Sitting of 3 June 1897

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and being returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to several Bills which had passed both Houses. [For list, see proceedings of House of Lords of this date.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reference to the Report recommending the immediate rebuilding of the greater part
  154
  of South Kensington Museum, and the necessity which has arisen for acquiring a house for the Hertford Collection, he will consider the wisdom of spreading the charge over a period of years, as has been done for Naval works and for Military works in the Naval Works Acts of several Sessions and in the Military Works Act of the present Session?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The matter will be considered in connection with the large expenditure which must soon be incurred for Government buildings generally, and so long as the money borrowed is repaid by terminable annuities in a reasonable period, I think there is a good deal to be said for such a policy.
  MR. T. LOUGH: Arising out of that Question, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not there is any truth in the rumour that the South Kensington Museum will be closed for a number of years?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think any decision has been arrived at. But it seems to me that it will probably be necessary that some of the valuable objects in that Museum shall be removed from places where they are now in danger. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government have under consideration the necessity of rebuilding —["hear, hear!"]—and I think the removal of those objects is a matter that will have to be dealt with first.
  MR. LOUGH: Will an opportunity of discussing the matter be given the House?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Not the question of removal.

  DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. E. BOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the officials of a telegraph office have a right to detain or withhold telegrams on the ground of insufficient address, when letters similarly addressed are delivered without question; and whether directions will be given that an address recognised as sufficient to insure delivery of letters shall be recognised as sufficient to insure delivery of telegrams?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is advised that he is under no obligation to treat telegrams and letters in a precisely similar manner as regards delivery, the conditions of delivery in the two cases being widely different. A telegram is an urgent communication, and it is of its essence that it should have prompt delivery. Consequently it is delivered by special messenger, and not by a postman on his round; and it is the universal rule that the address should contain the necessary particulars to insure delivery without difficulty, and without inquiries or references to directories. Although this is the rule, the Department does take trouble to deliver telegrams the addresses of which appear to be defective by accident and not by design, but it would be contrary to the interests of that public that it should allow its officers' time to be spent in procuring the delivery of telegrams which are systematically sent with insufficient addresses. Not only would the telegrams in question be delayed, but telegrams bearing sufficient addresses would also be delayed, and the whole character of the service would be altered for the worse. In the circumstances the Postmaster General is not prepared to give the directions which the hon. Member suggests.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a scheme is on foot to illuminate the Dome of St. Paul's on 22nd June; and whether, in view of the great risk of fire in the Metropolitan Cathedral, he will prevent its being carried out?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The Dean of St. Paul's informs me that a proposal was made to him that the Dome should be illuminated, but he had stated that he would not give his consent until he had obtained competent technical advice as to the safety of the scheme to be proposed. The hon. Baronet may rest assured, I think, that no scheme will be approved unless all
  156
  risks are properly guarded against. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Then nothing will be done without the consent of the Home Office? The City authorities are very much exercised about the matter.
  Sin MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Certainly, Sir. I have been in communication again with the Dean and Chapter on the subject, and I have every reason to believe that nothing will be done which will involve any risk. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Victorian Order is to be conferred at the Jubilee on the surviving officers who served in the Crimea and in the Mutiny, the Secretary of State will take steps also to make some special provision for the surviving privates and non-commissioned officers who served in those campaigns, and who have hitherto been excluded from pensions by the existing regulations?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There is no authority for the statement as to the distribution of the Victorian Order suggested in the Question. Non-commissioned officers and men who served in the Crimean or Indian Mutiny campaigns who have not pensions under the ordinary warrants are granted special campaign pensions provided they have given ten years' service and are in necessitous circumstances. It it not proposed to go further.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the only service not represented in the Jubilee Procession of 22nd June by Her Majesty's Aides-de-camp is that of the Royal Navy; whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling both in the service and in the country as to the inadequacy of representation of the Royal Navy generally at public functions; and whether he will endeavour to remedy this grievance?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I understand that some of Her Majesty's naval and marine Aides-de-camp will be directed to ride in the Jubilee Procession. With reference to the second Question of my hon. and

  157
  gallant Friend, I am always as anxious as he can be that the Navy should be adequately represented at public functions, though, as so large a proportion of the service is employed at sea, there are occasions of functions on shore in which it is difficult for them to participate in the same proportion as sonic other services. I should be sorry to think there was any widespread feeling of grievance, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. I am sure that every one must be anxious to see justice done to the Navy in ceremonials as well as in other respects.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is with his authority a notice is still exhibited within the precincts of the House that no Member unprovided with a ticket will be admitted to Westminster Hall on 22nd of June?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I informed the hon. Member on Tuesday last that I had given no authority to exclude Members from Westminster Hall on June 22. The notice in question was not exhibited by my instructions, and has, I understand, since been withdrawn. ["Hear, hear!"] I may add that in giving my consent to the use of Westminster Hall for luncheon on June 22 for the convenience of Members of the House and their friends I was acting on the request of a Select Committee of the House and in furtherance of what I believed, and still believe, to be the wish of a large majority of this House. [Cheers.] While I would not exclude from Westminster Hall any Member of the House on that day, the hon. Member must understand I certainly do not withdraw my consent to the use of the Hall for luncheon. ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state how many seats have been allotted by the India Office to the Officers of the Army in India at present on leave in England?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA. (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I stated on Monday that the seats at the disposal of the India Office for the civil and military services had been allotted to those in this country who were considered to have the best claims, without regard to the question
  158
  whether they were on leave or not. It would servo no useful purpose to give all analysis of the distribution of the tickets among the various branches of the service.
  MR. J. AIRD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is able to state to the House the number of military bands that will play in London on Jubilee Day, and also the arrangements that will be made to insure this pleasure for the people; and how many of these bands will conic from Aldershot and from Shorncliffe?
  MR. BRODRICK: As far as arrangements are at present completed, 63 bands will take part in the ceremonial on Jubilee Day, exclusive of those bands joining in the service at St. Paul's. Thirty bands will conic from Aldershot and three from Dover.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is able to give any further information as to the arrangements for the street traffic on Jubilee Day?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police arrangements will be made as regards permitting the resumption of either pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the streets to be traversed by the Procession on June 22nd, after the Procession will have passed?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am not in a position to give this information at present, but it is hoped that the arrangements will be completed and the notices issued early next week. This statement will, perhaps, answer also the Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield.
  MR. F. A. CHINNING: On behalf of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Earl COMPTON), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie will consider the desirability of arranging that either all prisoners or long-sentence prisoners will be allowed something better than prison fare on Jubilee day?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir. Besides other object ions I cannot see my way to give special privileges to prisoners which are not and cannot be given to the population generally who are

  159
  not in prison. [Much, laughter, and "Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he will be able to make arrangements on June 22 for Members to reach the House by water?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have only just received the notice of tins Question and have no knowledge of the matter myself, but by the courtesy of Mr. Speaker's Secretary I am able to say that the Thames Steamboat Company would agree to convey Members and their friends from Chelsea or from any intermediate pier to Speaker's steps at the rate of 2s. 6d. per passenger, provided at least 250 applications are made before June 10. Applications may be made direct to the Thames Steamboat Company, 17, Philpot Lane, E.C.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the. Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the forthcoming Jubilee Procession is to be composed in part of Military and Police contingents from every Colony and Dependency of the Crown, the Lords. Commissioners of the Admiralty will make further representations so that the sea power of the Empire may find its proper place in the Procession, either in the form of a Naval field battery with a covering party of Marines or of a rocket brigade; and whether, if none of these suggestions can be adopted and it is decided that the Royal Navy shall have no place in the Imperial Procession, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will order that the seamen of the Fleet shall remain at their respective ports and not be brought up to assist in keeping the streets, but that their services shall be confined to furnishing guards of honour where required?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am, glad to say I am now in a. position to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that it has been settled that naval field guns with their crews will form part of the Jubilee Procession on the 22nd inst. [Cheers.] Contingents of Bluejackets and Marines will be brought up from the ports, not because their services are required to keep order in the streets, but because the Board of Admiralty have felt that their presence, posted as they will be in considerable detachments in conspicuous parts of the route, would be
  160
  satisfactory both to the public and to the naval service. [Cheers.]
  *SIR J. COLOMBasked whether any detachments of the Royal Marine Artillery, with their guns, would also take part in the Procession?
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there would be a covering party of Marines?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: It has only just been settled that naval guns are to appear; where, and in what form, will be decided afterwards. The difficulty has been that no detachments of infantry of any kind are to be in the Procession. It was to be confined to mounted troops of the line, but the concession has now been made in favour of the Navy, and that there should be field guns. Whether they are to be manned by Marines or Bluejackets are details which have not yet been settled.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. T. B. CURRAN), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. L. MacMillan, who has spent several years in working up a coffee and dining room business at 114, Borough Road, is to be ejected, in order that his landlord may let the premises for the Procession of 22nd June; and whether, seeing that this is only one case among many others of a similar character, the Government will see their way to bring in a Bill to prevent such grave injustices?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to MacMillan's case. The landlord appears to have offered him certain terms on which he might be permitted to remain in possession, and when, these were declined to have taken proceedings in the High Court. The Master by whom the order for recovery was made evidently considered that there was no defence; and MacMillan did not appeal, as he might have done to the Judge. Very few cases of this kind have been brought to my notice; and though it may be there has been hardship in one or two, it would not be practicable, I am afraid, to introduce special legislation to meet them.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, to prevent disappointment, the Volunteer corps who

  161
  have been invited to send from the provinces detachments of men to London on 22nd June have been given clearly to understand that they will necessarily be massed several deep in the appointed places, in consequence of the large numbers of troops to be engaged, and will have to make their own arrangements for food and other accommodation, and that this will entail some difficulty, having regard to the probable augmentation of the London population of five millions by half as many again?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Volunteers attending the Jubilee ceremonial will have to be messed at definite stations, as over 40,000 troops will in all be assembled in London. Arrangements are in progress to assist Volunteer corps in providing themselves with the necessary refreshments on that day. These arrangements when completed will be duly notified.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a holiday, with pay, will be given on Jubilee Day to all persons employed in the public service, though they may not be technically "public servants," such as mechanics, labourers, and others employed at Her Majesty's prisons, and who in most cases have to take a compulsory holiday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I must ask the hon. Member to address his Question to the Home Secretary.

  BRIGADE OF GUARDS.
  SIR A. ACLAND HOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state to the House to what extent each of the three regiments of Foot Guards is now above or below the new establishment of 1897–8; to what extent each of the three battalions of the Grenadier Guards is now above or below the new establishment of 1897–8; and how many men of the Grenadier Guards have extended their services with the colours on receipt of bounty, or rejoined the colours from the Reserve under Army Order 59, of 1897?
  MR. BRODRICK: The new establishments of Guards about to be issued, including depots, all ranks except officers,
  162
  for 1897–98, amount to 6,416, being an increase of 728 over the establishments of last year. When the 1st Battalion of Grenadier Guards embarks for Gibraltar in October, its establishment will be further increased by 177 rank and file, making in all au increased establishment of 905. Towards this 106 men have been obtained up to May 31. There remain, therefore, 799 to obtain in the course of the present financial year. The 1st Battalion Grenadiers will require 14 more men on embarkation to complete their Gibraltar establishment. The 2nd Battalion wants 81 men to complete establishment, the 3rd 72, and the Depôt and Regimental Staff 72. The Grenadier Guards, consequently, will require 239 men before April next to complete their establishment. The Coldstreams will require 276 to complete their establishment, including the proportion of the new battalions to be raised. The Scots Guards will require 284 to complete their establishment, including the proportion of the new battalions to be raised. No men have yet extended their service under the new conditions. But it should be noted that the order giving a bounty of 12 to men extending was limited to men whose service happened to expire between May 1 and October 1, and was only promulgated on May 1. The notices to Reservists (326) of the Grenadier Guards were not posted till May 25, and of these 11 have accepted up to yesterday. The increased establishments of the Guards began to take effect on April 1. In the month of May 149 Guards recruits were taken, against 78 in the preceding year, although the Army generally is considerably short of strength.
  SIR A. ACLAND HOOD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether men are now being taken at a very reduced standard, and whether a large number of them are taken below that reduced standard?
  MR. BRODRICK: The standard has been reduced to 5ft. 8in. for recruits of over 20 years of age, and to 5ft. 7in. for recruits under 20. No men have been taken under the latter standard.
  SIR A. ACLAND HOOD: Am I to understand that the Grenadier Guards only require 14 men to complete their establishment?
  MR. BRODRICK: That is so.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTTISH WATERS).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that out of the 20 convictions obtained in 1896 against persons engaged in illegal trawling in Scottish waters four of these convictions apply to William Sims, master of the Sunray, who was fined in the aggregate £285; two convictions apply to Frederick Powderall, master of the Pansy, who was fined in the aggregate £180; and two convictions apply to Thomas Lauder, master of the Amy Gertrude, who was fined in the aggregate £125; (2) will he state whether any of these men elected to go to prison rather than pay the fine; and (3) in view of the fact that repetition of offences by the same offender indicates an indifference to fines on the part of persons engaged in illegal trawling, will he take care that when prosecutions are undertaken the attention of the Court is prominently called to any cases of previous convictions, and that in such cases efforts be made to procure a confiscation of gear in addition to the fine?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The facts set forth in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question are correctly stated. Sims on three occasions and Powderall on one occasion elected to go to prison. When known, the attention of the Procurator Fiscal is called to previous convictions, and in every instance where such a course can be followed, the trawling gear belonging to convicted trawlers has been seized and sold.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Adcate (1) if he will state the names of the six trawling skippers, with name of vessel, who during the year 1896 elected to go to prison for the whole period of their sentence rather than pay the fines inflicted for trawling in prohibited waters; and (2) in view of the indifference with which masters of vessels engaged in trawling in prohibited waters treat the penalties now imposed, will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as will admit of deterrent penalties being inflicted on the owner of such vessels as well as on the master.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the
  164
  names of the trawling skippers who remained in prison for the whole period of their sentences in 1896, are William Price, master of the Strathspey, A 751; Isaac Jackson, master of the St. Fotin, A 392; Frederick Powderall, master of the Commodore, G.N. 31; and William Sims, master of the Sunray, A 669. As regards the second part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him to a similar Question on the 21st February last.

  MUSSEL BEDS (CLYDE).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Fishery Board has yet been able to arrange with the Board of Trade the terms of the lease of the valuable and extensive mussel beds in the Clyde Estuary, off Port Glasgow; and whether, in view of the urgent demand for mussels by persons engaged in the fishing industry, care will be taken that no time is lost in prosecuting the culture of the beds?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in many parts of County Down and elsewhere the landlord's agent accompanies on the same car the Sub-Commissioners to the scene of their examination of farms on which fair rents are to be fixed; and (2) whether, considering the dissatisfaction which this practice creates in the minds of the tenants, he will take steps to secure that this custom be discontinued?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the first paragraph, nor have the Land Commissioners. The Assistant Commissioners are required to avoid doing anything which might suggest partiality.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that frequent applications, without effect, have been made to the Land Commission Court

  165
  by the Bailieboro' Board of Guardians for confirming orders for the payment of compensation to occupiers of farms for plots taken in July 1896 for labourers cottages; and whether the said Board of Guardians have any remedy for such delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Orders referred to were sealed on the 25th May last by the Land Commissioners, and sent to the Solicitor for the Sanitary Authority on the same date.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. D. SHEEHY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants on the Clanricarde and Daly Estates entered their eases in the Land Courts in February last; whether the Commissioners inspected the lands since; and when is it contemplated to hear and decide the cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At the present date there are but 26 cases from the estate of the Marquess of Clanricarde which have not been listed for hearing. The estate referred to as the "Daly Estate" cannot be identified without some further information, as there are live different landlords of the name of Daly, from whose estates in Galway applications have been received. A Sub-Commission has been engaged until recently in disposing of eases from the Portumna and Loughrea Unions, but no date has yet been fixed for the next Sub-Commission to take up cases from these districts.

  MYNYDD-Y-GWAIR COMMON.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether his attention has been called to the position of Mynydd-y-Gwair Common in Glamorganshire; (2) whether he is aware that the Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority agreed to pay the sum of £100 for the extinguishment of commonable or other rights in the common in question on condition that the money should be expended for the benefit of the commoners interested; (3) whether it is a fact that, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonable Rights Compensation Act 1882, an inquiry was held
  166
  in June 1896, and a decision arrived at to construct the roads across the common, but that the Board of Agriculture have declined to make an order on the ground that the committee to whom the £100 was paid refuse to reveal the amount of interest accrued on the amount; and (4) whether, in view of the inability of the commoners to take legal proceedings, he will reconsider the decision of his Department?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The reply to the first two paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third and fourth, I would say that no inquiry has been held, nor have we as yet declined to make an Order in the matter. A meeting of the persons interested in the money in question was convened in June last, but the validity Of the resolutions then arrived at is contested, and we are now considering what further steps, if any, it is possible for us to take.

  BALTIMORE (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the great inconvenience and loss to the fishing industry at Baltimore for want of a pier at deep water and the corresponding extension of the railway so that fish could be transhipped from the fishing boats to the railway waggons; and that some shippers of fish prefer to send their cargoes to Liverpool by sea to the cost and inconvenience of getting them to the railway under present conditions; whether the original intention was to run the railway line to a deep water pier; and whether the Government will now provide the necessary money to have this work carried out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The extension of the railway to deep water was not included in the scheme submitted by the promoting company, or contemplated in the Statutory Report thereon by the Board of Works. The railway terminates in accordance with the original scheme of the promoters. I have no information that some shippers of fish prefer to send their cargoes to Liverpool by sea, direct, as stated; and with regard to the construction of a deep water pier, whilst it

  167
  is generally admitted that such a work would prove a stimulus to the fishing industry, I can only repeat what I have already stated, that until the Harbour Board and the railway company come to an understanding with the Congested Districts Board, the question of a contribution by means of a grant in aid cannot be again considered.

  TELEGRAPH FACILITIES (CO. KILKENNY).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is great need for a telegraph office at Kilmaganny, county Kilkenny, which has a population of about 400, several important business establishments, Petty Sessions Court, Catholic and Protestant churches, dispensary, and constabulary barracks, and is situate in an important district with no telegraph office nearer than four miles distant; and whether he will take steps to establish a telegraph office at Kilmaganny?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of extending the telegraphs to Kilmaganny has been carefully inquired into, but the Postmaster General regrets that he is not in a position to establish a telegraph office there unless a guarantee be furnished. The Postmaster General will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  POSTAL SERVICE (NOTTINGHAM).
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if there is any foundation for the statement that in the postal service at Nottingham lads from 14 to 16 years of age are employed between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., six days a week, for a weekly wage of 3s. or at the rate of 2d. per hour?
  MR. HANBURY: The statement is not accurate. Six telegraph messengers over 16 years of age who arc engaged between three and four hours a day on their usual duties are employed from 7 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. to assist in, the last town delivery of letters. They earn on an average 7s. 6d. a week, and they are awaiting appointment as town postmen. The arrangement under which they take part in the delivery of letters is of advantage to the lads,
  168
  as it puts them in training for the appointments to which they are looking forward.

  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is the case that, whilst master gunners in the Artillery, conductors in the Army Ordnance Corps, and staff sergeant-majors of the Army Service Corps may rise, after certain periods of satisfactory service, from the lowest to the highest grade of warrant officer, an Army schoolmaster must remain in the lowest or fourth class of warrant officers so long as he is a schoolmaster; and, if so, does he propose to maintain this disability?
  MR. BRODRICK: The classes into which warrant officers are divided must depend on the relative importance of the duties and responsibilities of the appointments held. However valuable may be the services of an Army schoolmaster, it is not possible to regard his functions as equal in importance to those of the warrant officers cited in the Question, who have either high executive duties or important charges of materiel. Schoolmasters are eligible for and often obtain commissioned rank as Inspectors of Schools.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of the statment contained in the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, that the practice of concealing or obliterating letters and numbers, and trawling without lights, has become very common with trawlers engaged in fishing in prescribed waters, and causes great difficulty in identifying trawlers so engaged, he will consider the expediency of taking such steps as will admit of the penalties for the concealment of numbers and fishing without lights being rendered of a more severe and deterrent nature than now imposed?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the penalty for concealing letters and numbers is fixed by the Additional Regulations under Part 2 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Victoria, chap, 45),

  169
  which Regulations were approved by Her Majesty in Council on 26th February, 1880. The regulations in regard to lights are issued under the Acts relating to Merchant Shipping. But I must point out that these are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the statement in the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, that in the year 1896 there were four cases in which the gear of persons engaged in illegal trawling was confiscated, will he state in each case the name of the trawler so engaged, as well as the name of the master and owner, and whether a fine was imposed in each case?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the names of the trawlers whose gear was confiscated in 1896 were the Sunray, A. 669, owners Johnstone and Sherritt, Aberdeen, master, William Sims; Bosphorus, S.S.S. 278, owner J. Wilson, North Shields, master Joseph Ballard; and Commodore, G.N. 31, owner John McPherson, Arbroath, master Frederick Powderall. The gear of the last named trawler was seized on two occasions. In each of the cases referred to fines were imposed.

  BICYCLE LIGHTS.
  MR. BERESFORD MELVILLE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a verdict of manslaughter given in the case of a bicyclist who was killed at Stockport by a cart driven at night without lights; and whether he will be prepared to introduce a Bill to enforce the carrying of lights, and prevent similar accidents in the future?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has not been called to this case otherwise than by the hon. Member's Question. I am afraid I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill as suggested by him; but a Bill dealing with the subject is already before the House and has obtained a Second Reading, and under the existing law Borough and County Councils have ample powers of dealing with the matter by means of bye-laws, powers which in many cases have been exercised.
  *MR. PERCY THORNTONasked whether it was not the fact that
  170
  there was no lights bye-law at Stockport, although one existed where the accident occurred, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would not take some measures to enforce uniformity in the carrying of lights?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that had the cart at Stockport carried a light it was very probable the accident would not have happened. He understood his hon. Friend desired general legislation on the subject. The hon. Gentleman's own Bill had been read a Second time and he must leave the House to deal with it.

  MILITARY PRISONS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state how many, if any, prisoners in the Military prisons of the United Kingdom or Colonies have received corporal punishment on more than one occasion during the last six years?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Returns rendered do not distinguish the cases in which corporal punishment has been inflicted more than once on the same prisoner, but the information can be called for from the several prisons if the hon. Member desires it.

  CIVIL PRISONS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state how many prisoners in the local prisons and convict establishments of the United Kingdom have received corporal punishment on more than one occasion during the past six years; and if there are any who have received such punishment on more than two occasions during the same period?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Governors of prisons have been requested to supply this information, but it will be impossible to answer the Question before the holidays.

  ST. COLUMBA'S CHURCH SCHOOLS, KINGSLAND ROAD.
  MR. THOMAS OWEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been called

  171
  to the serious complaints, made by parents before the stipendiary magistrate at Worship Street last Saturday, of children attending St. Columba's Church Schools, Kingsland Road, being obliged to go in procession to church, bow at the altar, etc., contrary to the wishes of the parents, and the allegation in one instance that the children were caned if they did not go; and, if so, if he will take steps to insure the due observance of the conscience clause in the school?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,): The attention of the Committee of Council was drawn to this matter about a month ago, and they have satisfied themselves by very careful inquiry that no child is obliged to attend the church, or is punished for not doing so. The managers have, however, been instructed to enter on the Time Table the day and hour of the services to which they propose to take children.

  TELEGRAPH SERVICE (SCOTLAND).
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the telegraph service in Scotland at the country post offices on the 22nd June will, as on Sundays, be limited to one hour, so that the telegraphists may not be detained the whole day in their respective offices?
  MR. HANBURY: Having the whole of the United Kingdom in view, I stated on the 13th ultimo, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Devonport, that the arrangements would be the same throughout the United Kingdom as on ordinary Bank Holidays, and the telegraph offices would, as a rule, be kept open as on ordinary days to meet the convenience of the public, but that the less important offices in towns would be closed as far as possible. The Postmaster General does not think he can make any exception in the case of Scotland.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL ACT 1897.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether grants payable
  172
  under the Voluntary Schools Act 1897, may be used for building purposes?
  SIR. J. GORST: No·, Sir.

  CATTLE FOOD.
  MR. C. T. GILES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that imported barley meal used as food for cattle often contains a large quantity of maize meal, a much cheaper article; and whether he has considered if anything can be done to prevent the purchaser being thus prejudiced?
  *MR. LONG: No complaint has hitherto reached me as to the adulteration of barley meal in the manner indicated, but I should presume that a purchaser would have no difficulty in obtaining redress by means of civil proceedings for any loss which he might sustain. Without more precise information before me, I am afraid that I am unable to assist my hon. Friend, but I should be glad to receive and to consider any statement of the facts with which he may be able to supply me.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the results, so far, of the inquiries which have been made of local authorities in reference to the recommendations contained in the Report upon the Weights and Measures Acts which was submitted last year; and whether, having regard to those results and to the fact that a deputation from the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations waited upon him, urging the desirability of securing uniformity of administration, he will consent to appoint a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade to consider the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Since I replied to a Question by the hon. and learned Member on the 19th February, only ten more replies have been received from local authorities. Some of the larger and more important of these bodies have not responded at present, and I am not yet in a position to decide upon future action.

  AIRDRIE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he has received and perused the statement of the officers of the disbanded 5th Volunteer Battalion Scottish Rifles (Airdrie Volunteers); and if he will recommend an inquiry into the whole facts of the case?
  MR. BRODRICK: The statement forwarded by my hon. Friend has been duly received at the War Office. The decision to disband the 5th Volunteer Battalion Scottish Rifles was made after careful consideration by the military authorities of the condition of the battalion, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that no good end would be attained by reopening the question.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid be would he take another opportunity of exposing this business.

  INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the usual Memorandum explanatory of the Indian Financial Statement, which has already been received from Calcutta, can he presented to Parliament immediately after the Recess, so that Members may be better prepared to deal with that statement when brought before tire House for its adoption?
  Loan GEORGE HAMILTON: The explanatory Memorandum is in the hands of the printers; but some of the information which I wish to include in it was only received by the last mail from India, and I fear that it cannot be distributed to Members for some time yet.

  POST OFFFICE (WESTON-SUPER-MARE).
  MR. H. G. JOLLIFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a site for a new post office at Weston-super-Mare was acquired by Government several years ago, that new accommodation is urgently required, and when the building is likely to be commenced?
  MR. HANBURY: A site for a new post office at Weston-super-Mare was purchased in 1892, and the building plans are still
  174
  under consideration. It has been necessary to revise them more than once, as the expense involved was considered to be too great. The Postmaster General regrets that he is not in a position to say when the building will be commenced; but the present office was temporarily enlarged last year, so as to mitigate the need for the new accommodation.

  GIANTS' CAUSEWAY.
  GENERAL MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether an appeal has been lodged against the recent decision of the Vice Chancellor in the Giants' Causeway case; and whether in view of the difficulty on the part of the defendants of raising further funds for the defence of public rights, he will advise the Treasury to provide the money required.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I have been informed that an appeal is contemplated, but I am not aware whether it has been lodged. There is no precedent for the Treasury paying the costs of the private defendants in such a case as this.

  CRETE.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Reports of the Admirals on Cretan affairs dealing with the period from 12th February to 4th May have been published, while the Papers relating to the previous period, from 5th December to 12th February, including those relating to the burning of Canea, and the instructions to the Admirals, are still held back.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The hon. Member will see on reference to the Cretan Blue-book (Turkey, No. 8, 1897) that it contains papers, not, as he says, only till December 5, but down to the end of the year, the last Dispatch published in it having been received on December 28. I explained to the hon. Member on Monday that the Papers from that date onward are in course of preparation, and will shortly be in the hands of the House. But, as the Blue-book is a large one, and as we are anxious to

  175
  bring it up to the latest possible date, it was decided to lay the reports of the Admiral in the interval.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the next batch of papers published would include a report as to the number of Mussulmans, including women and children, who had been murdered by the Cretan insurgents during the present year.
  MR. CURZONsaid the Government had received no such Report.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the raid made by armed Mussulmans on the village of Ghalifa, resulting in the slaughter of several Christians, including women, whether the Governor of Candia has furnished any explanation to the representatives of the Great Powers concerning the alleged connivance of the outposts, who had been specially instructed to prevent such movements; and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of these raids from a town in possession of the Great Powers?
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governor of Candia, in consequence of the protests of the Consuls, caused the leaders of the Mahommedan expedition which had plundered the Christian village of Kalivia to be arrested; whether on Monday morning a. large crowd of Mahommedans surrounded the Konak demanding the release of the prisoners; and whether the prisoners have been released?
  MR. CURZON: The only official information that we have received, beyond that which was given in my reply on the 1st inst., is contained in a telegram from Sir A. Biliotti, which arrived this afternoon to the effect that on June 1 upwards of 1,000 Mussulmans made a pacific demonstration at Candia to obtain the liberation of their co-religionists who were suspected of having attacked the Ghalifa Christians; that the crowd was dispersed by the gendarmerie and troops; but that the prisoners were released.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is responsible at present for the maintenance of law and order in the town of Candia?
  MR. CURZON: The Turkish Governor is responsible for the maintenance of order in the town of Candia. But it must be considered that he is under the direction of the Admirals who represent the Powers, and have control of the European occupying force.

  EGYPT.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the detailed Report on the expenditure of the grant in aid to Egypt will be circulated?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The details of the expenditure of the grant in aid to Egypt in respect of the Dongola Expedition have already been circulated. They appear on Page 2 of Lord Cromer's Report on Egypt, which was presented in February. I expect a further Report in due course, with respect to the remainder of the grant.

  CIVIL SERVICE (SECOND DIVISION CLERKS).
  *MR. HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the salaries paid to Second Division clerks are for a daily attendance of seven hours; and whether it is the practice of the Treasury to sanction the payment of additional remuneration when these officers are required to work periodic overtime?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to both Questions is "Yes."
  *MR. KIMBERasked what was the scale of remuneration for overtime?
  MR. HANBURYthought it was 1s. 6d. per hour.

  MARYBOROUGH PRISON (PATRICK CONNEELY).
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that one Patrick Connerly, or Connolly, a convict in Maryborough Prison, undergoing a long sentence for manslaughter, was returned for trial in April I882; that, through remands and adjournments, the trial did not take place until July 1883; and that, of the two other prisoners who were tried with Connolly on the same charge, one of

  177
  them, named Fon, died a lunatic in Richmond Asylum some years ago, and the other, named Diskin, was discharged last year on the plea of ill-health and died shortly afterwards; and (2) whether, in view of all these facts, he will recommend that the convict Connelly shall be allowed in the working out of his sentence the benefit of the 15 months' imprisonment which lie underwent while awaiting trial, and the sentence be reduced accordingly?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Patrick Conneely is the name of the convict referred to. Fox died in Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum in July 1889. I have no information that Diskin died shortly after his release on licence in 1895. Otherwise the statements in the first paragraph are correct. An application was recently received from Conneely to be allowed the benefit of the period during which he awaited his trial, and it was decided that there was no ground for a special remission of sentence in his case.
  MR. DAVITT: May I ask whether it is the custom in this country to make allowance in the working out of a sentence for the time the prisoner is kept awaiting his trial?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I presume all the circumstances were before the Judge.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay upon the Table the calculations on which he relied to show that the proportion of compensation to be paid in the coal trade under the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill would certainly not exceed I per cent. of the wages paid?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Sir, the calculations I gave were Departmental and private calculations based on official and other figures which are as much open to hon. Members as myself, and I do not propose to lay them on the Table.
  MR. MACLEANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would invite the representatives of the coal trade in South
  178
  Wales to meet him and discuss the question, so that they might see how the Bill bore upon them?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was afraid that would involve tremendous discussion. He was quite willing to hear what those gentlemen had to say, but he might state that he had studied with the greatest care the statistics which had been laid before him, and to promise to discuss the whole matter was more than he could undertake.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether it was the practice of the Inland Revenue Department, previous to the passing of the Finance Act 1894, to charge probate duty on personal property falling to the Crown by default of next of kin; (2) whether it is now the practice to charge estate duty on both real and personal property which falls to the Crown by default either of heirs or of next of kin; (3) whether there is any instance of departure from this practice in the case either of probate duty or of estate duty; and (4) whether any question has arisen; and, if so, how, as to the lawfulness of the practice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So far as England is concerned, the answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative, and I am not aware of any instance in which probate duty has not been paid on personal property falling to the Crown by default of next of kin. A question arose after the passing, of the Act of 1894 as to the legality of charging estate duty in these cases, especially upon real estate, which upon a reference to the Law Officers was decided by them in the affirmative a few months ago. Accordingly, estate duty has been, or will be, paid in all cases in which property, real or personal, has fallen or may fall to the Crown in England. In Scotland the practice has been somewhat different, as the Crown can there collect an estate without administration, and so did not before 1894 pay probate duty (which was payable upon the grant of letters of administration or confirmation). The case was, however, altered by the Act of 1894 (as interpreted by the Law Officers), which made estate duty payable irrespective of letters of

  179
  administration or confirmation, and since the end of last year the practice in Scotch cases has been assimilated to that in English.

  KILKENNY PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention, has been directed to a case tried at Grace's Old Castle (Kilkenny) Petty Sessions, before Mr. Considine, R.M., on the 22nd ult., in which it was proved that a water bailiff, named Bannon, had forcibly seized, assaulted with a cane sword, and searched the pockets of a boy named Patrick Comerford, and took from him some minnow alleging that they were salmon fry; whether water bailiffs are legally empowered to arrest and search the pockets of persons whom they know and could identify and prosecute if necessary; and whether the Crown can and will interfere either to prosecute Bannon or order a re-hearing of the charges?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a case tried in Kilkenny Petty Sessions on the 22nd ultimo, in which it was proved that a water bailiff named Joseph Bannon, in the employ of the Irish Fishery Conservators, forcibly took from a boy named Patrick Comerford, whom he found fishing, some minnow which Bannon alleged was salmon fry; whether he is aware that it was sworn by Bannon that the Conservators only decided a few days before this trial that minnow is not salmon fry; and whether the Irish Fishery Conservators intend to retain Bannon in their employment?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: In answer to this and the next Question on the Paper, I beg to say that my attention has been called to the case mentioned, in which there was a direct conflict of testimony between the parties as to the circumstances and nature of the assaults alleged to have been committed by each of the parties on the other. The magistrates dismissed both cases, holding that in point of law the Statute 54 and 55 Vic., s. 20, sec. 6 did not authorise the water bailiff to search the person of Comerford, who is a man of 24 years of age. It is open to both parties to appeal
  180
  from these decisions, when the magistrates ruling can be revised. It also appears from the report furnished to me that Comerford threatens to take civil proceedings against Bannon for the assault. Under these circumstances it would not be proper for me to give an opinion on the legal point involved. The Crown have no power to order a rehearing of the charges made on both sides, and it does not appear to be a fit case in which to institute a criminal prosecution at the suit of the Crown.

  PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now in a position to fix a. date for the introduction of the Bill placing parish councils in Scotland on the same footing as similar councils in England in regard to guarantees?
  MR. HANBURY: I hope to introduce the Bill immediately after Whitsuntide.

  COVENT GARDEN MARKET.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1), whether he is aware that for many years past merchants and traders in Covent Garden Market were in the habit of sending to the country to their customers who were producers, packets of printed labels for clearly directing their agricultural produce, which were sent under the book post rate, no objection being raised by the postal authorities until two months ago; (2) will he explain why, without warning, the postal authorities have stopped these packages, altogether, under the book post rate, and will only admit them under the letter rate, so that what formerly was sent for ½d. now costs 1½d.; and (3) whether, considering the burthened condition of the farmers and fruit growers, he will revert to the old rule, and allow these labels, which are absolutely valueless, to go at book post rate?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The packets were excluded from transmission by book post under the Inland Post Amendment Warrant, 1897, which pro-

  181
  vides that the expression "book packet" shell not include any article which, though made of paper and bearing words in writing or printing, is substantially of the nature of stationery or merchandise. The Warrant was laid on the Table of the House on the 29th of January last, and notice of its publication was given in the Gazette of the 15th of the same month. The Postmaster General considers that the grievance will be removed by the regulations which come into force on the 22nd instant, as, though it will still be impossible to send a 2 oz. packet by book post for ½d., it will be possible to send a 4 oz. packet for by letter post.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. SHEEHY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) on what grounds was Sergeant O'Dowd compelled to retire from the police force on a reduced pension before his time; and (2) will he state by whose authority Inspector Fleming is drawing an allowance of £50 per annum as Divisional County Inspector one year longer than the maximum period of three years?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No pensioner named Sergeant O'Dowd is on the lists of pensioners from the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police. There is no time limit, as suggested, to the payment of the annual allowance referred to in the second paragraph.

  TOKAT MASSACRE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has yet received information respecting the letter addressed by Sir Philip Currie to Tewfik Pasha in regard to the recent massacre of Armenians at Tokat; whether complaint was made as to the inactivity of the tribunal at Tokat appointed to try the Mussulmans implicated in the massacre; and what steps have been taken by the representatives of the Powers to secure the punishment of those already tried and found guilty of complicity in the affair?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador telegraphs that he is addressing
  182
  representations to the Turkish Government daily with regard to the non-confirmation of the sentences passed by the Commission on the offenders at Tokat and the acquittal of the officials, and that his colleagues, whom he has acquainted with the telegrams received from Her Majesty's Consul, have also made representations to the Porte. The Council of Ministers have had the matter under their consideration, but so far no decision has been arrived at.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House what the sentences were?
  MR. CURZON: I cannot without reference, because there were a great many sentences, each differing from the other. If my hon. Friend desires the information I shall be glad to give it to him.

  MINES INSPECTOR (SOUTH WALES).
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state why the Inspector of Mines for South Wales has discontinued giving in his annual Reports the number of inspections made (above and under ground) and inquests attended during the course of the year by himself and his assistant inspectors; and if he is aware that this information was of interest to those engaged in colliery operations in the district?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I do not know why Mr. Robson has omitted this information from his last, Report. He is under no obligation to give it, but I have no doubt he will be willing to do so if it is of interest to those in his district.

  POST OFFICE GUIDE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although there are two places named Tarbert in Scotland, it is equally true that there are two places named Newport in England; and that, in the case of these latter places, they are respectively and correctly described in the list of money order and telegraph offices in the Post Office Guide as Newport (Mon.) and Newport (Isle of Wight); and whether, seeing that Tarbert (Harris) is the name

  183
  of a money order and telegraph office, will he explain why it cannot be so described at page 205 of the Post Office Guide, especially having regard to the fact that, in describing Harris as a money order and telegraph office at page 121, the Post Office is misleading the public, Harris being merely the name of a district?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; the Postmaster General is aware, and lie thinks the hon. Member's wishes can be met in the next edition of the Post Office Guide. The office at Tarbert (Harris) shall there he fully described as a. money order and telegraph office both under the name Harris and under the name Tarbert.

  JUDICIAL TRUSTEES ACT 1896.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the rules of procedure under the Judicial Trustees Act 1896, have been finally approved; and, in such case, if he will take steps to bring to the notice of the legal profession and the public the opportunity given by the Act for any person interested in a trust, either as settlor, trustee, or beneficiary, to obtain the appointment of a judicial trustee, who at trifling cost will discharge his duties under the supervision of the Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I am informed that the rules under the Judicial Trustees Act are almost ready for issue. The object has been, as far as possible, to establish a system which shall not be costly, but it is difficult to utilise the supervision of the Court without expense.

  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the British Administrator on the mainland strip of the British East African Protectorate acts legally when he, in accordance with the discretionary powers recently given him by Her Majesty's Government, restores to their previous masters slaves who have run away to these British administered dominions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The statement of facts in the hon. Member's Question is not sufficient to enable me
  184
  to express an opinion, but if he will communicate with me I will go into the matter.

  IRISH JUDICIARY.
  SIR J. COLOMB: On behalf of the lion. Member for Dublin University (Mr. EDWARD CARSON), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how many Judgeships are now vacant in Ireland; and whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill this Session dealing with all or any of such vacancies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that there are now three Judgeships vacant in Ireland, and it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill shortly after Whitsuntide dealing with the matter.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked what was to become of the money which had been saved by reason of the vacancies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In accordance with a pledge given earlier in the Session by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any money which has been saved through the vacant Irish. Judgeships will be devoted to Irish purposes.

  BOARD OF TRADE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, considering the increased amount of work that has devolved of late years upon the Board of Trade Department, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of assimilating the position of the Minister at the head of that Department with that of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State?
  *SIR C. DILKEwas understood to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, instead of confining himself strictly to the terms of the Question, he would also consider the alternative plan of rearranging the work of the Departments?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government recognise that the progress of legislation has made a change both in the absolute and ill the relative amount of work done by the different offices, and possibly, also, in the importance of the work done by them.

  185
  We feel, however, that it would be impossible to consider one office in isolation to the other offices, and that, probably, when the question comes to be considered, the point raised by the right hen. Baronet opposite ought not to be lost sight of. But while we admit all these facts, we do not think that the question is at present ripe for any exhaustive inquiry or for any great changes.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the expenses incurred by railway and other companies in Wales and Monmouthshire (exclusive of English railway companies running into Wales) in promoting and opposing private Bills and Provisional Orders before Parliament during the years 1886 to 1891 exceeded those incurred in connection with Bills from Ireland, and that, according to a statement recently made by the Home Secretary, there is no reason for supposing that there has been any material change in the circumstances since the last Return was granted, lie will consider the advisability of extending to Bills coming from Wales the provisions of the Measure promised in the Queen's Speech for amending the existing procedure with respect to private Bills coming from Scotland and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not at all prepared to say that the present system of legislation for England and Wales is entirely satisfactory, but I do not think that is a cause why any part of England or Wales should be dealt with separately.

  COAL SUPPLIES.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the increase in the production and export of British coal in recent years, the limited extent of the coalfields, and the dependence of our industrial supremacy upon an adequate supply of suitable fuel, and having regard to the fact that no official inquiry as to the probable continuance of our coal supplies has been made for nearly a quarter of a century,
  186
  he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee of the House to report upon the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Home Office upon the subject, but I cannot help feeling some personal doubts as to the value of such an investigation unless the hon. Gentle. man thinks that any subsequent action could be taken if the investigation showed that our coalfields were practically becoming exhausted; and that makes me feel doubtful as to the necessity or even the propriety of such an investigation.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state what Supply will be taken on Thursday the 17th instant?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Supply we propose to take on Thursday the 17th, the day on which we reassemble after the holidays, is Class 4.
  MR. J. MORLEY: And on the Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Classes 6 and 7.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Does Class 4 include the Education Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir.
  In reply to an HON. MEMBER who asked when the Post Office Vote would be taken,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give a pledge. It will not be taken on the Thursday or the Friday after we meet. Very likely it will be taken on the Friday following, but I cannot tell.

  CRETE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved: —
  "That to-morrow this House do meet at Twelve of the Clock, and, at its rising, do Adjourn till Thursday June 17th, and that, so soon as Government business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do Adjourn the House without Question put."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it would be inexcusable, in view of the work that remained to be done on the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, if a friend of that Bill were to cause any long delay on the Motion before the House. The Foreign Office Vote had been postponed for the purpose of affording an opportunity for a general discussion upon the foreign policy of the Government on pending questions, such as affairs in the farther East in connection with China and Korea, while there were other foreign matters of importance, such as the treatment of slaves in the East Africa Protectorate, which could be dealt with on the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. But there were two questions as to which there would be a feeling in the country that an opportunity which would not offer again for a couple of weeks ought to be taken advantage of to elicit some information from the Government with regard to Turkey and Greece. With regard to Greece he would not attempt to press the Government, seeing that delicate negotiations were still in h progress, although of course he should be glad the Government could give the House any information. But it appeared to him that nothing could remove the impression under which many Members of the House rested, namely, that a terrible condition of affairs prevailed in Crete for which the policy of the Powers was in a large degree responsible. When the blockade of Crete became effective, on March 21, the policy of the Government was autonomy for Crete—autonomy of a very complete description—and the immediate removal of the Greek and Turkish forces. The whole of the Greek troops had left Crete now some time, but not a single Turkish soldier had been withdrawn from the island, and while the Powers had landed troops in considerable numbers, and while the British Power was represented by large forces, yet the Admirals appeared to be unable to maintain order, even in the town actually garrisoned by our troops. A question was put just now by the hon. Member for East Mayo, who had made a careful study of the Cretan question, and questions were put by him on the previous day, and from the answers given it appeared that disorder prevailed actually in Canea itself, and that prisoners—the persons who were
  188
  supposed to have been implicated in the attack by the Mahomedans upon a Greek village, in which a number of people were killed a few days ago—these prisoners were released by the mob under the very eyes of our troops. He confessed that the Blue-book laid before the House appeared to have been selected in a very curious fashion. The Dispatches seemed to have been taken out here and there, a portion only of the story being told, and here and there with references to papers of the same date which were not disclosed. Certainly the effect was to create an unjust prejudice, in his opinion, against one side in this particular dispute. The Admirals were no doubt very excellent Admirals, from the naval point of view, but as far as he could judge of their conduct from the Blue-book, they had not displayed great diplomatic powers or great powers of governing in connection with the settlement of the solution of the immediate Cretan question. Admirals, the most distinguished, had not always been successful in diplomacy. Nelson tried to affect the policy of the Two Sicilies, but he made no great display in the art of government. Certainly the Admirals in relation to the affairs of Crete seemed to be in face of a worse state of things at the present moment than they were three months ago. The Government were very deeply committed to the establishment in Crete of a very complete form of autonomy; they were absolutely committed to the withdrawal of every Turkish soldier from the island; but they saw no progress whatever being made towards the solution of this question. Things in Crete were going from bad to worse. Even on the evidence of the Blue-book and of our Admiral himself, the steps we were now taking were making things worse, because he showed in the Blue Book that every day that passed made it more and more difficult for the island to settle down, and to be brought under capable, prosperous, and contented government. No doubt the Government had told the House that their excuse for letting things slide along in Crete as they were going on now, was that the question of the Greek frontier must be settled, the Treaty of Peace between Turkey and Greece signed, and the question of the indemnity regulated before the Cretan

  189
  question could be settled. He was afraid from what he had seen in the past of this Cretan question, especially from what they had seen in the past few months, that this was merely a policy of postponement. ["Hear, hear!"] So long as they went on trying to govern Crete by a council of war composed of six Admirals, things would continue to go from bad to worse in that island. Nothing but the choice of a skilful administrator and diplomatist to act as the commissary of the different Powers was likely to lead to the cessation of the present state of things, which, in his belief, was a disgrace to Europe. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DILLONdesired to call attention to the recent sortie from the town of Candia. It might appear to some people that these quarrels and bloody encounters, on a small scale, between the Mahomedan and Christian population of Crete, were small matters, but they were not small in their possible consequences, as they would realise when they remembered that this sortie of Candia was an occurrence exactly analogous to those which in the months of January and February last preceded the burning of Canea, and led up to the subsequent bombardment, blockade and war of Thessaly. Therefore, small as the matters were, it must be recognised that they might lead to the most regrettable consequences. So long as the Greek troops were retained in Crete, every request that was made to the Government to hurry up their operations in Crete, to declare the details of their policy of autonomy and go forward with the work of restoring peace in that island, was met with the one answer, that the occupation by the Greek troops was the only obstacle. Over and over again pledges were made from the Treasury Bench that the moment the Greek troops were withdrawn peace would be restored to the island, and the work of free government taken in hand. The last of the Greek troops left Crete on the 23rd May; it was now the 3rd June, but instead of any step being taken in the direction of giving peace and freedom to Crete they saw that fatal course of operations being indulged in which on so many previous occasions had been deliberately commenced by the Mahomedan population, with the view of involving the whole island in anarchy and confu-
  190
  sion. This particular sortie was the first blow struck since the Greek troops left the island, and the Christian population would have reason, therefore, to doubt the promises which had been made to them by the Powers in the presence of whose very troops such an occurrence was allowed to take place, although they were there presumably for the express purpose of seeing that law and order were maintained. The Candia correspondent of The Times stated on the 26th that a sortie was about to take place, but the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on being questioned on Friday the 27th of May stated that the Foreign Office had no information about the sortie. Two days after being so questioned, the sortie took place, the right hon. Gentleman stating, that it had been secretly organised, and carried out without the slightest suspicion of such intention on the part of the Mahomedans or the Governor of the place. But it was clear, as was shown by the intimation given by The Times correspondent, that the contemplated sortie must have been a matter of common knowledge. What action did the Powers propose to take to secure the punishment of the men who had engaged in the sortie and in the outrages incident to it? He was rather surprised at an answer given by the Under Secretary to the question who was responsible for order and law in Candia. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the Turkish Governor was so responsible. All he had to say was that it was a bad look out for law and order. That was another way of saying that no man's life or property was safe. It was impossible for any one of the six Powers to wash their hands of responsibility for the acts of ruthlessness and violence, conducted under the very shadow of their flags. It was idle for them to disclaim the responsibility which the fact of the occupation of the island cast upon them.
  MR. CURZON: I was not disclaiming it. I especially acknowledged it. Whilst I said in the first paragraph of my answer that the Turkish Governor was responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the town, I went on to say it must be considered that he is under the direction of the Admirals who represent the Powers and have control of the European occupying troops.
  MR. DILLONhoped instructions would be sent to the Admirals to show the same alacrity in restoring order and seeing justice carried out that they displayed in shelling the insurgents on another occasion around Candia. It was said that after the Greek troops had left the island the blockade would cease. The troops had left, and yet the blockade continued. There was no blockade against the Mahomedan inhabitants, but against the Christians, without distinction of person or sex. Why, now the Greek troops had left, was the blockade maintained? He was convinced that, if at the beginning, the Cretan population had been treated with a little consideration and kindness, the bombardments which had shocked the moral sentiment of the country, and the war in Thessaly would never have taken place. If the Cretans had not been treated as rebels and enemies, but with common sense and sympathy, showing that this country meant to do them justice and to rescue them from the position in which they were placed, a peaceful arrangement might have been brought about. He bad asked why the Admirals' Dispatches had been published, while previous and far more interesting and valuable papers had been kept back. A sentence in the Dispatch of Rear-Admiral Harris of March 4th showed that, however estimable he might be, he was utterly unfit to deal with the insurgent population. Before he had had any opportunity of making himself acquainted with the character of the Cretan people, he wrote speaking of them as a savage race who only understood force. No wonder he soon began to use force, and concluded that force was the only remedy. But history showed that the Cretans had had nothing but force for three centuries. It was just another sample of what was admitted by all nations to be characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon race—the utter incapacity to understand suffering races such as the Cretans. In connection with the Jubilee celebrations, it was his intention to put a question to the Government as to whether they proposed to follow the example of all civilised nations by taking the occasion of the great national thanksgiving to extend a measure of amnesty to the political prisoners now lying in gaol in this country and in Ireland. The Government
  192
  had been questioned over and over again on that subject, and the stereotyped answer was that they had nothing more to say in addition to what had been said by the Home Secretary. It was impossible to deny that it was the custom of civilised nations on occasions of national rejoicing to signalise them by the remission of sentences. On the occasion of the Coronation of the late Czar, upwards of 1,000 prisoners were released. The Jubilee celebration was undoubtedly an occasion of great national rejoicing to Great Britain and the Empire, but it was an occasion in which the Irish people could not join. Even if the Government should be so well advised as to release those prisoners—about a dozen in number—he (Mr. Dillon) could not pretend that that would cause the Irish people to join in the Jubilee celebrations, but it would have a considerable effect in lessening the bitterness that existed in Ireland in reference to this matter. [Cheers.] A few weeks ago a strange interview took place between Mr. Greene, England's representative in Pretoria, and the President of the Republic. Mr. Greene called upon President Kruger and asked him to release the Johannesburg prisoners still in gaol. President Kruger replied that they could get out by signing some papers which had already been signed by other prisoners released. The prisoners said they could not see their way to sign the papers, and Mr. Greene pointed out to Mr. Kruger that it was the custom of most civilised countries that when the circumstances in connection with which criminals had been sentenced had passed away, the sentences were reconsidered. "Am I to look upon your country as uncivilised?" said Mr. Greene. Mr. Kruger, in reply, said:—
  "You have in Ireland still in your gaols, I am informed, Irish political prisoners who have lain there for 12 or 13 or 14 years, and yet your Government refuses to consider their sentences. Am I to conclude that your country is uncivilised?"
  He was informed that Mr. Greene thereupon withdrew, and pursued the subject no further. There really was no answer to that. It was said that England was one of the most liberty-loving countries in the world, and the Government professed to administer their laws with humanity, and yet no civilised nation

  193
  had under similar circumstances of rejoicing refusesl to open the prison doors to those unfortunate political prisoners. He did believe that if these political prisoners were released, it would create a profound effect upon public sentiment in Ireland. The proposition had been laid down recently that these prisoner, should not be dealt with except on considerations of health. He had heard more than one Chief Secretary repudiate, as he would a most scandalous charge, the suggestion that political considerations should influence him in regard to these prisoners, and up to the present time no Irish political prisoners had been amnestied; they had only been released when the condition of their health was such that any prisoner would have been released under similar circumstances. He directed the attention of the house to the Debate which took place in that House in 1877, when Mr. J. O'Connor Power moved a Resolution in favour of amnesty. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, and Lord Harrington spoke on that occasion, and Lord Hartington then said that supposing these men were to be treated as political prisoners, if on general grounds Her Majesty's advisers, acting upon their own responsibility, came to the conclusion that the political advantages which would accompany a general amnesty of these political offenders would be such as to outweigh any disadvantages which might arise from, their release, he believed that such a decision would be received with the greatest possible satisfaction on his side el the House. That opinion was also endorsed by Mr. Gathorne Hardy. The principle had been laid down and accepted on both sides of the House that these questions of dealing with politic prisoners should be looked at from the point of view of political expediency, end if the Government would not accept that view, they would be going back to an earlier and more illiberal policy. It was open to the Government to consider whether the effect on Ireland of releasing these prisoners would not be well worth any disadvantages which might occur, and whether it would not be a good stroke of policy. He did not believe for a single moment that even if all these men were released, the Irish people could take an active part in the Jubilee celebration, but he was deeply convinced
  194
  that if the political prisoners were released as a part of the Jubilee proceedings, it would create a profound effect on public sentiment in Ireland, and would lead to great political advantages.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASRY: I will not discuss how far it was tiling for the hon. Gentleman to say that his party proposes to take no part in the Jubilee celebration, or whether he made that the foundation of the appeal winch he has addressed to the House. ["Hear, hear!"] But in any case I will at once say that we are really absolved from following the line of his argument from the fact that we differ from him fundamentally as to the premisses on which that argument was base,. He has quoted a conversation which I personally had not heard of before, which is alleged to have taken place between President Kruger and Mr. Greene. Mr. Kruger, according to the hon. Gentleman, has been under the impression that we were keeping in prison in this country prisoners who, in ordinary parlance, would be described as political prisoners. Now, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not our opinion. I think I should probably be not far wrong when I say that if President Kruger knew the facts, he would not deny that we were right, neither would he be disposed to release, nor would any Englishman propose that he should release any individuals who, in the furtherance of their designs, used dynamite of attempted to use dynamite—["hear, hear!"]—and endeavoured to further their designs by means abhorrent to every moral and every civilised man. Sir, that is the real answer to the hon. Gentleman. If the persons with whom we were concerned were of the class of the Fenian conspirators, who, I imagine, were in question in the Debate to which he referred, I could understand the relevance of his speech, whether I should agree with his opinions or not; but I deny that the speech is relevant at all at the present time. The persons for whom he is pleading, in our view, and in the view of the majority on both sides of the House, are not to be classed among political prisoners, and it is a view which we have so often expressed in the House before that I do not propose to discuss it now.
  MR. DILLON: The Home Secretary stated that he accepted that classification.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, what the Home Secretary said was that these prisoners had a political object in the crime which they sought to commit, and that was true, but that they did not on that account fairly come within that classification in which the lion. Gentleman desired to place them. They cannot and ought not to be treated in the manner in which the Fenians, for example, were treated on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That is all I need say, I think, on the well-worn theme of the dynamite prisoners now serving their term of imprisonment. I will say a few words upon the Debate upon Cretan affairs raised by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I do not think I need say very much on the subject; it must be felt by the House that this is not the time at which it would be possible for the Government to give a full account of the exact state of the negotiations now taking place. A full account of the main lines of the policy of the Government has been often given, and does not require to be repeated; of the details of the negotiations with the other Powers by which that policy is to be carried into effect, this is hardly the time to speak. I think both the Gentlemen who have addressed us seem to hold, as we certainly hold, that the discussion on foreign affairs should be delayed until some time when we can take it up with more liberty, and can take the House into our full confidence in regard to the course of the negotiations dealing both with Crete and Greece. Let me further say that I think the hon. Gentleman's reference to recent events in Canea is calculated to give an extremely false impression both to the House and the country. I believe I am right in saying that the most regrettable incident to which he referred is one of three incidents only in which the Mahommedan population, or any section of them, have got out of hand; and, considering the perennial hostility between the two sections of islanders, the constant attacks to which the Mahommedans have been subjected, and that through all these months it is the Christians who have been on the offensive and the Mahommedans on the defensive, I think we have reason to congratulate ourselves that, on the whole,
  196
  matters have not been worse than they have been. I think very little would be served by recapitulating the equally regrettable incidents which have marked on many occasions the actions of the insurgents. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that such incidents have occurred, and such incidents are, I fear, inevitable when you are dealing with a state of things such as prevails now in Crete. But I think common justice both to the Admirals, to the European troops, and to the Mahomedan population ought to compel us to say that, on the whole, the deplorable, act of retaliation to which reference has been made is but one of a very small number of similar acts which were done, most unfortunately, but which were done under very serious provocation. The hon. Gentleman appears to think that we are to blame for not having succeeded in convincing the great majority of the inhabitants of Crete that their best interests would be served by at once accepting the solution of the situation suggested by the Powers, and that they might find in us the true friends of Crete and Greece. I do not know whether we have been guilty of any acts of omission in this respect, but the persons who have been most sedulously occupied in telling the Cretans that ail our efforts were misguided, and that the end of those efforts must be failure, have been the hon. Gentleman and those who have spoken as he has in this House. [Cheers.] The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean seems to be under the impression that things in Crete are going from bad to worse. Undoubtedly a condition of disorganisation and anarchy cannot last as long as it has lasted in Crete without producing very deplorable consequences, and leaving behind it many regrettable remembrances which it will take long, perhaps, wholly to efface. But I think I can assure the House that we need not take a pessimistic view of the future of the island. The difficulties of the situation, no doubt, are great, and they are aggravated, and must be aggravated, by the fact that we have not only to deal with the problem of Crete, but also with the more difficult and pressing problem of the settlement of the basis of peace between Turkey and Greece. But although those difficulties have to be contended with, I see no reason why they

  197
  should not be surmounted. This is a transitional epoch, and I fully grant that we cannot expect to see order restored in Crete until the transitional method of dealing with the situation which the Powers have been driven to adopt shall have come to an end. It is not until there is a governor with a gendarmerie at his disposal, it is not until those elements of good government are established in Crete, that we can hope to see there the fruits of liberty and autonomy which, I cannot doubt, will in Crete, as elsewhere, do so much to promote the happiness of the inhabitants of the island. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JAMES BRYCEsaid that he did not rise for the purpose of making any criticism upon what the right hon. Gentleman called the policy of the Government, but only to call attention to the fact that, as far as the public could judge, no progress whatever was being made in carrying out that policy. Three months had now elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that the policy of the Government was "Peace for Europe and autonomy for Crete." As far as Crete was concerned, we were not one step more advanced than we were in March, and the population of the island was almost more exasperated and distrustful than it had ever been. People were watching, the conduct of the Powers and of the Government with astonishment and regret. The first and obvious course for them to take would be to procure the removal of the Turkish troops. He did not believe that there would have been any great difficulty in pacifying the Cretan people if those troops had been removed. That step would have been an earliest of the good intentions of the Powers, in which it was almost impossible for the Cretans to believe while the Turkish troops remained in the island. If it was said that the troops could not be removed for fear of attacks by the Christians on the Mussulman population, it must be clear that the only alternative course would be to settle at once the terms of autonomy and to bring these terms to the knowledge of the Cretan people. Last Tuesday the First Lord of the Treasury told them, however, that no progress had been made, and that the terms of autonomy had not yet been settled. In those circumstances they were bound to suppose that the
  198
  concert of Europe was as much divided on this subject as it had been on other matters, and that the suspicions and jealousies which had prevented the Powers from co-operating in other directions were also preventing them from cooperating in regard to Crete. He regarded the present position with the greatest anxiety, and feared that the prolongation of the state of tension in Crete might influence gravely the situation on the mainland and might even endanger that European peace for the preservation of which they were told such sacrifices had been made.
  *SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that the right Lon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Bryce) evidently belonged to the class of the unteachable. He complained of no progress being made in the pacification of Crete during the past two mouths. He had evidently forgotten that his friends were largely responsible for the unfortunate events in Greece, and so for the postponement of the pacification of Crete. Had they not all heard of the famous telegram sent by 100 Members of that House, which had some influence in precipitating Greece into the unfortunate struggle in which she had engaged? He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself signed that telegram, but, if he did not, he was quite capable of signing it.[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman, who complained that no progress had been made in Crete, might recollect with profit this and similar episodes. He had rejoiced to hear the Leader of the House render justice to the conduct of the Mussulmans in Crete, and he thought it was time that hon. Members opposite should consider seriously what had been the practical outcome of their policy of vilifying and abusing the Turkish Sovereign, the Turkish Government, and the Turkish people. Whom had they thereby benefited? Had they benefited the Armenians, or the Cretans, or their protégés. the Greeks? They had absolutely done no good to any class, or nation, or interest in the world by their policy of atrocity mongering and sham sentiment. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it sham sentiment when there have been 100,000 deaths in Armenia?
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid the number of 100,000 was a great exaggeration; but the violent and calumnious attacks upon Turkey and Mussulmans in general, long before any real atrocities had occurred in Asia Minor, were largely responsible for the subsequent troubles and loss of life which he had always deeply deplored. It would, indeed, be wise for hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether the course of injustice and calumny towards Turkey in which they had indulged for the last two years had been successful in any way, even from a party point of view. He agreed that it would be unwise to attempt to discuss now in detail the terms of peace between Turkey and Greece. It was generally accepted in this country that Turkey was practically forced into the war, and as the Turkish Government had behaved with remarkable forbearance and moderation before and during the struggle, he trusted that after it they would show themselves to be magnanimous. But it was hardly the right way to induce the Turkish Power to be forbearing to attribute to it constantly—as was recklessly done by a section of the English Press—every sort of malign and unjust motive in the peace negotiations. It was only natural that a Power which had been forced into war and which had been victorious, should claim certain advantages. To deliberately charge that Power with unfairness, evil intent, and underhand dealing, because it endeavoured to do its best for its own people, was a monstrous and very unwise act in the interests of Greece and of general peace. [Cheers.] The House ought not to overlook the tremendous dangers to which this war exposed Turkey. It was not only the danger of meeting Greece, because that was a comparatively small one, but it was the tremendous danger that the other Balkan States, and even Russia herself, should join in the war against Turkey. In his opinion, Turkey and Greece ought to be friends, and not enemies, and he was glad to say that he found that opinion shared by many leading personages both in Greece and Turkey. [Cheers.] Greece was the one anti-Slav State in the Balkan Peninsula, and Turkey was, of course, the chief bulwark for guarding Constantinople and the Straits against Slavonic conquest. That these two countries
  200
  should have endeavoured to weaken each other by a wholly needless war was deplorable. If it was true that there was a powerful influence in Europe Which had encouraged Greece in its unfortunate attack upon Turkey, a great and desperate crime had been committed for which he hoped the Power that was responsible alight some day have to suffer. The conspicuous feature of the war was the manifestation of the true power of Turkey and the high qualities of the Turkish people, whose strength many people in this country had been inclined to underestimate. The war had proved that Turkey was a very important military Power; it had proved beyond all doubt the splendid courage of her soldiers, and it had also proved how great was the discipline and good conduct of the Turkish troops. He hoped these facts would be remembered when hon. Gentlemen opposite were led to indulge in indiscriminate abuse of Turkey. British influence did not, at present, stand high at Constantinople. He lamented the fact, which was largely due to the hon. Gentlemen who took part in this atrocity-mongering campaign. It was also largely due to the errors of the British representative at Constantinople. ["Hear, hear!] Other Powers had had the intelligence, while many persons in England had been raving and abusing Turkey without rhyme or reason, to offer their support and protection to Turkey, and the result was that other Powers had gained the influence which we had lost. German policy had been as wise towards Turkey as British policy had of late been unfortunate. In any great Eastern struggle, such as we might find ourselves involved in at any time, as also in a great European war, the balance of military power would be held by those splendid Ottoman troops. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo with respect to Crete, the hon. Member had shown his usual onesidedness and intemperance of language. The value of the hon. Member's opinion on Eastern questions might be gauged from the indiscriminate condemnation which he passed on the Imperial qualities of the Anglo-Saxon race. The hon. Gentleman said that the Anglo-Saxon race alone exhibited a total incapacity for sympathy with and humanity to inferior races.
  MR. DILLON: I said to insurgent and suffering, people.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he would adopt the words of the hon. Member, and say that no race showed so much capacity for sympathy with suffering people as the Anglo-Saxon race. The history of India should have given the hon. Member pause in such a statement. [Cheers.] In the whole of his speech the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) had made no single reference to the outrages and massacres committed by the Cretan Christians on Mahomedans. For he last 12 months, and especially for the last five months, the Christians had murdered every Mussulman, man, woman, or child, they could get hold of. In one district 1,100 were massacred in a fortnight; and the other day 300 orphan Mahomedan children were sent from Crete to Constantinople. This question was always treated by Members opposite in a onesided way. In the case of Armenia none of the many atrocity-mongers ever said a word as to the fact that many of those unfortunate massacres were started by Mussulman refugees from Bulgaria of twenty years ago, who had seen their homes destroyed and their families outraged and murdered by Christian invaders, and who themselves were forced to leave all that was dear to them and to take refuge in the towns and villages of Asia Minor. Nor was any reference made by our Turcophile politicians to the deliberate provocation given by the Armenian revolutionary conspirators, in order to provoke Mussulman reprisals. These facts were not a complete justification, but should be borne in mind in considering the question. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a great deal to be said for Turkey and the Turks, and if the events that had taken place only led hon. Gentlemen to be fair and just to the Mussulman, something would have been accomplished for the future peace and good government of these Eastern countries. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member was anxious that the Turkish troops should be hustled out of Crete. Everyone bore witness to the admirable discipline and good conduct of those troops, and upon their presence in the island depended the lives and fortunes of 100,000 Mussulman refugees. The returns showed that the Mussulman population of Crete had been greatly
  202
  under-rated. There were over 100,000 Mussulmans, and at least 60,000 were now dependent on charity. The Christian insurgents had driven them from their homes and seized their food and their property. If the Turkish troops were removed from Crete, and unless the Powers were prepared to treble the European forces there, the lives of the Mussulmans would be in danger, and there would be scenes of carnage which would throw into the shade the worst deeds of Armenia. Moreover, the sailors of the allied fleets now on shore were actually dependent for their protection upon the Turkish troops. He was glad to know that there had been a great improvement in the public knowledge and feeling in this country on the Cretan question, and especially with regard to the character of the Turks. He hoped before long to see the old policy of friendly pressure substituted for the new policy of hostile coercion. There was sonic chance of restoring the old understanding and good feeling between Turkey and England, which was absolutely necessary for the power and well-being of both countries.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that he should be sorry to hold the Government responsible for the hon. Member for the Ecclesall division; but he would advise them, if they wished to curtail debate, to muzzle the hon. Member. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] When the hon. Member threw across the House such terms as "sham sentiment" and "atrocity-mongering," and advocated a return to the alliance between this country and Turkey, it was more than flesh and blood could stand. [Cheers.] But the hon. Member stood alone in his views; and there was a fixed determination on both sides that never again under any circumstances should there be any alliance between this country and Turkey. [Cheers, and cries of "Oh!"] "Sham sentiment" meant that people had deplored and denounced the massacre of 100,000 human beings; and "atrocity-mongering" meant that meetings had been held to express the indignation which had been excited. He preferred such sham sentiment to the genuine sentiment of the hon. Gentleman; and as to such atrocity-mongering, the country would have been false to its best traditions if it had not taken part in it. No one denied the bravery of the Turkish

  203
  troops; but the victory did not alter the merits of the struggle, which was between civilisation on the one side and savagery on the other. [Cheers, and cries of "No!"] Did any one propose to hand over to Turkey, except for perhaps a fortress or pass, a single rood of the land which had been won back to civilisation and Christianity? The world had made up its mind with regard to Turkey. [Cheers.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that undoubtedly there were Members in this House—and he was one of them—who held that Turkey should not be deprived of the fruits of her victory. [Cries of "Oh!"] Turkey had succeeded where the whole Concert of Europe had failed. The Concert of Europe had been engaged for months in the endeavour to get the Greek troops out of Crete; they were defied by Greece and by Colonel Vassos, and they could not get a single man or gun out of the island. It was reserved for the despised Turk, by a series of the most brilliant and glorious victories she had ever won—[Cries of "Oh!"]—to effect that which the Concert of Europe failed to effectt, and Dow the Greek soldiers had left Crete. The Turk had drawn the chestnuts out of the fire for the Concert; was he to have no chestnut for himself—all the more that it was his own chestnut? Thessaly was at this moment under mortgage to Turkey for the payment of the debt due to it by the Greek Government. By the Convention of May 1881, the Powers of Europe undertook to fix the portion of the foreign Government debt which should be paid by Greece in consideration of the cession to her of Thessaly. The Powers of Europe had never to this day done their duty, and Greece had bean permitted to occupy the territory without assuming that portion of the debt which belonged to her. Now the mortgagee had come into possession. Turkey had a double claim to a portion at least of this territory. She had the claim of a mortgagee in possession, and the claim of every victor who had been put to the hazard of war and won the hazard. But there was more than this. The Ottoman Empire had been forced to defend itself first against the most disorderly and lawless bands, whom even the Greeks themselves now repudiated, and then against
  204
  the Greek regulars. Was the sacrificed expenditure of blood by Turkey alone not to be regarded in all the history of war? Did not Turkey herself have to pay a large indemnity to Russia? And that indemnity had been paid punctually as arranged year by year. There was not a penny of that debt in arrear at this moment. He believed that an indemnity of 10 millions was not at all an excessive indemnity for Greece to pay; but whether that was so or not, at any rate Turkey was entitled to hold as a pledge for the payment of that indemnity the territory she had conquered until the indemnity was paid. He hoped the Government would not commit themselves to what he considered would be the tremendous blunder of undertaking to coerce Turkey to leave the conquered territory before she had received adequate satisfaction for the sacrifices she had undergone. He doubted, indeed, whether it was in the power of this country or the whole Concert of Europe to turn the Turks out of Thessaly now they were there; even assuming that they all agreed to attempt the task. He urged another point. From the newspapers he gathered that the Ambassadors at Constantinople had been made plenipotentiaries for the purpose of conducting the negotiations. He trusted that was not the ease, and that Her Majesty's Government would themselves keep control of the negotiations. It would be improper to avoid saying that Her Majesty's Government at Constantinople had failed in every one of the five plans which he had proposed—[Cries of "Oh"!]—for the improvement of the Turkish Empire. That being so, that Ambassador was not a man to be left there as plenipotentiary to settle on behalf of England the terms of this most important peace—a peace, the terms of which would affect the future of Europe for many generations.
  MR. J. A. PEASEtook the opportunity of protesting against the policy of the Government with regard to the continuance of slavery over the area in East Africa over which they had direct control. Last week the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that our Administrator at Mombasa had received instructions to exercise his discretion as to whether or not slaves should be given up

  205
  when demanded. That was directly contrary to a declaration of the late Attorney General two years ago, that any British subject who should receive or detain a slave was guilty of an unlawful act. He held in his hand several demands made by our Administrator in East Africa to the Church Missionary Society, and he protested—and he believed t he country as a whole would agree in the protest—against the continuance of such a system.
  Resolved,—
  "That To-morrow this House do meet, at Twelve of the Clock, and at its rising do Adjourn till Thursday the 17th June, and that so soon as Government Business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do Adjourn the House without Question put."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the other Government Business have precedence To-morrow of the Committee of Supply.—(First Lord of the Treasury.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress 2nd June.]
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

  FIRST SCHEDULE,—

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

    (a) where death results from the injure—

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

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

    206

    (b) in case of incapacity for work, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his weekly earnings at the time of the accident, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.

    (2.) The payment shall, in case of death, he made to the legal personal representative of the workman, or, if lie has no legal personal representative, to his dependants, or, if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due.
    (3.) Tine expression "dependants" in this schedule means such members of the workman's family as are entitled to damages in cases under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846; and any question as to who is a dependant, or as to the amount payable to each dependant shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
    (4.) If any of tine dependants is an infant his share of compensation may be invested for his benefit as directed by tine arbitrator.
    (5.) Any weekly payment may be reviewed at intervals of not less than three months 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.
    (6.) A weekly payment shall not be capable of being assigned or charged, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool) moved in Section (3) to leave out the words "as are entitled to damages in eases under," and to insert instead thereof the words "as are specified in."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich) moved, in Section (3), after the words "Fatal Accidents Act 1846," to insert the words, "In the Third Schedule of this Act." He should like to persuade the Government to get rid of this legislation by reference. This Bill would have to be interpreted in many instances for years to come by workmen acting through their organisations or in their individual capacity, and where possible, he urged that the Government should print in the Bill the list contained in the Fatal Accidents Act of 1846. If this course was not adopted, great additional expense would be imposed on poor people because the Government would not take the trouble to copy a few words from an Act and insert them in the present Bill. It might not be an elegant method from the point of

    207
    view of draftsmanship, but if the Amendment could not be inserted here he would attempt to induce the Prime Minister to insert it in the Bill when it reached the House of Lords.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Amendment would be contrary to order. The Committee has not seen the proposed Third Schedule.
    SIR J. BRUNNERsaid that if hon. Members had seen the Act of 1846 they were in possession of the knowledge as to the full extent of the Schedule.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It is contrary to order to move an Amendment in this way referring to a proposed Amendment which does not appear on the Paper, and of which no notice has been given.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Section (3), after "1846," to insert the words:—
    as were wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death."
    MR. C. A. CRIPPSput the case of a child earning 5s. a week, with a parent or grand-parent dependent on its labour. Under the Bill as it at present stood would that child be entitled to a minimum of £150 a year? Again, supposing there was a dependant of a working man who at the time was in receipt of a shilling or two a week, would the effect of the Bill be to give this dependant £150?
    MR. HENRY SETON-KARRsaid he had framed an Amendment to meet this case, which he looked upon as of great importance. He put the case of an old miner supported by a number of sons. If one of the sons died, the father, who was receiving, perhaps, a shilling or two a week from the son, would be entitled to £150, and the same thing would happen in the case of a child. It did not seem to be right or just that such a large sum should be paid. He suggested that the arbitrator should have the power to give such an amount as, in respect of any minimum, was right and fair in the circumstances of the case.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsuggested to the hon. Member that it would be advisable to wait his proper turn in moving that Amendment.
    *SIR C. DILKE: Is the case of the posthumous child dealt with? ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): There will be a mother then. [Laughter.]
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. W. CROMBIE MR. J. W. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire) moved, in Section (3), after "1846; and," to insert the words:—
    "Provided that the word 'child' shall, if the arbitrator thinks fit, be construed to include an illegitimate child, and the word 'parent' to include the unmarried mother of the workman, who was or were at the time of the workman's death living in the house of the deceased."
    He pointed out that this Amendment dealt with a hard case. If a mother, leading a respectable life, and working in a factory, met with a fatal accident, her illegitimate child was cut off from all compensation on account of a misfortune for which it was in no way responsible. It might be urged that this was a very great change in the law; but, after all, this Bill was a still greater change in the law, and to include such a case as this was really in harmony with the generous principle of the Bill.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that the Government could not accept the Amendment. It involved a startling change in the law. The cases of illegitimate children were not the only hard cases, and if the Committee were to add these dependants and other relations, whether legitimate or illegitimate, he was afraid the time of the Committee would be greatly occupied.
    SIR C. DILKEthought that the reason adduced by the Home Secretary was a very bad one. The Committee could not be better engaged than in considering with a view to adoption an Amendment dealing with a hard case like this. The Amendment had been moved in a very guarded form. Though it would still leave hard cases, the Amendment was so limited that he believed it would be safe to insert it in the Bill.
    MR. LIONEL HOLLANDsaid that as he understood the principle of Lord Campbell's Act of 1846, it was that compensation should only be paid to people who had a legal claim upon the workman during his lifetime. He did not say that that general

    209
    principle should be discarded. What was now proposed was not to alter it, but to extend it somewhat further by including such illegitimate children as would have a legal claim if the workman had lived, and thus secure that the legal claim of those children should not be destroyed by the workman's death. He hoped, therefore, the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment. It was not designed to encourage indiscretion on the part of the man. Its object was to protect innocent children. It was none of their business to see that the sins of the father were visited on the children. But it was their business to see that the original taint was as far as possible removed from the child, and that he was given an opportunity of growing up a respectable citizen. As the Bill steal it was more likely than the Amendment to encourage lax ideas in regard to marriage, for it would be to the pecuniary advantage of the employer—though he did not say that the employer would allow the idea to influence him—to employ men whose children were illegitimate.
    MR. HENRY BROADHURSTthought it was perfectly justifiable for the hon. Gentleman who had just silt down that the tendency of the Bill, as it stood, would be to encourage employers to employ men with illegitimate children. Why, it had been argued already by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the effect of the Bill would be to encourage the employment of single men, or men without families; and that came to the same thing as the argument of the hon. Gentleman. To his mind the Amendment was far too narrow. He would include within the scope of the Act all illegitimate children, on the ground that those children must lie the greatest sufferers from, while they were no partners to, the indiscretions committed by their parents. Besides, it was not from a love of doing wrong that those indiscretions were committed. They were due in many cases to a want of proper acommodation, and it was society, and not the man or the woman that was the criminal. He knew a great number of cases where the housing of the poor in rural parishes was so bad, that young men mid women, from 12 to 28 years, brothers and and sometimes lodgers, all crowded together in
    210
    one small attic called a bedroom. How could these poor creatures be held responsible for the immorality of their lives? He thought it was a monstrous thing, under the circumstances, to exclude illegitmate children from the benefits of the Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he had great sympathy with the Amendment. Nothing saddened him so much in the considerable experience he had now hail of the criminal courts than the sight of a poor girl put on trial, while the father got off perfectly scathless. Therefore, hon. Members would understand that, while he was obliged to point out how impossible it was to accept the Amendment, he felt strongly for a class who were unduly punished both by society and the law. ["Hear, hear!"] But that really was not the question. They must remember that illegitimate children were not the only deserving class that were left out. The case of a nephew or a niece, a brother or a sister, supported by the man who had been killed, was even more deserving than the case of the illegitimate child; and yet it was found impossible to include those eases. The Amendment would only bring in one out of many deserving classes; and, however they might sympathise with it, they must feel that the decision of the Home Secretary in refusing to accept it was the only possible decision.
    MR. J. WILSONwas not at all surprised that English Members were in sympathy with this Amendment, but he was astonished to find the Amendment moved by a Scotchman, because the Scotch managed these things better. [Laughter.] In Scotland marriage legitimised children born out of wedlock, and he advised the Government to bring up the English law to the level of the Scotch law.
    SIR J. BRUNNERsaid that this was not a case of being generous, but of being just to the unfortunate children of an illegitimate union. He trusted the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
    *SIR ELLIOTT LEESdid not suppose a single Member of the House would desire to visit the sins of the father upon the child, but at the same time it must be remembered that there were hard cases through illegitimacy

    211
    amongst all classes, and until the law was altered so as to allow illegitimate children to succeed to property in case of intestacy, they could not, in justice, offer the illegitimate children of one class special benefit under this Bill. It would be a slur upon the working classes—["Hear, hear!"]—to enact special legislation dealing with the illegitimate children of that class, on the assumption that a state of things existed amongst them which did not exist amongst all classes.
    SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it would be hard that punishment should descend upon the illegitimate child. Under the Amendment, however, there would be a difference between the legitimate and illegitimate child, because in the case of the legitimate child there would be a right to compensation, and in the case of the illegitimate child the granting of compensation would be discretionary on the part of the arbitrator.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, I06; Noes, 203.—(Division List, No. 234.)
    SIR J. BRUNNER SIR J. BRUNNER moved to add the following proviso:—
    "Provided that the word 'dependant' shall in no case be construed to include a person of unsound mind."
    His Amendment, he said, might look cruel, but it was, in fact, intended by him to have a merciful effect. The Committee would see at once that the maximum provision under the Bill was entirely inadequate for a person of unsound mind, and his idea in moving the Amendment was that persons of unsound mind should not be maintained at the homes of relatives and under circumstances which were not fitting for those kind of persons. It seemed to him that every person of unsound mind should be under skilled charge, and that, if possible, unless the relatives were wealthy enough to provide ample supervision, these poor persons should be under the charge of the public authorities.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)was quite sure the hon. Baronet intended the Amendment in the
    212
    most kindly spirit, but he could assure him it might be productive of the very greatest hardship, while at the same time it would be difficult of practical application. ["Hear, hear!"] There were a great many cases in which these persons were most affectionately treated by their relatives at home, and it would be a cruelty to compel them to be sent to some other place away from those who were now taking care of them. ["Hear, hear!] He thought it was too difficult a matter on which to lay down anything like a stereotyped rule.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. SETON-KARR MR. SETON-KARR moved further to add the following proviso:—
    "Provided that in any case in which such dependants are only in part dependent upon such earnings the minimum of £150 mentioned in Clause 1 (a 1) of this schedule shall not apply, but the arbitrator shall decide what part thereof shall be paid to such dependants."
    The object of the Amendment, lie said, was simply to deal with the case of a child earning, it might be, a few shillings a week, who was killed in the course of his employment. Under the clause referred to in this Amendment the parent or parents of that child would receive the minimum compensation of £150. But could it be said that in that case the parent or parents were dependent upon that child's earnings to such an extent as to entitle them to the minimum amount of compensation? A great deal had been said in the course of their Debates about justice and expediency, but this was neither justice nor expediency. It was simply lavish generosity. These were cases which should be provided for, and if the Government did not approve of the wording of his Amendment, but would put the same idea into their own words, he should be perfectly satisfied.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the case put by his hon. Friend was one which had escaped the consideration of the Government. It was, briefly, that the workman who was killed might be a boy or a girl or a person earning very small wages indeed. The dependants on that person could not, therefore, have received, or be expected to have received, very much pecuniary benefit from those earnings, and it would he unfair in

    213
    such a case to award to them the minimum which was provided by this Bill—that was to say, a sum equal either to three years' wages or £150. That was a case which was not intended, and which would have to be met. But he did not like the words of his right hon. Friend's Amendment, which vent a little too far and practically did away with the minimum, because he said that in every case in which the dependants were only partially dependent the minimum was not to apply. That would take almost every case, because even in the case of a wife and child it was quite possible they might be earning something at the time of the workman's death, and, therefore would not be entirely dependent on him. The Government would try their hands at an Amendment to meet this case. It was a rather complicated matter, and he was afraid they could not do so without further time for consideration, and he would suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment, with the promise that. Government would consider it and endeavour to meet the case.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a very fair one; but he hoped that in allowing the Amendment to be considered on Report it would be distinctly and clearly understood that, as far as Members on that side of the House were concerned, all those Amendments that were intended in substance to reduce the amount of compensation would be strenuously resisted. If an Amendment could be framed dealing with this small point in which some injustice might possibly be done, they would be willing to consider it on Report; but Amendments that were really intended indirectly to reduce the amount of compensation would receive their strenuous opposition. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought the speech just addressed to the Committee was a very unnecessary speech—[cheers]—absolutely unnecessary, whether as regarded the Government and their supporters or hon. Members behind him. Nothing of the kind suggested was ever intended by anybody on the Government side of the House. They had strenuously resisted every Amendment which had been moved—and he thought most of them had come from the Opposition side
    214
    of the House that was intended to reduce the amount of the compensation. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time they were not going to shut their eyes to an injustice if a clear case was made out. [Cheers.]
    MR. BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat misunderstood him. Looking at the Amendment as it stood, and at what the right hon. Gentleman had said about it, it appeared to tend in the direction of reducing the compensation. The Government had been very strong in reference to things of that sort, and what he had said was only in order to assure the Government of their support. [Ministerial laughter and cheers.]
    *MR. J. WILSONhad no wish to speak for all hon. Members on that side—[laughter]—but he thought he could speak for four or five. His opinion was that to accept this Amendment would be to open the door to very serious complications. There was hardly a family in the country that the change would not apply to. He appealed to the Government not to depart from the principle of a stated money payment. It vas all very well to put a simple case like that mentioned 1,y the Mover of the Amendment, but it was getting in the thin end of the wedge; it was an interference with the principle of the Bill which should be avoided.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid unreasonable things had been said about the Government. The Colonial Secretary had promised to be most careful in safeguarding genuine losers by a man's death. But was it to be supposed that an able-bodied loan should be the gainer by the death of his child?
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the other night the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs expressed in better form the views which the hon. Member for St. Helen's had put in what he might term a harsh and brutal way. The result was that the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs saw that the Amendment of a similar character which he had put down would do much harm if pressed, and consequently he withdrew it. Let them suppose the case of a family in which there was a lad apprenticed as a carpenter or engineer. From 19 to 21 he would earn 8s. or 10s. per week. The father was killed just as the lad at 21

    215
    jumped into the position of a journeyman with a wage of 30s., 35s., or £2 a week. What would happen if the hon. Member for St. Helen's Amendment were law? Compensation would be given to some extent dependent on the lad's wages as an apprentice, with the result that they would get only £50 or £60, both for the lad and for his mother, whom he intended to keep perhaps for four or five years. Now it was agreed that in establishing a minimum of £150 in all cases, they would lay down a simple general rule, but it would be most unfair to accept an Amendment that would press upon sons who were helping to maintain their mothers a pecuniary disqualification, and upon widows an obligation that ought not to be imposed. He would ask the Colonial Secretary to have the Bill and nothing but the Bill, and to be as generous towards the dependants of a man who had been killed, and who were receiving low wages as he had been to other people.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid the hon. Member for Battersea had obviously misunderstood the matter. There was no tendency, on that side of the House at any rate, to cut down fair compensation, although they did want to see the principle of the Bill justly applied. What the hon. Member referred to would not be dealt with by the Amendment. The Amendment referred to a case in which the person killed was a child earning small wages; and, as it had been put by an hon. Member on his own side of the House, was it a fair principle that an able-bodied man should get a large sum in compensation owing merely to the death of his child? He might be dependent on that child's wages to a very small extent indeed. The child might be earning 5s. or 6s. a week, and the father only getting an advantage perhaps of 6d. a week or some other very small sum; and if the child happened to be killed, was the father under the circumstances to be paid the minimum of £150? That was the simple point, but it was not the point raised by the hon. Member for Battersea.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the real difficulty arose on the construction of the words put into the Bill that afternoon—" wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time." The construction of the word "dependent" in that connection would really decide the case whether con-
    216
    tributions were to be made or not. Who was or who was not dependent on the earnings would be a question to be decided by the arbitrator. The mere fact that a deceased child contributed something to the general stock—that something being merely enough to make up for the deceased child's own maintenance would not make the parents and other members of the family dependent upon the child. He submitted that the proper way of dealing with this question was to leave it to the arbitrator to decide who was dependent and who was not dependent on the earnings of the deceased. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid it was perfectly true that the Amendment depended on the words introduced just now—"in part dependent." It was an explanation of those words. He took it that with the definition of "dependent" here given, a father would certainly be "in part dependent" on a child earning 4s. a week, and bringing it in as part of the family income.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: It provides for the child's own maintenance.
    MR. PARKER SMITHwould be greatly surprised if any arbitrator would say that in such a case a father was not partly dependent on the child killed. Take another case, that of a person who was "in part dependent" in the sense that half-a-dozen sons were contributing a couple of shillings a week each to the support of their father. If the father was to get the minimum of £150 when one of the sons was killed, he would be absolutely better off than if the son had lived all the time. He would remind hon. Members that the principle to which the Government had promised favourable consideration was the principle of Lord Campbell's Act, which had been acted upon for fifty years. The only necessity for explaining it arose from the fact of there being a minimum sum fixed by the Bill. Under Lord Campbell's Act the Court was bound to consider how much the dependant received from the deceased. If the loss sustained by the death was small, the damages given by the jury were small. If there was not the minimum of £150, and the arbitrators were free to reduce the amount as much as the necessities and the justice of the case required, there would be no need for the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. LOGANthought the workman under the circumstances would suffer great hardship. It was intolerable that they should be left dependent in this way.
    MR. SETON-KARRobjected to leaving this matter to the discretion of the arbitrator. In reply to observations from the other side, he begged to say he had no idea of reducing the amount to be given as compensation under the Bill. He absolutely repudiated any accusation of the kind. He understood that the Government accepted the principle of the Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. What I said was that I thought, if there was a case of hardship made out, we should have to consider how it would be possible to meet it.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid he understood that the case was one that would be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and that they would proceed to deal with it. The statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman was not quite satisfactory. Still, he should withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not wish to have any misunderstanding. If the hon. Member was not satisfied with his statement, then lie hoped he would go to a Division.
    MR. S. WOODSagreed that if any attempt were made to cut down the compensation that would be given under the Bill, serious difficulties would arise, and he hoped that the Government, in considering the matter, would bear that in mind.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid that as the matter would be brought up again on the Report stage he would rest satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in Section (4), to leave out the words, "If any of the dependants is an infant, his share of compensation may," and to insert the words, "The sum allotted as compensation to any dependant." The right hon. Gentleman explained that his object was to give a wider discretion to the arbitrator than he would otherwise have under the Bill.
    *MR. J. WILSONinquired whether the word "arbitrator" would include "committee?"
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYexplained that he had given notice of an Amendment to make it read "committee or arbitrator."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved in Section (4), after the word "invested," to insert the words "or otherwise applied."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. THOMAS BURT MR. THOMAS BURT (Morpeth) moved at the end of Section (4) to insert—

    "(1) The arbitrator may order any sum awarded as compensation, in case of the death of a workman from any injury sustained by him, and payable to or for the benefit of any infant or person under disability, to be invested in whole or in part in the Post Office Savings Bank by the Registrar of the County Court in his name as Registrar.

    "(2) Any sum so ordered to be invested may 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 banks, and the declaration to be made by a depositor, shall not apply to such sums.

    "(3) 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.

    "(4) 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."

    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYremarked that these words were taken from the Bill of 1893. They were arranged in concert with the Post Office, and he was quite willing to accept them with a verbal alteration. He moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by omitting, all the words from the commencement to the word "disability" in Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words—
    "Any sum ordered by the Committee or the arbitrator to be invested may be ordered."
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR ALFRED HICKMAN SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.) moved in Section (5) to leave out the words "at intervals of not less than three months." He thought it only reasonable that there should be a less period of revision than three months.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper suggesting that the period should be 14 days, and he strongly pressed, in the interests of both employers and employed, that they should at reasonable intervals be able to have a man examined. If a workman, for instance, found that he had not recovered as soon as the doctors had anticipated, he ought to be able to appeal for a further examination in order that he might obtain further pecuniary assistance from the employer. On the other hand, the employer might find that a workman would recover sooner than was anticipated, and he in turn ought to be able to ask for another examination, as the workman might be capable of performing his work.
    MR. C. B. RENSHAWhoped the Government would give favourable consideration to this Amendment, or else to that suggested by the hon. Member who had last spoken. The Colonial Secretary stated the other day that the duration of an accident did not as a rule exceed four or five weeks. But under the provisions of the Bill as it stood the payment would have to be continued during the whole of the three months, and there was, apparently, nothing which would give rise to a revision of the terms in regard to the weekly payment until after the expiration of the first three months. He hoped the limit would be taken out altogether, or that the fourteen days suggested by the previous speaker would be agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think it necessary to keep the words in the Bill, and if they were omitted in all probability the good feeling of the parties would prevent any abuse by unnecessary revision. He did not see much difference between "less than 14 days" or no interval at all, but he thought that some less period than three months might prove acceptable.
    *MR. J. WILSONhoped the Government would retain the period of three months. The fact that the duration of an accident was only four or five
    220
    weeks proved that the men did not malinger or remain on the funds longer than was necessary. From whom was this inquiry to come? The men had proved their willingness to work by only remaining at home on an average of three or four, or four or five weeks. They had inducements to remain on the funds if they wanted to malinger. A very large number of men in the two northern counties were not only on the permanent relief societies, but were also members of the friendly societies, and they had likewise the extra inducement, if they wanted to malinger, of 5s. a week which was now paid by the employers. This might be a matter of opinion, but in the two northern counties if an injured man desired to make the duration of the compensation longer than it should be, he had now every inducement to do so, because he received 5s. from the relief fund, 5s. from the employer, and 10s. from his friendly society. For the first four or five weeks he would be receiving £1 a week. He asserted that if this time were reduced, it would open an avenue to a large amount of irritation, and would not tend to create good feeling or to smooth the working of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he believed that the Amendment was more in the interest of the workman than of the employer. In the first place, as a rule the employer would not adopt proceedings amounting to persecution, by bringing a poor injured workman before the arbitrator. The only object an employer could have in doing so was that if he was clearly of opinion or had received evidence which showed the condition of the workman to have materially changed, he might have the matter reviewed in that light. But let them take the case of the workman. Suppose he had met with an accident, and had gone before an arbitrator, who fixed the duration of the compensation at three weeks and the amount at 5s. As the Bill now stood, that could not be altered, and if the workman, instead of getting well at the end of three weeks, found himself worse, he would have to wait for three months in order to get his case reviewed.
    *MR. J. WILSON: Are we to understand that it is within the competency of the arbitrator to fix the

    221
    time that a man is to remain on compensation?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Subsection (3) of Clause 1, which we have already passed, says that the matters to be referred to the arbitrator are, amongst other things, "as to the amount or duration of the compensation under this Act."
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsubmitted that that (lid not mean that the arbitrator had to fix the duration of the payment. It was quite impossible for the arbitrator to fix the duration of the compensation at three or four weeks. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not a lawyer, and he would leave the true interpretation of that. Setting that aside, however, there still would remain the case of the workman who at the expiry of three weeks found his condition much worse, by which he would become entitled to 10s. or 15s. instead of the 5s. he had been receiving. He would have to go on taking the inferior compensation.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid that no friendly society would How three months to run absolutely without any reconsideration, and what was settled by the workmen themselves in the case of their friendly societies would be fair rule here. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that the period of three months would only come in in cases where very long disablement resulted. He thought it was in the interest of the workman as well as the employer that this period should not be inserted. Of course, the employer had the remedy of sending word to the workman that if he did not come back to work on such a day he would not be allowed to come at all, but that was not a system anyone would wish to see put in force.
    MR. CRIPPScontended that there ought to be a. power of fairly adjusting the conditions from time to time. He thought the Amendment was well justified.
    SIR R. REIDasked whether there was any provision in the Bill under which the duration of the period over which the compensation was payable could be reviewed?
    SIR F. EVANSsaid that the duration of the period could only be reviewed
    222
    from time to time. It could not be fixed beforehand.
    *MR. J. WILSONsaid he would be satisfied if the Colonial Secretary would explain what he meant by saying that the arbitrator had power to fix the duration of the compensation.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the arbitrator had power to limit the duration of compensation to the period of incapacity.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, at the end of Section (4), to add:—
    "Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than 12 months the liability therefor may, on the application of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sun!, to be settled by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding 312 times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application."
    He said this was a very important Amendment, but the principle had been discussed at very considerable length in other Amendments, and he hoped that a decision might be come to upon it without lengthened discussion. This was another of those Amendments which he proposed, confidently believing them to be in the interest both of the employer and the workman. It had been pointed out that in the case of lengthened disability there would be very great inconvenience in winding up an estate if it was burdened with this compensation. The same thing applied in a minor degree to change of residence, transfer of business, and other changes. Further, still speaking from the point of view of the employer, a fixed scale of compensation in certain cases would materially affect the rates of insurance, and as there must be insurance under the Bill, all would wish it should be as cheap as possible. He now came to the workman. The Amendment was to his interest, because, to a certain extent, it would increase his security. He would be able to make this demand, and, in many cases, probably, would be able to obtain a lump sum, thereby closing the transaction, instead of being dependent on the solvency of his employer. Another advantage was to be found in connection with the common occurrence of the workman changing his occupation or his residence after the

    223
    accident. For instance, a man in Birmingham might wish to go to Leicester. It would be an additional complication for the workman to have to make all the arrangements for receiving his pension. It was all very well to say it might be paid to his personal representative, but the moment an employer lost sight of a workman, he might wish to have his case reviewed, and that might give rise to great complications. There were also many cases in which the workman could better invest the money than in an annuity. There were cases in which the workman could use to very great advantage a small capital, and could make from it a much larger income than by investing it in an annuity. There was only one objection to the Amendment, and that was that if a lump sum were paid to the injured workman he might squander it. Of course there was a possibility of that, but after all they could not keep the working class entirely in leading-strings. On the whole, he was inclined to think the working classes showed a considerable amount of common sense in connection with any little property that came to them. There were people of weak mind who did misuse opportunities of that kind, but on the whole he thought they must put aside that as being a conclusive objection. On the other hand, the arguments in favour of giving an option were so great that they entirely outweighed that objection. The Government did not think it necessary to commute, in cases of minor incapacity. If the incapacity did not last for more than 12 months no commutation was possible. In the case of an accident which led to a long illness the Government proposed that the injured man should have a. weekly payment for twelve months, and after that the payments might be redeemed by a lump sum equivalent to six years' wages. He moved the Amendment.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that with regard to the payment of a lump sum the Amendment was not as bad as the Attorney General had led them to expect it would be. The Amendment might be worse, but such as it was from the point of view of members representing the workmen, they disliked the Amendment and objected to it. After the twelve months the employer might make an application against the working man, and
    224
    the application would be treated only as a question whether it was a case for higher compensation or not, and would be settled against the working man entirely against his will. The objections to the Amendment involved objections to the whole principle of the Bill. The Measure had been limited to certain trades, and he was unable to support an Amendment to include other trades because of the difficulty of continuing payment in the case of the employers who might be unable to pay in the circumstances which had been discussed. But he hoped that Parliament having gone so far in the direction of compensation would ultimately pass a Bill embracing all trades. But did not the adoption of the six years' principle make it more difficult? To limit the Bill to certain trades was a limitation which could be got rid of; other trades could be included, but he was afraid a six years' limitation would be difficult to get rid of. This was his main objection to the Amendment.
    MR. T. WILSONagreed with the Colonial Secretary when he said that this was one of the most important of the Amendments yet proposed. He entirely supported the principle of redemption of the weekly payment, and that not in the interests of the employer alone, but much more so of the workmen. He was a mine owner, and also represented a very large mining constituency, and he would have no hesitation whatever in going down to that constituency and supporting the principle of this Amendment. The Colonial Secretary had given so clearly and lucidly the reason for both employer and workman being in favour of it that there was little left to say in that form except that in case of a mine owner whose colliery gets exhausted, and came to an end, it was of importance that he should be able to settle the weekly claims of his injured workmen, and in case of workmen wishing to emigrate or to start business in any way, it was of still greater importance that he should have the sum. He thought, however, the Colonial Secretary, if he looked at his own Amendment at the foot of page, would find that it met the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, viz., that the employer may force the

    225
    workman to accept. For these reasons he trusted that the Colonial Secretary would embody in his Amendment the terms of men which had been very carefully thought over and adjusted.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEadmitted that commutation might be advantageous. The words were, "not exceding 312 times the weekly payment payable at the date of application." This meant that the Colonial Secretary hail gone back to the most objectionable limitation of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. This was inconsistent with the principle of the present Bill, by which a distinction was drawn between the amount of compensation paid to the dependants of a dead man and that paid to a living man who was incapacitated. To the dependants would be given a lump sum, probably of a less amount than might be reached in the case of a living man. Money paid to dependants would be used by them, but in the case of a man who might be hopelessly incapacitated, no longer able to earn anything, the Colonial Secretary differentiated this case from the other, and grave the workman half his wages for the term of his life. It might be that only in this way could adequate compensation be made. What was the use of giving a man a lump sum which did not nearly produce an equivalent of what was given in case of incapacity. It seemed to him that the proposal of the Colonial Secretary was going back on the wise and generous principle of his Bill. He recognised that the right hon. Gentleman was in an extremely difficult position—he had fought this Bill in the interests of the workmen against a great deal of opposition on his own side. ["Hear, hear!"] They appreciated what he had done, but he was bound to say that when he had yielded, it had gene-ally been to the pressure of those who sat upon his own side of the House. [Ministerial laughter.] He was speaking of he changes which had been made in the kill. They preferred the original conception of fins Bill, which, with all its defects, was in many respects a mast admirable Measure, to the alterations which had been made in it.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept the compliments of the hon. and learned Gentlemen, because they are compliments to which I am not in the
    226
    slightest degree entitled. He represents me apparently as a good man struggling with adversity—the adversity coming from these Benches—and encouraged by the cheers and support of hon. Members on the other side. That I daresay might be a possible position, but it certainly is not the one which I have occupied in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. No support has been warmer, more entire, more thorough than that which the Government have received from their own supporters. There have, of course, been. Members of our Party who have taken a different view, and who have represented a particular interest; but certainly as a party it is quite impossible for any Government to have had a warmer or more satisfactory support. I do not accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite of acting as au Opposition as a whole—that is to say, as being opposed to this Bill—["Hear, hear!"]—although certainly their welcome on its first introduction was anything, but encouraging. [Ministerial laughter.] I am glad to say that the more they see of the Bill the better they seem to like it. I am much obliged to them for all the support they have given it, but I cannot allow them to go to the country and represent themselves as being the real supporters of this Bill as against a hostile Government Party. [Cheers.]
    SIR R. REID: Mr. Lowther, I want to speak about this Amendment. [Loud laughter.] He pointed out that, although it was perfectly true that by the terms of the Bill workmen could not as a general rule contract themselves out of the Bill, yet when the award had been made there was nothing to prevent the workman and the employer from compounding by mutual agreement either to abandon the privileges or to commute them for a lump sum. He did not, therefore, think that there was very much weight to be attached to the argument as to convenience. Another point was that it was most important that the insurance should be facilitated, all the more so because a sort of charge or lien had been given to the workmen over the sum of money that was due from the insurance company. He wanted to see this insurance very much encouraged. If the premium would be very different that was the measure of the disadvantage

    227
    which the workman suffered from. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the moment they came to the element of additional uncertainty the premium went up very much. He had seen the manager of one of the greatest insurance corporations on the subject, and had been surprised at the large difference which took place. It was not a difference which could be represented by the difference in payment, but was due to the fears and uncertainties.
    SIR R. REIDthought that the difference would be partly due to the element of uncertainty, but at the same time a good part would be due to the difference in the benefit. Was it not true that the employer under this Amendment would always be able after the first year to fall back on the old limitation under the Employers' Liability Act? To his mind such considerations outweighed even the consideration of insurance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter.
    *COLONEL MILWARDreferred to the incidence of the weekly payments upon the employer. He ventured, he said, to address the House on behalf of the small manufacturers, as he had already done on behalf of the workshops. In neither case was he interested personally, because so far as he was concerned he did not in the least fear the Bill in any way whatever. But in his constituency there were a large number of very small manufacturers who had water mills, steam mills, or perhaps only a gas engine, and whose yearly income did not exceed £70 or £100. Under this Bill as it stood at present, at the end of the first year the employer was compelled to commutate the payments which he was to make. To commute a weekly payment, say, of 15s., would mean £240, and there were many employers who could not possibly raise that amount. Then at the end of the second year an employer could commutate it, lie understood, for £200, and that was equally impossible for him. He was speaking in the interests of a large class of employers whom such an amount would ruin altogether. They would be tieing round their necks a log which would hamper them all their lives. There was some limit to which the weekly payments, too, should extend, for if a
    228
    small employer with an income of £70 or £100 a year had a charge of 15s. a week on his income, may be for the whole of his life, he would be simply dragged down. Then there was another principle that when the time bad come where this liability upon the employer had ceased, the Poor Law might take the place. That was to say they might say to the employer after six or seven years' payments, that as the accident was none of his doing, and a rose from the act of God—as a good many accidents did arise—the liability of the employer should cease, and if necessary be thrown upon the State. He meant that at the end of that time the Board of Guardians should take up the liability for the pension. He believed what he said was felt by a great many employers on that side of the House, who were large employers, and in whose interests he was not speaking. In his constituency there were many small employers upon whom a liability of this sort for the whole of their lives meant ruin. He suggested, therefore, to those who were in charge of the Bill that this Amendment should be enlarged so that there should be a limit of time beyond which the liability for these weekly payments should not extend.
    On the return of the CITAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
    MR. J. W. LOGANwas of opinion that there was a great deal to be said for the principle of this Amendment, both from the point of view of the employer and of the workman. It 'would certainly facilitate the process of insurance. Many small employers would find a difficulty in insuring against accidents under the Bill. Being engaged himself in a very risky and dangerous business, he had already approached the insurance companies himself, and he found that the premiums they asked for insuring railway contractors under this Bill were very heavy. Unless small employers could insure at a reasonable price, they would run the risks and liabilities under this Bill, and to prevent possible loss to the workman he should like to se the facilities for insurance increased as much as possible. But, while he was in favour of the principle of the Amendment, he could not support it in its present form.
    MR. G. WHITELEYthought this was one of the most excellent and desirable Amendments which had yet been proposed to the Bill, in the interests alike of employers and employed. What an employer would object to was not being cast in damages, but that his liability should be undetermined and continue perhaps during the whole period he worked his business, or possibly his successors as well. It would hamper him in effecting an insurance, with the management and conduct of the business, and more especially if lie intended to dispose of it, it would be a serious matter to deal with. But the desirability of the Amendment was shown chiefly from the workman's point of view. Take the case of a workman in a cotton factory. As was well known, the cotton trade was now in a "parlous state." Suppose the case of a cotton operative, who had received compensation payable for a lifetime. The man had no guarantee whatever of the continuance of that compensation. He might, from the bankruptcy of his employer, find himself stranded. He believed the working classes throughout the kingdom would take immediate advantage of this power of commutation. They would say a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that he was glad the Government had accepted the principle of commutation in regard to accidents, but was somewhat disappointed that the terms of the Amendment were so large. As it was a fair average rule that three years' wages were about sufficient in case of death, so, in the same way, for any injury three years' wages ought to be enough. But by the Amendment a larger standard was taken. It was provided that no commutation could take place for a year after the date of the accident. He did not understand the object of the limitation, nor why the parties should be bound to wait for 12 months after the date of the accident before negotiating for commutation. In regard to permanent incapacity, again, it seemed a reasonable principle to fix a maximum just as in the case of death. In arranging the terms of commutation, the weekly payments made before commutation should be taken into account.
    230
    He begged to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out the words "has been continued for not less than 12 months" and insert the words "is current."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government could not assent to dispense with the preliminary period of weekly payments. The standard which they had fixed was fairly between the demands of the workmen and the employers.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BAINBRIDGEsupported the Amendment as tending to facilitate insurance. He had the best reason to fear that it would be almost impossible for the employer to obtain insurance unless a limit were placed to the liability for compensation. He thought, however, that the period after which the injury should be regarded as permanent would be better fixed at six months instead of 12. That was the period adopted by the Miners' Permanent Relief Society. He moved to leave out "twelve" and insert "six."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Government had considered this question most carefully, and had endeavoured to meet the conflicting views and interests. Their Amendment had not been put down hastily, and the Government must adhere to it.
    *MR. J. WILSONsaid that the period of six months adopted in the Permanent Relief Fund was for the purpose of increasing the weekly payment to the injured man. He was decidedly against this Amendment. Either the workman or the employer might institute proceedings for commutation. This offered a direct inducement to malingering; because the man who, at the end of 12 months, felt recovery near, would apply for commutation. The men who were permanently injured did not want commutation. It must not be forgotten that six years' payments was the maximum amount of commutation. The workmen, as a matter of fact, might get anything between one week's payment and 312 weeks' payment. Let the Government, if they desired to make the Amendment somewhat acceptable, fix the amount of commutation at 312 times of the weekly payments absolute. Even

    231
    that sum would be too little. The statistics of the permanent relief funds of the country showed that the average duration of permanent incapacity was more than six years. For those reasons he was entirely against the Amendment.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The discussion has mainly had reference to the original Amendment. I think it would be best to decide the question before the Committee, which is the substitution of "six months" for "twelve months" in the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. WILSONhoped the Amendment to the Amendment would not be proceeded with.
    MR. BAINBRIDGEsaid that in view of the opinions which had been expressed he did not wish to press his Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was sorry that the Government, yielding to pressure not from the country, but within the House, had consented to place this, the greatest, blot upon the Bill. They would, by accepting this Amendment, in the interest of the mine owners, alienate the support of every workman who was otherwise inclined to accept the Bill. The Colonial Secretary said that the mine owners were more frightened than hurt by the Bill. He would tell the Government that the mine owners' bark was much worse than their bite; and if they had to choose between the support of the workmen by rejecting the Amendment, or the opposition of the employers if they refused to accept it, they should have pronounced against the selfish, narrow views that lay behind the Amendment. He ventured to assert that the Amendment would be an incentive to malingering. If a man sustained an injury that incapacitated him from work for six or eight months he would resort to all sorts of tricks and dodges to reach the commutation period of twelve months. On the other hand, the man who was seriously injured, and was laid up for twelve months, would prefer the regular weekly payment rather than accept commutation and invest the amount in a business for which he had neither the financial or the commercial ability to conduct. What would happen in the case of such a man? He would be compelled
    232
    by the employer or by designing relatives who wanted the handling of the lump sum to accept commutation, say twelve or eighteen months of his weekly payments, and at the end, perhaps, of a year, all the money would be gone, and he would become a charge upon the rates or dependent upon his family. That was the experience of his own society, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. The society gave a commutation of £100 in a case of partial or permanent incapacity. In ninety per cent. of those cases, the man, after eighteen months had elapsed from the time he had received the £100, was much worse off than before he had got the commutation allowance. If that were so in the case of the engineers, who were well organised and fairly intelligent men, surrounded by advisory and controlling influence, what would happen in the case of the stevedore, the dock labourer, the navvy, and the platelayer, whose commutation would, perhaps, not amount to more than £60 or £80? He hoped the Government would not accept the Colonial Secretary's Amendment. The Amendment of the Colonial Secretary destroyed the Bill; it made the Bill unpopular, and it deprived the Bill of all the generous attributes it had hitherto been supposed to have. The acceptance of the Amendment was nothing more nor less than a climbing down to a well-organised attempt to take the vitals out of the Bill. What was more, this was a log-rolling Amendment—an Amendment that had not got the country at its back; it was an Amendment that was the result of deputations to the Government of a few wealthy mine owners who had shown their generosity by subscribing £4,000 to the permanent relief fund to which the workmen subscribed £90,000. There was an impression gaining ground that if the Bill was not mutilated and weakened in the House of Commons the House of Lords would probably throw it out. [An. HON MEMBER: "Nothing of the kind."] The Government had encouraged the House of Lords to mutilate the Bill by accepting the suggestion of the coal and mining lords, the worst form of aristocracy. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] If the Amendment were accepted he hoped, not so much that the Government would be punished, but that Tory and Liberal workmen would mark those Tory and Liberal mine owners who had prevented

    233
    workmen when injured from receiving what they wanted—regular weekly compensation.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYhoped the Committee would take note of the hon. Member's statement that half of the working classes were malingerers.
    MR. BURNSsaid that the only reference he made to malingering was to the effect that the Government would encourage it by their 12 months' condition. He did not say that half of the workmen of the country were malingerers; he did not believe that 1 per cent. were.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid he was in perfect possession of what the hon. Member said, and he thought the working classes would say, in respect to the hon. Member, "Save us from our friends." ["Hear, hear!"] He did not believe that any working mail ever expected that any Ministry would give him a weekly allowance for, possibly, 50 years, and he was persuaded that any politician who rushed forward and promised workmen such an allowance would be received with good-natured smiles rather than with anything else.
    MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid the working classes never asked for the Bill, but as it had been brought in they were entitled to ask that that should be given them which they had been led to expect. It was quite evident that if commutation were permitted the workmen would be deprived of many years' compensation. The acceptance of this Amendment was, in his opinion, a deception of the working men of the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid that this Amendment was so fraught with the possibility of evil to a number of people in this country that he was most anxious to draw the attention of the Committee and of the Attorney General to it. He did not know whether it had occurred to the Attorney General that, if the Amendment were carried in its present form, it would inevitably lead to the ruin of a great number of small employers. As he understood the Amendment, it meant that, if a workman had been injured, after he had received a weekly payment for 12 months, he had a right to go to the arbitrator and claim from the person who made these weekly payments commutation at the rate of 312 times the weekly payments.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: At a rate not exceeding that, but of course the arbitrator will have to consider whether he is permanently injured or not.
    SIR F. EVANS: My point is that he can insist on the commutation.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: If he is permanently injured.
    SIR F. EVANSsaid that to large employers that did not matter. They could all afford to make provision for that kind of case, but with small employers it n as not possible to do so. Take the case of a. man—and it was a. very frequent case in this country—whose income, after he had paid the workers in his employ, did not exceed £100 or £120 a year. He paid his men, say, £1 a week. There came an accident, and under the Bill he had to pay that man 10s. a week, or £26 a year. At the end of the year the workman came forward and claimed commutation, which would be six times £26, or £156. That was a sum entirely beyond the means of the class of employers in whose interests he was speaking particularly. He thought sonic words should be inserted making the commutation subject to the arbitrator's consent, so that he might act the part of a Judge and say this was a. case in which he would not enforce it. In fixing a time of trial the Government had done a. benefit to the employers, because they had thereby lessened the premium on insurance. He was at issue entirely with the hon. Member for Battersea, and the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley. If their views were carried out they would be directly against the labour interests of the country. A labourer met with an accident and was allowed 10s. or 15s. a week, but there was no provision in the Bill for that charge being put upon the property of the person paying it. Take the case of a colliery. An explosion occurred, and there were, say, five or six men injured. The owner of the colliery could not face the commutation. He sold his colliery, he parted with the property, and when ire had got the money he could go away. Where was the security then for the weekly payments? It was all gone. There was no security in the Bill for the payments which were to be made under it; and if the Government wanted to make the Bill effective they must either make them a charge in some way or they must do as they were doing now—they must commute the payments into

    235
    a sum which was paid over to a third party. Then the workman got his security, and the Bill would become effective as a protection to the men injured. If they passed the Amendment as it was they would inevitably force a very large number of small employers into selling their business, and, in fact, ruin them, and he thought it would be covered entirely if the Government could see their way to give to the arbitrator before whom the question came the right to refuse to give a price at all.
    MR. B. PICKARDsaid he was surprised at hon. Members on both sides of the House speaking so confidently as to what colliery owners would do in the future if this Bill came into force. He was surprised that the colliery owners had so many resources in the way of avoiding payments under the Bill when it became an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Southampton said that he, as a colliery proprietor, would sell his colliery.
    SIR F. EVANSsaid he only gave a colliery as an illustration. He was not a colliery owner. He was referring to small employers, and gave a colliery as an instance of what might be done.
    MR. PICKARDsaid the colliery owners had used arguments which the Colonial Secretary in the crushing reply lie gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, completely disposed of, showing that their exaggerated fears were unfounded. He and his hon. Friends from South Wales and Durham knew the colliery owners well, and did not think them quite as bad as they were painted. They did not believe that they would do everything that was being threatened in their Paine. Hon. Members had been talking about the Permanent Relief Funds. He found that in Yorkshire last year that great fund had the noble contribution from the wealthy employers of £447. He could quite understand, therefore, that they were afraid of this Bill. When they came here and talked about what they had done in the past and what they expected to do in the future, and when they found that £447 represented the whole of their contributions to the Yorkshire Permanent Relief Fund, he felt ashamed for people in that House who went to Lancashire and Cheshire, to Northumberland and to Durham, for arguments when they had no arguments in their own bosoms to
    236
    establish what they advanced here. In Yorkshire, since the year 1887 the sum of £188,000 had been paid in relief, and the employers had paid about £10,000. That was a fact which ought to be stated in that House, and should be well understood. He wished to say further, with regard to this Amendment, that he thought it would work injuriously. It had been stated by the Colonial Secretary it might fix probably a 5s. weekly allowance for a man who might be totally incapacitated, and that was to be the sum and substance of what he was to receive from the owners under this Bill. What did that amount to? Supposing under this Amendment his compensation was commuted and he was given the full benefit of the six years, it would amount to this, that the man would be paid £78. Was that worth having? They were told the other night by the Colonial Secretary that every young woman and girl at the pit bank, and every man underneath would get £150 certain. Under this commutation arrangement, all that was knocked on the head. As he understood it the working men of this country would have no cause to thank the Government or that House if the Amendment were allowed to be put on the Statute-book. They did not ask for the Bill. They were promised the Bill; and he said from the commencement—and, therefore, he had nothing to retract—he told the men whom he represented that he thought the Bill was a fair attempt to do a good thing for the workmen; and he was prepared to come there, not to attack the Bill, not to make speeches, but if he found the Government were prepared to carry this Bill in its integrity, he was prepared to support it. Formal Amendments here and there would no doubt have to be made, but he was prepared to suggest, if he did suggest, to the 300,000 union men whom he represented that they might accept this Bill as an instalment—[cries of "Oh!" and laughter] — that future Governments would develop—["Hear, hear!"]—and with all its infirmities he was quite prepared to advise his friends and colleagues to accept the Bill. What did he find? Why, on the Second Reading—and it should be clearly understood that it was not from the Opposition side of the House but from the Government side—that there came an Amendment—it was moved by the

    237
    hon. Member for Derby—which, if it could have been carried, would have destroyed the Bill.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself a little more closely to the question raised by the Amendment.
    MR. PICKARDapologised. At the same time he wished to remind the Chairman that the Question had been referred to this afternoon, with regard to whether the Bill was asked for and who promised it. ["Order!"] He had been in the House all the time, and he had heard most of the Debate, and lion. Members, including the Colonial Secretary and the hon. Member for Dumfries—
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order!
    MR. PICKARDhad simply wished to enjoy the Same privilege which other hon. Gentlemen had indulged in. However, he would not pursue that line. ["Hear, hear!"] He only wished to say that in his judgment if the Amendment was placed on the Statute Book they would do a great injustice to the workmen of this country. ["Hear, hear!"] Talk about malingerers. Well, he supposed there were malingerers in every class of society. Walk about the streets of London mid they would see a host of them, and if they went into other places he was certain they were to be found there also. [A laugh.] The miners as a class were not malingerers. He agreed with the hon. Member for Battersea that there were not one per cent., and if there were they would be found out by their fellow workmen and would be treated in a drastic manner. He did not think the Amendment would get rid of malingering. He was certain that it would not give the compensation Government intended when they drafted the Bill. He hoped that, the influence of the coal owners outside the House and the deputations which had met the Colonial Secretary privately and confidentially would not induce the Government to put into the Bill Amendments that would destroy it in its working out. If, however, the Government did press it and carry it by a majority he hoped they would take time and consider whether on the Report stage they could not make the arrangement for commutation one of a mutual character, so that the men if they
    238
    must have it might have the pill gilded before they swallowed it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought he could, if time permitted, answer a good many of the arguments that had been used. But he would venture to make an appeal to the Committee. This Amendment had been under discussion three hours. He quite agreed that there had been a marked difference of opinion between certain Members of the House and others with regard to the Amendment, but he hoped they might now proceed to a Division. There were very few points left, and if they could complete the Committee stage, so that the Bill might be studied during the Recess, it would be an advantage. He did not want to prevent discussion, yet he hoped they would get on with this Amendment.
    MR. W. A. MCARTHURwould only occupy the House a moment. He wanted to explain the motives which would guide him in voting against the Amendment of the Colonial Secretary. He had only refrained from voting against the Second Reading of the Bill on the ground that it appeared to him totally impossible that the Bill could stop where it was. It appeared to him absolutely certain that the Bill must lead to a system of State insurance. He might say that he had no personal interest in the Bill, having no body of men in his employ. He should feel compelled to oppose the Amendment of the Colonial Secretary.
    MR. BURTrose merely to associate himself with his hon. Friend.
    MR. MARK OLDROYDthought that the effect of the Amendment would be to take the clause out of the Bill and make it inoperative as to the disabled soldiers of the Army. He said that he wished only to make one remark, and would endeavour to speak on behalf of the workmen whose feelings he understood. They objected altogether to be dependent on charity, and so far as he knew they were anxious to be removed from the irritating effect of having to depend on exceptional assistance under afflictions of that kind. If the Amendment were adopted it would after seven years leave the men who were permanently disabled without resource of any kind. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSunderstood that the object of the Bill was to keep the injured man out of the workhouse.

    239
    If a man was in receipt of 18s. a week and was permanently disabled it good to reason that an employer would try to commute that sum. The most a man could get was £150, and if he invested that it would amount to about 2s. 4d. a week. He believed the Amendment would defeat the object of the Bill.
    MR. W. ALLANobserved that the Colonial Secretary in all his speeches had always insisted on the fairness, the justice, and the necessity of this Measure. But this Amendment contained a great deal of injustice and one-sidedness. The Amendment was not honestly worded. It was all one-sided. He could have understood it had it read like this:—
    "Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than twelve months the liability therefor may, on the mutual application of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum, to be settled by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding 312 times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application."
    But the way the Amendment was worded left the workman no chance. The right hon. Gentleman had put an Amendment into the Bill which took away the mutuality, and which gave the workman no chance, but compelled him to do some thing which might be against his interest or that of his family. Was that fair? That was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention, he was sure, when he introduced the Bill, and therefore he would be well advised if he would insert the words "mutual application" in the Amendment, which would then give the workman a chance, and remove a great injustice.
    MR. ALBERT SPICER, as one who had said he would do nothing whatever that would detract from the value of the Bill, felt very strongly that this Amendment would take away its benefits, and he protested against it because it seemed to him to have been conceived in the interest of a limited class. After all, it was against the policy that the general employers of the country adopted to-day. Nearly every Member of the House was an employer in one form or another, and he ventured to say he was not in the habit of carrying out in his daily practice the principle that was laid down in this
    240
    Amendment. It would be bad for the workman, and it would also be bad for the employer. The ordinary working man in receipt of weekly wages was not able to make the best use of a commuted sum, and there was not a Member of that House, whether in his private life or business, or professional life, who would carry out in his daily life what this Amendment was proposing. The working men were looking forward for a weekly allowance, and at the end of 12 months to make it possible only to have a commuted sum would not only cause great disappointment, but it would be unjust to the working men as a whole, and it would not be in harmony with the system that each one adopted in his own life.
    MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid it seemed to him only reasonable that both the workman and employer should have the opportunity of commuting the payment if they wished to do so. The only objection to the Amendment was the fixing of a limit of six years. Why fix a limit at all? Why not allow a man to have the full value of his allowance? Suppose a man had been permanently injured so as to prevent him working; he would be in a condition that he might live for many years, and to limit such a man to six years' value of the weekly payments would be to deprive him of the greater part of the value of the allowance. He thought the arbitrator should be left to fix the amount without any limit whatever in the Bill, deciding in each individual case what should be the capital value of the allowance, and then there would be no objection to the Amendment. The limit could only have been introduced in the interests of the employers, to enable them to get out cheaply, for there was no limit the other way. He agreed that the Amendment as it stood was a disastrous one to the Bill, but if the limit was struck out then the Amendment was one which ought to be introduced.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINhad no idea how perfect the Bill was when it was introduced. He admitted that this was a very difficult and complicated subject, and he thought it quite possible there were points of view from which Amendments might be suggested which the Government might accept. In the Course of

    241
    the discussion, however, he had discovered that, whenever an Amendment was accepted by the Government, from some quarter or another it was stated that it would absolutely destroy the value of the Bill. [Laughter.] That was the case now, but he should have been more impressed by it if he bad not heard it so often. As to this Amendment, he would say that before he had the honour of a seat in that House, be was largely engaged in industrial undertakings, and it was always to him a most pleasant recollection that in the course of his industrial experience he was brought into intimate association with a great number of working men. He was happy to say that that association had been continued in many cases down to the present day. ["Hear, hear!"] He sat for a working class constituency, and, speaking with that experience, he said he was perfectly satisfied to take this Amendment to any platform in the country and to any meeting in which working men were in a majority, and he was convinced they Would prefer that there should be this option of commutation. ["Hear, hear!"] The ordinary working man might be ready to accept a permanent annuity or payment during incapacity, but he would desire to have the option of commuting that payment by a lump sum if he believed, as he would believe in a great number of cases, that his interest was concerned in accepting a lump sum in preference to a weekly payment. The Government had given him that option. They had given the same option to the workman as to the employer, and it was his firm conviction that for one case in which the employer asked for this option there would be a hundred cases of the workman asking for it. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. J. WILSONobserved that, as he understood the word "option," it implied a right to choose or refuse, but if a man had no right to choose then there was no option in it. He submitted that the Amendment gave no option to the workman. The workman should have the right to refuse the commutation. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put the word "option" in and leave it in reality to the option of the workman.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the Amendment as it stood was a perfect option.
    242
    What the hon. Member asked for was a double option. At present, what was proposed to be conferred was an absolutely mutual option; but the hon. Gentleman asked the Government to add to that an option of refusal. Of course, if the Government it agreed to that proposal, that option must also be mutual—["hear, hear!"]—and the employer also be given the right to refuse. He believed that the large majority of the working classes would decline to accept a double option of that sort, because that would place them absolutely under the control of the employer. If the employer chose to refuse the option, the workman could never obtain the commutation. He wanted to do the best he could for the workman, and to enable him to obtain this commutation, if lie desired it, even if the employer refused it. ["Hear, hear!"] The proposal was absolutely mutual and absolutely fair, and the only discretion left was to the arbitrator, who, if he thought the commutation wrong, would be able to refuse it both to the employer and to the workman.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he wished to have a fair and square issue before the Committee, and with that object he proposed that the Amendment should be amended by leaving out all the words after the word "Act" to the end of the Amendment. He desired that the workman should have a fair option.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 77.—(Division List, No. 235.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 78.—(Division List, No. 236.)
    MR. BAINBRIDGE MR. BAINBRIDGE moved, at the end of Section (4) to insert the words—
    "and, if the incapacity or the continuance of the incapacity to the workman is wholly or partially due to ill health or to any excess or misconduct on his part, the weekly payment may be ended or diminished."

    243
    He mentioned, as an illustration of the necessity for some such Amendment, the case of a man who was examined by a colliery doctor, when it was found that the damage for which he claimed compensation was entirely due to an ulcerated leg. The circumstances of such a case as that ought certainly to affect a claim to continued compensation. If the Government considered that his object was already met by the provision for the review of cases by a. medical officer he would withdraw the Amendment.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYthought that it was perfectly clear that the hon. Member's object would be met by the words agreed to respecting revision.
    MR. BAINBRIDGE,after that assuranse, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Section (6) to leave out the word "or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Section (6), after the word "charged," to insert the words "or attached."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire) moved, at the end of Section (6) to add the following section:—
    "(7) In the application of the Act and of this schedule to Scotland the expression 'dependants' means the persons who, according to the law of Scotland, are entitled to sue the employer for damages or solatium in respect of the death of the workman, and who are wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death. The expression infant shall mean pupil."
    MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether this Amendment would make the operation of this Bill in Scotland the same as in England?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that practically it would put matters on the same footing, but as a matter of fact, the persons who were entitled to sue in
    244
    Scotland were not precisely the same as the persons who were entitled to sue under Lord Campbell's Act in England.
    SIR J. BRUNNERobserved that the Amendment supplied another illustration of the inconvenience of legislating by reference. The Committee were engaged in passing legislation which was supposed to be for the guidance of people who were less erudite than Members of Parliament, and yet he did not feel sure that all Members understood it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    *SIR FRANCIS POWELL*SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan) moved, after the words last inserted, to add—
    "any workman claiming compensation under this Act shall, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself for examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner appointed and paid by the employer. If the workman refuses without sufficient cause to submit himself to such examination or otherwise obstructs the same, his right to such weekly payment shall be suspended until such examination has taken place."
    The object of the Amendment was to prevent fraud. The proposed procedure would be analogous to that of the Friendly Societies and of the Mining Societies of Durham and Northumberland.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that he appreciated the object of the hon. Baronet, but that it was already to a large extent met by the provision agreed to as to revision. The Government were prepared to meet the general wish that the medical practitioner to be consulted should be someone in whom all would have confidence, that was to say, someone in the position of an official.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    First schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.

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

    (1.) If any committee, representative of an employer and his workmen exists with power to settle matters under this Act in the case of the employer and workmen,

    245
    the matter shall, unless either party objects, be settled by that committee.

    (2.) If either party so objects, or there is no such committee, 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, or if 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.) Any arbitrator other than the County Court Judge shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury.

    (4.) 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; and any award made under this Act shall be enforced in the Sallie manner as an order of a County Court.

    (5.) The costs of the arbitration shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator.

    (6.) 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.

    (7.) 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 amount recovered for, any costs except such as have been awarded by the arbitrator.

    (8.) Any committee, judge, or other arbitrator may appoint a legally qualified medical practitioner to report on any matter which seems material to any question arising in the arbitration; and the expense of any such medical practitioner, not exceeding two guineas, shall be paid by the employer.

    (9.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland "sheriff" shall be substituted for "County Court Judge."

    MR. PICKARD MR. PICKARD moved in Section (1), after the words "employer and his workmen," to insert the words:—
    "such committee shall be composed of an equal number of employers and workmen's representatives."
    He maintained that in these matters there should be a mutual arrangement, and that negotiations should be put on such a footing that workmen and employers should be enabled to work in a conciliatory spirit in connection with any arrangement entered into.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINhoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. Under the Bill the Committee could only be appointed in the first place by mutual agreement, and even after the Committee was appointed no case could be presented unless with the consent of the two parties. He hoped that in the vast majority of cases the Committees would consist, not of an equal number of employers and workmen's representatives, but a majority of workmen's representatives. The best Commit tee lie knew to exist was in large works near Birmingham. It had worked with admirable satisfaction for a long period of time, and it consisted of 12 workmen and one employer, who was the chairman. There was no question of equality of interest, but matters were discussed in a practical way, and the employer gave his opinion. He doubted whether there were many cases of division, and if there were, the views of the majority of the workmen were taken. The Amendment would prevent an employer from allowing his workmen to be in the majority.
    In answer to Mr. PICKARD,
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that if an employer was so foolish as to insist upon having a majority on the Committee, the workmen would probably refuse to join the Committee, and if a workman was injured they would probably refuse to submit his case. He knew several cases where an employer had not attempted to obtain a majority, or even an equality.
    *MR. BURNSappealed to his hon. Friend riot to press the Amendment, and supported the view of the Colonial Secretary.
    *MR. J. WILSONasked whether it was contemplated that the Committee should be confined to a single firm or colliery, or whether there was to be a scheme of grouping of a district?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that it was distinctly the intention of the Government that the greatest liberty should be allowed in the formation of these committees. They should either be committees of particular firms, committees of trades, or of districts; but the Government would look into the matter and see whether the words were wide enough to meet the view of hon. Gentlemen.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Section (1), after the word "objects," to insert the words, "by notice in writing sent to the other party before the committee meet to consider."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Section (1), to leave out the word "that," in order to insert the words, "the arbitration of such." The object of the Amendment was to make it clear that the committee shall act as an arbitrator.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. L. WALTON MR. J. L. WALTON (Leeds, S.) moved, at the end of Section (1), to insert the words, "or referred by them in their discretion to arbitration."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALaccepted the Amendment, substituting the words "an arbitrator," for "arbitration."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) moved, after the words last inserted, to add,—
    "Any conciliation board consisting of equal numbers of employers and employed, shall be authorised to undertake arbitrations under this Act."
    He said he proposed this Amendment at the request of the London Conciliation Board.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, as the Government were prepared to put in after "arbitrator," Section (2), the words, "or conciliation board," which would have the same effect.
    MR. BURNShoped the Attorney General would reconsider the concession he had made, as it was not desirable to have the same tribunal of masters and men who discussed wages in the pre-strike period dealing with the questions here involved.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is only to give the alternative of a conciliation board where such a board had the confidence of both parties.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words proposed by Attorney General agreed to.
    MR. WALTON MR. WALTON moved, in Section (2), to leave out from the words "shall be" to the end of the section, and to insert the words,—
    "determined by suit in the County Court of the district in which the injury complained of was occasioned."
    He moved the Amendment in order to provide the parties with the opportunity of having recourse to the ordinary tribunals to settle the very important questions which this Act involved. This proposal created the County Court Judge as arbitrator, but stripped him of all his judicial functions. It was most important to have judicial procedure, so that the Judge's decisions could be corrected on appeal. Under this legislation there would be no appeal. Most important issues of fact would have to be decided, and the Bill bristled with points of law.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government proposed to adopt Amendments now on the Paper, which would meet all the points of the hon. and learned Member, without involving the readjustment of the whole framework of the Bill. An appeal on questions of law to the Court of Appeal would be provided. There must be some means of reviewing the decisions of County Courts in order that general principles might be authoritatively laid down.
    *MR. J. WILSONhoped that the Court of Appeal would not be called in, or the way would be opened to much litigation.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Section (2), after the words, "by a single arbitrator," to insert the words "or conciliation board."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Section (2), after the word "if," to insert the words "in England."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR ROBERT REID SIR ROBERT REID moved, in Section (2), to insert at the end:—
    "In cases in which the County Court Judge, or an arbitrator appointed by him, is the arbitrator, the workman or his representative may

    249
    deliver to the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which he resides a statement of the nature of his claim with his name 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."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEY MR. GEORGE WHITELEY moved, in Section (3), after the word "Judge," to insert the words, "and the costs of such settlement by arbitration." He thought it was unreasonable that a workman who became entitled to a sum of money by sustaining an accident should have that sum lessened by the costs.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot conceive anything more calculated to provoke litigation than the provision that the expenses should be borne by the State. The Government, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in Section (3), after the word "shall," to insert the words,—
    "subject to a right of appeal in every such case by any party to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal."
    The Judges of the County Court were not bound by each other's decisions. Instead of having a body of settled principles, they would probably have 50 different settlements of the same point in 50 different districts, and it was therefore absolutely essential that an appeal should be allowed.
    SIR R. REIDdeprecated any encouragement of litigation, and therefore hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALcontended that it was necessary the County Court Judges should know authoritatively what law they were to obey.
    MR. HALDANEthought it would be a great misfortune if the Amendment were accepted, because it was very undesirable that the Court of Appeal should be let loose in these matters.
    *MR. J. WILSONhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. On this point they were deviating from their original purpose. He trusted they would insist that the decision of the County Court Judge should be final.
    MR. BURNSsaid that if the Amendment were accepted the result would be that in many cases the whole of the money would be thrown away upon lawyers.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid they were all agreed that they should prevent litigation, and lie asked his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment and allow the Government to consider the matter between now and the Report stage. If they found they could admit the Amendment they would do so.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not take the course suggested, and he was prepared to convince the Committee. [Laughter.] Exactly the same proposition was made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer during the discussion of the Finance Bill of 1894. It was adopted, but the Inland Revenue Department refused to go to the County Court. The late Government went out, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office and supported his own Department in refusing to act upon his own Amendment. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "No, I did not!" and laughter. ] He would remind the Committee that it was purely on questions of law that the appeal was to arise, that the appeal would not be to the High Court, that there would be none of the expense incurred which took place principally in the High Court, and that it would go direct to the Court of Appeal. He thought it was absolutely necessary that an appeal should take place, not on questions of fact, but on questions of law, and he must really press his Amendment.
    MR. WALTONdesired to enforce the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite. County Court Judges were lawyers, and they were to enforce this legislation. County Court Judges had a professional tendency to differ in regard to points of law, and the result was that unless they constituted a Court of Appeal which could produce harmony amid this judicial babel, they would have a revival of the juridical heptarchy. They would

    251
    have a distinct code of law, so far as this legislation was concerned, in every County Court district. He should have thought the statement of the Attorney General would have been entirely satisfactory to the Committee that they must get the Act judicially construed and some definite legal code established before they could give it efficient practical operation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 79.—(Division List, No. 237.)
    And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.) moved the following new clause:—

  SALE OF TOBACCO IN OMNIBUSES AND TRAMWAY CARS.
  (1.) Section 12 of the Revenue Act 1884 (which relates to the sale of tobacco in railway carriages under the licence of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue) shall apply in the case of omnibuses, tramway cars and tramway carriages, as it applies in the case of railway carriages, and shall apply to tile proprietors of any such omnibuses, tramway cars, or tramway carriages as it applies to the proprietors of railway carriages or to a railway company.
  (2) The expression "omnibus" in this section has the same meaning as in the Town Police Clauses Act 1889, and includes a "stage carriage" within the meaning of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs) moved to report Progress.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. At the
  252
  present time tobacco and cigarettes could be sold in railway carriages for the convenience of passengers, and also, no doubt, to the advantage of the revenue. It was desirable to extend the power of sale to omnibuses and tramway cars. It was a very small matter and he hoped the hon. Member would, therefore, withdraw his Motion.
  MR. BURNSasked, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest in regard to the people who bought cigars and cigarettes on the top of omnibuses, that it should be obligatory upon them to sit in the back seat when they smoked.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGHalso moved to report Progress.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSpointed out that this Bill was exempted from the Twelve o'clock Rule.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed only to take those clauses which he had placed on the Paper and that of the hon. Member for North Islington. He had then agreed with the lion. Member for East Mayo that progress should be reported.
  MR. J. SAMUELthought it would be a serious inconvenience to ladies if gentlemen were permitted to smoke in omnibuses and tram cars.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that smoking was not permitted inside these vehicles now, and the clause left the matter where it stood. Smoking, however, was allowed outside. The clause would simply permit of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes in omnibuses and tram cars.
  MR. WHITTAKERadmitted that people were allowed to smoke now on omnibuses and tram cars, but this clause would increase the facilities whilst he scarcely thought it was fair to trades-people.
  Clause read a Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following clause:—
  "Where under the power conferred by any Act any county council or municipal corporation issue bills repayable not later than 12 months from their date those bills shall, notwithstanding that by the same or any other Act they are charged or secured on any property, fund, or rate, and that the statutory charge referred to in the Bill be treated for the

  253
  purpose of the Stamp Act 1891, and the Acts amending that Act, as promissory notes and not as marketable securities."
  He said that under the present law the stamp duty on such Bills was such an addition to the rate of interest as to prohibit their issue. If the clause were carried the duty would be only 1s. per cent.
  MR. B. L. COHENthanked his right hon. Friend for this clause. He thought it was very desirable that the County Council should have this power.
  Clause read a Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved the following clause:—

  INCOME TAX (MARRIED WOMEN).
  (1.) Where the total joint income of a husband and wife charged to Income Tax, by way either of assessment or deduction, does not exceed five hundred pounds, and upon a claim for exemption, relief, or abatement, under the Acts relating to the Income Tax, the Commissioners for general purposes of those Acts are satisfied that such total income includes profits of the wife from any business carried on or exercised by means of her own era labour, and that the rest of the total income or any part thereof arises or accrues from profits of a business carried on or exercised by means of the husband's own personal labour and unconnected with the business of the wife, they shall deal with such claim as if it were a claim in respect of the said profits of the wife, and a separate claim on the part of the husband in respect of the rest of the total income, but they shall deal with any income of the husband arising or accruing from the business of his wife or from any source connected therewith as if it were part of the income of the wife.
  (2.) In this section "business" means any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, or any office or employment of profit, and the "profits of a business" means any profits, gains, or remuneration arising or accruing from the business and chargeable under Schedule or Schedule E. in the Income Tax Act 1853.
  (3.) Sub-section 2 of Section 34 of the Finance Act 1894 is hereby repealed, save as respects any Income Tax charged under any former Act.
  He said the clause embodied an alteration in the law he had urged on a good many occasions—namely, that where the joint incomes of husband and wife were separately earned the two incomes should for the purposes of tax be treated as separate; that was to say, that in cases in which the wife earned a living herself, and added it to her husband's earnings, the two should not be combined.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE ENCHEQUERsaid that when Ids hon. Friend brought the subject before the House last year he was obliged to resist the proposal because it appeared to hint to go to a very dangerous extent. This clause was a different matter. It had been very carefully framed with the result that in the first place it only applied to industrial incomes and not to incomes derived from investment; arid, secondly, he did not think that there could be any collusion between the husband and wife, so that their earnings really derived from one and the same trade could be treated as separate incomes. He was, therefore, prepared to accept the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Clause read a Second time, and ordered o stand part of the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 17th June.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th May] further adjourned till Thursday 17th June.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow
  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.

  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clause 1,—Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 17th June.

  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 24th June.
  LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday I7th June.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Third Reading [24th May] further adjourned till Thursday 17th June.
  PRISONS BILL
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday I7th June.
  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Thursday 17th June.
  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [I1th May] further adjourned till Thursday I7th June.
  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday I7th June.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) [GRANT].
  Committee deferred untill To-morrow.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].
  MR. RENSHAWsaid it was the unanimous wish of those interested in the Bill among the supporters of the Government, a wish shared by a considerable number of hon. Members opposite, that the Government would proceed with the Committee at once, to give opportunity for consideration in Scotland during the holidays.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he wished to join in the appeal of his hon. Friend.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that the Scotch Members on both sides had supported the Bill on the understanding that ample time would be given for its consideration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid his desire had been to afford an opportunity for passing through the Committee stage of this Resolution on the following day, but when he had made the

  257
  suggestion he had been informed by a high authority on the Front Opposition Bench, which had subsequently been fortified by equally strong protests by other leading Members of the Opposition, that exception was taken to that course. He felt himself bound to defer to the apparent deliberate and unanimous desire on the part of the Opposition, and he should therefore bring in the all as soon as possible after Whitsuntide.
  Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday 17th June.

  MANHOOD SUFFRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 2nd July.
  SOLICITORS (MAGISTRACY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 5th July.
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  PRISONERS' PERSONAL CORRECTION PROHIBITION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow 24th June.
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.
  CORN SALES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  RESTRAINT OF EVICTIONS (LONDON) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday I7th June.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Friday 18th June.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  BETTING ACT (1853) REPEAL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 5th July.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [I7th February] further adjourned till Wednesday, 23rd June.
  VERMINOUS PERSONS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  RAILWAY RETURN TICKETS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Friday 18th June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Wednesday 30th June.
  GROUND GAME ACT (EXTENSION TO COPYHOLDERS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 18th June.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] further adjourned till Thursday 24th June.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill Read the Third time, and passed.
  PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading—deferred till Thursday 17th June.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th February], "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."
  Question put and agreed to. Bill Read a Second time, and committed for Thursday 17th June.

  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
  MOTIONS.
    VACCINATION (CALF LYMPH).
    Bill to amend the Vaccination Laws, by providing a compulsory supply of Calf Lymph under Government control; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carlile, Sir Cameron Gull, Mr. Bemrose, Mr. Howell, and Mr. Wanklyn; presented, and Read the First time; to be Bead a Second time upon Wednesday 7th July, and to be printed.—[Bill 285.]
    YORKSHIRE CORONERS.
    Bill to constitute the Ridings of Yorkshire separate counties for all the purposes of the Coroners' Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hutton, Captain Bethell, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Pickard, and Mr. Wilson-Todd; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday 24th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 286.]
    COUNTY COUNCILS (ADVANCES).
    Bill to enable County Councils in England and Wales to advance money to local authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Channing, Mr. Bill, Mr. Brigg, and Mr. Lloyd-George; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday 17th, June, and to be printed.—[Bill 287.]

  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (MARKS) BILL.
  The Select Committee on Agricultural Produce (Marks) Bill was nominated of—Mr. Brigg, Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, Mr. Wingfield-Digby, Mr. Doughty, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Hozier, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Kilbride, Sir John Kinloch, Sir Elliott Lees, Mr. Macaleese, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. A. H. Smith, and Mr. Parker. Smith.
  Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, that five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  House Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before One o'Clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Aberbrothwick Harbour.
Appeal in Certain Civil Matters (Ireland).
Archdeaconry of Cornwall.
Ashford Urban District Gas.
Assam Railways and Trading Company.
Birmingham, Tame, and Rea District Drainage Board.
Bray and Enniskerry Railway (Extension of Time).
Bristol Tramways.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.
Chichester Corporation Water.
Clackmannan (Alloa and Tillicoultry)
Water Supply Provisional Order.
Clyde Navigation (Extension of Time).
Cowes Gas.
Craigerook Mortification.
Crichton Royal Institution.
Devonport Water.
Dumfries and Maxwelltown Water.
East India Company's Officers Superannuation.
Edinburgh Corporation.
Edinburgh University (Transfer of Patronage).
Elementary Education Act 1870 Amendment.
Epsom Downs Extension Railway.
Glasgow Harbour Tunnel Company.
Great Eastern Railway (New Lines).
Great Eastern Railway (Lowestoft Harbour).
Great Northern Railway.
Great Western Railway (Truro and Newquay Railway).
Huddersfield Corporation.
Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).
London and North Western Railway.
London and North Western Railway (Wales).
London and South Western Railway (Meon Valley Railway).
London Bank of Australia.
London (Clare Market, Strand) Provisional Order.
Loughborough Corporation.
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway.
Mason's Orphanage.
Mason University College.
Metropolitan Police Courts (Holidays).
Mumbles Railway and Pier (Extension of Time).
Navy and Marines (Wills) Act (1865) Amendment.
Neath Corporation Tramways.
Neath Harbour (Extension of Time).
North London Commercial Permanent Building Society.
Paisley Waterworks Provisional Order.
Perth Improvements.
Plymouth Corporation.
Provident Life Office.
Railway Assessors (Scotland) Superannuation.
Railway Passengers' Assurance.
Regular and Elders' Widows' Funds.
Richmond District Lunatic Asylum.
St. Patrick's Park, Dublin.
Taunton Gas.
Torquay Corporation Water.
Trusts (Scotland).
Tynemouth Gas.
Weymouth Gas.
Whiting's Patent.
Wigan Junction Railways.
The Lords Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury), Lord HOPETOUN, and Earl WALDEGRAVE.

THE LORD FOXFORD (E. LIMERICK).
Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
THE LORD DE MAULEY.
Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
QUARTER SESSIONS JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

EXCISE LICENCES BILL [H.L.]
VISCOUNT PEEL,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was a Bill for the consolidation of the many provisions relating to Excise licences. The Liquor Commission, with which he had the honour to be connected, had felt in course of their inquiry that it would be of great use if there were a consolidation of the various enactments relating to one branch of the subject on which they were engaged. The principal Acts were passed as long ago as 70 years and more, and in the course of that time various provisions had been passed—some contradictory to existing enactments, some explanatory, and some repealing. The whole state of the law was in the utmost confusion, and if this Bill were allowed to pass as many as 25 Acts would be totally repealed and about 52 others would be partially repealed. The Bill did not in any way affect that branch of the subject which dealt with the law as administered by the justices and local authorities, but simply with the provisions of the law relating to Excise licences. It embraced ft great deal more than licences connected with the liquor trade, but he assured their Lordships that the Bill was a purely consolidation Bill. If he might cite an instance in proof of what he said, he would point out that the Bill as first introduced did contain some Amendments which gave a statutory sanction to some acts of practice which the licensing authorities had introduced. It was thought that these did amount to fresh enactments, and knowing the suspicion with which, in a Consolidation Bill, any amendment was regarded which seemed to repeal or alter the law, those amendments had been scrupulously cut out of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The result was that the Bill was purely and simply a consoli-
152
dating Measure, and effected no alteration in the law. It would be a great convenience to have the whole law reduced to one statute, with the different provisions expressly set forth. He might say, for instance, that the stamp duties and excise duties, formerly collected as such, were now collected as the excise licences, and a great deal of confusion had arisen in consequence of the change of name under which these various duties were collected, and that was only one out of many instances he could cite to prove the necessity for the consolidation of the law. If their Lordships would consent to the Second Reading of the Bill, he should move that it be referred to the Joint Committee for Statute Law Revision in order that any Amendment of the law might be scrupulously excluded, and the Bill made a purely consolidating Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY) moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He explained that, with the exception of one or two verbal alterations, it was practically the same Bill which passed through the House last year without any opposition and with very little discussion. Its object was, by making illegal the sale of undersized fish, to deter trawlers and other fishermen from frequenting those grounds where small undersized fish abounded. It was, of course, impossible to prevent the catching of such fish, but it was hoped that by preventing their sale the fishermen would be deterred from going to those quarters in which they were found. The Bill gave effect to the sense of the recommendation of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee—["hear, hear!"]—and it was regarded with favour by many of the fishing bodies throughout the country.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 18th instant.

CHURCH PATRONAGE TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read, and discharged.
MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be Read 3a on Friday the 18th instant.
SUNDAY BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for the second sitting day after the Whitsuntide recess) put off to Tuesday the 29th instant.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY: I beg to move "That the House at its rising do adjourn to the 18th of this month."
Motion agreed to.
House Adjourned at a Quarter before Five o'Clock, to Friday the 18th inst., a Quarter past Four o'Clock.