Sitting of 30 July 1897

LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
Lords' Amendments to the Cleansing of Persons (title changed from the Verminous Persons), the Police Property, and the School Boards Expenses Bills considered, and agreed to.
QUESTIONS.

  HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY.
  COLONEL LONGI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many batteries of Horse and Field Artillery have had their annual practice at Shoeburyness this year; how many rounds
  1590
  were fired in their competitions for prizes; how many missfires there were during the competitions; and whether it is true that the friction tubes issued for the prize competitions were not of the latest approved pattern?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Twenty-three horse and field batteries have this year had their annual practice at Shoeburyness. They fired 3,471 rounds in competition for prizes. In these there were 269 missfires. The friction tubes issued were of the pattern now in use. A newer pattern with a lighter pull off has been approved, and will shortly come into use.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SMOKING ACCOMMODATION).
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the arrangements have progressed for providing better smoking accommodation for Members in the coming year?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I am afraid arrangements have not progressed. I have endeavoured in connection with the recent new appointment to the office of Librarian in the House of Lords, to obtain a re-adjustment of accommodation in the building by the absorption of the Librarian's residence. This would have enabled me to meet the requirements of hon. Members, but I regret to say that my attempts have failed, the authorities of the House of Lords having declined to depart from t he present allocation of rooms.
  MR. AIRDasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the present Smoking Room was over the Kitchen, and was perfectly intolerable?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am aware of the fact that the smoking-room is over the kitchen, and of the disadvantages arising in consequence. I remember pointing out these disadvantages when the plans were adopted, but my advice was not taken.

  FISHERY REGULATIONS.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the Sea Fishery

  1591
  Amendment Bill has been abandoned for the present Session, the Board of Trade contemplate making efforts to arrive at an International arrangement for regulating the capture and sale of immature sea fish prior to the re-introduction of any Bill to amend and strengthen the fishery regulations in force in England and Wales?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE, (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): It was shown by the Report of the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries of 1893 that Foreign Powers had already made provision for prohibiting the sale of undersized fish of many kinds. The first step must, therefore, be for this country to prove itself prepared to adopt a similar policy, by passing an Act in the same direction. Until this has been done I am of opinion that it would be premature to approach the other Powers, with the view of obtaining uniformity of action.

  CURING FISH.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the fish trade, large quantities of fish, instead of being packed after salting, undergo other processes of curing, such as the smoking of herrings and the preservation of pilchards in oil; whether such processes are under the Factory Acts, and not exempted by Section 100 of the Factory Act of 1878, referring to gutting, salting, and packing fish immediately upon its arrival in fishing boats; and, whether the Factory Acts are being fully enforced, for example as to hours, in the processes of curing after salting and before packing, or in substitution of salting, such as those referred to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): I have already informed the right hon. Baronet that the question whether these other processes, of which the Home Office is fully aware, are included in the exemption given in Section 100 of the Act of 1878 has al ways been felt to be of one difficulty. It is possible that a strict interpretation of the section might exclude them, but the view has always been taken and acted upon that
  1592
  the principle underlying the section is as applicable to them as to the processes about which there is no question, the principle, as I take it being, that measures which are necessary immediately on the arrival of the fish at the place of curing to save it from destruction should not be hindered by the restrictions of the Act. In view, however, of the difficulties which surround the subject, I propose to institute an Inquiry with the view of ascertaining what are the processes which are fairly covered by the principle I have mentioned and, if after consultation with the Law Officers it appears to be necessary, of taking steps to bring the law and the practice into accord.

  BOOK POST (CAPE COLONY).
  MR. E. PARKES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why it is that a custom which has existed for some years of sending addressed envelopes, enclosed in a wrapper with a halfpenny stamp affixed, to business houses in Cape Colony should now be stopped by the Post Office authorities, with the contention that such packages cannot be sent under book post, but must be classified as stationery, thereby causing an extra expense of 10d. to 1s. per package, and so seriously interfering with British trade abroad?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston): The Postal Union has decided that writing paper, envelopes, and other articles of stationery pure and simple are not transmissible by post at the reduced rate of postage applicable under the regulations of the Union to newspapers, books, etc. It is true that such articles have in the past been forwarded from this country by book post, but attention having been drawn to the subject, the Postmaster General thought it right to direct that they should not be allowed to pass in future, as it would be in contravention of the Convention to allow them to do so. It may perhaps be well to point out that a pound of envelopes or other stationery can be sent to the Cape of Good Hope by parcel post at the moderate charge of 9d.

  THAMES IRONWORKS COMPANY.
  MR. ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will reinstitute the arbitration between the Thames Ironworks Company and the Admiralty, which was withdrawn owing to a misunderstanding, and allow the claims of that Company to be submitted to such arbitration?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): No, Sir. Such a resuscitation is out of the question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTasked whether it was not the fact that the Thames Ironworks Company withdrew from the arbitration in consequence of a misunderstanding
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid that he could not accept that statement as being accurate.
  MR. FLOWERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to see the chairman of the Thames Ironworks Company with the view to arriving at a friendly understanding?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I cannot undertake to do that. An opportunity has been afforded more than once for reinstituting the arbitration, hut the Company did not avail themselves of it. I can now only regard the matter as settled.

  UNITED STATES AND NEWFOUNDLAND.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it would be possible to lay before Parliament the last Dispatch from the Colonial Office resuming the commercial situation as between the United States and Newfoundland arising out of the Bond-Blaine Convention of 1890; and whether in that Dispatch the Colonial Office, while making reserves in the interest of Canada, declared that, in the event of Ito settlement between Canada and the United States being shortly come to, sanction would be given to the Convention by which Newfoundland products would be admitted duty free to the United States?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): There is no Dispatch on record conveying such a promise. I
  1594
  am in communication with the Prime Minister of Newfoundland on the subject, and do not consider it desirable to publish Papers at present.

  SALE OF OPIUM (CEYLON).
  MR. W. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a memorial and statement presented to the Governor of Ceylon, the former in January 1894 and the latter in February of this year, showing the injurious effects of the licensed sale of opium in the Colony, also to the question of the hon. W. W. Mitchell, mercantile member of the Ceylon Legislative Council, on 6th February last, on the same subject; and whether any steps have been taken by the Ceylon Government to prevent the spread of opium smoking in the Colony similar to the steps taken in India, Burma, and the Straits Settlements?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the sale of opium in Ceylon has for some time past engaged the attention of the Colonial Government, and, as I stated in the House on February 5 last, in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of the West Riding, the Ceylon Government has decided with my approval to raise the import duty On opium from one rupee to two rupees per pound. Further proposals to prevent the spread of opium smoking are still under consideration.

  MELVICE PIER, SUTHERLANDSHIRE.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the contract for the new pier at Melvich, Sutherlandshire, is likely to be completed; and, whether he is aware that the present length of the pier is likely to greatly lessen its usefulness to the fishermen as a landing place and harbour?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The pier was completed at the beginning of March last, with the exception of a few repairs to the foundation. The trustees asked for an extension to the pier of 40 feet in July 1895, which was approved of and has been carried out. It is a fact that at dead low spring tides the head of the pier is dry.

  HIGH EXPLOSIVES.
  MR. J. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if a description of the process of loading shells with high explosives has been published in any of the official text books or manuals issued for use by the Ordnance Factories, or if the process has been notified in the list of official changes; and, whether all processes of such a character are usually so published, unless considered confidential?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELLWILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): The method of filling shells with high explosives has not been published in any manual, as the process is only carried out in the Royal Arsenal. A description of it would be useless to officers at out-stations. So far as secrecy is concerned, there would be no objection to the publication.

  EXCISE LICENCES (SCOTLAND.)
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the provisions of The Public Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862, and especially Section 5 of that Act, it is lawful for the Excise authorities to grant a permit under which a person who does not hold any certificate in terms of that Act may sell exciseable liquors; whether his attention has been called to the case known as Steel's Hotel Licence, in Glasgow, renewal of which was refused at the Magistrates' Annual Court in April last, and the appeal against that refusal was dismissed by the Quarter Sessions in May last; whether a recommendation from some of the Magistrates has since been received by the Excise authorities; if so, what was done with it. And, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The question of the hon. Member refers to the question of the Board of Inland Revenue, for which neither I nor the Scottish Office are in any way responsible. If the hon. Member desires to do so, he may repeat his question to the Treasury.

  RIVER BLACKWATER.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War
  1596
  whether he is aware of the foul condition of the River Blackwater, a tributary of the River Thames; whether his attention has been called to the serious complaints made for some time past to the War Department by the Conservators of the River Thames and other public bodies through whose district the river flows with regard to the continued pollution of that river, caused by the bad effluents from the sewage farm at Aldershot, which receives the drainage of the North and South Camps; and, whether he will cause immediate steps to be taken to stop the pollution of the river from that source?
  MR. BRODRICK: Every effort is being made to improve the effluent from the Aldershot Sewage Farm. The Thames Conservancy are aware of this, and no complaint has been received from that body since January.

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received from the London County Council a Return ordered on the 30th March, showing the amount expended by them on the water inquiries and negotiations; and, if not, when he is likely to receive it?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): My hon. Friend gave notice of a Motion for a return as to the amount expended by the London County Council on water inquiries and negotiations, and, in reply to a Question on the 30th March last, I stated that there would be no objection on my part to the proposed Motion; I do not, however, find that the return was ordered by the House, or that it was moved for by the hon. Member, and it was consequently not called for.

  CORDITE.
  MR. G. W. NICHOLSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a great deal of the 1892 cordite ammunition, issued to the Hampshire Militia at Brown down in May last, was very defective; that at least fifty rounds missed fire, and in two instances the cartridges, after having missed fire, exploded when the rifles were brought

  1597
  down to the ready position; that during the musketry practice, at distances from 100 to 300 yards, bullets were picked up apparently intact between the firing point and the targets; that two bullets were found in the canvas target; and that others were picked up between the targets and the stop-butt, although the mean extreme range of the Lee-Metford bullet is given in the Musketry Instruction, I896 edition, paragraph 423, as 3,500 yards; whether this I892 cordite ammunition was reported as defective at Portsmouth in 1895; and, whether he will order an Inquiry to be held to ascertain the condition of this I892 cordite ammunition, and, if necessary, prevent its further issue?
  MR. BRODRICK: Complaints have been received from Portsmouth to the effect of the statements in the hon. Member's Question. This ammunition was tested in 1895 and found to be quite serviceable, although shooting a little low. A further Inquiry into its condition has now been ordered, and no more issues will be made until the result of the Inquiry is known.

  NORTH DUBLIN UNION.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to a discussion in the Dublin United Trades Council and Labour League respecting the employment of pauper labour in the construction of a medical officer's residence; (2) whether the guardians are justified by law in this proceeding; and (3) whether pauper labour can be utilised in the production of brushes and other requisites for the North Dublin Union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have seen a copy of a resolution passed by the body referred to in the first paragraph. It is legally competent for the Guardians to employ the inmates of the workhouse upon the work mentioned in this paragraph. The reply to the third paragraph is also in the affirmative.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether
  1598
  he is aware that much uneasiness prevails among tenants on the Bath Estate, county Monaghan, who sent their deeds to the Irish Land Commissioners years ago and have not yet got them back; (2) will he explain why, since some tenants have got their deeds returned, all the deeds have not been given up to the tenants in questions; and (3) what steps will he take to get the Irish Land Commissioners to deliver up the deeds not yet returned?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of the fact stated in the first paragraph beyond what is alleged by the hon. Member, but if such uneasiness does prevail, I may, perhaps, assure him that there is no reason for the feeling. It is not accurate to say that some of the tenants have got back the documents forwarded by them to the Land Commission. The documents sent up by the purchasers were copies of the conveyances or vesting orders made at the date of purchase, which were deposited by the Commissioners with the Registrar of Titles. A copy of the Land Certificate is, in every case, upon the completion of tine registration, furnished to the tenants free of charge. This is no doubt the document to which the Question refers; some of the tenants on the estate have already received it, and the remaining tenants will receive it in due course.
  MR. DALYasked whether some of the tenants had not sent in their deeds at all to the Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In that case, of course the deeds have not been registered.

  DUNDALK POST OFFICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for the present delay in selecting a site for a post office in Dundalk, the Board of Works, the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, or the Treasury; whether eight central sites were offered to the Post Office authorities during the last 18 months, and were all rejected on the ground of being too expensive, and, whether for the last seven months three other central sites, in the principal street of the town, were offered to the authorities, and that no satisfactory reply has been received by any of the vendors as to whether any of them will be selected; whether the Post

  1599
  Office authorities are satisfied with any of these sites, and whether the Treasury have declined to consent to the purchase on the ground of expense; and, whether, as he is aware, the postal authorities admit that the present Dundalk office is neither large enough for the officials nor for the accommodation of the public, the Treasury will consent to advance the requisite amount to purchase the most central of these sites, seeing that it is four years since the negotiations for a site began?
  MR. HANBURY: As has been explained to the hon. Member in pursuance of the promise made to him in my reply to his previous Question of the 6th instant on the subject, no less than 12 sites suggested for the new Post Office at Dundalk have been examined and rejected, mostly on the ground that they were too expensive. This has been the cause of the delay which has taken place in the matter, and none of the Departments indicated can be held responsible for it. The Postmaster General has just received a further report from the Board of Public Works upon the other sites mentioned, and he hopes to be able to make a definite proposal to the Treasury in regard to one of them shortly.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that the Chartered Company of South Africa has published and sent to certain Members of this House the Report of Sir Richard Martin, together with the reply of the Company disputing the accuracy of that Report; (2) whether the Company had obtained his consent to this publication before the Report of Sir Richard Martin had been communicated by the Colonial Office to the House; (3) whether Sir Richard Martin had been invited to reply to the strictures of the Company on his Report; and, if so, whether that reply, as soon as received, will be communicated to this House; and (4) whether he is in a position to inform the House that in any settlement of the future Government of Rhodesia no form of compulsory labour will be permitted, and that such decision will be communicated to the natives?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first two Questions is in the
  1600
  negative. I have already, on the 22nd inst., laid these Papers on the Table. The observations of the Company will, of course, be communicated to Sir Richard Martin. The labour regulations will be the subject of careful consideration, but I am unable at present to make any definite statement regarding them?
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could make a statement to the effect that compulsory labour would not be allowed in Rhodesia?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. cannot make any statement in answer to a Question.

  TELEGRAMS (PORTERAGE).
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that 1s. is charged for porterage for the delivery of telegrams from Gweedore, at Crolly Bridge Hotel, the distance being two Irish miles, or within the free delivery of telegrams; and whether the Postmaster General will take immediate steps to secure the free delivery of telegrams at Crolly Bridge Hotel?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes. The subject of the hon. Member's Question has been inquired into on a representation from the proprietor of the hotel. It appears that the distance was reputed to be more than three miles, but it has now been ascertained to be less, and instructions have been given that telegrams for the hotel are to be delivered free.

  PRIMROSE LEAGUE MEETING (MILITARY BAND).
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to an advertisement in the York Evening Press of 24th July, announcing the holding on 28th July of the Jubilee Sports of the Primrose League (Ebor Habitation) at Poppleton Hall, at which a lady was to deliver an address, with dancing to the Artillery band; and whether the rule which precludes the participation of Military bands at political gatherings has been suspended; if so, on what grounds?
  MR. BRODRICKThe following telegram has been received on this matter:
  "The bandsmen were not present as a regimental band, but were playing as civilians. They were not in uniform, and the instruments were their private property."
  The rule referred to in the question has nut been suspended.

  COUNTRY POSTMASTERS.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any arrangement exists by which small country postmasters who have to discharge the duties of the office without assistance are enabled to take an annual holiday; and, if so, of what duration; and, if not, whether such an arrangement can be made in connection with the changes now being carried out by tile Post Office.
  MR. HANBURY: Sub-postmasters are at liberty to take an annual holiday provided they arrange satisfactorily for the discharge of their duties during their absence.

  TRAMCAR FENDERS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the tramcar which killed Miss O'Donnell recently in Dublin was fitted according to the regulations laid down by his Department, that all tramcars shall be fitted with a suitable fender which will act efficiently as a life protector; and if so, how did her death take place by being run over; whether he has received complaints as to the bad manner in which the rails are joined on this line, and demanding a sworn Inquiry; and, whether he can state if he will order a sworn Inquiry into the death of Miss O'Donnell, so as to prevent loss of life in future on this line?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, the car was fitted with a suitable fender. These fenders greatly minimise the risk of injury, but as there must necessarily be some space between the fender and the ground, it is, unfortunately, not impossible that an accident may occur. I must remind the hon. Member that a Coroner's inquest has already been held into the causes of this fatality. I
  1602
  have no power to order a sworn Inquiry. No complaints have been received as to the bad manner in which the rails are joined to the line.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENT (GOVAGH WOOD, IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the I9th instant an accident occurred at Govagh Wood, on the Great Northern Railway, Ireland, by which several persons were injured; whether he can say if it was the fault of an imperfect engine brake that caused this accident: and, what steps will he take to prevent such occurrences in the future?
  MR. RITCHIEI have communicated with the Company with reference to this matter, and the General Manager informs me that "the engine driver in backing his engine to his train at Govagh Wood Junction, after shunting off a carriage, did not keep a proper look out and brought the engine against the train more sharply than he should have done, causing a few passengers who were standing up to receive some slight bruises and cuts. No injury was done to rolling stock, and the brakes were all in perfect order." Engine drivers, as a rule, do their duty admirably and cases of carelessness are rare. I am afraid no steps can be taken to prevent them altogether.
  MR. DALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that some of the passengers were thrown oft their seats on to the floor of the carriages?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question of the hon. Member has been answered.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee has completed its Report on the organisation of the Local Government Board; and, if so, when the Report will be circulated?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I understand that the Committee have agreed to their Report, but it has not yet been received by the Board. As soon as it is received I will consider the question of its circulation.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted upon the farmers of the neighbourhood by the continued operation, so far as the borough of Ruthin is concerned, of The Markets and Fairs (Swine Fever) Order, 1896; whether he is aware that there have been no cases of swine fever in the county of Denbigh for some time; and whether he will repeal the Order?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG, Liverpool, West Derby): I have received representations from Ruthin to the effect indicated by the hon. Member, but although it is the case that no outbreak of swine fever has been reported from. Denbighshire since the early part of May, I am afraid that it would be premature to assume that the disease has been entirely extinguished in that district. I am, however, in communication with the various Local Authorities in the neighbourhood, including Ruthin, with a view to arrangements being made which will, I hope, afford some measure of relief to those affected by the Order to which the hon. Member refers.

  EARTHQUAKE (INDIA).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information as to the destruction by the recent earthquake of the property of the Welsh Presbyterian Foreign Mission Society in the Khasia and Jaintia Hills, and in Sylhet?
  THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I regret to say that very serious damage has been done in Sylhet; but as regards the particular property mentioned in the Question I have as yet received no information.

  SEDITION (ALLEGED) IN INDIA.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the charge of sedition on which proceedings, including arrest and refusal of bail, have been instituted by the Indian Government against Ganhadur Tilak is founded on an article published so far back as the I5th June; and why the prosecution has been deferred to a period when,
  1604
  owing to the prorogation of Parliament, the conduct of these proceedings will be exempted from immediate Parliamentary criticism?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have no information from the Government of India or from that of Bombay as to the date or dates of the article or articles on which this prosecution has been instituted. On questions of this kind the Governments in India must have a free hand, and I do not propose to interfere with them in the exercise of their discretion.
  MR. MACNEILLsaid what he wished to know from the noble Lord was whether the Government of India were responsible to the House of Commons or not?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a Question to be answered.
  MR. MACNEILL: Yes, Sir, I know the answer. [Laughter.]

  POSTAL FACILITIES (CO. DONEGAL).
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received an influentially signed memorial, urging the establishment of a rural post office in a locality called the Derins, a populous district situate about three miles from the town of Ballintra, in the county of Donegal; and whether, having regard to the great advantage the establishment of such a post office would confer upon the surrounding neighbourhood, the Postmaster General will be able to accede to the prayer of this memorial?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not received a memorial for the establishment of a post office in the Derins, near Ballintra, Donegal, but inquiry shall be made in the matter, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  UMARIA COLLIERY (INDIA).
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the Umaria Colliery, belonging to the Government, has been worked, and the price of coal fixed at so low a rate, as to produce in the year I895 a profit of only 0·13 per cent. on the capital, and in the year 1896 a loss of Rx. 1,436; (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the

  1605
  published reports (Administration Report, Railways) that the capital outlay on 31st December 1895, was Rx. 1,078,863; that Rx. 88,911 was expended on capital account during 1896, making the total capital outlay on 31st December 1896, Rx. 1,167,774; and that the receipts during the year 1896 were Rx. 379,429, and the expenditure Rx. 380,865, showing a loss of Rx. 1,436; and (3) whether there are other colliery companies paying royalties to the Government which are deprived of any dividend by their price for coal being forced down by reason of the bounty system adopted by the Indian Government?
  LORD GEORGE (HAMILTON): The figures given in clauses (1) and (2) of the hon. Member's Question appear to be correctly cited from the reports presented to Parliament, with this difference, that the figures for capital expenditure, yearly receipts and expenditure, profit, and loss, are stated at ten times the actual amounts as given in the Reports. I am not aware of any Indian collieries that pay royalty to Government except those in Assam and Burma; and I do not think the coal of those companies has ever reached or is likely to reach the Central India Railways, which now consume 70 per cent. of the total output of Umaria coal.

  SHERIES BYE-LAWS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many fishery bye-laws have been annulled by the Privy Council since Mr. Cecil Roche's appointment as Fishery Commissioner, and how many of these related to the Black water: and can any estimate be formed of the expense to which these invalid bye-laws have put their opponents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that six bye-laws made by the Inspectors of Fisheries, since Mr. Roche's appointment in July 1892, have been annulled by the Privy Council, three of which related to the Fisheries of the Blackwater. During the same period the number of bye-laws made and approved of was 51. The inspectors are unable to form any estimate as to the expense to which bye-laws not approved of have put their opponents.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right. hon. Gentleman could suggest to Mr. Cecil Roche that he might leave the Blackwater alone for a while?
  [No answer was given.]

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the grievances of town tenants and introduce a Measure next Session securing to them their improvements and occupation under similar circumstances as given by legislation to agricultural tenants; and, whether a Commission will be appointed to inquire into and report upon the subject to this House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): This Question has been answered before, and I can only re-echo what was said the other day by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, that I cannot give any promise in reference to such legislation at present.

  IRISH LAND ACTS (LOYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will advise that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Irish Land Acts shall not sit until Parliament meets next year, in order that the tenants may have their interests protected by their representatives in the house of Commons?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the House, although it has complete control over any action which the Government or anybody else might endeavour to take on the Report of the Royal Commission, cannot interfere with this investigation, and, therefore, it is immaterial whether the House is sitting or not when it is resumed.
  MR. DALYasked where the Commissioners were to sit?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no information upon that point. The Commissioners may, of course, sit in such place as they may think will be most conducive to the progress of the investigation.

  SUPPLY (COLONIAL OFFICE VOTE).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the arrangements for Votes in Supply, he will arrange that a full opportunity is given for discussing the Colonial Office Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not myself see that there is much prospect of time being afforded for the further discussion of the Colonial Vote. The hon. Baronet will remember that the Vote was brought on about a quarter past ten a few nights ago and that there was a discussion of two hours on it on that occasion. And I must further remind the hon. Baronet that we have discussed, not indeed the Colonial Vote, but questions intimately connected with the Colonies during a whole night since that period. I have received very strong representations from hon. Gentlemen below the Gang way opposite in favour of the discussion of other Votes, and I think that the latter should have precedence. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, with the exception of two hours' discussion the other night, there had been no discussion upon the Colonial Vote since May 1890?
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it was not the fact that a large number of Irish Votes, including the Constabulary Vote and the Vote for the Chief Secretary, had been so far entirely undiscussed?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the importance of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies made last Monday as to the South African policy of the Government, he would not give the House an opportunity of discussing it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I confess that the opinion which I have already expressed in reference to this point, so far from being shaken by
  1608
  what the hon. Baronet has just said, is confirmed by it. If the object of the hon. Baronet is to make a debating reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the other night, I can only say that I think that it would be very inexpedient to afford an opportunity for further discussing the Vote. ["Hear, hear!"]

  FIGHTING AT MALAKAND.
  SIR E ASHMEAD - BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for India whether he had any information to give the House as to the fighting at Malakand.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have received the following telegram:—
  "From Viceroy, July 29, 1897. Camp attacked again last Light. Casualties.—Lieutenant Ford, 31st Bengal Infantry, wounded severely; Lieutenants Maclean, Guides, Swinley, 31st Bengal Infantry, slightly wounded; two sepoys killed, eight wounded. Enemy's loss not known. They charged up to breastworks, but could not penetrate. Pursuit was not attempted, owing to fatigue of men. Chakdara safe. Dargai has not been attacked. Officers wounded doing well, except Colonel Lamb and Lieutenant Ford, whose condition is serious."
  They go on to say that reinforcements would probably reach Malakand yesterday evening; and this evening I received the following telegram:—
  "From Viceroy, July 30, 1897. Malakand. Total casualties up to July 29 apparently:— Killed, European officers and non-commissioned officers, three; native ranks, 17; followers, 15. Wounded: European officers, nine; native ranks, 71; followers, 11."

  WEST INDIAN COMMISSION.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom he had given private notice of the Question, whether his attention had been drawn to the issue by certain newspapers of what purported to be the Report of the West Indian Commission, although that Report was not yet published; whether it was known who was responsible for this unauthorised and premature publication of the views of the Commissioners; and whether, having regard to the anxiety

  1609
  with which the Report was waited for, he could persuade the Commissioners to issue their Report by Wednesday next?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the statement in the papers to which the lion. Gentleman refers. I do not know, however, whether there is the slightest foundation fir the statement that that statement expresses, in part or wholly, the views which will he contained in the Report of the Commissioners; and I do not see much good in pursuing inquiry into such a matter. Nowadays the enterprise of the Press is such that every confidential document gets into the hands of the Press, sometimes before it is written—[laughter]; and although I think that it is unfortunate, I do not see how any Government can prevent it. As to the last Question, I really cannot put any pressure upon the Commissioners to hasten their Report. I know that they are well aware of the anxiety with which the Report is anticipated, and that they are doing all they can to bring it into shape at the earliest moment. but I should not like to hurry them iii any way in a matter of such great importance.

  LAND TRANSFER BILL.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKasked the First Lord of tic Treasury whether, in view of the many Amendments on the Paper to the Land Transfer Bill, he intended to proceed with the Measure this Session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall he obliged to my lion. Friend if he will defer that Question. I admit that the condition of the notice Paper, and the information which I have been able to collect as to the opinions at all events of a section of the House, does not make me very sanguine as to the prospects of the Bill: but I. do not propose to make a final statement to-day.

  RIVER TRENT.
  MR. BIGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would lay
  1610
  upon the Table of the House the report of the Local Government Board's inspector on the condition of the Brent at Hartwell?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot make any promise of that kind, because it is a confidential report to myself.

  GROCERS' CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading [this day] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (EXEMPTION FROM PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time To morrow, and to be printed. —[Bill 336.]

  POOR LAW ACT (1889) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to extend and amend the provisions of The Poor Law Act, 1889, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Flower, Sir Henry Bemrose, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Hazell, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Harry Samuel.
  Presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday nest, and to be printed.—[Bill 338.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    FORM ON PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the bill be now read the Third Lime."
    MR. LOUGHsaid lie hail put a notice m. the Paper of a Motion for the recommittal of the Bill in respect of Clause I. His chief object had been to call attention to the position in which the House was

    1611
    placed by the new system of the Government—that of bringing in short but drastic Bills, and refusing to accept any Amendments upon them. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had received the support of many of his followers by promising Amendments in another place. The House of Commons ought not to be asked to pass a Bill on such conditions. The right hon. Gentleman had promised that the Bill should not apply to the case of goods made in Indian Prisons and sent here not for sale; and, further, that the Bill should not apply to goods in transit. Those promises alone would justify the Motion for re-committal, because the House had a right to know how the promises were carried out. While he protested against the treatment of the House of Commons by the Government, he should not trouble, at so late a period of the Session, to Divide the House, so he would not move the Motion of which he had given notice.
    MR. WALLACEmoved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." He said that the Bill had been treated as though it were wholly ridiculous. To a large extent it was ridiculous. The evil with which it professed to grapple was infinitesimal, almost non-existent, and the method for dealing with it was quite ineffectual. But while that was so, in another aspect it was a very dangerous Bill. It did not deal with a real and palpable evil. It was simply a sort of declaratory Bill for the purpose of placing upon the Statute-book an abstract statement of a general principle from which practical Measures of a most vicious nature would in future be evolved by the open and disguised protectionists on the other side. lie was much interested in observing that the Secretary to the Colonies had been manifesting a peculiar interest in the fortunes of this Bill. It was a circumstance of evil omen, and the probability was that the Colonial
    1612
    Secretary had mischief in view in connection with it. If so, they might surely know that the mischief would in due time come about. The abstract principle underlying it was simply the old and for ever buried principle of protection to native industry, the negation of absolute free trade. However useful the cry of "Down with convict goods for the British consumer" might be as an expedient of unscrupulous electioneering, in all other respects it seemed downright nonsense. They might just as well say that goods produced from horse labour were equine goods—[a laugh] — or goods manufactured by the assistance of coal were carbonaceous goods, or that goods imported by sea were salt goods, as to maintain that goods made by convicts must necessarily be convict goods in the sense that they had been criminally produced and placed on the market by a crime. He admitted that there was a certain offensive suggestiveness connected with prison labour. He knew shirts were made in prisons and more or less extensively sold outside them. Suppose he went into the market and saw a remarkably good shirt at a remarkably moderate price—say, 4s. or 5s. and 113/4d.—[laughter]—and he purposed acquiring that shirt, but some officious person gave him the information that it was made by a celebrated German murderer, who put the finishing touch to it the night before he was hanged. [Laughter.] On learning this, he naturally shrank from his purchase, and preferred investing his money and himself in a garment with a less homicidal history. [Laughter.] But why should his neighbour who knew nothing about this be prevented by law from buying and enjoying that shirt simply because it was a shirt "with a past"? [Laughter.] Or why should his other neighbour, who was somewhat of a philosopher, to whom pleasure and pain were much the same thing, and who had learned to know there was no such thing as the disagreeable if he only looked at

    1613
    the thing so-called in the right way— why should he be prevented from saving his 2s. 6d. by a stoical control of his feelings? The whole thing was simply a question of taste, but surely they were not going to base serious legislation merely upon considerations of taste ! ["Hear, hear!"] If they were going to shut out such goods because of their cheapness, where were they going to stop? He was sure the hon. Member for Sheffield, who in this matter was the non-official tail that was wagging the Government dog, would go on unto perfection if he could. The hon. Member would cordially approve of the language used in this House by Mr. Keir Hardie, who said: "The Trade Unionists were not going to allow the sweater or the underpaid labour of Continental nations to come into competition with them," and that the present question "was the thin end of the wedge to secure that object." In that Debate sweated labour and prison labour were treated practically by several speakers as standing on the same footing. Accordingly, when once they had established this avowal of protection on the Statute-book they had changed the attitude of the law in this matter, and made it regard these things, not from the consumer's but from the producer's point of view. The cry of "Down with convict goods for the British consumer" would be succeeded by a large number of similar cries. It was notorious that on the Continent of Europe wages were lower and hours were longer than here; and in the Far East, in Africa and India, the labourers were producing a great amount of goods for our markets. and were made to live on almost next to nothing and to lead the lives of beasts of burden. So the labouring population of this country, taking note of this, would not be slow to raise the cry "Down with sweated foreign coal and iron"; "Down with sweated German matches"; "Down with sweated diamonds and up with the British pebble jewellery"—[laughter]; "Down with sweated tea and coffee and up with English Bovril and beer;" "Down with slave-caught ivory and up with British ornaments in bone "—[laughter]; "Down with Turkish tobacco and up with the brown paper cigars of Whitechapel." [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet would be justified in
    1614
    taking note of these unequal conditions and in joining in the cry of "Five shillings a quarter on wheat, and God bless the British landlord." [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, who were sound protectionists at heart, would cry "Down with bounty-fed foreign butter and up with the native article of Cork and Kilkenny"—[laughter]—while the sugar magnates would cry "Down with bounty-fed sugar and up with the refineries of Greenock." This was by no means an exaggerated description and forecast of the Bill and its natural developments. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not forget the description of the late President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Montrose, and the Colonial Secretary, wherein they all affirmed that this matter had nothing to do with free trade. He preferred, however, to go back to the fathers of free trade, and they had no hesitation in applying the principles of free trade to far uglier cases than prison-made goods. They defended not only the admission of slave-grown cotton and slave-grown coffee and tobacco, hut the far crueler case of slave-grow a sugar; they insisted on being put on the same fiscal footing as sugar produced by our fellow-subjects in the colonies by means of free and paid labour. Yet the founders of free trade were Lord John Russell and Lord Howick. ["No," and some laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Members might laugh at these memories, but he had learned more from these old free traders in an hour than he expected to learn from the hon. Member who laughed in a life-time. [Laughter and cheers.] Those founders of free trade included also Milner Gibson, Villiers, and Bright; and they all maintained the principle of admitting on equal terms slave-produced sugar with the sugar produced by the free labour of the colonies. These fathers of free trade had no hesitation in the matter because they were not feeble sentimentalists or timid and hesitating reasoners who could not carry out their principles to their legitimate conclusions. ["Hear, hear!"] If he were to be dictated to by authorities in this matter he preferred the classics of the old school to the doctors of the modern school of economics. There was the ex-President of the Board of Trade whom

    1615
    he might possibly call the "universal doctor," because he knew so much. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman said that protection was not in this Bill; but his ipse dixit was not enough. Then the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, whom he might without offence call "the subtle doctor," because he splits airs so deftly and so diligently—[laughter]—appealed to history and to logic; but, unfortunately, his history was false and his logic wrong. [Laughter.] He did not understand how his right hon. Friend had fallen into the error as to the attitude of Mr. Bright in the matter of Free Trade and slave-produced sugar. It was all the more unintelligible because in the right hon. Gentleman's "Life of Cobden" there occurred a large note in small print occupying two-thirds of a page, in which that original thinker and great publicist delivered a scathing attack on the silliness of those who opposed cheap sugar merely on the ground that it was slave-grown; and whatever Cobden had thought out and stated, Bright would reproduce with eloquence and iteration. He could only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had not read his own "Life of Cobden"; he must have thought when he wrote it that he had done all that could be expected of him, and he wisely left the labour of reading it to other people. The Colonial Secretary had also a doctrine in this matter, and if he were to assign the right hon. Gentleman his doctorial position he would describe, him as "the angelic doctor"—[laughter]— from qualities which were too obvious to require special mention. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman said that this question had nothing to do with Free Trade; it had only to do with the principles of common sense and common justice. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had lately advanced strange opinions on common justice. He hoped he had not extended these principles to the domain of common sense, and he should be pleased to hear that he did not think the principles of free trade and the principles of common sense and common justice were essentially diverse from on another. For his own part, he had always thought they were simply different names for the same thing. ["Hear, hear!"] Surely it was common sense to prefer to
    1616
    buy a cheap brush when you could get it, rather than buy a dear brush because you had not arrived at a correct and complete history of the genesis of the cheap brush. That Was common sense, and, put in the scientific language of the old free-traders, it was just the old maxim about buying in the cheapest market. ["Hear, hear!"] As to common justice, surely it was no more than common justice to insist that the interests of the whole consuming community should not be subordinated to those of the small class of producers. ["Hear, hear!"] Let them note that this was to a certain extent a resuscitation of the old problem and difficulty about machinery. He sympathised with the condition of the workmen who smashed machines when introduced; but machinery was an unspeakable blessing to the community at large, and they must hold that the breaking of machinery was a scientific blunder as well as a crime. He held that a prison with cheap labour available was simply a goods-producing machine, and a Bill of this kind was from that point of view a piece of reactionary barbarism—a going back to the machine-breaking days. As for the hypothetical distressed brush maker, he would comfort such an individual—if he existed—by showing him that if all trades were protected, his condition as a consumer would be much worse. ["Hear, hear!"] For these reasons and others he grudged to mention, considering the pressure of business, he moved the rejection of what he must describe as an uncalled for, absurd, and contemptible electioneering device. [Cheers.]
    MR. COLVILLEsaid that after the able and eloquent address of his hon. Friend, he did not propose to detain the House more than a few moments in seconding the Motion. The Government had established no real necessity for such reactionary legislation. The explanation that it was an attempt to protect home industry would undoubtedly sound well on the platform, and provide a spurious argument with which to try and catch the labour vote. Yet, having regard to the fact that the labour electorate already understood what were the leading principles of the present Government, and, judging of their action during this Session and the last, were quite able to come to a just

    1617
    appreciation of the intentions of the Government with regard to the masses of the communities, he looked on the Bill as a mere red herring drawn across the path, which would not have much influence on either the bye-elections or tile future General Election. It seemed to him to be an attempt to put back the hands of the clock and restore, if only in a small way, the Protection of the past. As his hon. Friend had said, they could hardly stop at Prison-made Goods. Immediately this Bill was put on the Statute-book, they would find other industries which conceived themselves to suffer from foreign competition, putting in a claim on this reactionary Government to have Protection on their behalf. It took no prophet to foresee that when they began such legislation, it would go on, and ultimately they would have the agricultural classes demanding the reestablishment of that abominable legislation which formerly disgraced the Statute-book, and which caused such wide-spread misery by making food so dear. No argument of his was required to attack this Bill. He felt with confidence, representing one of the largest labour constituencies in Scotland, that lie could return to his constituents and point out the true policy of this Bill, and show that instead of an honest attempt to improve the condition of the working classes it was merely an attempt to turn aside the minds of the electors from what they were entitled to expect from this Government with its large majority, viz., legislation in the interests of the whole community and not of the privileged classes. He, therefore, had great pleasure in seconding the Motion "That the Bill be read a Third time that day six months."
    *MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the House would realise that the Member for Edinburgh had taken evident pains to prepare the speech which he had just delivered, and which had caused so much amusement. No one ever doubted that the lion. Member could make a certain number of good jokes. [Laughter.] But he rose in his humble way for the purpose of drawing the greatest possible amount of attention to the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Member said this was an electioneering Bill. [Opposition cheers.] He did not appear to see that when he said that, he gave away his whole case. When he
    1618
    referred to the hon. Member's jokes, he did so not for the purpose of saying that he did not enjoy the jokes, but in order to draw the attention of the House to the contrast that existed between the hon. Member's jokes and the tenets of the gloomy school of politicians to which he was so anxious to remind the House that he belonged, lie meant the school of mathematical politicians who took into all their calculations everything human and divine, excepting only human nature. That the Bill was based upon human nature and popular desire was proved by many interesting matters of evidence. One of these to which the hon. Member himself would pay some respect was the fact that year by year the Bill had been loudly demanded in tones to which even the hon. Member was bound to pay regard, by the Trades Union Congress. The hon. Member would net say that that Congress were self-constituted representatives of the working classes. Gentlemen opposite were in the habit of telling the rest of the House that what the Congress said was to be accepted as gospel quite as much as the old dicta of the early Free Trade Fathers to whom the hon. Member had appealed; and that appeal had been surrounded with such magnificent mystification that lie began himself to feel alarmed lest in some mysterious way, in supporting this Bill he had been supporting slave labour in the West Indian Colonies. But there was a much simpler explanation of the Bill, and the hon. Member, with all his knowledge of history, had not been able to arrive at this simple solution. What the hon. Member called a vicious principle and what he characterised as nonsense, was nothing more nor less than the principle which we had been practising for years as regards our domestic prison administration. That principle was that prison labour should be restricted at home to the production of such articles as were required for the Government Departments and such further articles as were necessary to give useful and educative employment to the convicts—a rule framed, not in the interests of trade, but in the interests of prison administration alone. ["Hear!"] It was a very simple thing on the part of the working men of this country to ask—for it was

    1619
    on their part that it was asked—that the same principle should be practised with regard to foreign prison-made goods, and that their importation should not go unrestricted. He hoped the hon. Member's speech would be made as public as possible; he could not conceive a better time at which it should have been delivered.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid as the Bill was not likely to produce any practical effect, the sooner they voted on it the better. ["Hear, hear!"] He was in favour of a Bill of this character, but he objected to this Bill because it did not carry out what he and his constituents desired. When the Conservative Government got in at the last General Election, he felt he had this consolation. They had been roaming about the country explaining that they were going to bring in a Bill to prevent the importation of prison-made goods; and, of course, they had carefully considered the thing and were prepared with a Bill that would effect the object about which they had been prating. But the Bill brought in was absolutely worthless. Was that fair upon him and his constituents? [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Edinburgh said the objection to the Bill was that it drew a distinction between convict-made goods and others under the impression that goods made by convicts had something convict about them. [Laughter.] He had never heard that objection. The real idea was that in England they prevented convicts from competing with free labour, and if they could prevent German, French, and Russian convicts from competing they ought to do so. It was the economic wage in prisons that they objected to. His hon. Friend said that possibly a prisoner cost as much as any other workman.
    MR. WALLACE: No, I did not say that.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, his hon. Friend said this—that they must take into consideration in the wage the cost of the prison, keeping the man, housing him, and looking after him. If his hon. Friend's views were carried out logically, not only ought mats to be made in prisons, but other articles of utility also, and he supposed that his hon. Friend would say that such articles, so made, ought to be thrown upon the market, where they could be sold at a
    1620
    cheaper price than the produce of free labour. He did not believe that the working men of the country would accept the views of the hon. Member. They certainly would not be popular in Northampton. The Bill, in his opinion, did not go far enough. It was little more than an abstract declaration in favour of the protectionist views of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield. If, however, it could be shown that the Bill would really prevent foreign prison-made goods from coming into the country, he should be ready to vote for it.
    MR. JOHN DILLONobserved that the Bill was based upon the principle that free labour in this country must not be affected by labour carried on under inferior conditions. The Bill affirmed a far-reaching principle, but only touched the merest corner of the ground that would have to be covered if that principle were carried out. He had a great deal of sympathy with the principle, but on what ground could they select one or two small and rather insignificant trades for protection against the competition of German prison - made goods? How could they refuse to apply the principle to more important interests? How about the produce of cruel and compulsory labour in Rhodesia? Ought not that to be excluded also? If this principle were accepted a protest would be made before long against the importation of goods manufactured by Belgian and German workmen who worked for 12 and 14 hours a day for lower wages than were asked for in this country for an eight hours day. The Bill was a preposterous one, and its only immediate effect would be to exasperate traders, whose consignments would be searched. But it certainly would be made hereafter the basis of a demand by Irish producers for protection against bounty-fed foreign produce, such as butter and hams. The Bill, in short, would be the fruitful mother of many demands on behalf of interests it was considered were injured by free trade. If an election had not been coming on in Sheffield he did not believe that precedence would have been given to this Measure that afternoon, when the House was anxious to begin the discussion of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.

    1621
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 54.—(Division List, No. 345.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    *MR. T. R. BUCHANANproposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." He said it was hardly possible to allow the final stage of the Bill to be taken without a few words of protest from the Scotch Members present. They felt that its being placed in front of the Workmen's Compensation Bill acted as a kind of informal closure upon them; but he desired in a few words to explain to the House the objection they took to the Bill. They considered it was not a Scotch Bill at all, and if it became an Act and went down to Scotland, it might very well be labelled "a Bill made in Canterbury or Rome." It was a Bill which was alien in principle to Scottish ideas of education, and would be a hindrance to the development of Scottish education in the future. It was not merely a Bill based on the principles of English and Irish education, but it was forced on Scotland by English and Irish votes. It was prejudicial to Scotland, because in Scotland they had a much better educational system to spoil. A few weeks ago the First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to a question, said the Scotch Members had always been jealous, and, he added, rightly jealous, of the mixing up English and Scotch questions of education, the systems being so diverse. Those systems had been devised by the different countries out of their own initiative and were suited to their own wants, and the Scotch Members claimed that their system should be
    1622
    developed in the future, as in the past, in accordance with Scotch needs and desires. This was the first occasion that an attempt had been made to force on them English ideas as regards education, which could only have a retrograde and reactionary effect in Scotland. The Scotch system was a thorough-going national system, so much so that in one or two Highland parishes there was Roman Catholic religious teaching in Board Schools because the majority of the population were of that faith. Between the Board and Voluntary Schools there had hitherto not been any jealousy whatever, because they had occupied a clear statutory position, and had enjoyed an absolute statutory equality. No difference had ever been made as regarded Imperial grants, and now a system was to be introduced under which the grant was to be given in a discriminating fashion as against the School Boards. By introducing this new principle into the Scotch system, the Government were doing their best to sow the seeds of enmity between the two kinds of schools. He hoped contention would not arise, but it would not be the fault of the Government if it did not. This Bill contained a foreign system imposed on Scotland by English and Irish votes, contrary to the opinion of Scotch Members. It was educationally bad, it might sow the seeds of contention between School Boards and Voluntary Schools, and it would not give any educational benefit in the way of increased efficiency. Financially, too, it was most unfair to his country. There was a unanimous opinion in Scotland that the financial proposals of the Bill were grossly unfair to Scotland. They claimed that they ought to have had Pa of the sum allocated this year to England, and that they ought to have had the sum devoted to such educational purposes as the education authorities and the people of Scotland desired. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was opposed to the system of equivalent grants, and he should be prepared to agree with him. He should support him on this condition, that when he brought it to an end he should settle up fairly all round. He did not propose to go into the elaborate argument of the Lord Advocate on the Second Reading, but he did say this, there still remained

    1623
    claims for considerable additional sums of money to be devoted to educational purposes, according to Scotch wishes, utterly without regard to the educational exigencies of England or Ireland. He believed that this Bill would be found in Scotland to be strongly opposed to the fixed opinion of the people, and that it would prove to be detrimental to the system of education in Scotland. He begged to move "that the Bill be read a Third time that day three months."
    Mr. JCAL DWELLseconded the Amendment. The people of Scotland knew nothing of this Bill until it was introduced. They were getting too little. What they claimed was that with regard to the Scotch share the sum should be allocated according to Scotch opinion, and that should not be dominated by English opinion. This Bill had been condemned by Scotch opinion. It was being forced on the Scotch Members by English and Irish Members. That was hardly the way to deal with a Scotch question. The value and condition of English education were different from those of Scotland, and the results which applied to England were inapplicable to the code of Scotland. The Bill was neither one thing or the other. In all essential particulars it did not command the support of a majority of the Scotch Members. The total they were to get under this Bill was £66,000 but the amount of the equivalent grant was £98,000. They should treat the school absolutely alike, and if that were done he did not believe that anyone in Scotland would object. But what were they doing? They were placing Denominational Schools in a different position from the Board Schools. They were justified in protesting against the application to Scotland of a Bill which, however well adapted to England, was wholly unsuited to Scotland. He also protested against the Scotch people not being consulted in the matter. If they had been, the money would have been distributed in a very different manner. He further objected that Scotland was unfairly treated in the amount of the money allocated to her under the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said that upon the monetary part of the question nothing had been added to what was
    1624
    said on the Second reading. The question was whether there was a grievance in respect of the amount of money to be given to Scotch requirements by the Bill. It was not right simply to look at the sum given to England in the present year, and to require that its equivalent should be given to Scotland. If the question of equivalent grant were to be raised at all—and he denied that it should—it was necessary to look to the total Imperial subvention of the educational system, and then it would be found that Scotland had nothing to complain of. As to the difference of 2s. between the grant to Scotch Voluntary Schools and that to English Voluntary Schools, that was a question simply as between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark left out of view the £40,000 still available under the Act of 1892.
    MR. CALDWELL: That is Scotch money.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEadmitted that it was, but said that the fact was not relevant in a question simply between Board Schools on the one hand and Voluntary Schools on the other. Of course the number of children in the schools was perpetually increasing, and the undertaking which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered into was that the sum should increase from year to year with the number of the children. It must be remembered that in the past Scotland had been enjoying a 12s. grant as compared with a 10s. grant in England, and that had helped the schools to earn a larger grant. First, that additional grant operated on the question of the 17s. 6d. limit, for it was allowed to be calculated as part of local resources; and then, by tending to increased efficiency, it put the schools in a more advantageous position to earn more grant. As to the more general criticisms of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, he only wished that more of the hon. Gentleman's Irish Friends had been present to hear his denunciation of the Bill as having been made in Canterbury and Rome. Was the demand of the Scotch Roman Catholic schools for additional assistance just or not? The Government thought it was, and therefore were not moved by the objection that the proposal was carried against the votes of the majority of Scotch Members. If the cause of

    1625
    justice had to be vindicated by Irish and English votes, so much the worse for the majority of Scotch Members. [Cheers and laughter.] It was absurd to talk about the Bill introducing an alien system into the education of Scotland, because it did not in the least degree change the existing system. The Government had never pretended that this particular Bill was a step forward in the general educational system of Scotland; it was still one of their cherished hopes to help secondary educational in Scotland more in the future than they had done in dm past. The Bill was a simple measure of justice to the Voluntary Schools.
    DR, CLARKsaid that he was very glad that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire lead moved the rejection of the Bill. It was a last protest against the policy of the Government. First, the did not give to Scotland a fair and just equivalent of what had been given to England. But if it had done that, he should still have voted for the rejection of the Bill, because of the method in which the money was applied. He protested against the idea that Scotland, with 300 years of national education, should be hampered, tied and limited in its future by the requirements of England and Ireland, where national education was but beginning to lie built up. The Government, now that it suited them, had abandoned the equivalent grant system. The Scotch Members protested against the system when it was established, but the Government insisted upon it, that Scotland might not have a larger proportionate sum than England. When the Government adopted a principle, good or had, they might at least adhere to it consistently. The point on which Scotch Members felt the strongest was efficiency, and upon that they were agreed in the proportion of four to one. But the majority found themselves in the minority Lobby because English and Irish Members insisted upon their views prevailing. Scottish national feeling and desire had been neglected and refused by Parliament, and hence the Scotch Members must refuse and repudiate this Bill. They repudiated the Bill of I889, because it was dishonest and contrary to the Articles of Union. This was an ingenious and
    1626
    plausible Bill, but it was not contrary to a bargain made. The English had done something for themselves, and they required, in consequence of that, to do something for the Scotch. Let them do it in the fashion the Scotch would like. Until now, everything Scotland had done for the Board Schools they had done for denominational Schools. Hitherto there had been no jealousy between the two sets of schools; and if there was jealousy in the future, it would be simply because Government showed special favour to denominational schools. He heard with pleasure the Lord Advocate's statement that the Government hoped during the present Parliament to do something for secondary education. What the Scotch wanted for education as a whole, even more than money, was organisation. Re trusted the Government would do something in that direction and do it in accordance with the desires of the Scotch people, rather than in accordance with the whims and needs of the English and Irish.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: —A yes, 163; Noes, 62.—(Division List, No. 346.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
    Clause 1,—
    LIABILITY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO WORKMEN FOR INJURIES.

    (1.) If in any employment to which this Act 1 applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.

    (2.) Provided that:—

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

    (b) When the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose

    1627
    act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the workman may, at his option, either claim compensation under this Act, or take the same proceedings as were open to him before the commencement of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation for injury to a workman by accident both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to pay such compensation independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act;

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

    (3.) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability to pay compensation under this Act (including any question as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the second schedule to this Act.

    (4.) If an action is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by any accident, and it is determined in such action that the injury is one for which compensation ought to have been claimed under this Act, the action shall not be dismissed, but the damages recovered from the employer shall not exceed the compensation payable under this Act:
    Provided that where in any such action it is determined that the compensation ought to have been claimed under this Act, the costs incurred in defending such action may be deducted from the amount of compensation so payable.

    (5.) Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories to recover penalties under Section eighty-two of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, and Acts amending the same, but if such penalty, or any part thereof, has been applied for the benefit of the person injured, the amount so applied shall be taken into account in estimating the compensation under this Act.

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool)moved, "That this House do agree with the following Lords' Amendments": Subsection (1), paragraph (b) after "accident" insert "arising out of and in the course of the employment."
    Leave out "pay such compensation" and insert "any proceedings."
    After "Act" insert "as aforesaid." Amendments agreed to.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYmoved that the House do agree with the Lords in their Amendment of Sub-section (c). The Lords struck out the words "accident is solely" and inserted instead "injury to a workman is."
    MR. J. WILSONsaid this was, in the view of the Labour representatives, a most serious Amendment. After tracing by quotations from "Hansard" the various attempts to find a satisfactory form of words in which to embody the principle of the sub-section, he said that the sub-section, as finally settled in this House, was not moved by a private Member on the spur of the moment, but as the result of severe investigation and careful consideration on the part of the Government. The alteration made by the Lords was not for the benefit of the workman, but to mollify the employing classes who had brought pressure to bear on the Government. Its sole intention, as was proved by the speech of the Home Secretary to the deputation headed by the Marquess of Londonderry to the Prime Minister, the Secretary for the Colonies, and himself, was to make the Bill less detestable to the employers. He objected to the clause being put in altogether, but his objection to removing the word "solely" was that it was a direct collision with the principle of the Bill as announced by its introducers. In the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, it was distinctly stated that the intention was that litigation should be obviated, that there should be no room for uncertainty, that compensation should be made for every accident, no matter how caused, as surely as light follows the darkness. He maintained that the removal of the word "solely" widened the area and enlarged the chances of litigation and friction between employer and employed. How close would the investigation be in order to see how much a man had done towards the accident? What part was the employer to play in it. The tendency of every Amendment had been to congest the Courts, burden the arbitrations, and restrict the time in which the workmen would receive the benefit he ought to get from this Bill. If anyone would show him wherein the boon to the workman lay in this amendment that the workman had not to pay for it, that opportunities for litigation did not

    1629
    lurk in the clause, then his Opposition to it would cease at once. He declared, however, that the House of Commons, and not the House of Lords, were the representatives of the people, and that they had expressed the mind of the electorate on the question of compensation to workmen. He should like to know which party represented the Government on this point—the Peers or the Members of the Treasury Bench; in which House did it sit, and which voice was the true voice of the Government?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CRAMBEIMAIN, Birmingham, W.): I think that the hon. Member in his very energetic speech has entirely exaggerated the importance of this Amendment. [Cheers.] I must say, however, that in this he is consistent We know perfectly well from his own statement that he has not been a friend to this Bill as it was introduced, that he would gladly have seen it withdrawn, although he has not actively opposed it, and it has been his practice throughout the discussion on the Bill whenever any Amendment was proposed and accepted by the Government to declare that the acceptance of it destroyed the whole value of the Bill, such as it was. But that practice has been carried a little too far, and I am certain not only with regard to this Amendment but to others it will be found in practice that not one of them has in any substantial way injured the Bill so far as the workmen are concerned, or seriously diminished the benefits which the workmen are intended to receive. On the other hand, I wish the hon. Member had reminded the House—and it would have been much more fair—if in referring to the deputation he had pointed out that the Amendments on which that deputation laid most stress have all been rejected at the instigation of the Prime Minister and the Members of the Government. It is ridiculous for the lion. Member to make out that there is any division of opinion among the Members of the Government sitting in one House and the Members of the Government sitting in the other House. We are entirely agreed— [ironical laughter]—and the action of the Government in the other House is also the action of the Government in this House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member went on to say that Amendments have
    1630
    been introduced with a view to mollify the employer. But Amendments have also been introduced with a view to satisfy the requirements and desires of the workmen; and I do not think on a balance it will be found that the Amendments introduced are unfavourable to the workmen. On the contrary, I think that when we come later on to deal with them we shall find concessions made to the workmen which do very much more to compensate than anything which is taken from them; but if it had been the object to mollify the employers as a class I should say that it was not an object for which we need be ashamed. A Bill of this kind can only work satisfactorily with the good-will of both workmen and employers; and I am happy to believe that, on the whole, the employers of the country are deeply concerned in tins Measure, and they have accepted it—I will not say gladly, but loyally—and we have every reason to believe that they will carry it out in the spirit in which it was intended to be carried out. I do not complain of the history of the Amendment which the lion. Member has given, though I think he carried matters rather far when lie suggests that because the Government ex hypothesi gave serious consideration to a Bill, then every Amendment introduced must be something to make the Bill worse. We have never maintained in a matter of this kind that a Bill is introduced as if it never could be improved; and we have accepted front all parties in the House Amendments which would conduce to a just carrying out of our intention. The word "solely" was not, it is true, introduced in the early discussions of this Amendment. In the first instance there was no reference to the case of "gross and wilful negligence" of the workmen, but it was admitted not merely by the employers but also by representatives of the workmen, that it would be a monstrous thing to compensate a workman whose wilful and gross fault had brought on himself and others serious injury. To do so was really to take away one of the causes which might lead to the prevention of accidents—almost to induce accidents instead of to prevent them. In the attempt to deal with this matter, which I admit is a very complicated one, we tried one form of words after another; but we have never been able to please

    1631
    the hon. Member. In the first instance the proposal was that wherever an accident was due to the wilful breach of rules and regulations, or drunkenness, or gross misconduct—in all these cases the workman was not to receive compensation. The word "solely" was not introduced then; it was where the accident was attributable to those causes that the word "solely" was introduced. That was objected to because it was pointed out that it might go too far, and rules might be made, a breach of which might not constitute wilful and serious negligence. On the other hand, it was argued that where a rule was made in order to secure the safety of the workmen and the accident was due to a breach of such rule, then it ought to hold as gross and wilful negligence. We agreed to that argument, and we took out those specific words, and we left the provision in the form in which it has been amended by the other House. In the other House it was pointed out that that would clearly lead to injustice, and I do not think it can be denied even by the hon. Member. If you say you must prove that the accident is "solely" attributable, probably you will never be able to prove it, although there might have been much gross and wilful negligence. I am sure that hon. Members would not pretend that a workman in such circumstances is entitled to compensation, yet you could not say that the accident was "solely" attributable to any one cause, because an accident almost invariably is connected with more than one cause, and "solely" would bar all these cases. I will give one case. Suppose an accident were due, using the words here, to "serious and wilful misconduct" of two workmen engaged in one operation. Then, as it would not be "solely attributable" to the action of either, for both of these men are guilty, it is doubtful whether they would come in for compensation. There is evidently a blot in our work, and although it is true we gave serious consideration to the matter before proposing the provisions, yet when it was pointed out that a construction of this kind would be unfair and unjust, we thought it would be right to accept or to consider an Amendment to remove that injustice. As the section will stand with the Amendment of the other House, I do not think it
    1632
    makes a great difference. It takes a very great lawyer to see the exact difference between "attributable" and "solely attributable." The only fear is whether by the word "solely" we should let in the doctrine of contributory negligence, which we expressed our desire to exclude. I do not think it would be the case; at the same time, the Government are not indisposed to consider any alteration of the words which would make the point even clearer than it is at present. It is suggested to my mind that the object might be attained if we were to replace the word "solely" by the word "mainly." I think that by the insertion of that word we should get rid of the old doctrine of contributory negligence, and at the same time make it clear that where the negligence is serious and wilful, and has caused the accident, the compensation should be disallowed.
    *SIR C. DILKE: It is too late to do that now, according to the Speaker's ruling on the last Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: If an Amendment of that kind were to commend itself to the House, the hon. Member would possibly withdraw his Amendment, and then we could move to amend the Amendment. I only throw out the suggestion because there is no use in making Amendments unless they are accepted by those for whose benefit they are intended. I may say on behalf of the Government, however, that we should be prepared to meet it.
    *MR. SPEAKER: It would not now be in order to amend the Lords' Amendment. I have already put the question, "That the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    *SIR C. DILKEsuggested that the Lords' Amendment should be struck out, and that then, in another place, the Amendment in the altered form agreed upon should be inserted.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was the best way out of the difficulty. If the proposal of the Government to introduce the word "mainly" was accepted by the House, the Amendment would be made in another place. ["Hear!"]
    MR. C. FENWICKsaid the introduction of the

    1633
    word "mainly" would be an improvement on the clause as it stood, but it would not be altogether satisfactory. The Colonial Secretary, in defending the insertion of the word "solely" in Committee of the House, said "it was an endeavour on my part on behalf of the Government to give effect to what we believe are the wishes of the workpeople." That was quite true, but now, at the instigation of the employers, that word "solely," which alone reconciled the workpeople to the sub-section, was struck out. It was well that the country should understand that. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURYsaid the stress laid upon the word "solely" by the workmen was quite new, for it had only arisen at this stage of the Bill. [''Hear, hear!"]
    MR. FENWICK: It arose in the Committee stage. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE: FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that in any case he hoped the House would not allow itself to be led into the position of supposing that every Amendment to the Bill which happened to be pleasing to the employers was therefore, and for that reason, injurious to the workmen; nor, on the other band, of supposing that every Amendment which happened to be pleasing to the workmen was therefore, and for that reason, injurious to the employers. ["Hear, hear!"] What the Government proposed to do was this— they would disagree with the Lords' Amendment; they would send back the Bill again to the Lords in the shape it lead originally reached the Lords —so far, at least, as this particular sub-section was concerned; and they would do their best in the Lords to introduce the word "mainly," so that the same object would be obtained if the Rules of the House had permitted them to make themselves the Amendment in the Lords' Amendment.
    *MR SPEAKER: The Attorney General has suggested a method by which the Question can be dealt with in this House namely, by this House agreeing with the Lords' Amendment, in which case the words "injury to the workman is" would stand, and then by inserting after those words, as a substantive Amendment, the word "mainly." The phrase would then run, "injury to the workman is mainly."
    MR. VICARY GIBBS,who was received with cries of "agreed," said he did not agree with the suggested Amendment. He thought the Lords' Amendment was a most material improvement of the Bill. Suppose a workman by serious and wilful misconduct smoked in a mine, in winch another workman by serious and wilful misconduct had left gunpowder, and an explosion was caused, who was to settle which of the men was "mainly" responsible for the accident? The accident could not occur without the act of either of the men. He thought the introduction of the word "mainly" was a slovenly way of dealing with the matter.
    MR. ALFRED LYTTELTONsuggested that "directly" and not "mainly" should be the word adopted. "Mainly" was a word absolutely unknown in this particular kind of legislation, and was far more likely to lead to litigation than the word "directly," winch was a word familiar to lawyers.
    MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the introduction of the word "mainly" would not at all meet the difficulty. Well, he would suggest to the right lion. Gentleman that his first thought in tins matter was the best, and that the use of the word "solely" produced the result that where the master was subject to no complaint, and had done his duty to the workman, the workman should be disentitled to recover where he had been guilty of wilful negligence. It was never intended to allow the employer to escape when he was guilty of negligence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his attitude to this Amendment, and allow the Bill to revert to its original form.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid there was a serious question underlying this discussion. Was it or was it not the intention of the Government to prevent the workman baying compensation if contributory negligence was proved?
    THE: ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): It has nothing to do with it.
    MR. EVANSsaid chat as he understood, the word "solely" was put in precisely with the object of preventing the employer having recourse to the doctrine of contributory negligence to

    1635
    avoid giving the workman compensation. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down, that it would be necessary if the word "solely" was inserted, and it was intended not to allow the doctrine of contributory negligence to be pleaded, to put in some words of tins kind to make the clause read:—
    "If it is proved that the accident is mainly attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman, and not in any degree due to the negligence of his employer, or some person for whom he is responsible."
    If they excluded "solely," and unless they had some such words as he suggested, then undoubtedly the doctrine of contributory negligence would be raised against the workman. He hoped the Government would stick to their own word "solely." With regard to the word "mainly," he agreed with his hon. Friend opposite; for he did not know of a single Act of Parliament of a similar nature in winch the word had been employed. If there was to be any alteration the word "directly" would be better; unless the Government meant to exclude the workman from compensation when there had been negligence on the part of the employer, they should adhere to the word they themselves put in, and ask the Lords to agree to it?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid the words suggested by the hon. Member who had just sat down would re-introduce the doctrine of contributory negligence, not of the workmen, but of the employer, and would at once bring about many of the difficulties which they had hoped had been got rid of. If he believed that the words adopted by the other House would have the effect attributed by hon. Members opposite, he would unhesitatingly vote to disagree with the Amendment. But he did not think so at all. With regard to the word "mainly," he agreed that it would be a great misfortune to have that word put into that Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He was satisfied that no more fertile source of controversy and litigation could be devised than the use of a word which had no legal meaning, and which would involve the necessity of ascertaining the balance between the different causes of an accident. ["Hear, hear!"] From
    1636
    the point of view of hon. Members opposite, and from that of those who desired to make the Bill more effective, he held that the words which had been put in by the other House were the best words that could be adopted. ["Hear, hear!"] Consider what the words were—
    "If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation in respect of that injury shall be disallowed."
    Surely that was quite sound, and sense too. The great advantage of the clause as amended over the words which had been suggested in this discussion was this—that it put to the arbitrator the question, not of what caused the accident, but of what caused the injury. Under these words as adopted by the other House, the workman would be only deprived of the compensation if it appeared that the injury to himself was caused by his own wilful misconduct. Nobody disputed that this was sound in principle, and as he thought that the words introduced elsewhere were clearer and more effective than those introduced in that House, he confessed that he was ready to vote for agreement with them.
    MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid the legal controversy the House had enjoyed for a quarter of an hour was a specimen of what would occur before the arbitrator under the schedule of the Bill. He did not rise to multiply and amplify the subtleties already introduced into the discussion, but to try in two or three sentences to bring the matter to a practical issue. He was surprised that the Attorney General should intimate that the word "solely" was not put into the Bill originally in order to get rid of contributory negligence. The Colonial Secretary, when he proposed it, said: "In the first place it must be an act, to which the accident is solely attributable, and not any question of contributory negligence"; and they had further light thrown on the intention of the Government when the Attorney General reminded the Committee that the accident must be "solely attributable to wilful and serious misconduct which removed altogether the suggestion of contributory negligence." He agreed with an hon. and learned Member that wilful misconduct was a totally different thing from negligence; and what the

    1637
    Colonial Secretary had in his mind, he was sure, was not contributory negligence but contributory misconduct. What he meant was that the misconduct must not be one of a number of contributory causes, but it must be the sole cause of the accident. That was why they wanted to have the word "solely'' in the Bill. The more the alternative suggestions were discussed the less acceptable they became. As to the word "mainly," though he recognised the excellence of the intention which prompted it, it would lead to inextricable confusion. ["Hear, hear!"] And as to the word "directly," unless an accident were directly attributable to a certain act as the approximate cause, the case did not come within the clause at all. On the whole the word "solely" was by far the best expression of the intention they all had in their minds, and they would do well to disagree with the Lords' Amendment and retain that word.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had left out a passage of his speech and had unintentionally done him an injustice. He was pointing out that contributory negligence would be got rid of by the words "solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman," and they were then discussing the negligence of other workmen as distinguished from that of the injured workman himself. But it was quite a mistake to speak, for the purpose they were now dealing with, of anything but the act of the workman himself. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Clarke) that the words sent down from another place were the best. There was good reason for putting in "injury to the workman" instead of "accident"; otherwise it might have been said: "You did not inquire into the personal injury the workman received; you inquired into the cause of the accident." The whole point was whether the words inserted elsewhere were sufficiently protective to the workman. He thought they were. He quite agreed with the criticism of the word "mainly." It was a word of doubtful meaning, and he would suggest that "directly" was a distinct improvement—that was, assuming the House to be not satisfied with the words as they stood.
    MR. W. ABRAHAMhoped the House would forgive him if he endeavoured to show how in the case of a colliery accident the omission of the word ''solely" might be the means of preventing a workman receiving compensation. They had heard trotted out that night the old story of a man smoking a pipe in a pit, as if the act of smoking a pipe in any pit was of itself dangerous. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen were aware that smoking a pipe in a mine was not necessarily any more dangerous than smoking a pipe in the house of Commons would be—unless there happened to be a lot of gas about—[laughter.]—and then it did become dangerous. [Laughter.] He put the case of a collier who, with the connivance and approval of his overman, went to an old barred stall for a pair of rails and an explosion occurred. The man was breaking the rules, but with consent of his superior. Would not that prevent him under this clause from receiving compensation?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINpointed out that in a case in which a workman was actually told by his over-man to do something which led to an accident, it could not be called serious and wilful misconduct on the part of the workman.
    MR.ALEXANDERUREsaid he was satisfied that no other word than "solely" or "exclusively" would exclude the doctrine of contributory negligence.
    *MR. A. HOPKINSONsaid they on that side were agreed that the case which had been postulated ought to receive compensation, and it certainly would do so under the Bill as intended, although the case might be one of contributory negligence. He contended that no one thing was ever the sole cause of any other, and that there were always a number of circumstances involved, and accordingly the Amendment introduced in the other House was an improvement in drafting.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided—Ayes, 155; Noes, 79.—(Division List, No. 347.)

    1639
    Lords' Amendments agreed to—
    In paragraph (c) leave out "a" and insert "that," leave out "injury to that workman" and insert "that injury."
    On the Question that the House do agree with the Lords in the Amendment, to substitute for Sub-section (4) the following:—
    (4) If within the time hereinafter in this Act limited for taking proceedings an action is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by any accident, and it is determined in such action that the injury is one for which the employer is not liable in such action, but that he would have been liable to pay compensation under the provisions of this Act, the action shall be dismissed; but the Judge, if he shall think fit, may himself proceed to assess such compensation, and shall be at liberty to deduct from such compensation all the costs which, in his judgment, have been caused by the plaintiff bringing the action instead of proceeding under this Act. In any proceeding under this sub-section, when the Judge assesses the compensation he shall give a certificate of the compensation he has awarded and the directions he has given as to the deduction for costs, and such certificate shall have the force and effect of an award under this Act.
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that he was prepared to accept the Lords' Amendment in an amended form. It would be observed that the proposed new subsection provided that in the circumstances therein referred to the action should be dismissed, and the Judge, if he should think fit, might proceed to assess the compensation himself. The words of the sub-section would seem to sanction another set of proceedings, and double proceedings it was everybody's desire to prevent. He therefore moved to amend the Lords' Amendment by substituting the words, "The Court in which the action is tried shall proceed to assess such compensation" for the words "The Judge, if he shall think fit, may himself proceed to assess such compensation."
    MR. S. T. EVANSsuggested that after the word "shall" in the Home Secretary's Amendment the words "if the parties agree" ought to be introduced, so that a workman should not be deprived of his right to go before an arbitrator.
    MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)thought that the object which the Home Secretary had in view could be effected under the Lords' Amendment as it had been sent down to that House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALheld that the Amendment was desirable in order to
    1640
    make it clear that the Judge of the Court in which the action was tried was to be constituted the arbitrator without further proceedings.
    MR. PARKER SMITHpreferred that the Lords' Amendment should be passed as it stood, for in its present form, in his opinion, it would be more likely to discourage speculative attorneys and unscrupulous agents from Inducing workmen to proceed by action when they ought really to proceed under this Act.
    SIR E. CLARKEalso thought that the words in the Lords' Amendment were preferable. It would be best to leave it to the Judge to determine whether, in any case that came before him, the circumstances were such that he ought in justice to the parties to assess the compensation himself.
    Amendment to the Lords' Amendment agreed to; Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    The following Lords' Amendments were agreed to:
    In Sub-section (5) leave out "Provided that;" leave out,
    "the right of any of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories to recover penalties under section eighty-two of the Factory and Workshops Act 1878, and Acts amending the same, but if such penalty, or"
    and insert—
    "any proceeding for a fine under the enactments relating to mines or factories, or the application of any such fine, but if any such fine."
    Clause 2,—
    TIME FOR TAKING PROCEEDINGS.

    (1.) Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof, and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment, and the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, with in months from the time of death. Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the want of such notice, or that such want was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause.

    (2.) Notice in respect of an injury under this Act shall give the name and address of the person injured, and shall state in ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date at which it was sustained, and shall be served

    1641
    on the employer, or, if there is more than one employer, upon one of such employers.

    (3.) The notice may be served by delivering the same to or at the residence or place of business of the person on whom it is to be served.

    (4.) The notice may also be served by post by a registered letter addressed to the person on whom it is to be served at his last known place of residence or place of business, and if served by post shall be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter containing the same would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving the service of such notice it shall he sufficient to prove that the notice was properly addressed and registered.

    (5.) Where the employer is a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, the notice shall be served by delivering the same at, or by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to the office, or, if there be more than one office, any one of the offices of such body.

    (6.) A notice under tins section shall not be deemed invalid by reason of any defect or inaccuracy therein, unless the judge who tries the action arising from the injury mentioned in the notice shall be of opinion that the defendant in the action is prejudiced in his defence by such defect or inaccuracy, and that the defect or inaccuracy was misleading.

    In Sub-section (1) leave out "and" ["and the claim"] and insert "in which he was injured and unless"; after "want of" insert "or any defect or inaccuracy in"; leave out "of such notice" and insert "defect or inaccuracy," and after "such want" insert "defect or inaccuracy."
    In Sub-section (5) leave out "shall" and insert "may also" after "to" insert "the employer at."
    Clause 3,—
    CONTRACTING OUT.

    (1.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after taking steps to ascertain the views of the employer and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen of an employer in any employment is on the whole not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act.

    (2.) The Registrar may give a certificate to expire at the end of a limited period not less than five years.

    (3.) No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.

    1642

    (4.) If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable under the scheme, the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act.

    ((5.) If complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workmen of any employer that the provisions of any scheme are no longer on the whole so favourable to the workmen of such employer and their dependants as the provisions of this Act, or that the provisions of such scheme are being violated, or that the scheme is not being fairly administered by the employer, or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking the certificate, the Registrar shall examine into the complaint, and, if satisfied that good cause exists for such complaint, shall, unless the cause of complaint is removed, revoke the certificate, whereupon the funds of the scheme shall he distributed as may be arranged between the employer and workmen, or as may be determined by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the event of a difference of opinion.

    (6.) Whenever a scheme has been certified as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the employer to answer all such inquiries and to furnish all such accounts in regard to the scheme as may be made or required by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

    (7.) The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shall include in his annual report the particulars of the proceedings of the Registrar under this Act.

    Lords' Amendments agreed to: Leave out Sub-section (6).
    In Sub-section (1), after "compensation" insert "benefit."
    Leave out "of an employer."
    On the Lords' Amendment—After "whole" insert "under all the circumstances of the case,"
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid Lord Herschell suggested these words, and they were inserted by the Lord Chancellor. Lord Herschell seemed to think the Registrar of Friendly Societies should consider circumstances expressly excluded by the Colonial Secretary, and the Lord Chancellor thought the insertion of the words "all the circumstances of the case" would meet the view of Lord Herschell. Lord Dunraven contended that every collateral advantage the workman would receive should be considered. He himself contended that the Amendment was diametrically opposed to the views they had expressed before the Bill went up to the Lords, and he moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
    *MR. ASQUITHalso objected to the extension of the cicumstances which, if the Lords' Amendment were adopted, would have to be considered by the Registrar. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary would state the precise effect of the Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he was surprised that his right hon. Friends should ask him for an explanation. of words suggested by Lord Herschell. He himself regarded them as words of supererogation. He did not agree with the account of his views given by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. He had always said that the Registrar should not certify any scheme in, which the contribution of the employer was not equal to his liability under the Bill. Assuming that the liability of an employer under the Bill was £1,000, his contribution to the scheme must be £1,000. He did not see any objection to the Amendment.
    Lords' Amendment disagreed with.
    On the Lords' Amendment: After "the" ["to the workmen"] insert "general body of,"
    MR. J. WILSONasked how the opinion of the general body of the workmen would be obtained.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the question as to how the opinion of the workmen was to be got did not arise. The question was whether the scheme would be more favourable to the general body of the workmen. That was clearly what the Government intended.
    Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    On the Lords' Amendment striking out Sub-section (4),
    *MR. ASQUITHsaid: I confess I am somewhat surprised that no explanation should have been offered from the Treasury Bench of the grounds on which the Government ask the House to reverse the decision at which we arrived a very short time ago and to accept an Amendment entirely in a contrary sense. ["Hear, hear!] I may, perhaps, remind the House of the history of this sub-section. It was originally suggested by a supporter of the Government. It was then taken up in the particular form in which it appears in the Bill by my right
    1644
    hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, and it was accepted in Committee by the Government and by the House without ever the formality of a Division. Upon the Report stage it was subjected to considerable discussion, but it was warmly supported by Members of the Government and finally adopted by the House by an overwhelming majority. [Cheers.] It is now going to be thrown over in deference to the judgment of the House of Lords, and the Government do not think it worth while to give us a word of explanation. That strikes me as rather a novel proceeding. [Cheers.] However, in a very few moments I will give them an opportunity of offering that explanation which I think is so much needed. May I point out, Sir, that when this clause was taken up by the Government it was described by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary as a perfectly fair and reasonable proposition? I think I am quoting his exact words Well, the proposal which my right hon. Friend described as perfectly fair and reasonable is now, as we gather through the ordinary channels of information, denounced by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords as a proposal so unreasonable that he could not conceive how it crept into the Bill. [Laughter and cheers.] My right hon. Friend has said to-night that the Government were, and always had been, in perfect agreement in relation to these matters, so I suppose the apparent discrepancy between these two statements is by some subtle method to be translated into actual agreement. But the question which I think we are entitled to put, and to which I invite an answer, is this: What is it that has caused this united Government first to declare this proposition to be perfectly fair and reasonable, and then in less than three weeks has caused the same united Government to declare that it is so monstrous that no sane man would entertain it for a moment? [Cheers.] Lord Salisbury has been good enough to invent an explanation which is so extremely complimentary to me that the most elementary rules of courtesy require that I should not pass it by without notice. It appears according to Lord Salisbury that his colleagues here in the House of Commons accepted this Amendment without in the least understanding what the meaning of it was, that it was adopted by

    1645
    this House under the same conditions of ignorance and bewilderment, and, more terrible still, that Lord Salisbury and his colleagues in the House of Lords w ere in the very act of accepting it and abolishing contracting-out without realising what they were doing, when an illuminating phrase of mine flashed across the darkness and disclosed to them the abyss into which they were blindly stumbling. [Laughter.] It would seem that in the course of a single speech, which did not extend over more than five or six- minutes, I succeeded at one and the same time in befouling the House of Commons and enlightening the House of Lords. [Laughter and cheers.] That would be a very considerable Parliamentary achievement, and I am only constrained to disclaim credit for it b y some lingering regard for the prosaic requirements of historical accuracy. Lord Salisbury is too kind to me and, I am bound to add, too contemptuous of the intelligence of his colleagues. ["Hear, hear!"] On the Report stage of this Bill the hon. Member for Belfast moved the Amendment which is now moved from the Treasury Bench— namely, that we should mint this subsection from the Bill. The ground taken by the hon. Gentleman for his action was this, that if this clause, which practically requires the employer to guarantee the payment to the workman of the whole amount he would be entitled to under the Bill, remained in the Bill the inducement winch at present exists for contracting-out would no longer exist. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary replied that it was a perfectly fair and reasonable proposition because it only went to secure that by no possibility under any scheme could the employer escape from the liability imposed on him under the Bill. I intervened in the Debate and said that I agreed with both propositions. What happened then? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury rose in his place, exhibiting a warmth which he does not always exhibit in matters of this kind, and if my skin were sensitive I should still be smarting under his punishment. He said that I had travestied the Amendment, that I had not the least idea what it meant, and that so far front its being an Amendment against contracting-out it was no more nor less than the Dudley
    1646
    Amendment. [Cheers.] That Amendment has long ago passed into the region of legend, but if there is one Assembly in the world by which the Dudley amendment may be supposed to be understood it is the House of Lords—["Hear, hear!"]—and if there is one statesmen in this country who may be supposed to understand its meaning it is Lord Salisbury, under whose auspices it was launched on its career. [Cheers.] But what does Lord Salisbury say? He says this proposition is so monstrously unfair that he could not conceive any matt of sanity entering into a contract of that kind. Now, that is rather a curious state of facts; and, that being the history of the matter and it being an undisputed fact that, when we came to a Division, the Amendment to leave out this subsection was only supported by some sixty Gentlemen of the Party opposite. I do not well see, however anxious I may be to claim credit for it, how I can take upon myself the responsibility of having affected the action of the House of Lords. ["Hear, hear!"] Nothing new has been said or done. The new feature in the situation, the thing that accounts, as far as I can form a judgment, for the total, absolute, and irreconcilable change of attitude on the part of the Government, is that the House of Lords have discovered in the language of my right hon. Friend, the Colonial Secretary, that if tins subsection remains part of the Bill it will secure that under no possibility under any scheme can the employer escape Ins liability tinder the Bill. [Cheers.] It is because the omission of this sub-section will remove from the so-called contracting-out clause that which I. believe would have prevented it from being taken advantage of that, this proposition has been suddenly found out to be totally unreasonable, and that we are now asked to omit it from the Bill. [Cheers.] What is our position? I am speaking for my-sell, and I believe, for the great bulk of the Members on this side of the House, in relation to this question of contracting-out. Nothing can be more untrue that either I, or any with whom I have had the honour to act in tins matter, have ever professed or entertained any hostility towards mutual arrangements between employer and employed. [Ministerial laughter.]

    1647
    Hon. Gentleman laugh, but I have never made a speech on the subject without disclaiming any such intention. [Cheers.] What I have said, and what I do say now, is this—that, while mutual arrangements may be, and often are, excellent things, they ought to be subject to this paramount and overruling condition—that they shall not derogate from the full measure either of the employers' responsibilities on the one side or the workmen's rights on the other, imposed and conferred on them by the law of the land. ["Hear, hear!"] So long as your scheme conforms to these conditions I have no objection to it, nor has any objection been urged by any responsible statesman. [Cheers.] When this matter was before us the last time, the Secretary for the Colonies declared that he proposed the Amendment with the object, that although schemes of mutual arrangement might be made, yet it was essential to secure that the liability of the employer under the scheme should not be less than his liability under the general law. [Cheers.] That is not contracting-out. If your scheme is of that nature, that it gives the workman advantages as great, or greater, than he enjoys under the general law, what necessity is there for requiring workmen to contract-out? [Cheers.] Contracting out is needed in an entirely different class of cases. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, in the course of our previous discussions, hit the right nail on the head when he said that no employer of labour was likely to enter into any scheme of contracting-out which would render him liable for the same amount as he would be liable to under the Bill. That is perfectly true, and represents the whole truth in relation to contracting-out. I said in the previous discussions that I believed this clause would have the effect of abolishing contracting-out. So it would; but, if you omit the sub-section you now propose to omit, I entertain the very gravest fears that this clause will preserve contracting-out in some of its worst forms, and will form no adequate remedy against it. It is quite true that the Registrar Genera! of Friendly Societies has, in the first instance, to investigate and certify these schemes. That I admit, so far as it goes, is of value. But what you have to consider is not merely the initiation, but
    1648
    the continued operation, of these schemes. It is perfectly possible that a scheme which, upon the face of it, at the time it was started, appeared to be actuarially sound, and to afford benefits substantially equivalent to the general law, may through a strike, a lock-out, or exceptional calamity imposing unforeseen burdens upon it, become, in a short time, wholly inoperative and may leave the workman in an infinitely worse position than he would be in if he could fall back upon the general law. That was the case provided for by the sub-section. In such a case the employer would have acted as a guarantor, and would have made good the liability which the scheme was unequal to discharge to the extent of his liability under the general law. That was a just and legitimate proposition. [Cheers.] If you do not insert it, or the equivalent of it, in this contracting-out clause, you will be depriving the workman of the great safeguard the Bill gave him when it left this House against, by some extraordinary calamity, being left absolutely without adequate provision for the misfortune which has befallen him. To leave a loophole of that kind would not be carrying out the task to which not only the Government but the House set themselves when this Bill was under discussion. I cannot help recording my emphatic protest against this complete change of front, for which no justification has been offered and which, so far as the materials before us at present are concerned, it is impossible to justify. [Cheers.] I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of the Lords, but, acting in accordance with the declarations of the Government themselves, will adopt the sub-section which was imported into the Bill by the Government in their own phraseology, and insist, so far as we are concerned, at any rate, that the workman shall not, by private and inadequate arrangements between master and man, be deprived of the great boon which this legislation would otherwise give him. [Cheers.]
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN,who was received with Ministerial cheers: The right hon. Gentleman has once more repeated his well-known views on contracting-out, which, in his opinion, is a device whereby a dishonest employer may escape from the liabilities which Parliament may place upon him. I do

    1649
    not take that view at all of contracting-out. The right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me, told us what had happened in another place in order to repudiate, as dangerous possibly to his popularity with his own friends, the praise which Lord Salisbury had bestowed upon him. [Laughter.] I believe my right hon. Friend refuses to accept the compliment. We will not endeavour to force it upon him, but at the same time I am of opinion that it was extremely well deserved. [Laughter and cheers.] I maintain, however, that my right hon. Friend has no right whatever to come down and say that there has been a complete change of front, as if something had taken place for which he was entirely unprepared. On the Third Reading of the Bill I myself, who have been almost the author and, at all events, the strenuous defender of this sub-section, indicated very clearly to the House that in another place we should not hesitate to throw over the sub-section which we had discovered was open to an interpretation which most certainly we had ourselves never given to it. [Cheers.] Just let us see what is really the history of tins sub-section. It was introduced in Committee rather hastily, I think, at the close of a very lengthened discussion, without perhaps sufficient consideration. But upon Report the subject was again revived by a Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. That hon. Gentleman expressed his fear that its effect would be to prevent those schemes which the Government had stated it was their desire to encourage. My chief argument was that my hon. Friend had mistaken the effect of the clause, and that really it would make absolutely no difference whatever to the liability of the employer, and if that were so it need have no effect in discouraging these arrangements. That was only my individual opinion, and when the Division was taken we found that there were at least 63 Members sitting on tins side of the House who, at any rate had not been converted by any reasoning, and who still held that this sub-section would have the effect which my hon. Friend had attributed to it. They were confirmed in that, in the most absolute language, by no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. [Laughter.] He—speaking
    1650
    with much better right than I, because he is a lawyer, and therefore much more capable of interpreting legal phraseology—declared that this clause would have the effect of putting on the employer a burden over and above what the Bill put upon him, and that therefore it would absolutely destroy contracting-out.
    *MR. ASQUITH: I did not say anything of the kind. What I did say was that it would put upon the employer, in any event, the same liability as that which the Bill cast upon him.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought my right hon. Friend went further than that; but, if that be so, I am totally unable to understand why, if that was all tins clause would do, he should have got up here and taunted us with destroying contracting-out. [Cheers.] Why should the employer contract out if the liability under the contract scheme is no greater than ins liability under the Bill? If it be open to the workman, in spite of an arrangement of this kind which, on the whole, is to their advantage, to have recourse to some alternative scheme, whenever in any particular case the advantage is not on their side, it is perfectly evident that the burden on the employer would he greater than under the Bill, and under these circumstances he would have no objection to contracting-out. There is no sense in the argument of my right hon. Friend, unless he means to say that under this sub-section there would be a heavier liability than the liability under the Bill. [Cheers.] When the Government found that it was the opinion of so influential and so well-qualified a critic as my right hon. Friend that this sub-section would be the destruction of contracting-out, we at once felt that it was no longer worth our while to support it. [Ministerial cheers].
    *MR. ASQUITH: At once?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, at once.
    *MR. ASQUITH: You divided upon it.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend cannot tell what was in our mind. I can tell him that the very moment the Division was taken we made up our mind as to what course it was necessary to take, and on the very first opportunity on which it was possible to explain our views to the House—namely, upon the Third Reading—we gave no doubtful or hesitating indication of what

    1651
    that opinion was. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have had two objects in reference to this matter. The first object he has himself stated in my own words — that we did not want the employer to have it in his power to escape in any degree any liability imposed upon hint by this Bill. Does the omission of the sub-section prevent that? It does not, and my right hon. Friend has admitted that, because in the previous section the Registrar General is to be satisfied that the employer's liability under the scheme is equal to his liability under the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] They had been from the first determined that they would do nothing to discourage voluntary arrangement because they thought that where that could be carried out it would do more than statutory obligation. The sub-section which it was proposed to omit would discourage agreement to which they attached importance, and he had therefore no hesitation in agreeing with the Lords' Amendment. [Ministerial cheers.]
    MR. J. WILSONsaid he had read the speech of Lord Salisbury giving the reasons for this omission, and lie considered it was a direct insult.
    *MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that when he quoted arguments used in Debate in the other House and answered them he was out of order.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid he saw no reason for agreeing to the Amendment made in another place. A workman who gave his work to this country had a right to be maintained when he was injured. ["Hear, hear!"] He had as much right as a man who fought for his country. He was a soldier of industry. Therefore he could not accede to what bad been done in another place The right hon. Gentleman now stated that when he spoke before he expressed his individual opinions. It struck him they were all fighting for their own ends. What had the employers to suffer? It was said that their liability would be a mere trifle. He did not see why they should accede to the Amendment.
    1652
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
    MR. CALDWELLsaid the sub-section which the House of Lords had struck out was discussed at considerable length in this House. The effect of the sub-section was that the failure of any scheme should not be detrimental to the workmen or to his relatives, in ease of his death, inasmuch as the employer was to make good any deficiency of funds which arose. He thought the House should disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
    Question put "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 66.—(Division List No. 348.)
    Lords' Amendments agreed to: Subsection (5), after "the" ["favourable to the"] insert "general body of;" leave out "by the employer"; leave out "whereupon the funds" and insert as a new sub-section "when a certificate is revoked" or expires any moneys or securities held for the purpose."
    Motion made, "That the House do agree with the Lords in the following Amendment ": Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following clause:—
    (a) "Where in an employment to which this Act applies, the undertakers as hereinafter defined contract with any person for the execution by or under such contractor of any work, and the undertakers would, if such work were executes by workmen immediately employed by them, be liable to pay compensation under this Act to those workmen in respect of any accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, the undertakers shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which is payable to the workman (whether under this Act or in respect of personal negligence or wilful act independently of this Act), by such contractor, or would be so payable if such contractor were an employer to whom this Act applies. Provided that the undertakers shall be entitled to be indemnified by any other person who would have been liable independently of this section. This section shall not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under such contractor of any work which is merely ancillary or incidental to, and is no part of, or process in, the trade or business carried on by such undertakers respectively."
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid they were in a curious position in regard to

    1653
    this new clause. The original clause was settled in this House by general agreement, but when it got to the House of Lords Lord Salisbury said it was wholly unintelligible. In Committee in the other House another clause was inserted, but on report Lord Salisbury said that it also was wholly un-intelligible —[a laugh], —and he accepted a series of Amendments which put the clause in the form in which it now stood. But of this, the third, form of the clause, Lord Salisbury said:—
    "They had done their best. There was nothing more interesting to those who had often watched the Committees in the House than to compare the prophecies which were made as to the meaning of a particular clause with the actuality which was afterwards revealed in the decision of the Judges."
    He did not propose to move any Amendment, because he did not feel competent to do so. He thought the clause which left the House of Commons was intelligible, but he confessed he did not understand the clause as it now stood. The last four lines of the new clause were introduced at the instance of a private Member of the House of Lords. He believed that there was a difference between the advisers of the Government as to the meaning of the proviso and the preceding three lines.
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that Lord Herschell was in agreement with Lord Salisbury as to the clause which went up from the Commons being unintelligible. The clause agreed to by the House of Commons was put into the Bill from the Bill of the right hon. Member for Fife, and was passed without notice. The clause inserted by the Lords was clearer, but it was not intended to alter the effect of the clause as agreed to by the Commons.
    MR. UREsaid that every one knew what was intended by the clause, but the expression of the intentions was not so easy. It was impossible to draw the distinction which was attempted to be drawn by the Lords' clause between work which was "part of" and work which was ''merely ancillary or incidental to" the trade carried on by the undertakers. Would, for instance, the clause apply in a coal mine in respect of the several classes of work which were not directly concerned with winning coal? Perhaps the first part of the Lords' clause was more
    1654
    intelligible than that agreed to by the House of Commons, but the proviso ought to be left out.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid the object of the proviso was simply to make it clear that, where the work was not really the work the head employer, the head employer should net be liable to the men. In such cases —as, for instance, where a builder was called in for some incidental purpose—the men's remedy should be against their real employer. The proviso was really in the interests of the workmen, and not of the employers. Since the original clause was agreed to, the word "undertakers" had been defined, which made clearer drafting possible.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that the House was in an awkward position. The House sent up to the Lords a clause on this important point with all the consideration winch could be given to it by the Treasury Bench and their able law officers. Lord Salisbury found that clause to be wholly unintelligible. Then the legal advisers of the Government in t he Lords devised another clause, with a proviso for which the Government advisers in neither House were responsible. The assistance of the Attorney General was desirable on this point.
    THE ATTORINEY GENERALsaid that no one would deny the first part of the new clause to be an improvement. When the question was first being discussed in the House, he said that on such a difficult point he should be glad to have the assistance of the drafting of the right hon. Member for Fife in the Bill of 1893. Though he pointed out objections to the right hon. Member's clause, he thought it was at the time the best that had been devised. As to the clause put in by the Lords, the first sub-section was framed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Herschell, and undoubtedly the earlier part of this clause expressed more clearly the position of the sub-contractor and the head employer. The proviso was to a large extent inspired by Lord Herschell. It was clear that the clause ought not to apply where the work done by the subcontractor was not part of the "undertaker's" business. For instance, the painting of railway-station rooms was

    1655
    purely ancillary to the business of a railway company. He would not say that a question might not arise upon the words "ancillary and incidental to;" but the clause was not in the interests of the employers.
    MR. B. HALDANEsaid that the original clause as in the Bill of 1893 was the result of prolonged conference between those responsible for the Bill and the Government draftsmen. What was the meaning of the words "merely ancillary and incidental to"? He had not the slightest idea. These words seemed to have been put in without much examination and without much consideration, and what the effect would be on the clause it was extremely difficult to say. As far as one could judge, they would cut down the operation of the main part of the section as it stood. In his judgment it was extremely undesirable that these words should be added; it would be much better that the original clause as drafted here, after careful consideration, should be reintroduced, or else that the proviso should be dropped out.
    MR. G. WHITELEYthought that though the wording of the proviso was not so clear as that which he had the honour to get introduced when the Bill was before the House of Commons, yet the four words were perfectly intelligible. There were a great many processes, such as whitewashing and painting engineering and boiler works, in which sub-contractors were employed with whom owners of the factory had nothing to do. The responsibility was entirely to the sub-contractor, and it was unreasonable to suggest that the employer who had nothing to do with the work should be responsible to the workman. There was a case in connection with cotton factories where the owner of the factory ought to be liable. That was the case of the minder of the spinning machines, who had people under him, and they were responsible to and paid by him and not the owner of the factory. Nevertheless, that being a part of the business and within the scope of the trade of a cotton factory, the mill-owner ought to be responsible for any injury or accident that occurs, but painting and whitewashing and so on were only ancillary and incidental to and not within the scope of the trade or business.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid it seemed eminently reasonable that where you employed somebody as a sub-contractor in your own line of business there you should be liable for accidents, but otherwise if it was somebody outside. He thought the proviso would be better if those words were left out—"merely ancillary or incidental to."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONurged the Home Secretary to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member below the Gangway.
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he would do his best to have the words left out when the Bill went back to another place.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Negative the clause here and allow it to be put back in the House of Lords with the words altered.
    MR. C. B. RENSHAWhoped the Government would not yield to the suggestion. In the House of Lords, Lord Herschell expressed the strongest opinion that there ought to be a provision to meet sub-contractors who were outside the ordinary scope of the business.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We are all agreed; it is only a question of words. AIR. RENSHAW said that as an employer he felt he should be protected when he called in some outside contractor to do some work about his mill, and feeling that he did not want the words taken out.
    MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONthought he knew the reason for introducing these words. It was to insert the case of limited companies, which usually took very wide powers in the memorandum of association, and unless some guarding words were put in they might be held liable, although they employed an outsider to do something which was altogether outside the main purpose for which the company was established.
    MR. J. COLVILLEas On employer of labour, had a conviction that the words in question would only complicate matters by raising a doubt in the mind of an injured workman as to whether the sub-contractor was the proper person to sue, and consequently lead to litigation.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEhoped the Government would stand by the Amendment of the other House. The

    1657
    words were little more than surplusage, and if the House rejected the words it would only increase the difficulty of getting the Bill through.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGANunderstood that the Bill intended to abolish contributory negligence, but in the case of a mine a contract might be given to sink a shaft, to break the coal, or to raise it to the surface, and as those sub-contractors might be men of straw, the mine-owner would not be liable.
    Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8,—
    COMPENSATION TO WORKMEN IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF EMPLOYER.
    Where any employer becomes liable under this Act to pay compensation in respect of any accident, and is entitled to any sum from insurers in respect of the amount due to a workman under such liability, then in the event of the employer becoming bankrupt, or making a composition or arrangement with his creditors, or if the employer is a company, of the company having commenced to be wound up, such workman shall have a first charge upon the sum aforesaid for the amount so due, and the Judge of the County Court of the district may direct the insurers to pay such sum into the Post Office Savings Bank in the name of the Registrar of such court, and the provisions of the first schedule hereto with reference to the investment in the Post Office Savings Bank of any sum allotted as compensation shall apply to any sum so directed to be paid.
    (2.) In the application of this Act to Scotland, the words "have a first charge upon" shall mean "be preferentially entitled to."
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYmoved to agree with the Lords' Amendments: In Sub-section (1) leave out "of the district"; after "and" insert "order the same to be invested or applied in accordance with"; leave out from "compensation" shall apply to any sum so directed to be paid," and insert "and those provisions shall apply accordingly."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out "Act" and insert "section."
    Clause 6,—
    RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM STRANGER.
    Where the injury was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may, at his option, proceed, either at law against that
    1658
    person to recover damages, or against his employer for compensation under this Act, but not against both, and if compensation be paid under this Act, the employer shall be entitled to be indemnified by the said other person.
    After "injury" insert "for which compensation is payable under this Act."
    Clause 7,—
    APPLICATION OF ACT AND DEFINITIONS.

    (1.) This Act shall apply only to employment by the undertakers as hereinafter defined, on or in, or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work, and to employment by the undertakers as hereinafter defined, on, in, or about any building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and is being constructed, demolished, or repaired by means of a scaffolding, or on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is being used for the purpose of the construction, demolition, or repair thereof.

    (2.) In this Act—
    "Railway" means the railway of any railway company to which the Regulation of Railways Act 1873 applies, and includes a light railway made under the Light Railways Act 1896; and "railway" and "railway company" have the same meaning as in the said Acts of 1873 and 1896.
    "Factory" has the same meaning as in the Factory and Workshop Acts 1878 to 1891, and also includes any dock, wharf, quay, warehouse, machinery, or plant, to Which any provision of the Factory Acts is applied by the Factory and Workshop Act 1895, and every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power.
    "Mine" means a mine to which the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872 applies.
    "Quarry" means a quarry under the Quarries Act 1894.
    "Engineering work" means any work of construction or alteration or repair of a railroad, harbour, dock, canal, or sewer, and includes any other work for the construction, alteration, or repair of which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is used.
    "Undertakers" in the case of a railway means the railway company; in the case of a factory, quarry, or laundry means the occupier thereof within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Acts 1878 to 1895; in the case of a mine means the owner thereof within the meaning of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872, as the case may be, and in the case of an engineering work means the person undertaking the construction, alteration, or repair; and in the case of a building means the persons undertaking the construction, demolition, or repair.
    "Employer" includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate and the legal

    1659
    personal representative of a deceased employer.
    "Workman" includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether by w ay of manual labour or otherwise, and whether Ms agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing. Any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his legal personal representative or to his dependants, or other person to whom compensation is payable.
    "Dependants" mean—

    (a) in England and Ireland, such members of the workman's family specified in the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, as were wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of, or immediately prior to, his death; and

    (b) in Scotland, such of the persons entitled according to the law of Scotland to sue the employer for damages or solatium in respect of the death of the workman, as were wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of, or immediately prior to, his death.

    Lords' Amendments: In Sub-section (1) after "is" ["is being constructed"] insert "either"; leave out "demolished," and after "scaffolding" insert "or being demolished"; leave out "demolition or repair" and insert "repair or demolition."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out "demolition or repair" and insert "repair or demolition"; leave out "or immediately prior to"; leave out "or immediately prior to."
    Lords' Amendments agreed to.
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYmoved to agree with the Lords in the insertion of the following new sub-section:—
    "(3.) A workman employed in a factory which is a shipbuilding yard shall not be excluded from this Act by reason only that the accident arose outside the yard in the course of his work upon a vessel in any dock, river, of tidal wave near the yard."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the Government did not think it desirable for the sake of clearness to leave out the words "near the yard." He moved the omission of these words.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid it had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Tyneside that the case to meet
    1660
    was that of riveting begun on the ways and being continued in the adjacent water. If the words "near the yard" were omitted the case of a vessel being taken into a different port would be included, and this contemplated a different state of things. They ought not to include the case of ships generally. The Government felt that they had carried out the letter as well as the spirit of what they promised to do—namely, the continuation and completion of the same work on vessels before they were able to go out on their voyage.
    MR. J. SAMUELsaid that this sub-section would exclude a very large number of men from the benefits of the Bill. What they wanted to meet was this. In a large number of rivers, ships were taken away from the shipyards to be engined and completed. If the words "near the yard" were left in, a large amount of litigation would ensue, because there was no definition of "near." There ought at least to be some definition as to how near a shipyard a ship ought to be.
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYreminded the House that on the representations of hon. Members opposite the Government had drawn up these words hoping and believing that they would cover the cases which had been specified. The sub-section did not mean that the ships should be near the yard, but in the tidal waters, docks, or rivers, contiguous to the yard.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the object of the words was to. prevent shipbuilders being liable for compensation for what. might be called maritime accidents; but he did not think they were the very best words for the purpose. What should be done was to restrict the liability of the employer in those cases not in regard to the place in which the accident happened, but that in regard to the nature of the accident.
    MR. T. T. BUCKNILLreferred to the case of a ship which was behind time and which was taken away to be delivered, with the workmen on board to complete her on the way. Such a ship would be still under the control of the builder; and it would be a great injustice to the work men who were taken away on board her

    1661
    if, in the case of an accident, they should have no claim for compensation. He thought that words should be introduced to cover such cases.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that a ship built on the Clyde might he taken round for delivery to some port in the south of England with workmen still engaged in completing her. To meet such cases he suggested the use of the words—
    "in completing a vessel launched from that yard, and still under the control of the builder."
    Those words would bring within the operations of the Act cases where the same men were employed on board the ship by the same employer under similar conditions.
    *MR. J. CARVELL WTLLIAMSsaid that the Attorney General objected to the Amendment from a fear that it would include seamen; but the clause was distinctly limited to workmen employed in shipbuilding. It appeared to him that according to the punctuation of the clause the limitation they had been discussing applied only to tidal waters near to the yard, and that the river, or the dock, might be anywhere.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: May I appeal to the House to take a decision on this question, which I think has been sufficiently discussed? We have made in this Amendment a concession undoubtedly in the interest of the workman, since we have included a class of workmen who were not included in the original draft of the Bill. I must say it is hardly encouraging to find that hon. Members, when we have granted what they ask by way of amendment, should make it a basis for a further claim. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, it is a further claim. At this stage of the Bill it is not, possible to discuss every conceivable imaginary case that is put, before us for inclusion in the Bill. An hon. Gentleman opposite has even given us a case which he himself tells us cannot possibly arise—[laughter]—and we are asked at a moment's notice to elaborate a clause that shall apply to cases which T will undertake to say will not happen once in a hundred years.
    *MR. ASQUITHsaid he should like the House to consider for a moment what was the point as to which the right hon. Gentleman said lie Government had made a concession. It was this: As they all knew, the work of shipbuilding could not always, from the nature of the
    1662
    case, be completed within the yard itself. The incomplete ship had to be moved away a certain distance, and the same men who had been employed in the yard under the same employer, and exposed to the same risks, had to accompany the ship until she was completed. The Government had admitted fairly and properly that it was not right that the liability of the employer should be confined to the time when the workman was within what he might call the precincts of the yard itself. It was well known that it was part of the ordinary course of business that although the ship was sometimes floated out into a river or dock some distance from the yard, very often the work of completing her went on during the whole course of her preliminary voyage, say from the Clyde to London.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Or to Buenos Ayres! [A laugh.]
    *MR. ASQUITH: I thought we were trying to deal with this matter in a business spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] I must say that such an interruption does not tend to facilitate the discussion of this matter. [Load Opposition cheers.]
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, and I am sorry that he has misunderstood me. I do not think it a ridiculous interposition at all. What I want to point out is, that we cannot deal with every exceptional case; and it would be just as reasonable to claim if—as sometimes happens to my knowledge—persons are sent with a ship the whole of the first voyage for the purpose of completing details of construction—it would be just as sensible to claim that these workmen shall come under the bill during the whole of that time, as to claim that they shall come under the Bill when the ship is being taken from one port to another.
    *MR. ASQUITHremarked that the case put by the right hon. Gentleman might occur once in a hundred or a thousand years—[laughter]—and when it did occur he did not see why it should Trot be included in the What he was speaking of when he was interrupted was what happened in the ordinary course of business. He was speaking of what was within the knowledge of a great number of practical men, and of what he knew something about from his experience us a professional man. It was a very

    1663
    common fact that a ship, while in the course of completion, had to be taken far beyond the dock, river, or tidal water, and he could not see why the employer's liability should cease when that occurred. He could not see why the Government should not accept the Amendment which had been suggested, which would make the test of liability not one merely of locality. They should make the test not one of locality, but whether the man was still actually employed on the work for which he was engaged, and whether the ship still remained under the control of the shipbuilder who employed him. If they made the liability extend until the ship was handed over to the purchaser for whom she was intended, that would be a far more logical way of dealing with the question, and it would carry out the intention of hon. Members on both sides of the House that this liability should not be artificially limited to the shipbuilding yard or its immediate vicinity. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, and would feel that in doing so they were not unduly extending the liability of the employer. [" Hear, hear!"]
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYstated that in the case of ships of war built in this country it often occurred that during their trial trips they were practically in charge of the men who had been employed in building. An instance occurred a year or two since of a ship sent out for trial in this way, when, owing to some flaw, her engines blew up and several men were killed. The words "near the yard" would exclude such a case. Surely, if they put anybody in, cases of that kind ought to be included. The words ought to be struck out if the clause were to do substantial justice.
    MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDsaid the spirit and tendency of the Act was to make compensation dependent not on the locality but on the employer. He ventured to think that the point of locality in this clause was a very small one; and he should like to appeal to the Government—who had shown themselves very ready to meet the workmen's representatives on all practical points— to leave out these words. The employer would be still amply guarded by the fact that the workman would only be entitled
    1664
    to compensation as long as he was in his service.
    *SIR CHARLES CAYZERsaid that frequently a ship was taken to some distance from the yard in which she was built, to receive her engines and complete her equipment, and named cases where this was done. If accidents happened during that stage of the work the men engaged on her in the employment of the builders of the hull or machinery should be entitled to compensation, and as the clause now stood they would be excluded. He thought the words "limiting the locality" should be struck out, and he would support the Amendment to that effect.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid a great many appeals had been addressed to the Government from both sides of the House. He could understand that appeals from the opposite side would not receive quite the same attention as appeals from the Government side; but surely hon. Members, like himself, when they appealed to the Government on this point, ought to receive some reply from some Member of the Government. If all the words of limitation were taken out of the clause, and the clause were simply reduced to this—"in the course of his work upon such vessel"—that would meet the case. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR W. HARCOURTsupported the suggestion made by the hon. Member (Mr. Cooke). The Amendment originally moved by his hon. Friend would not altogether carry out the object he had in view. What they wanted was to get rid of all these words as to locality. If they left out all the words after "vessel" in the last line, thus making the clause apply to all persons in the same employ and on the same work until the completion of the vessel, their object would be attained. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would withdraw the Amendment in order that some other Member might move another Amendment which would better meet the case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR W. HARCOURTproposed to amend the Lords' Amendment by leaving out the words "in any dock, river, or tidal water near the yard."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not object to the principle which hon. Members had expressed in connection with this matter, but he had the greatest doubt whether the House was wise, on tale spur of the moment and at the last stage of the Bill, to move Amendments the consequences of which perhaps no one could foresee. He really thought that hon. Members behind him who volunteered these Amendments on a most complicated subject should consider whether it was wise to press them against the opinion of those who were responsible for the Bill, and who thought that they might lead to very dangerous results. ["Hear, hear!"] In the case of a ship not completely finished which was sent upon its voyage, it might be to Buenos Ayres, Australia, or the most distant parts, and on which, in order to complete the details, men in the employ of the shipbuilder were sent out, under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, such men would during the whole of that time he under the protection of the Bill. The House had decided not to include seamen in the Bill precisely because the employer could not have control over them when there were these great distances and long intervals of time, and yet on the last stage of the Bill it was now proposed by a side wind which would introduce this provision, which in many cases might be the cause of great injustice to the employers. ["Hear, hear!"] He ventured to say it might also be the cause of great inconvenience in trade. He did not presume at a moment's notice, while thinking on his legs, to be able to deal with an intricate question of this kind, but he did warn the House against forcing on the Government an Amendment which he did not think could possibly have been sufficiently considered.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANShoped the Government would see their way to meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. BUCKNILLthought the Amendment might be improved if after the word "work" the words were added—
    "in completing a vessel launched from that yard and still under the control of the employer."
    He thought it was just that the builder should be liable for injuries to his work-
    1666
    men only so long as they were under his control.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the House was generally agreed as to what they wanted. The objections of the right hon. Gentleman were practically covered by the definition of a shipbuilding yard contained in the Factory Act of 1878.
    *MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the words of the Factory Act did not apply. What they wished to protect the shipbuilder from was being made to pay for the maritime risk occasioned by the want of navigating skill on the part of some other person.
    *MR. ASQUITHsaid that it was not intended to provide against maritime risks or perils of the sea to which seamen were ordinarily exposed.
    MR. PARKER SMITHhoped the Colonial Secretary would accept some such form of words as the hon. and learned Member for Epsom had suggested. He held that until the builders had delivered a ship over, and as long as they had control over her, the workmen upon her should be entitled to receive compensation. It was often the case that the builders retained control over a vessel for a certain time after she left the shipbuilding yard. As soon as the ship was delivered over the builders ought no longer to be liable, a different set of circumstances arising.
    SIR W. HARCOURTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and was proceeding to explain his reasons for so doing when he was met by Ministerial cries of "No!" and "Spoke!"
    *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak if leave be refused.
    MR. J. SAMUELwished to say that he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Epsom.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The suggested Amendment of the hon. Member for the Epsom Division is not before the House. [Laughter.]
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid that it was clear that they were in a state of great confusion. He protested against the production of these elaborate Amendments at the last moment. ["Hear, hear!"] He represented a constituency which was largely interested in this subject, and in the name of his constituents he protested

    1667
    against his being asked to discuss Amendments which he had not seen, which were not printed, and the purport of which he had not grasped. Such a way of doing business was all very well in Committee or at the Report stage, but now they had arrived at the last stage of the Bill, and would have no opportunity of revising any stupid blunder which might be perpetrated. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that the Government would not be induced by the pressure put upon them to accept Amendments which were sprung upon the House. [" Hear, hear!]
    *SIR C. DILKEwished to know who were the persons whom the noble Lord attacked. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord had made a most vigorous attack upon somebody, but he did not know upon whom. The noble Lord apparently found fault with hon. Members because their Amendments were not printed, but the Lords' Amendments had only been printed that morning, so that it was impossible that the Amendments to be moved in. that House could be in print. He was in favour of the original Amendment which had been withdrawn. [Laughter.] He recognised that there was no possibility of their agreeing now upon a form of words which would satisfy the majority of the House, but he appealed to the Government to make some change in the Lords' Amendment so that the other House might have an opportunity of reconsidering the Amendment, and altering it in accordance with the views expressed by the majority of the House of Commons.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONthought that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire would be satisfactory if the following words were added to it, "Launched from that yard and while under tine control of the employer."
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
    The House divided: —Ayes, 143; Noes, 80.—(Division List, No. 349.)
    Lords' Amendment accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 8,—
    APPLICATION TO WORKMEN IN EMPLOYMENT OF CROWN.

    (1.) This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to any employment by or under the Crown to which this Act would apply if the employer were a private person.

    (2.) The Treasury may, by warrant laid before Parliament, modify, for the purposes of this Act, their warrant made under Section one of the Superannuation Act 1887.

    Lords' Amendment adding at the end of Sub-section (2) the words—
    "and, notwithstanding anything in that Act or any such warrant, may frame a scheme with a view to its being certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under this Act."
    Agreed to.
    Clause 10,—
    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.

    On the Lords' Amendment altering the date for the Bill to come into operation from March 31, 1898, to July 1, 1898,
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid this was a very considerable concession to the body representing the coalowners in both Houses. It must be remembered that it was a concession on a concession, and when the Amendment was moved in Committee in the House of Lords the Government refused to entertain it, because a considerable concession had already been made. It was, however, accepted on the Report stage. He thought it was a question on which the opinion of the House ought to be taken. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that, in his opinion, this was the only Amendment that had in any way diminished the benefit of the Act, and it had diminished the benefit to this extent—that it had

    1669
    postponed its application for three months longer. It was, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, a concession on a concession; but practically all the Government had consented to do was to postpone the action of the Bill for six months beyond the time when it would in the ordinary course come into operation. That was the extent of the concession. Was it unreasonable? It was admitted on both sides of the House that for the first time they were introducing a great new principle into legislation. It was a principle so great and so new that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had even expressed surprise at the Government being able to carry it through. Was it, therefore, unreasonable that this great new principle should be delayed for six months in order that the great trades concerned might make preparations? To his mind that was not the case. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was reasonable to the employers, and he thought it might be beneficial to the men, because he believed the time would be taken advantage of to come to terms with them as to the arrangements to be made. On the whole, he thought the concession might be heartily supported. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: —Ayes, 150; Noes, 60.—(Division List, No. 350.)

    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 suns 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

    1670

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

    (b) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, 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, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.

    (2.) In fixing the amount of weekly payment, regard shall be had to the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average amount which he is able to earn after the accident.

    (3.) The payment shall, in case of death, be made to the legal personal representative of the workman, or, if lie has no legal personal representative, to or for the benefit of his dependants, or if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due; and if made to the legal personal representative, shall be paid by him to or for the benefit of the dependants or other person entitled thereto under this Act.

    (4.) 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.

    (5.) The sum allotted as compensation to a dependant may be invested or otherwise applied for the benefit of the person entitled thereto, as agreed or as ordered by the committee or other arbitrator.

    (6.) Any suns which is agreed or is ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested may 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.

    (7.) Any sum to be so invested may be invested in the purchase of an annuity from the National Debt Commissioners through the Post Office Savings Bank, or be accepted by the Postmaster General as a deposit in the name of the registrar as such, and the provisions of any statute or regulations respecting the limits of deposits in savings bank, and the declaration to be made by a depositor, shall not apply to such sums.

    (8.) 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 of the county court.

    (9.) 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 bank 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.

    (10.) Any workman claiming compensation under this Act shall, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself for

    1671
    examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid 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:
    Provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator, whose decision shall be final.

    (11.) Any weekly payment may be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and on such review may be ended, diminished or increased, subject to the maximum above provided, and the amount of payment shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.

    (12.) Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than twelve months, the liability there for may, on the application by or on behalf of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum, to be settled, in default of agreement, by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application, and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested or otherwise applied as above mentioned.

    (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 this schedule to Scotland the expression "registrar of the county court" means "sheriff clerk of the county, and judge of the county court" means "sheriff."

    (15.) 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.

    Lords' Amendment, page 8: In Subsection (1), paragraph (a) leave out "dependants" and insert "any dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death," and after "earnings" insert "in the employment of the same employer."
    *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,in moving that the Lords' Amendment be agreed to, explained that, while it did not take away the minimum sum of £150, it provided, in conjunction with the subsequent Amendment, that in certain cases there should be a discretion given to the arbitrator to take into consideration all the circumstances of persons not wholly dependent upon the
    1672
    deceased person. He thought the general feeling of the House was that while it was desired to make good to dependants so far as was possible, the loss which they had sustained by the death of those who had to support them, yet, at the same time, it was not desired that they should be absolute money-gainers by the death of such persons. While adhering to the principle of a £150 limit in ordinary cases, a discretion would be given which would obviate what might prove a hardship in other cases.
    *SIR C. DILKEagreed that there was a hint given to the House that some such change as this might be made, and undoubtedly there were cases in which some hardships might have occurred under the Sub-section as it left that House. He confessed that he did not understand why Lord Herschell should have supported Lord Durham in this matter. No doubt there was some ground for putting in some words, but he thought that they had gone too far.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthought that the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. This was the only Amendment which diminished the benefits conferred by the Bill on workmen.
    *SIR C. DILKEadmitted that it was a concession on a concession. Under ordinary circumstances the Bill would come into operation on New Year's Day. The time was postponed in this House till the 3Ist of March, and then in the other House till the 1st of July. The whole delay would be six months. Was that unreasonable 2 It was admitted that for the first time a great principle was being admitted into our legislation. The Amendment might be advantageous to both employers and employed by enabling them to make arrangements for meeting the operations of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. J. WILSONsaid this was a very serious concession so far as the employés were concerned. This

    1673
    Amendment changed the Bill entirely from the state in which is was when it was introduced, and changed it entirely against the interest of the employé. The inquiry would be of an inquisitorial character into family affairs. The great desire with which the Government professed to set out was the prevention of -litigation and to give a certainty of the benefit being received which the Bill was -intended to confer; but the effect of this Amendment would not be to give certainty and would open the way to litigation. It was one of the most serious of the Amendments sent down from the -Lords.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lards in the said Amendment."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 351.)
    Lords' Amendments: In paragraphs (i) after "sum" insert—
    "and if the period of the workman's employment by the said employer has been less than the said three years, then the amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be deemed to be one hundred and fifty-six times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment under the said employer."
    Amendment agreed to.
    At end of same paragraph leave out "and" and insert:—
    (ii.) If the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum, not exceeding in any case the amount payable under the foregoing provisions, as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, may be determined on arbitration under this Act, to be reasonable and proportionate the injury to the said dependants; and
    Amendment agreed to.
    In paragraph (b) leave out "engaged in the same employment" and insert in the employment of the same employer."
    Amendment agreed to.
    1674
    In Sub-section (2) after "accident" insert "and to any payment not being wages which he may receive from the employer in respect of his injury during the period of his incapacity."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINmoved to agree with the Lords' Amendment. This matter was, he said, discussed on the Report stage of the Bill in regard not merely to the money payments, but also to the benefits which the workman was alleged to receive during his incapacity. They thought that the consideration of benefits was an indeterminate thing, which they could not put in the Bill as justifying any reduction, but, on the other hand, it was necessary that, if the workman was receiving, as a voluntary contribution front his employer, any portion of the compensation allotted, this should be taken into account.
    MR. FENWTCKregarded this as another concession to the employers.
    *MR. STUART-WORTLEYcould not allow such a remark as that to pass unchallenged. Without some such Amendment as this it would be to the obvious interest of the employer to leave the workman to find for himself as best he could such comforts and payments as might be necessary in his wounded condition until such time as he could get his claim for compensation settled. The Amendment was, therefore, in the interest of the employé.
    *MR.J. WILSONsaid this Amendment was brought forward in that House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street, but was refused by the Government. The Earl of Durham brought it forward in another place, and it was there accepted by the Government. He regarded it as another concession to the employers, in order to make it less detestable to them.
    Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    Lords' Amendments agreed to; insert as a fresh sub-section:
    "(3.) Where a workman has given notice of an accident, he shall, if so required by the employer, submit himself for examination by a

    1675
    duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid. by the employer, and if he refuses to submit himself to such examination, or in any way obstructs the same, his right to compensation, and. any proceeding under this Act in relation to compensation, shall be suspended until such examination takes place."
    In sub-section (8) leave nut "to any registrar."
    In sub-section (9) leave out "under" and insert "from" and leave out "paid into" and insert "invested in."
    In sub-section (10) leave out "claiming compensation" and insert "receiving weekly payments."
    After "employer" ["employer from time to time"] insert "or by any person by whom he is entitled to be indemnified."
    Lords' Amendment: After "employer" [paid by the employer "] insert "or such other person; but if the workman objects to an examination by that medical practitioner (the practitioner provided and paid by the employer), or is dissatisfied by the certificate of such practitioner upon his condition when communicated to him, he may submit himself for examination to one of the medical practitioners appointed for the purposes of this Act, as mentioned in the second schedule to this Act, and the certificate of that medical practitioner as to the condition of the workman at the time of the examination shall be given to the employer and workman, and shall be conclusive evidence of that condition."
    MR. LEES KNOWLESsuggested that this Amendment should not be accepted after the word "person" in the first line," because what was proposed was that, if the workman objected to an examination by the medical practitioner of the employer he might submit himself to examination by one of the medical practitioners appointed for the purpose of the Act, and the certificate of that medical practitioner as to the workman's condition should be conclusive. In this matter there ought to be a sort of
    1676
    Court of Appeal. If the Lords' Amendment were accepted there would be no such Court, but the workman would be able to go to the official doctor directly, and he would be the sole arbiter, and there would be no one to assist in the arbitration. That would be very unfair to the employer. He would like to know how many official medical practitioners were to be appointed; how many would be appointed in each district, and what would be their salaries and practices? If they were to be in the position of medical arbitrators they must be neutral men. Further, he would like to know how, if this Amendment were accepted, the expenses, in the case of a workman going before a medical arbitrator, would be paid? Would they be paid by Parliament or not? Not only did he consider that this Amendment would not be to the interest of the employers, but he believed it would not be to the interest of the employed, because where notice had teen given by a workman of an accident, he was examined by the employer's doctor. Why should not the employer's doctor examine a man when he was receiving weekly payments in consequence of injury? He moved the omission of all the words after "pension" in line 1 of the Amendment.
    MR. FENWICKthought they were entitled to know from some representative of the Government whether they proposed to reject the Lords' Amendment. He assumed they might take the silence of the Government to mean that they accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the question was one as to the best way of carrying out the arrangements under the Bill. It was not a point on which the Government held very strong opinions themselves. Under the Bill, as it went to the House of Lords, the workman was required to submit himself for examination to a qualified medical practitioner, paid by the employer. If he refused, he

    1677
    would have to appeal to an arbitrator, whose decision would be final. If the arbitrator decided that the workman should undergo the examination, and if the result of the examination were unsatisfactory to the workman, he could go to the arbitrator again, who would call in a medical practitioner appointed by by the State, and on his report the final decision would be based. It appeared to the Prime Minister that that was rather a complicated arrangement, and that it would be to the advantage both of the employer and of the workman if the matter were simplified, and the workman was able to go directly to the medical man appointed by the State. The whole object of the Lords' Amendment was simplification of machinery. But the hon. Member for Salford had raised an objection which was entitled to some weight—namely, that under the Lord's amendment every case would go to the medical officer appointed by the State, whose final decision in such circumstances might not be regarded as impartial. He would be thought to be either an employer's man or a workman's man. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be better to retain the provision under which the medical officer appointed by the State was only called in when the employer's medical man and the workman's medical man disagreed. It was not a matter of great importance, and the Government would be glad to hear the views of any hon. Member who specially represented labour.
    *MR. J. WILSONsaid that, leaving out of account the fact that this was a Government Amendment, he felt that some regard should be paid to the prejudices of the workmen. This was an Amendment suggested by the Prime Minister as a means of smoothing and simplifying the working of the Act, and when the Bill came down here, the Colonial Secretary said this House need pay no regard to the opinion of the House of Lords.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I said nothing of the kind.
    *MR. J. WILSONsaid that, though an expression might escape him in the heat of the moment, he would not be offensive. He earnestly hoped the Amendment would be rejected, and that the House would agree with the Lords.
    MR. RENSHAWsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford. It would be a great pity that this protection to the employer should be taken away. In part of the Bill already passed this same power had been given to the medical officer of the employer in regard to notice of accident, and the House ought not to stultify itself by making a different regulation when it was necessary to make an inquiry in order to satisfy the employer that the workman was really- and truly incapable of discharging his duty.
    MR. B. PICKARDopposed the Amendment, agreeing with the action of the Prime Minister. They knew what colliery doctors were, and the men would be satisfied with these doctors' definition of what an ailment was.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYpointed out that tins Amendment was introduced by the Prime Minister, with the desirable object of simplifying procedure. The House must agree that simplification of procedure was one of the objects they ought to aim at. That object was so worthy of their earnest efforts that the Government would support the Lords. in the Amendment they had made. [Cheers.]
    MR. TOMLINSONargued that the Amendment of the Lords took away the jurisdiction of these cases from the arbitrator.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that if a workman went to the doctor under the

    1679
    Act and got examined, then the certificate was conclusive evidence; but if the employer made a similar application it was not conclusive evidence. There was a great deal of force in what had been said that the arbritrator should have not merely a conclusive certificate from the medical practitioner but should have the practitioner before him to ask him questions.
    Amendment negatived; Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    Lords' Amendments agreed to: In Subsection (10) to leave out "otherwise" and insert "in any way" in the sentence,
    "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."
    Lords' Amendment to leave out from Sub-section (10)
    "Provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator whose decision shall be final,"
    Agreed to
    MR. CHAMBERLAINmoved that the House do agree with the Lords in the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (12) and to insert,
    "Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than six months the liability there for may, on the application by or on behalf of the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum, to be settled, in default of agreement, by arbitration under this Act, and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested or otherwise applied as above mentioned."
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid he was personally in favour of the Lords' Amendment. It was stated in the House of Lords that this Amendment was arrived at by an arrangement between masters and men; but his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham repudiated the idea that he was a party to it.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he was sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Member for Mid Durham; but he com-
    1680
    municated the proposal to the hon. Member and he thought it had the hon. Member's support. He did not say that the hon. Member would not have preferred something that went more in his direction, but he believed the hon. Member had accepted this Amendment as a compromise.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had some conversation with him on the subject on the previous night. The way in which it was put to him was that the maximum would be removed if the employer initiated the commutation; but if the workman initiated it the maximum would remain.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I assure the hon. Gentleman that was not so. I can quite understand that he may have misunderstood me; but I can assure him it was not so, for this is the only proposal I had in my mind.
    *MR. J. WILSON; I understood that if the employer initiated the commutation the maximum should be removed, but if the workman took the initiative the maximum should remain, and the words I said were: "If the workman did it he would go into it with his eyes open." I am bound to admit that if the "twelve months" were kept in the arrangement would not be a bad one for the workman.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He did not quite know why the 12 months was reduced to six.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The thing was not actually consequential. But there was really no object in keeping the 12 months when you had removed the limit of commutation; the advantage of the 12 months under the old system was that you gained for the workman half a year more compensation, but as you have removed all limit whatever there is no necessity for it.
    MR. ASQUITH: That was what I conjectured, and, that being so, I strongly advise my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment as a whole. The great advantage of the Amendment over the initial proposal is this, that there is no fixed maximum of compensation. If that is left open to be settled by the arbitrator, I do not think it matters much at what particular time the commutation is made. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. FENWICKsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had met them fairly well in this respect, and had carried out what was their view when they discussed the question on the. Report stage. They did not intend, therefore, to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
    MR. RENSHAWsaid the words of the Bill as it left the House of Commons were a compromise, and it seemed that a fresh compromise had become necessary. He did not exactly know how the necessity arose. He rather thought it was in consequence of Amendments put down in the House of Lords by the Government which employers certainly regarded with very little favour He regretted that this second compromise had become necessary. Ho regretted very much that the Government had not seen their way, in the interest of the workmen, to try to realise what great difficulties there would be in the way of insuring under this Bill in view of the indefinite liability put upon employers. He, for his own part, would be very glad indeed if the arrangement arrived at before the Bill left that House could be maintained; and he did hope it would be understood that, while agreeing to what was in the Bill, he, and others who represented the employers, had done what they could to protect the interests of the small employers, many of whom might be seriously prejudiced, if not imperilled, if they were suddenly called upon to pay down such a sum as might be fixed by the arbitrator.
    Lords' Amendments agreed to.
    1682
    Lords' Amendments agreed to: In Sub-section (13) after "payment" insert "or a SUM paid by way of redemption thereof"; after "law" insert "nor shall any claim be set off against the same"; transpose paragraphs 14 and 15.
    In Sub-section (15) leave out from "where" to "the provisions" in, and insert "a scheme certified under this Act provides for payment of compensation by a friendly society "; after "of" ["of Section 16"] insert "the proviso to the first Sub-section of Section 8"; at end Sub-section (15) insert as a new Subsection:—
    (16.) In the application of this Act to Ireland, the provisions of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877, with respect to money deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank under that Act shall apply to money invested in the Post Office Savings Bank under this Act.

    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 any employer or employers and his or their workmen, exists with power to settle matters under this Act in the case of the employer and workmen, the matter shall, sinless either party objects, by notice in writing 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, or the committee fails to settle the matter within three months from the date of the claim, the matter shall be settled by a single arbitrator agreed on by the parties, or in the absence of agreement, by the County Court Judge of the district in which the accident occurred, according to the procedure prescribed by rules of court, 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 Limo is the arbitrator, the workman or some person on his behalf may deliver to the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which he

    1683
    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 appointed by 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 be final; unless within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of court either party appeals to the Court of Appeal; 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 arbitration under this Act any party may appear by any person duly appointed on his behalf.

    (7.) The costs of the arbitration shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator. The costs, whether before an arbitrator or in the County Court, shall not exceed the limit prescribed by rules of Court.

    (8.) Where the amount of compensation under this Act shall have been ascertained, or any weekly payment 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, 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.) No court fee shall be payable by any party in respect of any proceeding under this Act in the County Court prior to the award.

    (11.) Any sum awarded as compensation shall be paid on the receipt of the person entitled, and his solicitor or agent shall not be entitled to recover from him or to claim a lien on the said sum awarded for any costs except such as have been awarded in the arbitration.

    1684

    (12.) The Secretary of State may appoint legally qualified medical practitioners for the purpose 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 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.

    (13.) In the application of this Act and this schedule to Scotland—

    (a) "Sheriff" shall be substituted for "county court judge," "Sheriff Court" for "County Court," "action" for "plaint," "Sheriff Court" for "Registrar of the County Court," and "act of sederunt" for "rules of court."

    (b) Any award or agreement as to compensation under this Act may be competently recorded for execution in the books of council and session or sheriff court books, and shall be enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral.

    (c) 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, save only that parties may be represented by any person authorised in writing to appear for them, and subject to the declaration that it shall be competent to either party within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by act of sederunt 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 may hear and determine the same finally, and remit to the Sheriff with instruction as to the judgment to be pronounced.

    (14.) In the application of this Schedule to Ireland the expression "County Court Judge" shall include the Recorder of any city or town.

    (15.) Paragraphs five and eight of this Schedule shall not apply to Scotland.

    Lords' Amendments agreed to: In Sub-section (1) leave out "or employers"; leave out "or their"; leave out "an arbitrator" and insert "arbitration as hereinafter provided."
    In Sub-section (2) after "committee" insert "so refers the matter or"; leave out "of the district in which the accident occurred"; leave out
    "certifies that under the circumstances of the particular district it is not convenient that the

    1685
    County Court Judge should be called upon to act as arbitrator, by a single arbitrator appointed by such County Court Judge,"
    and insert "so authorises according to the like procedure "; leave out Subsection (3).
    In Sub-section (4) after "judge," insert "shall for the purposes of this Act have all the powers of a County Court Judge and."
    In Sub-section (5) leave out "acts as arbitrator," and insert "settles the matter"; before "Court" insert "the Supreme"; leave out "when sitting as arbitrator," and insert "for the purpose of an arbitration under this Act"; leave out Sub-section (6) and insert "(6.) Rules of court may make provision for the appearance in any arbitration under this Act of any party by some other person."
    In Sub-section (7) after the first "of" insert "and incident to," and after "arbitration" insert "and proceedings connected therewith"; after "Court" insert "and shall be taxed in manner prescribed by those rules," and after Sub-section (7) insert the following: —
    "In the case of the death or refusal or inability to act of an arbitrator, a Judge of the High Court at Chambers may, on the application of any party, appoint a new arbitrator."
    In Sub-section (8), after "sent" insert "in manner prescribed by rules of Court"; after "shall" insert "subject to such rules"; leave out "charge" and insert "fee"; at end of Sub-section (8) insert as a new sub-section:—
    "Where any matter under this Act is to be done in a County Court, or by, to, or before the Judge or Registrar of a County Court, then unless the contrary intention appear, the same shall, subject to rules of court, be done in, or by, to, or before the Judge or Registrar of the County Court of the district in which all the parties concerned reside, or if they reside in different districts, the district in which the
    1686
    accident out of which the said matter arose occurred, without prejudice to any transfer in manner provided by rules of court."
    In Sub-section (9) after "Act" insert "or of an arbitrator appointed by him."
    On the question that the House do agree with the Lords in the following Amendment in Sub-section (9), after "accordingly" insert
    "and rules of court may be made both for any purpose for which this Act authorises rules of court to be made, and also generally for carrying into effect this Act so far as it affects the County Court or an arbitrator appointed by the Judge of the County Court, and proceedings in the County Court or before any such arbitrator, and such rules may be made by the live Judges of the County Courts appointed for the making of rules under section one hundred and sixty-four of the County Courts Act 1888, and when allowed by time Lord Chancellor, as provided by that section, shall have full effect without any further consent."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved to insert after the words "and such rules may" the words "in England."
    Amendment to the Lords' Amendment agreed to; Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords' Amendments agreed to: In Subsection (11) leave out "entitled," and insert "to whom it is payable under any agreement or award"; leave out "the said sum awarded for any costs except such as have been awarded in the arbitration," and insert—
    "or deduct any amount for costs from the said sum awarded, except such suns as may be awarded by the arbitrator or county court judge, on an application made by either party to determine the amount of costs to be paid to the said solicitor or agent, such sum to be awarded subject to taxation and to the scale of costs prescribed by rules of court."
    In Sub-section (13) leave out "this Act and"; leave out the third "Court," and insert "clerk"; and after Sub-section (13) insert: (14) paragraphs four and seven of this schedule shall not apply to Scotland." Leave out Sub-section (15).
    Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for

    1687
    disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill: Mr. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley, the Attorney General, Mr. Asquith, the Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and Mr. Fisher.
    To withdraw immediately.
    Ordered, that three be the quorum.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    New Clause,—
    APPLICATION OF ACT TO LOANS UNDER 55 AND 56 VIC., C. 13; 60 AND 61 VIC; AND 57 AND 58 VIC., C. 60.
    The provisions of this Act with respect to loans on the security of a local rate shall extend,—

    (a) to loans under the Military Lands Acts 1892 and 1897, on the security of land, and of a grant out of money provided by Parliament; and

    (b) to loans under section six hundred and sixty-three of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, on the security of the Mercantile Marine Fund, or of the several dues, rates, fees, and payments to be carried to that fund, or of any part thereof.— (The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

    Brought up, and read a First time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)said that he proposed to accept the principle of an Amendment to the schedule, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The effect of the change would be that 5 per cent. per annum would be charged on arrears.
    MR. J. DILLONthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his concession. The clause which he proposed to
    1688
    repeal (55 and 56 Vic. c. 61, Section 6) gave power to levy a fine of one shilling in the £ when a loan was overdue, even for a single week. By the right hon. Gentleman's concession it would now only be possible to levy interest upon overdue loans at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. That, he thought, was reasonable.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and re-reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments, reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
    BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    SCHEDULE.
    PART I.

    1. Session and Chapter.

    2. Short Title.

    3. How far continued.

    4. Amending Acts.

    (1.) 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 27.

    The Linen Manufactures (Ireland) Act, 1835.

    The whole Act.

    3 & 4 Vict. c. 91. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 68. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 47. 30 & 31 Vict c. 60.

    (2.) 3&4 Vict. c. 89.

    The Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1810.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (3.) 4&5 Vict. c. 30.

    The Ordnance Survey Act, 1841.

    The whole Act.

    33 Vict. c. 13. 47&48 Vict. c. 43. 52&53 Vict. c. 30.

    (4.) 10&11 Vict. c. 98.

    The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act, 1847.

    As to the provisions continued by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 50.

    —

    (5.) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 32.

    The County Cess (Ireland) Act, 1848.

    The whole Act.

    20&21 Vict. c. 7.

    (6.) 14&15 Vict. c. 104.

    The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851.

    The whole Act.

    17&18 Vict. c. 116. 21&22 Vict. c. 94. 22&23 Vict. c 46. 23&24 Vict. c. 124. 31&32 Vict. c. 114. s. 10.

    (7.) 17&18 Vict. c. 102.

    The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854.

    So much as is continued by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.

    26 & 27 Vict. c. 29. s. 6. 31&32 Vict.c.125. 46&47 Vict. c. 51.

    (8.) 23&21 Vict. c. 19.

    The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1860.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (9.) 24&25 Vict. c. 109.

    The Salmon Fishery Act, 1861.

    As to the appointment of inspectors, s. 31.

    49&50 Vict. c. 39. s. 3. 55&56 Vict. c. 50.

    (10.) 26&27 Vict. c. 105.

    The Promissory Notes Act, 1863

    The whole Act.

    45&46 Vict. c. 61.

    (11.) 27&28 Vict. c. 20.

    The Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act, 1864.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (12.) 28&29 Vict. c. 46.

    The Militia (Ballot Suspension) Act, 1865.

    The whole Act.

    45&46 Vict. c. 49.

    (13.) 28&29 Vict. c. 83.

    The Locomotives Act, 1865.

    The whole Act.

    41&42 Vict. c. 58. 41&42 Vict. c. 77. (Part II.) 59&60 Vict. c. 36.

    (14.) 29&30 Vict. c. 52.

    The Prosecutions Expenses Act, 1866.

    The whole Act.

    —

    1. Session and Chapter.

    2. Short Title.

    3. How far continued.

    4. Amending Acts.

    (15.) 31&32 Vict. c. 125.

    The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.

    So much as is continued by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.

    42&43 Vict. c. 75. 46&47 Vict. c. 51.

    (16.) 32&33 Vict. c. 21.

    The Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869.

    The whole Act.

    34&35 Vict. c. 61.

    (17.) 33&34 Vict. c. 112.

    The Globe Loan (Ireland) Act, 1870.

    The whole Act.

    34&35 Vict. c. 100. 41 Vict. c. 6.

    (18.) 34&35 Vict. c. 87.

    The Sunday Observation Prosecution Act, 1871.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (19.) 35&36 Vic. c. 33.

    The Ballot Act, 1872.

    The whole Act.

    45&46 Vict. c. 50.(Municipal Elections.)

    (20.) 38&39 Vict. c. 84.

    The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875

    The whole Act.

    46&47 Vict. c. 51. s. 32. 48&49 Vict. c. 62. 49&50 Vict. c. 57.

    (21.) 39&40 Vict. c. 21.

    The Jurors Qualification (Ireland) Act, 1876.

    The whole Act.

    57&58 Vict. c. 49.

    (22.) 41&42 Vict. c. 41.

    The Parliamentary Elections, Returning Officers Expenses (Scotland) Act, 1876.

    The whole Act.

    48&49 Vict. c. 62. 49&50 Vict. c. 58. 54&55 Vict. c. 49.

    (23.) 41&42 Vict. c. 72.

    The Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Act, 1878.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (24.) 43 Vict. c. 18.

    The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880.

    The whole Act.

    46&47 Vict. c. 51.

    (25.) 43&44 Vict. c. 42.

    The Employers' Liability Act, 1880.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (26.) 44&45 Vict. c. 5.

    The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881.

    The whole Act.

    49&50 Vict. c. 21. 50&51 Vict. c. 20.

    (27.) 45&46 Vict. c. 59.

    The Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882.

    As to the powers of Her Majesty in Council and of the Scotch Education Department, s. 47.

    —

    (28.) 46&47 Vict. c. 51.

    The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.

    The whole Act.

    58&59 Vict. c. 40.

    (29.) 47&48 Vict. c. 70.

    The Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884.

    The whole Act.

    56&57 Vict. c. 73.

    1. Session and Chapter.

    2 Short Title.

    3 How far continued.

    4 Amending Acts.

    (30.) 49&50 Vict. c. 29.

    The Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886.

    As to the powers of the Commissioners for the enlargement of holdings, s. 22.

    & 50 Vict. c. 24. 51&52 Vict. c. 63. 54&55 Vict. c. 41.

    (31 ) 51&52 Vict. c. 55.

    The Sand Grouse Protection Act, 1888.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (32.) 52&53 Vict. e. 40.

    The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.

    As to the powers of the joint education committee and the suspension of the powers of the Charity Commissioners.

    53&54 Vict. e. 60.

    (33.) 58&59 Vict. c. 21.

    The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1895.

    The whole Act.

    —

    (34.) 59 Vict. c. 1.

    The Local Government (Elections) Act, 189

    The whole Act.

    —

    PART II.

    (32.) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 56.

    The Endowed School Act 1869.

    As to the powers the making schemed and as to the payment of the salaries of additional Charity Commissioners.

    36&37 Vict. c. 87 37&38 Vict. c. 87. 52&53 Vict. c. 40.

    On the Schedules,
    MR. DILLONmoved to omit that part which re-enacted the Irish Arms Act. What were the provisions of that Act? Members of the House were in the habit of renewing the Act every year, but the vast majority of them had no idea what its provisions were. The Act was passed in 1881 under the name of the Peace Preservation Act, and under it the following provisions had effect:—
    "In a proclaimed district a person shall not c carry any arms or ammunition, and any person carrying arms or ammunition, or who is reasonably suspected of carrying them may be arrested without warrant by any constable or peace
    1694
    officer, and as soon as reasonably can be, conveyed before sonic Justice of the Peace in order to be dealt with according to law."
    Therefore, under this Act a man might be arrested without warrant in a proclaimed district because he was reasonably suspected of having arms or ammunition in his possession. When they turned to what was meant by "arms" they got an illustration of the hardship and injustice of this Act.
    "Any cannon, gun, revolver, pistol, and any description of fire-arms, sword, cutlass, pike or bayonet."
    Men had been fined or imprisoned for being in possession of portions of pistols and other weapons which were perfectly useless as arms by themselves. The

    1695
    provisions of this Act were of a barbarous and atrocious character and many men had been imprisoned, garbed in the degrading prison attire, and treated as common criminals for no other offence than having arms in their possession. He remembered when complaints of such treatment were laughed and jeered at in that House, but when Dr. Jameson and the Transvaal raiders were subjected to the same treatment as many respectable people were accustomed to in Ireland, Members of that House came hawking round petitions, asking the Irish Members to sign them, praying that Dr. Jameson and the others might be treated as first-class misdemeanants. He contended that unreasonable punishment was inflicted under the Act. There were many cases where a man might be found in possession of arms without any suspicious circumstances whatever being connected with it. Take the case of a poor man in the west of Ireland. If he went out to shoot game under ordinary circumstances he was liable to three months' imprisonment or a fine of £20, without a shadow of justification. In spite, however, of the Act, crimes had been committed, so that he argued the Act did not achieve any useful purpose, while it inflicted great hardship. This Unionist Government professed to govern Ireland on the same lines as this country, but this was a sample of their professions.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had stated that a man found in the possession of arms was liable to three months' imprisonment, but he had entirely forgotten to say that the man was not liable unless he had the firearms without a licence. Over and above that the hon. Member had omitted from his view that it was only in a proclaimed district that the Act was in force at all. He would not go minutely into the merits of the Act, it would be wasting time to do so, and this was an annual Motion made year after year. Originally passed under Lord Spencer, the Act had been maintained by different Governments as a measure of police precaution, and it was so defended by his predecessors. If the Bill were of such an atrocious character as the hon. Member declared it to be, why did he not bring pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose for the repeal of the Act, when the Leader of
    1696
    his Party was said to hold the Government in the hollow of his hand?
    MR. DILLON: For the simple reason that the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to give us the power to enable us to deal with such matters ourselves. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid No, that would not pass muster. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman defended the keeping the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act as a measure of police precaution, and not merely in those parts of Ireland where Nationalist sentiments obtained, but in those parts of Ireland where the Orange faction was predominant. His defence of the Bill was that it was required not the least in Belfast and other districts in the North of Ireland, and that it was not a political measure but necessary to preserve peace between the two factions in Ireland. ["Hear!"] On the same ground he defended the Act and was not prepared to omit it from the Bill.
    Mr. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid this was a curious illustration of the policy of "killing Home Rule with kindness, Rightly his hon. Friend had described this as an atrocious Act. And yet he did not altogether object to its continuance. It remained as a disgrace to English Government, and while it had a place on the Statute-book it was evidence of how the professors of equal laws and goodwill to Ireland held the country down at the point of the bayonet. It was an utter disregard of constitutional liberty, a riding rough-shod over the rights of the people, the Bill of Rights was abrogated in Ireland. He did not swear by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, nor did he when the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman often used to say that he could not govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, and he had ventured to suggest to him that though he might fail he might make the attempt. The position of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Act was that while doing his best to put the administration of the country into Irish hands, it was not worth while to nibble at existing regulations; but even then, under the right hon. Gentleman, the great Coercion Act was repealed. The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that the

    1697
    Act only applied to a district which was proclaimed. They thanked him for nothing in that. The Lord Lieutenant, by one caprice, could proclaim at this moment any district in Ireland. They held their liberties at the nod of Lord Cadogan. Then, the right hon. Gentleman said, these arms must be obtained by licence. But who was to give the licence? The Government did not trust their own magistrates, but must have one of their own removable judicial utensils to give the licence. Their whole government, so far as freedom was concerned, was an insulting and impudent pretence.
    MR. DILLONsaid it was quite time that the late Chief Secretary did renew this Act, and gave as the ground for his renewal the condition of things prevailing in Belfast.. But he did not agree wit h him, more especially in view of what

    (32.) 52&53 Vict. c. 40.

    The Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889.

    As to the powers of the joint Education Committee and the suspension of the powers of the Charity Commissioners.

    53&54 Vict. c. 60.

    He said that the object of the Amendment was to omit from the Bill the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. That Act was passed to make good serious defects in Welsh secondary education. It was passed, as regards the powers of the joint Education Committees, for three years only, and would have expired in 1892, but it had been renewed from year to year till the work could be completed. During the operation of the Act the powers of the Charity Commissioners in regard to educational endowments in Wales had been suspended. Now the time had come for the Act to lapse, as all the joint schemes which were to be devised under the Bill have been carried through, and become law. The legitimate work of the joint committees of counties and boroughs had now been completed.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it was not going beyond the truth to say that the temporary Act for Intermediate Education in Wales had now done its work, and might now without disadvantage be allowed to expire. But
    1698
    actually took place in Belfast. No real attempt was made to apply the Arms Act in Belfast. It was used to persecute and harry the Nationalists throughout the country districts.
    MR. MACNEILLreminded the Chief Secretary that in 1847 the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland gave arms to the Orangemen to arm themselves against the Catholics and the Nationalists. That was the way in which this Arms Act was carried out.
    Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes, 107; Noes, 31.—(Division List, No. 352.)
    *MR. W. T. HOWELLmoved to omit: though that was the view he had formed, he thought the Government ought not to introduce a change of tins sort without giving some notice to the House of their intention so to do. By a long and beneficial practice, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill had been regarded as a non-contentious Measure brought in at the end of the Session, and a great deal of Parliamentary time had been saved by allowing that practice to remain untouched. He could not recommend the House at this hour, and without notice, to accept the Amendment, but he could assure his hon. Friend, and those who acted with him, that their views had the sympathy of the Government, and that they should do their best in due season to carry them into effect.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he, of course, felt the weight of the observations of his right hon. Friend, but perhaps hardly realised the constitutional disadvantages of leaving this Act on the Statute Book. This was avowedly a temporary Act, and the Commissioners appointed under it had carried it into

    1699
    effect. They had practically indicated to the Government that, in their opinion, the work of this Act had been achieved, and that it ought to be dropped. Were the Government, therefore, not discrediting the whole system of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, by including within its provisions such a Measure as this? Where they had avowedly a temporary Act which had come to an end, then he said to continue it year after year was really to discredit the system and to make the House of Commons extremely chary of allowing other Acts to be placed in the same position on future occasions. Would the Leader of the House say that the Government would within a short period undertake to drop this Act out and bring to an end the operation of this temporary Welsh Act?
    MR. THOMAS ELLIShoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would not make a promise on this subject without making further inquiry, and without further evidence. The noble Lord seemed to have an idea that this Welsh Act was a temporary one. It was not so. Under this Act 16 counties and county boroughs of Wales levied a special rate for the purposes of secondary education. To drop out the Act would therefore make it impossible to levy this special rate in Wales. In the Welsh Act also there was a provision by which the Treasury made a grant equivalent to the grant raised in the locality, and power was also given to make regulations under which the grant was given. Thus there were powers in the Act which rendered it as permanent as any other Measure on the Statute-book. Some very good work still remained to be done under the Act, and he questioned very much that the Charity Commissioners had expressed the opinion that the Act produced more harm than good.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that in answer to the appeal of his noble Friend, he should say that it was the opinion of the Charity Commissioners that the Act did not do any good, and that if there was any effect at all from the continuance of the Act it was an evil effect.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the Joint Education Committees had done good work; they had still the power to do good work; and certainly it was
    1700
    with surprise he heard that in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners those Committees did more harm than good.
    GENERAL LAURIEafter quoting from the Reports of the Charity Commissioners, said what he claimed was that the work of the Joint Education Committees as laid down by Clause 11 of the Act of 1889 had been performed; and, therefore, they asked under these circumstances that such power should not be continued when they believed that according to the Report of the Charity Commissioners there was no necessity for it.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid his noble Friend had made an appeal to him to strengthen the pledge he gave in response to his hon. Friend behind him. He thought that pledge could hardly be strengthened. It was quite true that he said nothing about next Session, and gave no suggestion that a particular day was to be fixed for dealing with this question. What he did say was that as by common consent the clauses dealt with in this Bill were intended by Parliament to serve a temporary purpose, and as by universal consent that purpose was nearly accomplished, and in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Government) side of the House was completely accomplished —["hear, hear!"]—the time could not be far off when it would be the duty of the Government to deal in some way or other with this temporary portion of the Education Act, and to carry out the original intention of the framers of that Act who deliberately desired that this portion of their work should be temporary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to; Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
    MILITARY MANCEUVRES BILL.
    Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Tomorrow.
    LAND TRANSFER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [H.L.]
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
    BURIALS JOINT COMMITTEES BILL.
    Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [PROGRESS 3RD JUNE.]
    Clause 1,—
    EXTENSION TO YOUNG PERSONS OF 42 AND 43 VICT., c. 34.
    The Children's Dangerous Performances Act 1879 shall apply in the case of any young person under the age of eighteen years in like manner as it applies in the case of a child under the age of fourteen years.
    MR. CALDWELLmoved, after "any," to insert "any male young person under the age of 16 years and any female."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham, Bordesley)moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following clause: —

    (1.) Except where an accident causing actual bodily harm occurs to any child or young person, no prosecution or other proceeding shall be instituted for an offence against the Children's Dangerous Performances Act 1879. as amended by this Act, without the consent, in writing, of the chief officer of police of the police area in which the offence is committed.

    (2.) For the purposes of this section the expression "chief officer of police,"—

    (a) with respect to any place in England other than the City of London, has the
    1702
    meaning assigned to it by the Police Act 1890;

    (b) with respect to the City of London, means the Commissioners of City Police;

    (e) with respect to Scotland, has the meaning assigned to it by the Police (Scotland) Act 1890;

    (d) with respect to Ireland, means in the police district of Dublin metropolis, either of the Commissioners of Police for that district, and elsewhere the district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

    New clause added; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

    ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [PROGRESS 28TH JULY.]
    Clause 1,—
    AUGMENTATION OF ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON.
    The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul aforesaid may at any time after the passing of this Act, with the consent of the Bishop of London as visitor of the said Dean and Chapter, by a deed poll under the seals of the said Dean and Chapter and Bishop respectively, declare and direct that a yearly sum not exceeding three hundred and thirty-four pounds, part of the said twelve parts of the said annual sum of eighteen thousand pounds, shall, from a date subsequent to the passing of this Act, to be mentioned in the said deed pool, be appropriated by the said Dean and Chapter to the augmentation of the Archdeaconry of London, and shall (subject as hereinafter mentioned) be from time to time paid to the Archdeacon of London for the time being as part of his income, anything in the aforesaid Orders in Council to the contrary notwithstanding.
    MR. LABOUCHEREappealed to the Government not to proceed with the Bill, to which he objected strongly because it proposed to take certain funds from the temporalities of the Church in order to devote them to the spiritualities. He begged to move that progress be reported.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that neither this Bill nor the two which succeeded it on the. Paper were

    1703
    Government Bills. He thought the opposition of the hon. Gentleman was rather unreasonable, and he hoped that he would not put difficulties in the way of the Measure on another day; but in the circumstances he would not ask, the Committee to proceed with the Bill that night.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that he regarded the Bill as a highly controversial Measure. It proposed that money that ought to be expended in repairing St. Paul's Cathedral should be diverted to the purpose of increasing an ecclesiastic's income.
    MR. ALBAN GIBBSpointed out that hon. Members who had raised objections to the Bill, including the hon. Member for Carnarvon, had all withdrawn their objections with the exception of the hon. Member for Northampton, and he hoped that that lion. Member would not persist in opposing a Bill which his Friends were ready to see passed.
    Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    YORKSHIRE CORONERS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3,—
    RIGHTS OF EXISTING COUNTY CORONERS.
    Nothing herein contained shall affect the rights, duties, powers, or liabilities of county coroner holding office at the commencement of this Act.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham, Bordesley)moved to add to the Clause: —
    "and if the district of any such coroner is divided into two or more districts, residence in any one of such districts, shall be deemed to comply with Section five of The Coroners' Act 1844."
    Amendment agreed to. Clause as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill; remaining clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Read the Third time, and passed.

    LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On the order to go into Committee on this Bill,
    MR. TUDOR HOWELLsaid that, considering that a Commission was now sitting considering the whole question of licensing, and the time was 25 minutes to 2 o'clock, that was not the hour at which to deal with the amendment of the licensing laws in any respect. Under these circumstances he moved to report progress.
    MR. A. D. PROVANDexplained that the Bill was merely intended to rectify an omission in the Act of 1868. The Bill had the approval of the Government, of the late Government, and the Inland Revenue.
    Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    SUPPLY.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION [EXPENSES].
    Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes before Two o'Clock.

NEW PEER.
Sir John Burns, Bart., having been created Baron Inverclyde, of Castle Wemyss, in the county of Renfrew was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HIGHGATE WOODS PRESERVATION BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Clause 5,—
  POWERS OF CONTRIBUTION BY LOCAL AUTTIORITIES.
  The London Council, the Middlesex Council, and any local authority may, jointly or severally, make contributions in aid of such purchase of such amounts and upon such terms and conditions as they may respectively think fit, and may enter into and carry into effect any agreements with the District Council with respect to such contribution.
  Provided that any contribution by the Middlesex Council shall not exceed five thousand pounds.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LANSDOWNE)moved to add at the end of the clause,—
  "Provided that, notwithstanding any such byelaws, the said open space may, in time of national or local emergency, be occupied and used for military purposes in such manner as the officers commanding Her Majesty's force may deem necessary."
  For some time it had been usual for the War Department to claim in private Bills, in which power was taken to make bye-laws controlling the use of open spaces, that a provision should be inserted that nothing in those bye-laws should have the effect of preventing the occupation of the spaces in question by the military in time of national or local emergency. But he could not explain too clearly that the War Department did not claim a general right to use spaces
  1574
  of this kind for military purposes; they only claimed the right to use the spaces when the circumstances were altogether of a special character. He thought a power of this kind was desirable in the interest of the public, because, if it be assumed that the presence of troops was necessary, it was surely desirable that those troops should occupy open spaces of this kind, and should not be kept in the streets or quaratered in public or private buildings. He admitted that the Amendment was moved at the very last moment in the progress of the Bill through Parliament. This Bill was not announced in November, and was, however, introduced at late as May 18 of the present year, the Standing Orders being suspended for that purpose. It was under those circumstances that the point escaped notice.
  THE CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)thought the noble Lord was not quite fair upon the promoters of this Bill in moving this Amendment on the very last stage of its passage through Parliament. The noble Lord claimed to exercise, apparently, very wide powers over all these open spaces, but he ventured to think that if these powers were required, which he did not dispute, it would be desirable that they should be given by a public Act. The Bill merely meant that the ownership of this ground, which was private ground, was transferred to certain public bodies, and was to be kept in its natural state for ever. The promoters viewed the Amendment with considerable disapproval. He would venture to suggest that, as in this case at any rate the power sought could not he of any serious importance, the noble Lord should not at this stage press his Amendment on the House.
  LORD THRINGsaid the Amendment was very unusual and extraordinary. When there was a case of real national difficulty he could understand that there was a necessity for the Executive to quarter their troops wherever they liked, and the words "national emergency" had been used, he believed, in one of the Army Acts as meaning in case of war. Local emergency, however, would mean nothing. The county of London, the county of Middlesex, and the urban district of Hornsey had bought this park for the benefit of the private neighbourhood, and they had taken the greatest

  1575
  possible trouble that everything should be kept in its natural state. If an officer in charge of Her Majesty's forces were to have this power, it might be construed to mean any colonel commanding Volunteers at Hornsey, and no indication was given as to the restoration of the park to its original shape, or as to compensation. He hoped the noble Marquess would withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYappealed to the noble Marquess not to press the Amendment. A considerable time had elapsed since the Bill was introduced, and if the War Office intended to put anything into the Bill he thought they might have done so at an earlier stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said the view he entertained was that the noble Marquess already possessed the power which it was the object of the Amendment to give him. In times of national emergency salus populi suprema lex. He did not feel the difficulty expressed by his noble and learned Friend in regard to the local emergency, because a local emergency was only a question of smaller degree, and in the case of a serious riot, or anything of that sort, it might be necessary to occupy such a place as this park. He had not the smallest doubt in the world, however, that the power already existed, and, that being the case, he thought the Amendment would naturally excite jealousy. He would suggest to his noble Friend that he should not press his Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he could not admit the force of some of the criticisms that had been opposed to this Amendment. The provision was already to be found in a considerable number of Bills that had been passed through Parliament during the last few years. In the case of the London parks even more stringent powers were conferred by law on the military authorities. He was bound to admit, however, that the time at which this Amendment was proposed was later than he could have wished, and he was also inclined to believe, from what fell from the noble Chairman of Committees, that the local circumstances in this case were not such as to make it of very great importance that they should have this power. The reason why they were inclined to press for it was because if they did not do so in all cases they found it very much more
  1576
  difficult to press for it in those cases in which it was really of moment for them to have it. He was quite ready to respond to the appeal of the Chairman of Committees, on the understanding that they did not recede from their general position that these rights should when necessary be claimed by the War Department.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  DIOCESAN ASSOCIATIONS.
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEYsaid he wished to make a brief personal explanation to their Lordships. Reference had been made to a statement of his some little time ago in that House that the diocesan association of the county of Norfolk, where he resided, did not admit schools which were not Church Schools, and the Duke of Devonshire had pointed out to him that in the scheme which had been submitted to his Department there was one British school included in the association and some parochial schools of a mixed character. He regretted that he had been misled and had made a statement which was not strictly accurate, and he was extremely glad to find that the association which had been formed in Norfolk was not exclusively confined to Church Schools.

  SUCCESSION DUTY.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLEasked Her Majesty's Government whether they would provide means by which owners of fine art and scientific collections might ascertain upon what articles Succession Duty would be paid at their deaths. It had been pointed out that the tendency was for the pictures in this country, owing to the influence of the death duties, to leave the country altogether. The duties were in many cases so heavy in proportion to the property that the owners had been in the habit of sending their pictures abroad. He had ascertained on the authority of Sir William Agnew that during the last three or four years pictures had gone out of this country to the value of three and-a-half millions sterling. That was

  1577
  a very serious matter, especially when they considered that these pictures when exhibited in this country conferred a great public benefit. The value of the pictures had nothing to do with the matter. A man who owned pictures ought, in common fairness, to know whether the pictures would or would not come under the heads laid down under the Act. Take a man who had a gallery worth a million. The Succession Duty if nothing was exempt, on that gallery would be.£80,000. This was a large sum for any man to have in suspense, and he wished to know whether, during a man's lifetime, the Government could not inform him whether or not his pictures were of national and historical value or scientific interest. The monetary value was immaterial. It might and did vary in a few years, but a picture which came under one of the categories he had mentioned would always remain so.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)in the absence of the Lord Privy Seal, who represents the Treasury in the House of Lords, said he was afraid any answer he could give in his noble Friend's absence would be of small value, because it expressed his own opinion without any communication with the Treasury. The question of including pictures, works of art, and other precious articles of the kind in the Death Duties was of a very difficult and thorny character. In strict justice it did not seem to him that objects not yielding income ought to be the subject of capital taxation like the Death Duties. Front a long time back they had been subjected to the comparatively mild probate duty which used to be prevalent in this country; and the essentially burdensome character of the tax was not brought to light until the large extension of Death Duties which took place three years ago. He did not attempt—he could not do so —to give any logical defence of the anomalies attendant on this particular class of taxation. But they were in one of those positions in which they frequently found themselves from the collision of the two principles of Party government, by which front time to time there was an entire change in the holders of office, and the principle of continuity of policy which, within certain limits, was exceedingly valuable and ought not to he
  1578
  neglected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already said in the other House that he had no power to deal radically with these new Death Duties until there had been sufficient time to ascertain, by practice, what the nature of their operation was, how far it was oppressive, and, if oppressive, in what respects. It seemed to be a perfectly sound and reasonable doctrine, where two sides differed vehemently on some particular question, that if a change of Party were frequent a change of policy should not be as frequent too. He was afraid he was not able to hold out the probability of any extensive change. Whether any substantial relief would be afforded by such information as his noble Friend desired he had his doubts. His own impression was that if any one stepped out of the ordinary groove and insisted on a representative of the Treasury declaring the value of his pictures, he would find they were more valuable than he thought. The result would be to increase the burden on him rather than diminish it, and the wisest course would be to leave the matter to the action of the ordinary law. After all, he had always the alternative, if he pleased, of selling the pictures, and, though the matter had never been actually tried, he did not imagine that the Treasury, with all its strong financial prepossessions, would venture to require a man to pay at a higher rate than that which the pictures would fetch when actually submitted to auction. Therefore, although the cost of the provision might be considerable from a sentimental point of view in respect of pictures of high value, he did not hunk the financial difficulty, arising Iron leaving the determination of their value to the time when the tax was payable, was a substantial grievance. Without in the least saying he vats satisfied with the general structure of the tax, or that he thought—he was speaking of the tax on articles which did not yield income—it would permanently maintain its present form, he doubted whether the particular kind of alleviation his noble Friend pointed to would be of any value, or whether, even if the Treasury would adopt it, it would be largely valued by all those subject to its action.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLEsaid that regardless of their intrinsic value, if works of art were of national and historic value and scientific interest, he desired that to be settled in the owner's lifetime, that there might be no uncertainty as to the Succession Duty.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid he could not imagine that such an arrangement would be a very easy one to work, and he doubted whether it would be for the benefit of the taxpayer. The fiscal departments of the Government were like others possessing authority—if they were stirred out of their slumber and a decision from them was insisted on, they would give one which would not be liked.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid he did not see where the difficulty arose. What had to be done after a man's death could surely be done as easily while he was alive.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR),in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, reminded the House that the Bill passed a Select Committee of the House last year, and although during its passage through the House of Commons a large number of Amendments were introduced, the Bill had come back, much as it left last year, after undergoing the scrutiny of a Select Committee, presided over by the Duke of Richmond. But there were one or two alterations which he might mention. The first was in Clause 43, which dealt with procedure in regard to unsound meat. On the one hand the towns pressed for stringent regulations against diseased meat being brought in, but these would have been a severe burden on legitimate trade. On the other hand, the agricultural community were most anxious for restrictions and regulations which, while affording protection against the importation of unsound meat, would also protect the honest trader, and prevent him from being summoned when he had not committed any real fault. After much consultation the clause as it now stood in
  1580
  the Bill had been agreed to, and he might -say that it met the wishes alike of the farmers and the municipal authorities. Another clause which was the subject of considerable discussion related to the restrictions which were to be imposed on the milk trade to prevent unsound milk from being sold. The burghs were anxious to have the right to send their own officers and deal with the matter outside the districts over which they had jurisdiction. The country districts naturally resented this, but expressed their readiness, as every one acquainted with them knew they would, to accept provision for strengthening their powers of dealing with the matter. Ultimately the clause as it now stood in the Bill was inserted, with, at ally rate, the acquiescence, if not the entire approval, of all those mainly concerned. Members of the Committee would recollect that the rating clauses of the Bill were subjected to a good deal of criticism, and ultimately it was thought preferable that they should be considered and settled by the other House rather than by their Lordships. He would state briefly what the conditions proposed to be made law under the Bill now were. They would be found in Clause 124 and the following clauses of the Bill. In the country districts at the present time the public health rate was levied along with the poor rate, and that was equally divided between the owners and occupiers. It was levied upon the net and not upon the gross value. There was universal agreement that in the districts the public health rate ought to be levied on the same basis as the road rate, and not as the poor rate. That was, therefore, provided for in the Bill, and it would be levied upon the gross instead of upon the net valuation. The provisions passed by Parliament last year in the Agricultural Rates Act were carefully preserved. In burghs a change had been made, and the rate would now be levied not along with the Burgh General Assessment, but with the General Improvement Rate, which was levied half on owner, half on occupier, upon the gross valuation. The limit for the general public health assessment was proposed to be raised from 6d. to a shilling, and special water and drainage assessment from 2s. 6d. to 3s., power being given to the Local Government Board to sanction a

  1581
  higher rate where the circumstances of a special locality required it. It was also proposed that the whole expenditure within a special district should be levied upon the special district and not upon the general district. Under the Local Government Act of 1889, it was provided that the county medical officer and sanitary inspector should be appointed, and that their services should be available to the district local authorities and neighbouring burghs. By a large majority, contrary to the desire of the representatives of the Government, the police boughs had been relieved from their share of the rate, and consequently of their claim to the services of the aunty medical and sanitary officers. Personally he regretted very much this decision, but it was arrived at by such a large majority of the Standing Committee, and was evidently so much in conformity with the general wish of Members in the other House, that lie hoped their Lordships would agree to the provision as it now stood. Clauses had been introduced for the first time for the purpose of constituting port sanitary authorities to have jurisdiction over ports when not entirely in the district of one local authority, and to meet a strongly expressed desire of the medical profession, the title of medical officer would be medical officer of health in Scotland as well as in England. Considerable controversy took place as to what was to be the respective positions of the medical officer and sanitary inspector, and after a great deal of discussion the Bill remained substantially in the same condition as it did when it left that House. It would be in the power of the local authority, by means of byelaws, to regulate the methods in which those officers would discharge their duties respectively. With regard to the provisions for the compulsory taking of land for the purposes of the Bill, they remained practically in the same condition as when passed by their Lordships last year, with the sole exception that in cases where there was a disagreement between the body proposing to take the land and the landowner, an arbitrator was to be appointed, and if they could not even agree as to the appointment of arbitrator, he would be nominated by the Local Government Board for Scotland, instead of by the Lord Ordinary.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had no objection to Clause 60 of the Bill with reference to the inspection of dairies. It gave the burghs all reasonable facilities. The present practice, he believed, would be much more efficient than the clause in the Bill, or any clause that could be devised. There had never been any practical grievance in this question. The most important points in the Bill were the rating clauses, and he must congratulate the noble Lord on having for the first time enabled them to know what the liabilities of a district were; and provided that each district should pay for the benefits it received. He hoped the position of medical officers was as the noble Lord had stated, because he held that the power ought to be in the hands of the County Councils, whose authority the medical officers and sanitary inspectors ought to obey. Medical officers were always trying to obtain an independent status, and he hoped nothing of the kind had been done in this case.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANcongratulated the noble Lord on the introduction of the Bill, and hoped it would pass this year. He agreed that it was absolutely essential that the medical officers should be under the direction of the county authorities.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSdesired to have some information on this question. In his own case a burn passing through his property was polluted by a populous place a mile and a half off. The only remedy the landlord had—as he understood it—in such a case, to abate the nuisance, was that in the first place he must go to a considerable expense in order to abate a nuisance which had nothing to do with him. That seemed to hint to be all unjust state of the law, t here was a strong feeling that it ought in some way to be amended.
  *LORD BALFOURsaid he would not like to give an opinion on the question, because it dealt, not only with this Bill, but with matters under the Pollution of Rivers Act. It would require careful consideration to give a definite answer to the question.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he only asked his noble Friend to consider it; it was an important point.
  LORD BALFOURsaid he would do so.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPHS (FACILITIES AND PENSIONS) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL.
  LORD BELPER,in moving the Second Beading of this Bill, explained that its object was to extend the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Police. Under previous Acts they had powers of borrowing, but those powers were nearly exhausted, and, as it was necessary to expend considerable sums upon now police stations, fresh powers were urgently required. The Bill had, he understood, passed through the Commons without opposition or alteration.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order read for going into Committee.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid he did not know the proper moment for doing it,
  1584
  but he intended to raise objection to Clause 4 of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid some little information upon this Bill should be forthcoming. It was an Irish Bill for empowering the Local Government Board to give extraordinary outdoor relief for two months, and its duration was to be for one month from the present time—rather odd kind of legislation! He would like to know whose Bill it was—did it emanate from Mr. Healy or some other Irish patriot, or was it a Government Bill? His impression, front what he heard, was that it was a Bill introduced by the Irish Government, but he did not know that that inspired much confidence. It was desirable to know more about it, and more especially why this power was to be given to the Local Government Board—of course, a Board more or less open to gentle influencing—to grant this relief for two months. By the fourth clause it appeared that the acceptance of this relief was not to carry with it electoral disability. He well recollected Lord Palmerston remarking, when the suffrage was lowered, that instead of playing to the dress circle and stalls, the Government would play to the pit and gallery; but we seemed in these modern times to have gone a long way beyond that, for here was playing to the workhouses and casual wards, or rather to casuals out of the wards. We had had legislation for them in the form of the Verminous Persons Bill. He was justified in asking why this. strange clause was included in this Bill?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, in answer to the noble Earl's question, he had to say that the Bill in question was a Government Bill, and that it was introduced in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The clause to which the noble Earl took particular exception—namely, that which provided that the Bill, if it became law, would cease to operate on September 1st, was for the purpose of enabling the Irish Government to deal with any case of exceptional distress which. might come to their notice between now and September. The date was fixed because, about that time, the people in the west of Ireland would then have got some of their harvest in, and labourers who came over for the English harvest would be returning

  1585
  with their earnings, and it was anticipated that there would not be a continuance of the acute distress there had recently been. As he explained yesterday to the noble Earl, the Bill was mainly for the purpose of indemnifying Boards of Guardians who had been giving outdoor relief under the authority of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and this first clause was merely put in as it was thought desirable that the Irish Local Government Board should have the power to give outdoor relief up to that date. It was necessary to fix some date, because it was eminently undesirable to make this a permanent alteration in the law relating to outdoor relief. As regarded the fourth clause, that was drawn word for word from the Bill passed during the time Mr. Morley was Chief Secretary towards the end of 1895, just before the late Government went out of office. Some opposition was raised, he believed, to that clause in its dealing with the electoral franchise, but it was pointed out that on two occasions previous Conservative Governments had passed a similar clause.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked was a General Election anticipated in August?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he was not sufficiently in the confidence of the noble Marquess to answer that question.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES, The Earl of MORLEY, in the Chain.]
  Clause 1,—
  EXTENSION OF POWER TO GRANT OUTDOOR RELIEF IN FOOD AND FUEL.

  (1.) At any time before the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, the Local Government Board for Ireland may, if they think fit, by order under their seal, authorise the board of guardians of any poor law union to administer relief in food or fuel, out of the workhouse, for any time not exceeding two months from the date of such order, to any poor persons resident in the union, and the said Board may, by a like order, revoke any such order either wholly or partly or with reference to any particular person or class of persons.

  (2.) On the receipt by the guardians of any union of any order of the said Board authorising such relief, the guardians shall make provision for affording such relief accordingly for such time and on such conditions as may be specified in the order, or until the order is revoked.

  1586

  (3.) The proviso in section two of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1862 shall not apply in the case of any persons for whom relief is authorised under this Act.

  (4.) The expenses incurred in affording relief to any person relieved under this Act shall be charged in the same manner as if such expenses had been incurred in affording relief in the workhouse to such person under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts 1838 to 1892.

  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid the noble Earl had described the Bill as similar to one passed by his right hon. Friend Mr. Morley when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, but were the circumstances similar? That Bill was passed because exceptional distress existed in parts of Ireland. He had no means of knowing if such was the case now. Did an exceptional state of things exist requiring this exceptional legislation? Of course, a state of exceptional distress would be a great argument in favour of such a Bill. He could not help feeling a little doubt when he heard the noble Earl say that the chief object of the Bill was to legalise some relief given by the Boards of Guardians without authority, whether I his clause was not, as it were, thrown in. That should not be, but if there was a state of exceptional distress then that should be stated, and then he offered no opposition to the Local Government Board having such power.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid the noble Earl was not quite correct in saying that Boards of Guardians acted without authority. They were told by the Local Government Board to act as they had acted upon the understanding that this Bill would he brought in to deal with the matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Without legal authority?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid yes, that was so. The Irish Government did consider that exceptional distress existed in out-of-the-way parts of Ireland. As the noble Earl knew, the mere possession of land in the west of Ireland was no sort of indication that the possessor was not a pauper needing outdoor relief, and the provision in the third clause dealt with the existing law, which declared that no person was to have outdoor relief who was in possession of more than a. quarter of au acre of land. He could safely say that the Bill was brought in for the express purpose of dealing with an

  1587
  exceptional state of distress in certain parts of Ireland, principally in the West.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDENasked if there was more distress than usual in the west of Ireland? Irishmen knew that there were people living there who ought not to live there, who could not get a living from the land. Was this to be a perennial Bill?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)said the Local Government Board of Ireland appeared to have given instructions to Boards of Guardians to extend their administrative powers, and it was necessary to legalise the action taken. He inferred, therefore, that in the opinion of the Local Government Board the distress existing was of a somewhat exceptional nature.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 (Confirmation of expenditure by Guardians and indemnity), and 3 (Power to borrow money and mortgage rates) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—
  OUTDOOR RELIEF NOT TO INVOLVE ELECTORAL DISABILITY.
  No electoral (Usability or loss of any Parliamentary or other franchise shall be incurred by any person by reason of a grant of outdoor relief having been made to him under this Act, or by reason of any such grant ratified under this Act.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDENthought it should be optional to a man whether he would be a pauper or enjoy the franchise—the two things ought not to go together. Why not enfranchise every man in the workhouses, or even go a step further and confer the franchise on the inmates of Hanwell. No doubt they would use their votes as sanely as many did outside. It was an insult to the industrious that a man receiving Poor Law relief should exercise the franchise. If he could get anyone to go into the Lobby with him he would vote against the clause.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.

  MILITARY OPERATIONS (SWAT VALLEY).
  *LORD REAYsaid lie wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any further information could be given with regard to the operations in the Swat Valley, which had already resulted in the unfortunate loss of many brave men. Since putting the question on the Paper he had seen that the Secretary of State for India yesterday, in another place, mentioned that the cause of the rising of the tribes was the preaching of a mad Mullah, but if there was any other causes he hoped they might be communicated to the House. The last part of his question referred to the area over which the rising, which seemed to be on a considerable scale, was spread.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): In the unavoidable absence of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, I have been asked to give the noble Lord the information for which he asks. The telegrams published in the London Press give information regarding the military operations in Malakand and in Swat, which agree with the shorter reports received at the India Office. It would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to make any statement of the causes which have led to the attack without inquiries, which cannot be conducted whilst the fighting continues, and further information must be awaited before the area of the disturbance can be fixed. Dargai, situated somewhat to the south of the Malakand Pass, has not been attacked. It may be of interest to your Lordships if I read out two telegrams received from India yesterday and to-day.
  "From Viceroy, July 29, 1897.—Malakand. —Camp attacked again last night. Casualties—Lieutenant Ford, 31st Bengal Infantry, wounded severely; Lieutenants Maclean, Guides, Swinley, 31st Bengal Infantry, slightly wounded; two Sepoys killed, eight wounded. Enemy's loss not known. They charged up to breastworks, but could not penetrate. Pursuit was not attempted, owing to fatigue of men. Chakdara safe. Dargai has not been attacked. Officers wounded doing well, except Colonel Lamb and Lieutenant Ford, whose condition is serious. In fighting of yesterday, when 24th Bengal Infantry were pressed on Hank by enemy, counter attack, led by Lieutenant Climo, drove back large body of enemy with loss of 90. 38th Bengal Infantry and squadron of 11th Bengal Lancers, strength eight European officers, 12 native officers, 552 rank and

  1589
  file, will probably reach Malakand this evening; 35th Bengal Infantry following. 37th Bengal infantry ordered Peshawar, 8th Bengal Infantry Nowshera, to replace troops reinforcing Malakand. Regret to say Major Taylor, 45th Bengal Infantry, dead."
  "From Viceroy, July 30, 1897.—Malakand. —Total casualties up to July 29 apparently:— Killed—European officers and non-commissioned officers, three; native ranks. 17; followers, 15. Wounded—European officers, nine; native ranks, 71; followers, 11."

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Monday next—(Lord Balfour).—[No. 197.]

  SATURDAY SITTING.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: It may be for the convenience or the House that I should move that the House at its rising do adjourn till half-past Seven to-morrow evening.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Six o'Clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Seven o'Clock.