Sitting of 27 May 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY CLEARING HOUSE BILL [H.L.]
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONmoved: —
  "That it be an Instruction of the Committee that they insert provisions requiring the promoters to publish for the use of traders, on such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may direct, any sectional or other railway maps constructed for the Railway Clearing House, indicating the different lines of railway and the distances along the same."
  He said he did not think that it would be desirable for him upon that occasion to go at any length into the history of the Railway Clearing House. It was originally formed as a voluntary association in 1842. It performed the, necessary work of breaking up traffic which went over more than one line of railway and apportioned the proceeds arising from it among the various companies interested. The Railway Clearing House formed one of the links that bound the great railway companies together for their united advantage. It was inevitable that as time went on the great railway companies would be fused into one body, and he had no objection to offer to the Railway Clearing House upon that ground. For some years past Airey's railway maps, showing in miles and chains the distance between the different stat ions and junctions on the railways of Great Britain, published by Mr. John Airey of the Railway Clearing House and certified by the railway companies, had been in general use by traders and had been procurable by them through the booksellers. In 1896 complaints were made by the traders that they could not obtain these maps, and in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Denbigh Burghs, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, said: —
  "I am informed that Mr. Airey, clerk in the Railway Clearing House, has been allowed to compile, publish, and sell various maps relating to the railways of the United Kingdom, that in 1894 it was considered by the Committee of the Clearing House undesirable that such business should be carried on by a clerk without control, and the Committee therefore,
  1398
  by mutual arrangement, took over from Mr. Airey his plant and paid him a considerable sum for the loss of his business, which is now the property of the Clearing House. I am also informed that the Committee do not propose in the future to publish for public use any maps beyond those of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. If this decision of the Committee is adhered to, I shall regret the loss of information which is of decided advantage to the public, for although the distances between stations are continually subject to variation, by the alteration of a junction or the opening of new routes, stations, or junctions, and although distance tables are prepared by all companies in compliance with their obligations, the advantage to the public of such practical and intelligible maps as have hitherto been published by Mr. Airey must be considerable. I have no control, however, over the decision of the Clearing House Committee."
  The withdrawal of the maps, which were the only ones of the kind obtainable by the public, and which had been of the greatest possible assistance to traders, rendered it impossible for them to ascertain, in the case of through traffic, which had to pass over more than one line of railway, whether the railway companies concerned were or were not exceeding their powers of charging, and also made it impossible, without having reference to the companies' rate books, to ascertain the real distances between any two stations or places. The railway companies did not set out the distance travelled over the system of each company, which might be a party to a through route, and the rate-books frequently omitted even the total distance from the place where the book was kept to the point of destination on another company's line. In July, 1896, he himself had asked a question on the subject in that House to which the President of the Board of Trade had replied as follows: —
  "I am in communication with the Railway Association with reference to this matter, and it is engaging their attention at the present time. The Statute (i.e. the section of the Regulation of Railways Act 1873, which requires the railway companies to keep for public inspection at each of their stations a book showing inter alia the distance from that station to any place to which any rate is charged), to which my hon. friend refers imposes a penalty for a contravention of Section 14, and it is, of course, open to any person aggrieved to institute proceedings. I cannot compel the companies to do more in the way of publication of distances than the law demands. The distance tables referred to are compiled by the companies for their own use, but they are, no doubt, valuable in assisting the companies to compute the distances for insertion in their rate books."

  1399
  In January last, in reply to a further question asked by him the President of the Board of Trade gave the following answer: —
  "I regret that the correspondence with the Railways Companies' Association has not led to any satisfactory result. The association hold that the question of the publication of these maps is one for the consideration of the Committee of the Railway Clearing House. I cannot hold out any hopes that the Government will undertake the preparation of such maps."
  The maps had been provided by the Railway Clearing House, and had been drawn up from information supplied by the railway companies, who now sought to minimise the value of them. Although under the Act of 1894 every railway company was under an obligation to give information as to its distances and rates, it was not bound to give the distances which goods had to be carried over other lines. These maps supplied the traders, in a convenient and ready form, with the information they desired on the subject, and, moreover, enabled them to select the best route for their traffic. This question did not come upon the railway companies as a new one, and, although they had not seen their way to concede this extremely reasonable request, he hoped that, now that the opportunity presented itself, the companies would reconsider their decision. Personally he had no desire to act in any hostile way towards the railway companies, because he believed that their interests and those of the traders were identical. He did not see what the companies could gain by pursuing a policy of mystery and concealment in the matter. He begged to move the Instruction which stood in his name. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *MR. F. A. CHANNING, in seconding the Motion, said that it appeared to him that the Railway Clearing House could hardly be considered merely as a railway companies' institution. It partook in some degree of the character of a. national institution, and had to deal with interests other than those of the railway companies. The course taken by the companies in suppressing these maps was wholly inconsistent with the recent policy of railway legislation. When the Act of 1894, was passed, an Amendment was expressly inserted to require the companies to keep for inspection all the rate books of 1892, which would enable traders to prove their case and check new demands. The withdrawal of these
  1400
  maps was impolitic, and would provoke further action as to railway charges. ["Hear!"]
  MR. J. W. MACLUREsaid that this Bill had been promoted by the committee of the Railway Clearing House merely for the purpose of enabling them to carry on their own business more conveniently, and the Measure had nothing whatever to do with the public. In these circumstances he regarded the Instruction as irrelevant to the objects of the Bill. Every railway company might refuse to give the information upon which the maps were based, and, therefore, it would be absurd for a Select Committee of that House to require the Railway Clearing House to furnish these maps when they had no power to compel the railway companies to give them the necessary information for preparing them. Moreover, the maps were frequently most misleading, owing to the changes that were daily taking place through the construction of new lines and now junctions. He hoped that the House would not accept the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE, while of opinion that railway companies ought not to withhold any necessary information from traders, desired to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Preston that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with railway rates. It was simply a Measure for the incorporation of the Railway Clearing House. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that these maps were most misleading. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said that, while he was in entire sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Instruction, he thought that the House ought not to call upon the Railway Clearing House to do that which was impossible for them to perform. ["Hear, hear!"] There was nothing in the Instruction which would enable the Railway Clearing House to call upon the railway companies to furnish them with the necessary information for drawing up these maps. The only result of this Instruction being carried would be that the promoters would withdraw the Bill, which had been introduced for the wise and proper object of providing for the incorporation

  1401
  of the Railway Clearing House. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that this information was of no real service to the traders, and that it might be of a misleading character. Perhaps the traders might be allowed to judge. ["Hear, hear!"] The railway companies had formed their opinion, as they had a right to, but the traders had formed an entirely different view. They thought that the information would be of a valuable character, and that it might guide them in their operations and put some kind of check on the charges of the railway companies. He thought they might dismiss the argument that the information was not of a character that would be valuable to the trading community. Believing, as the Board of Trade did, that this information was of value, they had made more than one effort to induce the companies to publish it, but he regretted to say that up to now the information had not been given. He hoped that the companies would very seriously consider the speech of his hon. Friend and the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which he had no doubt could be supported from all parts of the House. ["Hear, hear !"] He thought if the companies did not give the information, they would be doing themselves a great disservice. The interest of the railway companies was to render all the assistance they could to trade. In doing that they were serving their own interests. Under all the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in pressing this Instruction. It was an Instruction which could not possibly be worked. He thought time ought to be given to the companies to reconsider the matter between now and the Third Reading. If the railway companies still declined, his hon. Friend could take such action as he thought proper on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  *MR. MELLORwas afraid that if the hon. Gentleman gave way to this suggestion, he might lose his hold upon the Bill and the machinery to carry out what he desired to promote. There was hardly a Member of the House who had not had a letter from his constituents on this matter. He believed that throughout the country there was a widespread belief that these maps were very
  1402
  valuable. It was urged that the maps might be misleading, but surely the traders could judge for themselves. ["Hear, hear !"] When the railway companies came to that House to ask for Parliamentary powers, that House might well say, "You are placing yourselves in a very different position from what you were in, and, while we grant you these powers, you must do something for the public in return." ["Hear, hear !"] What was the reason why the companies would not give them these maps and this information? Strong pressure had been put on the companies to give it. At one time the information had been given. Then it was said these maps were incorrect. But if the people thought they could get information out of them they should have them. What was the real grievance? The railway companies were advised that if the maps were published, the Assessment Committees would get them as well as the traders, and that the position as to rating would be altered. He did not believe that a company got any benefit from refusing information such as this. The best plan was to be open with the public, the traders, and the Assessment Committees. It was said that if this Instruction were carried there was no machinery to compel the companies to give this information, but if the Instruction were carried, the machinery would soon be provided.
  MR. CHARLES MURDOCHsaid he thought it was a new departure to pass any such Instruction with regard to a private Bill. The railway companies would gladly give any information that might be required. [Cries of "No, no!" and an HON. MEMBER: "They don't !"] They were now asking the House to do that with regard to the railway companies which they would not do with regard to other associations. They would not attempt it, for instance, with regard to the banking companies, and he objected to a penal clause being inserted in these Bills. It was hard that documents which were copyright should be, under compulsion, given to the public.
  MR. JAMES BRYCEwas glad to observe that the hon. Member who had just sat down had not adopted an attitude of absolute hostility. He understood him to say that the railway companies would not be unwilling

  1403
  to do what they could. Under these circumstances, the House would be unwilling to force on an Instruction which might involve the loss of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade had suggested that the matter might stand over until the Third Reading, and with that view he begged to move the adjournment of the Debate. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid that the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be entirely satisfactory to him. He did not desire to press hardly upon the railway companies, but was quite willing to give them time to consider in what form they could give the information.
  MR. R. W. PERKStrusted the hon. Member for Preston would carry the Instruction to a Division, so that there might be some security that the Railway Clearing House would, in consideration of the large powers they sought, perform that duty to the trading community which they ought to have performed long ago.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the question of the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. T. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of an amicable arrangement not being arrived at, he would, on the Third Reading, support an Instruction such as that they had been discussing?
  MR. RITCHIEdid not think it was right he should be asked to give such an undertaking, or that it was right he should give it. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not desire that the railway companies should consider this question under any threat at all. He had expressed the opinion of the Board of Trade in terms which could not be misunderstood, and thought he had said quite sufficient.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid that he would endeavour, with his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Murdoch), to bring the subject fairly before the Railway Association, of which he was a member. His own view was that if the trader wanted this information, he was perfectly welcome to it. It could only be given, however, by the united railway companies publishing an authentic map,
  1404
  such as was described by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Instruction.
  Debate adjourned till Monday 28th June.

  SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday 30th June.
QUESTIONS.

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY (SCOTLAND).
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that inhabited house duty is now, for the first time since the passing of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act of 1857, being imposed on the parochial asylum at Smithston, which is under the management of the Greenock Parish Council; and will he explain the reason of this action of the revenue officials, which is opposed to the usual practice of the Government, in exempting from inhabited house duty asylums which are occupied by paupers and maintained by a parish rate?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I understand that an appeal against this assessment was heard before the District Commissioners of Taxes on April 29, and that the Commissioners decided that the case was governed by the decision of the Court of Session in the case of Musgrave v. Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum. They therefore confirmed the assessment, and, as the Parish Council have not demanded a case for the opinion of the Court, the decision of the Commissioners must stand until another opportunity occurs of reviewing it.

  POSTAL FACILITIES (CO. CAVAN).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a petition was sent in December last from the inhabitants of the townlands of Cora-vaddy, Carnabosh, Libru, Mullaghboy, Tullygally, Rathkenny, and Drumrene, in the County of Cavan, requesting the establishment of a post office at the

  1405
  house of Mr. Brown, Rathkenny; whether he is aware that the nearest money or postal order office to Rathkenny is Coothill, which is four miles away; and whether he will take steps to carry out the wishes of the petitioners in this case?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General received the petition referred to. The nearest post office to Rathkenny where money order and postal order business can be transacted is apparently Lisnageer, which is about 3½ miles distant. The inquiry made on receipt of the petition showed that the number of letters for the district was insufficient to justify the establishment of a post office at Rathkenny, but the question of extending the free delivery of letters in the locality is about to be taken up, and the hon. Member shall be informed of the result.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL MONITORS (IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if monitors in National Schools are paid as much salary as monitors in Model Schools; and, if not, can he state the reason?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Monitors in ordinary National Schools are paid according to the same scale of salary as those in Model Schools.

  TUSKAR LIGHT.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the great importance attached by the shipping trade to the prompt reporting of vessels which pass the Tuskar Light and Signal, he can see his way to make temporary arrangements with the Post Office under which permission can be given for the use of the existing telephone for signalling purposes?
  MR. RITCHIE: Until the general question of the desirability of allowing lighthouses to be used for the purposes of commercial signalling has been decided, I do not think that I should be justified in sanctioning the use of the telephone at any particular lighthouse for such purpose.

  DISCHARGE OF BRITISH SEAMEN ABROAD.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Discharge of British Seamen abroad has yet been sent in, and whether it will be presented to Parliament; whether the scheme for the transmission of seamen's wages experimentally tried at Dunkerque, has already been extended to four other Continental ports; and whether the present excessive charges on seamen's money orders can be abolished, seeing that the fees for discharges of seamen more than cover the cost of extra office work entailed on the Consulates by the new system?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not yet received the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I understand that it will be sent in shortly, and it shall in due course be presented to Parliament. The transmission scheme for seamen's wages, experimentally tried at Dunkerque, has been extended to three other Continental ports—viz., to Antwerp, Hamburg, and Rotterdam. The question whether it is desirable to abolish the fee charged for sending home seamen's wages is receiving consideration.

  EQUIVALENT GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  SIR LEWIS MCIVER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the principle of Equivalent Grants has apparently been abandoned in respect of Ireland, he is in a position to state what annual sum will in future be allocated to Scotland in correspondence with the relief of rates recently announced for Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): It is at least premature to assume that the principle of Equivalent Grants has been abandoned, because it is proposed to accompany a great reform in Irish local government with a much larger relief from rates than Ireland would have been entitled to on the basis of Equivalent Grants. But if that principle had been abandoned, it would follow that the necessities of Scottish agricultural ratepayers would have to be considered rather than any question of

  1407
  corresponding amount in grants, and these necessities were met to the extent of five-eighths of the occupiers' rate of the Act of last Session. In any case, no question can arise during the current financial year.

  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether cyder, perry, and British wines, containing up to 15 per cent. of alcohol, can be manufactured and sold without duty being paid on them; whether any statistics exist of the quantity of these beverages manufactured; and whether they are chiefly made in England; and if so, whether any compensating immunity from duty can be granted to the native stimulants produced in Ireland and Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no duty on the manufacture of the liquors mentioned by the hon. Member, but a licence duty has to be paid on the sale of them by retail. There are no recent statistics as to the production of them; but it was found, after an exhaustive enquiry which was made in 1887, that about one-sixth of the whole annual production of British wines came from Ireland, and it was estimated that about the same amount came from Scotland.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to the percentage of alcohol. Was it a fact that alcohol up to 15 per cent. was free of duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot answer that, but I should not think it is. These liquors contain very varying amounts of alcohol; some very little indeed.

  BALLINAMORE CANAL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the names and addresses of the Trustees of the Ballinamore Canal; whether there is any public office in which they meet or where they can be seen; and, can he state in what form they can be approached, i.e. whether by private letter or by memorial presented through a legal channel?
  MR. HANBURY: The canal is under two bodies of trustees, one for navigation and one for drainage purposes. I assume that the hon. member refers to the navigation trustees, who are appointed as vacancies occur, by the Grand Juries of the adjoining counties. The Roscommon Grand Jury have refused to appoint any trustees at all, but the Grand Juries of Cavan, Fermanagh, and Leitrim have appointed representatives, and I have here a list of their names and addresses which I shall be happy to give to the hon. Member. I am not aware whether they have any office, but the secretary to the trustees is Mr. B. St. George Harrison, Carrick-on Shannon, and I suppose he can be approached by private letter.

  ARMY SERVICE RECORD (JOSEPH DENISTON).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can explain why Joseph Deniston, formerly of the 10th Foot, who recently applied for a copy of his record of service to the War Office, was not supplied with the record along with such other copies of discharge as are granted to soldiers leaving the service?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): It would be contrary to the Queen's regulations to issue to discharged soldiers duplicates or copies of their discharge documents.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any further statement to make concerning the repeated applications of William M'Donnell, of Caldragh, in the union of Longford, to have a cottage erected for him under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of the 5th February on this subject, except to say that, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, the Guardians do not at present propose to make a new scheme for the erection of additional cottages in the Union.

  CYCLES (CARRIAGE BY RAIL).
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will communicate with the leading railway companies on the subject of the carriage by rail of bicycles, with the view of inducing them to convey bicycles at lower rates than the present very high rates, to provide upon some trains vans or compartments of vans fitted for the conveyance of bicycles, and to supply at the left luggage offices of the large stations a better provision than now exists for the reception and safe keeping of cycles?
  MR. RITCHIE: I shall be happy to communicate the points referred to in the right hon. Member's Question to the Railway Companies' Association, and ask that they may receive favourable consideration.

  LONGFORD UNION WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the strong protests of the medical officers of the Longford Union against the practice of having the sick poor conveyed to the workhouse hospital in the antiquated van at present in use: and whether, as within the last few months verdicts have been returned by two coroners' juries in two inquests that the deaths were directly attributable to the patients having been forced into this van, and the Board of Guardians have persistently refused to provide a suitable van, the Local Government Board intend to take any action in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the unsuitability of the ambulances referred to, and they have frequently urged the Guardians to provide suitable conveyances. In the case of two recent inquests, the coroner's jury found that death was accelerated by removal to the Workhouse Infirmary in the existing ambulances. The Guardians, on the 15th inst., authorised the Medical Officers to employ a carriage or other suitable conveyance when they considered it advisable, and with a view to determine if this order will meet with the necessities of the case, the Local
  1410
  Government Board have instructed their Inspector to ascertain whether suitable vehicles are available for this purpose.

  ANTIQUITIES (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL), I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether he is aware that the Council of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, Ireland, offered to the Science and Art Department some Irish antiquities which had formed part of a small museum belonging to the Society located in the city of Kilkenny, and that the Director of the Science and Art Museum, Dublin, wrote in reply that the acceptance of the offer must be postponed for a short time, awaiting the appointment of a superintendent of Irish antiquities in the Dublin Museum; (2) whether he will explain why on the 10th of the same month an official letter from the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, informed Alderman Murphy, of Kilkenny, that they had no intention of accepting the collection; and (3) whether communication to this effect has been made to the Royal Society of Antiquaries, Ireland; if not, what reason can be given for this treatment of a proposal apparently approved of a week before by the Committee of Council on Education.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The offer mentioned in paragraph 1 was made, and was still under consideration of the Science and Art Department, when they received a memorial, largely signed, from the secretary of the Kilkenny museum, protesting very strongly against the proposal. Under these circumstances the Department declined the offer; but, through an oversight their decision was not officially communicated to the Royal Society of Antiquaries.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (LONDON).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has

  1411
  been directed to the report of the proceedings in Scotland Yard on the 14th May, when Sir Edward Bradford, the Commissioner of Police, received a deputation from the Humanitarian League to lay before him a resolution passed at a public meeting in St. Martin's Town Hall, on the 5th May, urging that the London Police should be instructed to act more promptly and on their own initiative when they witness any ill-usage of horses by Hogging or overloading in the streets, and to the remark of the Commissioner of Police with reference to the contrast drawn between the action of the Metropolitan and City Police in cases of ill-usage of horses, that the City Police are able to act more vigorously because they have a much smaller area to control, and convictions may be, more easily obtained before Aldermen of City Courts; and, whether he will take any steps to assimilate the practice of the Metropolitan to that of the City police in checking cruelty to animals in the streets?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have communicated with the Commissioner, and he informs me that he had what he thought was a private conversation with three gentlemen representing this league; but that he cannot accept the report alluded to in the Question as an accurate account of what passed, and that he certainly did not intend to convey that the practice of the City Police in the matter differs from that of the Metropolitan Police. I am fully confident that the Commissioner will do everything in his power to further the humane objects which the league has at heart.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether it was not the duty of the police to see that gravel was used on the streets in slippery weather?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYwas not aware that such was the duty of the police; he imagined it was the duty of those who had charge of the roads.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Diamond Jubilee Day in Scotland, so far as the Post Office is
  1412
  concerned, will be celebrated on the same lines as in England, and the duties confined to one delivery and one dispatch of letters?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; as far as possible.
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in commemoration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, now approaching, he would consider the propriety of advising the release of the treason-felony prisoners now still in prison?
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that at many public meetings recently held in Ireland resolutions were unanimously passed asking for the immediate and unconditional amnesty of the Irish treason-felony prisoners now confined in English and Irish gaols; and whether, in view of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, the request of the Irish people will be granted?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am afraid that I can add nothing in answer to this Question, or the Question of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, to what has been already stated in this House both by the Leader of the House and by myself.
  MR FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the Question into his consideration before the Jubilee?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Sir, I am always considering this question. [Laughter.]
  MR. FLAVIN: I mean with a view to a favourable answer?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing the amount of extra duty and responsibility which will be cast upon the Metropolitan Police Force during several days at the time of the Jubilee festivities, he will consider the advisability of giving to each member of the force a substantial gratuity in addition to an extension of the customary annual leave?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have nothing to add to the answer which was given last week —namely, that it was hardly necessary to remind me as to this, and that at present any statement would be premature.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, following the precedent established in 1868–69 with reference to Waterloo and Peninsula veterans, he will consider the advisability of marking this Jubilee year by granting a small pension to veterans who have served through the two most important campaigns of the present reign, namely the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Special campaign pensions have, under certain conditions, been awarded to men who took part in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns. It is not at present contemplated to go further in that direction.

  MARYBOROUGH GAOL (PRISONER THOMAS COLLINS).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will again take into consideration the petition in favour of the release of Thomas Collins, a Kerry prisoner, at present confined in the invalid prison at Maryborough; and whether, owing to the seriously injured condition of the prisoner's mind, his release will be granted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The case of this convict was considered, on memorial, so recently as last month, and the Lords Justices, who had before them a special medical report on the mental and physical condition of the prisoner, decided that there were no grounds for a remission of sentence. It is not correct to say that the mental state of the prisoner is seriously impaired.

  IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the report of C. H. Smith, divisional officer at Ballyheigue, County Kerry, in which he states that immense shoals of herring, mackerel, and other fish appear in Ballyheigue Bay; and whether, with a view of developing the fishing industry, a suitable pier will be erected, as recommended by the divisional officer?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The construction of a boatslip at Ballyheigue was at one time under the consideration
  1414
  of the Congested Districts Board, but the project was abandoned. I will call the attention of the Board to this Question, but of course I cannot express an opinion as to whether their funds could be advantageously expended on this particular work.
  MR. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that steam trawlers were accidentally captured and seized for trawling within the prescribed limits, and that an inquiry had recently been held by the Irish Fishery Commissioners, whether it was intended to place a gunboat on that coast to protect the line fishermen and smaller trawlers respectively?
  [The HON. MEMBER explained that the words "Galway Bay" had been omitted from the Question.]
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This question presumably refers to Galway Bay, where some steam trawlers were captured about a year ago. The Inspectors are not aware of any recent violation of the law by trawlers in these waters.

  POLICE FORCE (COUNTY KERRY).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Kerry is the heaviest taxed county in the United Kingdom, and that white gloves were presented on several occasions lately to the County Court Judge owing to the absence of crime; and whether, as the county is in a peaceable condition, a further reduction will be made in the extra police force so as to give immediate relief to the ratepayers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware whether Kerry is the heaviest taxed county in the United Kingdom, though I believe it is a fact that the county cess is higher there than in any other county in Ireland. The poor rates are levied by unions, and it would take some time to compare the incidence of these rates with the poor rates in other counties. Arrangements have been made consequent upon the continued improvement in the state of Kerry, to reduce the extra force of police stationed in the county to seven men, and it is hoped that after a short time these also can be dispensed with.
  MR. FLAVINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that Kerry was the heaviest taxed county in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member must not make it a practice to comment on the answers he receives.
  MR. FLAVIN: It is because he denies facts. [Loud cries of "Order !"]
  MR. D. KILBRIDEasked whether it was a fact that in the barony of Corkaguinny the taxes were 13s. 6d. in the pound, and that in the barony of Ivereagh—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! Notice should be given of a detailed Question.

  PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he can state who is the owner of the derelict Portumna Railway; (2) what are the financial responsibilities attached thereto; and (3) whether the Government intend to aid in having the line put into working order?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to the first paragraph, the Board of Works are mortgagees in possession of this line of railway. The second paragraph is obscure and I cannot answer it. As regards the third paragraph, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous similar inquiry of the 29th March last.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say what became of the metal and iron of the permanent way of this railway—who removed it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe a good portion of it was stolen. [Loud laughter.]

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCES (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to bring in a Measure to amend the law so that compulsory attendance of children at school can be enforced in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to my replies to the Questions addressed to me by the hon. Member on this subject on the 11th February and 2nd April last.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD AUDITORS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. H. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what were the salaries of the Local Government Board auditors previous to the additional duties thrown upon them in auditing corporation, town commissioners, etc., accounts; (2) whether the auditors get all the fees imposed for audit on these bodies in the first year for this additional duty, and what did it amount to; (3) did the Treasury increase the auditors' salaries; and, if so, how much; and do they receive the several sums fixed upon for the audits of corporation, etc., accounts, and how much does it amount to; (4) whether, if the fees of the Treasury exceed the increase made in the salaries, he will consider the advisability of reducing the amount paid by corporation town commissioners or of paying for these audits out of the Imperial Treasury; and (5) whether he can say in what manner are the audits of corporation, town commissioners, etc., paid in England, Scotland, and Wales?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The salaries of auditors before the additional duties referred to in the first paragraph were imposed upon them were £600 annually. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The cost of audit of the accounts in question was originally calculated at £1,516. 13s. 4d., which is still the amount charged to the local authorities, although the number of towns and the expense of auditing their accounts have since largely increased. The salaries of the auditors were increased to £700 in December 1872, and the contribution of £1,516. 13s. 4d. by local authorities is repaid to the Treasury under Section 6 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1872. I see no reason to believe that the local authorities are overcharged in respect of the work done for them. I have no information regarding the last paragraph of the Question.

  LIGHTHOUSES (RED SEA).
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increased shipping from India and Australia, the Government will take steps to have an adequate number of

  1417
  lighthouses stationed on the shores of the Red Sea?
  MR. RITCHIE: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for the South Division of Bristol, a, circular has been addressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople to the representatives of the Great Powers inviting their co-operation on the subject of additional lights in the Red Sea. No steps can be taken by Her Majesty's Government until the replies to these communications have been received and considered.

  CAVALRY RECRUITING STANDARD.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as regards the recent regulations, which make it impossible for any man between the heights of 5 ft. 9 in. and 5 ft. 11 in. to enlist in the British Cavalry, efforts will be made to prevent desirable recruits of this height who are disinclined to enlist in the Infantry or Artillery being lost to Her Majesty's Service?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the recruiting authorities will not omit an effort to induce such recruits to enter some branch of the service for which they are eligible.

  KING'S LYNN PILOT COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. J. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain on what grounds the King's Lynn Pilot Commissioners, having refused to grant a pilotage certificate to the foreign captain of a foreign ship occasionally visiting King's Lynn, the Board of Trade superseded the local Commissioners and appointed special examiners to grant a pilotage certificate to the said alien; and whether this power was exercised by the Board of Trade under Section 600 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894?
  MR. RITCHIE: The King's Lynn Pilotage Commissioners refused to grant a certificate to Captain Ferange to pilot his own vessel on the ground that his vessel was a foreign vessel, commanded by a foreign master, notwithstanding the fact that the pilotage sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, apply both
  1418
  to British and foreign ships. An application having been made by the Belgian Vice Consul at King's Lynn to the Board of Trade to appoint a person to examine Captain Ferange under Section 600 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, this was done, and, the examiners having reported that he was competent, the certificate was granted.

  PORT NESS HARBOUR (LEWIS).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state who prepared the original plans, specifications, and quantities for Port Ness Harbour, and the amount of the original estimate; whether any departure has been made from the original plans; and, if so, will he describe what departures have been made, and the additional cost incurred in consequence of the changes?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The details asked for are not such as can well be given in the form of an answer to a question, but if the hon. Member will address a communication to the Scottish Office on the subject, the Secretary for Scotland will be prepared to give him a reply.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that no work it at present being done at Port Ness Harbour, he will state whether it is the intention of the Government to have the work proceeded with; and, if so, when?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir. It is intended to employ to the best advantage the unspent balance of the grant for this work; but it is necessary first to come to an understanding with the trustees, and the Scottish Office is now in correspondence with them.

  FISHERY CRUISER (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether any tenders were received in response to the specification, dated 20th March 1897, and issued by the Fishery Board for Scotland, for a new fishery cruiser which was to be delivered to the Board on or before the 1st July 1897; and, if so, will he state the names of the firms who tendered?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am unable at present to give the names of the firms who tendered, because, so far as I am aware, the matter referred to is still under negotiation.

  ARTILLERY PRACTICE (PLYMOUTH SOUND).
  MR. F. B. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any recent complaints on behalf of fishermen, of dangerous firing in the vicinity of Plymouth Sound; and whether he will give such instructions as will prevent its recurrence?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Nothing is known at the Admiralty on the subject. My hon. Friend has given me some details with reference to the alleged dangerous firing near Plymouth Sound, and I have referred his communication to the Commander-in-Chief at Plymouth, in order that an inquiry may be made into the matter.

  NEWINGTON VESTRY ELECTION.
  MR. JAMES BAILEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. Levi Joseph Dunham, returning officer at the vestry election on Saturday next, 29th May 1897, for the parish of Newington, has written a letter to The South London Press of Saturday last, 22nd May 1897, in which he makes a long attack in a partisan spirit on the election address of one section of the candidates, and concludes by calling upon the ratepayers to vote for the opposite party; and whether, considering that this returning officer has thus declared his partiality to one section of the candidates, the Local Government Board will take steps to prevent his presiding at the coming election?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): My attention has been called to the letter of Mr. Levi Joseph Dunham, the returning officer at the vestry elections for the parish of Newington on Saturday next, which was published in The South London Press of Saturday the 22nd inst.,
  1420
  but only since a notice appeared of the Question of my hon. Friend, and I have thought it my duty to call for an explanation, which I have received. It affords, in my judgment, no excuse for conduct on the part of the returning officer which appears to me to have been grossly irregular and most reprehensible. It would be too late now to take action to prevent his presiding, the elections being on Saturday next, but I have no doubt that care will be taken by the candidates to guard against any irregularity on the part of the returning officer. Under the statute a returning officer who is guilty of any wilful misfeasance is liable, in addition to any other penalty or liability to which he may be subject, to forfeit a penal sum not exceeding £100 to any person aggrieved.

  READING PRISON (DISCHARGE OF WARDER).
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the circumstances which induced him to dismiss a warder recently from Reading Prison included the giving of some bread to a youthful prisoner who was found crying from hunger in his cell; (2) what other circumstances, if any, led to such dismissal; and whether, in case the giving of the food in the manner mentioned was the only breach of discipline committed by the warder, he will reconsider the penalty inflicted on the erring officer; and (3) whether the offence for which an ex-prisoner has been sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for throwing some cigar ends among convicts at Borstall is in itself legally punishable by imprisonment; and, if not, what were the other grounds on which this punishment was inflicted by the magistrates who tried and sentenced the prisoner?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. As regards the second, I think it would be very undesirable to enter in detail into the circumstances attending the dismissal of prison officers. I have already informed the hon. Member that the account which he appears to have received is an incorrect one, and that I am perfectly satisfied that the dismissal of this warder was a proper step. The answer to the third paragraph is

  1421
  in the affirmative. The statute under which the prisoner was convicted was 2 and 3 Vict. cap.56, Section 22, and his sentence of imprisonment was in default of payment of a fine.

  BROADMOOR CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM (ISABELLA HEWSON).
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether application has been made to him to consider the case of Isabella Hewson, committed to the York Assizes in May 1885 on u charge of manslaughter, who, having at a time when her mind was unbalanced taken the life of her illegitimate child, was ordered, in consequence of the medical evidence, to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, and has been in custody 12 years, and is now detained at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; (2) will he explain why the prisoner is still detained, in view of his reply on 6th April to an application made by her sister for her release, in which he declined to authorise her discharge, and stated that it should be understood that her continued detention in the asylum is not for the purpose of punishing her for a crime committed when she was not responsible; and (3) whether he has ordered, or is prepared to order, a special inquiry into her mental condition, with the object of ascertaining whether she can be discharged and committed to the care of her relatives?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes; I received such an application last March, and being satisfied, after a careful inquiry into the case, that the woman could not safely be discharged, directed the answer to be sent to which the hon. Member alludes in the second paragpraph of his Question. I have made fresh inquiry since the hon. Member gave notice of his Question, and regret that her condition remain unchanged, and that discharge is impossible at present.

  INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he would call upon the Government of India to make a Report as to the effectiveness of the steps taken by the Indian Government in 1894 to prevent the supersession of officers of the Indian
  1422
  Staff Corps by those in the line by granting temporary rank to commandants and seconds in command in native regiments?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The question of the supersession of officers of the Indian Staff Corps by those in the line is now under my consideration in connection with a letter recently received from the Government of India.

  CHARGE OF LARCENY (CO. TYRONE).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will order the immediate release of two men named Maguire, County Tyrone, who are at present in prison on a charge of larceny from William Triston, considering that in July 1896, when charging the jury before whom the Maguires were tried, Judge Andrews remarked that if money found upon the accused could have been identified as upon the deceased on the night in question, no one could fail to see the importance of such evidence, but that they had not the materials upon which they could come to such a conclusion; and what is the reason for the detention of the Maguires in prison on the charge of larceny after substantial bail being offered for their appearance when called upon?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I have already, in answer to several questions from hon. Members stated to the House that the brothers Maguire are at present in prison on the charge of robbery from the person of one, Triston, deceased, and that it is intended to put them on their trial at the next Summer Assizes for that offence. From the only report of Judge Andrews' charge which has been furnished to me, the learned Judge does not appear to have made the statements attributed to him in the question. The application to be admitted to bail was made to the learned Judge who presided at the case, and refused by him, as appears from the report, on the ground that they were apprehended when they were fleeing from justice.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say how many questions he had answered on this subject, and

  1423
  whether, in the interests of justice, he would decline to answer any further questions?
  MR. DALY: May I ask whether it is because the Maguires are Catholics that they are kept in prison?
  MR. J. DILLONasked whether it was intended by the Crown to proceed on the charge of robbery before the death, or only on the charge of larceny?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Both.

  MERSEY DOCKS BILL.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Mersey Docks Bill, which is to be read a Third time on Thursday, will seriously interfere with the shipment of cattle from Ireland to Liverpool; and whether he will take steps to prevent injury to one of the remaining industries of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I know of nothing in this case which would justify the Irish Government in taking the very unusual course of opposing an English private Bill.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, as this Bill was postponed for nearly a month, he would take the trouble to inform himself of the opinion of the ship-owners and those interested in the cattle trade of Ireland; and whether, if he found that the Bill would be detrimental to both, he would use his influence to prevent the passing of the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot undertake to take action on such inquiry, and it has been ruled already, I believe, that the shipowners have no locus standi in the matter.

  GLEBE ACT (IRELAND).
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would favourably consider the extending the time of repayment of loan to clergymen in Ireland under the Glebe Act to a longer term than 35 years, as such loans are mostly for the charitable purpose of building parochial houses in poor and out of the way districts where repayment is often difficult?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member's proposal could not be carried out without legislation, and I think that experience has shown the disadvantage of piecemeal legislation on the subject of Government loans. I may remind the hon. Member that it is only in Ireland that clergymen are allowed the advantage of borrowing from the Government at all.

  VOTERS' LISTS (CO. WESTMEATH).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that in the county of Westmeath the tenders for the printing of the voters' lists are decided in secret by the sub-sheriff of the county; and can he state whether the contract for the present year has been given to the lowest tender, and at what price?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Under the 70th Section of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, it is the duty of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace to have the lists of voters prepared and printed. For the expenses incurred by him in this work the Grand Jury pay him such sum as they consider proper. He is not bound to advertise for tenders or to take the lowest tender. In point of fact, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace advertises every year for tenders, and last year accepted the lowest tender, but the work was done so unsatisfactorily that the contractor's tender for £61 was not accepted this year, but the tender for £64, being next in amount to his, was accepted. There is no foundation for the statement that the business was transacted by the sub-sheriff in secret or at all in the Sheriff's office.
  MR. FLAVINasked to whom the contract was declared?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he was not aware.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the name of the person who sent in the lowest tender that was not accepted.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: A Mr. J. G. Tully.

  MULLINGAR UNION.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the requisition forms under the Franchise Act of 1885 have not been

  1425
  issued for years past to every occupier in Mullingar Union as directed by the Statute; and, what steps the Local Government Board propose to take to have the provisions of the law enforced in this instance.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have been informed by the Clerk of the Mullingar Union that, so far as he is aware, the requisition forms under the Franchise Act have always been duly served.

  RIVER NETHY (INVERNESS-SHIRE).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the water of the River Nethy, in the Bade-noch district of Inverness-shire, is polluted by the discharge into the river of sewage from several lodges and large farms above the village of Causer, will he state whether the sanitary or other authority propose to take steps to free the river from pollution, and, if so, will action be taken before the arrival of the summer visitors at this fashionable resort?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The matter referred to by the hon. Member is engaging the serious attention of the various authorities whose duty it is to attend to it, with a view, if possible, of overcoming the difficulties, which undoubtedly exist, in dealing with it.

  TELEGRAPH EXTENSIONS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the need of telegraph extensions in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to the fact that the Fishery Board for Scotland are empowered to spend in telegraph guarantees a sum not exceeding £1,500 yearly out of the Herring Brand surplus, will he state why the Fishery Board, instead of spending this amount, have only expended for this purpose £925. 7s. 3d. in 1894, £966. 10s. 11d. in 1895, and £290. 17s. 1d. in 1896?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed by the Fishery Board that they have not recommended that telegraphic extensions should be guaranteed from the surplus brand fees, as they have always contended in their Reports and otherwise that such extension when in the public interests should be carried out
  1426
  without guarantee. This contention is strengthened by consideration of the limited funds at the disposal of the Board for Harbours which are partly derived from these fees and of the fact that provision has of recent years been made for this service in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications) Vote.

  SALLEEN PIER (CO. KERRY).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that great public inconvenience is caused in the shipping of cattle, horses, &c, for want of suitable accommodation at Salleen Pier, county Kerry, where, under ordinary circumstances, animals have to be lowered ten feet from the pier to a boat by the owners themselves; and whether inquiries will be made, from the harbour master, with a view to recommending some improvement to facilitate the public who ship a large number of animals to and from Salleen Pier?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the shipment of cattle and horses at this pier is very small. The tolls on cattle for the past three months amounted to less than five shillings. The Board of Works are unable, at present, to say whether the inconvenience alleged in the question could be remedied at a reasonable cost, having regard to the traffic and the receipts, but upon these points the Board are making inquiries.

  VACCINATION (LYMPH SUPPLY).
  SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is able to say what course he proposes to take in consequence of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vaccination as to the lymph supply to be issued in future by the National Vaccine establishment?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Shortly after the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination I issued fresh Instructions to public vaccinators by which they are enabled, whenever they deem it desirable, to use calf lymph instead of humanised lymph. I have also been

  1427
  making inquiries abroad as to the preparation and employment of glycerinated calf lymph. The Report on this subject has been somewhat delayed by reason of the fact that in some Continental countries public vaccination is practically suspended during the winter months, and is only resumed in May. But, from the information already before me, it is more than probable, in my opinion, that glycerinated calf lymph will be found to present distinct advantages over other forms of vaccine lymph; and one of the points which I shall have to consider will be how far it may be practicable for me to issue a gratuitous supply of vaccine lymph in this form to all registered medical practitioners applying for it. I shall also have to consider how far any considerable change, such as is indicated, in the form or the extent of the lymph supply from the National Vaccine Establishment will be practicable pending fresh legislation on the whole question.

  CASTLEBLANEY PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several persons were summoned by the police of Castleblaney to appear before the Justices of that town last Petty Session Court, and that when the cases were called the police did not appear, and the cases had to be dismissed; and whether he will direct that persons summoned in these instances will be paid their expenses?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Neither the police prosecutor nor the defendants summoned to appear at the Petty Sessions referred to, were in attendance; the cases were not dismissed, but were adjourned by the Court. No hardship was inflicted on the defendants, nor was any expense incurred by them.

  JHALAWAR.
  MR. W. JONES: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire (Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether 200 rifles and 50 sabres of the Deoli irregular force have been ordered to Jhalrapatan in view of the unsettled condition of the State of Jhalawar; and whether, seeing that the unrest which this force is intended
  1428
  to deal with is the result of the long period of uncertainty as to the future government of the State, will he consider the advisability of restoring His Highness the late Maharaja. Rana to the Gadi, with limited powers and an experienced Political Agent?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have received no official information as to the movement of troops to which the Question refers, but assuming that such a movement of troops has occurred, I cannot admit the hon. Member's view as to its cause. As regards the restoration of the Maharaja Rana, I informed the hon. Member on July 21 last year that the decision of the Government of India, was final, and I see no reason for altering the view that I then expressed.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: Arising out of this, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for India a Question of which I have given him private notice—whether, in view of the misconduct of the late Maharaja Rana and the failure of heirs, he is not prepared to terminate the uncertainty by restoring Jhalawar to the original parent State of Kotah; and whether such action would not be most in accordance with Rajput customs and the desires of Rajputs?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is true that the greater part of Jhalawar was part of Kotah, and was ceded on the condition that in the event of the failure of heirs it should lapse to Kotah. Such an arrangement would be in accordance with treaty obligation, and not, I believe, repugnant to the wishes of a majority of the inhabitants.

  ARMY STAFF APPOINTMENTS (INDIA).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the case that, by the Indian Army Regulations, an officer who has passed through a two years' course at the Staff College is still kept on exactly the same footing, as regards claims for staff employment, as one who has merely been through the two months' garrison class and passed the usual examinations for promotion to field rank; and whether the great majority of appointments on the Army Headquarter Staff and District Staff in India are held by officers who are not Staff College graduates; and, if

  1429
  so, whether he will consider the advisability of altering these Regulations so as to assimilate them with those which prevail in the Home Army, whereby preference in the giving of staff appointments would be given to Staff College Officers, thus enabling the Indian Government to profit to the full extent of the payments which it makes towards the maintenance of the Staff College, and allowing it to give legitimate reward to its officers whom it encourages to pass the course?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The selection of officers for staff employ in India is vested in the Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief in India, and I am confident that in making such selection these authorities weigh carefully the merits and qualifications of all candidates, and that due weight is given to the possession of Staff College certificates. I see no reason to interfere with their discretion, or to alter the Indian Army Regulations, which on this subject are substantially the same as the Queen's Regulations.

  FINANCE ACT (NEW SOUTH WALES).
  MR. R. COX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, by the provisions of the Finance Act of 1894, hardship is presently inflicted upon the heirs of persons domiciled in this country and dying possessed of movable property in New South Wales, in respect that Death or Estate Duties upon such property are exacted both here and in the Colony, and no allowance is made to executors in the United Kingdom in respect of the duty they have paid in New South Wales; and whether, considering that New Zealand, Victoria, South Australia, and other Colonies have by an Order in Council been brought within the scope of Section 20 of the Finance Act of 1894, there is any immediate prospect of this section being applied to New South Wales by an Order in Council, which will be retrospective in its application?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No application, so far as I am aware, has been made by the Colony of New South Wales to be brought within the scope of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, and I am not in a position to
  1430
  say whether the law of that Colony with regard to death duties is such as to allow of Section 20 being applied to it.

  UGANDA RAILWAY.
  MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many miles of the Uganda Railway have been laid and are ready for traffic; what was the total amount expended upon the railway works, including material, up to the 31st March last; and when the First Report and Statement of Accounts of the Railway Committee will be presented to Parliament?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The rails were at mile 58 on May 18. The completed portion of the line will not be open to traffic until after it has been inspected and passed. The final accounts have not yet come in from Mombasa, but the revised estimates of expenditure for 1896–97 amount to £387,000. The papers are in course of preparation and will probably be presented and distributed by the end of next month.

  POSTAL DELIVERIES (CIRCULARS).
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if it is possible to deal with circulars by special deliveries, instead of retaining them and issuing them in lots of 30 at each delivery, as is at present the practice in the eastern district of London?
  MR. HANBURY: It is already the practice to deal with circulars by special deliveries when they are sufficiently numerous, and when their delivery in the ordinary course would appreciably retard the postmen. The practice in the eastern district is the same as in the City and other parts of London.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  MR. W. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Superannuation Bill for Teachers during the

  1431
  present Session; and, if so, if he can mention the probable date of its introduction?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on May 10 to a Question on the same subject.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Bill will be introduced this Session, but I do not think there is much chance of its being passed into law.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will endeavour to get the Bill passed this Session, inasmuch as two Irish Bills have been blocked, and surely some of the time spent on those Bills might have been spent on this?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It depends on a general survey of the business of the Session. I am afraid I cannot add anything to the statement I have already made. Of course, if it should unexpectedly turn out that there is a universal enthusiasm for this Bill, it might possibly be carried.

  DRAINAGE WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to state if the baronial charges for light railways and drainage works, which, are included in the county cess, and press so heavily in some parts of Ireland, will form portion of the rural rates of which the Government propose to pay half for the occupiers?
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Local Government Bill which he is to introduce next Session will contain any provision for relieving agricultural land in the Lough Erne district from the existing burden of drainage tax?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it would not be convenient that, in answer to the Questions before the House, I should deal with questions of detail in a Bill to be introduced next year.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked the Attorney General a question of which he had given private notice—whether he now had any reason to correct the statement he made in Debate in that House on Tuesday last that the Committee could not place much reliance upon the figures given in the said Debate on the authority of Mr. Neison as to the burden of compensation imposed on the coalmining industry by the Workmen's Compensation Bill, because those figures did not correspond with figures previously supplied by Mr. Neison to Her Majesty's Government; also whether he still had any reason for stating that Mr. Neison had in any way altered the said figures?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I am only too glad to have the opportunity of saying that when I spoke the other evening I had only one set of figures given me—namely, those given tinder date May 18 in the Report of the Labour Commission. Those figures in no way corresponded with the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. I did not know that within an hour or two afterwards there had been another Report respecting another coalfield, which accounted for the difference in the figures. Of course, had I known that, I should not have said that Mr. Neison had altered this figures. I drew the conclusion that the figures had been changed; but, of course, I wish now to withdraw the statement entirely. I wish to add, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that Her Majesty's Government do not consider that either set of Mr. Neison's figures support the conclusion drawn from them.
  MR. SETON-KARR: Arising out of the Attorney General's answer, may I ask whether.the right hon. Gentleman will take into his careful consideration the figures of Mr. Neison to which I have alluded?

MOTION.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM).
  Bill to legalise the use of Weights and Measures of the Metric System, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Balfour; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 271.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)moved: —
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses of and relating to arbitration which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to compensation to workmen for accidental injuries suffered in the course of their employment, and of any compensation that may become payable in respect of accidents to workmen employed by or under the Crown in pursuance of such Act."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the terms of the Resolution as now submitted cleared up all doubts previously expressed as to whether or not it was sufficiently wide to cover reasonable Amendments on the question of the costs of arbitration and medical officers. The Homo Secretary, on the introduction of the Bill, was understood to say that the costs were to be paid by the public. When the Bill was published it was found that the promise was not kept. Since then the Government had undertaken to widen the words of the Bill, and the words before them were wide enough. The Resolution seemed to be satisfactory, and the words used all that could reasonably be asked for.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYonly wished to say he could not be held to have given an undertaking with reference to the expenses of the medical officers employed. As regarded the expenses of the arbitrators, he stated that these would be paid by the State, and that when the County Court Judge acted as arbitrator there should be no fees paid in respect of his services.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [PROGRESS, 26TH 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 course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.
  (2.) Provided that: —

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

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

  (3.) If any question arises as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies, or whether the injury was caused by the wilful and wrongful act or default of the employer, or of any person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, or whether the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the workman injured, or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, or otherwise as to the liability for compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule 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, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act.
  Another Amendment proposed, in Subsection (3) to insert, as a new sub-section, the words.—
  "(4) Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice that injury has been sustained is given within six weeks, and an arbitration is commenced within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within twelve months from the time of death. Provided always that in case of death the want of such notice shall be no bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if the arbitrator shall be of opinion that there was reasonable excuse for such want of notice. The notice shall be served in the manner provided by the Employers' liability Act 1880, Section 7."—(Mr. John Wilson, Falkirk Burghs.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the word "notice," to the word "within," in line 4, in order to insert the words "of the claim is given."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment." Debate resumed.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY, in view of the fact that there were different Amendments before the House, asked for an explanation from some Member of the Government as to how matters precisely stood.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)understood that the Colonial Secretary was prepared to accept part of the Amendment which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. That part of the Amendment was: —
  "Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be any bar to the maintenance of such proceedings unless the arbitrator considers the employer is prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, and the omission to give such notice was with the intention of misleading."
  1436
  There would have to be some slight alteration of the words. Thus, the expression in the original Amendment "the arbitrator shall be of opinion," would, if adopted, exclude the committee, and the question would arise whether the committee had power to deal with the question, notice not having been given. He thought it would be desirable to alter those words to "it is settled on the arbitration" so as to give power to dispense with notice to the Committee as well as to the arbitrator.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEvery much regretted that the Government proposed to take no account whatever of the notice of accident. It seemed to him to be far more important than the claim. If there were no early notice of accident, there would not be an opportunity of immediately sending a medical man to do the best he could for the poor sufferer. But there was another reason. He had known a great many cases, especially in the railway world, where early notice was essential in order to prevent a similar accident occurring on the same spot or ground. He believed that more had been done by early notice of an accident to prevent the occurrence of similar accidents than any other thing he had known. He felt certain from the miners' point of view that notice was necessary to prevent similar accidents occurring. In regard to wages, if this Bill were to add to the question of cost to the employer, the first defect would be that instead of the workmen receiving an advance in wages, the Bill would prove to a certain extent a deterrent against a rise in wages. If that were so they were bound to do the best they could for the workmen by not throwing upon the employer that cost which could be prevented by early notice, and which would deprive a man of the advance in wages which would be due to him.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEagreed with the hon. Baronet about the desirability of early notice of accidents, but cases in which men had failed to give notice for reasonable cause should be provided for. They should I save the case of the man who made a bonâ-fide mistake, exclude the man who presented a bogus claim, and save the case of the man who, through sheer ignorance had not given notice. He recommended his hon. Friend to accept the

  1437
  view that there should be notice of accident as distinguished from mere notice of claim, if there were a proviso which would include the three main pleas, of mistake, real genuine ignorance, and reasonable excuse.
  *MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGEsaid he was glad to state that he and his hon. Friends had conferred with the representatives of the workmen and of the employers, and had arrived at a solution of the matter which would probably commend itself to the Committee. An Amendment had been agreed to as follows: —
  "Provided that the recovery under this Act of compensation for injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and after claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident which caused the injury, or, in case of death, within 12 months of the time of death, provided always such want of notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings unless it is settled on arbitration that the employer is prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or shall be of opinion that there was reasonable excuse for the want of notice. Notice shall be served in the manner provided for by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, Section 7."
  The hon. Member added that a copy of this had been submitted to the Government, and he believed it met with, the approval of the Home Secretary. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, and that the Amendment he had submitted would be adopted.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that on behalf of the Government he was prepared to accept the Amendment. As far as he could judge it afforded a reasonable solution of the difficulty raised on both sides of the House. Provided notice of accident did not become a condition precedent, which it might, for technical reasons, be difficult to get over, adequate notice was fair for the employers to expect. He agreed with the ex-Home Secretary that if they made a notice of accident within a fixed period a condition precedent to the workman recovering under the Act, they might be imposing obligations which it would be extremely difficult technically to fulfil and bar claims which no one desired to bar. But it was reasonable
  1438
  that an employer, who had to ascertain what the facts were concerning a particular accident, should have adequate and proper notice. If notice of accident were guarded as in this Amendment, it would do injustice to no one, and adequately meet the reasonable demands of the employers.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYasked what was meant by the words "as soon as practicable."
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he believed it was an understanding arrived at by those who knew best the circumstances of the case as regarded employers and employed. It was proposed to give wide powers to the arbitrators to settle such matters.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid they might all assent to the Amendment as a reasonable settlement of an undoubted difficulty. His own objections and those of others as to requiring notice were based on their experience of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. The fixing of time had best be left to the discretion of the arbitrator. The circumstances of different trades and accidents varied so much that if a hard and fast rule were laid down it might lead to injustice.
  MR. JOHN WILSONasked whether the words "although a claim to compensation in respect of such accident has been made," implied that the proceedings for the recovery of compensation must have been begun; because if not, there would be a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the employer. If the Attorney General would add the words "after proceedings begun," he thought they would meet his view.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALasked his hon. Friend not to press that. When the hon. Gentleman remembered that it was contemplated in the first instance the matter might go before the Committee, it would not be apt to speak of the commencement of the proceedings. In his view the commencement of the arbitration was the sending in of the claim.
  *MR. J. B. BALFOURasked whether the word "practicable" would cover the case of excusable ignorance.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he thought the case would be covered.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that by this proposed Amendment the function would be vested in the arbitrator on deciding whether or no the notice was reasonable. Although he quite agreed that possibly in the majority of cases the arbitrator would take a reasonable view, and would not allow the workman's cause to be injured by the fact that notice had not been given, yet he had known many cases in which a County Court Judge had said, "I shall apply the Act strictly. I think notice ought to have been given," whereas another County Court Judge would take a totally different view. He thought it would be a most pernicious step to take to make it necessary that either notice of the accident or notice of the claim should be given. Under this Bill the question of compensation only had to be dealt with, and except in the case of wilful misconduct the workman would be entitled to compensation in any case. Therefore, there would be no value in the notice except in the case of wilful misconduct. The effect of insisting on notice would be to shut out men who, but from the absence of notice, would be entitled to compensation. He thought it was most undesirable that the Amendment should be pressed, and he should vote against it.
  MR. THOMAS BURTI thought that the Amendment would form a basis of agreement; but his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough rather misled the House when he said I that the terms had already been agreed upon. Some consultation had taken place in the Lobby it was quite true, and he himself was personally quite prepared to agree to the Amendment, but not exactly in the form in which it now stood. He wanted to include ignorance or mistake, and to those words he attached very great importance.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the Committee was now engaged in discussing an Amendment not before it, and he thought it would be more convenient that the two Amendments before the House should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Member for Gainsborough should then move his Amendment.
  SIR J. JOICEYdid not think that it was the intention of his hon. Friend the
  1440
  Member for Gainsborough to say that the exact wording of the Amendment had been approved of by all the representatives of the workmen, but that they substantially had their approval. His hon. Friend the Member for North-west Durham spoke entirely against any notice whatever, but every reasonable person was agreed that some reasonable notice should be given to the employer. ["Hear, hear !"] After all, this Bill conferred an immense boon on the working classes—["hear, hear !"]—and while there was not an employer in the House who wished to place any bar whatever in the way of workmen who were entitled to compensation under the Bill receiving that compensation, yet he thought that every Member in the House, except, perhaps, one or two lawyers—[a laugh]—would agree with him that it was absolutely necessary that the employer should be protected as far as possible from bogus claims. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped this Amendment would form a satisfactory settlement, and he thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Lynn for his action the previous night, for had it not been for the hon. Member's intervention, the Amendment proposed last night would have been carried. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsad he should like to know why the Home Secretary had receded from the position taken up by the Secretary for the Colonies last night. He did not, however, intend to find serious fault, for he wished the Committee not to try captiously for one side to get the better of the other, but to try to come to an agreement which would work well for both parties. ["Hear, hear!"] This question would not be regarded from the lawyers' point of view, as cases would be decided more from practical knowledge of the circumstances, than by lawyers' advice. The arbitrator need not be a lawyer. He was more likely to be a common-sense man like himself. [Laughter.] The words "ignorance or mistake" covered cases which no other words would cover. They would give no support to bogus claims, but would prevent just claims from being defeated by technical objections. The employers need have nothing to fear; for cases where "ignorance or mistake" was pleaded could be settled by a committee

  1441
  of the trade concerned, and need not come before the arbitrator.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that he could not advise the Committee to accept the word "ignorance," as it would be open to the reasonable objection that ignorance could always be pleaded. But the word "mistake" might be inserted, and that would include cases of genuine ignorance. He proposed that the words should read: —
  "Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings, if it is found in the proceedings for settling a claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or that such absence was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause."
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTasked whether there was a vital objection to the words "ignorance of the law."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, a serious objection.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that he very much regretted it. [Laughter.] How was the workman who was honestly ignorant of the provisions of the Act to escape being penalised? In the case of large industries, where the men were in contact with the unions, there might be no ignorance of the Bill; but the isolated working man would be under a great disadvantage. It was very inconvenient for a long Amendment such as that before the Committee to be suddenly sprung upon hon. Members. He had not been consulted about it, and had only seen it for a few moments. If the Attorney General could accept the phrase "ignorance of the law," he thought that this would relieve the Committee from the difficulty. Otherwise great injustice would be done to many workmen who were isolated from their fellows.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsuggested to the Attorney General that as the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the word "ignorance" he might be able to accept the word "inadvertence" instead. It would probably cover many of the cases to which reference had been made.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid it was impossible to do this. "Inadvertence" was only another form of "mistake," but if hon. Gentlemen, when
  1442
  they saw the Amendment in print, had any serious objections to the form in which it was incorporated in the section it could be dealt with on the Report stage. At present, however, the Government had endeavoured to meet the objection which had been raised by suggesting the alteration.
  MR. BURNSsaid he was perfectly content to leave the insertion of the words to the Attorney General. He merely suggested the word because in the Courts he had heard that mistakes were described as "inadvertences."
  MR. CHARLES FENWICKthought that the Committee would be prepared to accept the Amendment, always reserving to itself the right to judge of it finally on the Report stage.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGEsaid he was quite prepared to accept the variation of wording proposed.
  MR. BURNScalled attention to the description of the mode of serving the notice of accident under Section 7 of the Act of 1880, which insisted that in every case the notice of accident should be by letter, message by hand, or registered letter. It might, however, be inconvenient or impossible, in a case where a man was seriously injured, to comply with the terms of the section; and he suggested that a man who gave verbal notice through his foreman ought to be deemed to have given notice in compliance with the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the words in the Amendment moved the previous day were agreed to by the workmen and the employers, and he had never heard of any difficulty arising as to the mode of serving the notice since 1880.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. ROBERT ASCROFTproposed to leave out Sub-section (4) in order to insert the words: —
  "Any agreement made between an employer and workman for the purpose of contracting themselves out of this Act shall be void."
  He pointed out that the Bill covered factories, and that the description of factory was very wide. The Factory Act

  1443
  of 1878 contained a description of no fewer than 26 different kinds of factories; and they were, therefore, placed in this position:—The Registrar of Friendly Societies would have to examine every scheme which came before him in relation to all the different works, and he would have to say whether or not the scheme was, on the whole, not less favourable to the workmen than the provisions for compensation under this Bill. It was utterly impossible for any Registrar, however able, to competently deal with the numerous questions that would arise on the construction of the various schemes. If schemes were allowed and carried out the arbitrator would have thrown upon him the responsibility of construing what the scheme was. [Cries of "No !"]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Under this clause any scheme proposed as a substitute for the Bill would have to obtain a certificate of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and all that would arise subsequently would be that the arbitrator would have to say whether or not there is such a certificate.
  *MR. ASCROFTsaid that if there was a scheme between the employer and the workman, and the question came before the arbitrator, the point might often arise whether or not the workman was to be paid in accordance with the terms of the scheme. If a certificate had been granted the arbitrator would have nothing to do with the Act; he would only have to deal with the scheme as he found it, and would have to construe it. Therefore, they were inaugurating a series of schemes all over the country which the arbitrator would have to construe, and the workmen and the employers would in future be exposed to litigation arising out of the construction of schemes. But there was something even more objectionable. Although the Bill provided that the scheme should be fair and reasonable to the workman, it did not provide anything as to administration and supervision. The friendly societies protested strongly against the policy of this sub-section. It was only recently that the representatives of friendly societies, numbering 2,800,000 Members, met in London They had a fund of over 27 millions sterling accumulated and invested.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I fail to see how the remarks of the hon. Member are relevant to the Amendment. He seems to be going rather far afield from the question he wishes to put before the Committee.
  *MR. ASCROFT: On consideration, Mr. Chairman, I am certain I was [Laughter.] But he thought he was justified in saying it would only be fair and reasonable if they insisted upon a scheme being forced upon employés, that they should make provision for an annual account being presented or a periodical audit, by which, when complaints arose, the matter could be brought before the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and the scheme cancelled. He might be asked: How could a question of administration arise? He would give a case. Suppose a man entitled, on being injured—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The general position of these insurance societies does not arise at all. The only question is whether the compensation which they propose to give is not as favourable as that given under the Bill. The general position and administration of the societies cannot be discussed here.
  *MR. ASCROFTexplained that he wished to show that circumstances might arise, and that there was no provision whatever for bringing these circumstances before the Registrar, and that that was an omission which should be supplied in Committee.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think it would be relevant to insert any Amendments except in so fur as they deal with the position of the workman in regard to this Bill—that is to say, whether the compensation is more or less favourable than that which he would get from the Society.
  *MR. ASCROFTwas afraid the Chairman did not realise the point, but he would not pursue it. He had a happy knack of always saying the wrong thing. [Laughter.] It was not from intention, but rather from ignorance of the forms of the House. But there was one point which could not be denied, and that was that any scheme which came before the Registrar without the workman being heard was objectionable. And as soon as they had got the scheme there was this difficulty, that no matter how good

  1445
  the scheme might be, they hail the employer on the one side differing with the man who had not a free hand. He considered that there was no advantage or benefit either to employers or workmen in having this Section included, and, therefore, he submitted that the Government would act wisely in removing it from the Bill.
  MR. BROADHURSTwhile thinking that not much time need be occupied upon this Amendment, believed the Government would lose nothing by accepting it. If the scheme of contracting out were to be such that the workman should not be placed in a less advantageous position, he did not see what was to be gained for the employer in having a scheme for contracting out at all. He should be glad, however, to hear from the Government what strong reasons could be urged for retaining this clause.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINvery much hoped that the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman opposite would be followed. The Government did not wish to exaggerate the importance of the matter, but at the same time they considered that it might be of advantage to the workman to have a sub-section of this kind in the Bill. They did not see why they should profess, even at this stage, to be incapable of error and to have devised a plan which could not by any possibility be improved. Was it not conceivable that an employer and his workmen, considering this matter in the light of the experience of their special trade, and having the most friendly feelings one for the other, might devise a scheme which for them, at any rate, would be much better than the scheme proposed in the Bill? What the Government asked was that the House should not say to them violently, "You shall not have this improved scheme, although you all desire it, and it is proved to be equally as good and perhaps for you much better than the scheme of the Bill."
  *MR. EDWARD STRACHEYdesired to present the case from the point of view of the friendly societies. When the Employers' Liability Bill introduced by the late Home Secretary came back from another place with the contracting-out clause inserted, Mr. Gladstone argued strongly against contracting out, and cited the opinion of the friendly societies in support of his view; their
  1446
  judgment, the right hon. Gentleman said, being almost decisive of the question. In reply, the First Lord of the Treasury stated that he had not received a single representation from any friendly society indicating that they had any rooted objection to the scheme of contracting out inserted in that Bill by the other House. However that might be, the friendly societies had now made it perfectly clear by the circular which had been issued that they objected without reservation of any kind to this sub-clause relating to contracting out.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsuggested that the point which was being raised by the hon. Member could be dealt with more conveniently when the Amendment which the hon. Member had himself put upon the Paper was reached. That Amendment ran:—
  "The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not certify any scheme which restrains any workman from remaining in or joining any friendly society."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that the hon. Member, although he was addressing his remarks to his Amendment, objected to the whole of the sub-clause under consideration, and it was in order for him to ask the House to reject it.
  *MR. STRACHEYregretted that he was unable to adopt the suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But he had been informed that the Amendment standing in his name and which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was outside the scope of the Bill, and would be ruled out of order. The National Conference of Friendly Societies had asked him to oppose the whole of the sub-clause. This sub-clause would encourage the formation of benefit societies by employers. To this the friendly societies took objection, fearing that their position might be endangered by the unfair competition of the societies set up by the employers. Cases would arise in which men would be told that they must join an employer's society as a condition of their employment, and in certain industries the wages were not such as would enable a workman to be a member of more than one benefit society. The direct effect of the sub-section, therefore, could not but fail to be prejudicial to the existing friendly societies. He had been sent

  1447
  a statement by the Secretary of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, giving the case of a workman who had been told by his employers that he must leave the Hearts of Oak Society, to which he belonged, and join their own club. The hon. Member proceeded to read the communication, which was of considerable length. Before he had reached the end,
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the hon. Member was taxing the patience of the Committee. The hon. Member was objecting generally to the fourth sub-section upon the ground that friendly societies might be injured by its operation. That hardly justified his reading long extracts. The hon. Member ought to state his reasons for objecting more generally, and abstain from going into such, details. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid that if the Chairman ruled that he must not place the case fully before the Committee, he would, of course, bow to the hon. Gentleman's decision.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSobserved that he had not given any such ruling as that. He believed the hon. Member was quite competent to put his case fully before the Committee without reading long and elaborate extracts. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid he would, of course, follow the advice of the Chairman. The end of the case to which he was referring was that the man, because he refused to resign his membership of the Hearts of Oak Society, was in consequence given notice to leave, and lost his employment.
  MR. GALLOWAYasked for a fuller explanation than had yet been given to the Committee of the character of the schemes which the Registrar of Friendly Societies was to be empowered to certify. There was one other point which was not quite clear from the Bill—that was whether the certificate which the Registrar was to give would be applied not alone to accident funds which might be formed after the Bill was passed, but also to those that were already in existence. It had been said that one of the strong objections which friendly societies had to contracting out was that it competed with them in their
  1448
  sphere of work; and the Resolution of the National Conference of Friendly Societies had been quoted in support of that contention. But the Resolution proved nothing of the sort. The Resolution said, first of all, that the Conference protested against employers having the power to contract out of the Act. He entirely agreed with that. He thought the workman should be allowed to choose for himself what course he would adopt. The Resolution then went on to say that the Conference protested against restraining in any way the liberty of action of the workmen in joining any friendly society. He agreed that it was most unjust for an employer to say to a workman that he should have his friendly society lodge where he made friendships, such as the employer made at his club, and compel him to do so under threat of dismissal. But he submitted that the Resolution in no way justified the hon. Member in saying that the friendly societies took up the selfish position of objecting to any of their fellow workers getting a larger benefit than they could themselves provide. He agreed that it would be well to secure that the certificate of the Registrar should only be given where it was proved the scheme was actuarially sound, or in a condition to pay all the benefits it professed to be able to pay.
  MR. S. WOODSsaid the Amendment raised one of the most important points connected with the Bill. The power of contracting out of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 had given the greatest possible dissatisfaction to the whole of the working classes of the country. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Therefore it was natural that they should look with very grave suspicion on any proposal which would allow the opportunity of contracting out of the provisions of this Measure. He would like to know how those schemes were to be created. Was the Registrar of Friendly Societies to draw up the schemes himself, or was he to consult the workmen and the employers? There was another important point. If a body of workmen agreed to enter into an arrangement with their employer, would the employer have the right to make the acceptance of the arrangement a condition of hiring? He was certain that if those schemes contained a

  1449
  condition of hiring it would be greatly resented by the working classes of the country. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. G. WHITELEYhoped the Government would stand firm by the sub-clause and that the Committee would reject the Amendment. It seemed to him that the Amendment restricted the liberty of action and the rights of the working people of the country, and dealt with them as if they were children unable, in this matter to look after themselves. ["Hear, hear !"] If the Bill were passed the working classes would undoubtedly secure valuable provisions for compensation in cases of accident; but if workmen in conjunction with their employers could devise and elaborate a scheme which they thought more desirable or beneficial to them than the provisions of the Bill, why should they be debarred from doing so? ["Hear, hear !"] He controverted the statement of the hon. Member for Walthamstow that contracting out had given a great deal of dissatisfaction to the whole of the working classes of the country. In the borough he represented there was a large body of railwaymen who were members of the Mutual Insurance Society of the London and North-Western Railway, and they valued its benefits so highly that when, in 1893, it was proposed under the Bill of the late Home Secretary to prevent contracting out, they sent him numerous Resolutions and representations in favour of maintaining the principle.
  MR. BURNSsaid he did not understand the hon. Member for Walthamstow to say that all the members of the working classes were opposed to contracting out.
  MR. G. WHITELEYsaid he took down the hon. Member's words, which were that contracting out had given the greatest possible dissatisfaction to the whole of the working classes of this country.
  MR. BURNSsaid that statement might be qualified, perhaps, but at all events 999 workmen out of 1,000 objected to it. [Cries of "Oh!"] The Oddfellows, one of the largest benefit societies in the world, whose membership was nearly a million, were unanimous as a society against contracting out. The National Conference of Friendly Societies which met the other day, where nearly three million members were represented by elected delegates, decided unanimously that contracting out was a principle which
  1450
  ought not to be allowed by law. The Trades Union Congress, which, whatever its political difference might be, was generally united on industrial matters, came to a similar decision. During the last ten years all the friendly societies and all the trades unions, representing roughly six million working class members, had protested against contracting out being allowed. The Secretary for the Colonies the other night had said this was a clause which allowed contracting out only in cases where the terms offered to the workmen were better than those contained in the Bill, and their object in inserting the clause was that they did not wish to prevent a workman doing better for himself by the consent and good will of his employer than legislation could do for him. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that these contracting out schemes were based upon good will, and were matters of friendly arrangement between masters and men. That was not so—["hear, hear !"]—and could not be so, so long as assent to a contracting-out scheme was a condition of employment. These schemes were imposed upon the workmen, not collectively, but individually, when they were out of work. They therefore interfered with the liberty of contract—["hear, hear !"]—and the freedom of combination, and the men collectively had no voice whatever in determining the benefits, the superannuation, or the other conditions which were submitted to them. When men did object their promotion was not so rapid and their dismissal occasionally followed. He did not see why the masters and the workmen collectively should not be consulted by the Registrar as to the equivalent to the Bill. He submitted, however, that all existing contracting-out societies should be abolished, and the opinion of the workmen as to the equivalent ascertained by means of a secret ballot. He contended that this Bill ought not to infringe on sick, superannuation, funeral, or other benefits. The fact was they were giving too much work to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and referendum to a Registrar would be a most objectionable form of tyranny. If the Registrar were fair he would kill all the contracting-out schemes submitted to him, for there was not one of them which gave its members actuarially anything like the financial benefits which the workmen got from

  1451
  their benefit and friendly societies. [Laughter.] If that were done, they would have the railway companies and other big monopolies coming to that House for amended Bills, besides pressure being brought to bear upon the House in other ways. There was only one way, and that was to give to masters and men absolute freedom of employment and of organisation. He would not put it even in the hands of the Board of Trade, but would leave it to voluntary effort. He cited the case of an engine driver in his own district who received 35s. a week. This man belonged to the Hearts of Oak, to which he paid 10d. or 11d. a week, and another society to which he paid 1s., and he paid 6d. a week to his trade union. This man was compelled, as a condition of employment, to pay 4d. or 6d. a week towards a contracting-out scheme. He could not pay more than 2s. 6d. out of 35s. a week, and he was thus driven to choose between keeping on his connection with the Hearts of Oak, which gave him 18s. a week when sick, or join the contracting-out scheme which gave him 10s. a week. Moreover, if he was dismissed by the railway company he got no surrender value for what he had paid in, and if then his health failed him he would have no means of support. These contracting-out schemes sometimes precluded the poorest of our workmen from joining friendly societies, and absolutely prevented them from joining trade unions, and in this way made intimidation possible. He would agree with these arrangements in the abstract if they gave the workmen value for their money, but they did not, and therefore could not be defended. In practice, also, they tied men down to one district, and prevented the mobility of labour. If they wished to kill contracting-out schemes by this Bill let them do so on the front-door step, and not strangle them in the back yard. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The contracting-out system was one of the most nefarious systems of compulsion which had ever been sanctioned by that House.
  COLONEL MELLORsaid he regretted very much the tone of the speech of the hon. Member. He had pledged himself against contracting out because he believed that the great majority of the working men of this country viewed contracting out with suspicion. ["Hear, hear!"] They looked
  1452
  on it as something humiliating to them. But this Bill dealt with the matter on a totally different basis. They were told that the working man would not contract himself out unless he satisfied the Registrar of Friendly Societies that he was going to get something better than that which he relinquished. There was nothing like compulsion in the Bill. If what was suggested were to take place he should vote against the proposal. Surely that House would stultify itself if they prevented the working man enjoying benefits of this character. They had heard a great deal about benefit societies. Were they legislating for the sake of benefit societies or for the benefit of working men who were injured in the course of their employment? He should be the last man to say a word against the benefit societies, which were great and valuable institutions. But there was something more important, and that was preserving the liberties of the subject—["hear, hear !"]—and if workmen saw their way to falling into an arrangement that would be for their benefit the Members of that House would not be doing their duty if they imposed obstacles.
  *MR. J. WILSONthought that the Member who had just sat down had hardly read the Bill. Perhaps when the Home Secretary got up to make a statement he would tell them in what part of the sub-section provision was made for the workman to go before the Registrar. What was the meaning of the word "contract?" Why was this alternative scheme placed before them? Was the employer going to give more than was given under the Bill? The employers looked on this Bill as a burden placed upon them. ["Hear, hear !"] What, beyond this Bill, were the employers going to give the workmen? Were they going to give the workmen better terms? He apprehended the employer would expect to get something in return for his money. What they said on behalf of the men was that this contracting-out scheme ought not to be allowed. He believed that the working men of the country were opposed to it. He did not think that the Secretary for the Colonies was enamoured of this clause; and did not care whether it was passed or not. He hoped, therefore, that the Secretary for the Colonies would agree to have the clause eliminated

  1453
  and so allow the workmen to receive the full benefit which the Bill proposed to give. To many men like those who were working on railways at a low wage, and who were qualified for a higher post to which they could not attain, this proposal would be a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. He appealed to the Secretary for the Colonies not to destroy what benefits might be contained in the Bill.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had been asked whether the Government attached importance to this clause. Well, he had said at the opening of the Debate that if there were one thing to which the Government were pledged it was to embody in that Bill the principle of enabling employer and employed to make their own terms. ["Hear, hear !"] It was no fault of the Government to have fulfilled that pledge. If they had not done so they would have been open to a serious charge of having violated their pledges. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow said the workmen of the country viewed with general dissatisfaction the principle of contracting out. It was, however, notorious that in the Division upon the question in Committee on the Bill of the late Government the Ministerial majority fell to the most narrow margin. And, without desiring to introduce any matter of a controversial character, he might fairly recall to the recollection of hon. Members the fact that in many constituencies at the last general election it was made a test question whether workmen should be allowed to contract out. The result was a Unionist majority of 150. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] He did not say that the Unionist majority of 150 was actually due to the decision on that question, but he affirmed that from those constituencies where contracting out was practically made a test question there was no evidence forthcoming that the principle of contracting out was unpopular with the electorate. All the evidence, electoral and otherwise, which they had pointed to the conclusion that there was a general desire on the part, not only of employers, but of workmen, to be allowed, under certain conditions, to make their own contracts. As to friendly societies, he assured the Committee that the last thing the Government wished to do was in any way to injure such societies. Their desire was to carry the friendly societies with them,
  1454
  and their belief was that there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent those societies giving supplemental aid in the cases which arose. Of course, as he had already admitted, the question of contracting out came before the Committee in a different shape from that in which it came up under the Bill of his right hon. Friend opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill conferred larger benefits upon the working man than the Bill of his right hon. Friend. It conferred definite, if limited, pecuniary advantages upon the workman; but if a mutual society chose to arrange that, by some machinery different from that of the Bill, it would provide benefits like those given by the Bill and go further and give even other benefits, such as aid in time of sickness, he was at a loss to see how the workman could be prejudiced. The Registrar General, a most capable and able officer, would, when a mutual scheme was brought before him, estimate the whole benefits under the scheme, and see that, if workmen contributed to the scheme, they would get a quid pro quo for their subscription over and above what the employers were bound to give under the Bill. If the Government were right in proposing the measures of compensation they had laid before the Committee, surely they were right in providing that if a permanent or mutual society chose to adapt themselves in any way to the new conditions, there should be a field open to them. He trusted that the Committee would, without much further delay, come to a decision upon this question. The Government had purposely made the wording of the clause wide. They did not believe in tying up the Registrar of Friendly Societies too closely. They believed they had sufficiently indicated that there was thrown upon him the obligation of seeing in those cases where schemes were brought before him, that, upon the whole, the workman would have by mutual agreement at least as favourable terms as he would have under the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid they had heard a good many theories as to the causes of the magnitude of the present Ministerial majority, but it was novel to him to hear that it was attributable to the desire of the working classes to have the privilege of contracting themselves out of rights which the law would otherwise

  1455
  give them. [Opposition cheers.] The right hon. Baronet had spoken of what he called test constituencies. There was one constituency which would afford a better test almost than any other—[cheers]—of the opinion of the working classes upon this and most other questions, and yet Her Majesty's Government would not allow the electors in that constituency to express their opinion. [Ministerial cries of "Oh !" and Opposition cheers.] Well, he had looked carefully at the other side, and neither to-night, nor, so far as he knew, in the course of these discussions had he seen the hon. Member for Crewe in his place. [Renewed cheers.] However, he was anxious not to discuss this matter in a spirit of party recrimination. He must say the question of contracting out had assumed a different complexion, and was of very much less practical importance to-day than it was when it was raised three years ago in connection with the Bill of the late Government. ["Hear, hear !"] But, having made that admission, he must express his surprise that the Government had thought it worth while to introduce this clause. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not for the life of him see, except as a piece of pious homage to an abstract principle, what possible effect the clause would have in protecting workmen. A mutual scheme must either be as good as the scheme proposed by the Government, or less good than that scheme. If it were less good than the scheme proposed by the Bill, then, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's rather rhetorical language about the expediency of allowing workmen to make their own contracts, the registrar of Friendly Societies was bound to pronounce against it, and prevent the men from acting upon it. On the other hand, if the scheme were as good as, or better than, the provision made under the Bill, what was the necessity for allowing contracting out? If an employer were to give as much under a scheme as the law forced him to give, what possible inducement had an employer to require a man to forego the benefits which the law gave him? That appeared to him to be a dilemma from which there was no possible escape, and, that being so, it showed, not that this clause was noxious, but that it was totally unnecessary. He must go on to
  1456
  say that, having had some considerable number of these schemes brought under his notice in connection with the employers' liability legislation of the late Government, he had never seen, and he did not know of, any which would satisfy the conditions contained in this clause. The scheme which was the great stalking horse in the battle of that time—the North Western scheme—would not hold water for a minute if the test of this clause were applied to it. That, he thought, was a tribute—a tribute which he made most willingly—to the comparative generosity of the scheme proposed by the Bill. But it was not unworthy of remark that, if that were the case, it showed they were not going, in point of fact, by the operation of this clause, to protect these schemes. On the contrary, they were going to require, he thought he might almost say without exaggeration, 99 out of every 100 of the existing associations to be completely remodelled from top to bottom—["hear, hear !"]—and that with very little benefit, as far as he could see, either to the employer or to the men. If, as he thought he had shown, the clause were not needed for the protection of sound schemes, for what purpose was it put in the Bill? He accepted entirely the statement which the Government made of their object, but let them consider what they were going to do. They were going to put on the shoulders of the Registrar of Friendly Societies—an official as to whose competency in his own duties he made no suggestion whatever —a task of enormous perplexity—["hear, hear !"]—for the performance of which, however skilled he might be in the determination of actuarial questions, neither he nor any other Government Department possessed the necessary knowledge, the necessary experience, or the necessary powers of judgment. It was all very well to say, in the vague language of this clause, that the Registrar was to certify that a scheme was, on the whole, not less favourable to the workman than the Bill, but what a problem they were presenting to the Registrar! What had he got to take into account? If it were a mere question of whether the amount contributed by the employer independent of the amount contributed by the men—if the scheme were perfectly solvent in

  1457
  other respects—would or would not produce a benefit equal to that, contained in the schedule, that was not an insoluble problem. But unfortunately these schemes were not of that simple character. They were not simple accident schemes. They were schemes which contained a number of other provisions relating to other matters. Take such an elementary thing as this. Was the Registrar to consider whether or not it was made a condition of employment that every man who entered into the service of a particular employer should contribute to the funds? That was a fundamental consideration—["hear, hear !"] —because, although he did not want to use exaggerated language about this matter, he was perfectly certain that the imposition of that condition as our of the terms of employment wan found to a very large extent to fetter the men's freedom of action, and was undoubtedly introduced with the object of making these funds insurance funds against strikes, against labour disputes, and, indeed, against labour organisations. [Cheers.] He did nor say that that, from the employers' point of view, was an illegitimate thing, but no one would deny that that was an element which did not enter into the calculation of those by whom these schemes were promoted. That was only one particular provision in regard to these schemes, but as a matter of fact they contained clauses, extremely complex in their character, which related not merely to the payment for accidents or even sickness, but very often to the general conditions of employment, and to the regulation of the every-day relations of masters and men. How the Registrar of Friendly Societies was going to disentangle from this mass of complicated provisions those parts, and those parts alone, which related to accident insurance, and how, having segregated that part from the rest, he was going to determine whether or not in any given set of circumstances they must be as favourable to the workman as that proffered to him by this Bill, was a matter which he confessed passed his comprehension. He did not think—and he was not saying this in any spirit of undue hostility or carping criticism—this would be found to be a practical way of dealing with the question. If there were any serious object to be gained then he
  1458
  should say by all means let them even run some risk in trying the experiment, but inasmuch as he had endeavoured to show there was no practical object whatever, either in the interests of the masters or of the men, he did earnestly trust the Government might be disposed to reconsider their position in regard to this matter and to drop altogether this sub-section, which excited a good deal of suspicion among the representatives of the working classes, and which would not lead either to the integrity of their own scheme or to the attainment of the objects which both sides had in the prosecution of this legislation.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked whether they were really not wasting too much time over matters of secondary importance when they had in face of them questions of very great importance and perplexity? He had observed that the Government did not attach an exaggerated importance to this matter, and now his right hon. Friend opposite, although he found it necessary to criticise it and to object to some of its features, felt that, on the whole, in view of the changes which had been made since the matter was discussed on the occasion on which he introduced his Bill, it was not a matter of practical importance.
  MR. ASQUITH: Of not so much importance.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he agreed. He could only say that he did not think the clause would be found in practice to give rise to any of those imaginary evils which had been conjured up by several hon. Members. There was no man better qualified to undertake this duty than the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and he was informed that, although he acknowledged it might cast some additional work upon him, he did not anticipate any difficulty in carrying it out. There was a great fear on the part of some hon. Members lest any scheme suggested under this clause should be enforced upon a workman as a condition of hiring. Well, there was an Amendment on the Paper which was supposed to prevent that, so far as legislation could prevent it, and to which the Government had no objection whatever. [Cheers.] Only let him remind his hon. Friends who believed that by legislation they could prevent a matter of this kind that they were entirely mistaken. ["Hear, hear !"] They might

  1459
  say that no such condition should be enforced, but they could not help an employer or his managers allowing it to be known that he would require such and such things from his workpeople, and that he would not employ any workpeople unless they complied with them. That was true of every condition of trade, and no legislation which they could enact would prevent it. Even if there were no contracting-out clause, it would still be possible for an employer to make arrangements, and no legislation would prevent that, although it might be worth while to insert such a provision in the Bill in order to indicate what they considered would be right and what they desired should be done. His right hon. Friend opposite asked whether they really thought that any employers would offer better terms under a scheme of this kind than were proposed in the Bill. He did think so, very much. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend that there were no such schemes at present. On the contrary, he could himself quote an important firm that already gave better terms, although they were rather differently framed from those offered in the Bill; and he did not see why, especially in the trades which were not really dangerous—like the textile industry, for instance—and where the operation of this Bill would not be more than from a shilling to half-a-crown per cent. of the wages, a generous employer should not be prepared to come forward with a scheme which would give a good deal more than the scheme of the Bill. Then, said his right hon. Friend, if he offered a scheme of that kind, why did they want a contracting-out clause? What the employers said, and what he thought experience showed had sometimes occurred, was that, if they had not the security of a contracting-out clause, their workpeople might take advantage, as it were, of two worlds. They might take the scheme which the employers offered when it was to their advantage, and they might go back to the scheme of the Bill in any particulars in which they considered they got greater advantages, although it had been a tacit condition that they should accept the employers' scheme not as a part, but as a whole. When he added to these considerations the fact that very many hon. Gentlemen were pledged to the principle
  1460
  of contracting-out, he thought he had given sufficient reasons for introducting this clause. He hoped they might now come to a decision, at all events, on the principle of the clause.
  MR. FENWICKsaid it was some satisfaction to learn that the Government did not look with disfavour, at all events, upon the Amendment to prevent contracting out being made a condition of hiring. He did not agree with the Home Secretary that the Government needed no justification for the insertion of this principle in the Bill, because the whole of their attitude in 1893 was in favour of contracting out. That was perfectly true, and if the Government had introduced an Employers' Liability Bill instead of a Compensation Bill, he could have understood that there would have been some force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. But this was not such a Bill as was contemplated in 1893. He certainly thought, with the late Home Secretary, that the Government would have been well advised to have omitted the contracting-out principle from the Bill. He did not think any employer was likely to offer any contracting-out scheme giving better terms than the workman was entitled to under the Bill. It was very significant that when the Colonial Secretary, in his reply to his right hon. Friend, said there were many employers who would offer their workmen much better terms than the Bill gave, that observation was received with very faint cheers from the Government side of the House, or from employers. He certainly did not think, as he had said, that employers were at all likely to offer any better terms. He would ask the Home Secretary's attention to this question. The sub-section contemplated the formation or creation of mutual insurance schemes. Upon whose initiative were those schemes to be sanctioned? Were the workmen to be consulted in any way as to the constitution of these schemes.? If not, he was bound to say that he agreed with the criticisms which had been made that the sub-section was very crudely drawn, because there was nothing giving the workman any right whatever to be consulted in the constitution of a scheme that was to be submitted to the Registrar for his approval. Now, if the scheme were to be framed on the initiative of the employer, and on his

  1461
  initiative it was to receive the sanction of the Registrar, he was bound to say there was great danger that the scheme might be forced upon great bodies of workmen against their wishes and contrary to their desires. If the Government intended to retain this principle in their Bill, they ought to introduce some form of provision which would give the workman an equal right with the employer to be represented when any such scheme was being framed for submission to the Registrar, and unless they recognised that right, the Measure would still remain very imperfect. He regretted that the Government had at all attempted to introduce this principle of contracting out into a Measure which dealt, not with employers' liability, but was simply and purely a Compensation Bill. He repeated that they would have had every justification in the policy they had pursued of late years for introducing the principle of contracting out into an Employers' Liability Bill, but they were not at all justified in introducing it into a Bill of this kind. [Cries of "Divide !"] He hoped the Government would not retain the principle in their Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON,who rose amid continued cries of "Divide !" said there had been some confusion as to what would happen under the Bill. The only arrangements that could be made under it were those affecting accidents. As an employer, he would have nothing to do with any alternative scheme unless he was satisfied the workmen of their own motion desired it. [Cries of "Divide !"]
  MR. HENRY SETON-KARRsaid that if the Amendment were carried to a Division, he should certainly vote against it. [Cries of "Divide ! "and" Order !"] But if he could get a satisfactory answer on one point it would make him support the Bill much more heartily than he did at the present moment. It was said on the part of the Government that the friendly societies would supplement the Bill, and the hope had been expressed that they would not suffer in consequence of it. He had already criticised the Bill on the ground that it would damage the friendly societies, and although he had carefully listened to the Colonial Secretary's speeches, he had not heard a word that did not confirm his doubts on that point. He should be very glad if the
  1462
  right hon. Gentleman would only give him an answer that would relieve his mind as to the danger contained in the Bill for these societies. ["Cries of "Divide!"]
  Question put, "That the words 'If the Registrar of Friendly Societies' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 97.—(Division List, No. 219.)
  *MR. ASCROFTmoved in Sub-section (4) after the word "societies," to insert the words "after ascertaining the views of the employers and workmen or either of their representatives." He observed that at the present moment there was nothing in the Bill to provide that the Registrar should take any steps whatever to ascertain whether the workmen had been consulted. The position, therefore, would be that an employer without con-suiting his workmen might send a scheme to the Registrar of Friendly Societies which he might approve, and unless every workman consented to join it he might lose his employment. He was desirous that both the representatives of the workmen and of the employers should be consulted, and an Amendment such as this would certainly tend to make the Bill more workable.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was willing to accept the Amendment if the words "or either of their representatives" were left out.
  *MR. ASCROFTagreed to the omission of these words.
  Amendment, as amended by the omission of the words "or either of their representatives," agreed to.
  MR. J. A. PEASEmoved in Sub-section (4) after the word "certifies," to insert the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State." He regarded this Amendment as necessary in the event of the Registrar of Friendly Societies not being able to do his work properly. He did not desire to indicate for one moment that the present Registrar was not prepared to do his work properly, but he thought the workmen ought to have some check on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and if they introduced a Government

  1463
  department into this clause they could then debate any question in that House in the event of the Registrar of Friendly Societies failing to perform his work properly, or abusing the powers conferred upon him by this section.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYthought that the hon. Gentleman by his Amendment was asking a Government Department to do a very great deal more than it could carry out. There was no objection to the Registrar of Friendly Societies being under the Home Office for certain purposes, but to insist on every scheme being considered and approved by the Home Office—after having been certified by the Registrar General—before it could come into operation was asking too much. He was afraid, therefore, he could not accept these words, though he was willing to consider whether what he gathered to be the hon. Gentleman's object could not be secured in some other way.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (York, W. R.,)considered that the objection the hon. Member had raised was not unreasonable and that there should be some method of raising any question which might arise in connection with this matter in the House of Commons on some particular Vote.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRwould like to give a reason for associating some one else with the Registrar of Friendly Societies in this matter. Hitherto the simple registration of a Friendly Society had been mistaken for a guarantee of solvency by intending members. Some friendly societies were in a stronger financial position than others and registration should not be allowed in any sense to be mistaken for a guarantee of solvency in any direction. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the past reports of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and to past literature on the subject, he would find that that aspect of the question had been discussed. It would be well to associate some Government Department in the work it was proposed to give to the Registrar under this Bill.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYundertook to consider the matter.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that, in these circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *COLONEL DENNYmoved, in Sub-section (4), after the word "insurance," to insert the words, "whether mutual or otherwise." he said that as he was anxious to see the Bill passed in a workable form he would not take a minute to move his Amendment, and judging from, precedent he was afraid the Attorney General would not take much longer to reject it. His reason for moving it was that if these words were not inserted the Registrar of Friendly Societies might debar mutual associations on the ground that the men having to contribute anything at all would make them on the whole less favourable than the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALstated that the hon. Member, as far as regarded the probable reception of the Amendment, appeared to be that very rare being a true prophet. He submitted the words would not be appropriate and it would not be right to describe an arrangement or scheme of the kind as in any sense mutual insurance. It could not be a mutual insurance association to which the masters contributed but from which they would derive no benefit. He objected to the insertion of the words, and did not believe that any harm would result to mutual societies from the Bill.
  *COLONEL DENNYsaid he would rather lose his Amendment than his character as a prophet—[laughter]—and he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. STRACHEYhad on the Paper an Amendment proposing, in Sub-section (4), after the word "employment," to insert the words: —
  "does not interfere with their membership of any friendly society or the benefits derivable therefrom and."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the Amendment was not in order, as it went beyond the purpose of the Bill.
  *SIR C. DILKEon behalf of Mr. T. G. ASHTON (Beds, Luton) moved, in Subsection (4), after the words "employment is," to insert the words, "so far as regards the contributions of the employer in particular, and." He said he moved the Amendment to get the opinion of the Government whether the

  1465
  words of the sub-section were clear. The sub-section had been misread and misunderstood. Contracting out in the old bad sense was dead, but it was believed it would continue in an aggravated form in the clause unless clearly provided against.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he did not think the clause, although it was a difficult one to draft, was open to that adverse criticism. He opposed the insertion of the words of the Amendment, which would not have any elucidatory or clarifying effect.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid he only wished it to be made clear that there will be no deductions from the wages of the workmen for the purposes of the Bill. He withdrew the Amendment, but suggested that the Government should further consider the matter before Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PERKS, on behalf of Mr. HALDANE, moved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words, "on the whole not less favourable," and to insert the words "more beneficial."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid it would be very unwise to alter the clause as suggested, and the adoption of the words would throw an extremely difficult task on the Registrar General.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No." 220.)
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR J. WILSONmoved an Amendment to the effect that if the Registrar of Friendly Societies certified, that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment was on the whole not less favourable to the workmen "and others deriving right through them" than the provisions of the Bill, the employer might contract with any of the workmen that the provisions of the scheme should be substituted for the provisions of the Bill. He urged that, though the Amendment involved a point
  1466
  of detail, it was of importance to employers in Scotland, who had been advised by the late Lord Advocate that they had not the power to contract themselves out of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. If was therefore desirable to extend to Scotland the same rights that existed in England.
  *MR. T. COCHRANEstated that, having had an opportunity of consulting the Lord Advocate and the agent of the Mine Owners' Association of Scotland, he found that they were agreed that the Amendment would not meet the case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Amendment would defeat the object, and suggested that the case would be met by inserting after "workman" the words "and their dependants." If that were accepted he should take care to insert in the schedule a definition of "dependants."
  *MR. J. B. BALFOURagreed with the view stated by the learned Attorney General. According to the law of Scotland certain persons had an indefeasible claim in their own right, not derived through husband or father, and therefore the words "deriving right through them" would not touch that case. He had himself handed in a definition of "dependants" which, he thought, would cover the Scotch case.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved in Sub-section (4.) after the words "favourable to the workmen," to insert the words, "and their dependants."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved in Sub-section (4) after the words "provisions of this Act,' to insert the words,
  "and also certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workman in any employment does not contain any obligation upon the workman to join in such scheme."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsuggested that it might save time if he stated that the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment later on, but in a more desirable form of words, namely,
  "No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring."
  MR. GALLOWAYhad no hesitation in accepting the words suggested by the Attorney General, and refrained from moving his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he begged to move in Sub-section (4) after the word "Act," to insert the words, "and certifies that the financial position of such a scheme is satisfactory." It would be hard lines on a workman that he should go on contributing for weeks and months and even years, it might be, to a scheme which was unsatisfactory, and from which, after all, he would derive nothing in the event of an accident befalling him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALasked the hon. Member for Tyneside not to press his Amendment at this stage. He had not had notice of it, and the matter had not been considered from that point of view. His reason for asking that was this, that they should have to consider later on whether any steps ought to be taken to make anybody bound. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the position of the Registrar General to be able to say whether he would be the sort of authority that ought to deal with the financial capabilities of schemes, and in the event of a fund coming to an end owing to the number of claims made upon it, an objection might be raised by an employer. "This was certified by the Registrar, and therefore I ought not now to be made liable." The point could be discussed in line 18 at the end, and in the meantime he should have an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the Home Secretary upon the matter.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that if the Government would undertake to consider the matter at the end of line 18 he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Certainly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. ASCROFT,when called upon to move the next Amendment to Sub-section (4)—after the words "employer may," to insert the words—
  "so long as he complies with the provisions of such scheme and fairly administers the same or"—
  said he understood from the Attorney General that the question was intended
  1468
  to be dealt with by the Government at a later stage. He, therefore, did not move the Amendment.
  MR. GALLOWAY, on behalf of Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH, moved in Sub-section (4) after the words "contrary made," to insert the words "before or." He said that the friendly societies considered this a matter of the utmost importance, because it seemed to them, and to him, that it would distinctly define once and for all that the certificate of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies applied not only to any schemes which should be made after the commencement of this Act, but also to any schemes which were in force at the present moment, and before the Act was passed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the proper way of dealing with existing agreements was pointed out in Clause 4, as they were, he believed almost in terms proposed to be enacted by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Section 4 provided that any contract existing at the commencement of the Act should be deemed to continue
  "after the time at which the workman's contract of service would determine if notice of the determination thereof were given at the commencement of this Act."
  He thought it was obvious that the question of existing contracts ought to be dealt with on that clause and not now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. MCKENNAmoved to add the following new Subsection to Clause 1: —
  (5.) Where the injury is caused by the wilful and wrongful act of any person in the service of the workman's employer, the employer shall be as responsible for such act or default as if the workman had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer nor engaged in his work.
  He thought that after what had fallen from various Members of the Government with regard to the doctrine of common employment there could be no objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. All he proposed to do was to do away with the doctrine of common employment.
  MR. TOMLINSON: On a point of order, asked whether this Amendment was within the scope of the Bill. As he

  1469
  understood, it amounted to an Amendment of the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that if the Amendment were inserted it could only apply to the employments to which this Act applied. It was therefore in order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought the words were either unnecessary or absolutely mischievous. When he first saw the Amendment he thought it was intended to be put down with the view to some such clause not being adopted as was now in the Bill. He thought that what the hon. and learned Member was afraid of was already met in substance by Sub-section (2), paragraph (b) of the clause, and if it were not, the Amendment would be open to serious objection. By that sub-section the arbitrator would have decided that the employer was liable for the injuries caused either
  "by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible."
  After that the only thing that was left was the assessment of damages. Therefore, from the point of view of making the employer liable in the particular case which was contemplated by Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), the words were not necessary. If the hon. and learned Member got these words in, they being unnecessary for the purposes of that Sub-section, then it would be open to the suggestion that the doctrine as to the liability of the employer for the workman's default had been extended and altered. If any such words must be inserted, they should be put in all the conditions under which the employer was to be liable in the issue which was going to be decided by the arbitrator. To put in these words now would, as he had said, either be to extend the scope of the Bill beyond what the Committee intended, or to add words which were unnecessary for the purpose of the previous sub-section.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that in Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), they were dealing with cases to which the ordinary law was to apply, and what they wanted to make sure of was that to these cases the doctrine of common employment was not applicable. They insisted that this
  1470
  doctrine of common employment was not to be re-enacted.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid he thought that as regarded the first part of the sub-section the words proposed were obviously unnecessary. The question of liability had already been discussed and defined under Sub-section (2), paragraph (b). When they went outside that and said that an employer should be as responsible for such act and default
  "as if the workman had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer nor engaged in his work,"
  they went much beyond that sub-section as to the extent of the liability. The fact of the liability would not be altered, but the extent of the liability might be very largely increased. It seemed to him that this Amendment not only ought not to be admitted, but that the subject-matter of it had already been dealt with in Subsection (2), paragraph (b).
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESargued that the Bill for the purposes of compensation under the Employers' Liability Act abolished the doctrine of common employment. But outside the Act the doctrine existed. The Amendment would therefore only be operative in the case of responsibility of employers outside the Act, in which case it would be outside the scope of the Bill.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the argument of the hon. Gentleman is correct, I cannot submit the Amendment to the Committee. [Laughter.]
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the argument of his hon. Friend was not correct. [Laughter.] His Amendment did not cover the general law of employers' liability. The Committee had already decided that in regard to acts of default on the part of persons for whom the employer was responsible, a particular procedure was to be allowed; and, therefore, any Amendment which dealt with that particular mode of procedure must be relevant to the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided.—Ayes, 93; Noes, 165.—(Division List, No. 221.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved to insert at the end of the clause the following words: —
  "No scheme shall be so certified winch contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. B. PICKARDmoved to add after the words last inserted the following words: —
  "or which has not been approved by three-fourths of the workmen ascertained by ballot vote."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he was afraid the Government could not agree to these words. They thought it better that the responsibility should be put upon the Registrar of Friendly Societies, especially in view of the Amendment which had just been agreed to.
  *SIR C. DILKEsuggested that if his hon. Friend wished to add the ballot provision, he should wait until the Report stage, and then insert the proposed words which referred to the previous Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. PICKARD: No, Sir.
  *MR. J. WILSONasked would it be competent to submit the scheme to the Registrar if only one-half of the men voted, and would that bind the other half?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that there could hardly be a doubt that this scheme would be impracticable. In order to give effect to it they must have a clause almost as long and as complicated as a Franchise Bill. It was absolutely absurd to believe that any injustice could be done, as different precautions had been taken to obtain the opinion of the men.
  MR. PICKARDasked whether the women and boys would have compensation under the Bill?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.
  MR. PICKARDsaid that from his experience there was no difficulty in carrying out the suggestion.
  MR. FENWICK: So that boys would be entitled to ballot as well as others?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.
  MR. FENWICKdid not see that it was so clear that each workman should be
  1472
  consulted before such a contract could be forced upon him. He should like to point out that the Bill was not sufficiently clear in that sense.
  MR. S. WOODShoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this proposal in its present form or some other form.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINthought the Committee might come to a decision.
  *MR. J. WILSONasked was it desirable that one-half of the workmen should overrule the other half. Would it not be better for the smooth working of the Act that they should have some arrangement whereby the question could be put to the whole of the workmen, and accepted or rejected?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he should try to find out words, after consulting with hon. Members, which would meet the difficulty which they apprehended.
  MR. BURNSsaid that, as the Colonial Secretary was in a concilatory mood, he would like to make a suggestion to him. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who had just addressed the Committee would fix upon words which would enable a ballot to be taken in circumstances advantageous to the men, but what provision was to be made for the abandonment of a scheme through, say, actuarial insolvency coming upon it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: There is an Amendment lower down dealing with that point.
  MR. BURNSsaid he desired to know, before his hon. Friends and the Government entered into conference, whether the workmen would have power to refuse a scheme, even though they had previously assented to it?
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that the discussion so far had had reference only to coal mines, but it was as well to take cognisance of other industries, shipbuilding, for instance. In ship yards it would be extremely difficult to take a ballot because the men were constantly shifting from one yard to another, according to the circumstances of the work.
  MR. THOMAS BUCKNILLhoped the Government would not be too conciliatory. The Registrar of Friendly Societies had been chosen to act in these matters, because, having great experience and great knowledge,

  1473
  and being a non-party man, and absolutely free and independent, he might bring to bear on the questions brought before him a tree and independent and a desirous mind to do right between employers and employed. Given that condition of things, why should they too much fetter his hands? What was the use of putting on record in this Bill that he should not allow a scheme under any circumstances, good as it might be, unless three-fourths of the workmen agreed to it? There might be a transcient difficulty, there might be a spirit reigning for the moment between employer and employed, not entirely of a pacific nature. How great must the difficult v of the Registrar of Friendly Societies be if he was bound hand and foot, and unable to approve a good scheme because three-fourths of the men had not consented to it. He hoped the Government would take the opinion of the House upon the point.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid that in 1893 employers had some object in trying to get the men out of the action of the Bill of that year. It was, he thought, the hon. Member for Batter-sea, who said that no doubt the employers would contribute heavily towards the sick or accident fund, but that, very naturally, they would want somthing in return. He fancied they all knew that what they wanted in return was to keep their men out of the trades unions. [Opposition cheers.] He did not know whether that was a good or a bad thing, but in the works with which he was connected they had never had to any great extent any skilled men who were not trades unionists, and they had got on very well with them. [Cheers.] Under this Bill, contracting out was surrounded with so many conditions that it would be made so excessively expensive an operation that very few employers would attempt it. ["Hear, hear !"] He therefore did not see why hon. Gentlemen opposite should fight so tenaciously over little details. He knew nothing about coal mines, but in respect to ship yards the proposal that a scheme should be approved by three-fourths of the men was almost impracticable. The men were consistently shifting, and a scheme approved at one time might be rejected at the end of six months. Considering that the Amendment had
  1474
  really never been acted upon, they might safely pass on to the discussion of some other point. [Cheers.]
  MR. PICKARDthanked the Colonial Secretary for the courteous manner in which he had met the proposal, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of 'No, no !"]
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 189.—(Division List, No. 222.)
  *MR. J. A. PEASEmoved to insert after the words last added the following words: —
  "and no scheme shall be so certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies unless he is satisfied as to its financial position as ascertained by actuarial examination."
  He said it was conceivable that the workmen might themselves be contributors for some months or even some years to a scheme of which a preponderating amount might be contributed by the employers. It would be very unfair to the workmen, therefore, if on a sudden they found all their contributions cast to the wind and they were deprived of all benefits because the scheme was financially unsound. To put a case. A disaster might occur, and the workmen suffering by the accident would be unable, owing to the unsatisfactory financial position of the scheme, to obtain any compensation, or, at any rate, any compensation in accordance with the amount the arbitrator would give them under the Bill. But that there should be any necessity for moving Amendments of this kind was only another indication that the State rather than the employer ought to be made responsible. The workmen ought to be guaranteed compensation for accidents. He did not in his Amendment propose that any guarantee of absolute solvency should be inserted, but he did feel strongly that the Registrar of Friendly Societies ought to be satisfied in his own mind that these schemes were actuarially sound.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member for Belfast, who had probably as large an experience with regard to industrial occupations as anyone in the House, told the Committee just now that

  1475
  the provision proposed by the Government was one that would hardly ever be applied in practice; and he was cheered by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ironically!" and laughter.] Ironically! He had thought that hon. Members were sincere, and now he was told that they were ironical. On the contrary, he still believed that they were sincere. Almost every hon. Member on that side of the House had expressed the same opinion, and yet on a clause which they held would hardly ever come into operation, more hours had been spent than had been spent upon very important propositions. He really could not see what motive led hon. Members opposite to pile Amendment on Amendment on a clause which they thought had no practical importance whatever. The hon. Member for Tyneside was, he thought, one of those who were rather hostile to the Bill; but he was only anxious to amend it on points of detail. He credited the hon. Member with good intentions as to the Bill, but he certainly had not taken the best way of securing the result he desired. He wanted to secure that any scheme proposed under the clause should be actuarially sound. How could that be? It was quite possible to ascertain whether the contributions would be sufficient to pay the benefits offered. But that was not the point. The real point was, Would the workmen and the employer pay their contributions? Or if the contributions settled by the scheme proved insufficient would the employer pay the deficiency? All that was matter that could not be the subject of actuarial calculation. They might have a scheme actuarially sound, but if either party declined to make their contribution, well that was a difficulty inherent in every proposition that employers should contribute or should provide for the compensation of their workmen. All they could do—and this he admitted they ought to do—was to secure that under the scheme the workman should have the same guarantee of payment that he had under the Bill; in fact, to carry out the idea expressed in the provision, that he should not be put in a worse position. Under the Bill the position of the workman was this. As long as the employer was solvent he was certain to get the amount to which he was entitled; and he thought it would
  1476
  be quite right to provide that under any scheme of contracting out the employer should guarantee the payment under the scheme. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped hon. Gentlemen followed him. That was to say, that the employer should take under the scheme the same liability he had under the Bill—his liability to pay his contribution. If that met the views of the hon. Gentleman, the Government would be prepared to deal with the matter when they reached the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. He hoped that if he had satisfied the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept my words?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not. I propose to carry out the only object which is a practical and feasible object in other terms, and I will state the terms I think applicable to the situation when I come to deal with it.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: On that undertaking, I agree to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LIONEL HOLLANDmoved to insert after the words last added the following words: —
  "(b) Any such scheme shall be deemed to be less favourable to the workmen unless it provides that the contributions to be made by the employer under the scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in his employment shall be sufficient to secure the full amount and duration of the compensation payable under this Act."
  He said that of course the two sections of the Amendment stood entirely distinct. The first part, which he now moved, aimed at securing that the employer should contribute in advance, so that one employer should not stand in a better position than another, but that every employer who had induced his men to contract out should contribute what would have been the full amount of his liability under the Act. As to the second part of the Amendment, he should hope that the purpose of that Amendment, even if the words had to be different, might be accepted by the Government, as its object was merely to safeguard the workmen in the event of the contribution by the employer falling short of the amount which he should pay.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think his hon. Friend was present at an earlier part of the evening when they had a short discussion on an Amendment which practically raised the same point. The Amendment of the hon. Member proposed that there should be some separate calculation of the scheme under Subsection (4) as to the amount contributed by the employer so as to see that it was sufficient to secure the full amount and duration of the compensation payable under the Act. He would point out that that would be a calculation it might not be possible to enter into in regard to a scheme. It was quite impossible to say that in all schemes the amount paid by the master should be calculated solely with reference to the amount of compensation payable under the Act. He would again remind the Committee that the duty was thrown upon the Registrar of coming to the conclusion that the pecuniary benefits which a workman would get under a scheme were at least as good as those given by the Act, and. therefore, by an Instruction to tell the Registrar he must make a separate calculation to see that the contributions were sufficient to secure the full amount and duration of the compensation payable under the Act, would be to prevent his taking into consideration as he ought to do other pecuniary benefits which might be given to the workmen, and for which the master would have to begin his contribution at the same time, possibly, as the workmen began theirs. He did not think the Amendment would at all add to the security of the workmen, while it might tend to direct the mind of the Registrar to calculations which might be inapplicable to the circumstances of the case.
  MR. HOLLANDasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HOLLANDmoved to insert after the words last added the following words: —
  "If the contributions of the employer, as fixed by the scheme, shall prove in any event to be insufficient to meet any claim or claims to the full compensation payable under this Act, the deficiency may be recoverable from the employer under the provisions of this Act."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINwas not quite certain whether he understood what the
  1478
  intention of his hon. Friend was in moving this Amendment. It stated: —
  "If the contributions of the employer, as fixed by the scheme, shall prove in any event to be insufficient to meet any claim or claims—"
  But the principle of the scheme was that it should be a joint contribution of employer and workman, and, therefore, if there was any deficiency it might be because the contribution of the workman was too small, or that of the employer was too small. The employer had to make a contribution under the scheme which would be equal to the one he would have to provide if he came under the provisions of the Bill, and under those circumstances it would clearly be unfair to make him liable for a larger amount. What, undoubtedly, the Government wanted to secure and what he understood hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to secure was that under no circumstances should the employer under a scheme get out for less than he would have had to pay if he had not been in the scheme. That, he thought, was perfectly right and fair, and he believed that intention was carried out by the clause as it stood. If, however, his hon. Friend thought it insufficiently provided for, then he had to say that he did not think the Amendment which had been moved exactly met the difficulty. The following words would make the matter clear: —
  "If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable thereout, the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act."
  MR. PARKER SMITHhoped the Government would not adhere to the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary, because it would knock on the head the possibility of any contracting-out scheme. [Opposition cheers.] The whole principle of any contracting-out scheme was that a bargain was made beforehand before the circumstances had taken place out of which one side or the other might possibly gain. The whole object of the employer in entering into an alternative scheme of the kind would be that his liability might be known and determined by giving a certain contribution as large as what was actuarially probable he would have to pay if he had not made a contracting-out scheme.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the Amendment would not have the effect his hon. Friend supposed. It provided that where the workman did not get compensation provided by the scheme, or if the scheme provided for certain accidents or certain cases lesser compensation than the Bill, but the scheme was, on the whole, recognised as a better scheme; provided the amount contracted for was paid, the scheme would be substituted. In fact, if employer and workman mutually contracted out of the Bill for a definite object, as long as that object was observed there was no alternative. But if the employer entered into a pledge that certain compensation should be provided for the workman, it would be perfectly fair to say, "Your scheme has failed in the object you had in view, and therefore you must go back on the original Bill." That was all the Amendment intended.
  MR. PARKER SMITHaccepted this explanation and regretted that he had misunderstood the Amendment.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid it did appear to him that in substance the criticism of the hon. Member was accurate, and that the result of the Amendment would be that none of those funds would survive in the future. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a question whether the compensation payable by the employer should be under the Act or under a scheme, because one or the other, it did not affect the point. He assumed that an employer and his workmen had entered into a scheme which they considered for their common benefit. For a long period of years the workman had had the benefit of it, that was to say, each workman when an accident arose received far better terms than under the Act, and the employer had carried out his full obligations. After the workmen had had that advantage, say for 15 years or more, to turn round on the employer and throw the whole obligation upon him, if at any given time the fund was not sufficient to meet the claims made upon it, certainly did not amount to a game of "heads I win and tails you lose." ["Hear, hear!"] Surely that amounted to a case in which two parties having entered into an arrangement for their common benefit, in the ultimate result the liability was thrown upon one only. He could not imagine any plan more directly calculated to put an end to
  1480
  such funds than the plan proposed by the Colonial Secretary. He did not think he had misapprehended the Amendment, and it seemed to him that if his view of it was accurate, the whole of this clause as to contracting out might as well be deleted. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR ASQUITHsaid that the argument of the hon. and learned Member was a very good argument against allowing contracting-out at all; but inasmuch as contracting-out was to be allowed, he must say that he entirely agreed with the Amendment proposed by the Colonial Secretary, the effect of which was that, in whatever way a scheme of this sort was carried out, the workman should always be secured, under any fund, the minimum compensation allowed by the Bill. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *COLONEL DENNYsaid it seemed to him that the Opposition could very well afford to sit still and smile, for this simple reason, that they objected to contracting out, and they now saw it being effectually killed. ["Hear, hear !"] If the employer was to get no benefit out of a scheme between himself and his workman, what on earth was he going to enter into it for? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought that some hon. Members who spoke for the employers overlooked the advantages which the clause would confer upon them. The Government assumed that the employer's contribution to a substituted fund would cover the payments which he might have to make under this Bill. As a result of the system of substituted funds there would be no litigation and no trouble. The system would work automatically. The Amendment, however, was necessary in order to safeguard workmen in cases where the funds, under a substituted scheme might not be sufficient to meet the compensation payable. In such cases it was only reasonable to hold the employer liable to make good the amount of compensation which it was proposed to sanction and be most useful, inasmuch as they would be likely to promote harmony between employer and employed.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDthought that this Amendment would effectually kill contracting out. An employer would be required to guarantee the solvency of the scheme which he had arranged, and to which he contributed. That would impose a considerable

  1481
  burden upon him. He was anxious to see these funds established because he believed that they would induce employers and workmen to associate together for their collective good, and such association would be a guarantee of the ultimate success of the system. He knew that the hon. Member for Batter-sea and the representatives of trade unions held a different view; they thought that these private benefit societies were inimical to trade unions. He supported their formation, on the other hand, because he believed them to be conducive to harmony. But if these funds were to be administered with economy it must somehow be made the workmen's interest that they should be so administered, and he feared that if the guarantee contemplated in the Amendment were to be required of the employer, the inducement to economy would disappear. When the workmen knew that they had the purse of the employer to fall back upon in any eventuality, they were not likely to act economically. The guarantee which was to be required of the employers would practically be a guarantee in favour of the workmen against the results of their own extravagance.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYwas surprised that this Amendment should cause so much uneasiness. In a previous Measure the contracting out clause contained the same provision for the guarantee of the solvency of the substituted fund. That provision was accepted, and stood the test of discussion. It was desirable that the employer should have the strongest possible interest in maintaining the financial stability of the substituted fund.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONthought that the Government had behaved with extreme fairness and impartiality. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] The Government was anxious that the workman should not suffer more than was necessary through the introduction of this subsection; and in the words suggested by the Colonial Secretary the Government had done their best to minimise the effect of it. His regret was that so much time had been wasted on the consideration of the sub-section, which to all intents and purposes would result in no substantial or important effect either one way or the other.
  MR. G. WHITELEYurged the Government, in view of the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition side, to make no further concessions on this clause, because it was evident that the appetite was growing on what it fed. [Ironical laughter.] He could not agree with the view that this clause would kill contracting out. He believed that in some form or another there would be contracting out to some extent, even after the clause had passed in its present shape. The workman had ample security. The schemes formulated between workmen and employers had to be thoroughly sifted by the Registrar, and if this gentleman did his duty he would turn his special attention to the financial and actuarial side of the question.
  MR. SETON-KARRwas disposed to look on the Amendment as another nail in the coffin of the friendly societies. [Laughter.] Judging from the ominous silence of hon. Members opposite, he felt that they also took that view. Nothing, in his judgment, should be done to injure the friendly societies, but here the employer was being asked to guarantee the solvency of other persons over whom he might have no control. If there was anybody on the Treasury Bench who could carry conviction to his mind, it was the Attorney General, but even the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to convince him. Why should they make the employer responsible, not only for his own payment, but also for the possible non-payment of other people in the future? It seemed to him that to impose the obligation involved in the words of the Colonial Secretary they would take away the last possible shred of chance of any person consenting to go into any of these friendly society schemes.
  *SIR C. DILKEthought hon. Gentlemen opposite had an undue apprehension in regard to the existence of the great railway societies. He was as strongly opposed to their existence as any one on his side could possibly be, but he was sorry to say that their existence was not likely to be affected by what was being done to-night. The great societies which they had in their mind were mainly the railway societies. They would be destroyed by this Bill. But they would be re-constituted as societies for old-age pensions and for other purposes. He

  1483
  was certain these societies would not be prevented by the Amendment from coming into existence in that way. In regard to the words proposed to be inserted by the Colonial Secretary, he was sure they were necessary. One of the great railway societies was insolvent at this moment. Of course, the railway company was solvent, but it was debarred by statutory conditions from using its funds to aid this particular society. Although he believed the great railway societies would cease to exist, they would again come into being in a new form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYmoved, after the words last inserted, to add the words: —
  "The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall in every year make a report of his proceedings under this Act, and that report shall be laid before Parliament."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR J. JOICEYmoved, after the words last inserted, to add the following words: —
  "It shall be lawful for the employer at any time to substitute for his liability under this Act the engagement or guarantee of any insurance corporation or association previously approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and on such Secretary of State certifying that he is satisfied as to the sufficiency of the engagement or guarantee of such corporation or association, and that it has undertaken the liability of the employer, any liability of the employer under this Act so undertaken shall thereupon cease."
  He said that the provision would be of mutual advantage to the workmen and the employers. In districts where both had organisations, joint insurance would be substituted for individual responsibility and thus the security of the workmen would be increased. But he realised that it was useless to ask the Committee to agree to anything which would be of use to the employers. The present temper of the Committee was to put every burden on the employer that was possible. He knew numbers of employers who would be affected by the Act to whom he would not give credit for £100 for a month. [Laughter.] This showed the necessity for his Amendment.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the proposal was that the State should become the guarantor of the insurance
  1484
  companies to whom the employers might resort to meet their liabilities under the Bill. The Government could not accept such an Amendment.
  MR. PERKSsaid there was no such proposal in the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] The declaration of the Home Secretary seemed to him to be one of the most serious which the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of the discussions. One of the difficulties created by the Measure was that annuities or pensions might be created on an employer's estate which would render it absolutely impossible for that estate to be wound up by the executors after the death of the employer. That was a very serious matter; while, on the other hand, it could not be in the slightest degree a disadvantage to the family of an injured workman or to the workman himself if, on the death of the employer, there could be substituted, at the request of the executors the covenant of some substantial insurance company for the pension or annuity. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. SETON-KARRthought the Amendment was one which the Home Secretary should have accepted, for it seemed to him to be perfectly innocent, harmless, and friendly to the Bill. It was partly in the interest of the employer and very largely in the interest of the men. [Opposition cries of "No!"] The provision of a guarantee against the insolvency of an employer must surely be in the interests of the men. He maintained that the objection of the Home Secretary was not sound. A number of small employers, if they were not allowed to transfer their liability in this very satisfactory way, might be called upon to pay a large amount, which would render them insolvent.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINconfessed that at first he could not see what the object of the Amendment was, and he thought in its present form it was altogether unacceptable. Although he did not know that it actually amounted to a guarantee, yet it did call on the Secretary of State for the first time to give an engagement or a certificate which assumed the solvency of a private institution. That had not been done with regard to friendly societies; it would be a new precedent, and he thought a dangerous one. But he could understand that there was some substance in the Amendment in this

  1485
  respect—that if the Bill remained in its present form, with continuing liabilities, it would involve very considerable difficulties in winding up estates. That appeared to him to be a serious difficulty which the Government ought to take into consideration. He suggested that if the Amendment were withdrawn some alterations would probably be made in the schedule for compensation which might remove the difficulty; but, if not, they would consider before the Report stage in what way the difficulty might be met.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid he had been rather alarmed at the answer given by the Home Secretary. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman did not really appreciate the importance of the matter.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid his right hon. Friend had not understood the Amendment as it was drafted.
  SIR J. JOICEYsaid that after the assurance which had been given, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. LOGANhoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that many of them on that side of the House who supported this Bill did so because they believed that in throwing the responsibility on the employers it would make them take greater care than they did at present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Third Reading [24th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  PRISONS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BICYCLES(IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Monday next.
  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next,
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  POOR LAW FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  COUNTY SECRETARIES SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 29th June.
  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25th June.
  BAKEHOUSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 28th June.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
  CANALS PROTECTION (LONDON) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 4th June.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  COTTON CLOTH AND OTHER FACTORIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LABOUR BUREAUX BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
MOTION.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT (No. 2).
  Bill to amend the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Provand, Mr. Lowles, Mr. Martin, Mr. Strauss, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Ascroft, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Holland; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday 7th June, and to be printed. —[Bill 272.]
  House Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'clock.