Sitting of 24 May 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LIVERPOOL CITY CHURCHES BILL [H.L.]
  Order fur Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a, Second time."
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSproposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He said that he thought it would have been more convenient had the hon. Member in charge of it explained its provisions. The Measure was rejected in 1893, and they ought to know what were the special new circumstances which had induced him to move it a second time. The Bill dealt with ten churches known as the Liverpool Corporation Churches and two parish churches. It was proposed to extinguish the liability of the Liverpool Corporation for the payment to them of certain annual grants which they had to pay under a section of an Act of Parliament. The sum contributed to the ten churches was £2,600 or thereabouts, and it was proposed by the Bill to commute that annual payment with a capital sum of, £95,000. In regard to the two parish churches, St. Peter's and St. Nicholas's, the liability amounted to about £1,800. That amount it was proposed to commute by the payment of a capital sum of £48,000. The first ground on which he moved the rejection of the Bill was that the amount of commutation was put at much too high a, figure. There was to be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be invested for the future endowment of the churches, and of new churches, over £101,000; and there was to be handed over a further sum of £13,406 to Queen Anne's Bounty, and £27,694 went to a building fund. It was not necessary to criticise the financial provisions beyond repeating that the amount of commutation was absurdly high. It represented
  1118
  36 years' purchase, or nearly three times the amount of purchase in the Irish Church Act—fourteen years. Besides, the money was to come out of the pockets of the Liverpool ratepayers for the benefit of one section of the ratepayers. In the second place, it must be remembered that this rate was all the higher when they considered the fact that not only was this money to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the sites of the churches were also to be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That was all the more striking when it was remembered that in. most cases the fabrics had been provided out of the pockets of the ratepayers. Were there any special reasons why this high rate of compensation should be paid? Had there been any unusual sacrifices on the part of the supporters of those churches, or had the churches been unusually successful in the past? The answer he believed to both questions was in the negative. Not only had the Corporation of Liverpool paid this annual grant amounting in the aggregate to something like £250,000, but they had also spent £117,000 on the building of the churches, so that after allowing for what had been received from pew rents, the Corporation had expended on these churches £300,000, and in spite of this the Church Party asked for 36½ years purchase. During the Debate in 1893 it was admitted on both sides of the House that there had been many scandals in. connection with the relations between the Corporation and these churches under the arrangements in the past. He did not deny that at the outset those who initiated the idea of contributing from the ratepayers' funds towards those churches was a good one. But in this case, as in others, the arrangement had become an instrument by which the Corporation of Liverpool made permanent places and salaries for their friends and relatives. That was a fact admitted on all hands. The time he thought had come when this arrangement ought to come to an end. The only point on which he joined issue was as to the condition and terms upon which this arrangement ought to be terminated. He asked the House were the terms proposed just or equitable? There was no doubt that these churches had been a, miserable failure in the past. That was admitted in the Debate a few years ago. The churches were large and poorly attended,

  1119
  and in parts of Liverpool where large congregations could not naturally be looked for. In the census taken in 1893 it was found that at St. George's, capable of seating 2,000, only 76 attended; in St. Paul's, capable of seating 1,800, only 16 attended; and in St. David's, the attendance was only 131. It seemed to him the history of the transactions between the Corporation and the parish churches, and their present position, was a factor which the House ought to have regard to in fixing the compensation to be paid, and the rate of the compensation. He knew very well that it would be said that it was proposed in the Bill to pull down two of the churches—St. George's and St. John's—to move them to another part of Liverpool, and to vest the old sites in the Corporation; but it was not very much comfort to the ratepayers to be presented with two sites which they years ago gave to the churches in question. He quite favoured the policy of removing these churches, but surely it ought to be arranged that the value of the sites and the fabrics given by the ratepayers should be taken into consideration. He did not deny that under the local Act of 1838, which was the foundation for the present Bill, the compromise suggested in these days of £105,000 invested for the benefit of these churches by the Corporation would have been a very good arrangement for the Corporation from a money standpoint; but those who had read the history of these days could not but see very clearly that there were two parties and two opposite opinions held in Liverpool on the question. That difference of opinion had always existed. In 1893 a similar Bill was before the House, but it was successfully opposed by an hon. Member whom he did not see present. In the opinion of that House, at any rate, the conditions were not equitable. In 1894 another Bill was introduced by seven Members of the House, two of whom, represented Liverpool, the five others being closely connected with it, and according to it the commutation was not to be 36½ years' purchase but one year's only. He was aware that the Corporation of Liverpool last June passed by a great majority a Resolution in favour of the present Bill, but he held that was not to be taken as in any way an evidence of the real feeling of the ratepayers. The question
  1120
  had not been raised before the electors, and if the ratepayers knew what the Bill really provided and the details of the expenditure, which were its essential part, they would not be in its favour. The religious opinion of the people of Liverpool had largely changed since 1838. At that time it might be said that the prevailing religious opinion of Liverpool was that of the Episcopal Church, but he was given to believe that were a survey now taken, Liverpool opinion would be found divided into three more or less equal parts—Church people, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters. Evidence that was fair and equitable years ago could not be so to-day. With reference to the Church of St. David's, it was built by the Corporation, and was largely maintained by them. The congregation in 1893 was 131. Let them compare that with the fact that, relying entirely upon voluntary effort, the Welsh Nonconformists of Liverpool had during the same period built not one but forty churches; that they had a membership of 14,000, and that they contributed for their churches every year a sum approaching £20,000. It seemed to him that no good results would follow the passing of this Bill, and he moved the rejection in the' interests of the ratepayers, because he thought the proposed arrangement was an unfair one, and because he thought that when property was given by the Corporation for a special religious purpose, and when that special purpose proved to be futile, the property being used for other purposes than it was designed for, it should be handed back to those who gave it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS, in seconding the Amendment, said they were not dealing with tithes and glebe lands. The "pious ancestor" in this case was the old, unreformed, and corrupt Corporation of Liverpool. The history of these Liverpool churches was a history of unjust and profligate expenditure, of legal squabbling, and of ecclesiastical trickery. [Cries of "Oh!"] Churchmen in those days treated the Corporation as a milch cow, going to it for whatever they wanted. Whether it was a new church or an additonal minister, they got what they asked for, and then the sanction of Parliament was obtained. It might be asked what was the use of

  1121
  reviving such unsavoury reflections, but they had an important bearing on the present Bill, seeing that the unjust charges then imposed on the Protestant Nonconformists and the Roman Catholics of Liverpool were imposed now. This Bill was a practical admission that the existing system was indefensible. But what was the proposed remedy? The promoters were willing that these unjust exactions should cease, but demanded the exorbitant sum of £143,000 by way of ransom. It was said of the sites in 1893 that they did not cost the Corporation a penny, but neither did they cost the Church a penny. They were public property, and the public ought not to be compelled to purchase them back. It would be said that the Bill involved details which could be discussed only in a Committee. But the principle on which it was based was unjust and unsound. When compulsory Church rates were abolished no compensation was given, and no provision was made for commutation. They were retained only where where money had been borrowed upon them, or where they existed in lieu of tithes. But these Liverpool payments did not come within their category. They ought, in fact, to have been dealt with in the Church Rate Act. There was also a local precedent which could be quoted, for when the Church of St. Catherine at Liverpool was pulled down the Corporation paid nothing, except for the protection of life interests, and that was all that was wanted in the case of the other churches. The present officials should be dealt with justly, and even generously, and perhaps the patrons should also be compensated, though some of them were only trustees. This injustice had been inflicted long enough, and should now come to an end. A more flagrantly unjust Bill than this had never been submitted to Parliament, and he hoped that it would be rejected, and that the promoters would be under the necessity of coming with a moderate and just scheme. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid he begged to recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not, he thought, require any special notice from himself, first, because the Bill was essentially a Private
  1122
  Local Bill, and, secondly, because the hon. Gentleman's speech was one they had heard many a time all over England against the Establishment. [Cheers.] His Friend the hon. Member for Denbigh, who moved the rejection of the Bill, had every ground to object to it, both as a ratepayer and as an inhabitant of Liverpool. Being, as he was, well acquainted with the condition of things in Liverpool, he was surprised that the hon. Member should have found fault with their action in bringing this Bill again before the notice of the House of Commons. The fact was that in 1893 a Bill almost identical with this was promoted by all the local authorities, the Corporation, the parish, and the Bishop of Liverpool. It came before that House, but was thrown out by a chance majority of not more than nine votes in a House of not more than 380 Members. Inasmuch as the feeling of the locality was so much in its favour, was it any wonder that a few years afterwards the local authorities should have again promoted this Bill, and ask this present House of Commons to give it a more favourable consideration than the House which expired without any great sorrow on the part of those on his side gave it in the year 1893? The interesting fact about the Bill as now presented and the Bill which was formerly introduced was that the present Bill was promoted by a different Corporation from that which' promoted the Bill of 1893. In 1893 there was an unextended Borough, and that restricted body voted in its favour. Since then the area of the city had been largely extended, and again the question had come up, and by an enhanced and appreciable majority had been approved. So recently as this year the new Bill came before the Corporation, and by 63 or 64 to 16 they desired that it might go forward. The House might, therefore, rely upon it that the Corporation represented strong local feeling. As a matter of fact, this matter had been thoroughly well discussed up and down Liverpool for many a long year. It might be anomalous, according to the present notion, that a corporation should endow churches, but as a matter of fact, the Corporation of Liverpool since 1698 up to a comparatively recent period, having regard to the great interests committed to them, had advanced money to build,

  1123
  endow, and repair churches. Unless the Bill passed, a very serious legal obligation with regard to the repair of the worn-out Church of St. Martin's would fall upon the shoulders of the Corporation. He submitted to the House that the business people of Liverpool could not have sanctioned such terms as those which had been arrived at had they thought them unfair or unjust. The names of the gentlemen on the local Committee, indeed, furnished a guarantee that the terms were most reasonable. Consequently the House might be sure that when the Committee upstairs had looked over the items there would be no question as to whether the Corporation were paying too much to get out of a clearly legal obligation. The hon. Member had endeavoured to point out that some of the sites formerly belonged to the Corporation, and were now practically being given over to the Church, but as a matter of fact, one of the most important sites which was going to be recovered by the Corporation was only given to the Corporation by the Duchy of Lancaster on condition that they built a church. £95,000 was a very moderate figure for the Corporation to pay for the advantages to be obtained, and the Corporation could borrow on such terms that he believed the saving to them would be equivalent to £400 a year. He thought he had shown that there was a strong local feeling in favour of the Bill, that every local authority had declared in its favour, and that the Bill had not been rushed on the House or on the locality. It had been in preparation live or ten years, and, therefore, there was no surprise, and the terms had been obviously most carefully thought out by the best business heads in Liverpool. He considered the House might fairly give the Bill the Second Reading, inasmuch as it was only thrown out by a small majority of nine when before under the consideration of the House. He was pleased to tell the House that the Bill in 1898 had received the imprimatur in the Division Lobby of the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone).
  *MR. MELLORsaid the House had heard three excellent speeches on the subject of the Bill, but they had all dealt with its details; he thought the details of a complicated matter of this description
  1124
  could only be properly examined by a Committee. What they really wanted in this case was the Report of a Select Committee on the Bill. He was of opinion, considering the nature of the Bill, that it would be unfair, indeed, impossible, to ask the House to deal with it now in a satisfactory way, and, therefore, he hoped it would, in the usual manner, be relegated to a Committee. It seemed to him in all these cases difficult to ask the House, at the time of Private Business to reject a Bill of this character on the Motion for its Second Reading. Such Bills as these were generally full of details, and contained local and personal matters, and he had always been of opinion that the House was better able to come to a proper conclusion when such Bills had been examined in the ordinary way. For nearly 200 years, he gathered the Corporation of Liverpool and the parish of Liverpool had had to raise and pay out of the rates an annual sum to pay for the maintenance of these churches, for the salaries of the clergy and of the officers connected with the churches. He did not hesitate to say that such a tax was an odious tax, and he did not think any Member of the House, whether Churchman or Nonconformist, Tory or Liberal, could come to any other conclusion. Well, in regard to the matter, there were only two things to be done. They must either pay the tax or commute the tax. ["Hear, hear!"] The great majority of the ratepayers had agreed to the commutation. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Corporation, and the parish of Liverpool had agreed to it. They had agreed to this bargain, and was the House, upon the mere suggestion that the amount agreed upon was too large, to reject such a bargain? The whole question was whether the terms were right, and such as the House could affirm. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go to the Committee, who would examine it and make such a Report that the House would be able to deal with it satisfactorily on the Second Reading.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said he was sure the House would do well to follow the admirable advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sowerby Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Mellor). He wished to express, on behalf of the

  1125
  Corporation of Liverpool, an entire repudiation of the statement that in the terms they had consented to give in regard to this matter, they had been actuated in any other way than in the direct interests of the ratepayers they represented. He ventured to say that there was no city in which it would be more improper to say that they did not represent their constituents than the Corporation of Liverpool—["hear, hear!"]—for in regard to this, Liverpool had been recently tested in more ways than one. The Liverpool Corporation believed there were certain existing sums which they owed in reference to these churches, and they were anxious not to repudiate their obligations. The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill recommended that those obligations should be repudiated. Liverpool took no such view, and they were prepared in return for what they believed would be a substantial advantage to the city, to come to the fair terms given by the Bill. The terms were well-known in Liverpool, had been approved by all the authorities there, as well as by the residents. Those terms had been very seriously examined, and he sincerely hoped the House would not follow the example of the last House of Commons, but would give the Bill the Second Reading, in order that the straightforward course might be taken of examination by Committee. There was no question of principle involved; the terms could not be examined in that Chamber. Liverpool asked the House to allow them to deal with this matter, which was of great importance to them, whether regarded from the point of view of the Corporation, residents, or ratepayers. The attitude of those who wished to reject the Bill only proceeded from a very small minority of the people of the city of Liverpool. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 95.—(Division List, No. 213.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a Second time.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved, "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the
  1126
  Committee of Selection. That all Petitions aganst the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That three be the quorum."
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid he did not see any reason why this Bill should be treated differently from any other Bill, and, therefore, he should oppose the present Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
  The House divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 199.—(Division List, No. 214.)

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS)— [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses of and relating to arbitration which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to Compensation to Workmen for Accidental Injuries suffered in the course of their employment, and of an compensation that may become payable in respect of Accidents to Workmen employed by or under the Crown in pursuance of such Act (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow. —(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)
QUESTIONS.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that the establishment of the Volunteer Force on its present basis as a permanent national institution of unpaid soldiery has been one of the principal events of the Queen's reign, Her Majesty proposes, on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, and during the visit of the Nation's guests, to hold a review of the force in London or elsewhere?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It will not, I fear, be possible to

  1127
  include a review of the Volunteer Force among the arrangements to be made in celebration of the Diamond Jubilee during the next few weeks, but the force will be largely represented on the occasion of the ceremony of the 22nd.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement will be made for enabling the Foreign Consular Corps in London to attend the approaching Diamond Jubilee celebration or to take part in the Royal Procession?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The arrangements in connection with the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee do not rest with the Foreign. Office. We have not heard that it is in contemplation to make any provision for the attendance or participation of the Foreign Consular Body.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any arrangement will be made for enabling the High Sheriffs of counties of England to witness the Jubilee Procession, seeing that in 1887 the position which they hold was recognised by their having places assigned to them in Westminster Abbey?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I regret that I do not see my way to allot to the High Sheriffs tickets for the stands which are being erected for the Government Departments to view the Queen's Procession.

  PRISON SYSTEM (SCOTLAND).
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether under the present prison system of Scotland imbecile or weak-minded prisoners are associated in cells with other criminals without the personal supervision either of officers or hired attendants, whose duty it should be to see that such prisoners are not maltreated; whether sick prisoners are left to the care of fellow criminals who are wholly without experience in the treatment of invalids; whether evidence showing that these practices prevailed was given in November last by a number of medical men holding appointments in connection with prisons in Scotland; and whether, in view of the fact that such practices have been
  1128
  condemned by Commissioners of Prisons and abolished both in England and Ireland, he will undertake at an early date to endeavour to assimilate the prison system of Scotland in these particulars to the more humane modes of treatment obtaining in England and Ireland?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Prison Commissioners for Scotland that when weak-minded prisoners are associated on medical grounds they are under the close inspection of prison officers who are responsible that no prisoner is maltreated, but that all are properly cared for, and by the rules the medical officer has to satisfy himself that the arrangements are effective; that sick prisoners are not left to the care of fellow criminals; and that no record can be found of any evidence given by prison, medical officers in November last regarding the care of the sick. The Prison Commissioners are satisfied that the treatment of the sick prisoners is humane, and they have always directed their special attention to this part of prison administration.

  SCHOOL BOARD DIVISIONS (LONDON).
  MR. T. G. FARDELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he has considered the petition recently presented to the Education Department, stating that, in the opinion of the School Board for London, some of the existing School Board divisions are too large for electoral purposes, and praying the Education Department to move Parliament to re-arrange for electoral purposes such divisions as they may deem necessary; and whether the Education Department propose introducing a Bill in Parliament this Session to remedy the grievance?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The petition has been received and considered, but I believe the Government do not intend to bring in a Bill on the subject.

  TRUCK ACT 1896.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any steps have been, taken by the Home Office towards the enforcement of the Truck Act 1896, so far as it relates to shop assistants?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): No, Sir; the Act does not require the Secretary of State to enforce its provisions in shops or provide any means for his so doing.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Am I to understand the Home Secretary to say that he is not taking any steps similar to those he is taking in regard to the railways?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: So far as any steps with regard to the railways are concerned, I am in correspondence with them with reference to the provisions of the Act.
  *SIR C. DILKE: are these steps taken by the Home Secretary as to the railways only so far as they come within the Factory Acts? I understood he was taking steps as to the railways generally.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am in communication with the railway companies, but I have no special power under the Act over them or over shops.
  *SIR C. DILKE: My Question really was whether the Home Secretary had taken any such friendly steps with regard to the shops as he has taken in the case of the railways.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: If I could see my way, I would be only too pleased to do so.

  NORTH MUNDHAM SCHOOL BOARD.
  *MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what has been the result of the Department's communication with the North Mundham School Board relative to the use of the Church Catechism in their school; and whether the Department is aware that the Catechism is still taught in the school?
  SIR J. GORST: The result is that the Board have instructed their staff not to teach those parts of the Church Catechism which are distinctive of any particular denomination. The Committee of Council are not aware that any part of the Church Catechism which is distinctive of any particular denomination is now being taught in the school.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that the Church Catechism may be used in Board Schools if it be not used in its entirety? ["Order, order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not the Question on the Paper, which has been answered.

  RIVER FEALE FISHING.
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that although licences to fish on the River Feale and its tributaries were issued in March last to rod anglers by the licence agent in Listowel, the men so licensed have been prosecuted for fishing in the close season at the Listowel Petty Sessions Court on 26th April 1897, and that on the application of the solicitor to the Fishery Conservators the cases were adjourned and again further heard on the 10th May and dismissed; also that fresh summonses were issued for the same offence, and again postponed at the request of the Conservators' solicitor; and whether, owing to the great inconvenience and expense caused to the anglers, steps will be taken to prevent further prosecutions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. Licences were issued on the 26th of March under which the fishermen erroneously supposed that they were entitled to fish before the termination of the close time on the 30th of April. They were warned by the Water Bailiffs that they were in error in so assuming, but persisted in fishing. Summonses which had been served for this offence were, in all but one case, cither dismissed or had "no appearance" entered on them. Thereupon the Conservators, as they were entitled to do, took out fresh summonses for these offences. The Executive have no power to interfere in the matter.
  MR. FLAVIN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on that reply. The prosecutor in this case is the Secretary to the Fishery Board of Limerick. He wrote a letter last— [cries of "Order, order!"]

  UXBRIDUE UNION.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inadequate representation of the precinct of Norwood, Middlesex, upon the Board of Guardians of the Uxbridge Union; and if so, whether he would be disposed to

  1131
  sanction an increase of the representation of Norwood upon that Board commensurate with and in proportion to the common fund of the Union?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The number of Guardians for the parishes in the Uxbridge Union has been fixed by the Middlesex County Council, and any application for an increased number of Guardians for the precinct should be brought under the attention of the County Council, who are empowered by Section 60 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, to increase the number of the Guardians if they consider there are sufficient grounds for such increase.

  HYDE PARK (FOOTPATHS).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the present highly unsatisfactory state of the footpaths in Hyde Park; whether he has taken any steps to ameliorate their condition since last year, when they were in a similar state, and when the fact was brought to his notice; and whether he will take immediate action in order to remedy the defect, at least as regards the pathways on the south side, which are so much used at the present season of the year, by having them covered with a good binding quality of gravel, if shell material is, as alleged, difficult to procure?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The paths in Hyde Park alluded to were a short time since in excellent condition, but in consequence of the prevalence of the dry and windy weather, with the enormous traffic upon them, they have become loose and rough, though they are rolled and watered every day. Everything is being done to meet the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I should like to ask whether similar climatic influences do not exist in almost every country of Europe, and whether they do not contrive to keep their paths in good condition nevertheless? [Cries of "Order, order!"]

  ARGENTINE CATTLE TRADE.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that vessels
  1132
  engaged in the Argentine cattle trade have cattle stowed not only on both sides of the upper deck, but also in the centre of the vessel, on the top of the closed hatches, leaving a very narrow gangway between the rows of cattle, along which the crew must pass for the working of the ship, and which is liable to become blocked by cattle "fetching away;" and whether, as this may be a source of danger to the working of the ship, the Board of Trade can take any steps to prevent such overcrowding?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston, on behalf of Mr. RITCHIE): The Regulations of the Argentine Government allow cattle to be carried on the top of the closed hatches, as well as on both sides of the vessel, provided that the stalls are of strong construction and solidly attached to the vessel. But the cattle are not allowed upon any place necessary for the navigation of the vessel. The Board of Trade have no reason to believe that sufficient room is not left for the working of the ship, or that there is any necessity for action on their part.

  CAVALRY RECRUITS.
  MR. JAMES HOZIER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether great care will be taken to point out to cavalry recruits that they can no longer enlist for special cavalry regiments, but can only enlist for the corps of Household Cavalry, the corps of Dragoons, the corps of Hussars, or the corps of Lancers, as the case may be?
  MR. BRODRICK: Care is taken to make it clear to recruits that they enlist for a corps, and not for a regiment. The practice of enlisting for cavalry corps has been in force upwards of four years, and any recruit asking for a particular cavalry regiment is told that he cannot be enlisted for it.

  MILITIA FIELD OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that Militia Field Officers who happen to reside out of the county with which their regiment is connected, and who send their chargers direct to the place for annual training, receive no allowance for the conveyance of their chargers outside the county; and whether he is aware

  1133
  that this is one of those extra expenses I which tends to deter retired Army officers, whose services are valuable, from accepting commissions as field officers in the Militia?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Militia being essentially a local force, it is desirable that officers and men of a Militia battalion should reside within the county to which it belongs; and, therefore, it is not considered necessary to give travelling expenses for either officers or their chargers beyond the county limits when they assemble at headquarters. If a battalion is sent elsewhere for training travelling expenses for the whole journey is provided by the public, that is, from the place of assembly to the place of training.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he would explain to the House what is meant in the Report of the Committee on the distribution of Science and Art grants by the possession in counties and county boroughs of an organisation for the promotion of secondary education; whether technical instruction committees, or School Boards (having organised Science Schools or Science and Art Classes) are to be understood as being amongst such organisations, and as constituting an authority responsible for Science and Art instruction within its area: and what will be the organisation in districts where both such authorities are or many be in operation?
  *SIR. J. GORST: The term "organisation for the promotion of secondary education" appears to allude to bodies established by law in Welsh counties and to voluntary combinations of public bodies to prevent overlapping which exist in some, and are desirable in all, English counties. Technical instruction committees and School Boards would come within the category if they were generally accepted as the medium for the dispensation of the Science and Art grants. In districts where no voluntary combination is made, and where rival authorities are in operation, the proposals of the Departmental Committee for preventing overlapping cannot be carried into effect without legislation.

  LEAD POISONING.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of James A. Garvey, aged 17, a lead filer, lately employed at the Electrical Power Storage Company's works, Millwall, who died recently from the effects of lead poisoning; whether he is aware that there was one bath at the works at which from 40 to 50 boys were employed, and that the regulation compelling the use of the bath was habitually disregarded; and whether he proposes to take any steps under the circumstances?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this case, but I am unable to find on inquiry that there has been any breach of the Factory Acts or the Special Rules which have been made for electric accumulator works. Employers are required by those Rules to provide a bath. This was done at the works in question, and a time for balking appointed for each person employed. It is not obligatory at present, however, on the workers to use the bath, and I regret to find that at these works bathing has often been omitted. It may become necessary to take steps to remedy this.

  FISHERY CRUISER (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that the new cruiser for the Fishery Board for Scotland is to be delivered on or before the 1st July 1897, will he say whether the contract has been signed; and, if so, will he state the date of the contract and the name of the contractor?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The question of the larger of the two vessels to be acquired during the present financial year is still under the anxious consideration of the Fishery Board, but matters have not yet reached such a stage as to admit of the contract being placed in the hands of any firm. It has, however, been ascertained that it would be impossible to have the vessel built by the 1st July.

  IRISH SCHOOLS (EPIDEMIC DISEASE).
  MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) is he aware that in Ireland the sanitary authority has no power to have schools

  1135
  closed for the protection, of public health in the case of epidemics breaking out, while in England the sanitary authority has such power conferred upon it; and (2) will the Government extend the same salutary protective power to Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts, I believe, are correctly stated in the first paragraph, though in England the managers of a school may appeal to the Education Department if they consider the notice requiring the school to be closed unreasonable. I should not like to answer the second paragraph without having an opportunity of consulting the Commissioners of National Education and taking their views.

  CUSTOM HOUSE (LONDON).
  MR. CHARLES WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire into the loss and inconvenience caused to the trade of London, by the position of the Custom House with its long river frontage, at present not used, and which space is urgently required by the fishing and coasting trades?
  MR. HANBURY: A full inquiry was made in 1881 into the question of the situation of the Custom House and its advantage or otherwise to the trade of London, which is, of course, much larger than the fishing and coasting trades mentioned in the Question. The London Corporation at that time wished to buy the site in order to enlarge Billingsgate market. It was found that its proximity to the Bank of England and the principal merchants and brokers was of great advantage to trade. It was also shown that if the site were occupied by a market or commercial buildings the block of traffic in and about Lower Thames Street —which is considerable now—would become much worse. While this is the case few would wish to see the Custom House building replaced by a row of warehouses, especially as the present quay is thrown open to the public and affords a much-needed open space for recreation in a thickly-populated district of the East-end.

  NEWBLISS PETTY SESSIONS COURTHOUSE (CO. MONAGHAN).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1136
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland does he intend to take such steps as may prevent the Petty Sessions Courthouse at Nowbliss, County Monaghan, being used for the purposes of faction during the forthcoming Orange anniversaries in Ulster?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on this subject to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 4th February last.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what sum has been given to the County Kerry for the construction or in aid of railways out of the total amount voted by Parliament last year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No portion of the money provided by the Act of last year has been allocated to Kerry in aid of the construction of railways, but a coach service between Listowel and Tarbert has been arranged for, as well as a steamer service between Tarbert and Kilrush. Under the Act of 1883, a capital sum of £250,000 has been expended in Kerry, to the dividends on which the Treasury contribute 2 per cent., and under the Act of 1889 a sum of £135,000 was expended in the county on railways in the form of free grants.

  DUTY ON HERRINGS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state on what ground the Foreign Office assumes there would be no advantage in making representations to the Governments of Russia and Austria to give effect to the recommendations in the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland in regard to a reduction in the duty on herrings imported front Scotland into those countries?
  MR. CURZON: The ground of the assumption to which the hon. Member refers is that under the circumstances there appears to be no reasonable chance of inducing the Russian Government to acquiesce in a reduction of the duty.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any efforts to obtain a reduction?
  MR. CURZON: There is no use in making efforts that are foredoomed to failure.

  WORKMISTRESSES (IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if there is any intention on the part of the Government to redress the grievances under which work-mistresses in National Schools in Ireland labour?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already more than once stated that certain proposals had been made in relation to the remuneration of workmistresses, but that the Treasury, having given these representations their best consideration, were unable to sanction the proposals. I am afraid I have no further information to give the hon. Member.

  LONDONDERRY LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will be explain why the Irish Board of Works have refused to grant a loan at loss than 3½ per cent, to the governors of the Londonderry Lunatic Asylum, though the loan would be secured on the rates of the city and county of Deny; whether he is aware that 3 per cent, stock has recently been issued at par, secured on the rates of the city alone; whether the payment required by the Treasury on account of sinking fund is 2 per cent, if the loan be for 50 years, and 5 per cent, if the loan be for 20 years, and at what rates of interest this sinking fund is calculated to be invested; and whether, having regard to the general complaints of high interest charged to local authorities in Ireland, he will include in the Public Works Loans Bill any provisions dealing with this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The Irish Board of Works could not, of course, grant a loan at less than 3½ per cent, without the sanction of the Treasury, and the Treasury see no reason for making Londonderry an exception to the general rule for similar cases. The history of that rule is this: Up to 1893 Lunatic Asylum Loans bore interest at 3½ per cent., and were repayable within 14 years only. In 1894, under the authority of the Public Works Loans (No. 3) Act of 1893, the Treasury fixed 3½ per cent, as the rate for loans for permanent works repayable during 35 years, and 3¾ when the period was 50 years. In June, 1895,
  1138
  the late Board of Treasury arranged to make 3½ per cent, the rate for all periods up to 50 years, and allowed 50 years even for such non-permanent purposes as the purchase of furniture. The terms for Irish Lunatic Asylums Loans are in that respect unprecedented. There are no other loans running for 50 years which pay less interest, not even those for the housing of the working classes, and many others offer equally good security. It must be remembered, too, that the Local Loans Stock is a 3 per cent, stock not redeemable till 1912, and even at present rates the fund little more than covers its expenses. The local authorities in Ireland are not charged more than local authorities in Great Britain. Lunatic asylum expenditure is under the Grand Juries, and the Irish Government have been considering the question of allowing the local authority to borrow in he open market. To such a proposal the Treasury would not be opposed.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Governors of the Londonderry Lunatic Asylum declaring that the terms for Board of Works loans are excessive, and declining to take any more money on such terms; and whether, the governors may under the present law borrow from the general public by the issue of Stock or otherwise, and if they have no such power, whether he will propose to confer it upon them by legislation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Bill has already been drafted containing a provision enabling Lunatic Asylums to be erected or enlarged by means of the creation of Stock. Such Stock would, however, be issued by Grand Juries and not by the Governors of Asylums. In view of the changes in local Government in Ireland which it is proposed to carry out next Session, I had some doubts whether it was worth while to proceed with this Bill, but I am quite ready to introduce it and endeavour to secure its passage if unopposed.
  Mr. KNOXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman, after the Bill had been introduced, would get it through at once if be understood there was no opposition?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes I am quite ready to do that.

  BURIAL (PREMATURE).
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart merit whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the London Association for the Prevention of Premature Burial, in The Lancet of 24th April, that in England and Wales 16,000 persons are annually buried without medical certificates of any sort; and whether the Government will take the matter into its serious consideration so as to prevent as much as possible persons being prematurely buried?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member alludes, but it is not the case that 16,000 persons are buried annually without medical certificates. The number of uncertified deaths in 1896 was 11,464; and there has been a steady decrease for many years past, both in the actual number of such deaths and in the proportion which they bear to the total number of deaths. No cases of premature burial have been brought to my notice, nor am I aware that it is a matter which falls within my jurisdiction; but in any case I am unable to see that the obtaining a certificate of death would be a guarantee against a premature burial taking place.
  MR. MACDONA: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that a number of medical men entertain the opinion that a great number of people are buried prematurely?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; I am not. Certificates of death when given are given by the medical men. Therefore it follows that, in their opinion, the persons in regard to whom the certificates are given are dead.

  ROOSKEY BRIDGE (COUNTY ROSCOMMON).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland who is responsible for the state of the wearing of the public road at the old mill-race of the canal cutting at the bridge of Rooskey, county Roscommon; is he aware that Thomas Carroll, of Rooskey, was nearly killed by a fall there on 5th January last; whether the Shannon Commissioners, or the Board of Works,
  1140
  or the Grand Jury of Roscommon is responsible for the unprotected condition of this place at the point; and, will he make any representations to those responsible to effect a repair for the protection of the public?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I have communicated with the county Surveyor, who is making inquiries into the matter. He reports to me that a space of about three feet exists between the parapet of the bridge and the end of the fence built along the canal many years ago, by, it is believed, the Shannon Commissioners. It is through this space that Thomas Carroll walked and met with the accident. It is under consideration whether it may not be possible to build up this space or erect some barrier to prevent such accidents in future.

  STORNOWAY AND CARLOWAY ROAD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the road between Stornoway and Carloway, which was authorised during the time Lord Lothian was Secretary for Scotland, and at his suggestion was so made as to admit of the construction of a light railway, has recently been surveyed by the Highland Railway Company, and that there is every reason to believe that this Company would undertake to construct and work a light railway between Stornoway and Carloway so soon as the road is complete, will the Government, having regard to the impetus that such a railway would give to the development of the fishing industry on the Atlantic Seaboard of Lewis, consider the expediency of taking steps to secure the completion of the road.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The road in question was, graded and was provided with bridges which no doubt would carry a light railway if the road were satisfactory completed. But the Secretary for Scotland can give no undertaking at present as to the completion of the road.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate how many miles of the Carloway Road have been completed; how many miles of the road have yet to be

  1141
  made; and can he state approximately the length of road which will have been completed when the balance of the grant now in hand has been expended?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The first section for about4¼ miles from Stornoway has been completed. The third and fourth sections, from Braesclete (3¾ miles) and Carloway Harbour (6½ miles) to the junction of those roads, are about three-fourths completed. The second section, from the end of No. 1 section to the junction of roads to Carlo way Harbour and Braesclete(6 miles,) is hardly commenced. The probable total length of road which will be completed when the remainder of the grant is expended on it will not exceed 5½ miles.

  PORT NESS HARBOUR (LEWIS.)
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Arbitrator's award in the Port Ness Harbour dispute is now in the hands of the Scottish Office, will he state whether advantage is being taken of the summer weather to advance the work; will he state the number of men employed on the works; will he consider the desirability of blowing up and clearing away the rock in the entrance way to the Harbour; and will he state when he expects the work to be completed?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: No work on Port Ness Harbour is being done at present. There are no men employed by Government on this work. It is not considered necessary to remove any more rock in the entrance to the Harbour, this being already reduced to low water level which is that of the Harbour. It is not known when the work will be completed; this will depend on the action of the trustees.

  RURAL POSTMEN (IRELAND).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is it intended to increase the number of rural postmen, in view of the contemplated house-to-house delivery of letters in the country districts of Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes. There can be no doubt that the number of rural postmen will be increased.

  AGRICULTURAL RATING ACT (IRELAND.)
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the £74,000 accruing to Ireland under the Agricultural Rating Act is bearing interest; if so, how much, and for what purpose will it be used?
  MR. HANBURY: The £74,000 was paid into the Irish Local Taxation Account at the Bank of Ireland at the end of the last financial year. No interest is ordinarily paid on moneys paid into the Local Taxation Accounts of any of the three kingdoms, and Parliament made no special provision for the £74,000 in the Act of last Session. If the Irish Government are advised that they have power to make some special arrangement with respect to the temporary employment of these moneys, the Treasury will be willing to consider any proposal submitted to them.

  CERTIFICATED TEACHERS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is proposed to allow Trish certificated teachers to teach in State-aided schools in Scotland on the same terms as they are now allowed to teach in English Schools?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The matter to which the Question of the hon. Member refers has not been brought under the consideration of the Scotch Education Department since I gave a reply on the, 5th March last, to the effect that no change has been made in regard to the recognition of Irish Certificates under the Scottish Code.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, now the matter has been brought under the attention of the Scotch Education Department, they will follow the precedent set in England?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot make that promise; but if a formal application be made to the Scotch Education Department the Committee of Council on Scotch Education will consider it.

  CRETE.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether as the state of affairs in Crete demands an early settlement of the question of

  1143
  government, the Powers have agreed as to the form of government to be conferred on the island?
  MR. CURZON: Although the Powers are agreed that Crete shall enjoy complete autonomy under the suzerainty of the Sultan, the details of the scheme are still under consideration, and it is not yet possible to make any announcement on the subject.
  MR. LAMBERTasked the right hon. Gentleman when he considered he would be able to make some statement on the subject?
  MR. CURZON: I should hesitate to give any promise.

  TURCO-GREEK WAR (ARMISTICE).
  MR. C. P. SCOTTasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could now state the terms of the armistice signed in Thessaly and the period for which it had been concluded?
  MR. CURZON: We understand from the Greek Chargé d' Affaires in this country, and from Her Majesty's Minister at Athens, that the following armistice was signed on the Taratza Hills near Lamia on the 20th instant:—
  "From 3.15 p.m. armistice is concluded between the belligerents. The troops will hold the line of outposts now in their possession. Flank movements are forbidden. The neutral zone between the two forces will be donned by superior officers on both sides on the 22nd of May."
  There is no mention in the armistice of the period for which it is to remain in force, but according to information received from Mr. Egerton, the Turkish Commander-in Chief in Thessaly considers that it has been concluded only for fifteen days.

  CHARGE OF ROBBERY (CO. TYRONE).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if the brothers Maguire, detained in prison for a very lengthened period on a charge of robbery from the person of a dead man named Triston, near Trillick, in the county Tyrone, can be assigned counsel to move in the superior courts for their liberation on bail, seeing they are reduced to the condition of paupers and are unable to provide legal assistance for themselves?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I have no power to provide the legal assistance suggested. I may mention that a sum of £97. 8s. 5½d. was found upon the Maguires when arrested. £50 of this, which was in American money, was on the 10th of July 1896 returned, and the balance £47. 8s. 5½d. retained by the authorities. The sum of £102. 2s. 1d. was paid by the Crown to the prisoners towards the expenses of their trial at the Winter Assizes in Belfast, and I am quite ready to direct that an adequate sum be returned to them out of the moneys in the hands of the authorities, to enable them to apply to be admitted on bail.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the London and North Western Railway Company now run some of their express trains to Holyhead in from half an hour to an hour less time than they take to carry the mails on the day service between London and Holyhead; whether, as the mail train service is so heavily subsidised by the Government, he will take steps to secure that the Irish mail trains on the day service are run at a speed at least equal to the 10.15 p.m. express train belonging to the same Company, which is not subsidised; and whether, in view of the strong representations made as to the inconvenience to the travelling public of the early departure of the Irish day mail trains from Euston and Westland Row, he proposes to alter the starting hour from Euston to 8.30 a.m. and from Westland Row to 7.45 a.m.?
  MR. HANBURY: One of the express trains from Euston, namely, the 10.15 p.m. train recently established, travels to Holyhead in 5 hours 15 minutes, while the day mail train, which leaves Euston at 7.15 a.m. occupied 6 hours and 5 minutes. The express train only makes one stop on the way, namely, at Crewe, but the day mail train stops at five intermediate stations. The speed of the day mail trains has not been accelerated, as the postal advantages to be secured were not such as appeared to justify the additional expense. The times of

  1145
  departure of the day mail trains from Euston and Westland How respectively were fully considered in connection with the changes which took effect on the 1st April, but the interests of the mail service could not of course, be entirely sacrificed to the convenience of the passengers. The present hour of dispatch of the mail from Euston was therefore maintained, namely, 7.15 a.m., so as to secure an early delivery of the day mail letters in Dublin; but as regards the up mail, the Postmaster General was able so far to meet the desire in Ireland for a later dispatch from Westland Row as to fix the hour at 7.10 a.m., instead of at 6.40 a.m. Any later dispatch than 7.10 a.m. would have resulted, not only in a later delivery of the correspondence in London and other towns in England, but in a failure of connection via Chester and Preston with the day mail to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps have been taken to carry out the promise he gave some time ago for the improvement of the mail service to the south of Ireland by affording an earlier daily delivery of letters to Roscrea, Nenagh, Birr, and towns adjoining; or if he can state when, or how soon, the desired change may be effected for these localities?
  MR. HANBURY: The promise referred to was that the Postmaster General would take into consideration a suggestion that the day mail bags for Roscrea, Nenagh, Birr, etc., should be put out of the mail train from Dublin at Ballybrophy Junction and a goods train from that point utilized for their conveyance to destination. This suggestion has been placed before the Railway Company, who state that the alterations necessary to make the goods train available would result in serious inconvenience and that the suggestion is not one which they can adopt. There is no other way of accelerating the day mail service to the towns in question, at a cost which the post office would be justified in expending.

  COLLEGE OF SCIENCE (DUBLIN).
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1146
  of Ireland when will the work of building the promised new College of Science in Dublin be commenced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Until the Report of the Departmental Committee has been received and considered, t will not be possible to make any statement in reference to this matter.

  SHORTHORN BULLS (IRELAND).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on whose recommendation the Congested Districts Board have adopted the policy of buying shorthorn bulls in Scotland while there were over 400 offered in the Dublin Show and at Rodson's Sale in Belfast, and what success, if any, has attended this experiment?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Congested Districts Board, as a result of their own experience, decided to try the experiment of purchasing bulls that had not been made up for purposes of show or sale, as it was found that animals so made up were not sufficiently hardy for rough usage in the West of Ireland.

  ADDERGOOLE AND BALLYNAGORA-HER DISTRICT (CASTLEBAR UNION).
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Castlebar Board of Guardians of 8th May, in which they declare the existence of grave distress in the Addergoole and Ballynagoraher districts, and the necessity for relief works to cope with such distress; and what action will he take with regard to such resolution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. Careful investigation has been made by the Local Government Board, since the resolution was passed, into the condition of the poorer classes in this district, and there does not appear to be any necessity for the adoption of exceptional measures, as suggested.

  GLEBE ACT (IRELAND).
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that clergymen

  1147
  in Ireland who wish to provide parochial houses under the Glebe Act are required to pay interest at the rate of five percent, for a loan extending to a term of thirty years; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting such loans at a lower rate of interest for a longer term?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the interest on these loans is five per cent. It is only three-and-a-half per cent. The live per cent, charge covers repayment of principal as well as interest, and the period is 35 years, not 30. The terms are therefore much easier than the hon. Member appears to think.

  SHIRLEY AND TENNISON ESTATES (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the decisions have been delivered in. the cases heard at Carrickmacross on 18th March from the Shirley and Tennison estates, County Monaghan; and, whether he can say when the viewing of the farms was completed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The inspection of the holdings referred to was completed last week, and it is expected that the Sub-Commission will be able to announce its decisions on the 31st instant.

  GRAND JURY ACCOUNTS (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware if the promised audit of the accounts of the Secretary of the Grand Jury of county Monaghan has taken place; aid whether he can say what sum has the Secretary to the Grand Jury of Monaghan been surcharged with on account of the illegal charge he has been making to road contractors for tender forms in the Barony of Farney.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The accounts of the Grand Jury of Monaghan have been audited. The question of the fees charged by the Secretary to the Grand Jury for these tender forms does not come before the Auditor in his audit of the County
  1148
  Accounts. The Auditor, however, understands that all tender forms are now only charged the statutory fee of sixpence.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Bill for amending the Agricultural Holdings Act will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I can give no specific pledge on the subject of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture gave notice of the introduction of the Bill for the first day of last Session, and does he not think it is now time to do something?
  [No answer was given.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of his intention to move an adjournment from Monday 21st to Thursday, 24th June, thereby depriving Members of the means of prosecuting Bills set down for the 23rd, he will undertake not to interfere with the position of Bills set down on 7th July, to which the House has given a Second Reading?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are under engagement to give two Wednesdays after Whitsuntide in order that there may be an opportunity for private Members to proceed with legislation commenced before Whitsuntide. The order in which Bills appear upon the Notice Paper for Wednesdays depends, I believe, upon fixed rules which do not depend upon the Government, therefore I cannot enter into any pledge with my hon. Friend with regard to any special Bill.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he indicate whether the terms of reference

1149
for the now Commission to inquire into the working of the Land Acts will be laid upon the Table of the House before the Whitsuntide Recess?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is not, of course, usual to lay upon the Table of the House the terms of reference to a Royal Commission.
MR. FARRELLasked if the terms would be stated before the House rose on June 4th.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYcould not give any specific date upon which the terms of reference could be announced, but he hoped the date would not be a great distance of time.

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,)in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law respecting the Metropolitan Water Companies, explained that it was brought forward in fulfilment of an undertaking which he gave earlier in the Session. As the House was aware, the chief subject of controversy which surrounded the question of the London water supply had already been referred for inquiry to a Royal Commission. Pending the result of that inquiry it had been urged upon them, and the Government were of that opinion themselves that, something might be done with advantage to strengthen the position of the water consumer. The water consumer in the metropolis was often placed in a position of great disadvantage when he found himself in conflict with the water companies. At present, when the consumer found himself aggrieved his course was to go to the magistrates in some cases and to the Local Government Board in others. In applying to the Local Government Board he must be supported by 20 resident householders, and sometimes, owing to technical objections, their applications were found to be invalid. The present means of redress entailed upon each individual consumer great trouble and very often expenses they were quite unwilling to pay. That being so, what the Government proposed was not to alter, but add to the existing
1150
law. They proposed to do it in this way. They left the water consumers of the metropolis all the rights and remedies they possessed at present; they created an additional tribunal before which their complaints could be made, and called in the local authorities to aid and assist them. At present the complaints had to be initiated by the consumer; but under the Bill the local authorities would also be empowered to take the initiative, and the tribunal which was to hear their complaints would be, the Railway and Canal Commission. They had chosen that tribunal for two reasons—first, because it was not too much overburdened with work at the present time; and, secondly, because it seamed to be very undesirable to create an entirely new tribunal for the purpose of giving effect to what must be after all only a temporary Measure until the Royal Commission had reported. The Bill was a very short one; it was also a simple and a modest Measure. The new powers and duties, however, which they were conferring on the local authorities must not be underrated, they were very considerable, and he was in great hopes that this proposal would be found to be an adequate fulfilment of the undertaking which he gave at an earlier period of the Session. [Cheers.]
*SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid that last year the Committee over which he had had the honour to preside on the London Water Bills passed unanimously a Report calling the attention of the House to the state of affairs which existed at present, than which, perhaps, nothing could be worse for so densely crowded a population as London. He was afraid the Bill which his right hon. Friend proposed to introduce was no remedy, and that palliatives of this character would only add to the evils which already existed. The local authority was not placed in a position to deal with the water companies or the water supply as in many towns. He thought the House must face before very long the grave difficulties which arose from the present position of affairs. If this great city, which was so constantly increasing in population, was to be kept thoroughly well supplied with water, there must be some principle laid down for handing to the local authority the supply, or giving to the water companies, under

1151
charge of Parliament, not merely regulations as regarded disputes, but general regulations which ought to apply to all the companies supplying London on a more extensive scale than that which was now proposed. ["Hear, hear!"]
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ritchie, and Mr. T. W. Russell; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed—[Bill 267.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this Bill made a grant of public money in the schedule which provided that any arbitrator other than the County Court Judge should be paid out of money provided by Parliament. He thought that the making of a charge in the schedule to a Bill was most novel, and so far as he could ascertain without precedent. He thought they ought to have the Committee of Ways and Means before they considered that part of the schedule.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!That Committee has already been set up.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the question remained whether it would be necessary to take the Committee of Ways and Means before the schedule, or the clause which incorporated the schedule. The charge, he believed, resided in the first clause.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Money Committee (there is no question of the Committee of Ways and Means) for authorising the grant of money for the expenses involved in the Bill must be taken before the third section of the second schedule is reached. That is the charging part of the Bill. All that the first clause of the Bill says is that compensation is to be settled by arbitration "in accordance with the second schedule to this Act." That does not fix what the terms of the second schedule are to be. Those are to be settled after the first clause has been passed, and when the second
  1152
  schedule is reached. There is nothing in the first clause to say that the terms of the second schedule shall be the identical terms in which it stands. The House may alter it, or even strike out the power to refer to any one of the County Court Judges, and the consequent charges, but no charge can be dealt with by the Committee under that third clause of the second schedule until a Resolution in a Money Committee has been passed.
  The following Notices relating to the Order stood upon the Paper: —
  SIR JOHN JENKINS: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert clauses in the Bill with a view to provide that the owners of royalties shall contribute to the compensation paid in respect of accidents that take place in the course of the carrying on of a trade or industry in respect of which they receive such royalties."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions for a scheme of insurance under State supervision to secure to workmen the payment of the amounts of compensation which may be awarded to them under the Bill."
  MR. MCKENNA: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert clauses in the Bill with a view to amending the law of Employers' Liability, in respect of those trades or industries to which the Bill does not otherwise apply."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill to enable employers of workmen in mines and quarries to deduct yearly out of any royalties payable by them to any landowners or persons in respect of any mines, minerals, or substances won, gotten, raised, or worked out of or in such mines and quarries a sum not greater than one-half the yearly sum paid, or which would be required to be paid, by the said employers for insuring themselves against liability for compensation under the Bill."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill in order that the burden of compensation to be paid under this Bill by employers of workmen in mines and quarries may be distributed and borne equitably between such employers and the owners of all royalties payable by such employers in respect of all mines,

  1153
  minerals, and substances won, gotten, raised, or worked out of or in such mines and quarries."
  MR. TENNAINT: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions to secure compensation to workmen for injuries to health arising out of and in the course of their employment."
  MR. BUTCHER: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce into the Bill such provisions as may be necessary to abolish the doctrine of common employment as affecting the right of a, workman to compensation for personal injury."
  MR. SETON-KARR: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that, in the event of any employer or employers being proved financially unable to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade to pay the compensation that may become payable under this Bill, or any part of it that the Board of Trade have power to remit all or any part of such compensation as may be deemed equitable, consideration being given to the fact as to whether the said employers have used all proper and statutory precautions to prevent accident."
  MR. HAROLD RECKITT: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert clauses in the Bill with a view to provide for the compensation of workmen where the employer is a foreign shipowner without assets in this country."
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: To move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make the State liable to pay compensation under the Bill."
  *MR. SPEAKER: There are several Instructions on the Paper with reference to the First Order of the Day, Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill. These I will now deal with. The first Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, and the two which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan, propose to deal with the relations of lessors and lessees of mines. That subject, I think, is outside the scope of the Bill, which relates wholly to the relations of employers and employed, nor does the fact that the lessee happens to be the employer of a workman in a mine affect the point. The Amendment standing in the
  1154
  name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and also that of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Tyneside)—the one proposing a scheme of insurance under State supervision, and the other a scheme for State insurance—are both out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill and involving a charge on the revenue. Then there is the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monmouth, which seeks to insert clauses with a view to amend the law of employers' liability in respect of those trades or industries to which the Bill does not apply. At present the Bill applies only to certain trades, and it will be competent to hon. Members to propose to add other trades, but it will not be competent by Instruction or otherwise to deal by way of amendment with the law relating to trades which are excluded from the Bill, both as it stands at present, and as it ultimately may stand. The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick proposes to empower the Committee to insert provisions to secure compensation to workmen for injuries to health arising out of and in the course of their employment. If the Bill were not expressly limited on the face of it to injuries arising from accidents I should have said that that matter might have been dealt with by way of amendment without an Instruction; but, having regard to the express terms of the Bill, I am of opinion that the Instruction is necessary and it is in order. The Amendment of the hon. Member for York proposes to introduce provisions to abolish the doctrine of common employment as affecting the right to compensation. As regards any trades that are included in, or may be added to the list in the Bill, of course that might be done by Amendment, and no Instruction is necessary; as regards other trades, the Instruction would not be in order, as the law affecting them is outside the scope of the Bill. The Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens, dealing with the case of employers who may be financially unable to pay compensation, is out of order, because the matter can be dealt with by way of Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division is out of order. It proposes to insert clauses to provide for the compensation of workmen where the employer is

  1155
  a foreign shipowner without assets in this country. Seamen are not at present included in the Bill; if it be intended to include them, such inclusion can only cover the case of seamen employed in the United Kingdom or on British ships. For that no Instruction would be necessary. If it is intended to cover the case of seamen employed by foreign shipowners on foreign ships, that would be outside the scope of an Instruction, if not altogether outside the powers of Parliament. That disposes of all the Instructions except that of the hon. Member for Berwickshire.
  *MR. H. J. TENNANTaccordingly rose to move:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions to secure compensation to workmen for injuries to health arising out of and in the course of their employment."
  His first contention was that the man whose health was undermined was more deserving of pity and of compensation than the man who met with an accident, grievous though that was. Because, while both were prevented from working, the man whose health was injured transmitted to his children a weakly and impaired organisation which unfitted them for the struggle of life. His second proposition was that there were many very sad cases of illness which were contracted through no fault of either employer or employed. In illustration of that he took the case of the Sheffield file-makers, and quoted from the Report of the Registrar General, who found that 1,667 file-makers died as compared with 1,000 in other trades at corresponding ages and periods, and that the mortality from lead-poisoning was twice as great in that trade as in other classes and occupations. The Registrar General further mentioned that had it been possible to compile a column dealing with the file-cutters, as distinguished from the file-makers, a still higher percentage of mortality would have been shown. As regarded the case of the lead-workers in Newcastle, through the kindness of Dr. Oliver, who presided over the infirmary, he had ascertained that fact that in seven years from 1890 228 cases of lead-poisoning were admitted to that institution, 10 of which resulted fatally. Dr. Oliver added that
  1156
  the numbers stated gave no criterion of the total number of the cases occurring in the district, because many of the workmen who were ill went to the doctor at the works. These lead-workers had no trade organisation and no benefit society, and the result was that when they broke down from lead-poisoning they were nearly always thrown on the rates. If the Bill were to deal with accidents which arose from nobody's negligence, it was obvious that it should also include cases where health was undermined simply through the nature of the employment. But if the Government would agree to the Instruction, he would accept a provision restricting compensation to the cases in which negligence could be proved against the employer. The Colonial Secretary had maintained that it would be extremely difficult to prove that the injury to health resulted from the employment. There were many cases, however, where there could be no doubt. He would mention some. A girl, aged 17, employed for three years in the lead process of the Pottery trade, had to go to hospital for lead poisoning, and left almost totally blind. Another girl, of the same age, and in the same employment, was attacked with partial paralysis, and after 12 weeks in hospital was discharged, but with the loss of her sight. Representations had been made to her employers, but nothing had been done for her. Another girl, aged 18, who had been employed in the lead process as a dipper since January 1896, was seized with a fit in the January of this year, and had now been discharged from hospital with the loss of sight in one eye, and with her general health so impaired that she could not hope ever to be able to work again. The Government had urged that if these cases were included in the Bill, the Measure would be very difficult to pass. The time of the House could not be more fitly occupied than in the discussion of proposals to give, not justice, for that was impossible, but some small compensation to those who had lost the greatest gift of life. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): There is a great deal of force and truth in what the hon. Member says as to its

  1157
  being equally sad, whether a workman be rendered incapable of earning his livelihood by disease or by accident. And I take the opportunity of offering my thanks to the hon. Member for his services to the Home Office in respect of the adoption of precautions in the case of dangerous trades. It takes some time to introduce these; but it is being done more and more; and much of the improvement is due to the hon. Member. But when we are asked to put into a Bill which is to provide for compensation in case of unexpected accidents provisions for compensation in case of injury to health resulting from employment in a dangerous trade, we are asked to do something of which the definition is difficult and which will open the door to much dispute and litigation. The position is not the same as it was with the Bill of 1893. We are providing for accidents alone under this Bill, and to that extent we abolish the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. But in the cases quoted by the hon. Member, though the trades mentioned are well known to be dangerous, the effect upon the health is very different with different persons. Women are much more injuriously affected than men. There is a broad and substantial difference between a person who is injured by an accident and one who is injured by the nature of the trade in which he is employed. If the obligation be thrown upon the employer to compensate the latter, it will be made necessary for him not to employ men or women who are likely to suffer in health; and that would not be a very good tiling for the workpeople. At present, if a workman suffers injury to health in the course of his employment in a dangerous trade, and can show that it is due to the negligence of his master or foreman in not applying the necessary precautions, then he has a remedy against the master. And, though I do not say that that is a satisfactory remedy, I think that the House would be wise not to introduce into a Bill dealing with accidents the far more complicated and difficult question of the permanent injury to health caused by some trades. It may be difficult for the arbitrator under this Bill to decide any of the questions which will be brought before him. But in the case of the diseases brought on by the lead industry, how much more
  1158
  difficult will it be for him to say that a particular condition of bodily health is due to the industry and not to the constitution of the individual? I hope the House will not accept an Instruction which will complicate the whole Bill and render it almost impossible to carry out.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid that it was difficult to see on what theory the Home Secretary rested his exclusion of this class of case. The Bill proposed to make provision for the injured workman; and now the Government were drawing a distinction between two classes of injuries and declaring that the one should carry compensation and that the other should not. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this Amendment would not be in the interests of the working classes, because it would keep those who were delicate and susceptible to injury out of employment. Surely that was one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Instruction. ["Hear, hear!"] It was the only way to make prevention really effective. If they put on the employer the burden of seeing that the material used in the course of his trade were not injurious to the health of the workers, they would most certainly have a substantial diminution in the numbers of cases of chemical poisoning. It was impossible to defend the position of the Government in the matter. He could understand them saying, "We must not overload the Bill." But why select for exclusion those cases of injuries to health which nothing but the skill, knowledge, and means of the employer could avoid. A curious case of explosion from blasting gelatine, a substance nearly akin to cordite, had recently come under his notice. The substance was set on fire in the midst of two or three workmen with apparently no evil effects to them. However, in the course of a few days they were attacked with what appeared to be acute bronchitis, and died, but the post-mortem examinations showed that the cause of death was chemical poisoning. Those were the cases to which the Instruction proposed to extend the protection of the Bill. If the Bill were to be really useful they must include within its operation all classes of injuries to health and body which arose directly in the course of employment. If the Government desired to lighten the

  1159
  Bill, let them not put outside its scope the very class of cases it was most important they should bring inside—the class of cases in which prevention was essential and in which that prevention could only be got by that scientific skill which only the knowledge, experience, and means of the employer could supply.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLthought the Instruction was impracticable. If a workman employed in several employments broke down in health, it would be impossible to say in which of the employments the man's health was affected.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Instruction was eminently necessary; and it came with peculiar grace from an hon. Member who was connected indirectly with the chemical trade, and who had great experience of the subject as Chairman of the Committee on Dangerous Trades. He had heard with alarm the statement of the Home Secretary that dangerous trades could not be included in the Bill. The Bill would apply to something like six millions of workmen, and he ventured to say that if the Instruction were accepted not 7,000 would come under the Bill for compensation in 10 years. Cases of the kind were not large in number; but they were very acute in the amount of pain and disablement they imposed on workmen, and for that reason alone he thought the Instruction should be accepted. He would, for the purposes of illustration take the cases of two strong men, who left the Army and joined the Reserve. One of the men went into a chemical factory. After three or four years' employment his health was undermined, he became physically a most pitiable spectacle. He was no longer fit for work, and he drifted to the workhouse, the Salvation Army shelter, or the doss-house. The other man became a navvy on a railway. Through an accident, probably due to his own negligence, he had a leg cut off? But instead of being cast adrift like the first man, he got £200 or £300 compensation, and possibly the company provided him with an easy gatekeeper's job at a low rate of wages. If the first man whose health was undermined in the course of his employment got compensation, he would be able to go into the country to recuperate, and possibly, with the aid of his friendly society,
  1160
  he would be able to start in some little business such as selling newspapers, or he and his wife keeping a mangle, or in other ways made independent of the community on which without this Instruction he would be a burden. The most pathetic figures he knew of in the army of industry were the chemical workers of Lancashire and the lead workers of Newcastle; and he was bound to say the Home Secretary had not advanced a single argument for the exclusion of those men from the protection of the Bill.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the Instruction practically amounted to a proposal that industry should be liable to compensate the widows of men who died at any age substantially lower than the average term of the life of men engaged in such trades. That was a serious prospect to contemplate. The hon. Member for Berwickshire had referred to the file-cutting trade. The hon. Member must have meant the hand file-cutting trade, and not the machine file-cutting trade.
  *MR. TENNANT: Hear, hear!
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the scientific opinion which the hon. Member had cited in support of his proposal undoubtedly applied to the hand file-cutting trade. But if the Instruction were passed, there was no earthly doubt that the hand file-cutting trade would entirely disappear. A number of small employers would be driven out of the trade, and machinery would be universally introduced. He must refuse to be a party to the bringing about of such a result. The Bill as it stood went quite as far as the public had got notice of, and it would not be fair for the House to extend its operations further.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that if it were a. just principle that industries should bear the burden of injuries to health and to limb, he failed to see how the Government could oppose the Instruction. The Home Secretary seemed under the impression that health had nothing to do with the Bill. Health had a great deal to do with it. A slight accident to a man in bad health might develop serious consequences. Was his employer to compensate him while employers in industries which produced a general condition of ill-health escaped? The workman whose health was injured

  1161
  in his occupation was as much entitled to compensation as the workman who might lose his arm or leg or sustain other bodily injuries. On this ground he would support the Instruction.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid he understood that one of the principles on which the Bill was founded was that where a workman was injured in a dangerous trade the employer should be liable. He should have thought the principle applied a thousand times more strongly to cases where a, man was slowly and surely poisoned in a noxious trade. This should be provided for as much as cases where workmen had their feet cut off or their legs broken, or sustained similar injuries. It was said that then the wife of every man engaged in dangerous employment who died would be entitled to something from his employer. It meant nothing of the kind. The Instruction simply meant what it said, that if a trade had poisoned a person the relatives would have a right of action against the employer. He could not see any difference between the case where a man was poisoned by his trade, and the case where a man received personal injuries in the course of his employment.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWsubmitted that the Instruction went further than the speech in support of it, which confined it to certain dangerous trades that were enumerated. He was glad the Home Secretary refused to accept the Instruction. It would be injurious to the working man if such an Instruction were carried, and equally so to employers of labour. The Bill itself would create many difficulties in regard to employment, but if the Instruction were adopted it would shut out from employment in a large number of industries not regarded as dangerous a great many people who for some years had been following them, who although their health was not strong were capable of doing a. day's work and earning a day's wage. Because he believed the Instruction would have this undesirable effect he should vote against it.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONthought hon. Members were losing sight of the question before the House. This was not an Amendment. All his hon. Friend was asking was that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the matter. If the Government were to be deterred by difficulties from
  1162
  dealing with points in the Bill the Government should have thought twice before asking the House to accept the principle of the Bill. He believed the difficulty involved in the Instruction could be overcome. If the proposal of the Instruction when brought forward by Amendment in Committee were reasonably objected to as impossible to carry out, or for some other reason, the Committee could reject the Amendment. But if the Instruction were not adopted, his hon. Friend could not bring forward in Committee the just and reasonable proposal embodied in it.
  SIR EDWARD HILLtrusted the House would not listen to the Instruction, because he believed it would complicate the Bill. This was a Bill relating to accidents, not illnesses, and while he and others would grant compensation for the former, they objected to the latter.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid there seemed to be a misapprehension as to the class of labour to which the Instruction referred. The Mover of the Instruction had in view the match-making and white lead industries and the pottery trade. It was said to be impossible to deal with the matter under this Bill. But it was dealt with in the legislation of every country that had faced the subject, and it was intended to be dealt with in the legislation of other countries which were beginning to face the subject. In five Continental countries it had been found impossible to separate the two questions. The Instruction only proposed to allow the subject to be dealt with in Committee.
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOODsaid the House was regarding the matter from an erroneous point of view. He ventured to say that this Instruction went too far. If it had been limited to the neglect of an employer to take reasonable precautions for the mitigation of risk then he should have been glad to support it. As it was, the Instruction would go into every trade and undoubtedly it would lead to great difficulty and litigation. He should move after the word "employment," to insert:—
  "Through the failure of the employer to take reasonable precautions in employments injurious to the health for the mitigation or removal of the risk of injury to the health in such employment."
  MR. G. WYNDHAMsaid this Amendment would place a penalty on the employer for neglecting certain precautions, which was not consistent with the spirit of the Bill. If the hon. Member had made a Motion limiting it to certain trades in which diseases were contracted, he should have hoped that the House would have accepted it. The House should be left free to consider any reasonable Amendments, so that trades could be selected according to the danger involved. For his part, he should vote against the Instruction.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid the Bill had been placed before the country, and the House had accepted the principle without any demur. He thought that it was too late in the day now to try to limit the scope of the Bill. It was all very well to say leave a trade which was dangerous, but if a man's bread and the bread of his family were depending on it, it became a different matter altogether. He thought they had better not discuss this matter theoretically, but try to look at it from the position of the workers. There were hundreds who would leave these dangerous trades if they could do it, but they could not do it. One of the reasons why these dangerous trades should be included was given by the Colonial Secretary, who spoke of the wounded soldiers of their industrial life. He contended that a man who was injured in the course of his employment had a right to compensation. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Instruction. It was not only in chemical works that men were poisoned. There were men working in the mines who were poisoned. Men might be poisoned from bad ventilation, but they would receive no compensation whatever for that injury.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought that the short discussion of the Bill showed that it was absolutely impossible to limit the action of the Bill if it were to become law. He should therefore support the Instruction. It was becoming clearer every day that to make exceptions would create difficulties.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEthought the Instruction should be a wide Instruction. The Bill was a skeleton Bill, and his conviction was that it was impossible to draw a distinction between trades. ["Hear, hear!"]
  1164
  What was the vise of telling a man who was brought up as a coal miner to go elsewhere? How could he go to work elsewhere? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said they had had enough of men getting up and saying there was no profit. Employers found means of accomplishing reforms. Although this was a sweeping change, employers desired that it should be fully and fairly worked through all trades, and not applied to three or four only. He hoped the Government would consent to this Instruction.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid it must not be supposed that he and those who sat around him had not as much sympathy for those persons engaged in dangerous trades as hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they voted with the Government on this occasion they would do so on practical and not theoretical grounds. Three claims to the consideration of the House were made by the operatives of the country. There was the claim in respect to accidental injuries and that in respect to employment in a dangerous trade, but he did not see how the third claim could be distinguished from that in regard to dangerous employment. The Instruction provided that injuries to health in the course of employment were also to be considered. That meant that persons were entitled to expect consideration who met with some injury, however trivial, to their health in the course of their employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Arising out of or in the course of!"] He admitted that the word "or" was significant. In that case the hon. Member would accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Liverpool. This Bill was intended to deal with accidental injuries, and, therefore, it was not proper they should be invited to engage in endless discussions upon matters which could not be reasonably remedied under this Measure.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I have listened with very great surprise to some of the speeches which have been delivered from the other side of the House. We are discussing the simple issue whether or not it shall be possible when we come to the Committee stage to include provisions for cases where injury to health as distinguished from, injury to limb has resulted from the carrying

  1165
  on of a trade. Everyone who votes against this Instruction will be voting for making it impossible in Committee to include any case, however applicable, of any trade, however dangerous, where it can be shown, as it has been shown, that not only is the percentage of ill-health very grave, but that the results which necessarily follow the pursuit of certain occupations are such as completely to undermine the condition of health. I have a very vivid recollection of what took place in 1893 when I introduced the Government Bill of that year. That Bill contained no clause specifically dealing with dangerous trades, but the hon. Member for Hackney proposed:
  "In any employment injurious to health, in which the risk of injury to health can be mitigated or removed by the use of reasonable precautions, the death, or temporary, or permanent disablement of a workman is caused by the neglect or such reasonable precautions, the workman, or, in case of death, his representatives, shall have the same right to compensation and remedies against the employer as in other cases of personal injury due to negligence.
  I did not oppose that Amendment in the first instance, though I was somewhat loth to accept it for this reason, that I thought it was already included in the Bill. Our Bill dealt with all injury by accident—personal injury. In my judgment, that was wide enough to embrace injury against the health of a limn through neglect on the part of the employer to take proper precautions, but, as it was pointed out there was some doubt, we accepted the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. That Amendment was blessed from both sides of the House. I think more speeches were made in its favour from the Conservative than from the Liberal Benches, and it is simply the principle of the Amendment that my hon. Friend is now asking the House to empower itself to recognise. I want to know why, if this Measure, as we are told, is so very much larger and more comprehensive in scope than any previously introduced, these not very large in number but very grave and dangerous class of injuries to workmen are to be excluded from the scope of your remedial provisions, Whether you look at the matter from the point of view of prevention or from the point of view of the workmen's title to compensation it appears to me this claim
  1166
  stands on at least as strong a footing as any claim that can be advanced. Surely, from this point of view of prevention, if you make the employer liable for all injuries he will have a strong inducement to diminish the number of injuries. How strongly will this provision operate in the case of trades where prevention is most easy and most necessary! If the employer has this motive he will exercise a better selection of the workpeople he employs, and these are mainly women and children. And if the employers were to exercise more discrimination than they do in the selection of the persons who are employed in these peculiarly dangerous processes a great deal of the ill-health that at present exists might be altogether obviated. Then there are the mechanical processes which could very easily be adopted, and which would mitigate, if not altogether remove, the injurious effects. If that be the case from the point of view of prevention, surely it is stronger from the point of view of the workman's title to compensation. On what principle of common sense are you to say that these people should leave their employment? People go into those dangerous trades not from the love of them, not from, a desire for pleasure, not from a desire to secure high wages, for these are the very worst-paid workpeople. These people have to choose between starvation and spending their lives under unwholesome conditions, which necessarily result in injury to health and to a shortening of life. I have not heard a single argument which can suggest to my mind a reason for discriminating between these classes of the soldiers in the industrial army and those who have been so liberally provided for. It is said that this will very greatly extend the scope of the Measure. It will do nothing of the kind. The Home Secretary told us the other night that this Bill would apply to six million people, and those excluded from its scope will amount to seven millions. Let us assume that the Bill will apply to six millions. I believe I am not overstating the number when I say that the whole of the persons in our industrial population who can be affected by any Amendment in pursuance of this Instruction will not exceed 100,000–100,000 in addition to the six millions, or 1 in 60.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: The whole of the six millions will be affected.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman, like some others, did not seem to realise the limited effect of the words "arising out of and in the course of their employment." There is no intention to compensate workmen who are not engaged in unhealthy trades and who are not exposed to peculiar danger from, the character of the employment. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, and all of us, will be perfectly ready to consider and adopt any limitation which can be reasonably suggested go as to confine the operation of the subsequent Amendment to those trades which are in real need of special protection. It is said there will be enormous difficulty in determining whether or not the injury to health from which a particular person is suffering had or had not arisen in the course of employment. There will be no greater difficulty than in determining the question whether permanent disablement has resulted from injury. Everyone knows that the shock or the blood-poisoning consequent upon a comparatively slight accident to a limb may permanently disable a man for life. That man would be compensated under this Bill. I earnestly hope the Government may yet be induced to reconsider their decision. The only thing we are asking —and surely it is both a moderate and reasonable request—is that when we get into Committee we shall have the opportunity of considering and discussing Amendments which will secure the same protection for these classes of workers as you are already going to give to all those who are injured by accident in the course of their employment. [Cheers.]
  SIR J. B. MAPLEthought that the right hon. Gentleman, quite unintentionally, wished to misrepresent the scope of this distinction. He wished to deal with it as though the Bill dealt with the question of dangerous trades, whereas it was a Bill dealing with accidents only. If the Instruction were carried, an employer might be liable for compensation if a man caught a cold through working in a draught, and who said he did not know but what consumption might follow. They understood thoroughly that the Bill now before the House was one to deal
  1168
  with accidents. Every accident would be recorded, and it could be dealt with, but if they were to say that every workman who received any injury to health arising out, or in the course of their employment was to have a claim on the employer, where would they end? It was a difficult subject altogether, and he believed that a separate Bill might be brought in to deal with the dangerous trades. If they were to have the Bill weighted with Amendments which might arise out of the Instruction, they would be discussing the question through August and September. He hoped the Government would stand to the Bill as it had been introduced. He knew it would be a great advantage to the working classes generally, and he would like to see the Bill carried forward. He hoped, therefore, the Instruction would be rejected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife said a good deal in the way of minimising the effect of this Instruction, following what has been said by other hon. Members. He pointed out that it was not mandatory and did not commit us to any particular Amendment, but that it was merely to enable us generally to discuss the subject. Then he went on to say that if the House had this power it could confine itself strictly to the case of certain dangerous trades, which he considers include about 100,000 workmen. I ask the House, as practical people, not to open the floodgates of discussion—[cheers]—even upon an enabling Instruction until they know where it will carry them. I am bound to say I think it will carry us a great deal further than my right hon. Friend opposite appears to think. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman argued from analogy. We shall have, no doubt, again and again, in the course of these Debates, the same appeal to logic, to our inability to discriminate between different cases of persons who have a claim to the compensation which this Bill affords. That is perfectly true, but, as I ventured to point out on the Second Reading, if we are to be guided by logic to that extent, after we have already introduced a Bill which is admitted to be one of the most important Bills that have been brought

  1169
  before the House in the last few years, which is admitted to be a revolutionary Bill, and to introduce new principles into our industrial life—if we are, on the ground of logic, to be continually applying to that Bill new structures, the Bill itself will certainly not get through the present Session. [Cheers.] I really sympathise very much with a great deal; that has been said on the other side, and I feel all the more sympathy because I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken are merely interested in the cases they submitted to the House, and in the hardships which they revealed, and that their arguments did not include any calculations which are hostile to the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] My right hon. Friend says the Instruction is intended to apply only to dangerous trades. Then it is very badly drawn. ["Hear, hear!"] The Instruction applies to a great deal more than that. ["Hear, hear!"] It is not limited at all to the extent of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman accepted in 1893, and with the acceptance of which be now apparently taunts Gentlemen on this side of the House. The Instruction will allow the Committee to discuss any Amendment intended to give compensation for any injury to health, whether caused by negligence or not, happening to any person "in the course and arising out of that employment." Those are the vaguest possible words. I will undertake to say that under those words it would be perfectly legitimate to claim compensation for a person of whom it was alleged that he had become consumptive in consequence of working in a draught. ["Hear, hear!"] That is not, I am sure, an extreme impossibility, and when my right hon. Friend opposite says, "Oh! but we can assure you that all we ask is that you should give to these people in the lead trade and certain other trades the compensation which we demand, and that we will not attempt to apply it to other less dangerous trades," then, I ask, where is his logic? How has he suddenly developed this power of discrimination? Will any man tell me what difference there is in logic between the agricultural labourer who contracts rheumatism in the course of his employment and the person working in a lead factory who
  1170
  contracts disease in the course of his employment? [Cheers.] I defy anybody logically to show the slightest distinction between those two cases. My right hon. Friend does not agree with me—
  MR. ASQUITH: I do agree.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, then, my right hon. Friend agrees, and yet he has not put in a claim for the agricultural labourer. [Cheers.] And, moreover, not only that—he has declared that so far as he is concerned, he will distinctly exclude him. I only appeal to that to show that even my right hon. Friend, slave to logic as he is— [laughter]—is unable to carry out this view in its application to this Bill, and it points very clearly to the difficulty in which this House will find itself if we are to allow the scope of the Bill, already so large, to be continually increased in pursuit of this illusory phantom of logic. [Cheers.] I say undoubtedly a distinction could be made between the pressing and urgent claims of the dangerous trades, and the claims of the bulk of the trades of this country, in all of which, however, it is quite possible that an injury to health might occur in consequence of and arising out of the employment; and the Instruction practically amounts to this, that, having got a Bill which imposes a new liability upon employers and upon trade, this proposal takes a perfectly different line and proposes to impose a further liability. It is not a question of distinguishing between different trades; it is a question of distinguishing between different liabilities; and, admitting, for the sake of argument, that the new liability which you seek to impose will be a fair liability, I say it is altogether too large to be imposed in this Bill. [Cheers.] If it is to be imposed at all, let us treat it as a separate question—[ cheers]—and then it will be found how extremely complicated and difficult it will be. ["Hear, hear!"] It is difficult sometimes, no doubt, to prevent malingering in the case of what the law admits to be an accident, but it would be almost impossible to deal with the question of malingering when it comes to injury to health; and when a person who is injured has to prove, as he would have had to prove according to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the injury to health was due to the neglect of what

  1171
  is called reasonable precaution, I think you would have opened the way to an amount of litigation to which even the Employers' Liability Act can show no parallel. [Cheers.] But let me put one more point to the House. In the case of the dangerous trades themselves, what is it you are going to do? In the case of an ordinary trade it may be that the injury to health occurs so seldom that the liability would not be a very large one, but in the case of these dangerous trades it is contended that the number of cases is very considerable in proportion to the workpeople employed. And you are going to throw this new liability in these cases upon the trades which, by your own statement, are the worst-paid trades in the country. Consider what you are doing. If they are the worst-paid trades in the country, being dangerous trades, it must be because the trade is unprofitable. [Opposition cries of "No!"] That is absolutely certain. Are there no such things as trade unions? Is it possible that in these trades the trade unions are powerless?
  *MR. BURNS: Yes.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard. [Cheers.] To say that in trades of this kind, which offer no attraction to the workman, from which the ordinary workman would naturally shrink unless he had some great advantage offered to him, even at a time when they can offer to pay higher wages, the workmen do not get higher wages, is to say what my experience does not justify. ["Hear, hear!"] I say that in a trade of this kind the wages would be higher if that trade could afford it. There are other dangerous trades in which the wages are higher precisely because the trade is dangerous, but in which the competition is so great that they cannot afford an increase in the wages. If they are in that position, then, if you are going to throw upon them this new and increased liability, you are going to destroy the trade. For my own part, I have often thought it was a matter which might be open to argument whether a trade which does involve so much suffering as some of these trades are alleged to do, is a trade that ought to be carried on at all—["hear, hear!"]—but let it be borne in mind that, if you propose to
  1172
  throw this new liability upon these particular trades, what you propose is to destroy those trades, and that can be the only effect of the action you propose. I do not want to lay stress upon that. I am only indicating to the House the number, the importance, and the complexity of the questions which would be raised if we open out this discussion, and under the circumstances I cannot help thinking that the Bill is already of such a character, of such dimensions, and of such importance that it will well occupy the time of the House during the remainder of the Session, and I hope its future progress will not be endangered by increasing its present scope. [Cheers.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, looking to the fact that this was the most tremendous experiment in Socialism ever offered to the House by a Conservative Government, it seemed to him they ought to make the experiment handsomely. [Opposition laughter and cheers.] It was absolutely impossible for any man who was in harmony with the spirit of this Bill to vote against the Instruction. [Opposition cheers.] The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool cut away the ground from the Instruction. It was not a question whether or not the employer had neglected his duty. The element of neglect which the Amendment proposed to introduce was quite outside the principle of the Bill. The House ought to come to the consideration of this Bill with unfettered hands. They ought to be able to deal with maladies arising from dangerous trades as well as with accidents, and this Instruction would enable them to do that. His opinion was that the Bill must be extended to all trades and all occasions—[Opposition cheers]— and everybody who accepted the principle of the Bill was bound to accept the Instruction moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. [" Hear, hear ! "] He, therefore, should vote against the Amendment and for the Instruction.
  SIR A. FORWOODasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEYsaid he wished to ask a question as to the bearing of the Bill in the case of certain Government employés, he meant

  1173
  a body of men who were employed to do what was called double bottom work. The work was so dangerous that the instructions were that no man should be engaged on this work for more than two hours a day, and not more than two days a week. He wanted to know whether, in the event of a Government employé losing his life while employed on this double bottom work, his representatives would get compensation under this Bill without this Instruction being adopted.
  MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid he wished to say at the outset that he did not approve of the Bill as it stood. He did not approve of throwing the liability for accidents on the employer. He thought it should be thrown on a national insurance fund. ["Hear, hear!"] But with regard to the Instruction, he thought it was really absurd to argue that it would not increase the scope of the Bill to any practical extent. It must be perfectly apparent from its wording that it would enormously increase the scope of the Bill if it was carried in its present form. He should certainly vote against the Instruction, but at the same time he thought it was only fair and right that he should say that he did not approve of the Bill at all. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNApointed out that there were at the present time schedules existing of dangerous trades, and he was quite certain that his hon. Friend who moved the Instruction would be perfectly willing to limit its scope to those trades now scheduled as dangerous trades. He submitted that a strong case had been made out in favour of the Instruction and on its merits, when limited to those trades scheduled as dangerous, there could not be two opinions. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL DENNYsaid that there must be a limit to the charges falling upon a business. While, perhaps, two pence a ton might be put on in the coal business without ruining it, if every trade practically was included the difficulty of working the Bill would be vastly increased. More than that, he did not believe that it would be possible
  1174
  to increase the scope of the Bill if it was to pass this Session, and, therefore, he should vote against the Instruction.
  Question proposed, "That those words he added."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 233.—(Division List, No. 215.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS. Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1,—

  LIABILITY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO WORKMEN FOR INJURIES.
  (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.
  (2.) Provided that: —

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

  (b) When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that the injury was caused by the wilful and wrongful act or default of the employer or some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any liability, civil or criminal, of the employer or persons for whom he is responsible; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to pay compensation independently of this Act, except in case of such wilful and wrongful act or default.

  (3.) If any question arises as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies, or whether the injury was caused by the wilful and wrongful act or default of the employer, or of any person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, or whether the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the workman injured, or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, or otherwise as to the liability for compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule fn this Act, be settled by arbitration,

  1175
  in accordance with the second schedule to this Act.
  (4.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment is on the whole not less favourable to the workmen than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONmoved, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," but the Chairman of Ways and Means being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  MR. T. W. NUSSEYmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "to which this Act applies," and to insert the words "in which a workman (as hereinafter defined) is engaged." He stated that he wished to refer the Committee to the definition of "a workman" adopted in Clause 2 of the Bill. He proposed to adopt what was, practically speaking, the same definition as that contained in the Act of 1880. The effect of these words was to extend the scope of the Bill and make it practically a universal Bill, to include all classes of trade and employment with the exception of domestic and menial servants. He reminded the House that the Home Secretary laid special stress on the point that domestics and menials ought not to be included in the Act, as persons employing one or two servants might be ruined by the payment of compensation, owing to the wanton carelessness of a housemaid. Perhaps some exception might be taken to his Amendment on the ground that it excluded certain classes of people from the benefits of the Act whose position could not logically be distinguished from those actually engaged in manual labour. He referred to omnibus conductors, goods guards, and others, whose main work was not manual labour. But he would point out that the words of the Bill itself covered such cases. The definition clause said "whether by manual labour or otherwise," and the word "otherwise" covered
  1176
  all such cases. Having explained that his Amendment was intended to include seamen, the hon. Member said it might be objected that it opened too wide a field, but it was open to those who thought so to show, by argument, why any special trade or class of workmen should be excluded, and they could limit the Act by taking out one trade after another if any radical reason could be found why they should not share in the blessings which the Act was to bring on their fellow workers. He urged that they could not be too careful in defining what, was meant by the Bill. Different County Court Judges might have different opinions, and unless they were very careful and explicit, these differences of opinion were bound to form one of the greatest difficulties in the working of the Act. They ought to give the Judges some words to guide them; and it was for that reason he had introduced the words of the Act of 1880, because they were well-known and well-tried words. To appreciate the whole meaning of the words they must turn to Clause 2, and they found that it included five trades— railways, factories, mines, quarries, and engineering. He complained that some of the definitions inserted in the first clause were very stupid, besides being complicated. The word "factory" was included, and there was a definition of the word. Many arguments for the inclusion of factories had been based on the fact that they were in the main wealthy trades. Some hon. Gentlemen, indeed, seemed to be under the impression that all factory owners and mill owners were rich men. This was far from the case. There were many factories which came under the Factories and Workshops Act that were carried on by the proprietors who were extremely small men and often very poor, and very little removed in position from the class of men whom they employed. Then under the Bill as it stood there would probably be conflicting decisions as to the meaning of the term "factory," and he understood that from the County Court Judges who would give those decisions there would be no appeal. Thus there would be none of that uniformity which was so essential in legal administration. For example, in Leeds, Bradford, and Huddersfield there were different County

  1177
  Court Judges, and there might be possibly similar accidents in these three towns. The Judges, however, might give absolutely different decisions, so that the same circumstances would not have the same results. In engineering work, as referred to in the Bill, sewers would be included, but the word sewer did not include a drain under the Public Health Act of 1875. A man who met with an accident in a. drain would consequently have no claim to compensation, whereas the man who worked in an open sewer would be entitled to benefit under the Bill. Such anomalies were bound to cause friction and ill-feeling in the future, and the various restrictions to the operation of the Measure were certain to cause great differences between class and class, trade and trade, employer and employed. The Bill did not fulfil the pledges of the Members of the Government at the General Election, when the people were told that there was to be universal compensation for all accidents. On February 20, 1893, the present Secretary for the Colonies said:—
  "I beg the House to consider whether it is worth while to deal with this subject in a partial way, and whether it would not be possible once and for all to settle the right of every workman to compensation."
  The right hon. Gentleman added:—
  "This compensation would not be a very serious matter for trade. You could do it at a very small cost."
  On what grounds had certain trades been selected? One ground was that the Bill would throw a burden on employers, and that therefore it was desirable to select rich trades. In these trades, however, there were many poor employers who were in no sense better able to bear the burden of this legislation than shipowners or farmers who were excluded. Another reason assigned for the selection which had been made was that the trades in question were trades in which the proportion of accidents occurring was exceptionally high. But he was not sure that that was the case. The mere fact that there had already been legislative interference with these trades did not prove that those engaged in them were subject to an extraordinary number of accidents. He held that if the principle upon which this Bill
  1178
  was founded was sound there was no justification for excluding certain trades from its scope. In its present form it would place workmen in the selected trades in an extremely advantageous position as compared with other workmen and so it would violate the accepted principle that before the law all men were equal and of equal status. One of the arguments against the proposal to extend the operation of the Bill to other trades was that such extension would result in the bankruptcy of poor employers. For his part he did not believe that any such disastrous consequences would ensue. Similar fears were expressed in connection with previous factory legislation, and they had proved to be groundless. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  MR. H. SETON-KARR, who seconded the Amendment, said that its real object was that the Bill should not be limited in its application, but should be made universal. This was one of the most important considerations to which the Committee could devote itself. Me might mention that he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper, providing that if the present proposal were carried I the words "not included in, the third schedule to this Act" should be inserted. A third schedule could then be added, containing the few special trades which it might be desirable on exceptional grounds to exclude from the operation of the Bill. This would be a convenient course, for it would give hon. Members an opportunity of stating fully the special measures for excepting any particular trade from the Bill. It seemed to him that the general principle of the Amendment was that the Bill should be universal in its application, and not specifically limited to certain specified trades. What were the reasons given by the two Ministers of the Crown for limiting the operation of the Bill? It was said that by extending the scope of the Bill they would be taking up too much of the time of the Session. But when dealing with such an important subject as this they ought to recognise that it was necessary to make a good Bill, and should not, therefore, grudge the time required for it. This was not a petty Bill dealing with some minor point. It dealt with millions of invested capital, and with millions of working men, and

  1179
  they ought to make a logical and good Bill. Were they to be told to throw logic overboard in order that they might pass the Bill quickly? He ventured to think that unless the Bill could stand on its own merits and could be made a really good all-round Bill, it had much better not be passed at all. He thought their object should be to make it a good and a logical Bill. The Home Secretary had told them that they were bound to proceed in a tentative fashion, and apply the Bill in the first place to the most dangerous trades. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that this was not a logical thing to do. In that remark he absolutely and entirely agreed. He should like to paint out that the trades in which the most accidents happened were the trades in which the largest amount of compensation had to be paid. They were proposing to put a burden on those trades which it was most difficult to ascertain, and against which it was most difficult to insure. If, therefore, it was fair and equitable to apply the principle of this Bill to the dangerous trades a fortiori, it was fair and equitable to apply it to non-dangerous trades where the tax imposed upon the industry itself was limited in amount, where it could be in cat easily ascertained, and so insured against. If this was a question of caution, and they were to apply the Bill tentatively, he thought they ought not to begin with most dangerous trades, but with those in which the compensation was highest. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary devoted a large part of his speech to pointing out the reason why the Bill should be limited in its application, and stated that the Government were following the example of the Factory Act of Lord Shaftesbury in gradually applying this Bill. He ventured to point out there was all the distinction in the world between this Bill and the factory legislation which Lord Shaftesbury initiated. Lord Shaftesbury's legislation was preventive and re medial, intended to shorten the hours of children in mines, and to enforce conditions of health and safety. Those remedies had to be applied tentatively to the different trades according to the differing conditions of those trades. But this Bill, he submitted, was absolutely and entirely different. It was a money compensation Bill; it was a Bill which
  1180
  provided for money compensation in various limited trades. He contended that the principle of a money compensation Bill was equally applicable to every trade. It was only a question of the burden, of compensation in each particular trade. If this money compensation principle was applicable to dangerous trades, then it seemed to him still more applicable to trades which were not so dangerous, and in which the burden of compensation would not be so great. He ventured to remind the House that this Bill proposed to relieve the ratepayers in this country at the expense of the employers or of the industry itself. At present the cost of compensating injured workmen, if not met in the case of unavoidable accidents by the friendly societies to which both the employers and employed subscribed, fell upon the rates. By this Bill the friendly societies and the ratepayers were practically relieved from their liability. Thus the employers in the included trades were not only liable to their own workmen for all accidents, but were liable as ratepayers to the rates for compensation for unavoidable accidents in trades which were not included. He was absolutely unable to see how anybody could defend that principle. The included trades paid in two capacities. They paid as employers in their own particular industries, and they paid as ratepayers. But the non-included trades paid in one capacity only, namely, as ratepayers. A Bill of this kind ought to contain pecuniary relief in which all trades generally must share, otherwise a most serious injustice would be done. Under any circumstances it seemed to him it was perfectly certain that the most dangerous trade would have to bear the heaviest burden of compensation. He wanted to know why the most dangerous trades should be the pioneers in this most revolutionary and important movement. The Colonial Secretary advocated the limitation of the Bill on the ground of expediency. He had told them that if the Bill was applied to all trades without exception, it would arouse so much opposition that it would be impossible to carry the Measure. He was himself unable to understand that argument. Where was the opposition to come from? It seemed to him that the Bill must stand or fall upon

  1181
  its own merits. As a matter of fact the Government had a majority of 150 behind them. They believed in the principle of the Bill—and he himself was most heartily in support of the principle of general compensation—and if they had a majority who believed in the principle of the Bill, and it was demonstrated to them that it would not impose inequitable burdens of compensation upon any particular trade, then he wanted to know who was going to oppose it? The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was a Bill for giving relief to injured men, and what hon. Member, if he believed the Bill was going to bring relief to injured workmen, would vote against such a desirable object? The Home Secretary had stated that there were l3,000,000 wage earners in the country, and the Bill only applied to 6,000,000. Who was going to take the responsibility of denying relief to the other 7,000,000, unless it could be shown that in some particular cases the burden of compensation imposed on any industry was inequitable and unjust? The two largest interests which were excluded were the shipping and the agricultural industries. Were hon. Members representing those industries to be asked to support the Bill on the ground that it did not apply to their constituents engaged in those industries, who would not, therefore, have to share in the burden imposed. If so he ventured to think the proposal was unjust and inequitable. There was besides the consideration that these men would be voting to relieve themselves as ratepayers without giving any adequate compensation for that relief. He submitted that if this Bill was a wise and beneficent reform for giving relief to injured workmen it ought at all events to be general in principle and universal in its application. With regard to the general compensation scheme he believed that part of the Bill was most excellent in principle, and he only desired to see it carried out universally. Let all stand on the same ground and be tarred with the same brush. [Cheers.] He seconded the Amendment because he felt that the Bill should be made general and universal in its application, otherwise it would inflict a serious injustice on some industries.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that, important as was the principle raised by this Amendment, a good many Second Reading speeches had been delivered already on the same point. While, therefore, recognising the importance of the Amendment, and the strength of the feeling which animated the last speaker, he could not refrain from remarking that, while apparently his hon. Friend was blessing the Bill, he was doing his best to injure it, to impede, if not to prevent, its passing. The same remark might apply to this Amendment. Both hon. Gentleman stated that a very good principle of compensation had been embodied in the Bill, and they asked that, if the principle was sound, why not extend it? But to that proposition he replied that, however excellent the ideal, they must in politics try to aim at what was practicable, and they ought to take care not to overload the proposals by attempting too great a scheme, thereby failing altogether. The Government had drawn no arbitrary distinction between the industries included and those which were excluded. They were not prepared to accept the universal application of the Bill, and the Government would look upon any Amendment to that effect as having a fatal influence upon it. They were not, however, indisposed to discuss, when the clause defining the industries to which the Bill applied was reached, how far the particular definitions were inadequate; whether, for example, the definitions of the building trade ought not to include buildings 30ft. high, a point which had been mentioned by the Colonial Secretary. He hoped the Committee would soon settle the general principle as to whether there should or should not be certain exclusions. The Government believed that the principle which they had adopted was a sounder one than to insert the whole of the workmen of the country in the Bill in the first instance, and then on the schedule to have long discussions as to whether a particular industry should or should not be excluded. They had included in the Bill practically all of what were known as the dangerous trades. In the first instance the Bill must be in its nature an experimental Measure, the importance of which could not be exaggerated. He trusted that the Committee would support the Government in retaining the

  1183
  words as indicating the principle on which the Bill ought to be applied.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTlooked on the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) with the gravest suspicion as an indication of friendliness towards the Bill. He and his hon. Friends looked upon the Bill with such favour that it would be impossible for them to sit still arid make no attempt to extend it to all the trades of the country. Could the Home Secretary give an assurance that two or three additional industries would be added to the Bill? Take the building trade. Accidents here were not so numerous as in mines, railways, and engineering works; but this, in his judgment, was an additional argument in favour of including this trade, because its inclusion would not mean a very great widening of the experiment which the Government were making. He regretted that the Government had not included in the Bill a class who had no means whatever of making provision against accidents—agricultural labourers. ["Hear, hear!"] He lived among agricultural labourers, and had known them all his life, and he knew the suffering that accidents caused during harvest time. They and their families had nothing before them but starvation, misery, or the workhouse. In his own trade he calculated that they had paid over £117,000 for accidents. The carpenters and joiners had paid £37,000. Yet these trades had not been ruined, and hon. Members need not be alarmed as to the injury that would be inflicted on any trade or industry by the Bill. The scheme could not rest where it was. It was inevitable that the State would come in and take the responsibility. The State was to a large extent the guardian of the general community, and it must provide protection for the community under certain conditions. He pressed the Government to tell the Committee what industries at present excluded from the Bill would be included in it. If they would do this it would shorten Debate, and the Bill could easily be passed through Committee this week.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid it would probably be perfectly right that agricultural labourers and the building trade should be included in the Bill, but it was a cardinal rule that when legislation was applied to particular classes
  1184
  it should not be applied behind their backs. The farmers and master builders had practically had no notice that their inclusion in this Bill would be suggested.
  MR. S. WOODSagreed that if the Home Secretary would state what trades he would or would not include in the Bill the Debate would be much shortened. As to industries not having notice of their inclusion in the Bill, that applied all round. No one had the remotest idea what industries the Bill would affect until it was introduced.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid it was remarkable that every speech on the Amendment had been in favour of extending the principle of the Bill to other trades than those included in it. The Home Secretary himself did not repudiate that idea. At the last election the principle of general compensation provided by the State, and not by the employers, was generally put forward by Members of the Unionist Party. It was unfair and invidious to select particular trades and levy upon them a particular tax intended not for the welfare of those trades, but simply for the good of the community. When the community laid such a burden upon any trade it should provide compensation. He had put down an Amendment intended to call attention to the effect of this Bill on the coal trade, the trade which would suffer principally by the Bill. Employers in the textile industries informed him that the Bill would not impose any special burden on them. Those industries were not liable to the disasters that happened in the coalmining industry, and which it was impossible for employers even with the greatest care and attention to avoid. Whenever an explosion entailing loss of life or serious injuries took place the community at large recognised the fact that the burden of providing for the victims should not rest with the employers, and invariably a public subscription was raised. This Bill said that the employers alone were to suffer by accidents of that kind. That imposed a serious burden on the employers. It had been estimated at 3d. a ton on the total output. It might be disputed whether this would fall on the coalowners or the workmen. But whichever it fell upon it was evident that under this Bill the trade would have to pay for it. He was much astonished to hear from the lips of the Colonial Secretary the

  1185
  argument that 3d. a ton was not very I much to lay on the coal trade because the price of coal went up a few shillings every now and then. But the price of coal varied owing to general causes which affected the coal trade not only of this country but other countries as well, and an extra 3d. on coal would make it still more difficult for the export coal trade of this country to compete with its foreign rivals. Nothing was more remarkable than the great transformation which had taken place in recent years in the way business was conducted in this country, the elimination of the private employer and the conversion of business concerns into limited companies. A man who had had a property of that sort might take up any new career he liked; he might become a politician and even a statesman, and then, to show his benevolence to the working classes, he might lay burdens on the ordinary shareholders whom he had left in his business and from which he would be perfectly free. [Laughter.] The difficulty they had to meet was to know who were actually carrying on the business of the country. The only way to get at these men was to call in the agency of the State and to ask the State to sweep them into its net and force them to contribute towards the efficient carrying on of business in which they were practically engaged. It seemed clear that the Conservative Party, by the novel and daring experiment which they were carrying out, were attempting to put in force for the first time the famous principle of "ransom." [Laughter.] They had all been converted now. That which they formerly denounced they now embraced. There was a great deal to be said for "ransom" as originally propounded. It attacked the idle rich—those who "toil not neither do they spin." [Laughter.] Now they had changed all that, for they were going to lay the burden merely on the captains of industry. [Cheers.] If they were to be Socialists let them be Socialists all round, dividing the burdens equally and distributing amongst all trades in the country any benefits that were to be obtained from the adoption of these new principles. ["Hear, hear!"]
  1186
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR. WARRsaid he represented a constituency which was for the most part composed of workmen for whom the question of compensation for accidents sustained in the course of employment was the one test question. Yet most of those men were excluded from any benefit under the Bill. They were the victims of the doctrine of common employment—a doctrine which was condemned by the common sense and the sense of justice of every one who had given it consideration. An employer of those men could escape from responsibility for an accident by showing that the accident was the result, not of his negligence or the negligence of any of his workmen, but of the negligence of some sub-contractor—it might be a man of straw—whom he had employed to do his own work. It did seem really shocking that a Bill to amend the law of employers' liability should leave the law as to any, particular trade, let alone as to every trade but five, open to such an injustice. Therefore, however much Members might approve of the Bill so far as the trades affected by it were concerned, however heartily they might congratulate the Government on the adoption of a principle by which he believed one of the most difficult of social problems could be solved, how could they who felt earnest about the matter, who felt that they were the representatives of the workmen who were excluded from the operation of the Bill, justify their action if they were to accept it in its present limited scope? It was their duty towards the men who were excluded from the Bill to urge that it was their right either to be brought within the scope of the Bill or to have the ordinary law so altered that the injustice under which they suffered might be done away with. In regard to the case of seamen, he would not say that the law should in respect to them remain unaltered; but he did say that their case could not be treated as identical in any way with the case of men employed on land. Holding those opinions, he would support the Amendment.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAYsaid that credit had been claimed by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the

  1187
  Second Reading of the Bill having been obtained without a Division, but he thought the credit, if any, was due to those employers of labour who had accepted a, new, very large, and grave responsibility without challenging a Division. During the Debates on the Bill no logical reason had been given for the exclusion of any trades. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a preposterous doctrine to ask employers of one particular class of labour to be responsible for all and every accident, and at the same time not to put a similar responsibility upon employers in every other trade. ["Hear, hear!"] While he did not agree with the proposal of the hon. Member to insert the particular words of the Amendment, he certainly agreed that it was necessary that the Bill should be applied to all trades, and he would vote for leaving out the words, "to which this Act applies." The Home Secretary's argument about what would have been said had the Bill applied only to the less dangerous trades was most extraordinary. Surely, if Members representing large commercial constituencies had a right, which the Home Secretary admitted, to have their constituents included, the agricultural Members had exactly the same right. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the Government, before it was too late, would reconsider their decision. He hoped that they would not have either at bye-elections or at the next General Election, Members going simply to get their particular constituents included in the Bill, but that the Government would allow their supporters to defend the Bill, on the ground that all working men were treated by a Conservative Government on an equal footing. The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Chamberlain) had raised the question of expediency, but his illustrations as to the franchise and the income tax not being logical in their application were very unfortunate, because, whether logical or not, both applied to everyone alike, and the whole community was at least treated on an equality. It was true that as to seamen and as to the Factory Acts Parliament had proceeded separately, but those were entirely different cases. They provided by these Acts that the health, safety, and conditions of labour should be regulated according to the necessities of each trade, but they
  1188
  did not provide that one class of workmen should be treated better than another. The Bill included the most dangerous trades. Why should less dangerous ones be left out, especially when, the danger being smaller, the change in the condition of these trades would be less? The Bill, as a whole, had his entire approval so far as it applied to compensation for accidents, but he did not think that the way the compensation was to be provided was entirely satisfactory, and it would be much less satisfactory unless all trades were included. Perhaps it was too much to expect the Government to recede from their position, but he would not cease to raise his voice on every opportunity to have all classes of working men receive the same benefit. ["Hear, hear!"] He could only hope that the Government would recede from their position, and, so far as he was concerned, he should raise his voice in favour of giving to all sections of the working classes the same privileges. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid he could not help thinking that the Amendment ought to be accepted. It did not go so far as several of the Amendments that followed on the Paper, but it opened the way to include in the Bill several of those large industries which had a claim to be included—a greater claim, he thought, to be included even than those already in the Bill. He had had a good deal of experience of some of these industries—the dangerous industries—but many of the dangerous industries were already provided for to a very large extent by their own provident societies. In the coal industry, for instance, with which, he was most familiar, according to the last Returns there were 141,775 men employed, and of these, to their great credit, 122,000 were enrolled in the Miners' Provident Society. To the widows of men who had been killed £52,000 odd was paid last year, and £34,000 was disbursed as compensation for accidents, to say nothing of payments made to aged members, which had nothing to do with this Bill. That £86,000 was subscribed almost entirely —within 6 per cent—by the men themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government proposed to include that industry in the Bill, and yet they were leaving out of its scope a number of industries,

  1189
  the members of which were, in many cases, unable to provide for themselves, It seemed to him there was no logic in the system whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government were going to take in those who were already fairly provided for, by their own forethought and industry, and they wire going to leave out those who, through being so widely scattered or for other reasons, were unable to form trade unions, such as the agricultural labourers and others, who were about three or four times the number of those employed in mines. The death rate amongst seamen was frightfully high, but no provision was made for them in the Bill. The fishing industry, which employed something like 25,000 or 30,000 men, was also left out, and whilst men employed on the railways were included. Road carriers were being entirely ignored. Legislation of this kind if promoted at all should be done completely, thoroughly, and well.
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOODdid not think the words of the hon. Member were applicable to the Bill. The Bill was spoken of as "petty legislation." He did not think any Bill which dealt with six or seven millions of people could be properly described as "petty." They were told that if this Amendment was adopted it would be fatal to the Bill. As practical men, they must accept that statement, and he did not intend, at that stage, to do more than protest that more classes of workmen were not included in the Bill. But he was not one of those who would jeopardise the Bill on that account. He regretted that seamen were not included in the Hill. As a shipowner, he should be glad to see seamen included in the Bill. He did not see why a man who met with an accident whilst driving a plough or a traction engine should not be compensated. There was no more dangerous occupation than the loading or unloading of vessels, and yet those engaged in it were precluded from the benefits this Bill gave. In view, however, of the statement of the Home Secretary, he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. FREDERICK CAWLEYsaid that while hailing the Bill with pleasure, he regretted that the Government did not propose to treat all trades alike. The
  1190
  excuse for making invidious exceptions would hardly hold water, for, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham had pointed out, most if not all the trades included in this Bill had relief societies connected with them, and were thus to some extent already provided for. It was said the Amendment would operate hardly on the small employer, but there could be no doubt the Bill would eventually lead to the insuring of all workmen within its scope, and so far as he could see there was no greater hardship in insuring a small number of men than in insuring a large number. As a matter of fact the small employer would get his men insured at a considerably less premium than certain people engaged in more dangerous trades. The agricultural labourer was not to receive the benefits of the Bill, but for the life, of him he could not see the difference between a man getting a hand hurt in a machine in his works or getting a hand hurt in a turnip pulping machine in the country. It seemed absurd that a man working in a factory in town, and getting, say, 30s. to £3 a week in wages, should be compensated for an accident, whilst a poor agricultural labourer, earning only 11s. a week, and whose only hope, if crippled, was to end his days in the workhouse, should be turned adrift without any compensation whatever. The Secretary for the Colonies once said that the agricultural labourer was the most pathetic figure in our whole social system. The right hon. Gentleman described him as condemned by apparently "inexorable" conditions to a life of "unremitting and hopeless toil," with the prospect of the poor-house as its only or probable termination. He further stated that the agricultural labourer had been "ignored, oppressed, and defrauded" for generations. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would admit that, if the agricultural labourer was not being oppressed or defrauded now, he was certainly being ignored. He was not aware that the condition of the agricultural labourer had much changed, except that he was able to buy some of the necessaries of life much cheaper. He hoped the House would consider whether such a man ought to be excluded from any Bill brought in for the benefit of the working classes. During the discussion on the Agricultural Rating Bill

  1191
  of last year they heard a great deal from hon. Gentlemen opposite about stopping the influx of labourers from the country into the towns. He himself thought it was very desirable that, if possible, that influx should be stopped, and he asked hon. Members opposite to consider whether the best way of obtaining that object was by making the conditions of labour so much better in the factory than they were on the farm. In the one case a man was to be compensated for any injury he might sustain in the course of his employment; in the other he was to be turned adrift without it. In his opinion such a policy could not be defended, and he held that employers of labour who would be affected by the Bill had a right to demand that these invidious distinctions should not be made.
  *COLONEL MILWARDsaid that many hon. Members who had joined in the Debate, did not seem to understand how the matter stood with regard to the smaller trades. As a matter of fact, many of the smaller trades were carried on in workshops which were now under the Workshops Acts. He was quite certain, that if they really meant to work the Bill, they must draw the line where it was proposed to be drawn, or else accept the offer of the Government merely to insert certain other trades by name. In the Midlands, trades were carried on in little workshops. A gun for instance, was not made in one manufactory in Birmingham. The barrel was made in one workshop, the stock in another, and so forth. Locks, saddlery and needles were largely made in small workshops. Almost the whole of the North Worcestershire nail and chain industry was conducted in small workshops in which the master was little better off than the man. They would find a father, mother and child, and, perhaps, one journeyman working together, and very often the master could not pay his men on the Friday or Saturday until he had collected the money from the manufacturers for whom he worked. It would really be absurd to suddenly throw upon the master in such a case a liability to pay down in a lump sum from £100 to £300, or 10s., 12s. 6d. or 15s. a week for life. This was a great measure with a very great principle underlying it. It
  1192
  could not stop here, but it must begin here. If they intended to cast at once their net over the whole of the working people, the Act would die of its own weight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the smaller man could not bear a life-long liability. He felt that the time was not far distant when the smaller people would be brought under the Bill, but they could not be brought under it until it had been assimilated by the country, and a system of insurance, national, local, or by trades, had been formulated.
  MR. BURNSsaid that what they wanted was an authoritative statement from the Home Secretary as to where this Bill did apply and where it did not apply. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would probably save two or three days' discussion; if he declined, he was afraid encouragement would be given to move Amendments, not with the object of wrecking the Bill, but with the legitimate and bonâ fide intention of improving it as far as that could possibly be done. The hon. Member had referred to the nail and chain industries of Cradley Heath, but surely he did not wish to impose upon those industries further disabilities and further injustices which, in other directions, they had suffered so long. The men, women, and children there were working under absolutely intolerable conditions of hard labour, long hours, insanitary conditions, and brutally low wages. And was that penalty to be supplemented by the further penalty that if a boy or man was injured while working in a shop where steam was not used, he was to get no compensation at all? Let them grapple with the small master at once. ["Hear, hear!"] Why should the Committee give to the small master, who very frequently was a greedy and ignorant and unscrupulous person, immunity from protective legislation in industry which was imposed upon a large master? ["Hear, hear!"] He could understand the argument that it was for his preservation, but he would point out that the master's preservation meant the death of, or injury to, the workmen who were not protected. The risk of the small master was proportionate to his business. Very frequently he engaged personally in the trade, and was able to take minute care in the workshop. This would quicken his sense of protection to

  1193
  his workmen and stimulate him to improve the conditions under which they worked. If it did not do that, it would drive him to insure the same as the large master, and he saw no reason why the small master should be exempted from that condition. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Baronet for the Ormskirk Division said that all trades in which machinery other than that worked by hand labour was employed should be included in the Bill. If he would move that he would vote with him with pleasure. The hon. Baronet went on to mention an industry in which machines were not used which was not in the Bill, but which he thought ought to come within its scope—namely, the unloading by stevedores and dockers of ships in mid-stream. They would not come within the scope of the Bill at all.
  SIR A. FORWOOD: I said I would vote in favour of their being included in the Bill.
  MR. BURNSsaid that, unfortunately for those workers, the hon. Baronet was not the Home Secretary, and he wanted to get the view of the Home Secretary on that particular point. Were trades that employed machinery other than that worked by hand labour to have this Bill applied to them? If so, let it be said so that night. He also wanted to know a little more distinctly than he did at present why seamen had been excluded. What were they going to do with seamen who were actually engaged in sailoring occupations, but whose vessel was alongside a wharf or a dock or in mid-stream?["Hear, hear!"] Were they going to treat a vessel when it was not at sea or not in actual motion as a factory or workshop within the scope of the Bill? They were told that this Bill, being experimental in its character, should be limited in its scope. That was invariably the excuse of people who had not altogether made up their minds about the Bill they had introduced. That did not appear to him to be a satisfactory reason why the scope of its application should be restricted. This Bill was supposed to be a substitute for an Employers' Liability Bill, but it only took in half the workmen who came under the Bill of 1893, and, though it claimed to include the most dangerous trades, it excluded the most dangerous of all trades from the point of view of injury and loss of life—namely, seamen, while deadly
  1194
  and dangerous trades, where injury to health ought to be interpreted as an accident, were not to be admitted. The Bill was illogical and inconsistent, and, in its main provisions, could not be defended. It was, however, an experiment, of a tentative character, in the right direction, which they hoped to extend to trades that were now excluded. Let them have a schedule of trades which, when the included trades had had 12 months' advantages of this Bill, should slowly and automatically be co-opted within its provisions. He should also like to know from the Colonial Secretary what was going to be done with regard to the shipbuilding trade. Suppose there was a vessel on the stocks where, in the actual operation of shipbuilding, machinery was not directly used, but men were employed in plating and rivetting, mainly by hand, were those men to come within the Bill? Why was the dividing line so narrow? In building, where machinery was used for joinery and the cutting and preparing of stone, the Bill would apply, but in the case of building where machine-made articles were put together by hand, he was led to believe the Bill would not apply at all. He wanted to know why, when a mortar mill or a steam derrick was used, the man in charge should be compensated, if injured, and the labourer who carried bricks up a ladder in a hod should not? ["Hear, hear!"] The Government must make up their minds either to accept amendment after amendment extending the scope of the Bill and admitting trades unfairly and inconsistently excluded, or else they must take the Bill by the horns, and say: "There is our Bill. It is illogical. It is inconsistent, but it is a good step in the right direction, and we do not intend to accept any amendments." He could understand that course; but if the House was allowed to hope that shipbuilders and dock hands and seamen might be brought within the scope of the Bill, the discussion would go on for three or four weeks, and then with, unsatisfactory results. ["Hear, hear!"] He was friendly to the Bill. He wanted to shorten the discussion, and to see the Bill discussed in a statesmanlike way. No amount of criticism, no amount of misrepresentation of the real point of the Bill would dismiss the difficulty under which hon. Members laboured

  1195
  as to what was the real intention of the Government with regard to including amendments. For the moment hon. Members were wandering about without any guidance as to whether the Government intended to extend the application of the principle of the Measure at all. If there was no intention to do so, then let the Government have the decency to apply the Closure—[laughter]—and get the Bill through. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BARTLEYthought they would get on quicker with the Bill if more were included. All the delay would arise in discussing what should be included and what should not. The Bill would undoubtedly pass more rapidly if all trades were included. ["Hear, hear!"] As it stood, the operation of the Bill would be most anomalous. An accident took place in a trade included in the Bill—and the trades which were now included were, generally speaking, the best paid trades in the country—["hear, hear!"]—and if a man was killed his widow and family would get a substantial sum, and if he was only injured, he would himself get a substantial allowance as long as he remained incapacitated, and he would get it in an honourable way as his right under the law. ["Hear, hear!"] His brother, on the other hand, who was employed in very similar work, but whose trade was not included, met with a similar accident, and if he was killed his widow and family would have to beg for some sort of out-door relief from the guardians of the poor, and if he was incapacitated he would have to do so himself. How long would that state of things be allowed to last? It could not last. It would be an injustice. It would create a scandal and do an immense amount of mischief. ["Hear, hear!"] All trades must have the same advantage now or later. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, it was true that in the case he had given the compensation was to come from the employer and the pittance in the other case from the rates. That was another grotesque anomaly, and could not continue—["hear, hear!"]— and although he believed that the ultimate result of the Bill must be that all trades and occupations must come within it, and that provision must be made by the State by special taxation or some other arrangement, it was quite clear it was impossible to trust entirely to the
  1196
  employer. The ultimate result must be to do the thing in a national way. He should, therefore, vote for the inclusion of all trades. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid that his hon. Friend on his left, the Member for the Barnard Castle Division, was very deeply interested in coal. He was himself very deeply interested in shipping. Under this Bill, if an injury occurred to one of his hon. Friend's workmen, and he was permanently incapacitated, his hon. Friend was liable, so long as the man was incapacitated, to pay him half his wages. An accident happened to a man in his own employ, and he was not liable. He was excluded by the Bill. He had no doubt there was very good reason why his hon. Friend should pay a large amount of money and he himself should pay none. [Laughter.] He ought, no doubt, to feel highly complimented that the precautions he took were sufficient to leave him out of the Bill. He had a great deal of sympathy, and he said so frankly, with the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. In his speech made on the Shipping Bill of 1884—[cries of "Oh !" and laughter]—wishing to accentuate the claims of those for whose care he was himself mainly responsible in his own business—namely, firemen, seamen, and others employed on board ship, he pointed out that the loss of life in the shipping trade was 1 in 354, while the loss of life in collieries was 1 in 454; and that, he presumed was exactly the reason why the hon. Member for one of the Yorkshire Divisions to whom he had referred had to pay a large amount if an accident occurred in his mines, while he himself, who had, perhaps, a larger loss, was entirely left outside. [Laughter.] He did not want to press the point, because he believed that both the Colonial Secretary and the Home Secretary had taken a great deal of interest in the Bill, and really wanted to get something practical carried. [Ministerial cheers.] But the great difficulty was this—and if it could be removed one of the greatest obstacles to the Bill would disappear. He had put down an Amendment to include seamen, firemen, apprentices, and indeed all employed on board ship. There was, however, one difficulty, and it was the only one—he referred to the question of insurance. They could insure

  1197
  every single risk under the Bill except one; and if the Government could find a way out of it they would do a very great service to the working men of the country. It was the one point of the uncertain liability on permanent incapacity. ["Hear, hear!"] Every other risk was insurable; and if the Government would only widen their Bill—he saw the Colonial Secretary did not quite agree with him—
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; he must not assume that.
  *SIR F. EVANSwas very glad to know that, because this was a business question; and, after all, if the Bill was going to do any good it must be settled on business lines. Now, as to this one question of insurance. His hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Burns) had just referred to it. Insurance was a thing that was very badly understood by the working men representatives in this country. They said, "If you insure us, you are going to open the door to this kind of thing—that employers will not try to prevent accidents." Let him assure them that was not the point at all; because if employers did not insure outside, they insured inside. No man who had a large concern over thought of passing his profit and loss account until he had debited it with a charge for accidents and everything of that kind. If they insured outside, it was because experience taught them that they did not require to put so much upon it. If they put 4 per cent, against certain risks, and outside people were willing to take those risks at 3 per cent., as business men they went to the outside people. But to say that they must not insure, whether they went outside or not, was perfectly absurd. Now, if the Government would only find some way—he did not, care what it was—if they would only fix some date or some sum of money as a limit to this risk of permanent incapacity, it was the only risk that he cared about in the Bill. He did not know what the Home Secretary or the Colonial Secretary thought about it. He admitted that they could not include every trade in the Bill at this moment. If they tried to do so, they would probably prolong the Debates so as to prevent the Bill getting through at all. He wanted
  1198
  to get the Bill through, and he thought they ought to get it through. ["Hear, hear!"] He had taken very great pains to find out what would have been the effect of this Bill in the shipping industry had it been in operation during the past four or five years. The firm with which he was connected had hundreds of men in their employ, and he could tell the House that it practically amounted to less than they would willingly give themselves for the protection of those men. He pressed the Bill upon the House; he hoped it would be carried through this Session; and he regretted very much that the Government had not found it possible to include the whole of the workmen of the country. He was sure it would lead to that by-and-bye, to the great benefit of the workmen.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely recognise the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as one of the friends of the Bill. I thank him for what he has said in reference to the particular trade of which he is such a distinguished representative, and I will endeavour to reply to the remarks he has made in reference to that particular trade. Certainly the Government have no right to complain of the full discussion of the very important point which has now been raised again—which was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and which is now raised again at the very outset of the Committee. I am afraid it will be necessary for me to repeat myself in endeavouring to answer the arguments that have been brought forward. Sir, the point which we are discussing is really what I may describe as a point touching the principle of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a question of principle whether this Bill shall apply universally to every form of manual labour, or whether it shall be in any way restricted. We are not dealing now, as some hon. Members seem to think, with the question whether it should be applied to this or that particular trade; we are dealing with the point whether or not there should be any kind of restriction whatever. Upon that we take our stand. This is not a Bill which is to be applied without exception to every trade and to every form of labour; and I must protest against the line taken by some hon. Members opposite, who complain that this Bill is a very unsatisfactory Bill because it does not apply to every form of

  1199
  labour. Why, Sir, who are the persons who make this complaint? They are the persons who received as if it were a new gospel, who described as the charter of the working man, the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). That Bill proposed to deal with an additional one-tenth of the whole of the accidents which occur in our industrial occupations.
  MR. ASQUITH: It dealt with all trades. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: That has nothing whatever to do with the argument. It surely is no answer to the argument I am bringing before the House, which is this—that hon. Members opposite, when they were supporting a Government, could not be too enthusiastic with regard to a Bill which added only one-tenth of the accidents which take place to those that were already dealt with in the Statute Book, and it is not consistent in them to complain that this Bill does not go far enough because it only deals, say, with 60 or 70 per cent, of the accidents. ["Hear, hear!" and dissent.] Well, it deals with the whole of the accidents that occur in the trades with which it is concerned; and I undertake to say that this Bill will deal with between 60 and 70 per cent, of the whole of the accidents which occur in the country, while my right hon. Friend's dealt only with 30 per cent. I do not complain now of the Bill of my right hon. Friend, although I think that the principle of that Bill was wrong and that, it would have been a better Bill if he had adopted the principle which we now submit to the Committee. But I do not wish to go back to old controversies. All I say is that it is unreasonable to complain of us, who have covered so much larger a field, on the ground that we do not go far enough when, only a few years ago, all the Members on the other side of the House were perfectly satisfied with the small contribution of the right hon. Member for East Fife to the settlement of the question. We have to deal with three classes of criticism. There is the criticism of those who are sincere friends of the principle of this Bill and who think that in some ways it may be improved, amended, and extended, and whom I have no doubt we shall be able in the course of these discussions to meet to some extent. Then
  1200
  we have the critics who are confessedly opposed, to the Bill in the interests of the trades which they represent. That is the legitimate form of opposition if it comes into the open. If hon. Members who hold the view that their trades will be sacrificed by this Bill would tell us so and oppose the Measure on that ground, I should be prepared to give the greatest consideration to their arguments and I could appreciate their position. But I do not think it is quite fair that the opposition of these Gentlemen should take this indirect form. It is not fair to overlay the Bill with Amendments which are intended to extend its scope, and so to bring into the field a larger amount of opposition. It is plain that these Gentlemen are actuated by a desire to obtain allies, and, therefore, I cannot pay the same attention to their arguments as I should do if they openly avowed their opposition. It is not a fair way of meeting the complaint that a particular trade will suffer under this Bill to urge that a number of other trades should be included in order that the representatives of those trades may be added to the existing opponents of the Bill. Then there is another class of criticism. It is that of Gentlemen who think that this is a most admirable Bill, but who regret that it has been brought in by what they are pleased to call a Tory Government. [Laughter.] But as practical people we are not arguing at this stage the logic and consistency of the Bill; we are not contending that it may not be found, when this Bill is passed, that an extension of its application is desirable. All we say is that, knowing what the House of Commons is capable of, and knowing what public opinion is at the present time, we have gone practically and substantially as far as we can safely go. ["Hear, hear!"] That is a statement which I have made again and again, and of which I am not in the slightest degree ashamed. It does not affect that statement in the least to bring forward the case of two brothers, one of whom is in one business and the other in another, one of whom will get the advantage of the Bill, while the other will not. Let the one who gets the advantage be glad, and let the other not stand, like the dog in the manger, in the way of his brother. Let him wait his opportunity—[laughter]—and if it be

  1201
  found that his brother has got this advantage without all the injury to trade which many hon. Members, possibly on both sides of the House, conscientiously believe may be inflicted by this Bill, then he will have a superabundant case, an unanswerable case, for claiming an extension of the Measure to his particular industry. In the meantime it is no answer to tell us that this Bill is worth nothing: because it only deals with 60 or 70 per cent, of cases, and that there are some people outside its scope who might make out as good a claim as those within it. We do not deny the claims of those who are left out, but we say, let them wait for the experience which will be gained when this Bill has become law, and if that experience is what we believe it will be, then will be the time for them to make their demand. In making our proposals in this form we are following the precendent of all legislation which touches large and important industrial interests. And nothing would be more foolish than to make a vast scheme of this kind applicable universally before we have gained experience. Substantially, therefore, we have gone as far as we ought to go.
  SIR F. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give the Committee his views on the point to which I have referred? If you limit the area to which you apply the Bill, of course you affect the question of insurance, and so, in a sense, handicap your own Measure. By limiting the application you must raise the insurance premium. I want the Bill to be made as wide as possible for that reason.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is a little impatient. I am going to deal with the arguments he has used, but before I come to particulars I must dispose of the general question. I repeat that, it being a question of principle whether the Bill should be universally applied or whether it should be restricted, the Government hold that it ought to be restricted, although the question of what the restriction should be may be a matter for subsequent discussion. We hold, therefore, that the Committee ought not to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Battersea says that we are allowing the Committee to drift, and urges that if we take the view that the
  1202
  Bill should be more or less restricted we might at once to declare that we will allow no Amendment, no extension of any kind, and that we will use the Closure freely to bring the discussion to an end.
  MR. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair in interpreting my remarks in that way. He has practically told the Committee that as far as the question of admitting more trades—
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Is this to be another speech?
  MR. BURNS: The Chairman will call me to order if I transgress. If the right hon. Gentleman will have the patience to listen I will put him right. The right hon. Gentleman is in error in saying I want to prevent any Amendments from being moved. What I want is that the Government should tell the Committee whether or not there are to be any additions to the trades dealt with under this Bill. Of course, as regards points of machinery there must be Amendments.
  MR.CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member clearly does not recollect what he said himself. [Laughter.]
  MR. BURNS: The House does, and I will accept its decision. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: There need be no heat in this matter. I am not at all anxious to misrepresent the hon. Member. I understood him to complain of the Government because they had not made a clear declaration, and I think he used these exact words—that they had two alternatives, either to admit all trades or to say that they would admit none, but use the Closure and bring this discussion to an end. I was going on to say that we cannot accept his position that there are only two alternatives or that that would be at all a reasonable point of view to take. We do not intend to treat the House in that manner. [Cheers.] We have said we will not accept Amendments which point to universal inclusion. I do not say we will not accept any extension—that is going too far—and we are not prepared to put the Closure on if, hereafter, at the proper time, reasons are given why a particular trade should be included which is now excluded, or a particular portion of a trade in the same way. That, I think, is perfectly reasonable. ["Hear, hear!"] I have tried to point out to the House that we are now, as it were, discussing the Second Reading of the principle

  1203
  whether or no there shall be universal inclusion. I have made clear what is the intention of the Government in regard to it. Then comes the question whether a particular trade which is now excluded should be included. This is not the time to discuss it. That point must come upon the definition clause which defines the trades to which the Bill applies, and when the time comes that hon. Members will accept the general decision—or after the House has voted upon it—and reserve their Amendments till the second clause, then the Government will be prepared to give most careful consideration to any Amendment proposing to include any particular trade. [Cheers.] Let me say that I do not think there are many trades excluded by this Bill in its present form which it will be right to include, but I have already pointed out on the Second Reading that there is one inclusion which we ought to make—namely, with regard to the building trade. I then explained that owing to a slip in the drafting of the Bill it would appear that we had not included all that is now included in the Factory Acts which we had intended to do. I believe there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean to include buildings which are over 30ft. in height, and to that we shall most certainly assent. [Cheers.] There must be cases of omissions of a similar nature which we ought to include. But a much larger question was raised by my hon. Friend opposite, and I now come to his point. He, I think, suggested that the shipping trade as a whole should be included, and he pointed out with great candour that the great business in which he is engaged is responsible for a larger loss of life than many other trades included in the Bill.
  *SIR F. EVANS: Scarcely larger.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: At the time at which I spoke on this subject the loss of life in shipping was larger than the loss of life in mines or any other industry with which I was then acquainted. I know that, as a consequence both of the agitation which took place then and also of subsequent legislation, and of the care and regulations which have been adopted by my successors at the Board of Trade, the proportion of loss of life has very much diminished, and is now 1 in 124,
  1204
  or something of that sort, whereas when I spoke in 1884 it was 1 in 51. ["Hear, hear!"] So that it very material change for the better has taken place, although it is still true that the loss of life is very large. And what do I gather from that? I gather from that that the shipping trade must be dealt with. ["Hear, hear!"] I make absolutely no pledge on behalf of the Government, because I think pledges of this kind are very imprudent, as no one knows what may happen in a Session that has yet to come. But I say that after this Bill has been passed, it will be the duty of some Government to deal with the shipping trade. [Cheers.] All I have argued for is that the shipping trade should be dealt with on somewhat different principles to trades on land, because I think the conditions under which the trade is carried on are essentially distinct. ["Hear, hear!"] Now comes my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, and I think he suggests that the trade is already ripe to be dealt with, and that it might safely be included even in the present Bill. Does he speak for the shipping trade? Because if my hon. Friend, who is most influential in the shipping trade, is able to bring to this House the assurance that the trade which he represents—not himself alone, but the trade, which is a vast and great industry—has convinced itself from a perusal of this Bill that it can safely be applied to that industry, all I can say is that a statement of that kind is unanswerable, and I cannot conceive that any Government could under any such circumstances refuse to include that trade.
  *SIR F. EVANSobserved that he could only speak for his own company.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I must leave it there. All I can say is, that up to the present time the indications go to show that the vast majority of the trade do feel that some special consideration should be given to the special circumstances under which this great industry is being conducted. If that is their view, I think it would be wise for the House to postpone all dealing with the shipping trade until it can be dealt with in a separate Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] I have only one other remark to make, and that is as to what fell from my hon. Friend with regard to insurance. Certainly it is most important, in dealing with a Bill

  1205
  of this kind, in which we are seeking: compensation of and relief to the workmen, and not punishment of the employer, that insurance should be encouraged, and should be made easy in every way in which we can do so. I agree with my hon. Friend that the uncertainty which may prevail at present in regard to the scheme for compensation in regard to permanent incapacity, may interfere with the framing of a proper scale of insurance. If that be so, I think it would be perfectly possible to make that provision more definite so as to facilitate the process of insurance. But as regards the question of including other trades, I can only say that, dealing with a constituency of 6,000,000, which is the least number of workmen we are dealing with in the Bill, you have got a field so large that there should be no difficulty in framing insurance regulations with regard to them, and I am assured by those most expert in the matter that there will be no difficulty whatever in framing insurance in connection with the trades specified in this Bill if the schedule which deals with the amount of compensation is made more definite in all its particulars. That does not necessarily mean that it is made less favourable to the workmen, but only that it is made more definite, so that the actual amount of the insurance can more easily be calculated. I think I have said enough to show that the Government are prepared to meet all practical points as far as they can in deference to opinion from all sides of the House, and I hope that the House will be content very speedily to come to a decision on what I have said is a point of principle—namely, whether or no there shall be any restrictions in the scope and purview of this Bill. [Cheers.]
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was thankful that this Bill had been brought in by a Tory Government, though he could not refrain from stating that, had it been brought in by their opponents, those who framed the Measure would have been subjected to denunciations, called at the very least pinchbeck Robespierres, and denounced as the exponents of Socialism. The Bill, it was true, had been received with a chorus of assent expressed in different ways, but that assent rested on grounds more substantial than the mere desire on the part of great employers of labour to come within its provisions. It was a Measure which let off those who
  1206
  came within its provisions from a large share of liability for accidents, and the ground on which he objected to the exclusion of a large number of cases of employment was that the Bill did not place employers of labour on the same rooting in the matter of benefits. The law was being substantially altered, and he objected to the arbitrary division of the employers of labour into two classes—those who remained under the law at the present time, and those who were exempted from all liability under existing provisions. Looking at the latter portion of Clause 2, it would be found that an employer of labour was only liable in the case of accident if his act was "wrongful and wilful"; and what that phrase meant remained yet to be determined, but it might moan something different from what was the case under the existing state of things.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that, having listened carefully to the Debate, he had come to the conclusion that, whatever might be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the strongest arguments had been adduced in the discussion in favour of making the Bill general. ["Hear, hear!"] He failed to gather from the Colonial Secretary one sound argument in favour of the course which the Government had adopted. What they objected to was the injustice which this Measure created. Instead of putting all employers on the same footing, it selected special industries, and he had failed to glean the real reason why this method of treatment had been followed. What became of those injured in the excluded trades? If a man was killed, his widow and family in all probability came on the rates. Who paid those rates? The very industries included in the Bill. So the included industries not only paid for their own accidents, but had to pay a considerable proportion for the accidents of other trades. The Home Secretary had divided into sections the supporters of the Bill. He did not gather from anything that had been said that there was any section of Members Mho wished to destroy the Bill. As to motives, if they began to inquire into these, he was afraid the motives of some of those who supported the Bill would not, perhaps, bear close examination. But he was glad to find there was no opposition to the principle of the Bill. That was one reason why the principle of the Bill should be applied to every trade. In excluding

  1207
  certain trades the Government not only created a great injustice as far as employers were concerned, but as regarded workmen too. There were as many fair-minded men among the working class as in any class of the community, who believed in justice even to an employer. When this Bill came to be understood by the working men of this country it would be seen by them to be most unjust, not only to their fellow workmen left outside, but to the employers included. He was surprised that the agricultural labourers were not included in the scope of the Bill. He should have thought that if there was any Government which would attend to the interests of the agricultural labourers in this matter, it was a Government composed of gentlemen like the President of the Local Government Board, the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, and the Under Secretary for the Home Office. The latter had raised his voice in the country when injustices were done to the agricultural labourer, but was silent in that House when an injustice was being done to them. He was surprised that a class like the agricultural labourers, so represented and patronised by the Conservative Party should have been left out of its scope altogether. He was glad the fishing industry was to be included. He intended to press on the Government to include as many interests as possible, and he hoped they would listen to reason in the matter.
  *MR. TOMLINSONwished to complain of the undue haste with which the Committee stage of what was admitted to be a, Bill of great importance had been pressed on. It was remarkable that, though as far as the principle, of the Bill was concerned it had received the general approval of the House, there had only been five days to consider what Amendments were required to meet the necessary difficulties in the detail of the Measure. The Bill as it stood included certain industries and left others out. The alternative proposal was that they should put all industries primâ facie, into the Bill, and exclude by exception those to which the Bill was not applicable. Time had not been allowed to frame the necessary exceptions, and therefore it was only possible to vote with imperfect knowledge of the alternative scheme. He thought, on the whole, that the preferable course was to begin with inclusion and exclude by exception.
  MR. MCKENNAreminded the Committee that the Home Secretary said he would give a favourable consideration to any proposed amendments to the existing employers' liability law which would affect trades excluded under the Bill as it now stood. But under the decision of Mr. Speaker it was quite clear that the hope held out by the Home Seecretary would fail, and they should not therefore have any opportunity of reviewing the action of this Bill in comparison with a good employers' liability Bill such as that introduced by the late Home Secretary. He would point out the condition under this Bill of certain trades carried out in the same town in workshops, in factories, and in home industry. A factory employer would be bound to compensate the workman, but the very same workman, engaged in the same trade and the same town, under identically the same regulations, rules, and conditions as to wages, would not be compensated if engaged in workshop labour, and still less would he be compensated in home industry. Therefore, under this Bill they were inflicting a punishment upon a particular employer as against other employers engaged in the same industry in the same locality. That alone would be a sufficient reason for including all industries in the Measure. He supported the Amendment on the ground that its tendency undoubtedly would be to make insurance universal. If all trades were included in the Bill the inevitable tendency would be for the State to form an insurance office in which every employer would be compelled to insure, and that was the only possible solution of the question.
  Question put, "That the words 'to which this Act applies,' stand part of the clause."—The Committee divided:— Ayes, 233; Noes, 155.—(Division List, No. 216.)
  MR. MCKENNAmoved in sub-section (1) to leave out the words "arising out of and." These words, he contended, were unnecessary and would lead to confusion. He put the case of two hewers working in a colliery side by side. If the pick-axe of one hewer flew out of his hand and injured the other, was that an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): Certainly.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that covered the case so far as the action was unintentional, but what if the pick-axe was intentionally thrown by the one man at the other? If that case also came under the Bill these words were surplusage. He might also take the case of a fall in the roof of a colliery which injured a man, but which might be from some extraneous cause, such as the tiring of a shot in another part of the mine.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he understood the hon. Member to suggest that anything which happened to a workman while he was engaged on his work should be within the Bill, but that was not what they intended. To take the case cited by the hon. Member, if the hewer out of malice, drove his pick-axe at the other man, it was not an accident arising out of the man's employment. The words were really necessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved at the end of sub-section (1), after the word "Act," to insert the words—
  "notwithstanding the fact that any such workman may be at the same time in receipt of any benefit from any registered friendly society."
  The object of this Amendment was very plain and simple. The Secretary for the Colonies said there was no intention to do anything that would injure the great friendly societies of the country. The Amendment would guard the members of these societies from being penalised, because they were members.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYcould not see that it was the intention of the Bill to in any way penalise members of the friendly society, and the words proposed were absolutely unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. L. WALTONmoved to insert at the end of sub-section (I) the words:
  "Such compensation shall be payable, whether the injury occasioned arises from the act of the employer or of some person in his employ, or from the act of a stranger thereto.
  1210
  Provided that where such injury shall be occasioned by the act of a stranger under circumstances creating a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may, at his option, proceed either at law against such person to recover damages, or against his employer for compensation under this Act, and if he be compensated under this Act the employer shall be entitled to enforce in the name of the workman all rights of action possessed by him against the person occasioning such injury as aforesaid."
  He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that this was a reasonable Amendment, and in illustration he mentioned the case of a stevedore. The workman should be entitled to compensation under the Act, in which case the employer would pay the compensation which devolved upon him, but the employer should be entitled to pursue a cause of action for negligence at common law when negligence had occasioned the injury to the workman, and involved liability to the employer. The Amendment was conceived in no spirit hostile to the Bill, but with a view to advance what he felt must be the aim of those responsible for the Bill.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYthought that this was a. very reasonable proposal, but he had some doubt as to whether it should not be brought up in the form of a new clause. He was willing the Amendment should be inserted, subject to its form being reconsidered at a later stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  COLONEL DENNYmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act," to insert the words:—
  "Such compensation to have a like priority in payment, in case of winding up or bankruptcy, as have wages under the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act 1888, or any Act for the time being regulating the priority of wages in bankruptcy or winding up."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government were disposed to accept the principle of the Amendment, but they suggested that the proposal should take the form of a new clause. One reservation he had to make. It was not quite clear that the capital amount—£150 or £300—ought to be in exactly the same position as the preferential claim.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SETON-KARRproposed, in Subsection (2), after the word "that," to insert: —
  "(a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman by whose wilful and wrongful act or default the accident arises in respect of which compensation for injury may become payable."
  As long as the Government accepted the principle of his Amendment, he was not particular as to the form it took. It did, however, seem to him but fair that compensation should not be paid to a workman who was injured through his own wilful act of negligence. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite contained the words "for his defence." He did not desire to see those words inserted. He did not desire to see inserted in the Bill words which would in the case of a man who was killed through his own fault or wilful negligence prevent his widow and family from getting compensation. They were not concerned in the act of the man himself, and he would only desire to move the Amendment so as not to allow compensation to a man who was injured by his own wilful negligence. He pressed his Amendment on the Government. All he asked was that they should take the idea and put it into the Bill in their own way.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not suppose the House would desire to decide this question that night. [Cheers.] It raised a matter of considerable importance—["hear, hear!"]—upon which the Government would like to have some guidance from the House. The fact was, that even supposing they accepted the principle of the Amendment, there would be a question as to the form in which it should be carried out. There was an important Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham which was intended to make a similar provision, although it was in different words. The House, of course, would have to consider really the question between justice and expediency. Justice required that something in the nature of this Amendment should be accepted. [Cheers.] There was no doubt about that. It was most unfair that a man who had deliberately disobeyed, in the most flagrant way, an order given to him, and had thereby caused injury to others as well as to himself, should be
  1212
  himself compensated for his wilful or wrongful act. The people who had suffered by his action would, of course, be compensated in any case, but it was grossly unfair that the man should himself be actually paid for his wrongful act. That was what he called the side of justice. On the other hand, there was the question of expediency, which arose out of this consideration—was it worth while to add another litigable point to the Bill in connection with cases which, after all, must necessarily be rare? [Opposition cheers.] He had stated the problems the House would have to consider, and he hoped that to-morrow they would have some guidance from the House. The Government at present preserved an open mind. [Cheers.] He would now move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." Debate arising;
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY [21ST MAY].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [21ST MAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

    CLASS II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £114,389, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including certain grants in aid of Local Taxation."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,243, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."

POOR LAW BILL.
Second Rending deferred till Thursday.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Committee deferred till Monday next.
AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged—Bill withdrawn.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged—Bill withdrawn.
FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th May] further adjourned till Thursday.
ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Thursday.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Thursday.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS [21ST MAY].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue. "
Resolution agreed to.
Ordered, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 29th June.
MARRIED PERSONS' SMALL INDUSTRIAL INCOMES (TAX RELIEF) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
BOILER INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 30th June.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (LONDON) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
RESTRAINT OF EVICTIONS (LONDON) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 25th June.
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 14th June.
TITHE REDEMPTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 14th June.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
MARRIED WOMEN (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 28th June.
ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] further adjourned till Wednesday.
MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Rending deferred till Thursday.
ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] further adjourned till To-morrow.
COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 17th June.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
MOTIONS.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Acts 1828 to 1887, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Provand, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Charles Cameron, and Mr. Baird; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed—[Bill 268.]

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) REGISTRATION.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tully, Colonel Waring, Mr. Power, and Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed—[Bill 269.]
  House Adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.

ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
LORD STANMORErose to ask a question of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the future government of the territories of the Royal Niger Company. He said their Lordships would remember that in the earlier part of the present year the Royal Niger Company by a series of Measured admirably planned and as admirably executed, assumed a more direct control than it had previously ex, assumed a more direct control than it had previously exercised over extensive regions to the Niger, which, although within its sphere of influence, had until then remained in a position of practical independence. By so doing the Company had largely increased its responsibilities, and it had become a question whether some modification of its mode of government might not be requisite in consequence. He had nothing to say against the Company's system of administration or its working—quite the reverse. He believed that in regions such as those in question a government like that of the Royal Niger Company was the best now and for a long time to come. It was a cheap form of government, but that was by no means its only or even its chief advantage. It could deal both with men and with measures in a more rough-and-ready way then a public department fettered by inelastic rules. Its servants, having only their own superiors to look to, and having their field of action confined to the region in which they served, were far more likely to identify themselves with its interests and those of its population than men belonging to a more widely-extended service, who naturally looked on employment in an unhealthy and uncivilised region chiefly as a means of escape through promotion to a more healthy and agreeable post. The attention of the directors being devoted exclusively to their own affairs, there was no danger of that sort
1110
of paralysis which arose from the necessity under which an overworked and overburdened department sometimes found itself of postponing the consideration of matters in themselves important till others more important or more pressing had been dealt with. But, on the other hand, the exclusive attention to its own affairs and interests which enabled a company to conduct its business successfully, might also lead to its not considering questions adequately from an Imperial point of view. The recent enlargement of the Niger Company's administrative area brought it into contact with the spheres of influence of other nations not less susceptible than ourselves. When such contact existed, occasions for friction must arise; and when they did, men who regarded above all things the maintenance of the rights and position of the local authorities would be not unlikely to act in a different manner from men with whom the importance of maintaining good relations between ourselves and other European States was a primary consideration. Much emphasis was given to this point by the telegrams which appeared in the newspapers last week, and in which it was asserted that French officers had forced themselves against his will upon the King of Boussa on the Niger, and that he had appealed against them to the company, which maintained, he believed rightly, that Boussa was one of the vassal States within its sphere of influence. Here were the elements of a very pretty quarrel, and it was evident that much might depend upon the tact and forbearance of the local officials and the instructions they received from their directors at home. He would ask, therefore, whether, in view of the altered situation produced by recent events, and the greatly increased responsibility of the Company, Her Majesty's Government contemplated the assumption of any greater degree of supervision over or participation in the executive administration of the Niger Company than the at present possessed, either by the addition to the board of directors of members nominated by the Crown or by any other means. Before sitting down he wished to repeat that he had no charge to bring against the Company. He believed the principles of its administration to be sound and its action to be judicious, humane, and just; but he thought that when questions of

1111
interest to other States as well as to ourselves were likely to arise, it was desirable that there should be greater security than existed at present that those questions would not be dealt with from an exclusively local standpoint.
*THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am bound to follow the example of my noble Friend, and in dealing with this question carefully to guard myself from any appearance of censure against the Company or against those by whom the Company's affairs are directed. On the contrary, I think it is impossible to mention the names of the founders of the Company, of the late Lord Aberdare, for example, and especially of Sir George Goldie, without recognising the very high administrative ability which they have shown, and their great enterprise and resource, which place them high on the lists of the pioneers of English civilisation in the dark places of the earth. ["Hear, hear!"] I think they deserve the very highest praise. But because I freely render that tribute, I am not on that account bound to admit that the system which they are working is, in existing circumstances, and as matters have developed, in all respects the most expedient that could be devised. I do not wish to enter far upon a question which is occupying the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and with regard to which I cannot say that definite conclusions have been arrived at. But I do not see any probability of an issue from our difficulties by adopting the change of constitution which is suggested by my noble Friend. He suggests that we should secure a more complete control over the action of the company by having Government directors upon its Board. I speak from memory, but my impression is that this country has never adopted that mode of government, has never acquired that control without giving something in the nature of a guarantee of profits to the company over which the control was exercised. There is the old instance of the East India Company. When this country assumed the entire direction of the affairs of that company, it guaranteed it a dividend of 10 per cent. Again, there are the railways in India, where a Government director is a Chairman of the Board. In all those cases there are Government
1112
guarantees of the dividends of the shareholders, and it is only reasonable that it should be so, because, of course, the first object of the directors of a company is and ought to be to secure a proper, fair, and legitimate return for their investments to the shareholders who have placed them in power. But the object of a Government must very often be very different, and the course which they may take may not be that which will secure the highest dividends to the shareholders. It does not seem, therefore, to be fair to take the management of a company out of the hands of the shareholders unless you are prepared to indemnify them against any pecuniary injury that may result. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that the present state of things on the Niger corresponds entirely to the necessities of our time. My noble Friend is quite right when he says that the progress of the Niger Company has brought them into close contact with territories or spheres of influence claimed by other nations, and the thought does arise that, however patriotic the Company may be, it is not to be supposed that they are utterly uninfluenced by considerations of the commercial duties which are imposed upon them by the position which they occupy. On the other hand, the diplomatic questions raised by their neighbourhood to other territories are often of a very difficult and delicate character, and it is impossible not to feel that a more direct influence on the part of Her Majesty's Government would be desirable if it could be obtained. There are two sets of difficulties. There are the difficulties with native races, whose rights we are accused of having dealt with too cheaply, as in respect to the persons who are called the men of the town of Brass, who complained that their markets are entirely destroyed by the regulations and interposition of the Niger Company; and then there is that much more difficult and delicate set of questions to which my noble Friend alluded, which arise out of the fact that the rights to territory are not sufficiently defined to exclude the possibility of contest, and that matters may even come to such a point as they have done in the case to which he referred, the case of Broussa, where a French force has marched in and taken a territory which the Niger Company

1113
imagined to be their own. The matter, of course, is not one which I can speak of in detail, because it is the subject of diplomatic communication; but the fact that the controversy should have arisen, on whichever side the right lay, shows the difficulties which are pressing upon us in consequence, in part, of the present organisation of the Queen's influence and dominion in that part of Africa. I have only, therefore, to answer in the negative my noble Friend's suggestion, and to say that we do not think it probable that the difficulties, whatever they are, can be adjusted by putting Government directors on the Board. I recognise that there are many difficulties attaching to the present state of things, and I can assure my noble Friend that they are occupying our most anxious attention. I do not think I should be justified in going further into that at the present moment, and I will only conclude by again reiterating that in any observations I have made I do not wish to imply the slightest blame for the conduct of the directors of the Niger Company, for whose qualities and administrative and military success I, in conjunction with all who are acquainted with the circumstances, entertain the most unfeigned admiration. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to say a word or two on this subject, as it fell to my lot to deal with questions connected with the Niger Company of some importance at the time when I held the seals of the Foreign Office. I entirely concur in what the noble Marquess said at the beginning of his remarks, and repeated at the end, as to the success of the Niger Company, and the singular ability they have shown in administering the territories under their care. My experience was quite sufficient to show me, as it has shown the noble Marquess, that there are very serious difficulties connected with the position of the Company there which require the earnest attention of Her Majesty's Government. These difficulties are, above all, difficulties with foreign nations who have territories and spheres of influence adjoining. It will be perfectly obvious that other nations have a right to look to the Government of this country for redress in any grievance of which they may have to complain, and that any supposed aggression on their part or violation of our rights
1114
is a matter which involves the Government of the country in, it may be, serious discussions with other Governments. It always appeared to me that it is not altogether safe when questions of this kind may arise where the Government have not a clearly-defined position— although they have abundant powers, no doubt, under the charter—to enable them to ward off by timely action difficulties; which might lead to complications of a serious character. I have no desire to refer further to this question; the difficulties will be present to the minds of everyone who knows the condition of affairs in that part of the world. I only wish to add that it gives me great satisfaction to hear that the attention of the Government is seriously directed to these matters with a view to introducing a remedy. I agree with the noble Marquess that the placing of Government directors on the Board would be by no means a sufficient remedy.

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order): Reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a To-morrow.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to tin; Commons.

VOLUNTEERS BILL.
*THE SECRETARY, OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that the Bill had been prepared for the purpose of removing a doubt which had arisen with regard to the effect of Rules issued under the Volunteer Act of 1863. The particular case which the. Government had in view was that of a

1115
Volunteer who, on joining his corps, undertook to make himself efficient within a particular period of time. On undertaking that engagement, he received a uniform free of expense from his corps, the corps expecting to be recouped from the capitation which the man would earn. It might happen that after having been equipped in this way the man might decline to fulfil his engagement and make himself efficient. Thereupon the corps lost the amount of capitation grant which the Volunteer would earn, and the funds of the corps were consequently mulcted, unless the sum could be recovered from the defaulting Volunteer by means of a fine. It was always believed that these fines could be recovered under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, but a recent decision of the Courts had thrown a doubt on that, and the Government desired to remove it. The matter was of some importance, because if these fines were only civil debts, and could only be recovered in the same way as civil debts, the colonel of the corps was deprived of the only efficient weapon which he possessed for securing that the men under his command should duly make themselves efficient. The Measure was, he believed, desired by the Volunteers themselves, and it had passed with but little or no comment through the other House of Parliament.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he did not object to the principle of the Bill, which was probably a necessary and useful Measure. But he desired to call attention to the very mysterious drafting of Clause 2, which said: "If before the expiration of the term of such imprisonment." There was not a single word about imprisonment in the first clause. He had referred to the sections of the Act given in the margin, the meaning of which this Bill declared; and he could find nothing about "imprisonment" in either of the sections. No doubt there was a reference to the power of imprisonment in one of the sections in another part of the Act; and he imagined that reference was being made to the expiration of the term of any imprisonment for non-payment of the fine under the Act of 1863. He should be glad to know whether this was so.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that the criticism of the noble Lord was a just one. The second clause formed
1116
no part of the Bill when it was introduced. [Laughter.] It was accepted in the other House on the Motion of a private Member, but it was evident that the wording of the clause as it now stood would require alteration. He would have the matter put right before the next stage of the Bill was taken.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Manday next.

GRIFFITHS VALUATION.
*VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I wish to make an explanation, or rather an apology, to Her Majesty's Government. It may be in the recollection of some of your Lordships that I asked for a Paper to be printed a few days ago, which was refused to me on the score that it was too old—"antiquated" was, I think, the word I read somewhere attributed to the Government. But somebody has been kind enough to send me this Paper, printed as a Parliamentary Paper— [laughter]—in the year 1882, which, I need not remind your Lordships, was the year in which that infamous Act called the Land Act of 1881 came into operation; and, perhaps, noble Lords will be interested to know that the Paper was printed at the suggestion of the late Mr. W. H. Smith. I do not accuse the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government of knowing anything about this, but I think the Irish Office might have known something of this Paper, and then the noble Lord would not have given such an answer as was given to me the other night. Noble Lords on my side of the water, at all events, will be glad to know that this Paper is published. There are 74 pages of Griffith's instructions, and three of the Land Commissioners.
House Adjourned at Five, o'Clock, till Tomorrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.