Sitting of 25 May 1897

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1894 (PAROCHIAL CHARITIES).
  MR. STRACHEY: To call attention to the effect of The Local Government Act 1894, on Parochial Charities; and to move a Resolution—[Tuesday, 15th June.]
QUESTIONS.

  BLACK WATCH REGIMENT (SUBATHU).
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether an outbreak of enteric fever has accrued among the Black Watch regiment at Subathu; whether the same regiment suffered severely from the same disease last summer in the same place; whether at that time the prevalence of the disease
  1252
  was accounted for by one of the reservoirs being infected with the particular bacillus which is associated with this disease, the water being found to be swarming with the characteristic microbes; what-steps have been taken in the matter since last summer; and, if all precautions have been taken, what special advantages exist at this place that it should be maintained longer as a troop station?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): A fresh outbreak of enteric fever has. I regret to say, occurred among the Black Watch, which arrived at Subathu on March 24 last. A telegram from the Viceroy dated May 23 states that 18 cases have occurred, 14 of which, however, are believed to have been contracted on the march up from the plains. Two cases have resulted fatally. Every possible sanitary precaution has been taken, and a thorough bacteriological examination into the cause of the disease is being made. A scheme for improving the permanent water supply, involving the acquisition of land and springs, is being carried out; meanwhile the laying of a temporary pipe is nearly completed. Subathu, which is 4,500 feet above the sea, has a good climate, and is not usually unhealthy.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. J.G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that for the year 1896 there were 94,477 cases of withdrawal by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank, for which the average cost was 1s. 3d., whilst there were 8,076 applications by telegraph for withdrawal costing on an average 9d. each, will he explain why, on the 4th instant, the Post Office intimated that withdrawal by the system which cost the depositor only 9d. met the majority of cases; and, in view of the fact that the reverse is the case, and that the more costly mode, or 1s. 3d. rate, was adopted in 94,477 cases as against 8,076 by the 9d. rate, will he state if the Controller of the Post Office Savings Bank is responsible to the Postmaster General for answers given in this House in regard

  1253
  to that institution and, if not, will he state who is responsible?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R, W. HANBURY,): No occasion arises to give the explanation asked for by the lion. Member, as the statement which he assumes to have been made by me was not made. I said nothing about "the majority of cases." What I did say was that two telegrams were required only "in cases of urgent need, which are of rare occurrence." Even if all cases of withdrawal, whether by one or two telegrams, are added together, they only represent about 1 in 40 of the total withdrawals. I was responsible for the answer, based on the information supplied to me by the Post Office, which was quite accurate.

  POST OFFICE GUIDE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether ho is aware that on page 121 of the "Post Office Guide" Harris is described as a money order and telegraph office; (2) is lie aware that although there is a district of that name, there is no town or township named Harris; and (3) seeing that Tarbert is the town in Harris at which money order and telegraph business is transacted, will he have the "Post Office Guide" amended?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; I am aware both of the postal and the geographical facts alluded to in the first and second paragraphs of the Question. Harris has been the Departmental name of the Post Office in question for more than 40 years, and, as there is already a post town named Tarbert in Scotland, it would not be expedient, after all these years, to alter the name. To prevent misunderstanding on the part of the public there is an entry at page 205 of the "Post Office Guide" at the name Tarbert showing that Harris is the name of the Post Office there.

  PARISH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION.
  MR. R. T. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the auditor of the Headington (Oxon) district has refused to pass parish
  1254
  council accounts where a subscription of one guinea has been paid to the Parish Councils Association, and whether such subscriptions are legal or not; if legal, whether the Local Government Board will advise parish councils and public auditors to that effect?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I understand the Auditor of the district, which includes the Headington Union, has made; a disallowance, not of a subscription to the Association referred to, but of a charge for more than one copy of a publication issued by that Association. I may, however, state generally, that the Local Government Board are of opinion that there is no legal authority for the payment by a parish council out of their funds of a subscription to the Association.
  MR. HERMON-HODGEdesired lo ask whether the lion. Gentleman would consider the advisability of making these subscriptions legal, in view of the great value of the information supplied by that Association to parish councils, which as a rule were in great need of advice?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would mean legislation, and I can give no undertaking as to this.

  BATTALIONS ABROAD.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there are now nominally It battalions abroad in excess of the number at homo, as compared with 11 mentioned by him at the commencement of the Session; whether these figures exclude the new battalion of Guards, but include as at home the new battalion of Cameron Highlanders: whether the new battalions of Guards and of Cameron Highlanders have any existence except on paper: and whether the Government still consider that the absence abroad of an excess of battalions is only temporary?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There are 14 more battalions of infantry abroad than there are at home, excluding the Guards. This reckoning does not include the new

  1255
  battalion of the Guards, but it does include as at home the new battalion of the Cameron Highlanders. About one-third of the Cameron battalion has been raised; but the extra men raised for the Guards have been applied to the augmentation of the battalion first for foreign service. I may remind the right hon. Baronet that it was contemplated that the formation of the new battalions would take three years. As regards the number of battalions at this moment employed abroad, I can only say that, under existing circumstances, the Secretary of State does nut see his way to reducing the number.

  COLLIERY ACCIDENT (POLESWORTH).
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to an inquest held at Grendon, near Tamworth, on a pit-boy named George Read, aged 17 years, who at the time of his death was a driver at the Hall End Colliery, Polesworth; whether he has observed that it was proved at the inquest that the boy had been at work for over 12 hours when he met his death after 7 p.m.; that he had been without food since mid-day; and that he had been engaged at work on the previous day from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.; whether he is aware that these long hours are in contravention of an undertaking given by the same employers at an inquest on a previous fatal accident; and, whether he will take steps to prevent a continuance of these prolonged hours of labour for young persons in coal mines?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR MATTHEW WIHTE RIDLEY,): My attention has been called to the death of this boy. The hours of his employment as stated in the Question are substantially accurate, and I also understand it is the case that the manager, on a previous occasion, when a lad was killed after working more than 15 hours, had promised not to allow young persons to work so long in future. There is no power under the existing Acts to limit the hours of labour of young persons above the age of 16, but in this case I trust that the censure of
  1256
  the coroner's jury, and the remonstrances of the Inspector will be sufficient to prevent a continuance of the practice.

  TRAWLING (MORAY FIRTH).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that trawlers sailing under a Foreign flag, are, under the North Sea Convention, allowed to fish in the prohibited waters of the Moray Firth, whilst British trawlers are denied a similar privilege, will he state whether any steps are being taken to place Foreign trawlers under the same restrictions as British trawlers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a similar Question from the hon. Member on April 26.

  QUEENSLAND.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen a Dispatch from his predecessor the Duke of Newcastle, dated 18th August 1858, reserving to the Crown the right and the power of subdividing the territory then created into the Colony of Queensland, by detaching from it such northern portions as might in the future be found fit to be erected into separate colonies; and, whether the power thus reserved is still capable of being exercised by the Queen in Council?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN,): I understand that the power of subdividing Queensland does not rest exclusively in the Crown, but that the authority of Parliament would be necessary.

  SALMON FISHERY (CASHEN RIVER).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that numerous complaints have been made by men engaged in the salmon fishery in the Cashen River and Shannon Mouth by the great injury caused in the estuaries by trawlers interfering with and taking salmon in their

  1257
  nets; what is the prescribed distance or limit at which trawlers should fish; and whether steps will be taken to give salmon fishermen some protection in future from trawlers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): There is no evidence that trawlers have been at work in these waters within the prescribed three-mile limit, but it is open to fishermen who may feel aggrieved to apply for a bye-law prohibiting this mode of fishing, and on receipt of the application the Inspectors of Fisheries will arrange to hold a local inquiry as soon as possible.

  FOREIGNERS AS BRITISH PILOTS.
  MR. J. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the President of; the Board of Trade whether certificates of competency are granted to aliens enabling them to act as pilots in the channels and ports of the United Kingdom; if so, whether, considering the danger to national safety which might arise in case of war from foreigners being trained in the intricate navigation of our Homo waters, Her Majesty's Government will take stops to prevent in future the certification of foreigners as British pilots in British waters?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The objections on the ground of national danger to the granting of pilotage certificates to masters or mates who are aliens was very fully considered in 1888 by a Select Committee of this House mi Pilotage. The Committee were of opinion that the granting and renewal from time to time of certificates to aliens should be continued, and I am not prepared to propose any alteration of the law on the subject.

  TOKAT MASSACRE.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has yet received information as to the nature of the communication addressed by Sir Philip Currie to Tewfik Pasha in respect to the recent massacre of Armenians at Tokat; if so, will he communicate it to the House; and whether Sir Philip Currie complained of
  1258
  the inactivity of the tribunal at Tokat appointed to try the Mussulmans implicated in the massacre, and also called the attention of the Porte to the non-execution of the sentences already passed?
  MR. CURZON: We have not heard of the alleged representation or complaint made by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople in connection with the Tokat Commission; nor has a reply yet been received to a telegram of inquiry which was addressed to him on the subject.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether the right lion. Gentleman could say whether the reply would be received on Thursday?
  MR. CURZON: I really cannot say when the reply will be received, but I will communicate it to the hon. Gentleman or to the House as soon as it comes.

  ARMY RESERVE.
  CAPTAIN GRICE-HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the regulations as to refunding deferred pay on rejoining the colours are to be relaxed in the case of men of the Army Reserve who may enlist in the new battalions of the Brigade of Guards; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of granting the same privilege to Reserve men who may be desirous of rejoining other branches of the service?
  MR. BRODRICK: The men of the Guards who are invited to rejoin the colours are those who were, discharged at the end of their three years' engagement with the colours. Such men did not receive deferred pay and are therefore in a different position from other Reservists.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  CAPTAIN DONE LAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway, Connemara (Mr. W. O'MALLEY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Executive contemplate increasing the powers of managers to admit more children to industrial schools, and to allow the capitation grant for such further increase?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No such change as that suggested in the Question is contemplated in the general system. Every application for an increase in numbers is considered on its merits.

  POST OFFICE PROSECUTION.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received from the inhabitants of Chulmleigh, Devon, a petition praying that a portion of the heavy law costs inflicted on Miss Adella Ford in vindicating her innocence of the charge brought against her by the Postal Authorities at Exeter, on 21st November 1896, may be paid to her by the Postmaster General; and, if so, whether the Postmaster General will be good enough to favourably consider such petition?
  MR. HANBURY: In February the Postmaster General received a petition from the inhabitants of Chulmleigh praying, inter alia, that some payment might be made to Miss Ford as compensation for the expense to which she had been put in connection with her trial. The Postmaster General gave very careful consideration to the petition, and with great regret came to the conclusion that he could not comply with it. The petitioners were answered accordingly. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of the admitted facts in this case; but I shall be glad to show them to him for his own information.

  MILITIA OFFICERS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government propose to take any special action to fill up the large number of vacancies in the ranks of officers in Militia regiments?
  Mr. BRODRICK: It has always been found that the admission of Militia subalterns to commissions in the regular Army has stimulated candidature for the Militia. With this view, additional commissions in the infantry and the artillery have been thrown open to Militia candidates. It is also in contemplation to offer advantages to subaltern officers who quit the Army if they will serve for a term in the Militia.

  CAPE GARRISON.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the batteries recently ordered to the Cape were on the First Army Corps, or higher establishment, with a regulation strength of 180 men and 86 horses, and supposed to be fit for service as they stood; whether 272 horses and 189 men were drafted into them; and why, if the Field artillery has been increased to an extent sufficient for three army corps, this was necessary?
  MR. BRODRICK: The three batteries which have proceeded to South Africa were on the higher home establishment of 161 men and 86 horses; and required according to the foreign establishment, which is practically the war establishment, 27 men and 156 horses to complete. Unfortunately, owing to the recent slackness of recruiting, they were considerably under the establishment of men, and this with the ordinary casualties, made a transfer of 189 men instead of 27 men necessary. In addition they had 116 horses perfectly fit for home duties, but which from age were less adapted for foreign service. These were exchanged with batteries at home for more suitable horses. Our batteries, like those of all other nations, are during peace on the peace establishment, and if required on any serious emergency would be raised to the necessary strength by calling out the Reserve.

  SCIENCE TEACHERS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the relative numbers of English, Irish, and Scotch teachers engaged in the short courses of science teachers in July last year; and whether he will arrange that a due proportion of Irish teachers will be afforded this opportunity of obtaining the latest knowledge on various subjects next July?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education has kindly supplied me with the information necessary to reply to this Question. All the applications for the Summer courses received during the past two years have been sent to the inspectors, and practically every eligible

  1261
  Irish teacher recommended by the Inspector has been admitted. The numbers admitted in 1896 from England and Wales were 121, from Scotland 56, and from Ireland 13.

  FRANCHISE ACTS 1885.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the scale fixed by the Privy Council, clerks of unions and poor rate collectors are paid for the labour involved in issuing the requisition forms under the Franchise Acts of 1885, and as in a number of unions in Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon, and Sligo it has been found unnecessary to issue these forms, as involving useless expense, he will direct the auditors of the Local Government Board to surcharge payments made under this head?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The scale, according to which clerks and collectors of poor rates in unions in Ireland are paid for duties discharged by them under the Representation of the People Acts, is fixed by the Local Government Board in accordance with the provisions of 53 and 54 Vic., cap. 58. The service of the requisition forms under these Acts, is carried out in accordance with Statute, and the auditors would, therefore, have no legal power of surcharging payments made in accordance with Statute.

  COLONISATION BOARD (MANITOBA).
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is any objection to stating the nature of the application made to the Colonisation Board on behalf of the Crofters' settlements in Manitoba?
  *MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER (, on behalf of the LORD ADVOCATE): My right hon. and learned Friend regrets that he is not in a position to give the exact information asked for by the hon, Member as communications on the subject are pending, and any explanation given at present would only be misleading.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that there
  1262
  are numerous old buildings along the route of the Jubilee Procession, and that it is proposed to crowd the roofs and front rooms of these buildings to their utmost available capacity; and (2) whether there is any public authority invested with powers of regulation and control in this connection?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have no definite information as to the point raised in the first paragraph of this Question. There is no law, of course, to prevent persons inviting as many guests as they like to their own houses; but the County Council, with whom I have been in communication, have considerable powers in regard to dangerous structures, and are quite alive to their responsibility in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the attendants of the House are to be provided with seats to witness the Jubilee Procession; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the matter with the view of giving the same accommodation to the attendants as is already provided for the clerical staff and the Press?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I can only refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave last week to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camberwell, on this subject.
  MR. R, K. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of Judge Addison, in the Southwark County Court, in relation to the eviction of tenants on the line of route of the Jubilee Procession; and whether, in view of the special circumstances surrounding the occasion, he will introduce a Bill to postpone until after 22nd June all proceedings on processes where no more than one month's rent is in arrear at the date of the receipt of the notice?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have seen a report of the cases in the Southwark County Court. It would be a serious matter, in my opinion, to interfere with the ordinary law in the way which the hon. Member proposes; but the Judge, in giving judgment for the

  1263
  plaintiff, has power to fix the day on which execution shall issue, and in a case of real hardship I have no doubt he would use that power to name a day subsequent to the Jubilee.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state what arrangements have been made for the attendance of the House of Commons at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on Sunday, 20th June, in commemoration of the Accession of Her Most Gracious Majesty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have been in communication with Mr. Speaker on the subject, and hon. Members who desire to attend the services will have to be good enough to enter their names in a book in Mr. Speaker's Secretary's office. The service will be at 11.30, and those Members who desire to accompany Mr. Speaker will have to assemble at the House at 11.15. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present, but detailed information will be published to Members as soon as possible.

  EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Court of the Edinburgh University states that their resources do not admit of any expenditure on the preservation of the Library Buildings, will he consider the advisability of providing an additional grant to enable them to restore the Library, so that the Library may present a decent and cleanly appearance not only to the Jubilee visitors but to the numerous Scotsmen who visit the capital of their native country?
  MR. HANBURY: No such application has reached the Treasury either through the Scottish Office or direct, and I do not suppose that the University authorities can contemplate any such appeal to the taxpayer. The Scottish Universities already receive a grant of £42,000 a year in full discharge of all their claims on public funds, and I cannot hold out any hope of further assistance for this purpose.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of postal telegraph offices in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively at which money order business is not conducted; and will he also state the number of money order offices in each of those countries at which telegraph business is not transacted?
  MR. HANBURY: The number of postal telegraph offices at which money order business is not transacted is as follows:

  England and Wales

  …

  323

  Scotland

  …

  191

  Ireland

  …

  33

  Total

  …

  547

  which is what I stated on Thursday last. The number of money order offices at which telegraph business is not transacted is as follows:—

  England and Wales

  …

  4,151

  Scotland

  …

  227

  Ireland

  …

  367

  Total

  …

  4,745

  While money order business is usually carried on at all telegraph offices, it is not of course the case, as the hon. Member seems to assume, that telegraph business is usually carried on at all money order offices.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. J. P. FARRELL), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he hopes to be in a position to lay before the House a statement of the allocation of the sum voted last Session for the construction of light railways in Ireland; and can he state will any balance remain for application to other than the localities he has already selected?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hope to be in a position to make a statement as to the allocation of the sum provided by the Railways (Ireland) Act of last year when the Vote for the Board of Works is under discussion. A margin is being left for contingencies, but no funds would be available for application to fresh schemes at present.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT 1887.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the number of notices under the seventh section of the Land Act 1887, served in county Cavan during the year 1896, and the number served from January 1 to May 1, 1897; and whether he can state the number of persons actually dispossessed during the same period?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of notices referred to, served in County Cavan in 1896 was 220, and in the first four months of 1897, 78. There were 12 tenants and one sub-tenant actually dispossessed after' service of ejectment notices under the seventh section, in 1896, and eight tenants dispossessed under the same section in the first four months of thin year.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a very large number of applications have been made in Kerry to have fair rents fixed; and whether he can say when the Sub-Commissioners sat last, and about what time will the next sittings take place?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are at present 286 applications to fix fair rent from the County Kerry awaiting disposal. A Sub-Commission was continuously at work in that county from September 1896, to the end of January. No date has at present been fixed for the next sitting of a Sub-Commission in the county.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the morning delivery of the mails at Youghal, county Cork, is considerably later under the new system than it was previously; and whether steps will be taken, either by improving the car service from Cork or by some other means, to give Youghal the advantage enjoyed by other Irish towns?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that since the 1st instant the morning delivery at Youghal has not begun until 7.45 a.m.,
  1266
  or forty-five minutes later than formerly. The alteration has arisen from the later running of the night mail train from Dublin to Cork, one of the changes rendered necessary by the modification of the day mail services which took effect on the 1st instant. The question of accelerating the car service from Cork to Youghal is under consideration, with a view, if possible, of restoring at least some portion of the time which has been lost. The hon. Member shall be informed of the result.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT l895. (DOCK AND WHARF MACHINERY).
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie has as yet taken any action under the Factory and Workshops Act 1895, section 23, sub-section I. (iv.) and (v.) which gives the Home Secretary power to make special rules affecting employment, and to make orders in regard to machines in docks, wharves, quays, warehouses, etc., and, if so, whether he will lay the rules made in accordance with the Act upon the Table of the House?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: As regards sub-section 4, which enables me to make rules for machinery or processes which are shown to be dangerous to life or limb, I have not as yet had any evidence which would enable me to put this power in operation in docks or wharves. If any case should arise, I shall be ready to consider whether any effective rules can be made. The other sub-section has reference only to proceedings before magistrates with regard to particular machines that appear dangerous. I understand that the sub-section has not been found capable of general use in docks and wharves.

  READING PRISON (DISCHAGE OF WARDER).
  MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a warder in Reading Prison has been dismissed the service for having given some bread to a youthful prisoner whom he found crying for food in a cell; and whether an ex-prisoner named Bell has been sentenced to 14 days and to have his ticket-of-leave

  1267
  cancelled, involving 130 days more imprisonment, for having thrown some cigar ends among some convicts at Borstall Prison; and whether he will consider the advisability of remitting or modifying the penalties inflicted in both cases?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: It is the case that a warder has been dismissed at Reading. The circumstances of the dismissal, of which the hon. Member appears to have received a very incorrect account, have been reported to me, and I am satisfied that the dismissal was fully justified. The ex-convict Bell has been convicted of the offence mentioned and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. The question whether his licence shall be revoked or not is at present under consideration.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORS.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the return of Local Government Electors, ordered 2nd March last, will be presented?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The returns from five counties and three boroughs are still outstanding, and without these the return cannot be completed. I am doing my best to put pressure on the officers who are in default, and I will lay the return on the Table at the earliest moment it is in my power to do so.

  RELIGIOUS ORDERS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will introduce a Bill to remove the disabilities which prevent the clergy of religious orders wearing their monastic habits in public, and other religious disabilities affecting Roman Catholics which remain from the penal times in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is a matter, as I have already intimated, for the consideration of the Statute Law Revision Committee.

  CANADIAN FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has approved the provisional agreement
  1268
  entered into between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and Messrs. Peterson, Tate, and Co., for the establishment of a fast Atlantic service; whether the representatives of any other firm or firms desirous of competing for the contract were fully considered before a final decision was arrived at; and whether it is in accordance with precedent for a new and important contract such as this to be determined by a secret agreement instead of by public tender?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Her Majesty's Government have, subject to certain conditions, approved the provisional agreement made between the Dominion Government and Messrs. Peterson and Tate. The representations of other firms were fully considered before a decision was arrived at. Tenders were called for as recently as last year, and as the only tenders received claimed a subsidy of half as much again as Messrs. Peterson and Tate, and as the firms who then tendered gave no indication of their readiness to provide a service fulfilling the advertised conditions on terms at all equal to those offered by Messrs. Peterson and Tate, Her Majesty's Government decided that it was unnecessary to call for fresh tenders.

  DINGLEY TARIFF BILL (UNITED STATES).
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the Dingley Tariff Bill now before the Congress of the United States, and to the increased duty proposed to be placed by that Bill on salted mackerel and other cured fish: and whether Her Majesty's Government will direct that every possible representation will be made to the Government of the United States to prevent this large increase of duty, which would seriously injure the trade of the west coast fisheries of Ireland?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington will be instructed to repeat the representations with regard to the proposed increase of duty on mackerel which he has already made to the United States Government with regard to a similar proposal concerning herrings.

  CHARGE OF LARCENY (COUNTY TYRONE).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that two brothers named Maguire, county Tyrone, have stood four trials and are at present in goal on a charge of larceny: and whether he can say if he intends again to put the Maguires on trial; and, if so, will he give them the first opportunity of being tried, viz. at quarter sessions, which occur in a few days, and at which the cost of defending a prisoner is much less than at assizes?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The brothers Maguire have stood three trials, not four, as stated in the Question, two on the charge of murder and one for robbery from the person, on which latter charge they are still in goal. It is the intention of the Government to put them again on their trial at the summer assizes, not before. I have, in answer to the questions of several hon. Members, already stated all these facts to the House on more than one occasion.

  POLICE PENSIONERS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the rule which compels police pensioners to appear before a magistrate or clergyman, make an affidavit, and then go to the police barrack of the district, which is often six miles away, before getting their pension, acts hardly on men suffering from illness; and (2) whether in future he will have pensioners paid by cheque delivered at their residences instead of having to call at the police barrack for the money.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In a case of sickness, the pension can be paid to another person authorised to attend at the barrack to receive it, and the quarterly declarations prescribed by Act of Parliament can be made by the medical man in attendance on the sick person, and not by a magistrate or clergyman only. Payment could not, I am informed, be made in the manner suggested in the second paragraph.

  CRETE.
  Mil. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish troops in Candia have been authorised to make a sortie against the insurgents?
  MR. CURZON: We are not aware that any such movement has been authorised, but it may at any time become necessary, in order to secure the water supply of the town, which is being perpetually attacked and cut off by the insurgents. The arrangement which has hitherto prevailed for the observance of a neutral zone by both parties, has been cancelled from to-day on a written request of the insurgents to the Admiral.

  ARMY REMOUNTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether large numbers of horses are being purchased in Buenos Ayres for military purposes; and, whether it is intended to make any purchases in Ireland?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): As has been explained already, the horses now being purchased in Argentina are for service in South Africa, for the climate of which they are believed to be more suitable, besides being much cheaper than horses bred in Europe. About 60 per cent, of the horses for the home cavalry are bought in Ireland; and no change in the system is contemplated.

  VOTERS' LIST (WESTMEATH).
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the contract for the printing of the list of voters for the county of Westmeath has not been put up for public competition at the presentment sessions in accordance with the Grand Jury Acts and the decision of the Lord Chief Baron; whether the contract for this year has been given away by the sub-sheriff in his private office, and if he can state at what price the contract has been given and to whom; and, whether he will take steps that in future this contract will be decided in the way prescribed by Act of

  1271
  Parliament at presentment sessions, and not in the private office of the Grand Jury official.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: There is a grave doubt as to whether the Grand Jury are bound to advertise for tenders for printing, and in the county of Westmeath it has never been the custom to put up such contracts for public competition. If anything illegal has been done it is open to any ratepayer to traverse the presentment for this printing. The Quarter Sessions have no power in the matter. In the negotiations for such contracts the Clerk of the Crown arranges with the sub-sheriff to represent him.

  LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Post Office describes the Island of Lewis as only half an island, and that in the Reports issued by the Secretary for Scotland and other Government departments it is described as the Island of Lewis, will he state whether the Government contemplates altering the designation of the island?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; the Government do not contemplate altering the designation of the Island of Lewis.

  INDIAN BUDGET
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great suffering caused by the Indian famine, and the serious questions raised by it as regards the future administration of India, the Government will bring the Indian Budget before the House at a time when a full attendance of Members may be obtained?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the sympathy felt in this House with the sufferings of the people of India is very great, but I do not think that would necessarily produce a large audience for the discussion of the Indian Budget, whatever were the time of year selected for the Debate. I believe we have an example of the Indian Budget being discussed in June, and the audience was not greater then than it is when the Budget is taken at the usual time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is a Question on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. J. P. FARRELL) which has not been asked. It is — What Votes in Supply will be taken on Friday?
MR. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he can see his way to take Irish Supply on Friday next?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The suggestion that Irish Supply should be taken next Friday comes to me rather with surprise. I thought it was understood that English Supply was to be taken, and perhaps that would be the most convenient course. If it is English Supply, as I think it ought to be, the Votes I propose to take are the remaining Votes in Class I., excepting the Irish Votes, the remaining Votes in Class II., excepting the Foreign Office, Colonial Office, and Irish Votes, and if there be any opportunity, we should take Class VI., non-effective service.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: When will the Post Office Votes be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to take the Post Office Votes before Whitsuntide.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Is there any hope of the Scotch Estimates being taken within reasonable time?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should be very glad to make an arrangement convenient to Scotch Members.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE).
MR. J. LOWTHER: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of bringing under your notice a point of procedure which involves also a Question of Privilege. I desire your ruling as to what course ought to be followed by a Select Committee of this House, in the event of any information coming before it which reflects upon the conduct of a Member of the House, and in that connection I beg to call your attention to the Resolution passed upon the 16th of March

1273
1688—[laughter],—which is in the following terms:—
"if any information come before any Committee that chargeth any Member of the House, the Committee ought only to direct that the House be acquainted with the matter of such information without proceeding further thereupon."
I wish to ask whether that Resolution is still in force. I may lie permitted to add that I bring forward no particular instance or case, desiring only your ruling as to the general practice which operates as regards Committees of this House.
*MR. SPEAKER: The Resolution of 1688, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, is no doubt still part of the practice and rules of the House. I need not refer more particularly to the Resolution, as the right hon. Gentleman has read its terms. All I can say as to the course to be taken by a Committee is that when any case arises to which that rule is applicable it is obvious that the proper course is to report to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 24th May.]
  [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 courses 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 1his 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 be was employed;

  (b.)When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that the injury was caused by the willful and wrongful act or default of the
  1274
  employer or some person for whoso 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 willful 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 willful and wrongful act or default of the employer, or of any person for whose act or default tins 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 to this Act, be settled by arbitration, 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, hut save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made alter the commencement of this Act.
  Another Amendment proposed [24th May], in sub section (2), after the words "Provided that," to insert the words,—
  "(a.) the employer shall not be liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman by whose willful and wrongful act or default the accident arises in respect of which compensation for injury may become payable."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted." — Debate resumed.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that there were upon the Paper several Amendments somewhat similar to that of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Seton-Karr). This Amendment provided that the employer should not be liable to pay compensation to any workman by whose "willful and wrongful act or default" the accident arose, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for

  1275
  Chester-le-Street, to which the Colonial Secretary specially alluded in closing the Debate last night, raised the whole question of the misconduct of the workman. He wished to ask the Chairman whether he thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to Debate the various forms of the Amendments upon the present Amendment, or to confine the present Debate to the words "willful and wrongful act or default."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it had been the custom lately when one Amendment raised a principle which was also raised by several other Amendments, although the principle was not stated in exactly the same terms, to discuss the principle generally on the first Amendment, and then, if the House accepted the principle of the Amendment, to consider the actual wording of the Amendment to be inserted. That would, he thought, be a convenient practice to follow on the present occasion.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that the words "willful and wrongful" undoubtedly restricted the Amendment to cases which were somewhat different from those suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. If they had to choose between the form of the Amendments he should prefer the Amendment and the protection suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street. That Amendment raised the question of disregard of orders and the question of misconduct. He hoped to lay before the House some considerations opposed to these Amendments altogether. He confessed that they seemed to have limited the Bill by certain words introduced into it already, and which were likely to give rise to a good deal of litigation. The introduction of the principle which was now contended for in this Amendment, and still more the introduction of this principle in some of the milder forms suggested by some hon. Members, would open the door, he was certain, to a very large amount of additional litigation. They were engaged in discussing a Bill for which there was no precedent in this country, but which, in many points, touched questions which had been very largely discussed in other countries for years past. The particular point raised by this Amendment had been very fully discussed in Germany for years
  1276
  past, and it was one upon which there had been the greatest possible difference of opinion. When the first steps were taken towards the introduction of the compensation principle in Germany, the State officials were mostly opposed to suggestions such as this, but the employers were favourable to such suggestions. In Germany, the Committee would remember, all accidents were paid for unless they were caused by an act which might be almost described as an act of suicide. Dr. Boediker, the head of the German system, in a book which appeared last year, had brought into comparison the German system and the Austrian and Norwegian systems and the principal systems proposed for other countries, and had fully discussed this point. "For ten years," he wrote,—
  "we have given full compensation from the employer even where the accident is caused by the gross fault of the workman. The employers wish for no change on this point. If we are to stop or reduce that compensation in such cases, then we ought clearly to increase it in the case of gross fault of the employer."
  This authority then went into the figures to show that a large percentage of accidents were the fault either of the worker or the employer, or, in part, of both, and said that the consequence of introducing this principle of fault into the consideration of compensation, either as regarded stopping the compensation or reducing it, would be to produce an enormous amount of litigation upon a point which was, in itself, a thing most difficult of ascertainment by the Court. Dr. Boediker concluded his survey of this matter with some general considerations which were, he thought, worth the attention of the Committee. He said the principle of compensation was the principle of social pacification, which ought to be accepted, and could only be defended on that ground, but that if they brought in this principle of stopping compensation or reducing it, exasperation instead of pacification followed. He used these words:—
  "To stop compensation in the case of gross fault of the worker is to throw a bombshell into the whole principle of compensation itself."
  He also pointed out that the employers had now come to know that they would

  1277
  save very little money indeed by the adoption of the principle which was contended for in this Amendment, and while they would save but very little money the adoption of the principle would destroy the whole moral effect of the compensation law which had been introduced. He was quite aware that they could not argue with regard to this Bill generally from the example of Germany. The foundation of the German system was different from the foundation of the system here, but he did submit to the Committee that as regarded this particular point before them the experience of Germany was material to the question the Committee had to decide.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid he had put an Amendment on the Paper practically in the same words as that now before the Committee, and he should like to explain why, both on the principle of justice and of expediency, he thought, the Amendment should be adopted. He should first like to say, in answer to the right, hon. Baronet opposite, that in this particular Bill the additional obligation which he referred to was placed upon the employer.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid he was quoting Dr. Boediker, who meant an increased, a penal, payment in addition to the ordinary compensation.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid there was a penal payment in this Bill. The advantage to an employer of this Bill was that, as against insurance, he had limited liability. If an injury were caused by the willful or wrongful act or default of the employer, he lost the limit of his liability and he was liable at common law, not only for the £150 or the £300, or whatever sum might be fixed in the Bill, but for such larger sum as the Jury or the Court should award. Upon the point of justice, really there seemed to be no dispute, and he did not think there was any reason to expect any of the difficulties as regarded litigation or friction to which the right hon. Baronet opposite alluded. Was the Committee going to sanction for the first time the principle that although a man might be criminally responsible for his willful and wrongful act, yet he was to be compensated either by the employer or by his fellow workmen? ["Hear, hear!"] A principle of that kind was necessarily inconsistent
  1278
  with justice. Supposing, say, an employé of a railway company acted in direct contravention of the rules which had been laid down, such as riding on an engine. Was he, because he suffered an injury as the immediate consequence of his neglect of rules, to cast the same obligation either upon the company or upon his fellow workmen? Take another illustration. A small employer was working with his workmen, and contrary to his direct, instructions, a workman brought about, by his willful and wrongful act, an injury which affected both the employer and the workman. Under this Bill the workman, who had thus brought that about would get compensation, and the effect would be that while the small employer would be ruined and have to go to the workhouse, the man who had caused the accident would be living in ease and comfort. He did not think it could be said that that was consistent with justice. As regarded the question of expediency, he said it was inexpedient to encourage a man to hope for compensation when an injury resulted from his own willful and wrongful act. It was far more expedient to make him feel, not that he would be compensated, but that he must bear the necessary consequences which such an act had brought upon him. He thought that compensation under that Bill ought to go to the man who deserved it, and not to the man who had brought the injury upon himself by his own willful, and probably his own criminal, act. He did not agree that the Amendment would tend to increase litigation. On reference to Sub-section 3 of Section 1 it would be seen that the question whether the injury was caused by the willful and wrongful act or default of the employer was a question which the arbitrator would have to settle under the Bill as it stood. And if they adopted his own Amendment, to add after "employer" the words "or workmen," he could see no difficulty in the arbitrator deciding whether it was the employer or the workmen who had been in default. He denied, therefore, that there would be any tendency to increased litigation as the result of the Amendment. He went further, and said that justice required discrimination in a matter of this kind, and the machinery for discriminating properly must be provided. [" Hear,

  1279
  hear!"] He pointed out that contributory negligence did not come in under the Bill at all. The workman had to establish the fact that he was injured in his employment, and it was then for the arbitrator to determine the amount of compensation and whether there had been any willful and wrongful act on the part of the employer. There could not be any real chance of greater litigation because the arbitrator had this additional question referred to him. He submitted it was right that the question of the workman's default should be referred to him also, and he hoped, after the intimation the Government had given, that it would be possible for them to give way on this point. For himself, he would not assent without a Division, unless the Government would make some concession, to introducing for the first time into English law what he considered to be a thoroughly bad and vicious principle, viz., that they were to encourage a man to act wrongfully in order that he might be paid in respect of the injury that resulted. Although his own Amendment was not quite in the form of that of the hon. Member for St. Helens, yet he cordially supported it.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that if the Government were disposed to accept the principle of the Amendment now before the Committee, he should be content with any words that would carry out the principle. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to the fact that in Germany this question of eliminating accidents caused by the willful default of those who suffered had been a cause of great difficulty. He confessed that to a certain extent he agreed with him. But the German system and the system proposed in this Bill were altogether different things. In the German system no compensation was paid until 13 weeks had expired, and by that 13 weeks a large number of the accidents caused by carelessness were eliminated and the workman contributed to meet the claims arising within that period. He could not admit there was any great difficulty in compensating for all accidents, seeing that it was already done by all the Minors' Permanent Relief Funds, and very little litigation occurred. But he looked upon this Amendment as a much more important one than many
  1280
  hon. Members, for this reason—the Bill did not directly deal with safety. But the safety of the workers in our mines and our large industries should never be lost sight of when the House was legislating on a question of such importance. He held that if a workman in a mine willfully broke rules and thereby caused an explosion, which not only injured himself, but probably a large number of his fellow workers, it would be a monstrous thing that the same compensation should be paid him or his family as to those who had nothing whatever to do with the cause of the explosion. To take a simple illustration. Certain rules were laid down for firing shots. The hole had to be made a certain depth, and a certain quantity of coal had to be taken out before the shot was fired in order that the shot might bring down the coal without difficulty. The workman refused to do that, but put in his shot without adopting the precaution of taking out the coal, and instead of the coal being brought down there was what was called a "blown-out" shot, which produced an explosion. Was there a Member of that House who would say it was just and proper that a man who showed such carelessness with such serious results should receive compensation the same as the other workers who were injured by his willful neglect? He could not think there was any justice in that. Apart from justice, the question was one of safety. In his opinion, they ought at all events to throw the balance against the workman in favour of safety rather than in favour of the workman against safety. He felt that the Government, in accepting an Amendment of this sort, would confer the greatest advantage not only on the employers, but on the workmen employed in mines, because it would lead to greater care being taken, and thus tend to a large prevention of accidents. It was quite impossible for any employer to have perfect supervision over every workman. He cared not what the industry was, a great deal must always be left to the care and judgment of the workman himself; and they might depend upon it that an Amendment of this sort would lead the workmen to take greater care than at present, to his own advantage as well as that of his employer. He would not for a moment say that any workman would willfully neglect proper

  1281
  precautions because he was sure of compensation whether he took those precautions or not; but he was sure it would have some weight, and believing that the Amendment would induce greater care, he hoped the Government would accept it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I said last night that the Government were prepared to meet this question with an open mind, arid would be very glad of any guidance the House could give in respect to it. ["Hear, hear !"] There are two questions to be considered—first, as to the principle of this Amendment; second, assuming the principle to be granted, as to the best means of giving effect to it. As regards the principle, I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman opposite and with the hon. Gentleman behind me. ["Hear, hear !"] I do not think it can be toe seriously contended that it is not just or right that a man who deliberately and of gross negligence causes an accident, by which other people, perhaps, as well as himself are injured, should have the same compensation as he would be entitled to if the accident occurred irrespective of his own action. It would seem to be almost monstrous that, when stringent rules are laid down with regard to the firing of mines, and when workmen are required not to descend into mines with matches, or without looked lamps—I say in those cases the orders are distinctly and definitely given within the knowledge of every workman; and, assuming that a workman goes down with matches in his pocket, and, lighting a match in a fiery part of the mine, an accident happens by which three or four persons are injured, including the workman who took down, the matches—I say it is monstrous to assert that the man has any right to compensation under circumstances in which he himself has been the agent in bringing about all the suffering and loss. ["Hear, hear !"] I am bound to say also, having regard to what has been impressed on us again and again, that we should at all events do nothing which would interfere with the prevention of accidents; and it certainly would seem absurd, as it were, to put a premium upon negligence which might cause accidents. We are, therefore, in accord with hon. Gentlemen in the principle they have laid
  1282
  down, and the only difficulty we have is as to whether, by accepting the principle, we might not introduce complications which would cause more injury and trouble than we should save by dealing with what is admitted to be a rather exceptional state of things. The Government have come to the conclusion that we cannot resist that some application of this principle should be accepted. [Cheers.] A great deal will depend upon the terms of the Amendment, for there are certain things which we must carefully avoid. We wish to avoid the bringing in again under another name of the old principle of contributory negligence. ["Hear, hear !"] We think it has been clearly and conclusively proved that the introduction of that principle into employers' liability has been the cause of the greatest hardships and injustice to the working people, and we must not, therefore, bring it in again by a side wind. ["Hear, hear !"] It is also necessary that we should have our words so simple that they are not likely to be the subject of material litigation. ["Hear, hear !"] I think I have gathered from all discussions on this question that employers, quite as much as workpeople, are anxious that litigation should be avoided, and both sides would agree that anything which increased unnecessary litigation would be a great misfortune. I do not think the words we are now considering would be satisfactory, nor yet the words of my hon. Friend behind me. I admit, although the words appear in the Bill in a different relation, that I do not think in this case they would avoid the probability of litigation. Wilful and wrongful default is always a matter of some dispute, and when we are dealing with cases of this kind we ought to try to make the clause a little more technical. I think the best framework for an Amendment is to be found in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street, but even to that as it stands I think there are serious, or, at all events, plausible objections. The hon. Baronet proposes that the employer shall not be liable for compensation in the case of accidents which arise from the non-observance of any lawful orders. That is a very wide statement, and it would admit the possibility of an order being given which was intended to evade liability under this Act

  1283
  —in fact, a sort of impossible order. An order might be given under which the ordinary work of an employer would not be satisfactorily carried on, and which, therefore, must be disobeyed, and which would only be nominally given in order to throw the risk upon the workman when it ought really to rest upon the employer. A sort of case which suggests itself is the case of shunting on railways. It is perfectly easy to make regulations and orders about shunting which would render that operation absolutely safe. But at the same time, if they were observed, shunting, which now occupies a minute, would take an hour, and the work of the railway could not be conducted under such regulations, and it would be understood—and, indeed, it is understood—that a bold and skilful workman does take upon himself a certain amount of risk. In all these cases the Bill intends that if an accident occurs to such a workman he shall be compensated notwithstanding any regulations to the contrary; therefore I say to allow an employer to clear himself from all liability under this Act by giving a lawful order—and, of course, all orders in this respect would be lawful—would, I think, give rise to a great deal of difficulty and would materially detract from the value of the Bill. I should, therefore, suggest that the hon. Baronet should strike out of his Amendment the words "the non-observance of any lawful order." I would suggest that the Amendment should run—
  "which arises from the wilful disregard of any rule or regulation contained in or established under any Act of Parliament which it was the duty of the workman to observe."
  The Committee will see that that involves, first, that the rule shall be one which has already had the sanction of Parliament, and which, therefore, may be considered to be a reasonable and proper rule; and, in the second place, that there should have been wilful disregard. The hon. Baronet then proposes to add these words, "or to any other misconduct of the workman." Those words, again, are a little too wide, and I think we might insert in their place the words, "or to the drunkenness or other gross misconduct of the workman." That would be a modification which, I think, comes entirely within all the cases the hon.
  1284
  Baronet desires to include. I think if he were prepared to accept these modifications the hon. Member proposing the Amendment under discussion might withdraw it, and we might accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, altered in the sense I have suggested, as a new subsection to Clause 1, and which would come in as the second sub-section just before that which deals with wilful and wrongful default. The words would then be to the effect that an employer would not be liable
  "for any accident which arises from the wilful disregard by such workman of any rule or regulation contained in or established under any Act of Parliament which it was the duty of the workman to observe, or to the drunkenness or other gross misconduct of the workman."
  [Cheers.]
  MR. CHARLES FENWICKcould not help expressing his regret that the Government had steadily refused to broaden the Measure in any sense or form, and that the Colonial Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, should have accepted a limitation such as was implied in this Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"] He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the justice of the case, and there was not a single labour representative in the House who would get up and defend a man having compensation for his wilful act on the ground of justice or equity. But he certainly thought that in accepting, even in its limited form, an Amendment such as this, the right hon. Gentleman had opened the door for endless litigation between employers and employed. ["Hear, hear !"] That one defence—for it was practically the only defence—which the Government proposed to set up would, in a large number of cases, if not in every case, be urged by the employers as a reason why compensation ought not to be paid. Assume that an accident had proved fatal and a workman had lost his life. Where were they to find witnesses except the official witnesses? They were the only witnesses that would be called in this instance to prove that the man had wilfully and negligently disobeyed some order and therefore had given rise to the accident. He was bound to say that the Measure became infinitely less valuable to the workmen when a provision

  1285
  such as was now proposed was inserted in the Bill. In the whole of his experience as a working miner, extending over close upon 30 years, he had never known a case where a man wilfully and deliberately injured himself or a colleague for the sake of any compensation that he would be likely to receive. ["Hear, hear !"] He hoped it was not too late to appeal to those in charge of the Bill to withdraw from their position and refuse to accept the Amendment; even in the modified terms suggested. If such a restrictive Amendment were adopted it would materially alter the views as to the advantage of the Measure which were now entertained by workmen in various parts of the country.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid that in reference to the mode proposed by the Bill for dealing with compensation for accidents, he had been an humble follower of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When that right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment to the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) in 1893, he limited it by the proviso that the compensation he proposed should not apply to injuries caused by the workmen's acts or defaults. That limitation was embodied in a Bill which had been introduced in more than one Session for dealing with accidents in that way, and it could not be a matter of surprise to any one that it should not be proposed that employers should be made liable to compensate a workman who had been injured by an accident caused by his own misconduct or by violating rules provided for his own safety. That was the object of this Amendment, and he felt bound to support it.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMexpressed deep regret that the Government, by the acceptance of the Amendment even in a modified form, should have given the case of the miners away. [Ministerial cries of "Oh !"] He reminded the House that only 42½ per cent. of the fatal accidents in coal mines were due to explosives, whilst 57½ per cent. were due to falls of roof and side. In cases of the latter category the employers would be able to plead the "wilful and wrongful act or default" of the workmen and refuse compensation. It was very easy to theorise
  1286
  after the event and for employers of labour to find officials who would blame the dead man. The officials of the colliery would naturally defend the employer and say that it was the fault of the deceased that life was lost. Hitherto he had valued the Bill, but the acceptance of the Amendment would reduce the value of the Bill to the miners of this country 50 per cent. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] He asserted his opinion against every man in the House. ["Hear, hear !"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,), replying to the hon. Member who last spoke, said that, if he thought the acceptance of the Amendment would exclude compensation in anything like the large percentage of cases he had suggested, He would not have been a party to it.
  *MR. J. WILSONalso regretted, in the interests of the miners of this country, that the Government had accepted the Amendment. Never yet did a blown-out shot cause an explosion where the condition of the mine was satisfactory. He denied that miners would receive any encouragement to do wrong. A miner's life and limb was as valuable to him as any hon. Member's. He had never seen the value of the Bill to the miners of the country, and the acceptance of this Amendment would greatly minimise the value of the Bill. All the efforts to extend the provisions of the Bill had been strenuously objected to, but when an attempt was made to restrict the effect of the Bill, the Government accepted it in plausible and illusory terms. From early youth until manhood he worked in the mines, and he had never known an instance of a man wilfully and deliberately injuring himself. The effect of the Amendment would be that, whenever an accident happened, an attempt would be made to fix the blame on the workman. The man would he mulcted in expenses, and the benefit of the Act would be delayed until the time for its usefulness was past. The process of the Bill was that if a Committee was formed in a district the appeal was to that Committee. If there was no Committee then the appeal was to be to an arbitrator or to the County Court Judge. Did the Government believe that the access to these courts would be ready and easy? They would be crowded with cases, and

  1287
  three or four months would elapse before a man would get the benefit of the Act. The time would be gone when the Act would be useful to him. It was no mere fantasy to say that a charge would be brought against a dead man for breach of the rules. He had seen it done. The officials of the employers were not all angels who spoke the truth at all times. Their prejudices were in favour of the employer, and they would not hesitate to make charges against the men of breaches of the special rules. He was sorry to hear gentlemen in the House make charges against workmen, not by implication or by indirect insinuation, but by direct statement. To suggest that for the sake of compensation a man would place his life in jeopardy was abhorrent to human nature, and a direct contradiction of the first law of existence, self-preservation. It was not by carelessness but by boldness that a man placed himself in danger and brought harm upon himself. Would anyone say that a man who did that should be deprived of the benefits of this Measure? ["No, no !"] But the effect of the Amendment would be to deprive him of these benefits. He hoped the Government would recede from the position they had taken up in reference to the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, with a view to putting the matter in order, moved to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens by leaving out all the words after the word "liable" and inserting the following words: —
  "to pay compensation in respect of any injury sustained by any workman which arises from the wilful disregard by such workman of any rule or regulation contained in or established under any Act of Parliament which it is the duty of such workman to observe or from the drunkenness or gross misconduct of such workman."
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEthought they had some ground for complaining of the course the Government had taken with regard to the Amendment. The Colonial Secretary stated on a previous night that the Government in this matter would be guided by the sense of the House, and they met that day imagining that only after very full discussion would the Government make up their minds as to the action they would take. Instead of that, however, only
  1288
  two speeches had been made when the Secretary of State for the Colonies got up and announced the intention of the Government to accept an Amendment which he (Mr. Stanhope) regarded as almost fatal to the Bill. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman a little fact which might convey some information to him. He had himself the honour, as representing probably the largest weaving town in Lancashire, of meeting the representatives of the employers of the Lancashire cotton industry on the previous day, and in discussing the matter with them he took the view that had been taken by the hon. Member for Wansbeck and others in this Debate, and he was glad to say that amongst those gentlemen who represented the Lancashire cotton centres on the Government side of the House, so far as he could judge, there was a majority who did not take the view of the Colonial Secretary, and who did not believe that the Amendment would be a useful one to introduce. The principal merit of the Bill was that so far as was humanly possible it excluded litigation, and gave general compensation for accidents and death. To that extent it was an immense advance upon all its predecessors in connection with employers' liability. It was in fact not a lawyer's Bill, but a statesman's Bill. But when they came to the acceptance of this Amendment he was bound to tell the Government that by that acceptance they were about to destroy the whole value of the Bill. The sole argument adduced in support of the Amendment was that a man who by his wilful neglect or act caused an accident ought not to be allowed to receive compensation. But he would point out that the object of the Bill was not to punish but to make provision in cases of accident or death. He entirely agreed with those who thought that if there was one defect in the Bill it was its too limited scope, and that, it ought to be applied to all trades. Now the Government had opened the floodgates of controversy, and if the Amendment were accepted he believed that means would be discovered of raising legal questions with regard to almost every claim for compensation. As the representative of a cotton industry, he agreed that the acceptance of this Amendment would destroy the whole value of the Bill. [Opposition cheers.]
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOODin supporting the Amendment moved by the Attorney General, said he did not think it would Lead to litigation. In the Bill there was every encouragement to a workman to refer every question to arbitration, and if he did so he had everything to gain and nothing to lose. If the Amendment was introduced the question would go before the arbitrator with this additional consideration:—Was the workman himself guilty of misconduct that he had committed a breach of any of the rules laid down by Parliament? The workman, if he had been guilty in either of these respects, would hesitate to place the matter before the arbitrator, and would be more willing to settle by agreement. Therefore, this restriction, which was just in itself, would have the effect of preventing litigation.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHvery much regretted the attitude of the Government with regard to this Amendment, he admitted that the matter was one of great difficulty, but the introduction of the particular words now proposed would, in his opinion, involve a departure from the fundamental principles of the Bill. [Cheers.] If they opened the door to an inquiry into circumstances and conduct in one case they would have to do so in all. By the adoption of this alteration of the Measure the dangers of litigation would be greatly increased. In the case of coal mines the regulations and the instructions to miners were often of a very minute and complex character. He did not hesitate to say that experience had often shown these rules to be unfitted for special emergencies, such as were likely to happen in mines. Under this Amendment a workman who purposely violated a rule in the interest of the safety of those in the mine, and who himself sustained injury would not be entitled to compensation. Apart from these considerations, who could say what was "gross misconduct?" He defied any lawyer to lay down any standard in the matter. And the special reference to drunkenness
  1290
  he considered unnecessary, and in the highest degree offensive. He hoped the Government would abandon their intention of endeavouring to meet what, after all, would be a trifling number of cases, and that they would decide to deal with the question on broad grounds of general policy. ["Hear, hear !"]
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLdenied that the Amendment was a departure from the principle of the Bill. He believed that it removed an injustice, and that that would be recognised by those who had a knowledge of the facts. [" Hear, hear !"]
  MR. B. PICKARDsaid it was absurd to suppose that workmen would commit an act which would result in injury to themselves in order that they might get compensation. When the Bill was introduced he was so enamoured of its provisions as explained by the Home Secretary, that he advised his people they would make a great mistake if they refused the Measure or did anything to prevent it becoming law. Since then there had been a Second Reading Debate, and there had been attempt after attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to narrow the scope of the Bill. Evidently the Government dare not face the music. If this Amendment were inserted in the Bill the workmen would at once agree that the Measure would be no good to them. He and those he represented believed that the Bill should not be narrowed in its scope. The underground workers felt it would be most unfortunate if the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens were accepted, and they entirely disclaimed any desire for such legislation. If the Bill was to be narrowed down as was now proposed, he advised his hon. Friends around him to wreck the Bill if possible.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)said he was rather surprised at the indignation with which the acceptance of this proposal by the Government had been received by certain Gentlemen opposite. Last night the Government signified that they thought it was reasonable they should consider with an open mind whether a workman who had been guilty of wilful and gross negligence should be entitled to compensation. He

  1291
  believed he was correct in stating, notwithstanding what was said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that under the German law a workman who had been guilty of negligence could not claim compensation. The Government were determined to make it perfectly clear that if a workman was guilty of gross neglect of rules which he quite understood, or guilty of gross misconduct—they would not now bind themselves to the exact form of words—he should not, be entitled to compensation. If a Bill of this kind was to be a fair and just settlement of a vexed question, it must be fair and just not only to the workman but also to the employer— ["hear, hear !"]—and he did not believe it was the expectation of any workman that he should receive compensation for any injuries which were directly the result of his own act. He admitted it had been claimed as one of the great merits of the Bill that it would reduce the amount of litigation, and he was not prepared altogether to agree with those hon. Gentlemen who asserted that the acceptance of this Amendment would lead to an increase of the amount of litigation. Was anybody prepared to say that the payment of compensation in respect of a gross breach of well-understood rules ought to be on the same scale as that in respect of an accident where there had been no breach of rules? His right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary had said that the acceptance of this Amendment amounted to a departure from the principle of the Bill. As a matter of fact, they provided in a subsequent clause that if the employer was guilty of special personal negligence, or of gross personal negligence, or of culpable negligence— he did not know what form the words would ultimately take—the man injured should be entitled to special remedy against the employer if he chose to seek it outside the Bill. Why should they not provide that if a workman, well knowing what he had to do, caused through negligence a great accident resulting in loss of life and personal injury, he also should come under some special exemption from the ordinary provisions of this Bill? It seemed to him that what was fair for one party was fair for the other. He failed to see why those hon. Gentlemen representing labour in that House who had spoken on this subject should have
  1292
  charged the Government, by having accepted such a reasonable proposal as this appeared to him to be, with greatly departing from the principle which underlay the Bill. It might be that there were an insignificant number of cases which would come within the scope of this Amendment. He was not for one moment going to say that there were a great number of such cases; but, however that might be, surely, when they were introducing a Bill which cast upon employers a large and heavy burden, in the interests of the community they ought to take care that it did not carry with it the feeling that it was unjust. Could it be held to be just if they did not provide that a workman who was guilty of deliberate neglect of the rules under which he was working was not to be entitled to the same privileges as the man who did his best to conduct himself in obedience to those rules? That was a proposition which ought not, in his opinion, to endanger the success or the popularity of this Bill. He thought it was possible, by words which could be drawn up, to prevent the possibility of introducing the question of contributory negligence and to provide, on the part alike of employer and employed, that they should be outside the provisions of the Bill for all purposes so long as they were guilty of gross, culpable negligence. He understood that that was all that was done in accepting the principle of this Amendment, and he believed it ought to commend itself to the sense of justice both of the Committee and of the country.
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODventured to think that the hard cases to which reference had been made were cases which the Government ought to have taken into their consideration before they pledged themselves to the principle of this Bill. [Cheers.] But when the Government found themselves brought face to face with the logical consequences of that principle, of which he, for one, most firmly and heartily approved, they somewhat ran away from the Bill—[Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter]—and were willing to water down that great principle for which they no doubt rightly claimed so much. No doubt this Bill was an innovation, but it would not be an innovation long if they were going to accept

  1293
  Amendments like this. [Cheers.] What was the good of the Home Secretary's telling them that, though they accepted this Amendment, they would have nothing to do with contributory negligence? It was merely idle talk. [Cheers.] The question of contributory negligence would arise over and over again under the terms of this Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"] It was involved in the Amendment. The Home Secretary had told them that they held the employer responsible for his wrongful and wilful act, and that therefore it was only equitable that they should hold the workman responsible for his wrongful and wilful act. But the Government were doing nothing of the kind. The employer was liable under the law now for his wrongful and wilful act. It was not the Bill of the Government that made him responsible. The Government had said, "Taking the law as we find it, we are going to make this great and generous concession, and we are going to introduce this principle new to our law," and the first thing they did was to begin to whittle it away by the acceptance of an Amendment which made the Bill, to his mind, a nullity and a sham. [Cheers.]
  MR, J. M. MACLEANsaid it was a pity this matter had degenerated into a fight between the two sides of the Committee. This Bill had not been introduced for the benefit of the employers. It had been introduced to satisfy the demands of the working classes, which had been recognised over and over again as just by both political parties. If this Bill failed to satisfy the working classes what was the good of having introduced it. He thought there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment. It appealed to one's natural sense of justice. It must seem to every man in that House a most unfair thing that an employer should be forced to pay compensation to any workman who, by gross or deliberate negligence, had wrecked that employer's property and caused the loss of the lives of many of his fellow-workmen. Still, on the other hand, they were confronted with practical difficulties which were expounded by the Colonial Secretary and insisted upon by other hon. Gentlemen, and he confessed that, although his strong feeling at
  1294
  first was in favour of the Amendment, he had been very much impressed with the speeches of the labour Members on the opposite side as to what would be the inevitable effect of introducing an Amendment of that kind, he thought it was perfectly evident that the effect would be to open the door to a considerable evasion of this law, and to minimise to a large extent the beneficial results which would accrue to the working classes. Was it not desirable that the Government should take time to consider this matter? [Cheers.] It would really be a great misfortune for the Government, for the House, and for the country if this Bill were deprived of some of its most beneficial features in its progress through Committee, he thought the discussion illustrated the importance of the Debate that took place last night when they urged that the principle of putting the burden on the individual employer alone was a mistaken principle, and that they should lay the whole burden on the community at large. Was it not most unjust that compensation for injuries done in this way should be placed on the individual employer? It forced them to the conclusion that the ultimate result of legislation of this kind must be to place the burden upon the community at large, and make it necessary that all accidents should be compensated in that way by a system of State insurance.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNAsaid the evil of this Amendment, if it were embodied in the Bill, was that it would open three new defences to an employer in the case of every accident. It was admitted on both sides that the number of accidents which the workman would have contributed to, or would have caused, by his own misconduct, would be very small, but the number of accidents in which one of these three defences would be raised would be enormous. [" Hear, hear !"] Consequently they would have all the evils of litigation imposed, certainly in mining, in upwards of 50 per cent. of the accidents.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It could not possibly be raised in one-half, or anything like one-half of the cases.
  MR. MCKENNAsaw no reason why it could not be raised in every case. If the defence, or any one of the three defences, could be raised in the first instance

  1295
  it would be raised. The Bill was introduced mainly to avoid litigation. It had only been in Committee two days, and the workman already had to run the gauntlet of five defences which might be set up to his claim. He, therefore, appealed to the Government not to accept an Amendment which would add enormously to the difficulties of the workman.
  *MR. ALFRED HOPKINSONthought there had been a tendency on the other side of the House very much to exaggerate the effect of the Amendment, and to minimise what the Bill would be without the Amendment. Under the present law the workman had to prove negligence on the part of the employer or his manager, and the result was that only a small sum had found its way into the workman's pocket. By the Amendment they would bring within the scope of compensation an enormous number of cases in which injury was caused by inevitable accident or the act of another workman. The doctrine of common employment would be entirely abolished as regards employments to which the Act applied. The burden of proof would be cast on the employer, and unless he had a good defence he would not set it up. Many defences could under any Bill be set up. But the employers did not desire to litigate. He believed both sides of the House desired to stop litigation. Under the existing law litigation was necessary, as the employer would not admit negligence, but under this Bill he believed it would be rare. It would shock their sense of natural justice that a man who might have caused the death of a number of fellow workmen should receive compensation because he had met with some slight injury himself. Unless the Amendment was adopted such a man might be properly convicted of manslaughter one day, yet be awarded compensation on the next at the expense of the person whose property he had wilfully injured. Such a position had not been adopted in the German law, and in the draft Bill before the French Chamber the principle of the Amendment was proposed to be adopted too. He did not believe a man would deliberately injure himself, but if a man knew that he would not receive compensation he would be more particular than if he thought he would receive compensation whatever his own act might be. Much was to be said
  1296
  for extending the Act to other trades and employments, but it would be more difficult to extend it without some Amendment of the kind before the Committee.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that under the German law nothing but acts of virtual suicide excluded a workman's family from compensation. As to the practical point before the Committee he moved to amend the proposal by leaving out the words
  "wilful disregard by such workman of any rule or regulation contained in or established under any Act of Parliament which it was the duty of such workman to observe."
  This would leave for further discussion drunkenness and gross misconduct. These were different questions from those of mining law involved in the earlier part of the Amendment. Those who were not personally acquainted with mines hardly realised the extraordinary network of legislation to which the men would be made amenable if the words were passed in the Government proposal. It was notorious that breaches of the Mines Regulations Acts occurred every day. It was laid down in the general rules— which were equivalent to an Act of Parliament—that a
  "competent person or competent persons appointed by the owner, agent, or manager, for the purpose … shall, immediately before the commencement of each shift, inspect every part of the mine situate beyond certain stations."
  Then followed a rule by which no workman should pass beyond any such station until the part of the mine beyond that station had been so examined and stated by such competent person to be safe. Every person who passed beyond such station before that inspection had been made would be guilty of an offence under the special rules, and, therefore, in every case where an accident occurred to such workman it would at once be said that he was violating the rules laid down in a portion of the Act of Parliament itself. That would be a matter of daily occurrence. There was a boy killed the other day in his constituency while in charge of a horse drawing tubs. In the course of the inquest it came out that he was being employed in violation of the provision that a person in charge of machinery (tubs drawn by horses coming under this definition) must be a competent male person not less than 18 years

  1297
  of age. In that case, not only would this be a bar to compensation, but even if an accident occurred to a boy over 18, the fact of the accident would be alleged as a reason for believing he was not a competent person, that, therefore, the Act was violated and he could not obtain compensation under the provisions of this Measure. Again one of the rules provided that—
  "Every person shall observe such directions with respect to working as may be given to him."
  Any violation of that general rule would be a breach of this Act of Parliament, and every such breach would disqualify for compensation under it in case of an accident. Offences of this general kind would be pleaded in every instance that might arise. There was a case in which a manager gave directions to his engine-man, and yet that man was ousted from his compensation, under the present law, because it was held he ought to have disobeyed the mines manager and acted in accordance with the Act of Parliament. He thought the object of the Bill was to get rid of such monstrous decisions as the decision in the case of Heywood v. Baker in 1886; but instead of doing so it would continue the injustice unless some Amendments were accepted in the direction he had suggested. He begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINobserved that the point of view of the Government was that the change they suggested was a minor one which would not be attended with a fraction of the consequences which had been alleged by hon. Members, and especially by some representatives of the mining interests. He rose for the purpose of appealing to hon. Gentlemen opposite who took this view to help the Government by suggesting a form of words which, while saving this feeling of natural justice, which the Government desired to save, would prevent the consequences which they feared. There seemed to be no difference as to the principle upon the two sides of the House. No single Member had got up to deny that the case which had been put, of a man who had brought about an accident, by his own deliberate misconduct, to himself and fellows, was not a case for compensation. Everybody had admitted that
  1298
  as a matter of justice. ["Hear, hear !"] It would be a defect in the Bill if that case, however exceptional it might be, were not met. Some hon. Members said that the words in which the Government proposed to meet it were much too wide. If hon. Members on the other side would suggest a practical Amendment to cover the case, and which would exclude the cases it was not desired to include, the Government would give it their favourable consideration. ["Hear, hear !"] He did not think that object was secured by such an Amendment as that which had been proposed by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean.
  SIR ROBERT REIDdesired to call attention to the position the Committee were in. An Amendment had been proposed by the hon. Member for St. Helens, to which an Amendment had been proposed by the Government, while a further Amendment had been proposed by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean to that of the Government. The Government Amendment was not on the Paper; hon. Members had not had an opportunity of studying it or considering whether its language was appropriate for dealing with such a difficult and delicate question. The hon. Member for Cardiff had made the practical suggestion that this matter might be withdrawn for the present. In his opinion it would come more appropriately in the form of a new clause. It was not at all necessary it should come in this part of the Bill, and if the matter was postponed there would be time for conference between Members and for considering what was the most appropriate language to employ. ["Hear, hear !"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought that this was the appropriate place for inserting the Amendment, and that its insertion would not preclude any further suggestion. It was not the intention of the Government by their Amendment to cover mere technical breaches of regulations, nor did he think for one moment it would have the effect of setting up again the principle of contributory negligence. He promised between this and subsequent stages of the Bill to consider whether any guarded words were necessary to prevent, contributory negligence from being set up. What the Government desired was to exclude from compensation the workman who had caused

  1299
  the accident by his wrongful act alone. If the suggestion was acceded to that the question should be postponed, he hoped they should not have the whole matter debated again. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHjoined in the appeal that the Amendment on this particular head should be postponed. The matter was one which required most careful consideration, and the Government would be well advised, in the interests of time and the progress of the Bill, to consent to the postponement.
  MR. ROBERT ASCROFTsaid that employers often stood by and allowed men to break rules, but if an accident resulted from such a breach of rule with the employer's connivance, the man would have no compensation if this Amendment were carried. They ought to try to get some protection for the workers as well as some compensation, and if the Government would adjourn this question he would suggest an addition to the section—
  "That no employer shall be entitled to the benefit of this section if it can he proved that the accident has arisen from the breach of a rule which had been allowed by such employer to be systematically disobeyed."
  [Laughter.] He did not know why hon. Members were so greatly amused. Surely it was a most objectionable thing that an employer should be allowed to stand by and see workmen break a rule day after day, and then, when the workman was injured in consequence, he should be able to plead the breach of rule as a bar against compensation. He would deprive the employer of the right to plead such a defence, and was certain that it would tend to prevent many accidents.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the discussion had opened up a very wide field, and it had not convinced the Government that they were wrong in accepting the principle of the Amendment suggested. At the same time, they felt there were considerable difficulties in fixing the particular form of it. They were perfectly willing that the Amendment should be withdrawn on the understanding that he would consider how to give effect to it at a later stage of the Bill. He hoped his hon. Friend would be inclined to accept that assurance, and withdraw. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid the Amendment before the Committee at that moment was his own, and he had great pleasure in acceding to the suggestion of the Home Secretary.
  Question proposed, "That the words down to 'observe,' inclusive, stand part of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended."
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. WILSONrose to move, in Sub-section (2), after the words "Provided that," to insert the words: —
  "A claim is lodged with the employer or his representative within three months after the accident causing the injury."
  In moving this Amendment, he disclaimed any hostility to the Bill. On the Second Reading he expressed his approval of its general principle, but he had also said that this was a Bill which, required very careful consideration, and that the Government would do well to take the advice of practical men. His Amendment was not intended to attack the principle of the Bill, but to make it a practical working Bill. He had had a great deal of experience, having sat in judgment on quite one-half of the whole of the cases of claims against employers in Scotland, and that experience led him to tell the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that he would do well to consider carefully the importance of the point involved in his Amendment. There was no limit in the Bill to the time during which an injured person might bring a claim for compensation. This was a most important omission. He had named three months, because the right hon. Member for East Fife adopted that as the proper time for lodging claims in

  1301
  his Employers' Liability Bill, but he should be satisfied with anything reasonable. It was no mere fancy on his part when he said that unless a limit was stated, claims might be brought five, ten, or even twenty years after an accident. He had in his hand details of a case in which a lad in the employ of a coal company was injured, and after having been kept in easy employment for seven years, he was advised to bring an action for £500. The coal company won the action in two Courts, but it cost them £300, so that victory was almost as bad as defeat. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would give his suggestion careful consideration.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLIThoped the Government had advisedly made a distinction between their Bill and the Act of 1880, and that the provision as to notice would not be inserted; for he was quite sure that it had caused an immense amount of injustice, and had given rise to the strongest feeling on both sides in reference to the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. No doubt notice of injury or of action was a convenience in itself, and it carried some advantages with it—such as identification and the possibility of arrangement with the individual making the claim. But what he had to ask was, why should the case of the workman be made a distinction from almost all other cases arising under the law? Take the case of a collision in the street, giving rise to an action for negligence. It would be obviously desirable that immediate notice should be given, but there was no such obligation here. He would point out that in such a case, the occurrence being transitory, immediate notice was much, more necessary than in the case of a workman who was more or less well-known to his employer, or his manager, and yet the Act of 1880 imposed the liability to notice on the workman, while the general law imposed nothing of the sort. He was not going to impeach employers generally, far from it, but there were exceptions, and anyone who was familiar with the cases knew that very often the employer showed great consideration and benevolence during the statutory period, but immediately that term had expired, the injured workman was put at arm's length, and the benevolence ceased. The effect of this provision, therefore, as in the Act of 1880,
  1302
  would be to deprive the workman of compensation simply because notice had not been given, and to place him in an invidious and unjust position. A strong argument had been based on the desire to prevent litigation. But the great defect of the Act of 1880 was that a large proportion of the litigation under it had arisen in connection with the failure to give notices. It was singular, by the way, that in that Act, in the most important of all cases, viz., that of death, there was an express proviso that notice need not be given. He strongly urged the desirability of leaving all these cases on the footing of the general law. Employers might well, as a matter of economy, make even great sacrifices for the sake of establishing and preserving good relations with their workmen. But if, on the one hand, they apparently made sacrifices, and then defeated the just expectations of the men by a technical and an artificial rule as to notice, that would give rise to the same feeling that followed on the Act of 1880 and defeat the object of the Bill.
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONhoped the Government would not adopt the proposal to require notice. They all knew that there was a regular system carried on under the existing Employers' Liability Act, which required notice of claim to be given. There were persons who made it their business to watch for accidents, and then to run off after the workman or other persons suffering, and inform them that they could not bring their claim without legal advice. The sure and certain result of the statutory requirement of notice of claim was to bring about litigation, with its attendant expense. Speaking from considerable experience as one connected with a very large accident insurance office, he knew that nothing gave rise to more litigation than the imposition by the Act of the necessity of giving notice of claim to the office or to the employer. In addition to that, there had been numerous instances in which notice had been given, and the Courts had been asked over and over again to construe whether the notice had been sufficient within the meaning of the Act. They had had cases in which letters had been written by professional men on the part

  1303
  of injured workmen, claiming compensation, and referring to reports on the accidents made by the Government Inspector, and it had been held by the Courts that the notice had not been sufficient because the report referred to had not been incorporated in the actual notice of claim. The provision requiring notice of claim gave rise to all sorts of technicalities, and encouraged litigation, and he hoped the Government would not adopt it. ["Hear, hear !"]
  COLONEL DENNYsaid he had been connected with an accident fund for fifteen or twenty years. One of the rules was that notification should be given within a certain period, and that had never been found to work hardly, he thought in all the friendly societies notice was required, and he did not think it could be any hardship. Both the last speakers had referred to hardship under an Act that was now practically done away with. Under that Act the whole onus of proof lay upon the man, but in this ease the whole onus lay upon the master.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEthought if the Government intended to accept any such Amendment, it was desirable that the claim should be made in writing. With regard to the period of notice of the accident it seemed to him that three months was too long. It would be easy for a workman to advise his employer of an accident within a comparatively few hours of the occurrence, and he thought three days' notice would be better than three months. There were however, accidents, such as those to the spine and the brain, which took days and even weeks to develop, and he would add words to the Amendment to meet such cases. The Amendment, in his view, should read
  "A claim in writing is lodged with the employer or his representative if a notice of the accident has been previously given within three days of the accident or of the development of the injury."
  SIR J. JOICEYhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. All that was really required was that a notification of the accident should be given within at least, three days. Every colliery owner was bound to give notice to the mining inspector within 24 hours of any accident that occurred. In his opinion it
  1304
  would be unreasonable and unjust to deprive a workman of his advantages under the common law, and he thought if notice of the accident was given it would be sufficient to meet the necessities of the case.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid it might be difficult in the case of a serious accident to formulate a claim within a limited period. What was wanted for the practical working of the Measure was an almost immediate notification of the injury. He spoke from some practical experience of the working of one of these schemes, and the difficulty was in many cases to decide whether a man really got the injury at his work or at another time and in another occupation. He did not think it would be any hardship to require prompt notification of an accident.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The question of notice of claim was rather a difficult one, and he thought the matter should be left to the operation of the ordinary law.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid he had never been able to see why under the present Employers' Liability Bill notice of claim should be given within a certain period, as the employer would have ample protection if notice of the accident was given as soon as possible. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street had already pointed out that under the Mines Regulation Act notice of an accident must be given within 24 hours to the Home Office, and with regard to the Miners' Provident Society it was provided that in order that the doctor might attend at once, and that the injured man might be well cared for, notice should be given within three days, and he could not obtain, money from the funds if it was not given within 35 days.
  MR. J. L. WALTONthought the Amendment represented a legitimate effort to introduce a period of limitation into the Bill. It was an extraordinary feature of this legislation that these claims might be brought at any period during the lives of any number of generations of human beings who might as dependants be entitled to claim compensation under the Bill. The Home Secretary seemed to be under some misconception as to the operation of the ordinary law.

  1305
  He knew of no statute which would introduce a period of limitation into the operation of this Bill. He thought some principle of limitation should be introduced. He could not conceive a case of greater hardship than a claim being brought years after an accident, when all the evidence necessary for its investigation had been destroyed, leaving the employer entirely at the mercy of some unscrupulous person who might promote claims of that kind.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid there was a distinction between notice of claim and notice of accident. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, to which the Government could not assent, in order that they might discuss the question of notice of accident.
  MR. ASQUITHasked, in view of the very pertinent observations of the hon. Member for Leeds, whether the Government intended to introduce any period of limitation? As the Bill stood, there was no period of limitation, and the Statute of Limitations would not apply. He was not in favour of such a limitation as that suggested in the Amendment, which was almost grotesque in its brevity, but, sooner or later, the Government would have to provide some limit of time, and he hoped they would follow the analogy existing in regard to common law actions.
  MR. J. WILSONdesired to point out that within a period of three months the whole of the evidence of an accident might be entirely destroyed.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYhoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment. He was quite willing to say that the Government would consider the question as to how far the common law limitation would apply.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. HARRISONmoved to insert the following words: —
  "Notice of any accident to a workman shall be given by or on behalf of the workman to the employer or his agent as soon as possible, and in no case later than three months after the happening thereof."
  The hon. Member pointed out that whilst he had objected to the proposal
  1306
  for giving notice of claim, this Amendment related only to the notice of the accident; and it was essential, in order to afford the employer the opportunity of inquiry, that notice of an accident should be given as soon as practicable. Since the Act of 1880 there had grown up a vast field of insurance on policies between workmen direct and insurance offices and provident funds, and in all those cases there was not a single policy which did not contain a provision that the accident was to be generally specified within three or four days of the cause of accident. That was too short a time for a statute which might deprive the workman of his compensation, and, therefore, this notice had studiously enlarged the time to a period of three months, which would cover all reasonable time, and three months had been fixed upon with reference to giving certain elasticity, and prevent anything like forfeiture of the right to compensation owing to the notice not having been given. Further, the Amendment was so worded as to allow a notice, whether verbal or in writing, to be given by or on behalf of the workman, and its object was to avoid imposing on the workman as a condition precedent to his right to compensation any formalities which would involve either the calling in of professional persons to formulate the notice, or to require that the notice should be given by the workman personally, instead of by some mate or friend or member of his family—a provision which might be very necessary in case of serious accident incapacitating the workman from himself giving notice.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsympathised with the object of his hon. Friend, but believed that the Amendment would do more mischief than good. Why should a workman be placed in a worse position than any one else? If they adopted this Amendment they would place him in a worse position than any other member of the community.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid if an accident occurred in a factory the employer had to give notice of it within 24 hours, and he saw no reason, why an employer should not receive notice of an accident within a reasonable time. He moved to amend the Amendment by substituting 24 hours for three months.
  SIR ROBERT REIDdid not see why they should be hampered by these restrictions, which were unknown to the ordinary law. At present an employer was liable to have an action brought against him, and he hoped the Government on this matter would follow the ordinary course of practice. The hon. Member suggested 24 hours notice. Why, a man might be insensible for 24 hours after the accident.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWthought that the employers of labour were entitled to some protection under the Bill. There ought to be some limit for these claims. ["Hear, hear !"] There ought certainly to be some limit as to the time when the claim should be made.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid it would be an unfortunate thing for the Bill if it made it a condition precedent to obtaining compensation that such notification of accident should be given. He was of opinion that it was one of the subjects which should be considered by the arbitrator.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid He was rather surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. They were not asking anything unreasonable in asking that within a reasonable time notice of an accident should be given. The workmen's own relief societies required that notification of accidents should be made within three days. It had been suggested that employers should insure against the risks under the Bill. He was certain that unless there was notification of accidents, say in two or three days, they would not get any insurance company to take the risks.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScould quite understand attorneys and learned counsel objecting to any notice being given, because the direct result of no notice being required would be to leave employers for ever open to litigation. Twenty-four hours' notice was too short, but a fair notice should be given, otherwise not only would the employer be liable for ever, but his descendants, his executors, administrators, and assigns. [Laughter.] Again, the Act could only be made workable by its giving rise to a system of insurance; and there must be a definiteness about the object of insurance; and there must be large areas or
  1308
  the averages would not work. He suggested that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment if the Home Secretary would undertake to insert words which would provide that one of the matters to be considered by the arbitrator should be whether due notice of the accident had been given.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITcontended that the presence or absence of notice of an accident within a reasonable time of the occurrence would be taken into consideration by any Court, tribunal, or arbitrator. The absence of notice for a year, for instance, would very probably lead an arbitrator to say that the employer was not liable at all. On the other hand, solicitors knew very well how a statutory term for notice was sometimes worked at present to the prejudice of the employé. The negotiations proceeded for a time, the statutory term ended, the charitable feeling ceased to prevail, the matter went into the hands of solicitors, the company or employer took up a legal position, and very often the employé got nothing at all.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid that they were now adopting legislation which would place upon employers a responsibility which they had never yet had, and a very grave responsibility it would be to some of them. They were accepting it as cheerfully as they could. They wished to make the best of it. But surely the Committee would provide that employers should receive reasonable notice of accidents for one reason, if for no other, namely, that the employer might see that the injured received medical care after he had obtained what was called first aid from his comrades, who almost all belonged to the ambulance corps. He could not believe that the Committee would place an employer in a worse position than men had placed themselves in with regard to provident societies. There were 122,000 men in the Northumberland and Durham Miners' Provident Society, and it was a condition precedent to a penny being paid in case of injury that notice of the accident should be given within three days.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he would like to ask hon. Members a question respecting the mutual provident funds which were so largely contributed to in the North. The hon. Baronet had said that three days' notice was required. If

  1309
  from some cause, which did not involve any fault on the part of the workman, the workman failed to give three days' notice, did that, as by a law of the Medes and Persians, exclude him from all compensation?
  *MR. J. WILSONremarked that, as he had been a member of the committee of the Northumberland and Durham Miners Permanent Relief Fund, he was able to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. If a man did not give notice in time he was only paid from the time he gave notice. But a man was allowed to work 35 days after an accident, and if injury developed itself in that time he would not be debarred from benefit.
  MR. S. WOODSstated that the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Society had a rule under which a man did not receive benefit unless he gave notice within three days. He knew of a case where a man was permanently prohibited from getting compensation because he did not give notice within the required time.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid it was, therefore, perfectly evident that the Northumberland and Durham Society was much more generous, and, he thought, much, more just than that to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow belonged. Confining himself to the Northern society, let him say that the case of that society and its members was very different to that of employer and workman. A mutual society was able by means of the discretion of the Committee to take into account any failing on the part of the workman to give notice, and if the Committee was persuaded that that failure did not constitute an attempt to impose on the society, it was evident the workman would not suffer. If, however, they were to put into the Bill a definite provision that failure to give notice should in all cases exclude the workman from all compensation, he was certain they would do injustice in a vast number of cases unless the employer in all cases proved as liberal as a mutual society. He thought they might very safely leave it to the discretion of the arbitrator to decide whether or not the failure of notice might be cited as part of the evidence against the claim. [Cheers.]
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he entirely agreed with everything that had fallen from his
  1310
  right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on this subject, and he hoped the Government would adhere to the position they had taken up in regard to it. He was certain that the Amendment, if carried, would be productive of an enormous amount of injustice, and injustice to the man in many cases where it was not in the least degree needed for the protection of the employer. The Amendment did not even except the cases whore an employer had knowledge independent of any notice. In almost every well-regulated undertaking in this country the employer knew perfectly well of these accidents, without receiving notice from the men, and under the Coal Mines Act and the Factory Act, it was his duty, within a, prescribed period, and subject to a penalty, to give notice to the Government inspector that an accident had occurred. On the other hand, while this was not needed as a protection for the employer, if it was made a condition precedent to a man's right to recover, an informality in the notice might be sufficient to altogether disendow him of compensation.
  MR. CHARLES SEELYwould like to press the consideration of this question upon the Government. The hon. Members who had spoken against it had regarded it principally from the point of view of serious accidents. As a matter of fact it was not the serious accidents in which this question would arise. It was in the case of slight accidents that it would arise, and he wondered whether the Government would consider the question of inserting some such words as,—
  "That, in all cases where notice is not to be given by the employer to the factory or mine inspector, it shall be a condition that the workman should give notice to the employer of an accident having happened."
  In all serious cases the employer must naturally be aware of what happened, but there was undoubtedly the risk that in slight cases claims might be made on an employer, which were not in themselves reasonable for accidents which had happened. It was now the universal custom in all friendly and miners' accident societies that notice should be given of an accident, and it was necessary for the protection of the employer and of the workmen themselves that an arrangement

  1311
  of this kind should be provided. It was admitted that some portion of this burden would have to be borne by the workmen out of their wages, and it was, therefore, only right and reasonable to the workmen that they should put in provisions which would avoid risk of the honest, respectable, and hard-working man having to pay his share of an unreasonable and improper claim.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIEhoped the Government would stick to the very sensible position they had taken up. Speaking as an employer of labour, he thought a great deal too much stress had been put on this giving of notice of an accident. He thoroughly appreciated the necessity of giving notice of a claim for compensation, but that had already been dealt with. Something had been said of the analogy of a friendly society, but it must be remembered that it was absolutely necessary to give notice to a friendly society, because they had no other means of knowing that an accident had occurred. As to the case of slight accidents, all he could say was that if an accident was so slight that an employer, taking the precautions for getting notice that he ought to do, did not know of it, then he thought the arbitrator would consider it was a case for very slight compensation, or for no compensation at all.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAYhoped the Government would reconsider the position they had taken up in this matter. He would give a case which had come under his notice only that morning. A workman employed on a rivet machine injured his wrist. He worked two days after the injury and then went away and had been off work five weeks. How could an employer possibly know that man was injured unless he had notice given to him. He would like to know whether practically the same provision which was in the present Act could not be put into this Bill. He quite agreed that 24 hours, or even three days, was short notice, but he thought that six weeks or some such period as that was reasonable, and that, at all events, an employer should not be liable for ever for an accident of which he had no notice and of which, when he came to defend it, he might have no means of knowing whether it did or did not take place.
  MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGEmade a further appeal to the Government on this question. This was a Bill under which very big claims would be made, and he was sure the House would think it was only fair and just that there should be some kind of notice given with regard to accidents. He could see no injustice whatever to the workmen in this. He would suggest either three or six days, but, whatever period was thought best, it was, in his opinion, only common justice that those who might have to pay large claims should have some just and reasonable notice.
  MR. PARKER SMITHhoped the Government would be able to meet, in some way, the views of those who felt very strongly that some form of notice was necessary as a protection against bogus claims and litigation. He should like to know whether the Government could not provide that the man should have power to show, before the arbitrator, that there was some special reason why he had not given notice within the time appointed, and that in those cases want of notice should not be held to deprive him of his claim against the employer. They were giving him, under this Bill, far better terms than any person who came under the common law, and it became a matter of special urgency to the employer that he should have the opportunity of collecting evidence at an early date before it had got scattered. There was also the proposal mentioned by the hon. Member for Durham, in response to the question of the Colonial Secretary, which the Government might see their way clear to accept. Would it not be a fair solution to say that the claim should be made as soon as possible, and that the workman should not be entitled to any allowance for the period before the claim was made? Surely that would not be more than a fair penalty for his laxity. That would be, as it seemed to him, sufficiently strong pressure on the workman to make him make his claim, without being open to the objection that could be rightly taken against any arbitrary limit.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to imagine that workmen were millionaires. It was very evident that unless a workman had a

  1313
  large sum in the Savings Bank, he would have to go somewhere for relief. His wife would soon discover his position under the Act—[laughter]—and would apply to the employers without delay.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he had a clause of which he would be glad to make a present to the Government. It was to the effect that proceedings for recovery under the Act should not be maintained unless notice had been given within six weeks, and an arbitration commenced within six months from the time of the accident; or in case of death within 12 months of the time of the death; provided that in case of death want of notice should be no bar to proceedings. He thought that would meet the arguments on both sides.
  MR. T. R. LEUTYappealed to the Government not to make any concession whatever. The argument as to friendly societies was quite beside the mark. In their case notification was necessary because their members were scattered over a large area. Now the employer was to be the means of providing the workman with insurance. He hoped that the Government would make no extension except to provide against bogus claims by men for accidents met with when not at work. If the Government made some form of notification necessary they would be putting an absolutely unnecessary barrier between the workman and his compensation. All the arguments based on the necessity for prompt notification in the past were worthless. In the past a claim could only be made if the employer was in fault, but employers would now have to assume that if an accident happened and the man injured was absent from his work for two weeks, they would have to pay. In view of that knowledge on the part of the employer he did hope that for the sake of possibly eliminating one case of fraud, the Government would not endanger the men's compensation in the other 99 cases.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite might rest assured that the Government would not make any concession that would detract from the value of the Bill. His right hon. Friend had promised on behalf of the Government to consider whether any notification of a claim should be made, and undoubtedly in connection with that, the Government would have to see whether
  1314
  it could not be provided that, in the event of notice not having been given, the claim for compensation should not be commenced until the notice had been given. Those were points which the Government were pledged to consider. Beyond that he did not go; but he would ask whether the friends of the Bill would assist the Government to make a little more rapid progress. ["Hear, hear !"] This was only one of some hundreds of questions of more or less importance which could be raised as possible additions to the Bill; and if they were to spend so much time on each, they would never make satisfactory progress. ["Hear, hear !"] He would suggest that now either his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment or, if he could not agree to that, they might take a division.
  COLONEL DENNYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, remarking that he had already risen three or four times for the purpose.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. J. WILSONmoved to leave out paragraph (a) Sub-section (2). He suggested the omission of the paragraph because he thought it would very largely destroy the effect of the Bill, so far as the workmen were concerned. The Bill set forth that compensation was to be provided for all accidents, but if this paragraph were maintained some accidents would be omitted from the scope of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had said that the Government were dealing in the Bill with the whole of the accidents occurring in the included trades, but those were excepted which only disabled a man for two weeks or less. Bearing on that, he wished to give a few figures relating to the Miners' Relief Fund in the north of England, which supplied expressive data. He had in his hands the balance sheet of that society, which covered Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, and the ironstone mines of Cleveland, and included in its membership the whole of the men at work down the mines and a very large number of those working at bank, the total number of members being nearly 123,000. During the year 1896–97 there were 19,200 cases of minor accidents— namely, those cases that did not last longer than six months. He might say

  1315
  that the relief paid in minor accidents was 5s. a week. If the cases lasted over six months, they were classified as permanent, and the disabled men then got 8s. a week. Out of the 19,200 minor accidents, no less than 5,000 lasted less than two weeks. So that by the operation of this Bill one-fourth of the minor accidents in the north of England would be excluded and would receive no benefit whatever. He wanted the Secretary for the Colonies or the Home Secretary to tell them their reasons for excluding the workman from benefit for the first week if he was to be entitled to it in the third? Of course, the Colonial Secretary had told them that logic had no place whatever in the Bill. Still, they were compelled to ask the why and wherefore, and unless some solid reason was given why the workman should not have relief the first week if he was to have it the third and fourth, he was right in his demand that the sub-section should be excluded altogether. Friendly societies, he might remind them, gave their benefits the first week a man was off. He had listened very closely to the arguments of the promoters of the Bill in order to gather one or two reasons why this exclusion should take place, but he had failed to find one. He had not been enamoured of the Bill, because he had seen in it what he thought would be evils so far as the workmen were concerned. He would not go into them now, but this was one of them. One of the imaginary reasons for the sub-section was that there must be time for the effects of an accident to develop. But if a man was off work the second day, surely the effects had developed enough to entitle him to some benefit. Employers of labour in that House, of all classes of politics, had heartily welcomed the Bill and readily admitted the workman's right to compensation. He assumed that every hon. Member who supported the Bill was genuine in his wish to carry that out to its ultimate result. Then why were they to debar a workman from compensation during the first week of his accident? Was it suggested that he had some resources of his own, that he had money in the savings bank sufficient to carry him over the first two or three weeks? The wages-list of this country was a denial of the possibility of every man making any such provisions. In the large
  1316
  majority of cases wages were so low, that from the first day a man was injured he was within touch of poverty. No doubt there were some workmen who were paid well enough to enable them to lay up a small store to last a week or two; but there were hundreds and thousands who could not do it. He concluded by again appealing to the Home Secretary or the Secretary for the Colonies to give the Committee some reasons for the exclusion contained in the sub-section.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he would endeavour to meet the hon. gentleman by giving the explanation he asked for. At the outset he might say that the Amendment was one which by no possibility could the Government accept. It was an Amendment which, if carried, would be the death of the Bill. It was hostile to the Bill, and he pressed that on the attention of all friends of the Bill. As he understood the position of the friends of the Bill was this: The Bill might well be extended, but rather than risk it they would take it as it was, believing it to be a very substantial concession. ["Hear, hear !"] He was obliged to say, therefore, that this was a serious Amendment to which the Government must give strenuous opposition. The reason why the limit of two weeks was introduced was this. The Bill applied a new principle to industry, and threw a new burden on employers and on the trades they represented independent altogether of any negligence or action attributed to the employers themselves. This new principle the Government would only be justified in applying by some great public human interest. Now that great public human interest arose in the case of what he might call serious accidents. The sufferers from those accidents were the wounded soldiers of industry whom they had in their minds, and about whom so much was said in discussing this subject—people who were seriously if not permanently injured, and prevented, at all events for a considerable period, from following their ordinary employment. There would be no ground for legislative interference if they could believe that every accident which occurred was an accident whose effects would not last longer than three weeks. Such accidents as those were accidents

  1317
  for which the workman might very properly he expected to make provision himself. He did make provision in his friendly societies and in his trade union. Bodies of that kind had been accustomed to provide for him in the case of these shorter periods of disablement; and he might say in passing that he thought it would be a very great blow to the friendly societies, and perhaps to the trade unions, if they were to undertake to provide for the workman from the very day on which the accident occurred. ["Hear, hear !"] They therefore drew the line between what they called slight accidents, which might be properly cared for by friendly and other industrial societies, and the more serious accidents which constituted a grave misfortune and for which they were anxious that legislation should provide. In doing so they followed the principle of German and other foreign legislation, actual and proposed. In the first instance the Government suggested or proposed to themselves to exclude the first four weeks of an accident; but in that case they intended that, if the illness lasted more than four weeks, the four weeks' back pay should be given. ["Hear, hear !" from the Opposition.] But it was represented to them, both by employers and by some representatives of workmen's societies, that a proposal of that kind was very dangerous. It was admitted, he believed, by all who had an active part in the management of mutual relief and friendly societies that malingering was a thing to be carefully guarded against; and it was represented to the Government that such an arrangement as he had described would tend to provoke malingering and put a premium upon it; that in fact would put a distinct temptation in the way of a workman who had received a slight injury to remain away from his employment four weeks and one day in order that he might obtain four weeks' compensation. It was represented that if they gave a shorter time, and made that a period for which there would be no payment whatever, there would be a complete answer to those who feared malingering would result; because it was extremely improbable that any man would he in bed a fortnight without real reason in the hope of getting a day or two's pay at the end of that time. ["Hear, hear" !] He
  1318
  hoped, therefore, that after the explanation he had given the Committee would support the Government in resisting the Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"]
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONregretted that the Colonial Secretary had viewed this Amendment as a hostile one. There was a good deal to be said in its favour. It was a great hardship on a workman who had been out of employment for ten or twelve weeks and had just secured employment, but through an accident for which he was not responsible was laid up for ten or twelve days, not to receive compensation. If he understood the Bill, however, the workman had a right to sue for compensation either under this Bill or under the Act of 1880. If this clause stood as part of the Bill, therefore, a workman who had been injured would be forced to seek compensation under the earlier Act, thereby encouraging litigation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. L. HARDYmoved, in paragraph (a) sub-section (2) to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "four," the effect of the Amendment being to relieve the employer of liability in respect of any injury "which does not disable the workman for a period of at least four weeks from earning full wages." He pointed out that in the large societies connected with the Miners' Relief Fund, it had been found that the average duration of minor accidents was about four weeks; and it was on this ground, he thought, that it would be desirable to put the limit rather higher than in the Bill. A four weeks limit would be the safest to adopt. It had been adopted to a certain extent in Germany, and he therefore urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. FENWICKhoped it was unnecessary to appeal to the Government to reject the Amendment. If the hon. Member wished to protect the friendly societies and particularly the Miners' Permanent Relief Societies, he would do

  1319
  so best by reducing the time instead of increasing it. Compensation from the employers would then come in, and permanent relief funds could accordingly reduce their benefits.
  MR. HENRY SETON-KARRsaid he supported the Amendment, which raised a most important question—the distribution of the burden of compensation under the Bill as between employer and friendly society. The employer was at present only liable to the extent of his contribution— generally 25 per cent.—to the friendly society, and the compensation imposed on the employer fell either on the workman or the community. By the Bill the whole liability for compensation for personal injuries to the workman would be thrown on the employers. The extension of time would relieve the employer and encourage thrift in working men, because they would have to rely longer on their friendly societies. He considered that the chief blot in this Bill was that it imposed too great a burden on some of the great industries of this country. ["Hear, hear !"] He was in favour of the principle of compensation, but not of so allocating or distributing it as to drive some industries out of existence. ["Hear, hear !"] Had hon. Members opposite never thought of foreign competition or the cost of production? They might be taking away with one hand what they were conferring with the other, and driving some of the men they professed to represent out of employment into the streets. On this ground he desired that the burden of compensation should be distributed. This distribution rested entirely on figures, to which he wished to seriously call the attention of the Government, calculations made by one whom they would admit was a fairly high authority —Mr. Neison, Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries—who had gone carefully into the financial aspects of the Bill. He was not the authority consulted by the Government. His figures contradicted the figures supplied to the Government; and, while he did not claim that Mr. Neison's figures were infallible, it showed that the point was open to argument. The supporters of the Amendment desired to extend the period of two weeks to four weeks, during which a man would have to rely on his own
  1320
  resources. Mr. Neison, basing his calculations on the accounts of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Permanent Relief Fund, stated that for every 10,000 men employed in the coal-mining industry a moderate estimate of the liability for fatal accidents would be £5,000 a year. The average wages for 10,000 colliers above and below ground would be £600,000 a year, or £60 a year per miner, which, if anything, would be under rather than over the mark. Five thousand pounds a year for fatal accidents would be nearly 1 per cent of the the total wages. It had been said that the total liability would not exceed 1 per cent. of the wages earned, but here it was shown that the liability for fatal accidents alone would be 1 per cent. Mr. Neison divided accidents which would not be fatal into two classes —accidents above six months and under six mouths. The liability for accidents over six months in respect of 10,000 men, taking the ordinary figures of the society he had referred to, would amount again to £5,000 a year, or nearly another one per cent. of the wages fund. Five thousand pounds plus £5,000 would be the liability imposed yearly on the mining industry in respect of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, to 10,000 men. Ten thousand pounds on £600,000 was one-and-a-half per cent. of the wages. The liability for accidents under six months in respect of 10,000 men would be £4,500. The net result of the calculation was that, taking 10,000 miners earning an average of £60 per year per miner, the total liability for accidents, fatal and non-fatal, would be £14,500 a year, or two-and-a-half per cent. on the wages earned. He trusted the House would consider these calculations before passing the Bill. What was he asking the House to do? It was a ridiculously small concession. The two weeks reduced the number of accidents for which employers were liable under the Bill 20 per cent., but it only reduced the costs of compensation to which they were liable 5 per cent. If they extended the period to four weeks it reduced the number of accidents for which employers were liable 50 per cent., and it reduced the costs of compensation 33 per cent. The 50 per cent, and the 33 per cent, did not apply to anything like the whole liability under the Bill.

  1321
  The net result was this: by the Amendment, he was asking the House to relieve the employers of a liability of a third out of a total liability of £4,500; in other words it would relieve them of a money compensation of £1,500. It would still leave a burden of no less than 2¼ per cent. on the wages fund of the industry. In other words, every colliery proprietor would find that if he paid, say, £100,000 a year in wages, he would pay no less than £2,500 under the scheme of compensation imposed by this Bill. There were many collieries now being worked under serious difficulties, and it was a question from year to year whether the owners would think it worth their while to go on. He knew one which was being worked at a dead loss of several thousand pounds a year, and the only reason why they were going on was that the proprietors owned other large works to which the colliery in question supplied fuel, so that they could afford to work the colliery at a loss. But in the case of other collieries similarly situated they might be imposing a burden on that industry which would finally compel them to close their works. What was the meaning of that? It meant that this legislation might have the effect of driving hundreds of people out of work, and that was the only consideration that actuated him in moving Amendments to this Bill. With regard to the friendly societies, he asked hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a collier who was subscribing a certain proportion of his wages to a permanent relief society to which his employer also subscribed. The collier would say, "Here is a Bill under which, no matter what kind of accident I suffer from, I shall be compensated on a handsome scale. Why should I subscribe a halfpenny of my wages to the funds of a society, when I can get everything I want out of the Bill for nothing?" The argument was perfectly sound and logical. For his part he should not hesitate for a moment. If they were going to relieve the workman without any effort on his part they would encourage habits of indolence and thriftlessness. The workman must be interested, and the sole object of the Amendment was to ameliorate this state of things and to bring about a slightly more equitable distribution of the burden
  1322
  of compensation which was imposed by this Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid it was not possible for the Government to accept the Amendment. They were satisfied that if such a period as four weeks were to be chosen it would be absolutely necessary, in the event of the disablement extending over the four weeks, to make the payment relate back. The Government had selected the period which they thought would fairly cover minor accidents which, though they might temporarily disable, were not sufficiently serious to prevent work from being resumed within a week or ten days. On the question of figures he must say that those which the hon. Member had given as being furnished by Mr. Neison did not correspond with the figures which that gentleman supplied to her Majesty's Government. It might be that further investigation had caused Mr. Neison to alter his figures, but the Committee could not place very much reliance upon the last figures of Mr. Neison when they found that there was such a substantial variation between them and those supplied to the Home Secretary so recently as May 18. He was not attacking Mr. Neison, but it was not possible to place the same reliance on the figures of any gentleman when they changed within so comparatively short a time. The hon. Member estimated the total liability under the Bill at 2½ per cent. upon the wages paid. That represented a serious charge. The Government did not agree that the total burden would be so large, but, assuming it was so, it was no good upon this Amendment discussing what was to be the total burden with reference to death liability and permanent disablement liability when the material figures to be considered were the difference between four weeks and two weeks. ["Hear, hear !"] It seemed to him that apart from money calculations, which it must be difficult to make with accuracy, there were certain broad principles upon which they should proceed. They knew what a serious accident meant, and what, comparatively speaking, a less serious accident meant. If a man was laid aside for a fortnight, he did to a certain extent draw a line of demarcation between what might be called a serious accident and a non-serious accident; and that was a more practical line to draw than any

  1323
  based on actual money calculations. There were figures which enabled them to test that view a little more closely. The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Permanent Relief Society, which embraced a very large number of men, reported that in the five years 1892–96 the total number of accidents of which particulars were furnished was 49,378. The number confined to the first two weeks was 11,961, between two and three weeks the number was 12,629, and between three and four weeks 7,160—a total of 31,750 out of 49,378. Therefore, if the Amendment was carried, the result would be to impose upon other sources from which compensation might be obtained a total liability which would amount to between 60 and 70 per cent. of the total number of accidents. By the provisions of the Bill the employers would be exempted from paying compensation in 11,961 cases, or about 22 per cent., which he thought was a very fair proportion. They were dealing with a class of men who they knew in many instances were earning only what they were obliged to spend week by week. It was only in the most favourable circumstances that the most thrifty of these men were able to save anything, and it was no fault of their own that many of them could not save much. When misfortune or sickness came they had no claim except upon the benefit societies, and had seldom anything to fall back upon. The Government, therefore, felt that in exempting the masters from the liability to pay compensation during a period of two weeks a substantial relief was given, while a system was adopted which would put fairly upon the workmen that portion of the burden which they ought to bear. It was said that by taking two weeks instead of four they would not be encouraging the friendly societies. All he could say was that if 22 per cent. of the accidents were left to the friendly societies it would be a considerable inducement to them to rearrange their funds with the view of giving perhaps larger allowances during the period of temporary disablement. If it was right to deal with the liability for all serious accidents in the way proposed by the Bill, he would be only too glad to find that the friendly societies were able to devote some of their funds, which were contributions of the men themselves, in
  1324
  giving larger allowonces for sickness and disasters not dealt with in the Bill. The Colonial Secretary had indicated the Committee that the Government regarded Sub-section (a) as being a vital part of the Bill. They did not see any reason to change the period they had named, and unless they were shown that they were absolutely wrong they would feel it their duty to adhere to the period of two weeks.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid the figures quoted by the Attorney General with regard to Lancashire and Cheshire coincided in a remarkable manner with figures which he had obtained in reference to the North of England Permanent Relief Society, and which showed that one-fourth of the accidents suffered by the miners there did not extend beyond the first two weeks. The hon. Member opposite had charged the working men generally with improvidence. He forgot that there were other liabilities and causes of men being out of work besides accidents. The men had to subscribe to sick benefit societies as well as permanent relief funds. Did the hon. Member suppose that the men would leave the friendly societies because of this proposed compensation, which could in no case exceed 50 per cent. of the wages? He would ask the hon. Member to address his lecture on foreign competition to the Home Secretary instead of to the working men representatives. They had never asked for this Bill. He should oppose the extension of the time for two weeks to four weeks, unless the hon. Member could induce the Government to agree to the compensation dating back from the occurrence of the accident. Then he would support the Amendment.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid that he differed entirely from the figures of the Attorney General. As far as he could learn, half the cost of injuries was in the first six weeks, and if a longer period were given, these benefit societies might continue. They gave the workman security against the insolvency of his employer, and an interest in his own insurance. There could be no doubt that eventually the effect of this Bill would fall on employers and workmen alike, but before that time there must be much friction. The principle hitherto had been that the

  1325
  workman assisted by the employers should insure himself, and wages had been settled on that basis. This Bill threw the whole burden on the employers. That meant an increase of wages at a time when it was not justified by the condition of trade. He thought that the workman should be a party to his own insurance, and that it was a retrograde step to relieve him of that duty.
  *SIR ALFRED HICKMANwas glad that the Government had spoken with no uncertain sound against the Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"] The proposal of the Bill was passed on an intelligible principle. Every workman would have at least a week's wages due to him after he had sustained an accident. He would have at the very least, or at the very worst, half wages for a fortnight; but, if the period were extended the man would be placed in a very different position, he might be in absolute want, and the benefits of the Bill would be for him largely done away with.
  MR. GALLOWAYasked whether, if a workman was disabled three weeks or for any period over two weeks, he would receive compensation for one week or for the three weeks?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that the compensation would be paid only in respect of one week.
  *MR. TOMLINSONreferred to Mr. Neison's calculations, and said that he thought that there was some misapprehension as to the statements made by that gentleman. He denied that he had furnished the Home Office with statements inconsistent with those referred to by the hon. Member for St. Helens. Some facts collected by Mr. Neison had doubtless come before the Home Office, and some other gentleman had drawn some inferences from those facts which Mr. Neison disputed. For instance, Mr. Neison had undoubtedly stated that one-fifth of the accidents would be covered by the limit of two weeks, and the erroneous inference had been drawn at the Home Office that this limit of time disposed of one-fifth of the accidents; the fact being that owing to the greater costliness of the remaining accidents the two weeks only eliminate 5 per cent. in value of the accidents.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid that if he might be permitted to say so, both the
  1326
  hon. Member for Mid Durham and the Attorney General had made the same mistake. They had alsolutely disregarded the percentage of cost; and only treated the percentage of accident. But as this was a money compensation Bill, the question of cost was the only question worth considering.
  MR. BAINBRIDGEsaid he regarded the Amendment as the most important that had been brought forward in connection with the Bill. Its effect would be to ease or reduce the strain thrown by the Bill upon the employer or upon the industry which the employer represented; and he therefore supported it. It was extremely important that the House should understand, and in regard to the coal trade—the industry which the Home Secretary had said would be most seriously affected by the Bill—the Bill meant an increased cost of two-pence per ton. The Attorney General had stated that there was very little difference between the effect of this Bill, and the effect of the Bill brought forward by the late Home Secretary. He controverted that statement in the strongest terms. He was an insurer of 12,000 or 15,000 men for the last 17 years under the present Employers' Liability Act; and the exact cost of the insurance was 1–32nd per cent. of the wages. The cost under the Bill of the late Home Secretary, if carried, would not have amounted to more than just twice as much as the cost under the Employer's Liability Act. In other words, the cost under the present Bill would be 2½ per cent., more than 80 times as much as the Employers' Liability Act; and 40 times as much as the late Home Secretary's Bill. This showed the extraordinary strain that would have to be borne by industry under the Bill; and it behoved them to try to reduce the strain as much as possible. He hoped the Government would think very seriously before they rejected this Amendment. He had been down to his constituency last Saturday, and spoke to a large employer of labour, who told him that, if this Bill passed, he would be obliged to discharge a large number of his young men. On asking him why, he replied that the Bill would encourage carelessness and neglect, and it was the younger men who displayed the most carelessness and neglect. That was a new light to

  1327
  him. He hoped the Government would not reject the Amendment, because it would tend to lighten the load on the employers, it would help to prevent a number of old men from being starved, and would support the maintenance of such societies as the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund.
  MR. HARDYsaid, in view of the position taken up by the Government, he did not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division on the matter. Personally, he felt a very strong inclination to accept the suggestion from the other side of the House with reference to four weeks, but he did not feel justified, without consideration, in altering his Amendment. He assured the Committee that he brought forward the Amendment, not from any desire to take away from the compensation of the men, but rather with the view of making them work better when the Bill passed. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RENSHAWmoved, in Paragraph (a) Sub-section (2), after the word "weeks," to insert the words "immediately subsequent to the injury."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINhoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it was easy to conceive cases of accident where the injury was not discovered till some time afterwards.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BOUSFIELDmoved, in Subsection (2), after the words "Provided that," to insert the words: —
  "he shall not be so liable if he shall be a member of a trade association in the management of which employers and workmen shall have equal representation, and shall have contributed to the funds of such association an amount not less than the amount contributed by his workmen to such funds."
  1328
  It was very desirable that these funds should, if possible, be administered through trade organisations. That, undoubtedly, would lead to economy in working, just as it was frequently found that a body elected by the people was more economical than a body which was not controlled in any way. If initially there were contributions by the workmen towards the expenses of compensation—
  MR. PICKARD, rising to order, asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were relevant to the Bill?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought the Amendment was in order.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid it was perhaps a little difficult to gather from his Amendment what was its exact scope. It seemed to him that in the administration of these funds it was essential that they should have the assistance of the workmen, and that the workmen should, in the first place, contribute to the funds. His suggestion was that in the case of the Lanarkshire coal fields, for instance, there should be a Mining Board, that that Board should be elected, and should consist of an equal number of employers' and workmen's representatives; that they should have power to form a fund to which employers and workmen should contribute in equal shares, and that they should have the dispensing of that fund. If they had a body of that sort, responsible for the collection and administration of the fund, there would be the great advantage that those interested in the administration would know all about the necessities of the people who from time to time would be injured. There would be the further advantage that they would get rid of the difficulty of the possible bankruptcy of the employer. The association would represent a large area, and the fund would be practically incapable of being bankrupt. Further, there would be the great advantage that they would have the employers and workmen working together in harmony. He was satisfied that such a scheme as he proposed

  1329
  in this matter would tend to the happy solution of many trade difficulties in other matters.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid there was no doubt that, if the object which this Bill sought to attain could be secured without legislation, it would be a very desirable state of things. As far as he understood the Amendment, his hon. and learned Friend really proposed to substitute for the proposals of the Bill a very vague system of what was generally called contracting out. He did not for a moment deny that it would be extremely desirable if trade associations could be formed all over the country in which, by the mutual co-operation of employers and employed, the various claims which might be made upon them could be satisfactorily met. The contracting out clause of the Bill was a more liberal and generous one than that of his hon. and learned Friend, and, whether the Committee considered it a right or a wrong one when it came under discussion, he hardly thought they would be prepared to accept the present Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"] Certainly the Government could not accept it. ["Hear, hear !"]
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HALDANEmoved, in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words: —
  "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."
  He said the words proposed to be left out provided that the common law liability of the employer was to continue when, and only when, it had been decided by the arbitrator that the injury was caused by the wilful and wrongful act and default of the employer or some person for whose act and default the employer was responsible. He wished to point out
  1330
  that these words were inconsistent with what he understood was the purpose for which the Bill was introduced. It was introduced with a view to confer upon the workmen a new system of compensation. To the employer there was to be left the burden of such civil liability as already existed. The clause, as drawn, was not consistent with that. Let him take a concrete and simple illustration. Supposing a very common sort of accident. Machinery was fenced, but through the negligence, but not the wilful or wrongful negligence, of the employer or his superintendent, imperfectly fenced. The fencing gives way, and the man lost a couple of fingers. He was laid aside for a fortnight, at the end of which time he came back with his arm in a sling. He was able to work his machine, he was not permanently incapacitated within the meaning of the schedule, although he was a worse man. It might be that through some similar cause, through the negligence, but not the wilful wrong of the employer, he had lost an eye. He was not permanently incapacitated from doing his work, but what was his position? Before the Bill passed into law he would have been able to have recovered against his employer compensation in the shape of the damages which the Employers' Liability Act gave him, but in this clause they had taken away that right without giving anything to take its place. He could recover compensation under this Bill, but only if he came within the provisions of the schedule. In the case he had put—and it was quite a common case—by the provision which constituted the beginning of this sub-section, he was disabled from recovering under the law as it now stood. He could not get compensation under the Bill, and he could not get compensation under the Employers' Liability Act, because this Bill had cut down the cases in which he could claim under that law, to cases in which there had been a wilful and wrongful act on the part of the employer.

  1331
  In that class of cases, he said, the workman was distinctly worse off than he was under the existing law. They were cutting out from compensation a large class of accidents—he admitted they were smaller accidents—without any justification so far as he could see. It was perfectly true that the employer was to bear a larger burden than at present. That was in pursuance of the Government's policy, but why should they take from this class of person who had suffered injury the rights which he had at the present time? He would also like to ask what was the meaning of the words "wilful and wrongful." They were not known to lawyers. He was always delighted when legal phraseology could be departed from, and things could be expressed in plain terms —[Ministerial cheers]—but unfortunately such was the infirmity of the human mind that stereotyped phrases did get an ascertained meaning, and when new ones were started they opened up a large and vexatious field of questions for the Courts to decide; and of this he was convinced, that if these words were left in the clause, and if these questions were reserved for the arbitrator, they would be opening up a new field of litigation. ["Hear, hear !"] For these reasons he begged to move the omission of the words to which the Amendment referred.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he would be glad if his hon. and learned Friend would tell the Committee in whose interest this Amendment was proposed. He was certain it would not conduce to the interest of the workman, but would manifestly conduce to the interest of the lawyers. [Laughter.] The illustration which his hon. and learned Friend gave was altogether inconsistent with his line of argument. He supposed the case of a workman who had lost two fingers and an eye, or two fingers or an eye—he was not sure sure which—and he assumed that this man would recover from this injury in a fortnight. All he could
  1332
  say was that if he did it would be a most wonderful recovery. [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that this man would not be permanently incapacitated. He did not think the word "permanently" occurred in the Bill. The words were "in case of incapacity for work," and to say that a man who had lost two fingers or an eye would not be to some extent incapacitated for work seemed to him quite contrary to the probable facts of the case. ["Hear, hear."] He did not think it was true to say that a workman in that position would not be able to get compensation under the Bill. What would be the effect of the Amendment? The Government were endeavouring to do away with litigation. The one case they considered to be outside the purview of the Bill was the case to which reference had been made continually—of wilful and wrongful default on the part of the employer. The hon. Gentleman complained that those were not legal words, but them he could discuss on a subsequent Amendment. What the Government meant was perfectly clear. They meant to do what they said—["hear, hear !"]—the wilful and wrongful act of the employer, which would justify them in imposing on him a different liability to that imposed by the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend proposed that in every case of accident it should be an open question whether the workman took advantage of the Bill or whether he took some other proceedings—that was to say, he was going to open the whole opportunity of litigation in every case that occurred under the Bill. In every single case the workman under the sort of inducement that was brought to bear on him was to leave all the certain and definite advantages of the Bill and was to engage in expensive litigation, which would be undertaken as a speculative matter by somebody on his part with the certainty that if he won, very little if any, of the compensation recovered would go into his pocket. ["Hear, hear."]

  1333
  That was entirely opposed to the object and intention of the Bill, and it would be quite impossible to consent to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear."]
  MR. WALTONsaid that the proposals of the Government were most remarkable in their nature and without precedent, inasmuch as they set up a double form of procedure for ascertaining the rights of the parties whose interests were involved. Let him indicate shortly what he thought were grave and conclusive objections to this proposal of the Government. In the first place, let them consider the tribunal which was to decide the issue on which the civil and criminal status of every employer was to depend. Let them consider the nature of the tribunal, and consider the justice of leaving the employer to face its investigation with the danger of a subsequent criminal indictment hanging over his head. It was said that he had been guilty of some neglect of duty, that he had been wilfully and wrongfully negligent, either in the engagement of his workmen or in the arrangement or management of his works. That issue had first of all to be determined by a secret tribunal under the name of arbitration, sitting without the safeguards of legal procedure, holding its inquiry without the guarantee of publicity. Assume an adverse verdict. That verdict would entitle the workman or his representatives to indict his employer perhaps for manslaughter. Imagine a man going before a jury on such a charge when already involved by the verdict of this extraordinary tribunal. What chance would he have? Then, in the matter of civil responsibility, what sort of a chance of a fair trial would an employer have when sued in a Court of Common Law after the workman had got the verdict of the arbitrator that the conduct of his employer had been wilfully negligent? That was the provision from the employer's point of view. Let them look at it from the workman's point of view—for he submitted it was important in the
  1334
  interest of both parties that this portion of the Government scheme should be reconsidered. The Colonial Secretary had again reminded them that the whole object of the Bill was to avoid litigation. Well, the operation of this provision was to insure that there should be at least two suits in regard to every case in which the workman sought to establish his claim to a larger measure of compensation than the Bill awarded. He had first of all to enter on arbitration. The Colonial Secretary, in his happy innocence of the working of legal procedure, seemed to be under the impression that arbitration was simpler, shorter, and cheaper than legal action. Some of them had had experience of both processes, law and arbitration, and they had been painfully driven to precisely the opposite conclusion. ["Hear, hear !"] They had learnt that arbitration was longer and more costly and was profoundly unsatisfactory. Yet they drove the workman, dissatisfied perhaps with the niggardly compensation given him, to incur the cost of this litigation by arbitration; and then, having spent his resources on the preliminary struggle, they launched him on a course of litigation in the Courts of Common Law. He submitted that from both the employer and the workman's point of view this portion of the Government scheme was open to the greatest objection. Let him remind the Committee of the assurances given on the First and Second Readings. They were told that this was an enabling scheme; that it took away nothing and gave everything; that the workman would have the option of either proceeding under the Bill or under the Employers' Liability Act or at common law. Why did not the Government have the courage to adhere to these assurances, and give the workman full power of deciding under which scheme of relief he should proceed in order to assert his remedy? He did not see why a workman should be coerced to adopt one mode of procedure,

  1335
  and should be prevented from selecting others, and he believed that unless the Government made some concession on this point, the beneficial operation of the Bill would be materially diminished.
  MR. THOMAS BUCKNILLdoubted whether his hon. and learned Friend opposite had read the clause very attentively. The object of the clause, according to the Home Secretary, was to give to the workman an additional opportunity of recovering as against his employer. Where an employer had been guilty of a wilful or wrongful act or default, either by himself or by some person for whom he was responsible, the injured man would be able to avail himself of three remedies. He could proceed under this Bill or under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, or under the common law. He did not understand how any one could argue seriously that the clause was disadvantageous to the workmen, to whose rights it certainly added something.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESdid not think that the Colonial Secretary intended that a workman should always have his remedy at common law, under Lord Campbell's Act, or under the Employers' Liability Act, at his option. What he understood was that a workman was only to have a remedy outside the Bill in the case of what was inartistically called "the wilful or wrongful act or default" of the employer. The provision under censure would, he feared, be inoperative and futile. What they wanted to do was to save workmen and employers the cost of litigation, and the proposal of the Government was that the workman should proceed by arbitration, but it was obvious that the workman must have a right to the services of counsel, a solicitor and witnesses. It was perfectly obvious that somebody must pay the cost of the counsel, solicitor, and witnesses. On whom was the cost to lie? It was to lie upon the un-
  1336
  successful party. In certain cases the workman would be the unsuccessful party. He would be the unsuccessful party if he failed in showing that this particular injury of which he complained did not fall within the scope of the Act. Would he then have to pay the costs of the arbitration? If so, how would he have to pay it. Would it be deducted from the amount he had to receive, or otherwise? But supposing he was successful in his contention and established that the case did not come within the Act, what had he got to do then after going through all the expense of arbitration? He had got to bring his action, and if he established that it was not an employment within the Act—which he was anxious to do because he could get a larger compensation if it was an employment outside the Act—he proceeded with his case, and there was a second trial to decide whether or not he was entitled to receive compensation under the common law or under the Statute. Why, he asked, for the sake of economy and expediency, should not the workman enjoy the same rights to litigate any question which might arise between him and his employer that he had at the present time? Supposing a workman elected to bring an action under the Employers' Liability Act or the common law. He brought the action before the Judge of the County Court, or the Judge of the High Court under Lord Campbell's Act, and the Judge of the High Court coming to the conclusion that it was not a case for compensation under Lord Campbell's Act or the Employers' Liability Act non-suited the plaintiff. He had only thereby gone through precisely the same operation as he would mutatis mutandis by going through arbitration. He had had a procedure cheaper and more expeditious before the County Court Judge in which he was unsuccessful, whereas mutatis mutandis he would have procedure before the arbitrator more expensive and protracted had a similar necessity arisen

  1337
  that he should go to law. It should be open to the workman to bring his action, if he had a right of action, so that the matter must be disposed of there and then and justice meted out to one or other of the parties at a cost which was very much less than it would be by the method, of arbitration. He was at a loss to understand why all this machinery of arbitration had been created, the only effect of which would be that in the vast majority of cases in which accidents happened, there would be presented to the workman, hanging over him as a sort of threat in terrorem, the prospect of being dragged to arbitration. He did not wish to say a single word against the employers, who for the most part acted justly to their workmen. But in the vast majority of cases the employers would insure and it would not be the workman meeting face to face his employer. It would be the workman meeting face to face the agent of the insurance company, who would interpose every obstructive tactic and have recourse to every device which might possibly tend to intimidate the workman. He declared that under this arbitration clause the Government were simply opening the door to the insurance offices using the arbitration proceedings as a means of terrorising workmen and preventing them getting justice. For these reasons he very cordially supported the Amendment, and he was sure there was not a single workman represented in that House who would not entirely concur in the view that it was much better to leave him to his present remedy plus the advantage derived from this Bill, rather than compel him to try in every case whether or not he had a right to compensation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that a contrast had been drawn between the expense of the Courts and the expense of arbitration. Having had some experience of the last-named tribunal, he said that if he thought prolonged sittings and expense entailed by counsel and wit-
  1338
  nesses were likly to arise, he should be the first to agree to the suggestion which had been made. But he referred his hon. and learned Friends to the schedule of the Bill, from which it would be seen that this was not the class of arbitration which had to be considered. Who was the arbitrator to be? He was to be the County Court Judge, and it was not contemplated, if the County Court Judge could not take the case, that the usual County Court fees should be paid by the parties interested in the hearing of the case. Therefore the arbitration contemplated was intended to be something in the nature of a domestic forum which should settle matters in a cheap and expeditious manner. It was said that they ought to leave the workman in every case in the same position as he was now, and should give him the right to sue at common law under the Employers' Liability Act, or under this Bill; but one of the objects of the Bill in putting an end to litigation would be defeated altogether. ["Hear, hear !"] Their endeavour was to make it the interest of the workmen to adopt the cheapest and most expeditious way of having their compensation assessed. If some such machinery as the Bill contemplated was not adopted, workmen who thought that they could possibly get a large amount would be tempted to take the employer into Court and to frame a double claim against him. The result would be that there would be absolutely no inducement to adopt the cheaper course, and the workmen would find themselves perhaps largely in the hands of not too scrupulous legal advisers, who advised them to go into Court because they might get a remedy in some shape or other, and on the expectation that employers would have to pay the cost. The scheme of the Bill was simple. The workman said, "I do not wish to be tied to the pecuniary limits of this Bill; I think I can show that my case comes within the provisions which entitle me to a larger amount." If hon. Gentlemen said that

  1339
  this question also would be decided by the arbitrator, well and good; let them suggest Amendments to that effect; but if it was desired that the workman should still have a right to say, "I desire to have my damages assessed, not by the arbitrator, not by the County Court Judge, but by some one else," then it was necessary that there should be some ready means of determining whether he possessed those rights. He regarded the words as a practical means of getting the question speedily determined before further litigation were entered upon.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsupported the Amendment, because the words if allowed to remain would not only repeal part of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, but prevent the criminal law from being put in motion against an employer in cases where he was responsible. Parliament decided 17 years ago that in certain events the employer should be liable to the workman to a much more considerable extent than under the provisions of the Bill. The Government had told the Committee that they did not deal with employers' liability under the Bill. He agreed that the questions of employers' liability and compensation were distinct matters. But by the inclusion of the words they would repeal parts of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and make it impossible for the workman in any of the events prescribed under the Employers' Liability Act to take any proceedings unless beforehand he went to an arbitrator or a Committee of employers and employed, and then, in the event of disagreement, to the County Court Judge. The Colonial Secretary said they were not attempting to deal with the punitive side of the Measure, and that if it could be shown that employers should be punished, there was no reason why they should not. If an employer, in the opinion of an employé had been guilty of manslaughter, the criminal law could not be put in motion against him. A Commitee must first be appealed to, and if they did not decide, he must go
  1340
  to the County Court Judge. If the words remained in the Bill, the workman would be unable to put into force the criminal law under the Factories Act or the Coal Mines Regulation Act without the decision of this Committee, and the opinion of the County Court Judge. This diminished the remedy of the employé civilly and criminally in an important respect, and he entirely agreed with the Amendment that the remedies which already existed in favour of the workman civilly and criminally might continue to exist in his favour.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDthought the suggestion of the Attorney General showed a way out of a real difficulty and hardship under this section—that was to say, that the arbitrator should have power to give the compensation on the higher scale. If the Amendment were withdrawn, perhaps before to-morrow the Government would be able to put the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion into shape and the difficulty would be removed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that, of course, if that view met one of the difficulties he should be glad to consider it. He did not deal with the question of criminal liability, because that did not arise as the question was put from the Chair, but with that of civil liability. On the point of simplifying procedure, he would be happy to consult with the Home Secretary.
  MR. ABEL THOMASwas very much in favour of the Amendment, as, having had a very large experience in cases connected with the Employers' Liability Act, he thought it would be a terrible thing to send these cases to an arbitrator instead of leaving them to the ordinary tribunals. How in the world was it to save money, to have the County Court Judge in his private room instead of in his own Court? He had never been in an arbitration in his life in which the costs were not vastly higher than those of the High Court or the County Court.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINhoped the hon. and learned Member would be willing to withdraw his Amendment upon the understanding that the Government were quite willing at a later period to consider the questions which had been raised in connection with the Amendment, but which were not determined by it. These questions were whether the words "wilful and wrongful default" were the best description of the particular kind of negligence which they wished to strike at; whether the words criminal liability were properly inserted in the clause; and whether they would, in fact, involve the decision by a County Court Judge as to whether a workman would or would not have a criminal remedy; and questions concerning the expenses of the arbitration. All these questions were open for consideration, and could be discussed at a later period, and the Government would certainly favourably view Amendments which had the object and wore likely to have the result of simplifying procedure and cheapening it at the same time.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether, if the Amendment were withdrawn, it would be possible subsequently to move another to eliminate the arbitration clause?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I should like to see the Amendment first.
  MR. ASQUITHrecognised the conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the question, and he should be disposed to advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment on the undertaking of the Government that they were going to consider the various questions which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. But there ought to be a clear understanding that the withdrawal was not to prejudice their right to raise the contention that the workman ought to have reserved to him as complete a right and as complete remedies against the employer in all
  1342
  cases of negligence as he had at present. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. HALDANEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. S. EVANSdesired to point out the difficulty in which the hon. and learned Member would find himself if the Amendment were withdrawn. If it was decided that, "as hereinafter provided," should remain, they would have limiting words in the Bill. He objected to the Amendment being withdrawn unless upon the clear understanding and undertaking of the Government that it was not their intention to prevent a workman having recourse to any of the remedies which he had now for civil damages, or to prevent him from prosecuting criminally, if he thought fit. He warned his hon. Friend not to be caught too readily by conciliatory speeches made by the Colonial Secretary.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he understood that the question remained entirely open, and that the words "as hereinafter provided," would not in the least degree prejudice the question.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman of Ways and Means left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) [EXPENSES].
  Committee thereupon deferred till To-morrow.
  LABOUR BUREAUX BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 29th June.
  PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 30th June.
  CHURCH PATRONAGE TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 28th June.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 2nd June.
  SALE OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  TRAWLERS' LICENSING BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday.
  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read the Third time and passed.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

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

JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 98.]
EXCISE LICENCES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate the enactments granting and relating to the duties payable upon excise licences—Was presented by Viscount Peel: Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Tuesday next.—[No. 99.]

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He said: In the Education Bill which was introduced in the other House last Session, clauses were contained which, besides providing for a certain amount of assistance to Voluntary Schools, were intended also to meet the case of the acknowledged grievance of the excessive educational burden in some School Board districts, and when the Bill which had passed through Parliament this Session was introduced dealing only with the question of aid to Voluntary Schools, a pledge was given that a further Measure would be brought in, if time permitted, giving a certain amount of assistance to districts where the pressure upon the ratepayers has been found to be unduly excessive, and this Bill has been introduced and passed through the other House in pursuance of that pledge. I am perfectly aware that this Measure is considered by some noble Lords opposite as being very inadequate. I do not imagine, however, inadequate as they may conceive it to be, that it is likely to meet with any more opposition here than it
1218
met with in the other House, and, therefore, I do not think it will be necessary for me to enter into any elaborate explanation of the details of this Bill. If I were to attempt to give such an explanation it would of necessity be rather intricate and complicated. But probably the proposals of the Government, after the discussions in the other House, are already tolerably well understood by those who take any considerable interest in the subject, and I am afraid that I must despair of being able to make the details of the Measure clear to those who have not already taken any such interest in the matter. It may, therefore, be sufficient for me to say that this Bill is an extension and to some degree a. modification of the 97th Section of the Education Act of 1870. That clause is itself rather complicated in character, and, indeed, has not been fully understood. It has not been understood by all the School Boards to which it applies, for it was found in the discussions of last year that a considerable number of School Boards which would have been able to claim some assistance under this section had always omitted to do so, and the amount that had been claimed since the Debates of last year called attention to the matter has considerably increased the payments made under the section, which was explained in 1870 by Mr. Gladstone in the other House. It was supposed at that time that the expenditure on school maintenance in Board Schools as well as in Voluntary Schools would not exceed the sum of 27s. or 28s. per child in average attendance, and that in addition to the annual grants provided by the Government and the fees which the schools would receive from the children an expenditure of not more than 7s. 6d. per child in average attendance would have to be provided from the rates. In districts where the 3d. rate would be sufficient to provide this amount of 7s. 6d. it was thought that the burden on the locality would not be excessive, and the section had no application to them; but where the district was so poor, or where the number of children who had to be educated in Board Schools was so large, that a 3d. rate would not provide the sum of 7s. 6d. per scholar in average attendance, the section made provisions for a special grant which should supplement the produce of a 3d. rate up to a

1219
limit of 7s. 6d. per child. But the expectations entertained at that time have not been fulfilled. The expenditure upon the maintenance of children in Board Schools now amounts on the average to a sum of over £2 10s. The Government subvention has been largely increased, and now amounts to £1 9s. 6d. per child; but, in spite of that increase in the Government grant, a balance is left over which has to be provided by the locality, amounting to 20s. 6d. per child instead of 7s. 6d., which was the estimate for 1870. These figures are only the figures for the average maintenance of schools. Besides this, the School Boards have to find for interest on loans, and for repayment of loans, a further amount of 14s. per child. They also have imposed upon them other expenses, such as those of management, election expenses, and the expenses of schools for the deaf and blind, and the total expenditure of School Boards out of the rates has now risen to the sum, of £2 2s., which is equivalent to a 9d. rate all over the country. The provision, therefore, which was made by Section 97 has proved inadequate to meet what were supposed to be the needs of the poorer School Boards, and in a great many districts in. the country the school rate has become abnormally high. If the expenditure per scholar in all School Boards had remained the same this state of things might have been met by a simple extension of the plan laid down in the 97th Section, which took into account only the two elements of the rateable value of districts and the number of children in attendance in School Boards. That plan, together with some adjustment of the actual rates, might have provided successfully for the increased School Board expenditure if that expenditure had not varied greatly in different districts. The expenditure necessarily varies according as the Board is called upon to provide for the whole of the children in a district, for a very large number of them, or for none at all, as is the ease in some localities. It varies also according to the character of the district. If the children can be educated in a very few large schools, the cost is, of course, less than where they have to be educated in a larger number of smaller schools. It varies also because it is found that higher salaries have to be paid to the teachers in certain districts than have to
1220
be paid in others. In attempting to deal with this question, therefore, it has been found necessary to introduce an additional element into the plan of the 97th Section —an element additional to that of rateable value, and to that of the number of children in Board Schools. We have had to take into consideration the amount of the rate which has been found to be necessary to provide for the expenses of the School Boards. This Bill, therefore, proposes to do away with a, fixed limit of 7s. 6d., and to substitute in its place a sliding scale by which that limit is increased in a certain proportion to the rate levied. The subvention, which it is proposed to give will be increased, not in direct proportion to the amount of the school rate, which might evidently lead to undue expenditure and extravagance, but in a ratio which will be ascertained by putting together the three elements of rateable value, the number of children in the schools, and the amount of the rate which it has been found necessary to levy in order to meet the expenses of the Board. Perhaps I may explain the operation of the Bill by giving one or two examples of the way in which it will work in certain districts principally affected. I take, in the first place, the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, where the population is engaged chiefly in mining. There the School Board has to provide for an average attendance of 3,074 children. The produce of a 3d. rate per scholar is only 3s. 6d.; the rate in the pound is 1s. 6d., and the limit of the Section in this case will be raise by this Bill from 7s. 6d. to 12s. 6d., and the grant per head which it is estimated the district will receive will be 9s. in lieu of 4s., which it now receives. The total subvention which it will get will be £1,385, instead of £616. Still more important is the county borough of West Ham in the county of Essex, which is practically a suburb of East London. A very large working population, chiefly employed in various industries in London, is collected there, and education is carried on almost entirely in Board Schools. West Ham has an average attendance of 33,024 children; the produce of the 3d. rate is 6s. 3d., the School Board rate in the pound is 2s. 2d., and the limit will be raised under this Bill from 7s. 6d. to 15s. 2d., and the grant per head of the children in average attendance will be raised from 1s. 3d. to 8s. 11d.,

1221
while, the county borough of West Ham will receive a, subvention of £14,723 in lieu of £2,064. There are other districts not equally necessitous, but which still educate a. very large proportion of their children in the Board Schools, which will receive help of varying amounts, though considerably smaller. Such places as Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Sheflield, Sunderland, and Swansea will all receive certain amounts, but not nearly so large as those to which I have referred. There are, on the other hand, other districts in which the 3d. rate produces a very considerable sum per scholar—in other words, a small rate provides for a very considerable expenditure, and they will not receive any benefit at all under this Measure. Such districts are London, Liverpool, Manchester, Brighton, Bristol, and Newcastle. In those places the 3d. rate produces £1, or even more, per head of the scholars in average attendance. There are other districts less wealthy where the resources which they possess in the rates do not, as it is believed, give them any special claim on account of their poverty to receive any assistance from the extension which it is proposed to give to the 97th Section of the Act. I think, on the whole, it may be said that this relief will be given in cases whore the need is the most urgent. No attempt to equalise the educational burden in every part of the country would be possible unless, as some have desired, the cost of education were made a national instead of a local charge; but so long as the settlement of 1870 is maintained, and it is admitted that to a large extent the burden of education is to remain a local charge, this Bill appears to go in the direction of alleviating the most pressing and the most obvious grievances and inequalities which exist under the present system. The total annual cost of the subvention to School Boards is estimated at nearly £154,000. The similar grants under the present system are £43,000; and therefore the Bill will entail an extra cost of.£110,600. The present Measure will afford a larger measure of relief to the necessitous School Boards than the proposal which was contained in the Bill of last year, the total cost of which for poor School Boards was estimated at £89,000. It may, perhaps, be imagined by some that this proposal, while introducing a new element in the
1222
amount of the School Board rate, may lead to extravagant administration. It might have done so but for the fact that the aid which it is proposed to give is restricted to those districts where a 3d. rate produces less than a certain sum per child, or where the rateable value, compared with the number of scholars, falls below a certain amount. In such cases it is obvious that a School Board cannot provide for the average expenditure which is found necessary in School Boards generally, except by a very much larger rate than an average rate exceeding the aver-ago rate over the country of 9d. It has been ascertained by careful examination that in the most extreme cases which could be produced, a district, in order to obtain an additional grant from the Treasury, would have to tax itself to at least three tunes that amount, and in a great majority of cases it would have to tax itself by a rate exceeding five or six times any amount that could be expected from the Treasury. In such cases I think extravagant administration in districts so poor is almost impossible. On the contrary, what is most to be apprehended in the case of poor School Board districts like these is rather an undue economy than any tendency towards extravagance. I have no wish to enter on any controversial matters. I have no reason to suppose-that the Bill is likely to meet with much opposition, but I submit this proposal with some confidence in opposition to that which I understand has found favour with some noble Lords opposite. It was suggested, I think, in our Debates on the Voluntary Schools Bill, that a fairer arrangement, and one which would have met no opposition from the other side, would have been an equal grant of 5s. per head in Voluntary and Board Schools all round. That proposal would have given less than the present humble proposal which we have, to make to those districts which appear to require it most. It seems to me that it would have involved a very large additional expenditure, and if the money were not actually wasted in unnecessary and extravagant expenditure, at least it may be said that it was not required. Any part of 5s. a head, if given to the London School Board, would not even have the effect of relieving the London ratepayers to an equal extent. A part of it would undoubtedly have gone to increase expenditure, which, in the

1223
opinion of many, is already excessive. It would have had the effect of increasing and intensifying the competition, especially in the matter of teachers' salaries, which makes it difficult for Voluntary Schools to exist in London and other large towns. It was not needed in such places in order to secure efficiency. It is admitted that the Board Schools in London and other great and wealthy towns are already efficient, and are made efficient without any extravagant claim being made on the resources of the ratepayers. It is extremely difficult to meet arguments which one fails to understand, and I cannot understand how any man who is of opinion that education is to remain a local charge, and to a certain extent a varying local charge, can argue that it it would be just to apply an equal subvention from. Imperial funds to those districts in which that charge is a heavy one, and in some cases almost an intolerable one, as well as to those other districts in which experience has shown that it is a comparatively light and easily borne charge. I have endeavoured to give a very short—and I hope tolerably clear—statement of what is rather an intricate and complicated question; and I venture with some confidence to move the Second Reading of the Bill. [Cheers.]
*LORD PLAYFAIRsaid that this Bill for aiding necessitous Board Schools was necessarily linked to the Act which had been passed for aiding necessitous Voluntary Schools, but they were to be aided in very different proportions. There were two and a half millions of children in Voluntary Schools, and two millions in Board Schools. As the Act for Voluntary Schools gave to them at the rate of 5s. per child, the natural expectation was that the same amount per child should be given to the Board Schools, but this Bill only gave them about one-fifth the amount. The Act gave to Voluntary Schools upwards of £600,000, and to the Board Schools £110,000. The Education Department might try, and, he hoped, would succeed, in making increased efficiency one of the conditions for increased grants, but as that was not the motive of the Measures, the Department would have a hard struggle to attain it. Those who, like the Bishop of Chester, approved of Lord Hugh Cecil's party cry that Voluntary Schools have a
1224
right to consider that "tenure by subscriptions is essentially a tenure by blackmail," would certainly look upon the new grant of £600,000 as a relief Act and not as an educational Act. When the Government announced their intention of giving substantial relief to Voluntary Schools he welcomed the proposal, as he aided Mr. Forster in 1870, and had always valued their great aid to educational progress. He did not grudge in the least the £600,000 given to them, but he strongly regretted that the opportunity was not taken to secure that the sum should be so applied as not only to maintain but increase their efficiency as a great agency for educational progress. This smaller Measure for rate relief to poor Board Schools, which was now to be read a Second time, might, to the extent to which it went, increase the efficiency of education, but only to a small degree. It was the fashion—one which had been much encouraged by the Vice President of the Council—to decry the management and efficiency of rural Board Schools. No doubt there were a good many inferior rural Board Schools, as there were also a good many inferior rural Voluntary Schools, but there was no evidence from the educational statistics that there was any marked difference in rural schools, whether they were managed by School Boards or by Voluntary agencies. He had beside him the returns of 209 rural Voluntary Schools in 12 typical counties, and of 161 Board Schools in the same counties, the result being that the Board Schools paid their teachers an average of 2s. per child more, and that they obtained an average grant of 6d. per child more than the Voluntary Schools. There could, then, be no justification in treating these schools as inferior to Voluntary Schools by giving them only one-fifth of the grant given to the former. The Bill would no doubt become law, but it would leave in the minds of a large portion of the public the impression that, whether these Measures be viewed as relief Bills or as educational Bills, they had given five or six times as much public money to the irresponsible managers of Voluntary Schools as to the accredited and elected educational representatives of the nation. Of the 2,500 School Boards throughout the country, about 1,500 were voluntarily formed by the ratepayers, but 1,000 were

1225
compulsorily formed to supply the deficiencies in education not covered by the voluntary system. If the Voluntary Schools might justly claim recognition for relief on account of their voluntary money contributions, surely the 1,000 School Boards, which had to make compulsory contributions under the mandate of the State, might have looked to an equal measure of relief. They had not obtained it, and the Government need not be surprised if many educationists did not accept this Bill as a final settlement of the question. The two Measures which would soon become law might have been so framed that the largely increased grant of about three-quarters of a million, while it relieved tension in subscriptions raid rates, might also have greatly increased educational efficiency. The opportunity had been lost, and it was quite certain that before long an agitation for a modification of the Acts would arise in the country, probably from the supporters of both branches of schools.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK, dealing with Lord Playfair's criticisms, said the Board Schools, though they did not receive the same amount of public money from the funds of the State, received a vast amount of public money in the shape of rates, of which the Voluntary Schools were altogether deprived. [Cheers.] If they were to vote at one time 5s. per head to the Voluntary Schools and 5s. to the Board Schools, they would simply increase the competition, and put upon the Voluntary Schools an additional burden which they were attempting to alleviate at the present moment. He was far from saying that the time might not come when there might not be a reconsideration of many things in connection with education, but at present they were dealing with comparatively small matters. The Voluntary Schools supplied an enormous gap in education—nay, they supplied an amount of education prior to the School Boards which was not only enormous, but was increasing and growing rapidly, and which, even in spite of their being deprived of State grants and other things, had increased enormously since, without calling on the public for money from the rates or from the funds. That being so, they had gone to the expense of a large additional subsidy to the Voluntary Schools,
1226
because, if they had not done so, the chances were that the Voluntary Schools would have fallen, and a far larger demand would have been made both upon the rates and the public funds. They had increased the efficiency and expense of education, and that was the reason why they must make increased demands on the public purse, and by that means, too, necessitous Board Schools, where they were necessitous, would also benefit. If, when the experiment was tried, it should be found that something more should be done, no doubt it would be done in due time. Though he should have wished to see larger pleasures than these, he welcomed both the Voluntary Schools and the Board Schools Bills. The former afforded the means of maintaining the schools which had done great work in the past, and still had great work to do, and by the latter he trusted that the necessitous Board Schools would be able to work fur the advantage of education. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD REAYsaid that the objection to this Bill was not that relief had been given to the Voluntary Schools, but that the relief to be given to the Board Schools was not adequate, and placed those schools in a condition of inferiority. Why should Unit be? Whatever progress had been made in the matter of primary education in this country had been mainly due to the Board Schools. In many instances they had been in advance of the requirements of the Department, and they had shown a mastery of the subject of education which had been admired all over Europe. They had dealt not only with mental instruction, but in many cases had promoted manual instruction, which was of the greatest importance in primary education. The Board Schools had been accused of extravagance. What had the late Archbishop of Canterbury said: —
"He should not be so very Lard upon it, because the Board School was a magnificent system, which had been set on foot in a grand manner, and had done wonders for the education of the people, and also stimulated the education given in Church schools."
And how did the expenditure compare with that of the Swiss Canton of Zurich? The town of Zurich in 1896 spent two millions of francs on its primary,

1227
secondary, and technical schools, or 13 to 14 francs per head of the population. The town of Winterthur, with a population of 20,000, spent, in 1895, 326,000 francs, or more than 16 francs per head of the population, on education. In addition there was a contribution from the canton of about 3½ francs per head of the population. The total expenditure was £4 per head for every child in the elementary schools; one-third of the whole expenditure of the canton was devoted to education. It was alleged against the Board Schools that they did not give definite religious education. The syllabus of the London School Board did not bear out this allegation. What did The Guardian —an impartial authority—say on the 15th July last year of the syllabus of the London School Board?
"It is our firm conviction that if the Conservative Party in the country had to declare, by ballot, the kind of religious instruction they think most suitable to the children in elementary schools, a majority of them would be quite content with the syllabus of the London School Board minus the circular."
The late Archbishop of Canterbury said i on this subject: —
"I am persuaded that in a very great number of Board Schools there is very good religious teaching indeed."
and the Bishop of Durham said that—
"It had been a constant encouragement to him to notice the work done in Board Schools, and the loyal and true conditions under which the religious instruction was given."
The Blue-book on religious teaching in Board Schools also showed that the results were very satisfactory. The Board School teacher was as conscientious in his teaching as the teacher in the Voluntary School. They were trained at the same denominational colleges, and teachers who had been transferred from Voluntary to Board Schools denied that the religious teaching in the latter was inferior to that in the former. The legitimate requirements of the parents are certainly met. Besides, the Board Schools would be discredited if they did not give the religious teaching which the parents desired. As to the Scotch system, there were very erroneous notions abroad. It was quite true that it gave much more latitude to the School Boards with regard to the nature of the religious teaching. The representatives
1228
of the ratepayers, who were also the' representatives of the parents, had absolute freedom in this matter, and the use which they had made of that freedom was to a great extent the cause of the success and of the popularity of the Board Schools in Scotland. It was true that the Shorter Catechism was taught in the majority of Scottish Board Schools with the assent of the parents, but by teachers who were appointed and under the direct control of the Boards, and with no control from the clergy except in so far as the clergy were the elected representatives of the ratepayers on the Boards. He was pleased to sec that in another place the First Lord of the Treasury had praised the Scottish system; and if primary education were to be paid for out of public funds, there was no doubt that the Scotch system gave the best guarantees for efficient and property organised education. But this Bill dealt with the pressure of the rate in the School Board districts in England. In the rural districts, as had been admitted by the Vice President of the Council, the situation could only be improved by widening the area over which the rate was levied. There was no justification for a smaller grant being given to the rural parish which had a Board School than to one which had no Board School. There was no reason why in a rural parish with a School Board the ratepayers should have to contribute more than those individuals who supported the Voluntary School in another parish. He could not see why a premium should be placed on the absence of a School Board. A parish with a high rate could be as necessitous as a parish where the school was supported by voluntary contributions. It might be said that the Rating Bill of last year gave relief to the rural districts. That was only true in as far as relief was given to the occupiers of land, but no relief was given to the occupiers of houses. The Assessment Committees were quite free in making deductions from the gross letting value. It was quite clear that if an Assessment Committee made a large deduction from the gross letting value, there would be a lower rateable value, and by so much the chance of getting aid under this Bill would be increased, as against a locality where the rateable value was nearer to the gross letting value. Besides, there

1229
were many places with a high rate which would get less or no help which other places with a low rate would obtain. In London there was a rate of 1s., and there were 422,000 children in average attendance. The rates which the School Board would have to pay on its school buildings were estimated this year at £103,000. if London wore to be put on the same footing for its Board Schools as for its Voluntary Schools, also with regard to the grant of 5s. per board scholar, it might claim more than £200,000. Again, Plymouth would get nothing, while Devonport would be aided, simply because it had a lower rateable value on account of the rates on the Government buildings being paid by the Government. There was a theory that the State simply contracted for results. That was a theory which lie could not admit. The State was responsible for the education of the country, and could not divest itself of this responsibility. It was the duty of the State to stimulate local effort, and to give financial aid on equitable principles. It was because lie considered that the Bill deviated from those equitable principles, that he did not believe, it would give that stability to our educational system which was needed. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD NORTONsaid that it seemed to him that the criticisms of the Bill were founded on the idea that the proposal of u Treasury Grant for Voluntary Schools and the proposal for relieving the rates of Board Schools were intended to meet a claim of a similar character. That was not so. There was not the slightest relation between the claims of the Voluntary Schools and the claims of the Board Schools. To say, therefore, that it was an unfair thing to give 5s. per head to the one and only 1s. per head to the other, was to say that it was an unfair thing to give money in different amounts for any two totally different objects. The Voluntary Schools gave the public £2,000,000 a year in contribution out of private purses for elementary education, and what these schools required the Treasury grant for was to enable them to carry on the higher branches of education which had been added to their original volunteer. It was positively to save that £2,000,000 a year which was given by the Voluntary Schools that the Treasury
1230
came in and said, "As a larger requirement is made now we must meet that requirement, or we shall lose the work that is done by the Voluntary Schools." It was different in the matter of the Board Schools. In certain cases it was found difficult to raise a sufficient rate for the purpose of the Board Schools, and the Bill proposed that in those cases, and only in those cases, the burden should be transferred to a certain extent from the local rates to the Treasury. The whole question of subsidies from imperial and local taxes was a very fair question to raise. Some think that all public money necessary for national education should be provided out of Imperial funds. Such an arrangement would make the taxation fair, and it would avoid the jealousies raised by imposing local taxation for national education in the way of religious rivalry. Comparison had been made between the merits of the Board Schools and the merits of the Voluntary Schools. That had nothing to do with the matter. In the other House the Government were actually accused in bringing forward the first Bill of favouring Voluntary Schools, and with being ready to crush the Board Schools, and they were also told this little Bill offered only hush money to the Board Schools to be silent. The accusation was perfectly absurd and irrelevant. The Government were not favouring the Voluntary Schools, but they were trying to secure them to the country. They were not adverse to the Board Schools by facilitating their public support. He thought the Government were rather weak when they allowed this Bill to be treated as a necessary corollary to the other Bill, for the two Bills had really nothing to do with each other. He supposed it was to get votes for the first Bill, by conciliating opposition, that the Government allowed one to be tacked on to the other. But the Bill now before the House had its own fair claim. There were some places with sparse populations where the required amount of educational rate was difficult to raise, and in those cases it was very right that a portion of the burden of taxation for the schools should be transferred from the local rates to the Treasury. These two Measures were merely' temporary makeshifts until the whole subject of elementary and secondary education was dealt with, and he was glad to hear that that complete

1231
revision would be dealt with immediately by the Government. A large system of scientific instruction had been added to elementary education, and when they came to deal with the whole subject they would have to separate these two. When that happened neither of these two Measures would be wanted at all. Art apprenticeship would have to be made self-supporting, except in the way of providing scholarships for clever boys of the poorer classes. To say that they should provide higher education for well-to-do classes at the expense of the country was utterly absurd. It would be a fatal discharge of parental responsibility. The whole question was no doubt a very great and difficult one, and he was glad to hear the Government would apply their present strength to cope with it. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am reminded by what my noble Friend opposite has said of the rather trite saying that "comparisons are odious." I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding that in the few remarks I propose to make I shall be obliged to make some comparisons. The Bill is undoubtedly a small one; and there is another proverb which I do not forget—that "you must not look a gift horse in the mouth." Therefore, we on this side could not oppose the Bill, even if it could really be opposed in this House, because it does something to relieve the Board Schools. For my part I will make an avowal. Speaking as an individual I prefer the Board Schools to the Voluntary Schools. I thing to-day and always have thought that the only just and wise system is the system of State or Board Schools. But I think it would not have been wise in 1870, and it would not be wise now, to neglect entirely the Voluntary Schools, which as a matter of fact are an important part of the system of education of this country. What I complain of is that this gift to the Board Schools is a mean gift. That meanness has arisen from the fact that there is a very strong, and as it appears to me extraordinary vehement, feeling on the part of the Party which is now in power in this country in favour of the Voluntary Schools and in point of fact against the Board Schools. As Lord Playfair said, there seems, to be more a desire to perpetuate one system of schools in this country than to do that which is the one object we should have in view—
1232
to see that all schools, be they Voluntary or Board Schools, are thoroughly efficient. As regards the comparison between the Board School and the Voluntary School, I for my part do not see why a subscriber to a school is entitled to more relief from the State than the ratepayer who pays School Board rates. I am a contributor to schools in both capacities; and I do not feel that I am in the least decree more aggrieved by paying a subscription than I am by paying a rate. In one parish I pay a large rate towards the Board School; and in another place, where there is no Board School though I confess I only contribute when I feel that the Voluntary School is desired by the people there—I pay a subscription to a Voluntary School or support a school entirely myself; and I feel I am entitled to as much assistance from the State in one case as in the other. I do not see why the ratepayers' claim should be neglected; and for that reason I think the only fair, just, and wise system would be to give equal subvention to all schools alike. The present system established under this Bill, as the noble Duke ingenuously said, is of so' complicated a nature that he did not trouble the House with details. I was very much obliged to the noble Duke, however, for what he did tell us was very clear. The fact is, it is a most complicated system, ingenious as regards the forming of a sliding scale, but as regards equality between the different persons who are to receive aid it is about as unfair and ill-conceived as could possibly be imagined. It may be argued that if you were to give an additional contribution to, say, the London School Board, that would be a terrible thing, as it would increase the expenditure which would fall on the ratepayers of London. But, if the ratepayers of London desire that their schools should be made more efficient by expending more on them, why are they to be deprived of the assistance of the State on that account? It seems to me they are very meritorious if they do so, and that they ought to receive the same assistance from the State. I could not help admiring the manner in which the noble Duke insisted upon the way in which this new Bill had been contrived so as to give assistance only to certain schools which by the Act are so defined that those schools alone will be regarded as

1233
necessitous under this Bill. I remember that, when we tried to induce the Government to define necessitous schools in the Voluntary Schools Bill, we were told it was impossible and unnecessary. Under this Bill an attempt is made to give only to schools which are necessitous. Why not have applied the same system in both cases? This system of only giving the public money where it is most required, is quite a new principle with the Government. I have not forgotten the Agricultural Rates Bill; we tried hard then to persuade them to give the money only to those particular parts of the country which really needed it, but they refused. I cannot help thinking that that must have arisen from a special sympathy with those receiving the aid. But when dealing with a Board School, then you must have a carefully devised system, so that no school which is receiving much money shall receive for the benefit of the ratepayers any subvention from the State. I do not think the whole matter has been treated on a basis which is just and fair all round. As my noble Friend said, these are merely two Bills for giving in one case a large dole and in another case a very small dole, and it is not in any way the establishment of any permanent portion of our educational system, except in so far as a larger sum of money will be spent in the promotion of education. I wish I could think it will all go towards efficiency, but I do not think it will. In some cases I think there are managers of Voluntary Schools as eager for good education as managers of Board Schools, and in such cases it will be applied for promoting the efficiency of a school, but in a great many cases it will go for nothing but the relief of subscribers. I dare say it has occurred to the noble Duke that there is to be a distinct premium under this Bill to have a low assessment. It is very well known that in many parts of the country assessments arc by no means up to the real value of the property; now there will be a distinct encouragement under this Bill to make the assessment as low as possible, because then there will be a higher rate in proportion, and the parish in that situation will get relief which probably if it assessed itself at the fair amount it would not. I entirely disagree with, the Bill except in so far as it gives a small assistance
1234
to certain School Boards, an assistance which, I venture to say, would not have been given unless there had been considerable pressure on the Government not to leave the Board Schools entirely out in the cold. ["Hear, hear!"]
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
*THE EARL OF MAYOmoved, "That this Bill be now read a Second time." His Lordship explained that the Bill was to afford facilities for the establishment and development of industries in Ireland. He trusted that those who were interested in Ireland would support a Bill of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill consisted of 14 clauses; it had been before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and had passed without opposition. The promoters proposed to take any water or water rights, or any land in connection therewith, and it was not proposed to take land except in connection with water. To work these industries water was to be used. Such water was intended to be used for producing electricity, provided its employment for such purpose would not injure the water power used for any existing mill, or the water supply of any city, town, district, or locality; that the proposed industry was not of a nature to cause pollution to any stream or river; that any land to be taken was principally barren, uncultivated, or mountainous; that no fishery of any substantial nature should be injured by the undertaking; and that the establishment of such industry would be of general or local advantage. Subject to these provisions, the Local Government Board might, after an inquiry had been held, make an order giving a provisional approval to the application, and such provisional order should be published in the prescribed manner. An order under this Act might contain provisions consistent with the Act for the Incorporation, with the necessary modifications, and subject to such exceptions and variations as might be mentioned in the order, of any of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and of the provisions contained in the Second Schedule

1235
of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, and of the provisions of the Waterworks Clauses Acts 1863, with reference to security reservoirs; provided that nothing in the section should authorise any variation of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, as amended by the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts 1890, with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement. Then there was another clause with regard to security for costs, which was very important: —
"No order under this Act shall be made unless the prescribed sum has been lodged or secured within the time and in the manner prescribed to defray the costs and expenses of the Local Government Board and of successful objectors, and to render any works constructed in pursuance of this Act innocuous in the event of the undertaking being abandoned or the promoters becoming bankrupt or (if a company) being wound up, and such sum may be disbursed or released in such manner as may be prescribed."
He hoped their Lordships would support the Bill, because it would encourage other industries than agriculture, and would bring money into the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he was cloth to oppose a Bill introduced in the cause of industry in Ireland, but he thought the principle underlying it was not appreciated. The principle underlying the Bill was that private companies and private individuals were to have compulsory powers to acquire land for the purpose of manufactures for private gain. That principle had never been sanctioned by Parliament. In his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, Sir Courtenay Boyle said that there was absolutely no instance of such powers being granted to private companies. If this principle were to be sanctioned for the future it should be brought forward in a Bill introduced by the Government, and even then it would be of the utmost importance that such a Bill should be most carefully weighed before such an invasion of private property was sanctioned. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF DENBIGHthought it would be well for him to state at once what the position of the Government was with regard to the Bill. In the first place,
1236
it was not in any sense a Government Bill, but inasmuch as it went before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, on which prominent members of the Government Party in the House of Commons sat, and inasmuch as several Amendments were introduced at the instance of the Attorney General on behalf of the Government, the Bill had the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government. They believed that if it passed it would be a useful Measure, and that the harm which some noble Lords seemed to think would result from it, would not really come to pass. Considerable care had been taken to introduce safeguards which the Government believed would be amply sufficient, but if their Lordships thought otherwise he did not think there would be the slightest objection to consider further safeguards. The object of the Bill was to promote industries in Ireland which might be said to be dependent on electrical power. Although the Government could not deny the fact that the Bill introduced a somewhat novel principle, still in view of the fact that Ireland was, perhaps, an exceptional country—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and that all classes were now doing their utmost to promote industries there, he thought their Lordships might, perhaps, overlook that novel principle provided that proper safeguards were introduced for the purpose of preventing any abuse of its provisions. He could only say that the Bill was believed to be a useful one and Her Majesty's Government hoped that it would pass.
*THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)trusted that he would not be accused of attempting to discourage industry in Ireland if he expressed his strong sympathy with the views of the Earl of Arran. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill had a very innocent and almost frank appearance, and he must confess that until his attention was called to it, he had no idea that it contained the principle they had heard explained that night. He had looked in, vain for the safeguards of which the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading had spoken. This Bill went against every one of the principles that had hitherto been observed by Parliament in the granting of compulsory powers of purchase. In the first place, with very few exceptions, compulsory powers were only given by Parliamentary Committees before which the opponents

1237
had the right to appear. That was almost, though not quite, the invariable practice. The second condition was invariable—namely, that no powers of compulsory purchase under the Lands Clauses Acts should be given, except for a public undertaking, in which the public at large had a distinct advantage to gain—["hear, hear!"]—and in all cases, without exception, provisions were carefully made that the public should reap advantage from any undertaking sanctioned. The third condition, which was not absolutely universal, but almost so, was that compulsory powers should be given only to public companies established under the Companies Clauses Acts and incorporated by Act of Parliament. The reason of that was that Parliamentary companies were subject to certain restrictions and conditions, one of which was that the undertaking- which the company promoted was for the public advantage, the public advantage being paramount to the advantage of the company or its creditors. Moreover, no Parliamentary company was allowed to raise a loan on its property, so that no public undertaking could be stopped. It must be carried on for the public advantage. Thus it would be seen that in all cases the public advantage was the reason for giving compulsory powers. ["Hear, hear!"] In the case of individuals and limited companies, compulsory powers of purchase were only given for the purpose of improving communication in towns, sanitary improvements, the widening of streets, or matters of that kind; and he was quite certain that to give to a private undertaker these compulsory powers for his own private gain was absolutely unprecedented. ["Hear, hear!"] Every year all the large railway companies brought forward omnibus Bills, which almost invariably contained provisions for the construction of branch lines, and it was his duty to inquire whether those branches were really for the public advantage, or to serve a private manufactory or a coal-pit. If the promoters said they merely concerned a private undertaking, it was his duty to refuse compulsory powers of purchase, though not to refuse powers of construction. He did not for a moment wish to go into the details of the Bill, but it seemed to him to contravene all the principles he had stated as guiding Parliamentary practice at the present
1238
time. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill proposed that the requisite powers should be granted by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. No doubt the Lord Lieutenant in Council was an excellent tribunal, but it was a question whether powers of that kind should be transferred from Parliament to another body, however distinguished. ["Hear, hear!"] In Clause 2 there was a curious provision that the power was only to be used for the purpose of producing electricity. Why on earth should the power not be used where wafer power was to be used directly? ["Hear, hear!"] Clause 3 provided that no land was to be taken unless it was principally barren, uncultivated, or mountainous. That was rather ambiguous; but that did not in any degree detract from the value of the water power. ["Hear, hear!"] The last provision was that the establishment of an industry under the Bill should be of general or local advantage. Was there any value in that qualification? He assumed that any industry was of local advantage, and he would be extremely sorry if any action of his tended to discourage local industry; but to say that it must be proved that an industry was of local advantage was an utterly futile and worthless condition. It was curious to find in the second Subsection of the clause that the Local Government Board, who were to issue this order, which was to be final, were not to be bound by the conditions which he had just mentioned. They were to have the power—in any case where they thought they could exercise it without public or private injury—to dispense with those conditions and to make the order absolute upon the private individual. Clause 7 gave promoters power to conduct their pipes—it did not say for what purpose, but he supposed it was for hydraulic purposes—in or through any land or road, and to divert any right of way, and to alter or reconstruct any bridge, provided that the change did not cause any serious inconvenience to the public. Surely a provision of that kind would be likely to cause great injustice and great inconvenience. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought he had said enough to show how greatly this Bill encroached upon the principles and rules respected hitherto by Parliament. He objected to big principles being dealt with in this fragmentary and piecemeal fashion. If

1239
Parliament wished to alter the application of the Land Clauses Acts let it do so by all means, but let the change be effected by a properly considered Measure based upon some ascertained principles. But if they now passed a Bill of this kind applying to electricity, they would inevitably have to pass another very soon applying to other industries, and so they would have to go on. To deal with these large and important questions in this fragmentary manner would not be creditable to Parliament. In his opinion the importance of the objects of the Bill was not commensurate with the importance of acting in contravention of what had hitherto been the invariable practice and recognised principles of Parliament.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved that Lord Denbigh, speaking on behalf of the Government, had given reasons for supporting the Bill, one of them being that this was an exceptional Measure. He hoped that English and Scottish Peers would appreciate the value of flint argument. It had been heard before in 1870 and 1881, and they might feel sure of this—that whatever Irish Measure they passed as an exceptional Measure to-day would be applied to themselves tomorrow. Lord Denbigh had told them that the Bill had the support of the Government, and he wished to ask the noble Marquess whether a Measure which had been shown to be objectionable by the Chairman of Committees really had their support, and had been considered by the Cabinet?
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My noble Friend Lord Denbigh distinctly stated that this was not a Government Bill.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: He said that it had the support of the Government.
THE PRIME MINISTER: No, the sympathy of the Government; and the sympathy of the Government is, I think, precisely what it deserves. It does not deserve much more. [Laughter.] I mean that the intentions of the promoters of the Bill are admirable, and the object which it has in view of setting up industries in the more desolate parts of Ireland, and especially the object of putting to useful purposes the splendid water power that exists there, are admirable objects, and for them I have the deepest sympathy. But I confess that
1240
this beautiful spirit has been embodied in a less admirable frame, and, after listening to my noble Friend who sits fit the Table, and whose authority we all regard so much, I am compelled to say that the Bill appears to me to have defects. [Laughter.] I do not think, though legal care was devoted to its preparation, that sufficient regard was paid to the consequences that might follow from some of its enactments. After the speech of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, I do not think the House ought to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. We trust to him, and never in vain, to guard our proceedings and to take care that important principles of property and legislation are not transgressed in Bills that are brought before us. I think, in the circumstances, it would be wiser not to press the Bill to a Division.
*THE EARL OF MAYOobserved that Lord Morley, after saying he did not wish to discourage industries in Ireland, proceeded immediately to tear to pieces this Bill for the encouragement of such industries. The scope of the Bill was really very small. Its promoters did not ask for the use of the fat land of Ireland. They only wanted a few places in the mountains, where there was strong water power, which could be used for industrial purposes. Of course, sneers and ridicule were likely to kill any Bill. No comparison could be drawn between the case of Ireland and the case of England in matters of this kind. In Ireland there were tracts of country where land could be got for nothing, and where nobody lived, but the use of this land and the water could not be obtained without special powers, and it was for these necessary powers that the promoters of the Bill asked. This subject would be heard of again and again, and he should look to their Lordships to assist in removing any defects in the Measure, so that the promotion of industry in Ireland which would do so much good to the country might go on. After what had been said by the Prime Minister and the Chairman of Committees he realised that it would be useless to attempt to proceed with the Bill, but it was with the greatest reluctance that he withdrew it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; original Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
LORD PIRBRIGHT, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it was necessary, in order to enable rules to be made for preventing collisions in the sea channels leading to the River Mersey. The Bill, which came from the other House, consisted of only one clause, which proposed to enact that the powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, should extend to and include the power to make rules concerning lights and signals m the sea channels or approaches to the Mersey.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read a Third time, and passed.

LAND LEGISLATION (IRELAND).
*LORD INCHIQUINrose to call attention to the effects of land legislation in Ireland during the last 30 years on owners and occupiers, and to move: —
"(1) That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when, in the interests of justice, some compensation should be granted to landowners for the rights of which they have been deprived by the State; (2) that some relief might equitably be afforded to landowners, by granting State loans, on the same terms as those given to land occupiers, to facilitate the purchase by the landlord of the tenant-right or goodwill of the occupier, where lie is willing to sell such interest, or for any other purposes sanctioned by Parliament."
He said that for various reasons lie had been compelled to defer bringing this question forward until then, and even then he was afraid that the time was considered to be somewhat inopportune by some of those whom the Irish landlords looked upon as their friends and supporters in that House. But it seemed to him that the fact that the Government had conceded a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Land Acts was no reason why he should not propose this Motion for compensation to the landlords for the injuries which had been inflicted upon them. His
1242
Motion dealt almost exclusively with the past, but, of course, it did not follow from that that they would be debarred from making a still larger claim in the future if the course which had been pursued lately by the Land Commissioners were permitted to continue. In fact, it was all the more necessary to proceed with this Motion at the present moment, seeing that the Government had refused to stay the hands of the Land Commissioners pending the result of the inquiry which was to be held. He feared that in order to put his case clearly before the House, lie must go back over old ground and refer to the Irish land legislation of the last 30 years. Since 1870 no less than 25 Acts of Parliament had been passed dealing with land in Ireland. These Measures might be divided into two classes. The first class dealt with the questions of tenure, rent, and sale of holding, and the second class dealt exclusively with the question of purchase. It might be said generally that every one of those 25 Acts had been passed in the interest of the tenants. He called their Lordships' attention first of all to the Act of 1860. That Act introduced for the first time in Ireland a system of free contract. Under that Act the landlord could deal with his tenant as he pleased; he could turn him out on giving six months' notice to quit where a year's rent was duo either from a tenant under lease or from year to year. At the termination of a lease the landlord could take the land into his own hands without paying compensation. It was clear, therefore, that the tenant had no power to sell his interest, because if he attempted to do so the landlord could immediately defeat the sale by serving a notice to quit. The Act of 1870 interfered for the first time with the rights of the landlord. Roughly stated, the Act of 1870 legalised the Ulster custom, and it gave compensation for disturbance on a graduated scale through the rest of Ireland. It also provided that any improvements made by the tenant were to be paid for. The next Act was that of 1881, which included fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale. Those were the critical points which bad damaged the landlord's interest and had obliged landlords to come to Parliament and ask for compensation for the loss sustained. Fair rent practically meant

1243
perpetuity of tenure and a lease renewable for ever. The tenant also got the power to sell his interest at the highest price which he could obtain in the market; and it was this combination which had brought the landlords into the position they were now in. The next Act was that of 1887, the principle of which was passed by a Conservative Government. For the first time it broke leases and solemn covenants entered into by men perfectly competent to make agreements. Next came the Act of 1891, which brought in long leases extending over a large number of years. There was another Act at this time which gave the power to a tenant who had been evicted to resume his holding in certain circumstances. In 1896 an Act was passed which, brought in large graziers, men supposed to be well able to protect themselves, up to a valuation of, £100 a year. It also took away rights and privileges from the landlords—water rights, turbary, seaweed, and sea sand. It also prevented the landlord from having the power of redemption, which was one of the things which Mr. Gladstone specially reserved in certain circumstances. In 1885 came the Purchase Act, known as the Ashbourne Act. For the first time the tenant under it could borrow the whole of the money from the State for the purchase of his holding under an annuity of 4 per cent, for 49 years. The consequence had been that the whole of the money was promptly taken up, and a short time afterwards another Bill was brought in for the purpose of extending the amount of this purchase-money. This legislation had placed the tenant in this position—he could not be disturbed as long as he continued paying rent renewable for ever; he had the power to dispose of his farm for the best price he could get, and he purchased with State money the fee of the land. It might generally be thought that the tenant should be perfectly happy after all these things had been done for him, but he was afraid that was not the case. And the reason was obvious, because unless the man were in occupation before the Act of 1881, he had had to pay since that date large sums in, order to get into his holding. These large sums had lately been very largely increased, and the consequence was this, that the interest of the money, which the tenant had to pay for
1244
his tenant right in coming into a holding, together with, the reduced rent, very nearly amounted to his old original rent. What the Irish landlords said was this: You have reduced our rents, you have taken a large slice out of our property and handed it over to the occupying tenant, who is at liberty to go wherever he likes with the money. That was what Parliament had done. It had handed over to the occupying tenant the difference between the old rent and the judicial rent. He would take in illustration a peculiar case winch happened upon his own estate just after the Act of 1881 was passed. He happened to put a tenant into a farm a year before the Act came into operation. The tenant was to pay a rent of £150 a year. He had not paid a farthing for that, because tenant right did not exist in the south of Ireland, and as regarded his own estate, it was especially guarded. The tenant asked the rent to be reduced to £130. He asked to be allowed to sell and he was allowed to sell. The result was that he got £1,250 for his interest, having come in the year before without any interest whatever. This man walked off to America or somewhere else with his £1,250, and left the present tenant subject to the rent of £130 plus interest on £1,250, which, he was bound to add, the tenant was paying very regularly. Now that man was going into Court, and the question would arise—What would the Land Commission do? Would they take that man's interest into account or not? If they did, it would be taken absolutely out of the landlord's property and nowhere else. Numerous cases of the same kind could be cited. Mr. Healy stated the other day that in the large farms of £100 a year and approaching it, it was not the case that large sums were given for tenant right. But according to a Return which had just been compiled, this statement was not correct, there being a largo number of cases above £100 where very large sums had been given. There was a case where a tenant applied to be allowed to sell his tenant right for £500. The landlord objected that £500 was too much, and exercised his right of pre-emption. On going to the Land Commission, however, that body fixed the amount which the landlord was to pay at no less than £800. He quoted from returns of sales

1245
on a number of different estates to show the enormous sums given for tenant right, representing 20 and 25, and even 40, as muck as 40 and 44 years' purchase. Such were the enormous sums given for land which they were told was worth so little. He spoke as a largo farmer, having had for a considerable time as much as 4,000 acres on his hand, and he asserted that while undoubtedly prices had fallen, they had not fallen to anything' approaching the extent represented by the reductions made by the Land Commission, for the fall in prices represented only 10 per cent. Mr. Healy had stated that for every £1 of reduction the expenses to the country had been 19s. 6d. Adding the money spent by the tenant on lawyers and moneylenders, surely it would have been cheaper to the country to have spent the money on permanent relief to tenants, and left undisturbed property rights in the way that had been done. The landlord had been expropriated, and perpetuity had been given to the tenant. He had become a mere rent-charger, entitled only to an economic rent fixed by the State, whereas before 1870 free contract existed. Where before he would get from 25 to 30 years' purchase, he could now only get 15 or 20, and very often he could not sell at all. He had to pay high rates on his mortgages, and his powers of borrowing were practically done away with. Recovery of rent had been made more difficult than ever, and arrears had very largely increased, though allowances had been made. The landlord, besides, now had very heavy legal expenses. Landlords who before had never been obliged to go into Court, were now forced to go there. They had all the expense of the first hearing, and often of the appeal, which was entirely useless, as he knew. The landlord could no longer resume his land under any circumstances; his rents had been reduced by leaps and bounds, while the prices of tenants' right had been rising. Further, the landlord now had to pay the tithe rent, where formerly he was allowed to get it out of the tenant's rent. As to the Commissioners, if they were angels—and many of them were more like fallen angels—they could not possibly perform the task which Parliament had set them —that of fixing a so-called fair rent without any guidance at all. These men were
1246
let loose over the country to deal with an enormous mass of property, often without any previous knowledge, and simply judging in some cases from the smell of a stick which they had dug into the ground. That was no exaggeration, but fact. As Lord Dufferin had said, they wore sent groping in the dark to find the intentions of Parliament. They could not do the impossible, and the only rent which it was possible to fix was the market rent. If any lower rent were fixed, some one, not the landlord, must get the benefit of it, but some one would still be paying the market rent. These questions would never be settled until there was a return to freedom of contract. One party or the other must be bought out, and lie proposed that the landlord should have the same facilities for buying out the tenant as the tenant had for buying out the landlord. Surely Parliament did not wish to banish the landlords from Ireland altogether. Such a thing would be ruinous to the country, and the working people regarded the prospect with horror, for the landlords, and not the tenants, were the men who gave employment. The despised landlord, too, was still the constant adviser of the poor people in any difficulty. There must be one person, and one only, in ownership of the land. As to what the Commissioners were now doing, it was right that the attention of Parliament should be called to it. He had the latest returns as to the fixing of judicial rents. They Clinic down to the end of February 1897, and covered 1,672 cases. The total original rent involved in these cases was £52,994; the valuation was £39,368; the rent fixed for the first term was £42,289, or a reduction of 20·2 per cent., and the rent fixed for the second term was £30,957, or a reduction of 26·8 per cent. The total reduction on the two terms was equal to 41·5 per cent., or one-quarter under the valuation on which the rates were paid. The original rent, £52,994, was, curiously enough, one-quarter above the valuation. Lord Dufferin had well said that "the landlords were being jockeyed out of their property." It was all very fine to talk about the fall of prices; but the fall in England had been far greater than in Ireland, where most of the land was grass land. Besides, in England the landlord could always resume his land

1247
and farm it himself; in Ireland he could not. As to the Irish landlords not spending anything on their property, who could expect it with such constant inroads being made? They could have no hope of getting the money which they spent back again. Before the landlords were dealt with by the Act of 1881, they had a margin of not more than 50 per cent, to spend. The reduction made by the judicial rents amounted to 41·5 per cent.; so that the landlord was now left with a margin of 9 per cent., and in many cases the whole of his income had been swept away. Therefore he felt bound in honour as an Irishman and a representative of Ireland to come forward on behalf of the large number of people who were being reduced to absolute poverty, and to ask Parliament why nothing was being done to stop what was going on. He now came to an important matter. Mr. Gladstone clearly foresaw that the question of compensation would arise under the land legislation which he initiated in 1870. On asking for leave to introduce the Land Bill of 1870, into which he was asked to introduce "the three F's," Mr. Gladstone said, "Perpetuity of tenure on the part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord:" also "compensation would have to be paid for rights of which he would be deprived; "and he then wont on to show that the occupier only would benefit by the proposed legislation. Speaking again on March 11, 1870, Mr. Gladstone said:—
"If you value rents you may as well for every available purpose adopt perpetuity of tenure at once. It is perpetuity of tenure only in a certain disguise.
On May 19, 1870, Mr. Gladstone, discussing fixity of tenure and valuation of rents, said:—
"If we believe these provisions would be beneficial to the country it would be our duty to give them compulsory force by legislative enactments; and to consider from what source we ought to provide compensation to the landlord for rights he now enjoys."
Mr. Law, the then Solicitor General for Ireland, speaking on the Bill of 1870, said:—
"The property must be in some one, and if we were to secure the possession of the land
1248
and the enjoyment of the profit to the tenant and his successors for ever, subject only to a rent, we should in effect, no matter how we disguise it, transfer the property of the farmer to him and change the present landowner into a mere rent charger."
Sir Roundell Palmer (afterwards Lord Selborne) speaking in March 1870, said:—
"Fixity of tenure, which in plain English means taking the property of one man and giving it to another. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) said, according to the principles of justice, if we transferred property in that way we must pay for it. No doubt, we may take a man's property, but in that case we must compensate him for it."
Sir R. Collier, the Attorney General for England, taking part in the same discussion, said:—
"What does that mean but fixity of tenure —that is, that the landlord is to be deprived of his property."
Ten years later, Mr. Gladstone, in bringing in the Bill of 1881, said: —
"If, as has been said, Parliament is about to invade the property of Irish landlords, the question of compensation becomes a very serious one indeed, and one concerning which, if we are prepared to deal with it at all, we ought to speak in most decisive terms. If those classes, either or both of them, have a just claim for compensation in consequence of the manner in which their interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound as a Parliament to give it to them."
Could any language in favour of compensation be plainer than that. On July 22, 1881, Mr. Gladstone also said:—
"We, in 1869 (on the Disestablishment of the Church) provided that every holder of an advowson in Ireland should receive the full market price of his property. This ire held to be the true principle on which compensation should be based, and this is the principle on which the question should be approached on the present occasion. If after experience should prove that, in fact, ruin and heavy loss is likely to have been brought on any class in Ireland by direct effect of this legislation, that is a question we ought to look directly in the face."
There was one letter he should like to read to the House. It was from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter from a landlord in Ireland, asking him

1249
his opinion on the subject of compensation. The noble and learned Lord wrote:—
"Dear Sir,—As my words were not committed to writing, I cannot speak with absolute certainty as to what they were. But what I think I said was, that I could see no reason why Irish landlords should be excepted from the principle which was generally applied in all cases where State policy involved taking away something to which an individual had a right—that is to say, that compensation should always be given where, for State reasons, private rights were invaded.
He would also quote John Stuart Mill on compensation. The extract was quoted from "Principles of Political Economy."
"The principle of property gives them (the landowners) no right to the land, but only a right to compensation for whatever portion of their interest in the land it may be the policy of the State to deprive them of—to that their claim is indefeasible. It is duo to landowners and to owners of any property whatever, recognised as such by the State, that they should not be deprived of it without receiving its pecuniary value or an annual income equal to what they derived from it. If the land was bought with the produce of the labour of themselves or their ancestors, compensation is due to them on that ground. Even if otherwise, it is still due. on the ground of prescription. Nor can it ever be necessary, for accomplishing an object by which the community altogether will gain, that a particular portion of the community should be immolated. When tin; property is of a kind to which peculiar affection attach themselves, the compensation ought to exceed a bare pecuniary equivalent. The Legislature, which, if it pleased, might convert the whole body of landlords into fund-holders or pensioners, might, a fortiori, commute the average receipts of Irish landowners into a fixed rent charge, and raise the tenants into proprietors, supposing always full market value of the land is tendered to landlords."
The last extract he would trouble the House with was from Bentham's "Theory of Legislation."
"The principle of security require that reform should be attended with complete indemnity. The interest of individuals, it is said, ought to yield to the public interest; but what does that mean? Is not one individual as much a part of the public as another? This public interest, which you introduce as a person, is only an abstract term—it represented nothing but the mass of individual interests. Individual interests are the only interests; take care of the individuals; never molest them; never suffer anyone to molest them, and you will have done enough for the public. I shall conclude with a general observation of great importance. The more the
1250
principle of property is respected the stronger hold it takes on the popular mind. Slight attacks upon this principle prepare the way for heavier ones. A long time has been necessary to carry property to the point where we now see it in civilised societies, but a fatal experience has shown with what facility it can he shaken, and how easily the savage instinct of plunder gets the better of the laws."
The Legislature had always granted compensation where Measures had been passed for the public good, and had imposed it on public bodies, companies, or the individuals to whom it had granted compulsory powers to interfere with property and vested interests, And this compensation was not limited to damage done, but extended to prospective, possible, or contingent damage or injury. In 1833 the West Indian slave owners were enormously compensated when slavery was abolished, although it was questionable whether there existed in the planters any right to the ownership of other individuals. Compensation was also promised by the Government recently in the similar case of Zanzibar. It was also given in 1869 under the Irish Church Act; in 1874 and 1878 under the Public Health Acts and Acts directing the slaughter of diseased animals; in 1882 under the Arrears of Rent Act; and in 1871 on the Abolition of Army Purchase, He did nor propose to say what course the compensation should take, he left that to the Government, but he thought it should take a direct form. Of course, to those who had no mortgages on their estates what he proposed would not be very much relief, but to those who had it would be an immense relief. He saw no reason why advances should not be made to the landlord to pay off the charges with which he was saddled for no fault of his own, his income having been diminished by the State. The State would have perfect security, and they lent money upon much worse security to the tenant. He appealed to the House and to the country to consider the claim they now made; to consider it not only on account of men in the upper classes of life who were in a position like himself and those around him, but to consider what was the position of those who had been brought up, if not in the lap of luxury at least with every comfort around them. What position were they to be placed in? Were they to be destitute, and were their children to be left without

1251
education? Were their Lordships to fold their hands and say that political necessity obliged them to do this wrong, in id that they would not put their hands in their pockets to assist these people? He would ask them to bear in mind the saving, "Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum." [Cheers.]
LORD CLONBROCKsaid that, in view of the extreme importance of the speech of his noble Friend, he would move that the Debate be adjourned till Friday next.
Motion agreed to.
House Adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock, to Friday next, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.