper's Commission, and Lord Cadogan (now Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but who was then Lord Privy Seal and had charge of the Irish business in that House), on behalf of the Government, made the following, reply. He said:—
"The remarks of the noble Marquess with regard to the present position of the Irish landlords met, be was sure, with the sympathy of nearly all the Members of their Lordships' House. It was impossible to deny that the noble Marquess had brought forward a very serious and substantial grievance. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) had stated that the claim which the noble Marquess had made was one which was strictly in accordance with justice, and he (Earl Cadogan) believed that in saying that he did not go one whit beyond the actual state of the case. The Government recognised the difficulties under which the Irish landlords laboured in regard to rentcharge, and it was t heir anxious wish to afford a remedy for a state of things which nobody could deny required immediate attention and consideration. It was, unfortunately, impossible to do this without legislation, and—to repeat a remark which it was his duty to make before during
1550
the present Session—it was also impossible to entertain the hope that legislation initiated at this period of the year would have any prospect of passing through both Houses of Parliament this Session. That being the case, he did not think it would be consistent, either with his duty or with the convenience of the House, that he should follow his noble Friend through the statements be had made and the arguments he had adduced, which would be more properly dealt with when the Measure was brought before their Lordships' House, which it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce. When he stated that this subject was under the anxious consideration of the Government, with a view to taking such steps in the direction sketched by the noble Marquess as might be feasible, lie could assure his noble Friend that he was stating that which was actually the fact. It was the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Government, with as little delay as possible, to formulate their proposals, and lay them upon the Table of the House."
He (Lord Belmore) did not ask for legislation this Session—he knew that was impossible—but he asked that the Government should in sonic effective form appoint sonic skilled persons to inquire into the facts of the case with a view to legislation next year, and with that object he moved the Motion of which he had given notice. [Cheer.]
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that he should like to emphasise that portion of the reply of the Earl of Cadogan in which he said:—
"it was the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Government, with as little delay as possible, to formulate their proposals and lay them on the Table of the House."
That was in 1888. Since then there had been a. change of Government, and now their Friends were again on the Front, Bench. But they had heard nothing of this tithe rentcharge. It had been put before their Lordships' House before, but they had got very little sympathy on the I subject. He hoped that after what Lord Belmore had said the matter would be really taken into serious consideration by the noble Lords who were now at the head of affairs. They were put off and put off, he supposed because they were Irish landlords. But there would be a time coming, he thought, when they could not stand being put off very much longer. Their cup was filled almost to overflowing, and he hoped that the noble Lords now in command of one of the strongest coalition Governments they had ever seen would listen, at all events with some sympathy and interest, to a small body of loyal gentlemen and noblemen who live in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he could safely say that, on the general question of the tithe rentcharge raised by the noble Earl, the Government regarded the grievances of the Irish land-owners with very considerable sympathy, and they hoped it might not be found impossible to carry out legislation which would afford relief, even if the entire proposals of the landowners could not be wholly met. The whole question was under the careful consideration of the Government, who were in full possession of the facts, and therefore they did not admit the necessity for a Royal Commission to inquire any further. The noble Earl who raised this matter spoke of the concession made last year by the clause in the Land Act. He would remind their Lordships that by that clause, in the case of land sold to tenants under the. Land Purchase Acts, the Land Commission had been given, the power to order repayment of the outstanding animal instalments at a sum calculated on the basis of the annual payments being for a term of 45 years instead of 52 years; and the Chief Secretary, in his speech on the introduction of the Bill, stated that the Government recognised the principle to be one of general application, and therefore he thought the noble Earl and his Friends could safely look for sonic relief in this direction. Further concessions might also be possible in the direction of reducing the number of years' purchase on which the redemption price of tithe was now calculated and of putting it at a less amount than 22½ years' purchase. There might possibly, too, be a reconsideration of the interest now charged. With regard to the other matter raised by the noble Earl, and his demand that the Act of 1872 should be repealed, he would remind the House that that Act stereotyped the amount of tithe rentcharge, and any repeal of it would involve a great disturbance of the whole arrangements made during recent years for the employment of the Church Fund, and which arrangements were based on the assumption that the amount of the charge was permanently fixed; and it would be extremely undesirable to re-open now and alter the fund from a fixed to a, variable sum. He would only remind the noble Earl, in conclusion, that in dealing with any of these subjects legislation would be necessary, and he hoped that in spite of the attitude of the noble Earl (the Earl
1552
of Mayo), the landowners of Ireland would still have a little more patience—[laughter]—and would be comforted by the reflection that the Government hoped to be able to do something for their relief. ["Hear, hear!"]
*THE EARL OF ERNEsaid they had been told that, this matter would receive the anxious consideration of the Government. They had been told that before. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] They had received not very much consolation from the result, but he thought he detected in, the speech of his noble Friend on the Front Bench one or two small indications that the Government intended to do something, at all events, in this matter, though that something did not go so far as they could wish. In this view, and to give the Government the opportunity of making a further announcement on this point, making begged to move the adjournment of the Debate. ["Hear, hear!"]
Motion agreed to; Debate adjourned to Friday next.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS.
*LORD WANTAGEasked the Lord President of Council the following Questions with reference to the formation 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

1553
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 Beading on the 12th instant; 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 ill Berks, and a large number of the Magistrates and Members of the County Council. He said the matter was of some local importance and of some public interest. There was, he thought, some probability of a considerable area of the county known as the county of perks being compelled to do that which they had no desire to do, and which they had taken every possible means in their power to avoid doing. The beneficent Act of Parliament passed this year was exceedingly short and said little beyond that a. certain sum of money, not exceeding 5s. per head, was to be divided amongst the necessitous schools. It brought, into existence a. new constituency, who were the school managers, but it gave no information as to how the Act was to be put into force. That being so, he thought some consideration was due by Parliament, and that some sympathetic assistance ought to be given to those who, in putting the Act in force in its earlier stages, had fallen into errors—errors which they were not able to avoid by reason of the brevity of the Act. There, were two parties who had, as he thought, made mistakes in this matter. He thought the laity did very little at first in putting the Act into operation, and he thought some valuable time was lost in that way. On the other hand, the clergy acted with great promptitude, tutored and guided by the National Association, and moved by an amount of religious zeal—he thought he might almost say unnecessary religious zeal, and, in a certain measure, by a spirit of want of confidence in their lay brethren.
1554
Under these circumstances they acted in a manner to take possession, in a sense, of the management of these associations. Since he put his notice on the Paper he had by request twice postponed it, and in the meantime he believed he had convinced the Education Department that sonic mistakes had been made. He had shown the Department that 128 schools out of 203 or 204 had declared their willingness to join a county area, and if he could rest assured that those 128 schools would be permitted to join such an area he would simply put the first paragraph of his question, namely:—
"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?"
The later part of his notice was of a controversial character, and he would not put it unless any of their Lordships thought he ought to attempt to make good the allegations it contained.
*LORD STANMOREsaid that before the noble Duke answered the question he wished to ask leave of their Lordships to say a few words from a different point of view to that adopted by his noble Friend. in so doing, he believed he only carried out his noble Friend's wishes. He had known him long, and had ever found him one of the fairest and justest of men, and he was, therefore, confident that he would desire the opinions of those who did not agree with him to be represented to their Lordships as fully and as clearly as he had stated his own. Let him say at the outset that he did not himself attribute so much importance to the area selected for school association as seemed to be attached to it by many persons. He could not regard it as one in the decision of which any great principle was at stake. It seemed to him to be one entirely of administrative convenience. That area would be the best which was likely to prove most satisfactory in working. His reasons, as a Berkshire freeholder, for preferring a diocesan to a. county area were two. In the first place, it was a more economical arrangement, involving a necessity for one official staff only where three would otherwise be required; and in the second place the wider the area of the association the larger will the area be

1555
for the distribution to necessitous schools of any funds at the disposal of the Association. So desirable was a wide area of Association considered to be in many competent quarters, that he knew some very eminent and influential educational authorities thought it would be best to have the whole of England divided into only two or three areas of Association, and there was much to be said in favour of such a. view. But, however that may be, and whatever might be theoretically the best basis for Association, he was entirely at one with his noble Friend in thinking that as a matter of practical politics, if the Berkshire schools and managers wished the county and not the diocese to form the area of association, their wishes ought to be regarded—nay, more, that if the scheme was to be carried out successfully, they must be so. But did such a preference for a county association exist, as was assumed by his noble Friend? It might be so; he did not say that it did not; but what he did say was that his noble Friend had not in any way proved it. His noble Friend might have convinced the Education Department that a majority of schools were in favour of a county area, but he did not think he had convinced their Lordships, and certainly had not convinced him. In assuming that it was the case, his noble Friend relied on three things—a meeting, certain post card returns, and a petition. Now, first as to the meeting summoned by his noble Friend at Reading. He understood, from authority which he believed to be unquestionable, that at that meeting only about 70 schools were represented out of over 230 in the county. Of those present nearly a third declined to vote at all, and there was a minority vote, though not a large one, in favour of a diocesan area.
*LORD WANTAGE: Pardon me for interrupting my noble Friend, but he is wrong. A majority voted for the county area.
*LORD STANMORE: Precisely. That was what he was saying. He said there was a minority vote, not a majority one, in favour of the diocese. What lie was trying to show was that their Lordships must see that a meeting representing only about a third of the schools in the county and of which a considerable proportion either voted against the Motion proposed
1556
or did not vote at all, could not be considered by its decision to have spoken with the voice of the county. The fact was that the great majority of the managers, with the greatest respect for the noble Lord, did not admit that the Lord Lieutenant as such had any authority over them, or any right in that capacity to summon them together at all. The fact that this meeting could not be regarded as altogether satisfactory by his noble Friend, was practically admitted by his noble Friend himself, by the issue of post card circulars to the managers on the answers to which he so strongly relied. Now there were two things he should very much like to learn from his noble Friend, and those were how he ascertained, or thought he ascertained, who the managers were, and, secondly, what number of cards he had issued. The noble Lord had received about 600 answers, of which 400 were in favour of a county area and 200 of a diocesan one. Now, so far as he could ascertain, there was nowhere any list in existence of the school managers of the counties. Those most likely to know, the Bishop and the Archdeacon, were quite ignorant of their names or number, and knew no means of ascertaining them, but they were roughly estimated by the Bishop to be from 1,800 to 2,000. His noble Friend was therefore in this dilemma—either he issued his question to only a small minority of the school managers, or more than two-thirds of them had declined to send any answer whatever to his circular. Nor was this all. He thought they might safely assume that the noble Lord's question had been answered by most of those in agreement with him, and that the great majority of these who abstained from answering were against him. But, again, the number of managers bore no relation to the number of schools—some had many, some had few. In the parish with which he was more immediately connected, there were 15 managers; in an adjacent parish there were 12; but other schools as large and efficient had only two or three. Was it to be desired that two schools having many managers should have their wishes considered equal to those of half-a-dozen other schools having but few? These post-card answers on the whole furnished him with strong

1557
reason for suspecting that the diocesan area was preferred. Lastly there was the petition and protest—certainly adopted in ignorance of the scheme formulated. It was well signed. That it was so was a sign of the well-deserved respect and esteem enjoyed by his noble Friend, but it was little more. He should have signed it himself on that ground, and was inclined at first to do, but he first inquired into the matter and then found he could not honestly do so. That petition was published on the 23rd May. The scheme it objected to was framed on the 25th June. It objected to what did not then exist, and almost every objection raised by it had been met by the scheme as ultimately framed. The last question contained some-thing which, whether his noble Friend meant it or not, was rather like a charge of bad faith. He should not enter on that subject. Perhaps the right rev. Prelate might have something to say on it. But he would shortly state what did take place. The managers of each school sent two of their number to a meeting in each Deanery. Those meetings elected delegates to frame a. scheme. Now he had it on unquestionable authority that all those Deanery meetings were held after the publication of the protest, but, with a full knowledge of it, these meetings elected delegates who, by a majority of 53 to 4, selected the diocesan area. [Lord WANTAGE: "That was the whole diocese!"] Yes, but of the 18 Berkshire delegates 17 attended, of whom 13 voted for the diocesan area and only 4 against it. He regretted that charges of unwarrantable departure from an implied obligation had been made. The delegates when elected were not bound, but perfectly free to select the area they thought best. He regretted equally the reference made to clerical influence and episcopal pressure. Such insinuations were ill-founded, for the great majority of the delegates were laymen, quite free from episcopal influences, except those of argument and reason. And such imputations were ill-judged, for they provoked the retort that there were other influences and other modes of pressure than ecclesiastical ones, at least as powerful as any at a Bishop's disposal. His noble Friend had not told the House what was the evidence he had laid before the Education Department, and he thought
1558
it open to objection that official returns should be set aside on the strength of private information. But a charge of bad faith, even by implication, should be met, and he should wish to see all that had yet been done annulled, and the matter settled, not by postcards, not by private correspondence privately communicated to the Education Department, but in a constitutional way by reference again to the managers to elect representatives to decanal associations afresh by election of delegates from those areas and by a fresh decision by those delegates. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD WANTAGEsaid after the speech of the noble Lord he felt compelled to go forward. His remark would be that he had not gone behind the Education Department. He had given the information as fully as lie could possibly do so, and it was as bonâ fide as he could get. There was no machinery to get the information in the way suggested by his noble Friend. He maintained that the action of the delegates entirely vitiated everything done at that Diocesan Conference. His noble Friend challenged him as to why he took this matter up. Well, he was one of the largest supporters of Voluntary Schools in the country—["hear, hear!"]—and he was Lord Lieutenant, and he had been urged by his friends to interfere. The Bishop of Oxford was the first to move in this matter. A resolution was moved with the assent of all the school managers that the county area be adopted as the area of the association, and that there should be not less than one half laymen. The Bishop of Beading moved that the diocese be the area. The speech of the Primate was circulated by thousands, and this had the effect he had stated. He thought that the speech made in Convocation was most unfortunate, and that it would have a mischievous effect on the education of the country at large. ["Hear, hear!"] The Archdeacon of Berkshire on the other hand stated that the Education Department would greatly prefer the Diocesan area because it was much larger, and he then indicated that an Amendment opposing the county area would be proposed. What authority the Archdeacon had for stating that the Education Department greatly preferred the

1559
diocesan area he did not know. But it had naturally great weight with those delegates who were present. Immediately after this the Bishop of Reading moved a Resolution, namely, that the diocese be the elected area, in conformity with the views, which he said were expressed by the Primate. The Bishop added that if the diocese were adopted—
"they would have the great advantage of having a strong representation of Church educational work, which could be brought to bear with all the power of a united diocese upon the Education Department itself. The prospect of a diocesan association becoming the engine and instrument of Church education in a diocese in itself would be an untold advantage. They would get rid of the parochial, and perhaps the individual factors, which had been the great impediment to all advance."
[Opposition ironical cheers.] The Bishop of Reading was followed by the Rural Dean of Newbury, who also advocated diocesan organisation and said:—
"It ought to be a distinctive Church organisation, and should be exclusive; and they should not only not invite, but refuse to receive, the offers of any alien bodies to join their association. The Diocesan association would have the effect of doing away with that wretched parochialism which eats out the very heart of their Church life in their different parishes."
After these speeches the diocesan area was adopted by the Conference, and a further resolution, excluding Nonconformist schools was carried by a majority of 72 to 42. He regretted to have to quote these intolerant expressions used by his clerical friends, for whom he had much regard and respect, and with whom he had for many years past cordially associated in church and school work. But he had, from the position which he had the honour to hold, as Lord Lieutenant, and also as a large landowner and Voluntary School supporter, been selected as the spokesman for a very large body of laymen, and also of clergy, who wished to dissociate themselves from, the diocesan area. Previous to the Diocesan Conference, a proposal was put forward by the Rural Deans of Berkshire and accepted by the delegates, that the county area should be adopted. He, as a school manager, gave his adhesion to that scheme. He was told it would be adopted, and believing in this assurance, he did not attend the Conference. The School Managers of Berkshire had
1560
selected representatives for the purpose of electing delegates to vote for a. County Association. Upon the Oxford Conference changing round to the Diocesan, as against the County area, those same representatives who had been authorised by the Managers to elect delegates to a County Asociation were utilised for a, purpose for which they had no mandate from the Managers, namely, to elect delegates for a. Diocesan Association. This, in his opinion, altogether vitiated the decision which was come to. He had received the following letter from a county Magistrate:—
"The procedure adopted by the ecclesiastical authorities was, in my district, as follows: My colleague, who is a man of high authority in the educational world, and myself attended, as representatives of our managers, a meeting called by the Rural Dean to elect an executive committee for the county. On opening the meeting the Rural Dean announced that, two days before, the Diocesan Conference had decided in favour of Diocesan area, and he stated that it would be out of order for us to discuss the decision of the Conference—[ironical Opposition cheers]—and that it only remained for us to vote. [Opposition laughter.] Therefore I took the point that my authority was to vote for a county committee. The result is that the Diocesan Association is in possession, but it is not so in consequence of a fair expression of opinion by managers. As regards laymen, they were taken by surprise.
His noble Friend had challenged him as to the way in which he had obtained the vote which he had now placed in the hands of the Education, Department. As a school manager, he had as much right to put the Act into operation as any other person, whether clergyman, or even Bishop. The idea shadowed forth by the Bishop of Reading in his speech, showed a misapprehension of the intention of the Act, the object of which was to maintain Voluntary Schools. The 5s. grant was for that purpose alone, and was not intended to become an instrument for Church Education, or for getting- rid of parochial or individual factors. [Opposition cheers.]
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid that ho must remonstrate with the way in which this matter had been put before the House. Mistakes must have been made—probably all round—but a mistake ought not to be put forward as an attempt at fraud, for that was the clear inference which must be drawn from the noble Lord's speech.
*LORD WANTAGE: I must disclaim anything of the sort.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I am quite sure, my dear Lord Wantage, that you do. [Laughter.] There was no landowner in his diocese for whom he had a greater respect and affection than Lord Wantage, and he dared say that the noble Lord reciprocated those feelings; but he had dissembled his love most terribly. [Laughter.] He felt bound to stand up for his friends who had been working hard in this matter since March. There were many things which he and Lord Wantage approached from such entirely different points of view that it was possible for them to come to almost contradictory conclusions without there being any ground for an imputation of bad faith or of using powers for one purpose when they were given for another. As for the diocesan association of schools, he believed it to be the most economical, the safest, and on the whole the most conducive to the good of education in Berkshire, and he was sorry that personal questions had been introduced into the discussion. It was true that in the first instance there was an idea in favour of a smaller area—the ruridiaconal area the union. But, after considering the matter with the laymen and clergymen who were working with him, he came to the conclusion that a county area would be advisable. The managers of schools were asked to elect delegates to an association. Those delegates received, as he understood, and as they understood, not merely authority to vote for a. county area, but to represent the interests of their schools. After the delegates had been appointed, the Oxford Diocesan Conference—an entirely different body, containing three laymen to every clergyman—met, and he put before them the view that a diocesan association would be best. A private Member proposed the county area, but the former suggestion was approved. The vote, however, as he explained to the Conference, bound no one; it merely expressed their views. Then the delegates were called together, and they accepted the proposal of a diocesan organisation, electing himself as president. He thought he might have been spared the accusations which Lord Wantage had made, though probably without meaning to make them. Every single point was fully considered, and he
1562
thought those Gentlemen who preferred a county area might have put their views before him at the proper thee.
*LORD HENEAGEsaid he thought it would be well if the whole, thing were done over again. In Lincolnshire, had it not been for the National Society and the unfortunate speech of the Primate, opinion would have been unanimous, and an association would have been formed two months ago. The difference existing was a slight one—of name only, for in Lincolnshire the diocese and the county were identical. But in Lincolnshire the Churchmen and the Nonconformists were about equally divided. There was a strong feeling among the laity, a large portion of the clergy, the subscribers, the voluntary ratepayers, and the parents of the children, that the association should be a county association, open to all denominations; and many objected very strongly to being brought into an association which was purely and entirely for Church schools. There were 505 schools in the county, of which 390 were really or technically Church schools. There were very few purely Church Schools, and they were in the towns, and it was the town party and those, under the influence of the National Society in smaller parishes who desired to promote the Diocesan Association of Church Schools. Of 390 so-called Church Schools 300 were really mixed schools, and, for all practical purposes, undenominational schools, managed by Committees, on which all denominations were represented. The voluntary rates or subscriptions were paid by all denominations alike, and the children of all denominations attended the schools. The religious question had been amicably settled and put on one side to keep out Board Schools, and the schools were carried on by the co-operation and forbearance of all denominations. Rightly or wrongly there was a strong feeling among the parents of the children, the subscribers, mid voluntary ratepayers, against coming into a Diocesan Association entirely under Diocesan control, which would be used for Church purposes. Mr. R. W. Perks, M.P., said the other day that they objected to the money earned going for an association to be used entirely for the Church, and, if so applied, he and others were

1563
prepared to subscribe largely to set a rival Nonconformist Voluntary School in every parish in Lincolnshire. From his own knowledge of Lincolnshire he was sure they could do it, and if they did it they would be able to compel the Church of England to give up many of her schools and force Board Schools into their places. This being the case, it was not to be wondered at that there was a strong feeling among landowners, the clergy, and the laity generally, that to have a Diocesan Association would only bring discord into those parishes, imperil the state of the schools, and the good feeling that now existed. There was no ill feeling against the Bishop of the Diocese. A Bishop more popular in his diocese did not exist than the Bishop of Lincoln. ["Hear, hear!"] But it was feared that the Association would be used by the National Society and those who supported it. The Diocesan Board of Education framed a scheme, and it was adopted at a large and representative meeting over which the Bishop of Lincoln presided, and a requisition was signed by him and others asking the High Sheriff to call a formal meeting of the managers of the schools. It was considered that everything was settled. There were to be 470 schools in the Association, including 390 bonâ fide Church Schools and technically Church Schools; about 60 parochial schools; and 16 British schools. But before the meeting took place all the Church School managers, churchwardens, and sides men who could be got together, assembled, and the scheme adopted by the Diocesan Board of Education was rejected in a very riotous and unseemly meeting which' broke up in such disorder that they forgot to put their resolution to the meeting. [Laughter.] Although the original scheme was rejected, no other scheme was adopted, and from that day to this there had been no meeting of delegates from the various schools, or any meeting recognised under the Act. But friends of the Diocesan Association had met at private meetings, and meetings in the rural deaneries, and they had elected a certain number of delegates, persons who supported the diocesan scheme, which, did not exist, although in the circular sent out to obtain the assent of the school managers, it was stated that a Diocesan Association had been
1564
formed. A great change of front afterwards took place. On 2nd or 3rd July they met again and adopted the very scheme of the Diocesan Board of Education which they rejected on 28th May, to induce all who desired a County Association to conic in. The title "Lincoln Diocesan Association of Voluntary Schools" had been substituted for that of "Lincoln County Association of Voluntary Schools." All schools would be able to join the new association, but there was this difference. Under the county scheme the governing body was to be freely elected by the delegates sent from each school, whereas it was proposed now that the governing body should be that elected for the purpose of a Church scheme. He was certain that those who had acted with him in this matter would never consent to come in under the governing body as at present constituted. He would like to test the question and ask the Bishop of Lincoln whether, if those in favour of the county scheme joined them, they were prepared to let everything they had done "go by the board," and allow a fresh governing body to be elected by the delegates of the schools willing to be associated. He was only too glad to see the original scheme adopted, and would be only too glad to see a united association. But if the Church party were to have an association open to all denominations, they must give up all they had done in the election of a governing body, and then it might be possible to find a via media.
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNin a maiden speech, said he believed it was the custom of their Lordships' House to extend indulgence to those who addressed it for the first time, and he asked that that indulgence might be extended to him now. ["Hear, hear!"] There were one or two points bearing on the question referred to in the speech of the noble Lord, which he felt it his duty to allude to. First of all the noble Lord said in his question that it appeared there was sonic attempt to force a purely diocesan association on the Church of England Schools. They never made any such attempt, nor had they any desire to force such an association on any members of the diocese whatever. What they did was simply to send to the rural deans the form of paper which had now become very common, which was issued by

1565
the National Society, requesting them to bring it before the managers of the several schools, and ask them whether they would or would not join the Association. The result was that out of some 450 schools 364 had joined the Association they proposed to them. He thought that was a very fair result. He could not accept the figures of the noble Lord. He had had the figures given him by a competent authority, and they stood thus on his paper: the number of Church or National Schools 394, parochial schools 56, so that the number of 450 was thus made up, and out of these schools 364 had accepted the scheme which they laid before them.
*LORD HENEAGE: The figures I have quoted were given me by the Secretary for the Lincoln Diocesan Association, and quoted by me to the meeting I have referred to on the 28th May.
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid there was also mentioned here that the undenominational county association had been received and generally approved by letter by the clerical managers of the schools in rural parishes. The noble Lord gave an account of the meeting which took place when the scheme was proposed by the Diocesan Board. Perhaps he might be allowed to add one or two points. The scheme was formulated by the executive committee of the Diocesan Board, and when that was submitted by the Diocesan Board it was accepted and carried against himself and several others who voted and spoke against it. Out of that meeting arose a desire that there should be called a county meeting in order that it might be ascertained what was the wish. of all the managers of the Voluntary Schools. He gave his hearty concurrence to that desire, and the meeting was called. It was largely attended by managers, lay and clerical. He hardly knew exactly the meaning the noble Lord wished to attribute to the word "sidesmen," but they were all managers who voted—laymen as well as clergymen—and by an overwhelming majority they overthrew the plan which had been prepared by the Executive Committee and accepted by the Diocesan Board. The noble Lord himself admitted this, and he said, "We are overthrown, and we will not prolong the controversy further." He thanked the noble Lord that very evening, for his
1566
generous conduct in not prolonging the controversy, and he had then replied to him, stating that he must not be taken as meaning that he thoroughly withdrew. The Executive Committee who formulated this scheme was so firmly convinced that it had been rejected by that large meeting of managers called by the High Sheriff that they held a. meeting and decided that they must resign their office as the Executive Committee. Out of kindness to himself, and for the convenience of the diocese, they agreed to continue in office until the next quarterly meeting, which was last Friday. Last Friday they met. The Executive Committee tendered their resignation, and this was accepted, and then, as soon as their resignation had been accepted, he proposed that they should all be reelected, and so they were. [Laughter.] Out of 30 members there were only two who did not accept re-election. One of these, for private reasons, was unable to do so, therefore there was only one who did not accept re-election. He was pleased to be able to tell their Lordships of the very happy position they were now in. The Executive Committee were entirely in accord with the Education Board generally, and also with himself, and they had also passed a resolution that they wished to support the association which they hail promoted, and the scheme which they had sent up to the Department. He did not know how they really could have acted on a more correct line. Certainly they were now in accord in the matter. It appeared by the last paragraph of the noble Lord's question that some protection was needed for undenominational schemes. He was in a very awkward position, physically, standing there, because he was one of those who did not obey that terrible mandate of the most rev. Prelate sitting beneath him. He hoped the most rev. Prelate would not exercise any severe discipline against him. He could not conscientiously do it, Lincolnshire being very largely dwelt in by honourable and religious Nonconformists. Therefore the association they had now proposed in the scheme they had sent up was to be called the Lincoln Diocesan Association of Voluntary Schools, and it was provided that the association should be "open to all church, national, parochial, and other Voluntary Schools within the area." He

1567
failed himself to see that they had tyran-nised in any way in this matter.
EARL SPENCERwas afraid he must add another complaint to those from Berkshire and Lincolnshire, and give another example of the unfortunate omission, as it seemed to him, from the recent Education Act of any machinery for the working of these associations. He regretted extremely that the right rev. Prelate who had lately been appointed to the diocese of Northampton was not yet in the House, but he felt bound to state what had occurred in that county in corroboration to some extent of what had been done in other counties, as they had heard stated in the House. First of all, however, he should like to say he was quite sure the right rev. Bishop of Oxford was in error in supposing his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire wished to impute any fraud to the Diocesan Council of Oxfordshire. But what he did believe had been done had been done—if arbitrary was too strong a word—then in a very heedless and careless manner. He would just explain what had occurred in his own county. There had been for many years a Church Education Society in the county to which he had subscribed ever since 1857. A quarterly meeting of that society was held after the Education Bill became an Act. The Bishop was in the chair, 19 out of 21 rural deaneries were represented, and a resolution was adopted that the association should be a county association. The same thing happened in Leicestershire, the Church Education Society there also passing a resolution to the same effect. Upon that the Bishop of Northamptonshire issued a circular to all the managers of schools desiring them to elect in each rural deanery two delegates to meet in order that the governing body of this association might be elected. These representatives and managers of schools met in each rural deanery and elected a representative body of delegates to meet at Peterborough. He wished it to be particularly noted that these delegates were all elected on the clear understanding, as stated by the Bishop's own letter, that the association should be a county association. When they met, although elected under perfectly different conditions, they voted, on the motion of a clergyman outside Northamptonshire,
1568
that the association should be diocesan. Upon that, the Bishop issued another circular to the managers, asking them for information with regard to their reports from the Education Department, and so on, and nothing more was said with regard to the change of front. He believed there was some communication from the Education Department, and a further circular was sent out by the Bishop with a very significant postscript added, in which the Bishop said the managers were then to declare whether they would join the diocesan association. As far as he could gather, neither in Northamptonshire nor Leicestershire world this association stand. It was not a formal and legal association, because these delegates—this governing body—sent to Peterborough were elected on a perfectly different basis, and they had no business at that meeting to change the association from a county to a diocesan association. He thought this was a very serious matter. He ventured, when the Bill was before the House, to say he regretted extremely that this public money of the taxpayer should be diverted into what he considered were entirely Church channels. He was afraid he incurred the gentle rebuke on this subject of the right rev. Primate, for whom lie had such great respect. But he confessed he still held the opinion that it would be a great misfortune, not only to the country, but to the Church itself, if these voluntary associations were worked from an entirely Church point of view. He was afraid the whole tendency would be in that direction. What his noble Friend (Lord Heneage) had said was of the greatest importance; he had pointed out how in many schools called Church Schools large numbers of scholars were children of Nonconformists, and that certainly was the case in his own county. He did not happen to be manager of a school, because when in office he had found himself unable to attend to the duties, but for many years local schools had had the support of members of his family, and he knew what went on in the schools. Only the day before yesterday lie was in conversation with the able ecclesiastical manager of one of these schools, who told him that he had sent in a notice to join an association, but he had some difficulty in getting his committee to agree. Upon

1569
that committee were several Nonconformists who did not like the Act. There was difficulty in getting the committee to join the association, and now that it had been turned into a diocesan association, he had withdrawn. That would be the case in a great ninny instances. But he desired to know from the noble Duke who was about. to reply whether the Department considered that associations formed in the manner described were legal associations, or whether the whole process must be begun again. He attached great importance to this, and supported what his noble Friend, Lord Heneage, had said. He did not attribute any intention to deceive on the part of those who had acted as described, but he thought the arrangements to carry out the plan had been hurried, reckless, and arbitrary.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: As a great deal has been said about what the Archbishop of Canterbury has done, it is right that I should say a few words on the subject before us. I certainly think that the purpose of this Act being to support Voluntary Schools existing really for the purpose of maintaining religious education, it is distinctly best that associations should recognise the fact. In course of time Voluntary Schools will disappear unless religious education is the main point of view of the managers, and the tendency of associations which are undenominational is to craw schools gradually to be very little other than Board Schools supported by subscriptions. If schools themselves become undenominational, what becomes of the reason which is given for maintaining them at all? The great body of subscribers will say, "Why not have a School Board?" Church Schools stand because they teach Church doctrines and are you to have nothing distinctive of Church teaching in the schools? I should say this—I cannot help it if people will listen to me, it is not my fault if there are certain portions of the country where the opinions of the Primate of All England have some weight—I speak from conviction, if you are to support Voluntary Schools, which is the purpose of the Act, you must not leave the religious question outside or endeavour in any way to shunt it. ["Hear, hear!"] In the notices circulated there was no interference with the
1570
liberty of school managers to elect the sort of governing body they themselves preferred, or any interference with the choice of area which, should define the boundaries of the association. I am very desirous that everywhere there should be perfect freedom, but I venture to think that it is not out of place for me to say what my opinion is, and if others attach some importance to that opinion I do not think I am, to be blamed for that. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): I think it is very much to be regretted that sonic of my noble Friends have not put some questions to me at an earlier period on the general principles concerning these matters, and if they had taken the trouble to do so, the answers might have made it unnecessary to enter into a great many of those local questions which have been raised to-day and discussed here at some length, questions with which the Education Department have absolutely nothing to do and with which I venture to think your Lordships' House has nothing whatever to do, however interesting they may be to noble Lords and right rev. Prelates in various parts of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The general answer—before I attempt to answer in detail questions or some parts of the questions put on the Paper—the general answer I have to give is that the Education Department is prepared to accept, and has taken every means of making known that it is prepared to accept, either diocesan or county areas as the means of association for Voluntary Schools. Further, that they are in certain cases, especially in cases where the diocese contains more than one county or where the diocesan and county areas are not coterminous, prepared to accept two associations, although they may to some extent overlap each other. They are prepared to do this in accordance with the view acceptable to the managers of the schools themselves. It is with the managers of the schools themselves and them alone that the Education Department is concerned. ["Hear, hear!"] My noble Friend (Lord Stanmore) said in the course of his observations that schools were inarticulate or to the effect that a school could not say what it wished and could not give a vote.
*LORD STANMORE: I had no intention of saying anything of that kind.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Something to the effect that a school could not express an opinion.
*LORD STANMORE: I am afraid I expressed myself badly; what I wished to say was that the school as represented by the manager, was exactly the unit that ought to express an opinion, but that managers taken as individuals were not the persons to whom to look for a decision.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly I failed to understand my noble Friend; but I say so far are schools from being inarticulate and unable to express an opinion, that they have a very effective means of expressing opinions on such questions as these. Every Voluntary School has a correspondent who is recognised by the Department, and through this correspondent managers must decide what answer they propose to make to-the inquiries made by the Department, and, that being given to the Department, the Department will act accordingly. But with all these preliminary proceedings which noble Lords have been discussing this afternoon the Education Department and, I think, this House, have no concern whatever. Forms have been issued, and when filled up and returned the Department will be enabled to judge what association is adopted by the majority; in putting a sufficient number of schools in each district, and upon the information supplied in these forms, the Department will act, and it has absolutely no concern with any of these preliminary proceedings which are only a means of enabling managers to form opinions they will hereafter have to express to the Department. I do not think after what has been said that my noble Friend (Lord Wantage) desires a categorical answer to each question he has put. My noble Friend stated that he believes he has now satisfied the Department that the wish of the majority of Voluntary Schools in Berkshire is for the county as opposed to the diocesan area, and my noble Friend Lord Stanmore inquired how he had satisfied the Department of the fact. I am not aware that he has satisfied the Department, nor is it necessary that he should, that the majority of the schools in Berkshire desire county association. A diocesan area has
1572
already been provisionally accepted, but the letter which conveyed that provisional acceptance notified that it must be understood that the provisional approval of this diocesan association does not preclude the Department from approving an association of Voluntary Schools for the county of Berks if the scheme for such association is put before the Department on behalf of and with the authority of a sufficient number of Voluntary Schools to form an effective association for the purposes of the Act. If my noble Friend is satisfied that 126 Voluntary Schools in Berks prefer county association, and if the forms when received confirm, as no doubt they will, that information, then provisional sanction will be given to a county association for Berks, though it will, to a certain extent, overlap the district of the diocesan area to which also provisional sanction has been given. That, I believe, disposes of so much of the question of my noble Friend a appears to require answer. In reply to my noble Friend Lord Heneage, I have to say that, up to the present time, eight schemes have been finally approved, and 48 have received provisional approval. In fact, I am very glad to be able to state that the formation of associations is going on quite as rapidly as could have been expected, and I am also happy to state, that with the exception of the cases that have this afternoon been brought before the House, with very little or no friction whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] He next asks me whether it is intended to extend the period for the formation of such associations under the Act. No doubt my noble Friend refers to the circular issued on April 9, in which the Department intimated that it was desirable that associations should be formed within three months from date. This was intended to warn managers that they might suffer loss from undue delay rather than to fix an exact date, and it has produced the desired result. In cases where exceptional difficulty has been experienced in the formation of associations the Department will take steps to secure that delay shall not entail any loss. The third question relates to the

1573
historical statement my noble Friend has repeated to-day, with which, as I have said, the Department has absolutely nothing to do. Debates, resolutions, meetings, whether of diocesan conferences or summoned in any other way, the Department has no cognisance of whatever, and we can only judge by the results we receive in answer to our circular. In reply to the fourth question, as to whether certain statements which have been made are accurate, it is no doubt true that the Department wishes that as many Voluntary Schools as possible should join associations, and should thereby avail themselves of the machinery which is provided by the Voluntary Schools Act, and it is also true that a school which associates this year with a diocesan or any other association, can withdraw next year, and will not be in a worse position than if it had not associated at all. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the last question, in which lie asks what steps it is proposed to take for the assistance and protection of undenominational as well as British and other schools, the information which the Department has received is that the British end oilier denominational schools generally desire to form separate associations of their own. If, however, there are any, in any district, who do not desire to enter into any such association, and wish to join either a county or diocesan association composed chiefly of Church Schools, the Department will endeavour to see, as far as it is in its power, that the rules of the association are such as will secure to them adequate protection. And, I may say, in reference to something which fell from my noble Friend just now, that if it is the fact, as he, I think, stated, that it is proposed, in the association which is now being formed in the diocese of Lincolnshire, that all undenominational schools should be invited to join it, but should not be provided by the scheme with any part in the management, such a scheme would probably not receive the sanction of the Department—["hear, hear!"]—as being not representative, as the Act requires. of the managers of the schools represented in that association. My noble Friend Lord Spencer not having put down any question, I am not in a position to give him any information as to what has taken place in the diocese of
1574
Peterborough or in the county of Northampton. I may, however, state, although perhaps I shall only be repeating what I have said before, that nothing which has taken place at any meetings end none of the votes to which my noble Friend has referred, are in any way conclusive upon this matter. What the Department has to look to is the expressed wish of the schools themselves, and, if my noble Friend, or those with whom he acts in the county, still are of opinion that a country association for Northamptonshire will be a better organisation than a diocesan association, they have only to convert the managers of the schools themselves to that opinion and to induce them to fill up their returns in that sense. We cannot, however, be responsible for the way in which the opinions of the managers have been obtained. We cannot be aware of what pressure may have been put upon them from one quarter or from another quarter. All that we can be guided by is their expressed wish, which we have afforded them the means of giving, and in which they have ample opportunity of standing what association, formed on what basis and with what constitution, they desire to join. With reference to fill from the most rev. Prelate the archbishop of Canterbury, I certainly am not entirely able to understand the point of view from which he looks at this question. The character of these associations, the area which is adopted for them, appears to me, as I think was stated by Lord Stanmore, to be one to which a great dual too much importance has been attached. Whether the county or the diocese is selected as the area, the governing body, which is to be representative of the managers of the schools in that area, will be composed almost in identically the same manner. ["Hear, hear!"] It is the managers, whether in the county or in the diocese, who will elect the governing body, and the character of the association must depend upon the character of those who are elected, and we are absolutely unable, in the Department, to see how the question will be affected by the adoption of an ecclesiastical or a civil area. Further, the most rev. Prelate seemed to be under the impression that the governing bodies of these associations would have the power of deciding, in some way, upon the

1575
character of the schools and of the religious instruction which is going to be given in future in them. He seemed to fear that if the association was not of an ecclesiastical character the religious character of many of these Voluntary Schools would be given up. These associations, or their governing bodies, so far as I know, will have absolutely nothing to do with the management of the schools which they represent. [Cheers.] They are simply formed for the purpose of advising the Department as to the distribution of a certain grant in proportion to the necessities of the schools. They do not assume, and they would not be permitted by the Department to assume, any power over the management of the schools which are included within them—["hear, hear!"]—and therefore it seems to me that, in the Advice which the most rev. Prelate has given to school managers upon this subject and in the observations he has made this afternoon, he has somewhat misapprehended the question, and has perhaps induced some of those who are guided by his advice to attach an unnecessary degree of importance to what, so far as I am able to ascertain, is, after all, a very minor question indeed.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Duke began by saying he did not think that what had been brought before us to-night concerned either the Education Department or this House. I venture to differ very widely from him.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Perhaps my noble Friend will allow me to explain. Of course, the principles upon which these associations are formed, that is a matter of great public importance; but the question of what has taken place in the county of Berkshire and the diocese of Oxford, or in the county of Lincoln, these preliminary stages in the controversy do not seem to me matters of importance to this house.
TETE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am much obliged for the correction, but I confess I am not convinced. The noble Duke says, with great truth, that we are concerned with the principles upon which these associations are formed; but how can you judge of the way in. which the principles are carried into effect but by knowing what has taken place in different parts of the country where these
1576
matters are discussed? That is the very reason why, it seems to me, a discussion such as the one which has now taken place is extremely germane to the whole matter. But if for no other reason, I should welcome the discussion on account of the statement that my noble Friend made at the conclusion of his speech, which, I nut sure, will he received with great satisfaction throughout the country—namely, that these associations are not formed for the purpose of controlling and directing the kind of education which the schools are to afford. [Cheers.] That seems to me a perfectly sound principle, and I trust the Education Department will see that it is vigilantly and carefully and universally carried into effect. The danger is just in that direction. I have no doubt whatever as to the intentions of the Education Department, but, with the feelings which every one has in favour of his own views and of his own profession, I may say it would be unfair, I think, to impute any great blame to those who, like the right rev. Prelates, see in the Act an opportunity for pushing forward what they deem to be Church principles and Church interests. That seems to me to be perfectly natural on their part. Far from blaming them, I think it, is only what they may fairly be expected to do but, whilst I say that, I say I look with the greatest suspicion—I was almost going to say hostility—on the action which they will take, believing as I as that, in the end, it will not only not advance the interests of education, but that it will be detrimental to the Church and to religious interests in this country—and detrimental for this reason, that it will introduce discord mid rivalry and evil-feeling into a matter in which, I believe, they need not be introduced. That that is not the intention of the right rev. Prelates I most clearly admit; but you have, by this Act, introduced a subject of contention upon that which is one of the most vital principles and one of the strongest matters of feeling which can exercise, I might say, any one in this country. I sincerely hope that the Education Department will be able, as I see they are anxious, to confine, within proper limits, the work of these associations. If that can he done I think no harm will result. The proper object of the association is, no doubt, to assist the Education Department in dis-

1577
tributing the support which Parliament has thought it right to give the Voluntary Schools, the end and object being to maintain the Voluntary Schools in a state of efficiency, upon which we are all agreed. As regards these particular schemes, not being able myself quite clearly to understand the machinery by which this Act is to be worked, I do not clearly see how the Education Department is to stand so entirely aloof and to view with perfect indifference the proceedings of these various bodies throughout the country in forming these associations. It seems to me that there must be some criterion which the Education Department must apply to see that these associations have been—if I many use the term—legally formed. It is not merely that an association asserts that it exists, but it ought to exist upon a basis recognised by the Department, and in accordance with the intentions of the Act. There may be machinery which I do not understand by which the Education Department propose so to inform themselves, but I do not see how that is to be done through these committees. If the Education Department communicates with each and every manager, and if the Education Department determines by the views of the managers what is to be done, then I do not see why it might not have been originally arranged that the managers should have determined the whole matter of majority and submit it to the Education Department. I draw the conclusion which my noble Friend behind me drew—that it is immensely to be regretted that the Government entirely refused to put forward any instructions to the different bodies throughout the country as to the manner in which these associations might be formed. I think it would have saved a great deal of heartburning and of trouble, and would have produced the most satisfactory result. I am not sure whether I understood my noble Friend quite rightly, but I think I understood from him that there still remains an opportunity this year for those who have not been able to join an association, to form that association and to put themselves into a position to be able in take advantage of the Act. He made that observation principally with reference to those denominational schools which are not connected with the Church of
1578
England. There are many schools that find themselves isolated, so to speak. In my own county it has been determined to have a diocesan association and not to admit any but Church schools. I know that very great embarrassment indeed is felt by the managers of Voluntary Schools throughout the country which are not Church Schools. They were quite willing to have joined the association. I hope they will have an opportunity of joining some association, by which they may receive the benefit of the Act, because certainly the intention of the Act was not to support Voluntary Schools connected with the Church only, though they will form the majority of the schools, but generally to support Voluntary Schools in whatever manner they might have been formed. That leads me to make another remark. It has been already said that there are many schools which are supported by a voluntary rate, but which, in point of fact, are indiscriminately supported by Nonconformists and Church people. The Managers of the schools do not know exactly which way to turn. The predominant feeling in the parishes in which such schools exist is not to support the Church, not to support Nonconformity, but to avoid a School Board, because they consider it more expensive and the machinery inconvenient. It will be seen by those interested in the Church that unless they treat these parishes with some tenderness and consideration the necessary result will be the formation of Board Schools or the formation of opposition Nonconformist schools. I know of one parish in which the majority of the people are Nonconformists. Hitherto there has been nominally a Church school, but the committee of management has been elected from the different denominations. Since a diocesan board has been formed it has been proposed to set up a Nonconformist school, which is likely to entirely destroy the Church school. These are subjects which give me no satisfaction whatever, because I regret to see any discord introduced into educational matters. I will conclude by expressing the hope that my noble Friend's anticipations may be fulfilled, and that it may be found eventually that these associations are formed will the general consent of the different parts of the country. I cannot conceive

1579
how it can be possible to work satisfactorily both a diocesan and a county association in the same area; it may seem a plausible arrangement, but I do not believe it is one that is likely to work harmoniously. Personally, I am very much afraid time Act will produce consequences which we may all considerably deplore.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Let me say, in reference to my noble Friend's statement that in his comity a diocesan association has been formed which does not propose to admit other than Church schools, that schools which have not an opportunity of joining an association will not suffer. They will have to be dealt with by the Department individually.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Very good.

VERMINOUS PERSONS BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a. Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
Considered Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived: and Bill to be Read 3a To-morrow.
VOLUNTEERS BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off till To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
To be Read 3a on Thursday next.
House Adjourned at Ten Minutes past Seven o'Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.