Sitting of 5 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three o'clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Suburban Electric. Tramways," presented by Mr. Sinclair; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 363.]
PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Birmingham; Coalville; and. Taunton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Darlington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to William Jones under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1801, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of The Penal Servitude Act, 1863 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Civil Service Superannuation Rules.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government, in view of the hardship at present inflicted upon a deserving class of public servants by existing Treasury rules excluding early years of service in Government departments from reckoning for superannuation allowance, will amend the pension regulations so as to allow letter carriers, sorters, telegraphists, boy writers, boy clerks, and Customs and Inland Revenue officers to count service given by them between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one years as qualifying service for pension in all cases in which a certificate of fitness has been granted by the Civil Service Commissioners, and the service, in different grades, has been continuous.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I cannot admit that any hardship is inflicted by the present practice, which is to allow temporary service, when followed by established service in the same capacity, to reckon for pension from the age of sixteen.

  Deductions from Salaries of Temporary Clerks on Appointments as Abstractors.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that only three clerks in Irish offices were subjected to a 10 per cent. deduction from their salaries as temporary clerks on appointment as abstractors, he will again consider the question of adjusting their salaries and refunding the deduction made; and whether he will state in what way the cases in which

  923
  no deductions were made differed from the other three cases referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am afraid I cannot add anything to the Answer which my hon. friend gave the hon. Member on the 23rd ultimo,† namely, that all the cases were fully considered on their merits, and that I see no reason for varying the decision arrived at.

  Alleged Nomination of an Overseer at Londonderry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the junior sorting clerk at Londonderry who has been nominated as overseer is the son of an appointed overseer at that office; whether the clerk in question has had experience; and whether the appointment can be reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Question is not understood. There is no vacancy for an overseer at Londonderry, and no occasion has arisen for any nomination.

  Petition of Worthing Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will cause a reply to be given to certain postmen at Worthing to a petition dealing with money due from November 1905, which was handed in on the 13th July and to which no reply has yet been received.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made upon the subject and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Portsmouth Naval Barracks—Court- Martial Room.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a court-martial room exists in the newly-built Royal Naval Barracks at Portsmouth, he will state the reason why such room is not utilised for the purpose for which it was erected.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Section 59 of the Naval Discipline Act requires that a court-martial shall be held
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1193.
  924
  on board one of His Majesty's ships or vessels of war. The so-called court-martial room in the Portsmouth Naval Barracks is used for courts of inquiry, committees, and numerous similar purposes.

  Postal Arrangements at Glastrigan.
  MR. HOGAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the postal arrangements existing at Glastrigan, Borrisoleigh, county Tipperary, are inadequate for the requirements of the neighbourhood, as the post leaves at 11 a.m. each day, almost immediately after the incoming post has been delivered, and any letters after that hour have to be posted at Upper church post office, which is five miles distant; and whether, having regard to the business transacted in the locality, which is extensive and populous, he will take steps to have a post office erected at Glastrigan or, in the alternative, that he will alter the present arrangements so that the post will leave in the evening instead of at 11 a.m., and that he will institute a delivery and departure of letters on Sundays.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have recently made inquiry as regards the postal service at Glastrigan, and it appears that there is an interval of about two hours for reply between the incoming and the outgoing posts in the morning. I regret that, as the cost of the service at Glastrigan is already very high as compared with the amount of correspondence, I should not be justified in incurring the additional expenses necessary for opening a post office at Glastrigan or a Sunday delivery. I will inquire into the alternative suggestions made.

  Post Office Telephone Rates.
  MR. BRACE: To ask the Postmaster-General if he has received communications from the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce, and other representative trade and commercial bodies, calling his attention to the inconvenience arising from the fact that the Post Office Department declines to quote inclusive rates for telephones on their system; and if he will favourably consider the

  925
  desirability of granting inclusive rates for telephones on the Post Office system, and give an assurance to the trading public that no increase in the telephone rates on the Post Office system is intended.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received some communications on the subject referred to by the hon. Member. The agreement on 2nd February, 1905, relating to the purchase of the National Telephone Company's system, provides that until 1911 there shall be inter-communication between the exchanges of the Post Office and the National Telephone Company in the same exchange areas. A condition of this arrangement is that uniform rates of charge shall be adopted by the Post Office and the company for the use of the combined systems in each area. When inter-communication began last year in the Cardiff area, the company represented that, pending an agreement as to uniform rates of charge they were at a disadvantage owing to the fact that the Post Office rate for unlimited service was lower than the company's corresponding rate. My predecessor was unwilling to increase the amount of the Post Office unlimited service rate, and he therefore agreed to its suspension until a uniform system of charge could be arranged with the company. Negotiations are in progress for the settlement of the uniform charge for the use of the combined systems in the Cardiff area.

  Postal Facilities between Ballymahon and Barry.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will sanction the employment of an extra rural carrier between Ballymahon and Barry, and the erection of a pillar-box at the latter place which could be cleared at 5 p.m. each evening, and so obviate the present inconvenience, seeing that persons having to post letters in Barry have to send them a distance of two miles to get them posted.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry on this subject, and will send the hon. Member an Answer.

  Sunday Delivery of Letters at Esker.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he would sanction a Sunday delivery of letters from Longford to Esker.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have no recent information on this subject, and I have therefore called for a fresh Report. On its receipt I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Pay of Rural Postmen.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to recommend to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the grievances of Post Office servants the necessity for increasing the pay of postal messengers like John Condon, of Ballyhahill West, in the county of Limerick, who, for six days in the week, walks on an average six miles a day, and whose hours of duty are from 8.30 o'clock a.m. to 10 o'clock a.m., and for which he receives 4s. 6d. per week.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Burton.) The messenger referred to is a servant of the sub-postmaster of Ballyhahill and is not directly employed by the Department. It is a question for the Committee to consider whether such cases come within their reference.

  Overtime pay of John Condon, Postal Messenger, of Ballyhahill west.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will inquire into the case of John Condon, postal messenger, of Ballyhahill West, in the county of Limerick, who applied to the head postmaster in Limerick for overtime for 3 years and 10 months when mails were late, but who has been paid for overtime for five months only, in view of the fact that he is positive as to the length of the overtime for which he worked and makes claim; and whether he will also take steps to see that postal messengers be informed in future that they are entitled to over pay when waiting for mails that do not arrive at scheduled time.

  927
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) An application has been received from Condon, and I will acquaint the hon. Member in due course with the result of the inquiry which is now being made on the subject.

  Newcastle (County Down) Post Office— Accommodation for the Public.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inadequate accommodation provided for the public at Newcastle Post Office, county Down; and whether he can state when steps will be taken to provide an office suited for the requirements of the town.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My attention has been drawn to the matter, and a scheme for the provision of a new office is now under consideration.

  Sunday Delivery of Letters in London.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of establishing a morning delivery and evening dispatch of letters for London on Sundays.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The existing postal arrangements in London are, I believe, satisfactory to the large majority of the residents, and I am strongly opposed to the establishment of services which would materially increase the amount of Sunday labour.

  Cost of Board of Trade Journal.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the gross cost of production of the Board of Trade Journal, including rent and the salaries or a proportion of the salaries of any of the officials largely concerned in its production; what is the revenue from advertisements and sales respectively; what were the numbers printed, sold, distributed gratuitously, and left in stock respectively for the last week in June and the last week in September, 1906; and what reasons have led the Board of Trade to raise the price of the journal from 1d to 3d.
  928
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I regret that I am unable to give the particulars asked for by the hon. Member, but I may say that at present the journal does not pay expenses. The increase in price has been recommended by the Commercial Intelligence Committee.

  Width of Platforms at Brondesbury Station.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the-President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Brondesbury Station, London and North Western Railway, which is often crowded by passengers, is provided with platforms which, for the greater part, are only about seven feet in width; and whether he possesses any powers to compel railway companies to provide safe platform accommodation.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have caused a copy of my hon. friend's Question to be forwarded to the railway company for their observations, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply. The Board of Trade have no power to require the improvement of the platform accommodation provided for the public at stations already in use.

  Treatment of Habitual Drunkards.
  MR. MOND: To ask the-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the statements in the Report of the inspector under the Inebriates Acts 1879 to 1900 [Cd. 3246], as to the use-less ness and inhumanity of prison treatment for habitual drunkards; and whether, at an early date, he can see his way to introduce legislation to institute a more scientific and humane treatment of habitual drunkards than the present system.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have had this Report under my consideration, and I am now in communication with the various stipendary and police magistrates on the subject of the treatment of inebriates who come before the Courts. The striking number of inebriates who exhibit mental defect brings this class of persons under the consideration of the Royal Commission

  929
  on the Feeble-minded, and I think that any question of legislation must be postponed until after the Report of that Commission has been received.

  Factory Surgeons' Fees.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the coming into force on 1st January, 1907, of the Secretary of State's order extending the requirement of certificates of fitness to certain workshops, and the inadequacy of the sixpenny fee for professional services rendered by certifying factory surgeons, he will favourably consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to fix the fee at one shilling and the definition of small employers as those who employ a total number of all ages not exceeding ten.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The privilege of having children and young persons examined elsewhere than at the factory on payment of 6d. each was given to the small employer by Parliament, and, though I have power under the Act of 1901 to vary the scale of fees, I should be reluctant by administrative action to take away the privilege which Parliament has granted. A small employer is defined, by Section 64 (3) of the Act of 1901, as one who employs less than five children and young persons, and legislation would be required to alter this definition. Both points shall be borne in mind in connection with any amending factory legislation.

  Children's Courts.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether separate children's Courts are now held in any places besides Bath, Brimingham, Bolton, Bradford, Bury, Canterbury, Halifax, Hull, Lincoln, Manchester and Walsall; if so, in what new places are these Courts held; at which of these Courts probation officers are employed, stating whether they are paid or unpaid; and at which Courts policemen are partly or wholly employed as probation officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My hon. friend has omitted Tottenham
  930
  from the list of places which have separate Courts for children. I am afraid cannot, at the present time, add anything further to the reply which I gave my hon. friend last Wednesday on this subject †, or to the very full statement which I made on the 30th May last in answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire. ‡ Nothing would be gained by collecting the information afresh after so brief an interval.

  Policemen in Parliamentary Buildings.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional policemen have been concealed for special duty about the precincts of the House of Commons during the past ten days and the reason for their presence; whether these men are performing extra duty whilst so concealed; and, if so, whether they will be paid for the additional hours so employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone ) No police have been concealed about the precincts of the House of Commons, but some additional men have been temporarily employed there in order to effectively carry out the requirements imposed by the Sessional Order. The additional men employed have not done extra duty, and there is, therefore, no question of extra pay.

  Sickness at Rawul Pindi.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any reply to his cable of Thursday, 29th October, regarding the prevalent sickness at Rawul Pindi.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have not yet heard from the Government of India, but I have asked them to let me have a report by telegraph.

  Viceroy of India and Feudatory Princes.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will lay upon the Table any orders or instructions of the
  † See Col. 60.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clviii., 389.

  931
  Government of India in the Foreign Department, issued during the viceroyalty of Lord Curzon, requiring the feudatory princes who may desire to leave India to obtain the previous permission of the Viceroy; whether these orders are still in force; and, if so, whether Indian noblemen in British territory are subject to similar restrictions on their freedom.
  {Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The circular letter 01 the Government of India to local governments and administrations, laying down the procedure to be followed when Native chiefs proposed to leave India for purposes of foreign travel, was published in the Supplement to the Gazette of India of the 25th August, 1900, a copy of which is in the Library of the House of Commons, and it does not seem necessary to lay it upon the Table. The circular is still in force. It does not apply to others than Native chiefs.

  Kingarve Mineral Lease.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Staples Irwin, of Dungannon, county Tyrone, got a lease on 2nd January, 1867, from the then Primate of Armagh of the minerals under the town-land of Kingarve, parish of Drumglass, barony of Middle Dungannon, county Tyrone, and during the time this lease was in existence the Commissioners of Church Temporalities, by a deed dated 16th December, 1873, sold the royalties in the town land to another party without Mr. Irwin's knowledge, and that they again sold them to Mr. Thomas Staples Irwin by deed dated 29th July, 1880, and that when Mr. Irwin applied to the Land Commission, in whom the old church property is now vested, to be refunded the amount he had paid, he was refused; and whether he will take steps to secure the immediate repayment of the money.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that a statement on the subject of the Question was submitted to and fully considered by the Commissioners two years ago, when they informed Mr. Irwin and his solicitor that they could not admit any liability on their part in the matter.

  Failure of the Potato Crop in Clifden Union.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the impending distress in the Clifden union owing to the failure in the potato crop, he will take steps to have the pier constructed in Clifden Harbour, promised under the Marine Works Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As regards the partial failure of the potato crop, I beg to refer to the very full statement which I made in the House to-day in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo.† As regards the proposed works at Clifden pier, on 31st October, the Government informed the County Council of Galway that they would endoavour to find the sum of £3,000, and to secure Treasury approval for its issue as a free grant for works at Clifden pier provided that the county council should guarantee that the balance, including the sum of £2,000 for an approach road, would be locally made up. It is understood that the county council are in communication with the Congested Districts Board as to plans and estimates, but they have not yet given any definite reply to the proposal of the Government.

  Romeroy Assault Case.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the police withdrew the summonses issued against William Kelly and Joseph Hughes for assaulting John M'Kernan at Pomeroy, county Tyrone, on October 28th; and whether any summons has been issued against the same persons for drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that the summonses referred to in the first part of the Question were not issued by the police but by M'Kernan himself. Before the hearing M'Kernan withdrew the summonses of his own motion. The police took out summonses against Kelly and Hughes for drunkenness on the date on which the alleged assault was committed,
  See Col. 941.

  933
  but the magistrate who signed the summonses afterwards cancelled them, stating that in the interests of the peace of the town it was better, now that M'Kernan had withdrawn his summonses, that there should be no prosecution against these men, having regard to the opinion which he entertained of their character.

  Tannaghmore Labourers Cottage Scheme.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the application of James Lecock, of Tannaghmore West, near Randalstown, county Antrim, for a labourers cottage was passed over by the Ballymena Rural District Council in November, 1903; what is the cause of delay in proceeding with the new application of Lecock, lodged in September, 1905; and whether Lecock's cottage was condemned by the local sanitary authority as in sanitary and dangerous more than three years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The rural district council included James Laycock's application for a cottage in an improvement scheme which was inquired into by an inspector of the Local Government Board on 25th July, 1905. The inspector, however, was unable to recommend the acquisition of the site proposed by the council, as four cottages had already been erected, or were in course of erection, on the holding of eighteen acres on which it had been selected. It is the case that Laycock's house was condemned by the medical officer of health as being insanitary on 12th August, 1001. Laycock has since lodged a further representation with the council, who have decided to propose a cottage for him in their next scheme, which the Local Government Board understand will be made shortly after 1st February next, the date by which representations under the new Act are to be lodged for the consideration of the council.

  Miss M'Ghee's Retiring Allowance.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Armagh Hoard of Guardians, by resolution of 29th July, 1902, voted a retiring allowance to Miss M'Ghee, asis-
  934
  tant teacher, and that in March, 1903, she was deprived of her employment, and from, that period has received no remuneration or allowance; and can he say why the superannuation allowance has been withheld from Miss M'Ghee.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have already referred the hon. Member to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for South Down on 28th June.† which gives full details of the matter in question. The guardians originally proposed to abolish the offices of schoolmistress and assistant teacher, and to send the workhouse children to extern schools. Conditional upon the adoption of this proposal, the guardians proposed to grant superannuation allowances to the then holders of the offices in question, of whom Miss McKee was the assistant teacher. The Local Government Board were unable to approve of the main proposal, and subsequently the guardians, despite that Board's protest, dispensed with Miss McKee's services, and the Board had no power to prevent them from doing so.

  Hollywood Petty Sessions Clerk's Fees.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the petty sessions clerk for the districts of Holy wood, Bangor, and Newtownbreda returned any stamps in excess of the proper amount required in any of the years previous to 1906, or is it to be taken that in those years all licences were sufficiently stamped; will he state on what evidence the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks accepts the return of the petty sessions clerk of licences issued by him as being correct; and what steps the Registrar takes to check the truth of the return, to see that it accurately sets out all the licences, with the number of dogs on each licence, should the Registrar decide to make such a cheek.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks informs me that the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The Registrar personally inspected the register of dog licences for the district mentioned, and satisfied himself of its correctness. A list of the dog licences issued is sent to the local police
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 1118–9.

  935
  who also inspect the register. If the number of dogs included in a licence should not agree with the number shown in the register the clerk would be at fault, but no such complaint has at any time been made against the clerk in question. The Registrar points out that the clerk could not possibly benefit in any way by the accidental omission to place the proper number of stamps on a licence, because he has to account for the number of dogs licensed according to the register, and not according to the number of stamps issued.

  United States Beef Trust.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire into the operation of the beef trust of the United States, as regards the attempt which is being made by the trust to capture the whole of the wholesale and retail beef trade of the United Kingdom, and to raise the price of meat to the consumer.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have received no information of such an attempt as that referred to, but the matter will be carefully watched.

  Workmen's Compensation and Illegitimate Children.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of cases which have arisen under the Compensation Act of 1897 by which illegitimate sons or daughters, fathers or mothers, of injured workmen have been deprived of the benefits of the Act to which they would have been entitled but for the disclosure, during proceedings, of such illegitimacy.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can give the number of cases in Scotland which have arisen under the Compensation Act of 1897 by which illegitimate sons or daughters, fathers or mothers, of injured workmen have been deprived of the benefits of the Act to which they would have been entitled but for the disclosure, during proceedings, of such illegitimacy.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I will answer this Question on behalf of
  936
  the Secretary for Scotland as well as on my own behalf. I am sorry that I have not, and know no means of obtaining the information asked for by the hon. Member.

  Endowed Schools—Appointment and Dismissal of Masters.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education in how many new or amended schemes for endowed schools issued during the last three years the appointment and dismissal of the assistant masters is vested in the head master solely, in the head master subject to the approval of the governing body, or in the governing body solely, acting on the recommendation of the head master; and, in particular, why in certain cases no provision is made for protecting the assistant masters from arbitrary dismissal.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There are twelve cases in which the appointment and dismissal rest solely with the head master. There are also three girls' schools in this category. There are twenty-nine cases in which the appointment and dismissal rest with the head master, subject to the approval of the governing body. There are also five girls' schools in this category. There are four cases in which the head master has sole power to appoint, but can only dismiss with the approval of the governing body, and there is one girls' school in this category. There are five cases where the appointment rests with the head master, subject to the approval of the governing body, and where the governing body dismiss on the recommendation of the head master. There are ten cases in which appointment and dismissal rest with the governing body on the recommendation of, or after consultation with, the head master. There is only one case in which appointment and dismissal rest solely with the governing body. As regards the concluding paragraph of the Question, I am not sure what the hon. Member means by the word "arbitrary"; but I must remind him that the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, Section 22, makes it imperative that every scheme shall provide for the dismissal of every teacher "at pleasure," adding, however, "with or without a power of appeal in such cases and under

  937
  such circumstances as to the Commissioners" (now the Board of Education) "may seem expedient." In all cases which come up for reconsideration, and in all new schemes, the Board's present practice is, generally speaking, to insert provisions requiring the approval of the governing body in all cases where the appointment or dismissal is vested in the head master.

  Aberdare National Schools.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the local education authority will carry out their statutory obligation to maintain and keep efficient the Aberdare Town national schools by paying the salary of the head teacher during the months of September and October, and during the first half of November of the present year, and that the same authority does not establish a different scale of salaries for council and voluntary schools within their area.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No salary seems to have been in any sense due to the head teacher of the school in question during September. The head teacher only commenced any teaching duties in the school on 1st October. His appointment on that date had not, however, been approved by the local authority, and, therefore, his services in the school during September were not services rendered to the local authority. The appointment of this head teacher was sanctioned by the authority as from 1st November, and the authority are paying the salary of the head teacher as from that date. I do not, therefore, see any ground for intervention on the part of the Board of Education. As regards the concluding paragraph of the Question I must ask the hon. Baronet's attention to the penultimate paragraph of the reply given by me on 26th November last to the hon. Member for Marylebone (East),† to which I can as yet add nothing.

  Scotsmen in the Army.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of
  † See (i) Debates, clxv., 1246–7.
  938
  Scotchmen who have joined the Army during the last twelve months.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of recruits raised in Scotland during the year ended 30th September last was 3,782. It is impossible to say how many of these men so recruited are Scotsmen; but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that many Scotsmen enlist in England.

  Bulford Camp Hospital Accommodation.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War for what number of men is there hospital accommodation at Bulford Camp, and whether the accommodation is permanent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The present accommodation at Bulford is 148 beds. The hospital is a temporary one, and is occupied pending the erection of a new hospital at Tidworth. The ultimate disposal of the present buildings is under consideration.

  Hospital Accommodation at Tidworth.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War are plans prepared for the new hospital accommodation at Tidworth; when will work be begun, and when is it expected to end; and for what number of men will it be.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The scheme for hospital accommodation has been approved, and the plans are being pressed forward to enable the work to commence early next year. It is hoped that the service will be completed before the end of 1907, and that a number of the buildings, including wards, will be available within a few months of the date of commencement of work. The proposed accommodation provides,— 1. A general hospital for 181 officers and men. 2. A families hospital for thirty-one women and children. 3. An infectious hospital.

  Medal for Quartermaster-Sergeant William Pettigrew, late 52nd and 77th Regiment.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for War

  939
  whether he will state on what, if any, principle the award of the meritorious service medal is made in the Army; whether his attention has been called to the case of Quartermaster-sergeant, William Pettigrew, late 52nd and 77th Foot, who served for twenty-one years, 133 days, and was present as a corporal in the 52nd through the whole Siege of Delhi and when General Nicholson fell, has the good conduct medal, and was for six years quartermaster-sergeant of the 77th Regiment, to which he was transferred after the Mutiny and retired in 1871, being now seventy-seven years of age, but has received no medal; whether all officers who fought at Lucknow and Delhi were allowed two extra years to count for pension and the rank and file nothing; why the claims of this veteran have been overlooked for thirty-five years and subordinated to those of juniors, as for instance of as ergeantmajor in the Worcestershire Regiment, who was born in the year of the Siege of Delhi, and was awarded a medal in 1905 whilst still on the active list; whether any records of claims to decorations or honours among the rank and file are preserved at the War Office; and who is responsible for bringing them forward for attention in due course.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The principle on which the meritorious service medal and annuity are awarded was explained on the 29th ultimo in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Belfast. † My attention has been drawn to the case of Quartermaster-sergeant Pettigrew. He did not apply to have his name noted till the 1st May last, and there has been no vacancy since that date in his late battalion to which he could have been appointed, even if his claims were considered stronger than those of other candidates. The records of soldiers are preserved with their regiments while they are serving, afterwards at Chelsea Hospital, and finally at the Public Record Office. The claim to this decoration must be put forward by the man himself and be supported by his commanding officer.
  † See Col. 280.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Native Recruiting in Portuguese East Africa.
    MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the-Colonies whether he is aware that Lord Selborne has given authority for the publication of the correspondence relating to the applications of groups of mines and associations in the Transvaal for facilities similar to those requested of Portugal by this Government for the Robinson group of mines for recruiting natives in Portuguese East Africa; whether the publication of this correspondence will be made at once; and whether the Portuguese Government decline to give special facilities to any single mine or group of mines on the basis of unequal treatment.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHIKCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State understands that the Johannesburg Chamber of Mines is publishing the correspondence which it has had with Lord Selborne on the subject. Negotiations with the Portuguese Government am now proceeding, and it is not desirable to make any statement as to the course which they have followed up to the present; nor is the Secretary of State prepared to publish Papers until the negotiations are completed.
    MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Did Lord Selborne sanction the publication of this correspondence?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Selborne has given his permission to the Chamber of Mines to publish the correspondence they have had with him. Therefore the publication of the correspondence is a proper action for the Chamber of Mines to take. But I do nor agree that that fact in any way renders it necessary for His Majesty's Government to publish Blue-books except at such periods as may be convenient, and at such moments as they may be desired to give information to the House of Commons.
    MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will publish the correspondence as soon as possible?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am not at all convinced that the correspondence is of sufficient importance to figure in a Government Blue-book.

    Liverpool Telegraphists' Holidays.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as a result of negotiations between the Department and the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association some years ago, a compromise was arranged upon the holiday question; whether, on condition that the stall took a portion of their annual leave, with compensation days for Bank Holidays, in the winter months, the staff were promised that the remainder of their holidays should be granted between the months of March and October (inclusive); whether a guarantee was given to the staff at Liverpool that the bulk of the holidays should be evenly distributed over these eight months; if so, whether this arrangement is to be broken by reducing the number on leave between June and September (inclusive); and whether he will inquire into the circumstances in view of the conditions of the compromise.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): In 1897 the telegraph staff at Liverpool accepted the arrangement, which was subsequently adopted in other places, that the greater portion of the annual leave might be taken in the eight better months of the year, the remaining portion being taken between November and February. There was no promise or arrangement that the annual leave should be distributed equally over the eight months. In consequence of the great pressure of telegraph work from the l5th of June to the 15th of September and the excessive overtime that would otherwise have resulted, an even distribution is not practicable, but as little change as possible has been made.

    Irish Potato Crop Failure.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now
    942
    in a position to make a full statement as to the result of inquiries conducted by the Irish Government into the extent of the failure of the potato crop in Ireland this year; whether, in some districts, the potatoes will be exhausted before the 1st of January, and there will be no seed fit to be planted; whether the Irish Government propose to take any special steps to deal with the situation and, if they do, what measures they have in contemplation; whether any special investigation has been made as to the causes of the failure, and the possibility of taking effective measures against failure of the potat crop in future years; and whether the Irish Government propose to publish any special Report on this subject.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BUYCE, Aberdeen): The result of the inquiries made by the Irish Government into the failure of the potato crop in Ireland may be summed up as follows—omitting counties in which the failure has not been serious and will not create any special demand for relief. I regret to say that in the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Mayo, Leitrim, Ross common, Galway, Clare, Kerry, and the West Riding of Cork, there has been a failure in the potato crop which, varying from place to place, is, except as presently to be stated, approximately two-thirds, and in some favoured places, three-fourths of an average crop. The quality of the potatoes is much below the average, but the proportion of small potatoes is relatively largo, and that of blackened or diseased potatoes relatively small, as compared with other "blight" years. In certain areas, especially in parts of Mayo and Galway, the crop is below half the average, and in a considerable part of the Union of Belmullet it has been almost a total failure. On the other hand, the harvest of other crops has been a good one, and the season, except as regards potatoes, has been favourable for farmers. Live-stock are in good demand at high prices, and the fishing has in most places been good. The Department of Agriculture, after a special investigation, have arrived at the conclusion that the causes of failure, apart from the bad weather which was favourable to blight, are chiefly to be found in a neglect of spraying or of spraying in the best manner, and in faulty methods of

    943
    cultivation. Except possibly in the Belmullet Union it is believed that the potatoes will not be exhausted till much later than January, and happily the crop no longer forms the sole food supply of the Western peasantry. The Government have under consideration the question of the sufficiency of the seed supply for next season's planting, and at a suitable time will make a further statement. The Irish Government are unwilling to contemplate exceptional procedure for the relief of distress, since experience has shown that demoralising results follow special measures which are not absolutely necessary to save life, and they consider that the Local Government Act lays down a procedure which should be adhered to. The union is primarily responsible; and the county council, who have the best means of knowing the circumstances of the different unions within the county, have it in their power to supplement the efforts of those unions which cannot, without aid, extend the necessary relief to the inhabitants of their area. If a county council declines to put the Act into force the Government must suppose that in the opinion of the council the circumstances of the unions in the county do not call for special procedure. In all cases where the Act is made operative the circumstances will be carefully watched by the Government, and if necessity for Government help is apparent the Government will not hesitate to follow the procedure of 1905, and will give substantial assistance to those unions which are unable to bear any appreciable addition to their rates. The Government desire also to see public works of permanent utility, which in any case they desire to execute, deeming them to be desirable on their own merits apart from any question of distress, begun at the earliest possible moment in several of the coastal districts where distress is most to be apprehended. For most of these funds are available under the Marine Works Act, and as to some a decision has not yet been finally reached, though it is hoped this may very soon be done. The general question of preventing the recurrence of scarcity in the Western districts has engaged the earnest attention of the Government, and a general scheme has been prepared by the Department of Agriculture. The funds at their disposal for this
    944
    purpose, however, require to be supplemented if this scheme is to be carried out in its entirety. At present the amount available each year for agricultural work in the congested districts amounts to £7,000, and it seems doubtful whether an increased allocation of funds for this purpose from the Department's endowment can be looked for at present. The Government are, however fully sensible of the importance of carrying out measures which will avert the recurrence of distress in the districts which usually suffer from it, and they are considering whether such a Report as is referred to in the latter portion of the Question can be prepared. My hope is that scientific inquiry may do much to improve the agricultural methods in use in Ireland, and may perhaps succeed in getting rid of the potato blight altogether.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the defective spraying was not due to the neglect of the Board of Agriculture since they took over that part of the work of the Congested Districts Board, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of preventing the Department from paying away any portion of the scanty funds to private associations such as the Agricultural Organisation Society, when admittedly they had not funds enough to carry out most essential works in the West of Ireland.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he had no reason whatever to think that the neglect of spraying was the fault of the Board of Agriculture, which had, in fact, issued the directions for spraying. The reason why spraying had not been more resorted to was partly that the people were disheartened by the wet weather, and partly because the previous season was so good that they had no apprehension of the danger of neglecting to spray. The question of the Agricultural Organisation Society's subsidy was being looked into. He hoped it would be possible from time to time to make statements with reference to public works to be undertaken.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDYcomplained that the inspector visiting one district in Cavan simply called at one or two houses along the roadside in

    945
    order to ascertain the amount of distress that really existed.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he believed the inspectors had done their best to ascertain the amount of distress and to deal with it. If, however, the hon. Member had any details he could give him he would cause inquiry to be made into them.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department is a gentleman who has the profound distrust of the Irish Party?

    Corrib Salmon Fishery.
    MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the owner of the Corrib salmon fishery at Galway has for some time past been discharging loads of stone into the river at points chosen so as to concentrate the current in a few deep passes and thereby facilitate netting operations; and that the consequent quickening of the current prevents fishing boats from reaching the landing quay at low tide, and thereby injures their access to market; and, if so, whether the Irish Government will take steps to prevent further interference with the natural course of the river and to remove the obstructions which have been created.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have been informed by the Clerk of the Galway Board of Conservators that he is not aware of any action taken by the owners of the Corrib salmon fishery or by any other person which is calculated to alter the current of the river, or in any way to hinder fishing boats from reaching the landing quay at low tide or otherwise. The clerk states that he has interviewed several of the leading fishermen on the subject, none of whom are aware of any change of current which would affect landing. I may add that in cases in which there is any obstruction to navigation, the matter is not one for the Irish Government to deal with, but falls, I believe, within the province of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    MR. GWYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into this matter?
    MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member will see me I will give him privately some information on this matter.

    Irish School Building Grants.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to take any portion of the sum to be voted for school building grants in Ireland out of the Development Grant.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Ireland Development Grant Estimate for the current year, from which it will be seen that a sum of £15,000 has been voted for national school buildings. It is explained in the note to Sub-head C that this amount is the first instalment of the grant of £70,000 from the Ireland Development Grant towards the cost of rebuilding necessitous national schools, and this sum is supplementary to the provision for National Education buildings made by the ordinary Estimates. As to the latter, a vote of £20,000 has been taken for the current year, under Class I., Vote 14, Public Works and Buildings.
    MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Development Grant was sot up a promise was made to the Irish Party that they should be consulted as to its application. Has that promise been carried out?
    MR. BRYCEsaid that happened in the days of his last predecessor but one. He was doing his best to apply the grant to the most useful purposes.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the intense interest which has for a long time existed in Ireland on the question of school building grants, he will consent to lay upon the Table the Report of the Committee which sat on this subject in 1902, and the correspondence which has passed between the Treasury, the Irish Government, and the Commissioners for National Education for Ireland, on the subject of school building grants from 1900 to the present date.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Mr. MCKENNA): The Report referred to was a confidential document prepared for the information of the Treasury. The late Government decided that no action should be taken upon it and that there would be no advantage in publishing it. In all the circumstances my hon. friend sees no reason for varying this decision. For a similar reason he is not prepared to lay on the Table the correspondence since 1900, especially as much of it is now out of date and its publication would not, in his opinion, serve any useful purpose.
    MR. DILLON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if the Irish Government have any power whatever over this matter of Irish education, or are we to be oppressed and our schools ruined by the Treasury?
    MR. BRYCE: The Irish Government, so far from being indifferent, have been giving constant attention to this matter. Hardly a week passes without it engaging our attention.
    MR. DILLON: I did not say the Irish Government were indifferent. I asked if they were powerless? Do they accept the responsibility for the present situation in Ireland in this matter?
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the National Board have asked for money, and that the Irish Government have endorsed their request, but that the ultimate decision rests with the Treasury.
    MR. DILLON: With the result that for ten years our schools have been falling into ruins. It is an absolutely intolerable state of things.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to that portion of the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, which deals with schoolbuilding grants, in which it is stated that the controversy on this subject between the National Board and the Treasury has now lasted for ten years, that the present position is deplorable, and that it would require a sum of £100,000 annually for
    948
    five years to enable the Board to deal with the large number of cases that have accumulated in consequence of the practical suspension of grants for the last four years; and whether, in view of the feeling which has been aroused in Ireland on this matter, he will make a full statement of the present situation, including the amounts which the Treasury has agreed to place on the Estimates for school-building grants during the next four years.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I understand that my hon. friend has seen the statement in the Report of the Commissioners of National Education referred to, but he is not aware of the basis of the figure given. The present position is that the suggestions of the National Education Board as regards standard plans for the future have been received by the Treasury through the Irish Government, and are now being examined on behalf of the Treasury. In the meantime the Commissioners have authority to submit urgent cases, with details of requirements in each case, for consideration on their merits. The statement that the grants have practically been suspended for the last four years cannot by admitted, as the figures of expenditure are: 1902–3, £33,280; 1903–4, £13,142; 1904–5, £18,785; 1905–6, £28,007. Provision is also made in the Estimates of the current year for £20,000, in addition to £15,000 from the Development Grant. The Treasury has agreed, on the representation of the Irish Government, to place a sum of £40,000 for this purpose on the Estimate for Public Works and Buildings, Ireland, 1907–8, but the amount of the provision for later years has not been decided on.
    MR. DOLANpointed out that while £1,500,000 was spent annually on the police in Ireland only £1,500,000 went to education, whereas in England only £2,500,000 was expended on police, and £13,000,000 on education.

    County Donegal Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of John O'Gorman, who was evicted from

    949
    his farm on the estate of Messrs. Campbell and Gledstane, near Convoy, county Donegal, in April 1898; is he aware that this farm is now in possession of a planter named Russell, who is willing to take compensation and give up the farm; and whether he will advise the Commissioners to send down an inspector to inquire into the whole matter, so that O'Gorman may be reinstated in his former holding.
    The hon. Member had also given notice of the following Questions:—
    To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the matter of Andrew Conaghan, who was evicted from his farm on the estate of Mr. Bustard, at Carricknashane, near Castle-fin, county Donegal, in May 1897; and, if so, whether they will send down an inspector to inquire into Conaghan's case, with a view to reinstating him in his farm before sanctioning the sale of the estate.
    To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of John Monahan, who was evicted from his holding by the representatives of the Stokes Estate, near Raphoe, county Donegal, in 1885; the farm is now in possession of a planter named Farell, the estate having been sold to the tenants; and can he say whether an inspector will be sent down to inquire into the matter with a view to reinstating Monahan before the sale is completed.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from each of the evicted tenants named in these three Questions. The Commissioners intend to have the cases of these and other evicted tenants in county Donegal inquired into by an inspector as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Commissioners have no information as to the present occupiers of the evicted farms.

    Irish Untenanted Lands.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether,
    950
    having regard to the need that exists for the distribution of untenanted land for the relief of evicted tenants and of congestion, and the number of owners of largo tracts who have not consented to sell, he will, under Section 23. sub-section 8, of the Land Act of 1903, ask the Estates Commissioners to communicate without further delay with all owners of non residential tracts of over 100 acres with a view to acquiring such land wherever available, and, if sufficient cannot be obtained, dealing with the problem next session.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are at present fully engaged in communicating with the owners of untenanted land, and that it would be premature to draw any conclusion from the result of the negotiations which they have so far undertaken. I have already stated that I cannot at present make any statement as to possible legislation next session.

    Land Purchase and Resale Losses.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the gross amount of loss incurred by the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission, and the Estates Commissioners, under the statutory powers allowing loss in the purchase and re-sale of estates, so far as now completed; the gross amount spent improving these estates, restoring them and the people on them to economic conditions, and generally in reversing the policy of their late owners; the gross increase in the price of such estates purchased since the 1st April, 1903, as compared with the average price of those purchased before that date; and, if this latter is not included under either of the preceding headings, by how much does the total expenditure exceed the net value of the estates in question before purchase.
    MR. BRYCE: It would not be possible, within the limits of an Answer to a Question, to give the statistical information asked for or to discuss the problems which apparently are intended to be raised. The last annual Reports of the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners contain all the information on the subject then available, and further similar information will be

    951
    contained in future annual Reports. I am informed that, in addition, the Congested Districts Board have afforded information on the subject to the Royal Commission on Congestion now sitting, and this information will, doubtless, be published in due course.

    Winn Estate, Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the Resolutions passed at a public meeting in Glenbeigh, county Kerry, on 18th November; whether the Congested Districts Board will set to work on improvements on the Winn estate, lately purchased by them, as suggested by the terms of the Resolution; and whether he proposes to give effect to the request that a representative from Kerry shall be placed on the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the Resolutions mentioned in the Question and have referred them to the Congested Districts Board, by whom they will be considered at their next meeting. The Winn estate has not yet been vested in the Board, and the Board are, therefore, not yet in a position to alter the boundaries of holdings or effect large improvement works, but the necessary works on the estate will be commenced as soon as the estate is vested. The Board's funds are not applicable to the relief of temporary distress by the undertaking of relief works, as suggested in the Resolutions. I may, however, say that the Government are carefully watching the condition of the county. The Resolutions passed at Glenbeigh did not ask for the appointment of a representative from Kerry on the Congested Districts Board, but a Resolution has been received from the Kerry County Council making that request. There is, however, no vacancy on the Board.

    Irish School Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the principal teacher in a national school, Roll No. 112, Circuit 9, Section C, is at present in receipt of a grade salary less by £9 than that to which he would have been entitled had he remained assistant; and, if so, will he
    952
    invite the Commissioners to consider the case of this teacher for an increase in salary, seeing that he is now in charge of a large and important school.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Mr. O'Neill, principal teacher of Clohoge National school, has a salary of £63 per annum, which, with the residual grant, about £15 per annum, makes a total income of £78. Had he remained an assistant he would have been entitled under the 4th Schedule of the Irish Education Act of 1892 to a bonus of £9, making his total salary £72. In that case, however, he would not have received any residual grant nor would he be eligible for promotion beyond the third grade. The case is not one in which the Commissioners could grant a special increase of salary under Rule 112 (E).

    Report on the Department of Agriculture.
    MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state approximately when the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education for Ireland will be available for Members of this House, and can he say when the minutes of evidence taken at the inquiry will be published.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Department of Agriculture hope to be able to present their Report within the month of March next. The minutes of evidence will accompany the Report.

    Kingston Estate, Cork.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether Mr. Sydney Smith, a personal friend and neighbour of the agent of the Kingston estate, has been appointed by the Estates Commissioners to examine the holdings and inquire into the methods by which the second term tenants on this estate were induced to sign purchase agreements at the rate of twenty-six and a quarter years purchase with interest at 4 per cent.; and whether the Estates Commissioners will consider the desirability of appointing an

    953
    inspector not so closely connected with Mr. Henry Frend, agent of the estate.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have referred this Question to their Inspector, Mr. Sydney Smith, who reports that he is slightly acquainted with the agent of the Kingston estate, but the agent resides at some distance from him, and is not closely connected with him as stated in the Question. The Commissioners do not consider that there is any necessity for assigning the duty of inspecting the estate to another inspector.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain who recommended this Gentleman for appointment?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not think the Commissioners would be willing to tell me. I think they consider when they appoint an inspector that they do it in their official capacity and not with any particular recommendation.

    Case of Patrick Ahern.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of Mr. Patrick Ahern, of Ballylough, a second-term tenant on the Kingston estate, who refused the terms of purchase offered to second-term tenants, namely twenty-six and a quarter years, with interest at the rate of four per cent. on the purchase money, which would amount to more than his old rent; whether he is aware that, in consequence of Ahern's refusal to agree to these conditions, Mr. Henry Frend, agent of an estate, has compelled the tenant to pay three gales of rent in one year, and has since harassed him in every possible way; and whether, seeing that about two years ago the Estates Commissioners promised a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, he can state when such inquiry will take place.
    Mr. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are aware that Patrick Ahern, a tenant on the Kingston estate, has not signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding. The Commissioners have directed their in-
    954
    spector to inquire into and report upon the circumstances of the case when he visits the estate. In the meantime, the Commissioners have no information as to the terms of purchase offered to Ahern, or as to the payment of rent by him. The Commissioners think it probable that the estate will be inspected early in the coming year.

    Police Protection for General Gore.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a special post of police, established about two years ago for the protection of General Gore at Derrymore, county Clare, is still in existence; if so, whether the police are retained at Derrymore by desire of General Gore, and, if not, what are the circumstances which render it still necessary to protect General Gore against his own wish.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the police protection post which was established at Derrymore on 11th October, 1905, is still in existence. It is, I am informed, not the case that the police post is retained against the wish of General Gore. The post was established upon the initiative of the police because they considered it necessary, and it is retained for the same reason. It is understood that General Gore, though he did not ask for protection, acquiesced, and still acquiesces, in the arrangements which the police, who are responsible for the preservation of the peace of the district, consider necessary.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that General Gore, who is very popular in the neighbourhood, has no wish for this protection? Who is the judge of the necessity for extra police?
    MR. BRYCE: Prima facie the police who are responsible for the peace of the district. Due regard will be had to General Gore's wishes.

    Ballina Guardians Boycotting Resolution.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a recent meeting of the Ballina Board of Guardians, a resolution was passed of a boycotting nature directed against a man

    955
    named Haire, who is stated to have taken an evicted farm at Grannagh, and that this resolution was also adopted by the Swinford Board of Guardians, and proposed to be adopted by the chairman of the Killalla Guardians; whether he will state if any of the guardians who took part in these proceedings hold the commission of the peace; and whether any disturbances, cases of boycotting, or intimidation in connection with the Grannagh farm have been reported by the police during the past two years.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that on 5th November the Ballina Board of Guardians passed a resolution protesting against the action of John Haire in taking portion of a farm as to which negotiations for sale to the Estates Commissioners were said to be in progress. The farm is not an evicted farm. None of the guardians who were present holds the commission of the peace. I am informed that the resolution was not adopted by the Swinford Guardians, nor by the Killala Guardians, though the chairman of the latter board proposed it. I understand from the police authorities that though some local exhibitions of ill-feeling on the subject have taken place, nothing has occurred which has called for the institution of legal proceedings. Haire is receiving all necessary protection at the hands of the police.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who put the Question was himself convicted last week of intimidation?
    MR. LONSDALE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for South Down has just made a statement that is absolutely untrue, and reflects upon my personal character, and I ask you to protect me.
    MR. SPEAKER: I thought the statement quite beneath the notice of the hon. Member.
    MR. MACVEAGH: May I say that the firm of which the hon. Member is hon. chairman was last week convicted of intimidating—
    MR. SPEAKER: I read the account of the trial, and I made the statement I did after reading it.

    Lord Ashtown's Gamekeeper.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, on what grounds was James Graham, head gamekeeper to Lord Ashtown, who was sentenced at petty sessions, held on l2th November, at Ballymacarberry, county Waterford, to a month's imprisonment for presenting a revolver at a man named Ryan, released after fourteen days' imprisonment; is he aware that James Sands, under gamekeeper to Lord Ashtown, was, at the same sessions, sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment for assaulting Ryan, and that Sands has been returned for trial on the charge of shooting at and wounding a man named Hyland; and whether, considering the conduct of these men, and the state of feeling in the district produced by their action, the licences to carry arms now held by these men will be withdrawn.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first two inquiries of the Question. Graham was released after fourteen days imprisonment by order of the Lord-Lieutenant. It would be contrary to practice to state the reasons which influence His Excellency in exercising his prerogative in such cases. The question of revoking Graham's licence to carry a revolver is at present under consideration; and the similar case of Sands will be considered upon the conclusion of his trial, which is taking place at the current assizes.
    MR. POWER: Is it a fact that the alleged offence against Ryan for which he was so savagely attacked was the snaring of a rabbit?
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Who is considering the matter of the gun licence?
    MR. BRYCE: The Lord-Lieutenant.

    The Rev. Marshall Vincent's Rapla Estate.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passed between the solicitor for the Rev. Marshall Vincent, at Rapla, near Nenagh, county Tipperary, and the

    957
    solicitors for the purchasing tenants on the estate, which the Estates Commissioners declared to justify them in making the holdings of nine purchasing tenants a separate estate and in excluding from the sale the holdings of four tenants whose families have been on the estate for generations; if he can say on what grounds were these holdings excluded; and whether, as these four tenants are, and have been, willing to buy their holdings on the same terms as the others, the Estates Commissioners will not sanction the sale of this estate without having all the tenants included if they have not yet paid over the purchase money of the nine holdings to the landlord.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question on this subject on 16th May last. † The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase money of the estate sold has been paid over, and it is not now possible to re-open the matter. The Commissioners were satisfied at the time of the sale that the vendor has made a reasonable offer to the four tenants who were unwilling to purchase, and the Commissioners did not think it desirable to stop the sale to nine tenants who desired to purchase because of the unwillingness of the remaining four tenants to accept the vendor's offer. The declaration of the estate is a matter within the Commissioners' discretion. It is not-considered necessary or desirable to lay upon the Table the correspondence referred to in the Question.
    MR. HOGAN: Is there any secrecy about this correspondence to prevent its being laid?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not know what is in it, but the Estates Commissioners say it would not be proper to lay it.

    Irish Butter Exporters and the Agricultural Organisation Society.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution recently passed by the Irish Butter Ex-porters' Association, protesting against the proposed subsidy to be given by the Irish Department of Agriculture to the
    † See (4) Debates, clvii., 488.
    958
    Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, on the ground that State money should not be applied in subsidising a trading organisation which is in direct competition with private traders; whether he is aware that protests on similar grounds have been made by the leading Irish bacon curers and exporters; and whether, in view of those protests on behalf of two Irish industries, steps will be taken to restrain the Department from this use of public moneys.
    MR. BRYCE: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to, and to the objections which have been taken in other quarters to the action of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in applying public moneys for the teaching of agricultural co-operation through the agency of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. I have already stated that the opinion of the law officers is being taken upon the legality of this action.

    Irish Land Stock.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that in the last issued Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for the year 1904–5, page 134, it is stated that on the 31st March, 1905, the Department had invested in Local Loans Stock £250,000, Exchequer Bonds, 1905, £70,000, Guaranteed Land Stock £70,837 15s. 11d., Consols £20,000 and a further balance of £37,077 1s. 9d., making a total of £447,914 17s. 8d., and to the fact that it has recently been stated by the head of the Department that the sum at present held is of a face value of £379,431 15s., and of a real value at present prices of £357,430, with an additional sum held on deposit of £35,000, making a total value of £392,430; can he state how this decline of £45,484 17s. 8d. is accounted for; and, if it is by the sale of securities, will he state what was the face value of the securities so sold, their cost prices, the amount they realised, and the purposes on which they have been expended.
    MR. BRYCE: The facts are as stated in the Question. The hon. Member, however, appears to be contrasting the

    959
    nominal values of the securities held by the Department on 31st March, 1905, in his first total of £447,914 17s. 8d., with the cash values of securities now held, in his second total of £392,430. The only change in the nature of these securities that has taken place since 31st March, 1905, is as follows:—The£70,000 Exchequer Bonds matured on 7th December, 1905, and were paid off at par, thus realising £70,000. They had been purchased in July, 1901, for £69,116. Of the amount realised, £35,000 was re-in- vested in 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Land Stock. The balance of £35,000 was used to meet expenditure on marine works; new buildings and equipment of the Albert Agricultural College and of Athenry, Ballyhaise, and Clonakilty Agricultural Stations; the purchase of a dredger; and special investigations and experiments in flax and tobacco growing and curing, and peat-making.
    MR. MOONEY: IS it not the fact that the figures in the first part of the Question are the official figures given by the Board, and that those in the second part were supplied by the right hon. Gentleman himself?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Member in the one case gives the face value of the securities, and in the other the actual value.

    Grading of Butter.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Department of Agriculture to ascertain the views of Irish butter producers and exporters with regard to the grading of butter; and can he say what steps in particular have been taken to ascertain the opinion of the producers of centrifugal creamery butter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture have not taken any special steps to ascertain the views of Irish butter producers and exporters with regard to the grading of butter. They do not consider it desirable to take action in this direction until they have satisfied themselves by further inquiry that it is practicable in the present circumstances of the trade to establish an adequate system of grading.

    Consumption in Ireland.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the ravages of consumption in Ireland; whether he is aware that the average death rate from tuberculosis, which in 1902 was 11,837, had risen to 12,694 in 1904; and whether the Government intend taking any steps to give immediate effect to the recommendations of the Viceregal Commission on the Irish Poor Law contained in paragraphs 101–107 of their Report.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to the Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for West Cavan on 26th June last †. The hon. Member will see that the matter has already engaged the serious attention of the Government. The Local Government Board have been in communication with local authorities and medical officers of health on the subject. The recommendations of the Irish Poor Law Commission upon this and other subjects will receive full consideration, but as I have already said, I do not anticipate that I shall be in a position to make a statement as to the intention of the Government in respect of those recommendations for some time to come.

    Trade Disputes Bill and Irish Agrarian Disputes.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the increase of picketing and boycotting by branches of the United Irish League at Dromahair, Drumkeeran, and Ballinaglera; whether he is aware that the League in Sligo have caused to be published a statement to the effect that the Trades Disputes Bill which has just passed the House of Commons legalises picketing in agrarian cases; and whether, under these circumstances, he will advise His Majesty's Ministers to insert a new clause, when the Bill is before the other House, providing that agrarian disputes are outside the scope of the measure.
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question, or that the league in
    † See (4) Debates, clix., 794.

    961
    Sligo has caused to be published a statement to the effect mentioned in the second part. As regards the concluding part of the Question, the question there referred to was fully debated in this House, and I have no statement to make on the subject.

    Labourers Cottages in County Down.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the amount of Government money allocated to the county of Down annually for the past three years in respect of labourers cottages tinder the Labourers Acts prior to 1906; and what will the maximum amount be for any one year for that county under the Act of 1906.
    MR. BRYCE: The amount of Government money allocated to the county of Down annually for the past three years in respect of labourers cottages was as follows:—March, 1906, £2,010 18s. 7d.; March, 1905, £2,027 13s. 8d.; March, 1904, £2,027 13s. 8d. There is an unissued balance at present of £3,264 15s. 5d. Under the new Act, 36 per cent. of the annuity payable in respect of loans obtained after 1st November last from the Land Commission for the purposes of the Acts will be paid partly out of the Labourers Cottages Fund and partly by the Treasury through the Ireland Development Grant. This amount will depend on the extent to which the district councils in the county may put the Act into operation. The councils will also get, in respect of all cottages provided before that date, their proportionate share of the Exchequer contribution.

    Mountshannon Estate, Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners intend to give to grabbers a portion of the untenanted lands on the Mountshannon estate, in the county of Limerick, which has been purchased by them; and, if so, whether he is aware that this will cause dissatisfaction and endanger the peace of the county in view of the fact that there are evicted tenants in the county, who have not got back their holdings, willing to take untenanted lands at Mountshannon in addition to those to whom allotments
    962
    have been made, and also in view of the fact that there are labourers in the district who require suitable allotments of these lands, and that there are uneconomic holdings bounding the estate requiring to be enlarged; and, whether, in view of these facts and in the public interest, he will take steps to see that grabbers get none of the untenanted lands there.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the scheme for the allotment of the untenanted land upon the estate mentioned has not yet been finally settled by them. The Commissioners will, when considering the distribution of the untenanted land, have due regard to the wants and circumstances of persons residing in the neighbourhood.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the evicted tenants who cannot get back their old holdings have the preference, and the grabbers be granted money compensation?
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners will conform to the directions given by Parliament.

    Limerick Evicted Tenants and Untenanted Lands.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the people of the county of Limerick object to the Estates Commissioners giving to any persons other than evicted tenants any of the untenanted lands purchased by them under the Land Act, 1903, while there is a number of evicted tenants in the county who cannot get back their own holdings wanting these lands, and also while the labourers of the county require allotments of them to enable them to live and so that they may not have to emigrate to foreign lands; and whether, under these circumstances, he will give directions to the Estates Commissioners that, before they plant any persons on the untenanted lands there, they will first provide for the evicted tenants and labourers of the county.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in making advances for the purchase of parcels of

    963
    untenanted land in county Limerick, as elsewhere, they will have due regard to the circumstances of the particular case, and to the claims of the various classes of persons who are qualified to obtain advances for the purchase of such land.
    MR. BYLES: Having regard to the very copious supply of Questions respecting the Estates Commissioners, cannot the right hon. Gentleman now give a general assurance that the expectations he expressed in a recent debate that their proceedings would be accelerated will soon be realised?
    MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise directly out of the Question on the Paper.

    Inspectors of National Schools Examination
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any competitive examination will be held in connection with the forthcoming appointment of four junior inspectors of national schools.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have up to the present only advertised for candidates for the positions referred to. They have not yet finally determined the method of selection of the inspectors from the candidates.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of representing to the Commission that these appointments should be thrown open to competitive examination?
    MR. BEYCE: I have no control over them.

    Enniskillen Courthouse.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if tenders have been or will be invited in connection with the alterations to the Enniskillen courthouse.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are informed by the secretary of the Fermanagh County Council that the council gave the work in question into the charge of the county surveyor (Procedure of Councils Order, section 22), and
    964
    the surveyor has invited competitive tenders for the main part of the work, and has given the remainder of the work to local builders.

    Lisburn Poor Rate Collector.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Andrew Morrow, one of the poor rate collectors for the Lisburn Union, holds at the same time the position of secretary to the County Down Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; if so, whether he can say why Article 86 and Sub-section F of the General Orders of the Local Government Board for councils are allowed to be infringed; and whether he can say what steps will be taken to enforce the regulation.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that Mr. A. Morrow was an existing officer transferred to the Down County Council by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. The attention of the Local Government Board was called to the fact that Mr. Morrow also held the office of secretary to the County Down Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and the Board stated that they did not consider it obligatory on Mr. Morrow to resign either of these offices. The Board have a dispensing power under the Public Bodies Orders, and in the case of existing officers they exercise this authority when the circumstances appear to justify that course.

    Drumkeeran Outrage
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it had been brought to his notice that last week two bullocks were removed from the farm of Thomas Brady, near Drumkeeran, and that several mornings later the bones of these animals, with their tails and hoofs, were found in two sacks deposited outside the police barracks; whether ten cocks of hay have been removed from this farm whether he will state the number of police stationed in the neighbourhood; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with these occurrences.
    MR. BRYCE: The police authorities inform me that Thomas Brady reported to the local police that two bullocks were

    965
    stolen from his farm on 16th October last. Brady, however, refused to swear an information in support of his statement. There is, I am informed, not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that the remains of these animals were left outside the police barracks. It is the fact that on the night of 15th September some stacks of hay and oats were removed from Brady's farm, and these were found in a field in the locality. There are twenty police stationed in the neighbourhood. No arrests have been made in connection with the occurrences.

    Galway Extra Police Tax.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Galway County Council in reference to the extra police tax levied in that county; whether he will state the number of police in respect of which the tax has been levied, the districts in which the police have been located, and the reason for strengthening the number of the force in each case; and whether the extra police, or any portion of them, are still retained in the districts in question.
    MR. BRYCE: The County Council of Galway have raised certain objections to paying for the expenses of extra police drafted into the county, and have applied for particulars in connection with the accounts furnished for the purpose of checking their accuracy. As to the numbers of the extra police serving in county Galway at different times since 1st March, 1905. I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answers to the Questions of the right hon. Member for South Dublin on 2nd November, to which give full particulars. The extra police for which charges have been made were located in the districts of Athenry, Ballinasloe, Dunmore, Galway, Gort, Loughrea, Portumna, and Tuam, and the main reason for the services of these police was the state of feeling arising out of the agitation against the grazing system. As the hon. Member is probably aware, these extra police were sent to the county while the late Government were in office. The only extra force at present serving in the county consists of twenty-five men of the
    † See (4) Debates elxiii.,1447–9.
    966
    reserve force who were sent to the Athenry district on 12th October last.

    Galway United Irish League.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to a report of the proceedings of the South Galway Executive of the United Irish League at Loughrea on 18th November; whether Mr. J. Leahy has offered to surrender his grazing farm to the committee of the Leitrim branch and begged their permission to hold it for a short time to allow him to dispose of his stock; whether Mr. Larkin has undertaken to surrender his farm and also forego his right to a sum of £30 awarded to him as compensation for a malicious injury; whether any cases of intimidation or other disturbance have occurred recently in connection with the holdings of Mr. Larkin and others at Carrowkeel; and whether he has any official information showing that these persons have surrendered their property in deference to the proceedings of the United Irish League.
    MR. BRYCE: My attention has not been drawn to the report in question, and I am informed by the police authorities that the meeting referred to was held within doors, and the police have no evidence of what took place at it. I have no information that the persons named have surrendered or have offered to surrender their farms, or that Mr. Larkin has undertaken to forego his right to the sum of £30 awarded to him as compensation for malicious injury. I am informed that the only offence which has recently been committed in connection with the persons named consisted in the breaking of five panes of glass in the windows of Mr. Larkin's house on the night of 24th November.

    Leitrim Boycotting Case.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his knowledge that Thomas Brady, of Drumnafuila, county Leitrim, goes in danger of his life; that three constables have been quartered in his house for his protection since early in August last, two: of whom accompany him whenever he leaves the house; that he is unable to

    967
    obtain provisions in the neighbouring villages, and is obliged to travel long distances with his escort in order to procure the necessaries of life; and whether the Estates Commissioners are proposing to use public money with the object of inducing Brady to surrender his holding on the Slack estate, which he purchased from the Land Commission in February last.
    MR. BRYCE: The Inspector-General informs me that he has no reason to believe that Thomas Brady goes in danger of his life. It is, however, considered necessary to afford constant police protection to Brady in order to prevent attempts at intimidation and possibly rough treatment. It is the case that Brady cannot openly procure provisions in the neighbourhood, but has to go or send considerable distances for them. As to the latter part of the Question, the Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector is at present making inquiry with a view to the purchase by the Commissioners of Brady's interest in his holding on the Slack estate?
    MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the county of Leitrim was the scene of ex-Sergeant Sheridan's activity?
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Why not send the Scots Greys there?
    MR. J. WARD: As a new member, I should like to ask the Chief Secretary why it is that certain representatives from Ireland take such interest in trying to blacken their country.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear; a most disorderly Question.

    Limerick Untenanted Lands
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners, in the event of purchasing grazing tracts of land in the county of Limerick, will inquire into the congested state of the mountainous parts of the county, for instance, in Glensharrold and neighbourhood, with the view of giving some of the untenanted lands to the sons of small
    968
    farmers in these parts, after the evicted tenants' claims have been satisfied, to keep them from emigrating to foreign lands for a living.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their power to make advances under Section 2 of the Act of 1903 to the sons of tenants for the purchase of parcels of untenanted land is limited to the cases of the sons of tenants of holdings on the estate which includes the untenanted land. The Commissioners have due regard to the provisions of this section when distributing untenanted land purchased by them.

    Greystones Pier.
    MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the defective and incomplete condition in which Greystones pier and harbour were left by the Board of Works, the late Grand Jury of the county Wicklow, and subsequently the county council, refused to take over possession of the harbour; that it has been steadily and swiftly crumbling away ever since, and that, as a result, the fishermen and others for whose benefit it was intended can make no use of it; and whether, having regard to the sum of public money for the repayment of which the ratepayers are responsible, and under all the circumstances of the case, he will take the necessary steps to see that the Board of Works will put the harbour in a proper state of repair.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The pier at Greystones when completed was transferred under the Public Works Acts Amendment (Ireland) Act of 1853 to the Grand Jury of the county of Wicklow who thereby became charged with its maintenance. I understand that the transfer was objected to. Since the transfer serious settlements have occurred at the pier head, but it is not correct, I am informed, to state that it has crumbled away, nor does the condition of the pier head prevent fishermen or others from using the pier. The repayment of the Board of Works loan, to which the hon. Member refers, is now almost completed, only five half-yearly instalments of £34 6s. 9d. remaining to be paid. On the other hand, the expenditure which would be required in order to repair the

    969
    pier is very large, and I believe unjustified by the condition of the fishing industry at Greystones, which appears to have decayed from general causes. My hon. friend is therefore not prepared to advise a grant from public funds in this case.
    MR. WILLI AM REDMONDexpressed a hope that the Chief Secretary would give the matter his personal attention. Five years ago the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said he was inquiring into it, but the fishery industry at Greystones was being ruined through the pier and harbour being in such an unsatisfactory condition. It would be a lovely run from Dublin for the right hon. Gentleman.

    Irish Asylums Board.
    MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that seventeen out of twenty-three district asylums in Ireland have passed resolutions calling for the absolute withdrawal of the Public Bodies Order; if he will lay upon the Table the documents submitted to him from the Local Government Board, the inspectors of lunatics, and the association of asylum doctors on which he based his statement to Mr. Richard Jones, chairman of the Richmond Asylum Board, that the weight of authority and the views of other asylum committees in Ireland are not favourable to the changes suggested by the Richmond committee; whether the documents submitted included any reference to the powers conferred on the asylum committees by Section 84 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and if such powers conferred on the committee the power to assign duties to every officer; and whether his attention was drawn to the letter written by the Local Government Board, dated 20th November, 1905, deciding to recognise the authority of the asylum committee in this regard.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that no resolutions against the Public Bodies Order have been received from asylum committees, except Richmond, since January, 1906. When the Order was first issued a considerable number of asylum committees adopted a resolution asking for the withdrawal of the Order; but, in view of modifications agreed to by the Local Government Board, and ex-
    970
    planations offered to committees on points which were misunderstood, the committees generally withdrew from this position, and the Order is now in force in all asylums, except Richmond, and working satisfactorily. All the asylums, except Richmond and three others, have already furnished their abstracts of account to the 30th September, 1906, in the form prescribed by the Order, and it is understood that the delay in the three cases other than Richmond is due to the fact that the accounts were not promptly closed. The documents referred to in the Question are confidential, and it would be entirely contrary to practice to lay them on the Table of the House. The position taken up by the Local Government Board in their letter of 20th November, 1905, is incorrectly stated in the Question. In that letter the Local Government Board expressed their willingness to agree to certain books and documents being kept by other officers than the resident medical superintendent; but an attempt has been made to read into that letter a proposal to deprive the resident medical superintendent of all responsibility and authority over the supervision and control of the work. The Local Government Board cannot accept that position. The responsibility in question properly belongs to the resident, medical superintendent, and this fact has been recognised by all the other asylums in Ireland, and I believe the same principle exists in England.
    MR. COGANinquired if in England the asylum committee did not assign the duties
    MR. BRYCEasked for notice.

    New College of Science, Dublin
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the nature and place of origin of the stone to be used in the erection of the new College of Science, Dublin.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer which my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for East Clare on the 7th ultimo, the will find all the information
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 564–5.

    971
    which at present is available on this subject.
    In reply to Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND,
    MR. BRYCEsaid the Irish stone used in the lower storey had proved very satisfactory.

    Irish School Buildings.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have furnished an estimate of the amount required to place defective elementary school buildings in a satisfactory condition; and whether the Commissioners of the Treasury have arrived at any conclusion as to the renewal of the building grants and an increase in the amount to be voted for this purpose.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that there has not been any recent statement by the Commissioners to the Treasury which could be described as an estimate of the amount required to place defective elementary school buildings in a satisfactory condition. On a representation, however, by the Irish Government, the Treasury consented some time since to place a sum of £40,000 for the purpose on the Estimate for Public Works and Buildings, Ireland, 1907–8, the amount available on that Vote in the current year being £20,000.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the modifications in Plan VI. A of the estimates for building Irish national schools are yet sanctioned by the Board of Education in Ireland or are likely to be.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The suggestions of the Commissioners of National Education as to the standard plans to be adopted for the future are now being examined on behalf of the Treasury. When that examination is complete, the Treasury will do everything possible to expedite a decision.

    Sligo Postal Arrangements
    MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations from the people of the Kilrusheighter district of Temple-boy, county Sligo, in regard to in-
    972
    adequate postal facilities; have the Post Office authorities in Ireland closed a letter box in the district named, retaining at the same time a guarantee of £8 6s.; was there a loss on the letter box, and if so, can he state the amount of the loss; what was the average weekly collection of letters while the box was in use; will he refund the guarantee paid, or part of it; and will he see that the grievances complained of are redressed.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I under-that this Question has reference to the suspension of the evening collection from the letter box at Kilrusheighter in consequence of the failure of the guarantors to pay the cost of collection as they had undertaken. I am afraid, that without a guarantee, I should not be justified in providing the desired facility, the cost of the existing service being already very high as compared to the revenue.

    Income Tax.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the importance of the subject, he can see his way to grant a day, or part of a day, before the conclusion of the Autumn sittings, and preferably at an early date, for the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on the Income Tax.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORI) OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNER MAN, Stirling Burghs): I am not prepared to give a special opportunity for the discussion of this subject.

    Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now give any indication as to when the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill will come up for Second Reading.
    SIR H. CAMPBELLBANNERMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid I can give no indication.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the Prime Minister endeavour not to select the last Saturday of the session?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It may become "Hobson's choice." I do not know.

    Transvaal Letters Patent.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked the Prime Minister a Question of which he had given him private notice—namely, when it was expected that the Letters Patent relating to the new Transvaal Constitution would be signed.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The state of affairs in regard to this matter is this. The Letters Patent have received the approval of His Majesty, and the Great Seal will, it is expected, be affixed to them in the course of this week. We hope to lay them on the Table of this House on Monday, and they will be published on Wednesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister with regard to the Motion to suspend the eleven o'clock rule, whether the intention was that the Workmen's Compensation Bill should be passed through that evening at all costs. They had some of the most difficult parts of the Bill still to dispose of, and the most hostile critic could not describe the discussion up to the present as obstructive.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANadmitted that the discussion on the Workmen's Compensation Bill had hitherto been perfectly reasonable, though a little discursive at times. Notwithstanding the formidable appearance of the task the Government hoped they might dispose of the Bill that night, but there was no desire to force it through. If the Bill was not concluded, he was afraid they would have to put off the Feeding of Children Bill.
MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): In the event of that most regrettable necessity, could not a Saturday sitting be taken?
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why not put the Bill down for Friday if it is not finished to-night? The business is the suspension of the eleven o'clock
974
rule for the rest of the session, and that will not occupy very long.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We intended to take other Bills, and you cannot give fresh time to one subject without taking from another, in the condition in which we are now. As to a Saturday sitting, I am not an habitual week-ender, and the Saturday sitting has no terrors for me, but I am afraid the idea is inconvenient and unpopular.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR; In view of the statement of the Prime Minister, I shall not divide against the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, and I hope my friends will follow my example.
Ordered, "That the proceedings on the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Bill, as amended, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed (4th December) on consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee).
Which Amendment was—
"In page 8, line 15, to leave out the word 'fishing.'"—(Sir Robert Robert.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'fishing' stand part of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. BARNES MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars) moved an Amendment, the acceptance of which would make Clause 8 read: "the certifying surgeon appointed under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, for the district in which the workman is employed, or other duly qualified medical practitioner, certifies that a workman," etc. It might seem out of place to suggest the supersedence by an ordinary medical practitioner of a gentleman who by his appointment was practically a Government official. But unfortunately, so he was told, the people in the district in which the particular section of the Act would operate had not the fullest confidence in the certifying surgeon, and

975
therefore there should be some option to call in another doctor. If a man suffering from an industrial disease wished to claim benefit under the Act he had no power to go to his own doctor, but he had to accept the offices of the certifying surgeon, and then in the event of his not being satisfied he had to go before the medical referee, whose decision was final. Such an arrangement was not so fair to the man as it was to the employer, and for this reason he moved the Amendment. He also pointed out that the Amendment was linked up to a certain extent with another Amendment more fundamental in character where it was proposed to open up benefits under the Act, not only to those persons within the third schedule but to anyone suffering from industrial diseases. He wished the House to have regard to the fact that this Amendment had a bearing on the second Amendment, and therefore it was important.
MR. J. WARD, in seconding, said he had attended meetings where the subject under discussion had been that of diseases in trades, and the question had been considered jointly by both employers and workmen. He thought hon. Members would agree that there was a considerable amount of argument in favour of allowing the surgeon who was usually in attendance upon a man, who understood the way in which the disease had grown, knew the general state of the man's health and the way it had been undermined, to have some voice in the matter. Such practitioner must know quite as much of the circumstances as the man who had only been called in for half an hour to make an examination of the subject. If the certifying surgeon refused to grant a certificate, or the certificate was not satisfactory, automatically the medical! referee was to be referred to, and his decision was final. There was no method of appealing, so far as he understood it. Was that not a dangerous power to put in the hands of these gentlemen? Even amongst the greatest of our medical authorities there was often a considerable difference of opinion in regard to medical and surgical cases, and under these circumstances he thought there should be some other method of deciding the
976
case, instead of its being left to two individuals who, under the present regulations, and, so far as the Act applied to one of them at least, might be partially in the service of the employer.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 8, line 21, after the word 'employed, to insert the words 'or other duly qualified medical practitioner.'"—(Mr. Barnes.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the only question to be referred to the certifying surgeon was the medical one of whether or not a man was suffering from a disease. Such questions as to whether the disease arose from his employment and all other matters that might arise under the Act were not to be referred to him. It was purely a question of the diagnosing of disease, and the Government thought that, it being a medical question, it ought to be referred to a medical man. Once a certificate was obtained the man could claim compensation as an absolute right unless the employer proved that the disease was not contracted in his employment. If the Amendment were inserted the result would be that every case would have to be taken into Court, which the Government desired to avoid; for of course the certificate of the workman's own doctor could not be regarded as carrying any official authority. There must be some outside authority easily accessible who would be able to say whether or not a man was suffering from an industrial disease. The certifying surgeon became an expert, and was by far the most qualified man for the purpose. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke that there ought to be an opportunity for the workman's doctor, who, no doubt, knew the case, to state his views, and he thought the Government could undertake that in every case the medical referee should be instructed to give an opportunity for such medical evidence to be laid before him.
MR. BARNESasked who would have to pay the expense.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid of course if a man's own doctor attended before the medical referee the man would have to bear the expense. The medical referee's fee would involve no charge to the workman.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid that in the event of an Amendment lower on the Paper being accepted by the Government, a very heavy responsibility would be thrown upon the medical man who had to certify a workman to be suffering from an industrial disease. They were bound to recognise that there were some medical practitioners who issued certificates in a reckless manner, and there was a practical difficulty in dealing with that class of practitioner. If this clause was to be extended so as to apply to all classes of industrial disease, there would be some danger in allowing the private doctor of the workman who was aggrieved to be the authority to pronounce whether or not the workman in question was suffering from an industrial disease. He thought the surgeon appointed under the Factory and Workshop Act was in some sense a Government official, and was in a more impartial position than any qualified medical practitioner who might be called in. The Amendment asked rather too much in view of what was proposed later on.
MR. BARNEShaving regard to the statement of the Under-Secretary, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MASTERMAN MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.) moved an Amendment to include all trades and processes within the scope of compensation for industrial diseases. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who had made this subject his special study, and to whom all those who were working in the dangerous trades concerned should be exceedingly grateful. This was to him the most vital clause in the Bill, because it not merely developed and perfected the system of 1897, but laid down a new prin-
978
ciple in workmen's compensation. It had been branded as a leap in the dark, but so was the Bill of 1897, and he thought, considering the acquaintance they now possessed with industrial diseases, the House should be prepared to take this step. The result of the Amendment would be that instead of compensation for industrial disease applying to certain limited specified trades and processes it should apply to any disease which was due to the nature of the employment in which the workman was engaged, and which he could demonstrate was due to the nature of the employment. He knew there were great difficulties in this wide application, but the situation was, he apprehended, a difficult one apart from that. On the one hand the method of adding to the schedule seemed to him impossible for carrying out what they desired; and, on the other hand, there was enough information to create a desire to bring the victims of industrial disease within the scope of compensation. Two strong arguments had been verified in ten years experience for the extension of compensation in case of accident and its application to industrial diseases. One argument was that the extension would ensure greater care on the part of the master, though he agreed that their main hopes had not been secured in that direction and accidents had not materially diminished as a result of the Act of 1897. Still it was a very satisfactory second string to the bow of factory legislation. In regard to the argument that it was exceedingly difficult to extend compensation to industrial diseases, Mr. Legge, in giving evidence on the point, said that the difficulties of bringing lead poisoning under the Workmen's Compensation Act were almost insuperable, but that if it could be done it would have enormous effect in the improvement of work. Therefore he would ask why the schedule in this Bill was limited to lead poisoning and five other industrial diseases. They were convinced from experience that the general effect of industrial compensation was to raise wages, and it raised them according to the extent of the insurance. These dangerous processes, involving industrial disease to a very large extent, pointed to a curious

979
perversion of the so-called laws of political economy, because they were largely carried on by the poorest paid workers in the country, namely, women and girls who had no direct representation in this House. He believed that this proposal would raise the wages of these poor people to the extent of the amount of the insurance, and he and his friends were of opinion that the cost of insurance would be thrown upon the shoulders of the consumers. They had a right to demand that the first charge in connection with an industry which should be thrown upon the consumer was that which concerned the health and welfare of the workers in the trade. There were two methods of procedure, and the Government appeared to have chosen the least satisfactory of the two. They might proceed by the method which would be established if the Government accepted this Amendment. It might, of course, require some consequential Amendments, limiting its operation and making it clear that the disease for which compensation was to be paid was incidental to the special nature of the employment. He had given notice of a further Amendment which would exempt agriculture from the operation of the present Amendment, and the supporters of the Amendment would be willing to accept other limitations so long as the general principle they advocated was established. The Government method established a schedule consisting of six specially selected industrial diseases. One of them was anthrax, and the second was miners' worm. The third which dealt with lead was already partly provided for under the factory law, leaving mercury, phosphorus and arsenic poisoning as the industries to which this particular compensation would be extended. There were, he was aware, provisions for the extension of that schedule, but he was profoundly dissatisfied with the method suggested. The Secretary of State might make Provisional Orders for extending the provisions of this section to other diseases and processes, and such Orders would have no effect until confirmed by Parliament. Whilst the confirmation of the Order was pending, if a petition was presented against it, the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee, and the petitioners
980
would be allowed to oppose as in the case of Private Bills. Their experience in the past had shown how difficult it was to make any extensions under such a system as that. The Under-Secretary might reply that an important Home Office Committee had been appointed to deal with a long list of trades and processes, and that they were considering now far the list might be extended under the schedule. What would be the result? He would give as an illustration the girls working under the naphtha process in the manufacture of India rubber, which ten years ago was recommended as a dangerous trade, but which to-day was not so certified. Under the procedure now suggested the girls would have to get that trade put on the list for Home Office inquiry.
MR. GLADSTONE: It is on.
MR. MASTERMANsaid he was pleased to hear that, but it was not on when he looked through the list a short time ago. It would then have to be recommended, and the third stage would be the making of a Provisional Order, and the laying of it on the Table of the House. The fourth stage would be the petitions against being included under Schedule 3 by the particular employers; the fifth stage the recommendation of the petition to a Select Committee to inquire and report; and the sixth, the reference back to the House and the embracing of the recommendation in a Bill similar to a Private Bill. After passing through those six stages naphtha would be included as a disease for which compensation could be paid. The seventh stage was to get a surgeon to certify the disease; the eighth the challenging of that statement before a medical referee; and the ninth an appeal to the Court for compensation. Could those who were acquainted with the number of victims of this disease rest satisfied with such machinery as that? There was a Departmental Committee on Dangerous Trades in 1896 which, after three years of a most careful and exhaustive inquiry, produced a long list of trades which they recommended as dangerous, the great majority of which remained unregulated to this day. It

981
was with a strong desire that the Government would see their way to simplify the machinery of this provision that he ventured to press the Amendment. They recognised the difficulties. It was said that these diseases would be un-insurable, and that they could not be met by the ordinary methods adopted for the compensation of workmen. There was very little evidence to support such a statement, though there were a considerable number of authorities who believed that these cases would settle down to a regular system of insurance, but he did not think any system would be satisfactory until they got a universal system of State insurance. The manager of the Commercial Union Assurance Company in his evidence was asked as to the expense and difficulty of insuring against these diseases, and although he said it would be a difficult matter to bring them within the scope of the Act a large number of insurance companies would be willing to take up the system, and as their liabilities decreased with the greater care that would be taken in the dangerous trades, the premiums would be reduced. That was the main contention of the supporters of the Amendment. They were willing to accept the exemption of certain trades. They were ready to hear whether any kind of agreement could be arrived at which would make the position more satisfactory than the present very severely contested limitation, which was entirely insufficient to meet the demands made in the name of civilisation on behalf of the unfortunate people working in these special trades. This was no factious Amendment. It was not proposed with any desire to trouble the Government. It was an Amendment which went to the heart of one of the most difficult and pressing of all the modern problems of social legislation. it was desirable in the interest of certain workers in difficult and dangerous processes, largely women and girls, who were not represented in this House, and who had no power by vote of making their desires known. If they had had that power the application of the principle to their condition would have been accepted long ago by a very large majority. He and his friends did not pre-
982
tend that they were the only people who cared for this matter, but they submitted in the name of those workers that the contention which was often made that Members of the House of Commons were as prepared to look after the people's interests as the people were themselves might be justified in such a test ease as that which he was now presenting. He trusted that they might not be met by the simple statement that the Government had gone as far as they could go in the matter, and that they might be encouraged in connection with this particular Bill to hope that protection would be given to some of the most unfortunate classes in the community.
MR. BARNESin seconding the Amendment, said it proposed to exclude the third schedule, and as that schedule included cases of disease resulting from the processes employed in pottery he wished to be reassured that potters would not be excluded. He knew that there were some potters who looked with misgiving at the Amendment lest it should exclude them from the benefits of the Act. Nothing of the sort was intended by the Amendment, which, as a matter of fact, would exclude no one. All that it did was to provide that instead of the rather cumbersome, costly, and lengthy process incidental upon Government action there should be substituted the certificate of a duly qualified man appointed by the Home Office. It might be said that already a great deal had been done by enabling the Home Office to extend the Schedule. He recognised that that was a great advance, but although the Home Office might act with as much celerity as they possibly could in these cases he submitted that in the meanwhile scores and possibly hundreds of people would be sacrificed. This was what by the Amendment they wished to avoid. He wanted to emphasise what had been said by the mover of the Resolution as to its being proposed in the interests of the most helpless class of workers. He pleaded for those who had no voice in the matter, and who suffered constantly the terror of industrial disease.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 8, line 22, to leave out the words 'mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. Masterman.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELassociated himself with the expression of regret at the absence of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who had for a long time taken a deep interest in this subject. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had asserted that the schedule of the diseases was too narrow and was inadequate. He was perfectly right. The Government had never suggested that it was anything but a provisional schedule. That had been made perfectly clear in the previous stages of the Bill, and many of those diseases which the hon. Member quoted ought undoubtedly to stand on the same footing as lead poisoning and others which were now inserted in the schedule. The reason why these particular diseases were included and others were not was that all these diseases, except one relating to mines, were already diseases mentioned in the Factory Acts as dangerous, and on which the Home Office received reports from all over the country, and the extent to which they were due to particular industries was absolutely certain. Therefore they could without further inquiry be put into the schedule of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced they were obliged, in framing the schedule, to place in it provisionally, and provisionally only, those diseases on which they had full information, but they took power to add to that schedule at any subsequent time. As soon as this clause of the Bill was sanctioned by the Committee his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department appointed a Committee to investigate those other diseases. He had the honour of being chairman of that Committee, and he had the advantage of the assistance of such distinguished medical men as Professor Clifford Albutt, Regius Professor of Physic at Cambridge; and Dr. Legge, medical inspector of factories; with Mr.
984
Cunynghame, of the Home Office, who was also well acquainted with these subjects. He regretted that his hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire did not accept an invitation to serve on that Committee. That Committee was appointed at the earliest possible moment; and since the summer holidays they had met usually twice a week and were now en-now engaged in investigating, among others, all the diseases which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. They had a list of no fewer than thirty trade diseases for inquiry. They had invited trade unions through the Press and also through communication with their Parliamentary Committee to suggest any further diseases for investigation. The Committee were willing to investigate any diseases suggested by any Member of the House. Already they had heard evidence in regard to no fewer than fifteen of these cases. They had visited many of the chief industrial centres of England, and it was his hope and belief that they would be able to present their Report and to introduce the Provisional Order in time to enable it to be passed before this Act came into operation in July next year. It was certainly his full expectation that the number of diseases in the schedule would be multiplied several times before the Act came into actual operation. The question of procedure which the hon. Member had raised was a different point from the question whether or not they should have a schedule. The desire of the Government was to make the list of diseases complete by the simplest and most rapid procedure that could be adopted. They had thought that objection would be raised if they had proposed to throw upon additional industries the duty of paying compensation by simple order of the Secretary of State, but if the House preferred procedure by Home Office Order in this case to procedure by Provisional Order, the Government would have no objection to the change. He would point out that the question of diseases was infinitely more complicated than the question of accidents. If a man was suffering from an accident the fact was easily ascertained, and it could be easily seen whether the accident was due to his employment.

985
There was practically never any question as to who was the employer who ought rightly to be charged with the cost of compensation. When they turned to the question of diseases they were plunged in a maze of uncertainty. It had to be determined whether a man was suffering from a particular disease; then whether or not that particular illness did arise from his work, or whether it was a disease incident to the rest of the population; and, thirdly, who was the particular employer who ought rightly to be called upon to pay compensation. These difficulties had prevented Prance from touching this question. Not one of the British Colonies, advanced as they were in matters of social legislation, had ventured to introduce compensation for diseases. Only countries like Germany, which had a compulsory system of insurance not only for accidents but for general sickness, had been able to give compensation for trade diseases. Switzerland had a law on the subject, but it was of very small effect. He would point out what the Government scheme was, and what change in it would be effected by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The scheme was that a man who thought he was suffering from one of the industrial diseases should get a certificate from a certifying surgeon, and that in the event of an employer or a workman being aggrieved by the action of the certifying surgeon the matter should be referred to a medical referee. In many cases the medical referees would be specialists who had particular knowledge of certain obscure disease.0. Having obtained a certificate the worker could claim as an absolute right compensation from the employer, unless the employer could prove that the disease was not contracted in his employment. That was the essence of the Government scheme. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not deal for a moment with the fact that the Bill gave a man the right to compensation unless the employer could disprove the claim. The burden of proof was thrown upon the employer. In the diseases that had been scheduled as attaching to particular industries, in 999 cases out of 1,000 there could be no doubt at all that disease was due to
986
the employment. What his hon. friend proposed by his Amendment was that all that the certifying surgeon had to say was that here was a man suffering from a disease. Having got that certificate the workman had only got to go to the Court and ask for compensation, and the Court would be obliged to award it, unless the employer could prove that the disease was not contracted in the course of his employment. They might take, for example, a case of anæmia, a disease widely prevalent among all classes of the population, especially among young women. Any shop-girl suffering from anæmia could get a certificate that she was suffering from that disease, and she would get compensation unless the employer could prove that the anæmia was not contracted in his employment. Again, there was the case of a clerk advanced in years who found himself becoming more and more short-sighted—like most persons. The time might come when he had to give up work on account of this trouble; he consulted the surgeon who would be obliged to give him a cartificate, and unless the employer could prove that the short-sightedness had not been contracted in the course of his employment, he would have to pay the clerk compensation. Then there was the case of the agricultural labourer who was suffering from rheumatism, to which farm, workers were, partly from the nature of their employment, very liable. He might, if the Amendment were adopted, ask for compensation, not from all the farmers with whom he had been engaged throughout his career, but from the farmer who last employed him, and that unfortunate farmer would be compelled to pay him half wages for the rest of his life. Was that what the House intended? Of course hon. Members might say "omit the burden of proof on the employer and go back to the process of the ordinary law under which the workman would have to prove that the disease was caused in the course of of his employment." But that would be unjust to the wool worker suffering from anthrax, who ought not to have to go into Court to prove that he contracted the disease in his employment, or the workman suffering from lead poisoning. The farther alternative might be pro-posed, that in these clear cases the burden

987
of proof should be on the employer, in all others on the workman. But then there must be a schedule, and this Amendment could not in any case be accepted. Besides, how could a Court of law decide that an anæmic girl, a short-sighted clerk, or a rheumatic agricultural labourer had contracted their respective diseases in their last employment? It would throw on the Court an impossible burden. It was said of the Act of 1897 by a distinguished Judge that it had brought such a vast number of cases into the Courts that "a scandal of litigation surrounded it." But if this Amendment were adopted the ligitation under that Act would be a mere trifle compared with the ligitation under this, and the Courts would be absolutely choked with cases under it. But there was a further grave objection. What course would employers adopt? They would look very carefully at any man who asked for employment if they were to be liable for compensation to any man who was suffering from any disease. That would involve a medical examination which every candidate for employment would have to pass.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that at present medical examinations were insisted upon.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that in certain industries there was an examination which the men had to pass; for instance, in the potteries, to see whether he showed the slightest tendency to lead poisoning.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that the largest engineering firm in the country—Vickers, Sons & Maxim—insisted as a condition of employment on a medical examination.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that that was not at present the rule throughout the country. There would be, besides, if the Amendment were adopted, a periodical examination of persons subject to sickness, and if they were found to be in any degree ailing they would be necessarily dismissed in order to get rid of the enormous burden which, would be placed on the employers. It was impossible for the Government to undertake the responsi-
988
bility of passing legislation embodying a provision of this nature. The Committee of which he had spoken would extend the schedule as widely as possible. They were animated by the desire to bring in everybody who could be properly included, and on that assurance, and in view of the total impracticability of the Amendment as it stood, he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Motion.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, that the Under-Secretary had had an easy task in treating this Amendment as if it stood by itself. It must be accompanied by Amendments making it a complete proposal. His hon. friend had moved the Amendment in the absence, on account of illness, of the hon. Member for Berwickshire who had made himself master of this question. The reason why the subject involved in the Amendment was raised at this point, and the reason why he intended to support it, was that they desired to see at the earliest possible moment how far the Government were prepared to meet the very strong case put forward against the narrow Government proposal. His hon. friend threw out at once the suggestion that if they dealt with this matter of industrial diseases, in a wider way than seemed to be contemplated by the schedule, it would be necessary to exempt certain trades; and the Under-Secretary met that by saying would it be conceivable that the House would be willing to exempt certain trades? His answer was, certainly it would. That was the course taken when they started this kind of legislation. It seemed to him inevitable that in starting this course of legislation for granting compensation for diseases of occupation they should exempt certain trades unless they proceeded by way of schedule. They had to consider a rival scheme for dealing with these diseases and the Government scheme in the schedule. The Government scheme was altogether too narrow, and he did not know that it contented anybody. Lead poisoning in the Potteries had been already dealt with, but there were other diseases in that district which were not covered by the

989
scheduled diseases in the Bill. He asked the Government how many workers would be brought in by this schedule or by any extension of it which they were promised? The Under-Secretary had raised cheers from a certain portion of the House by saying that within six months a great number of trades would be added to the schedule by means of Provisional Order. But could the Home Secretary say what sensible proportion of those who suffered from industrial diseases would be included by that Provisional Order? They all knew the horrible nature of industrial disease, and they all desired to deal with it. They also knew that it would be dealt with sooner or later, and that the experiment which was being started here would be followed later by other proposals under which the small handful of workers who would be covered by this schedule would be extended. The trades which the Under-Secretary had dealt with in the schedule were industries employing a very limited number of workers, with the exception of the pottery trade and coal-mining. The collier was included, however, only in respect of miners'-worm, a disease from which he was happily at present free. With such a limited inclusion let them contrast the numerous factory trades affected by certain fluffs, certain dusts, and certain dyes—those in which consumption and anæmia prevailed. The Under-Secretary had announced his desire to deal experimentally with certain trades. Against the Amendment he took two examples of diseases with which he thought it was almost ridiculous to suppose that they could hope to deal. He would take the Under-Secretary on his strongest point, which he made quite apart from any question of rheumatism being contracted in agriculture,—anæmia in manufactories. The Under-Secretary mentioned phthisis—[Cries of "No"]—and anæmia. Now, the diseases of women employed in factory life were, according to the inspectors of the Home Office—over and over again expressed in the admirable Reports before Parliament—caused in a high degree by the circulation in certain trades of dangerous kinds of dust, and in certain other trades by the circulation in the air of specially dangerous kinds of dyes. There were in conse-
990
quence definite diseases from causes which had been ascertained, and science had now grasped the nature of those disorders and had ascertained their exact character and the method of dealing with them. But they came under the sort of designation of the Under-Secretary, who talked about them as unimportant. He would instance anæmia, which meant that women lost their strength and died away of bloodlessness, and was sometimes a perfectly ascertainable trade disease. The Under-Secretary suggested that the diseases which he was putting into the schedule were of a simple type.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Gentleman just before had used the word "simple." He had also denied that he used the word "phthisis."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied that on the contrary he had said that many of these diseases were obscure and difficult to ascertain the cause of, but he said that they were known to be specific diseases attaching to particular trades.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Under-Secretary gave up the case, but they had taken down the word "simple," and he had been intending to demolish him by the opinion of his own officials. Coming to the similar case, that of anæmia, he wished definitely to ask the Government how many workers there were in the trades which were being inquired into and which they were promised should be dealt with next year; what proportion of them were sufferers from these specially dangerous diseases throughout the country. In his opinion it would prove that they were merely trifling in number, in fact a mere handful who were to be dealt with by this order and by local inquiry. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman how in previous Factory Acts, in consequence of strong expression of opinion and pressure in the House of Commons, power had been taken to adopt action after inquiry, by way of Home Office Order. But those who had taken an interest in this question had suffered deep disappointment year after year by the absence of inquiry and action,

991
and generations had died before any progress was made. There was no person interested in manual labour who did not know how they had groaned year after year for this extension of powers, although they gave the Secretary of State, by the stroke of the pen or by means of local inquiry, power to alter matters. The system now proposed was a slower one, however, than that which already existed, and the wheels of it might easily be clogged. For the last ten or fifteen years we had had the dangerous trades ascertained and yet they had not yet been included in the operation of Orders. He stated distinctly that in supporting the Amendment he did so at this point, which was the first point at which it could be discussed, on the ground that the time had arrived when the House should decide whether they would deal with this subject in a general clause or whether they would deal with it in a schedule. If they dealt with it in a schedule let them remember that the schedule was likely to be of a limited description which would for years leave outside the law an overwhelming majority of the cases of industrial disease which ought to be dealt with.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the schedule had to be added to.
SIR CHARLES DILKEadmitted that it had to be added to, but that was upon the statement of the Government that they would inquire into those special trades and the circumstances connected with them. That was to say, that the Government ruled out the intention of ascertaining the industrial diseases of the great trades. [Cries of "No."] That was the way it struck him. He had no object and the Government had no object except to try to obtain the best solution of this question, but he did feel very strongly, having given much time and thought to the subject, that the plan of proceeding by schedule was not likely to achieve that success which the Home Secretary expected. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was a chance before them of an immense extension of this schedule, but he did not see -any such prospect. Anthrax was already
992
covered by the law, and lead poisoning was covered by the law under Lord James of Hereford's scheme. [Mr. JOHN WARD: But that only applies to the Potteries.] That was so. It only applied to the Potteries, and other industries were still unprotected. The other four diseases mentioned in the schedule were small special diseases, and one of those included was miners' worm, a German disease, which did not exist. The other three out of the four were confined to tiny trades so far as the number of persons employed in them was concerned, but the great trades were not dealt with. If the Home Secretary could assure them that he was going by Order in Council and special inquiry to deal effectively with the great trades, their objections would be met.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he wished to speak with great moderation on the principle of this Amendment, because it was in itself difficult to discuss in its present form. He was speaking only for himself, because he was sure that what he said would not have the assent of some of those with whom he usually acted. He should like for a moment to look at the broad principle which he conceived this Amendment to raise. The plan of the Government was practically to leave the question of compensating for diseases arising from dangerous trades by making it a condition of compensation that there should be certification by the Home Office. That was the condition of another trade being subjected to liability for diseases arising in it. The policy of the Amendment was that experience of what diseases, in point of fact, arose from dangerous trades should be gleaned now and in the future as they came along in those trades, so that there would not be outside of all remedy a number of trades from which diseases arose but regarding which a certificate had not obtained from the Home Office putting them in the category of dangerous. The consideration which arose under the Bill as it stood was admittedly that there were a large number of dangerous trades outside the purview of the Act altogether. His hon. friend who put down this Amendment, seeing

993
the exceedingly small number of trades which were scheduled, and knowing, from his own personal experience of many years, that several dangerous trades existed which ought to be scheduled, conceived that it was necessary to place this Amendment on the Paper in order that an explanation of the position of the Government might be extracted. As the Bill stood a number of people who would be excluded from the benefits of this clause altogether, and they would not merely be excluded, but they would have the bitterness of feeling that a number of others not less or more deserving than themselves were included in the benefits from which they were excluded. In the absence of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who was the author of all this legislation, he regretted it as a peculiar misfortune that the graciousness of this legislation should be taken away and the consciousness borne in upon many people of the poorest and most suffering classes that they were excluded from the benefits of the Act, while a number of others not more deserving than they were included. When once a principle was established in measures of this sort and they were satisfied that it was sound and right, he thought there was a great deal to be said for graciously conferring its benefits upon all who might be entitled to them. If these benefits were extended by the experience gained as they went along, great inducement would be put on employers to take adequate measures for preventing diseases as they arose instead of leaving them until the trades themselves were scheduled. In that way suffering generally would be hindered and prevented in future. He claimed that the principle of this Amendment had two merits. In the first place, the graciousness of the legislation would not be impaired to all classes of workers who could establish in a Court of law that they had suffered and that their suffering was due to their employment; and in the second place, it would offer an inducement to employers to prevent the diseases from which the suffering arose. That was his object, and he freely recognised that that was also the object of the Government. The whole question between them was one of procedure. The Government had put
994
in the schedule five or six trades which they conceived to be dangerous, and the whole question was whether a more reasonable procedure was not provided by the Amendment. He was sure after what his right hon. friend said the other day, in a manner which gained the sympathy of the House, that the Home Office was enormously pressed with work at the present time, but still the Report of the Commission on Dangerous Trades had shown that seventeen trades were dangerous while only five or six had been scheduled in this Bill. He must say, notwithstanding the good will of the Home Secretary and the Under Secretary, that that experience was not encouraging to those who believed that a case had been established for the inclusion of all dangerous trades; and he did not think that without a great deal of expense any one would be able to convince the Home Office to certify many more trades than they had done. He would, however, await the explanation of the Home Secretary, which of course might alter their opinion. One word as to the procedure suggested by the Amendment. He gathered from his hon. friend who moved it that the agricultural industry and the sea-faring trade would be excluded from its operation. [Cries of "Why?"] He thought it was quite impossible that they should be included. [Renewed cries of "Why?"] He would tell hon. Members. He did not think that it was in contemplation by those who moved the Amendment, that illnesses which happened from exposure to the element? at sea, or in the course of agriculture should come under the Bill, [Renewed cries of "Why?"] He was not speaking for the mover of the Amendment, but he was speaking for himself. He would not support it if he did not think that the assurances of those who represented labour went to show that under the Amendment such illnesses would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. He thought the proper way was to exclude those particular industries. Having arrived at that, they would have this position under the Amendment in the case of other trades. Before the workman who was suffering from a disease arising, as he thought, from his employment could get any compensation he must satisfy a doctor that he had suffered from a disease of that kind. That decision of the doctor would be

995
subject to an appeal to a medical referee. In 999 cases out of 1,000 that would practically finish the matter, but if it did not, having the assertion of two doctors that the disease existed, the workmen would have to go a step further and show to the satisfaction of a legal tribunal that the disease which had been certified to exist did arise from the nature of the employment. [Cries of "No."] He was speaking of the Amendment as he understood it. He quite agreed that the serious objection to the Amendment was that litigation of a somewhat expensive character seemed to be embodied in the proposal, but he maintained that as a matter of practice, if a disease had once been certified by unquestionable authority to exist and there was no doubt about it, and if it was a disease which doctors said arose from the employment, the litigation would not be frequent or prolonged. One case would probably decide many others. He did not think he need say anything more upon the present occasion, as he knew other hon. Members were anxious to speak. What he wished to urge upon the Government was that they should satisfy themselves whether in the form of this Amendment they had not a more expeditious method of proceeding than by way of their schedule. He confessed that he was much impressed by what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said about the expedition which had been commonly shown in this matter. He was impressed with the fact that since 1896 only five out of seventeen trades certified to be dangerous by the Departmental Committee of which the hon. Member for Berwickshire was chairman had been included in the Bill. He was also impressed with the fact that when they were the subject of Home Office inquiry as to whether they were dangerous or not, it was an expensive and lengthy process, and he would feel far easier if he knew that a workman suffering from disease caused by his employment could obtain compensation with due safeguards to his employers. They would be protected by the certificates of two doctors to the effect that the man was suffering from the disease, and that it was caused by his employment. He would feel better satisfied if the Act introduced a system resting upon experience instead of depending—he would not say on the caprice because that would not be
996
possible—but on the ipse dixit of a Department which had not shown itself very expeditious in the past in dealing; with these matters.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid he was not sure in which way the authors of this Amendment intended the onus of proof to lie. If the onus of proving that a disease was incidental to the nature of employment was to rest with the workman instead of with the employer, he and his friends from the Potteries would resist that to the end. It ought to be their object, not to push others out of any benefit, but to bring others in. They wanted to get as many people as possible included in the schedule. They did not want to strike out the whole of the third schedule, which was, so to speak, their sheet anchor. As far as the Potteries were concerned, he had it on the best authority that there was a new Pottery disease to be added to the schedule which was being considered by the Home Office Committee. If the onus of proof was to be left to the employer they would have what would amount to a general sickness insurance throughout the country. Practically every case of sickness that could be called a disease was bound to be insured by the employer under the Amendment. They had cases of influenza and phthisis cited, but, practically speaking, the only disease that a workman might have and not receive compensation for under this Amendment was delirium tremens. He considered that this discussion would have done good if it had only brought sickness insurance before the House, because he was confident there was no question so important for the working classes of this country as that sickness should be insured against and that they should receive some compensation for it similar to the sickness insurance in Germany. But the way to get that was not by the Amendment, which would lead to endless litigation. Under this scheme there would be no possible supervision over cases of sickness with the view of reducing them and stopping malingering, and there would be the greatest possible outcry in the country as to the unfairness of forcing the employer to pay the

997
sickness insurance. They should raise money for sickness insurance in the cheapest way and not as was proposed.
MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said the Amendment did not raise the question of general sickness, but it proposed to extend to workmen who wore not employed in the scheduled trades the same privileges that were to be given to those under the schedule. All that was required for the purpose of the Amendment was that the disease must be shown to be due to the nature of the employment before the claim for compensation could arise under the Act, That was perfectly clear. The question was whether all workmen were to have the right to recover for disease due to their occupation or only those in the trades scheduled. The Under-Secretary for State, who, he hoped, had not said the last word for the Government upon this point, had raised considerable fears in the minds of Members by referring to the onerous cost which would be thrown upon employers, and had said that if this Amendment were carried very probably employers would be careful as to the health of the workmen whom they employed. He admitted that, but the arguments applied equally to the scheduled trades. Whether they had this Amendment or not the medical certificate which the Under-Secretary said would be necessary would become increasingly common when workmen were seeking employment. Might he further point out that anæmia and rheumatism were not diseases due to any special occupation? Rheumatism was common to people who had free-living ancestors behind them as well as to agricultural labourers who were exposed to the weather. Before compensation could be claimed it would have to be shown that the disease was particular to an occupation. All that they asked was that workpeople who were not now included in the schedule should have the same right as those who were included to recover compensation. They did not say a man who got a cold should be compensated, but if, for instance, a stonemason] contracted lung affection through inhaling dust, that was a disease arising directly out of his occupation, and he should be as entitled to com-
998
pensation as if he fell from a scaffold He hoped the distinction would be kept clearly in mind. He trusted that as the Government was making a beginning with this principle of compensation for industrial diseases they would not make two bites at the cherry, but would see to it that the clause was so broadened and extended as to include within the scope of compensation every workman who suffered from industrial disease.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that, as his hon. friend observed, they were all anxious to find a solution of this question. They were anxious that that solution should not be delayed. Without any absolutely preconceived scheme he had listened to the discussion with a view of finding out whether there was before the House any practical alternative to the remedy proposed by the Government. So far as he could observe, not one of the hon. Members who supported the Amendment agreed with another. First of all, they differed as to what the Amendment really was. Then there was a conflict of opinion as to the exclusion of agriculture. He failed to see why, if this Amendment were adopted, agriculture or seamen should be excluded. Again, there was the point as to the burden of proof. The words of subsection (2) of the clause remained standing. There were many consequential Amendments on the Paper, but there was none excluding the last two lines of that subsection. So long as those words stood it was quite dear that the onus of proof was on the employer. When the certifying surgeon certified that a workman had a disease his duty ended. Then the man went before the tribunal which had to decide as to his disease.
MR. LYTTELTON: He would under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, but not under the scheme of this Amendment.
MR. GLADSTONEdisagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He was dealing with the Amendment. Until it was shown that there was a substantial alternative the Government were justified in maintaining their ground. It had not been shown that there was that substantial alternative. Then there had been developed a fourth point of view

999
amongst those who supported the Amendment. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who spoke with a wealth of knowledge on these questions, petitioned for information. He would frankly tell his right hon. friend that the Government could give him none now. The reason was that they were only on the threshold of this business. He thought the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow would agree with him when he said that he had never drawn attention to the occasions on which he had supported proposals more extreme and advanced than the Departmental Committee recommended. He bad always recognised that it was due to the hon. Member to say that when he served on that Committee he was not able to see eye to eye with all of them, although he did not differ in the memorandum he appended to the Report. The hon. Member's only anxiety was to give the benefit of his experience and influence as one of a united body having regard to the general importance of the whole subject under consideration. The Committee of 1896 considered this question very carefully; and here he might observe—in reply to his right hon. friend opposite, who had seemed to bring up on his side the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and had suggested, as he understood him, that, if he had been present, the right hon. Gentleman would have supported the Amendment—that the right hon. Gentleman not only opposed his hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire in 1897 when he brought forward this subject, but did him the honour to accompany a deputation he received some time ago and spoke most strongly on the particular proposal in the Bill, urging that it was extremely dangerous. The Committee of 1896 reported against dealing with the question, and the Government were thus face to face with the unanimous recommendation of a powerful Committee, and they felt that they must proceed in the matter tentatively and by cautions steps, because, if they were to make a false step, they might land the workmen of the country in a most unfortunate position arising out of the litigation they might be compelled to engage in if they wished to prove their case. Under such an
1000
Amendment as this the unfortunate workman would have to wend his tortuous way to compensation through the law. As to the action of the Home Office on this question daring the last ten years, he could not admit that it had been in any sense dilatory. If there had been dilatoriness in any public office, those who were at the head of the Department were responsible. From his experience as Under-Secretary ten years age, and during his tenure of his present office, he was able to say that the officials of the Home Office would spare no effort to respond to any appeal made to them. If there had been any dilatoriness it certainly was not the fault of the Home Office. He did not know what the hon. Member for North West Ham had got hold of when he made the statement that only five out of seventeen trades had been dealt with. He held in his hand a Return which showed that twenty-five trades had been dealt with and were now placed under regulations, and there were others about to be brought under rules and regulations.
MR. LYTTELTON: The point was that they were not in the schedule.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was trying to show that there had been great vigour shown in the Home Office in connection with the work of the Dangerous Trades Committee, and he might say that the same vigour would be brought to bear upon any stops the Department might be called upon to take under this Bill. His hon. friend had already shown the practical difficulties of the scheme which had been adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman. He admitted that in regard to procedure by Provisional Orders there was a difficulty. He might say that the Provisional Order proposal was not put in because they were enamoured of that method, which was sometimes very convenient and at other times was not. The Provisional Order was proposed in anticipation of the criticisms which the Government believed would be showered on their heads if they ventured to deal with this matter without consulting Parliament. It now appeared that they were not so much blamed for their scheme as for not going a great deal further. In these circumstances he would be glad to see what could be done to meet the

1001
views of his hon. friend. He would undertake to see that no time was lost by the Committee in completing their inquiry, and he would be prepared to accept an Amendment, or to propose one, altering the Provisional Order scheme, so that the Home Office, as soon as it was satisfied from inquiry that a particular trade should be added to the schedule, would be able to add it. He hoped these assurances would be satisfactory.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by making some criticism of the variety of opinion expressed on the part of the supporters of the Amendment. He thought there was some justification for the right hon. Gentlemen's complaint. It was true that the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Amendment had not all used precisely the same language, and that they had not advocated precisely the same plan. That was due to the fact that, in regard to this question, the House was in rather a perplexed frame of mind. There was a problem to be solved; they were not quite clear how it was to be dealt with; they were well aware that any solution had difficulties in its way. For his part he felt, after listening to the debate, that to reject the plan of scheduling particular diseases incident to particular trades would be to embark on a dangerous course. He did not say that they might not be obliged at some future time to proceed on the German method and to arrange that all cases, both of accident and of sickness, should be met by some form of insurance. That was a plan simpler in the sense that it did not lead to litigation; and although contrary to many of our most cherished methods of legislation, it was not open to the particular objections that seemed to be applicable to the plan which some hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to see adopted in this Bill. He was certain that they had got to choose between restricting the compensation to those cases in which disease was really specific to an industry, and some plan of much wider scope which would include every malady incident to the workers of the country. He did not believe in a half-and-half plan which would inflict infinite hardship on both the employed and the employer. What was the alternative plan of the Government? It was suggested that,
1002
somehow or other, if a man got a disease it should be thrown on the Courts of law to determine whether it was or was not due to his employment. If due to his employment he was to have compensation; if not, there was to be no compensation. Did not that scheme carry with it obviously on its face not merely that it had difficulties in regard to the degree of litigation, but a manifest ignoring of the plain truths of medical science? All of us were mortal, and our death was preceded, not uncommonly, by some disease, occasioned always, or almost always, no doubt, by something in our environment touching the weak spot in our separate organisations. That was the common law of nature. If that were so, was it not always true in one sense that our diseases were due to our occupations? That was to say, the human frame broke down because the weak spot was touched or affected by something in our surroundings. Cases of rheumatism and consumption had been referred to. If a growing young person of either sex showed a consumptive tendency they could, he believed, do nothing better than give that person an outdoor occupation. But this carried with it liability to rheumatism and other diseases, the consequence of exposure; and he wanted to know how they were going to deal with the complaint of a subject with some tendency to consumption who was not immune from these other diseases. A young woman entering a shop got anæmia, and got it undoubtedly because she was in the shop. Did that make anæmia a disease incident to that particular business? Suppose, per contra, she entered, as young women of delicate constitution constantly did in his part of the country, into the fields to work and got some malady consequent on exposure? Was she to be compensated for anæmia if she went into a shop or into service and for rheumatism if she went into the fields? They could not say that those diseases were incident to the employment. If they did they would get into hopeless muddle. Was it not manifest that if they were to treat this matter as analogous to compensation for accidents they must take the diseases which wore quite plainly specific to the occupation, treat thorn as incidents of the industry, spread the charge over the whole industry, and

1003
get the insurance for the workmen out of the industry as a whole? If they meant to go further and make every disease to which poor humanity was liable a subject of compensation they would produce a crop of litigation, and no other crop whatever. If these were the cases they meant to meet, let them boldly take the course of universal insurance, taking something from the workman and something from the employer so that everybody would be protected against the changes and chances of this mortal life, and deal with the subject in a comprehensive spirit. But let them not make legislation an absolute farce and absurdity by attempting in a Bill dealing with compensation for workmen to deal with those common misfortunes, universal maladies, and incidents from which none of us were free, and which could not be dealt with in any measure immediately directed against particular and special misfortunes. They must be dealt with on broader lines and by other methods, and in a manner which would comprehend all trades and occupations. These were the conclusions he had come to from listening to the debate, and he would support the Government in resisting the Amendment.
MR. MONDsaid that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, interesting as it was, was not very much to the point. It had been said that the one thing which was not included in the German workmen's compensation law was compensation for sickness; but he would quote from the German law on industrial accidents. The definition in that law was very wide and included any injury whatever to the body, or any mental disturbance such as insanity and hysteria. These were subject to compensation. That went very much further than the Amendment of his hon. friend. People who always talked about German legislation should take the trouble to read it. His hon. friend the Under-Secretary had said that the Government could not accept the Amendment because we had not got the German system of insurance. If they were told that nothing could be done in the direction indicated by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, it was obvious that the House was quite ready to allow
1004
hundreds of thousands of miserable people to perish without doing anything for them. For his part, he could not understand, if a man went down into a mine and was injured by disease on which paralysis followed, why he should not be as much entitled to compensation as if his skull had been fractured by a chunk of coal falling upon him. The whole difference between the Government and those who supported the Amendment was, to this mind, that the latter said that an accident caused by disease was as much an accident as an accident caused by machinery, and that compensation ought to be paid in both cases. They had not had from the Government any attempt to deal with the difficulty of definition—a difficulty which he had admitted. They had been charged with not attempting a definition, but it would be absurd for them to do so without knowing if the Government would first accept their Amendment. He would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he was right in understanding that the Government were willing to accept an Amendment to sub-section (6) to omit the words "from any such order" to "in like manner." That would simplify procedure.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he proposed to move an Amendment to that effect.
MR. MONDsaid that all that he and his friends asked was that all trades now certified as dangerous should be put into the schedule.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that he had taken an active part in the Committee upstairs and had very carefully considered all the provisions of this Bill. It was only due to the Government to say that he highly approved of the new and salutary proposals introduced into the Bill. Five diseases were mentioned in the schedule, two of which affected industries with which he was associated. The first of the cases mentioned was anthrax, which was highly interesting because it was thought to be outside this particular legislation, but by the decision of a Court such had been proved not to be the case. Anthrax was connected with a particular class of

1005
raw material only found in certain district. He entertained some doubts as to whether it would not be right for the Government to empower the Customs to exclude raw material which was known to contain such dangerous elements. The next case was that relating to a disease connected with the mining industry. He believed that that terrible disease— ankylostomiasis—had not found its way into this country, but he was sure the Government had acted with wisdom and prudence in placing it on the list which they had put into the Bill. It had been remarked by previous speakers that the schedule was meagre, but he would remind the House that it was adopted in the Standing Committee by the Labour Members, whose position and exceptional ability were acknowledged. He certainly felt that the schedule would be extended from time to time. A disease well known in the textile districts was consumption. As that disease was sometimes generated by the heated atmosphere of the mill it was an industrial disease and might be treated as such. It appeared to them that there must be in all cases a margin in order to meet the cases of those who would otherwise be just excluded. He hoped that as time went on there would be a large extension of the principle of compensation, and that that would go on until they had a general insurance against all diseases. He was glad to hear the remark of the Home Secretary as to the system of Provisional Orders, and that the last word had not been spoken as to that mode of procedure. There was a danger in any system of uniformity, and he looked to the Government to bring forward a measure to simplify procedure in all these cases. As representing an industrial district he rejoiced most sincerely in the extensions which had been made by the Bill, and he thanked the Government for the action they had taken.
MR. SHA.CKLETONsaid he did not wish to take up the time of the House, but everybody would see the gravity of this matter and recognise the importance of the discussion. There was a great spirit of unrest in regard to this matter, not only
1006
on the part of the workpeople, but on the part of a large section of the public who were determined that something should be done for those dangerous trades which were not included, and that relief should be given to the people who suffered as the result of their occupation. He wanted a further assurance upon this matter. He quite recognised that this year the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee which would no doubt shortly report, and, so far, that was good. But he wished to see the cumbrous method of getting these trades into the schedule considerably modified. He thought the Home Office might adopt some plan by which it would, be more easy for people who had no direct representation in this House to deal with the matter. It was quite true that Labour representatives could press the needs of their own particular societies at times, but there were many sections of labour who had not that opportunity, and the Home Office should not make it difficult for them to get on the schedule. For years at least seven trades had been certified as dangerous, yet they were not scheduled, and the House should have a promise from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to those seven trades that they should, if not immediately, at least in the near future be scheduled. Surely it was not necessary when nothing had been done for ton years to go on with inquiry after inquiry when facts had already been decided and recommendations made. The time of Departmental Committees should not be wasted in going into these matters over and over again. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that these seven trades should be considered with regard to their being put into the schedule he would have gone some way towards getting the House out of its difficulty. they ought to be inserted in the schedule, and the people engaged in them should receive the benefit of the provisions of the Bill. Besides the seven to which he particularly referred there were at least fourteen others which had been recommended for application, but which were not yet certified. With regard to the seven that were on the list he asked that some steps should be taken by the right

1007
hon. Gentleman to show that the Home Office was determined to act on the recommendation of the Committee.
MR. FENWICKsaid he was glad the Home Secretary had been able to make a statement to the House which would obviate the necessity for going to a division on the Amendment. He believed there was very little difference between the intentions of the Home Secretary and those who desired to support the Amendment. What was the position in which they stood? The Home Secretary intended that the Bill should apply to diseases incidental to and arising out of the nature of the employment, and that if a man suffered from such a disease he should be entitled to claim compensation while the incapacity lasted. Some diseases were mentioned in the third sehdule, but he regarded the schedule as merely an indication of the lines that were to be followed when the Bill came into operation. In sub-section (6) of the clause the Home Secretary took power to bring in a Provisional Order Bill extending the benefits of the Bill to other industries or processes of industry. He was glad that the Home Secretary had agreed to amend the next paragraph in sub-section (6) because therein lay the crux of the whole question. What he objected to was that the Home Secretary, having taken power by means of Provisional Orders to extend the advantages of the clause to other industries not mentioned in the schedule, and other diseases not now known to the medical faculty but which might in the process of time become known to them, should have to wait until by Act of Parliament the Provisional Order was confirmed. He desired that the Home Secretary, when satisfied that a disease was one incidental to or arising out of the nature of the employment, should immediately schedule that disease and employment as dangerous. The Home Secretary acted upon his own responsibility; he was responsible to Parliament, and his conduct had to be reviewed from time to time, so that if the House was not satisfied with his action or inaction they would pretty well keep him up to the mark. It was difficult, if not impossible, to mention every disease and every trade in the schedule
1008
to an Act of Parliament, and he should feel alarmed at the length to which such schedule might run. There would be ample protection if the Home Secretary would amend or strike out altogether the provision referred to, and leave himself the power to act upon his own. initiative or upon the advice of the certifying surgeons of the respective districts in which the dangerous trades existed. By taking that course a division on the Amendment would be obviated. At any rate, he felt it due to the House to say that if that line were taken he should be disposed to support the Government against the Amendment.
MR. HEEBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Member for Clitheroe had urged that all trades certified as dangerous should be brought into this clause, but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that some trades were certified as dangerous not on account of any disease they engendered but because of special risks. Others were certified because of disease, but the disease itself was seldom mentioned in the rules. If the Government were to schedule those trades any man who worked at them would be able to get compensation for any disease from which he was suffering. That was not, he knew, the object of the hon. Member who wished to get trade diseases on the schedule. If this matter was dealt with by rules instead of Provisional Order he thought he could promise that before the Act came into operation all clear cases of trade disease would be inserted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he proposed when they came to sub-section (2) to alter it by omitting the provision. A subsequent Amendment of the Government altered the first lines of the next paragraph so that Clause 6 would stand by itself and give the Home Office direct power to act.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he rose, as a member of the Grand Committee, to make an appeal to the Member for North West Ham After the explanation given by the Home Secretary he wished to ask him to withdraw this Amendment. He was perfectly sure the hon. Member had the

1009
interests of the workmen at heart, but the hon. Member admitted there were great difficulties in the way. Those difficulties arose from the fact that there was hardly an employment in this country that did not apparently bring some kind of disease or illness with it. It was obviously impossible to include all cases. What was intended by this Bill was that industrial diseases should be included and compensated for. The Government scheduled certain diseases and they now proposed to deal with others by rules. The suggestion was that as soon as the Departmental Committee reported, if they reported that these diseases were industrial diseases, they should be included. That, however, was not to be the end. In the future if other diseases were discovered that ought to be included all that would have to be done would be to approach the Home Office, prove the case, and those diseases would also be included. He hoped under these circumsances the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. MASTERMANsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House an assurance that the Provisional Order scheme should be abandoned by a Government Amendment, and he understood from the hon. Member that under Section 1 these other trades would be included. He could not in the least pretend that he personally was satisfied, but he gathered a sufficient number of hon. Members were satisfied, and, therefore, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 9, line 1, to leave out sub-section (b) (i)."—(Sir diaries Dike.)
Question proposed.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this sub-section was put in in Committee in order that they might give an indication to the Court as to what ought to be included in "serious and wilful misconduct," and in order that a greater incentive might be given to the workmen to observe the rules made for their protection. The Government had now made
1010
an alteration in the application of the provision relating to "serious and wilful misconduct" which would necessitate putting a similar provision in this subsection; and this would make it extremely complicated. Everything of substance that this paragraph proposed would be covered by "serious and wilful misconduct," and the Government therefore accepted the Amendment.
LORD R. CECILthought that the sub-section would be of real value in tending to diminish the incidence of these diseases. The arguments of the hon. Member for North West Ham, to whom he had listened with great sympathy, applied with equal force to the workmen, and it appeared to him to be extremely desirable to put upon the workmen in the clearest terms the obligation to observe reasonable precautions. He did not follow the observations of the hon. Member the Under-Secretary. This clause dealt with disease and not with accidents, and it was always more difficult to induce people to take precautions against disease than against accidents. They could see dangerous machinery at work, and therefore took precautions against accidents, but disease they did not see, and it was difficult to induce them to believe in the danger or to bring it before their imagination in a, sufficiently vivid manner; to induce them to protect themselves against it.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was sorry the Government had given way in this matter. He did not think the words put in sub-section (1) covered the whole point. What had to be done was to make the workpeople as careful as possible, and experience showed that less precaution was taken against disease than against accidents, as his noble friend had pointed out. He admitted that these words did not make much difference, but if the right hon. Gentleman desired to reduce the number of accidents he should place as much warning before the workpeople as possible. Every Member of the House must be actuated by the same motive, which was to prevent the cause which led to these applications for compensation for disease.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid that in North Staffordshire certain conferences had taken place between the employers and workmen in the potteries industry on this very question, and, although no definite agreement had been come to, he thought he knew the reason why the employers wished these words to remain in the Bill, and why the workpeople desired to have them taken out. The employers wished them to remain to prevent accidents. Disease did not come suddenly, and the employers wanted these words to be constantly in front of the workpeople in order to warn them of what the consequences of neglect might be. But there were other considerations. There were at the present time three ways of insuring that the rules drawn up by the Home Office were enforced. There was the factory inspector, the periodical visits of the certifying surgeon and his examination of all the workpeople, and the enforcement of strict obedience to the rules. The factory inspector, however, could not visit every pottery very frequently, and when he made his visit he might not find the rules being broken, but nevertheless the rules were frequently and constantly broken. The whole object of legislation should be to see that the rules were not broken. And this would be facilitated by this Amendment. The person who could best do that was the employer, and if he saw definitely once and for all that he would have to pay compensation in the case of lead-poisoning whether the workmen had contracted the disease through disobeying the rules or not he would be far more careful in seeing that the rules were obeyed. The rules were broken in many cases by men smoking, and by both men and women making tea, and by women eating sweets in the dipping house. All these rules were broken repeatedly, and that was the cause of a great deal of the lead-poisoning. If it was made quite clear that no amount of breaking the rules would debar a man who contracted disease from obtaining compensation the employers would see their rules obeyed even if they had to take the drastic measure of dismissing some of their employees. It would be therefore just as well to leave these words out of the Bill. He did not wish it to be imagined
1012
that employers had ever refused to pay compensation in cases where disease had been contracted through disobedience to the rules. That had never been the case.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 9, line 8, after the word 'himself,' to insert the words 'in writing.'"—(Mr. John Ward.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GIBBSsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to insure that, where a disease was not contracted in his employment it should not be incumbent upon the employer to find out where his employee had contracted it. In the case of a man who had been working in many places it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to the employer to find out where the man had contracted the disease. He did not think it would be difficult for the certifying surgeon nowadays to ascertain how long a man had had a certain disease, and from that it would be pretty clear where the man had contracted it.
MR. HICKS BEACHseconded. The clause as it now stood appeared to inflict an excessive obligation on the employer. If a man developed an industrial disease a week after going into the service of an employer, that employer would have to pay compensation for a disease contracted before the man entered his employ, unless he proved in whose service the man contracted the disease. He thought it was the general intention of the House that the Act should be as fair as possible to both employers and employed, and while he admitted that the obligation should be cast upon the employer to prove that the disease was not contracted in his employ, he thought it was rather hard that he should have to prove who the employer was in whose service the disease was actually contracted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert the words Unless the employer proves that the disease was not in fact contracted whilst the

1013
workman was in his employment, but without any obligation on the employer to prove in whose employment the workman was when he contracted the disease."'—(Mr. Gibbs.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this Amendment touched one of the most complex and difficult problems they had to deal with in this clause. In the case of accidents the matter was simple. There was no doubt, or very little doubt, as to the employment in which a workman suffered an accident. A disease, however, might have been contracted some months before the incapacity declared itself, and during its incubation the workman might have moved about in different employments, and the question was as to who was to pay the compensation. There were two alternative courses. One was to allow the workman to pick and choose, and go against any employer who had employed him during the last twelve months; if he failed against one he would proceed against another. That would lead to litigation in a great number of cases which the Government desired to avoid. The other alternative was that the workman should go against the employer in whose employ he was at the time of the incapacity. In the majority of cases the disease would have been contracted in that employment; but cases might arise in which the master could show that the disease was not contracted in his employment and a process was provided whereby the liability was put on to a previous employer. There would be very few such cases. This Amendment would involve two proceedings in those cases instead of the one suggested in the Bill in the interests of cheapness and expedition. Where the last employer showed that a man, admittedly suffering from an industrial disease, had not contracted it in his employment, the Court would usually hold that that fact was in itself a proof that it had been contracted in a previous employment. He admitted the possibility of a case arising in which a workman refused to or did not furnish his last employer with the names and addresses of his former employers, but such cases would, he thought, be exceedingly rare. If hon. Members desired it he had no objection to inserting the following
1014
Amendment to meet such a case: "And, if such information is not furnished, that employer, upon proving that the disease was not contracted whilst the workman was in his employment, shall not be liable to pay compensation." He did not think this was any hardship on the workman, because he ought to be able to say who his previous employer was. If he could not say who he was, then, if his last employer could prove clearly in Court that the disease was not contracted with him, the workman would have to forego his compensation.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that unless something in the nature of this Amendment were inserted the employer must feel that he was hardly dealt with. The burden which would rest on the employer of proving that the disease was not contracted whilst the man was in his employ would be a very heavy one, and one which only in extreme cases could be borne. Unless, however, the Amendment were carried the employer would have to bear a burden he ought not to bear, and one which would inflict an additional weight on industries already unduly loaded.
MR. RAWLINSONadmitted that the proposal of the Under-Secretary was a step in the right direction, but said it did not meet the difficulty which this Amendment was put forward to remove Surely it was a monstrous act of injustice that an employer who had proved that the illness of the workman was not contracted in his employ should be liable to pay compensation unless he could prove, which it was almost impossible for him to do, in whose employment the workman really did contract the disease. They must deal with this section not only with a regard to the diseases in the schedule but having regard to other diseases which he hoped would be added to the Bill. It was perfectly possible that a workman might have been in various employments during twelve months. If the Amendment were carried there would be nothing to prevent the man making his claim against the employer in whose employment he thought he contracted the disease. If that employer desired it the workman could add if he chose, two or three other of his employers, and it would be for the

1015
Court to determine whether he acted reasonably, and in that case the unsuccessful employer would have to pay the costs of the other people. That was very different to the section as it stood, because it forced upon the innocent employer the very heavy burden of either paying compensation to a workman to whom morally he was not liable, or taking the risk of selecting a previous employer of the workman.
MR. GIBBSsaid that though the Undersecretary bad not gone so far as he could have wished, he would ask leave to -withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 9, line 1G, after the word 'workman,' to insert the words 'or his dependants.'"
"In page 9, line 17, after the word 'with,' to insert the words 'such information as to.'"—
"In page 9, line 19, after the word 'months,' to insert the words 'as he or they may possess.'"
"In page 10, line C, to leave out the words 'from whom compensation is recoverable,' and insert the words 'who last employed the workman during the said twelve months in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due.'"
"In page 10, line 30, after the word 'be to insert the words' such date as the certifying surgeon certifies as the date on which the disablement commenced, or if he is unable to certify such a date, the date on which the certificate is given. Provided that.'"
"In page 10, line 33, after the word 'disablement,' to insert the words 'the date of disablement shall be.'"
"In page'10, line 38, after the word 'disablement,' to insert the words 'it shall be.'"
"In page 10, to leave out lines 39 and 40."— (Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 6, to leave out the word 'Provisional.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Provisional' stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEasked for an explanation of this proposal.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was originally intended to proceed by Pro-
1016
visional Orders, but the House had expressed itself desirous of proceeding by Orders issued by the Secretary of State.
MR. COCHRANEasked if those Orders would be laid upon the Table of the House as was done in the case of Provisional Orders. He thought both sides of the House would agree that they ought to have an opportunity of considering and reviewing them.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid this point had been discussed earlier in a general debate, and he understood that the promise he made to omit the word "Provisional" was generally accepted.
MR. COCHRANEsaid they did not understand that those Orders would not be laid upon the Table of the House. He thought they ought to be subjected to discussion in the same way as an ordinary Provisional Order. He was afraid that by this alteration the House was losing a valuable privilege, and he hoped the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary would give them some assurance that they would be able to discuss these Orders.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that if the Secretary of State by his own ipse dixit could add trades to the schedule the employers concerned would have no power to bring forward their case. If this could be done without reference to Parliament the employers would lose the power which the Government originally proposed to give them of being able to present their case in the most authoritative way possible.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in the main discussion upon this point he was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, and from all quarters of the House to make this concession, and objection ought to have been taken to it at that time.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYwas quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman said he was ready to alter the elaborate procedure before Parliament, provided in the Bill, to some other procedure

1017
under which it would be regulated by the Home Office, but if that involved the employers sacrificing the right to petition and tender evidence before the Select Committee it was a very different matter from what they understood would be the case when the question was discussed earlier in the debate. He thought they ought to be assured that all parties would have the fullest opportunity given them of putting forward evidence.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid there was a very strong objection to any scheme under which employers would be compelled to insure against their will. Lines 21 to 29 were now to be omitted, and still they were met by the fact that the Secretary of State might by Provisional Order require all employers in an industry to insure in a specified scheme.
MR. GLADSTONE: We are not on that.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid there was an understanding that it should not be done by Provisional Order. He and his friends thought that the Orders should be made in such a form that they would not be withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. The whole point would be met if the right hon. Gentleman would say that the rules should be laid before the House.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not give the Amendment the go-by because of a misunderstanding. All that was intended on his side of the House was that the mode of procedure should be altered, but no one had the idea that a blank cheque should be given to the Secretary of State to include in the schedule any disease he thought fit-without any reference whatever to the House. He submitted that the alteration now proposed would place too wide a power in the hands of the Home Secretary.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the way the Government at first proposed to proceed was by Provisional Order which would give to each party the
1018
power to be heard by a Committee of the House of Commons. The House was opposed to that, and the proposal was withdrawn. An alternative course. was that the Home Secretary should have power to make a simple Order effecting the same object by his own fiat without Parliament formally being given cognizance of it. A somewhat reasonable objection was raised to that.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think the point as to how the Order should be made was ever raised.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there was much to be said for the contention that the House should have cognizance of the Orders. The Government had no objection to laying these Orders on the Table of the House. It would not prolong the proceedings. They would be very glad to adopt that course.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was to a certain extent satisfactory, but it was somewhat ambiguous. There were three different classes of Orders. They might give the Home Secretary power to make Orders, and so long as the Orders were within the purview of the Bill they would have all the validity of an Act of Parliament. They might say that the Home Secretary was to make the Orders, and that the Orders were to be laid on the Table of the House. That would give the House no power over the Orders at all. There was a third form of precedure, and that was to lay the Orders on the Table of the House for a certain time, and to say that unless a Motion was made they became valid. He did not know which of these the hem. Member meant by saying that he was prepared to make an alteration in the Bill in regard to Orders.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The second one.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the second one was of absolutely no use. That left the matter practically with the Home Secretary. That was never intended by any suggestion from his side of the House. What they asked was that the method should be adopted of placing the

1019
Orders on the Table of the House, and that unless a Motion was made they should have the validity of and Act of Parliament. That was a reasonable course. Many of the questions as to the results arising out of dangerous trades were very complicated, and he entirely objected to the Home Secretary being given absolute power of legislation
in regard to these difficult and controversial matters. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the course he had suggested.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 281. (Division List No. 459.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Davies, David (Montgomery Co

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J.(City Lond.)

Doughty, Sir George

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Faber, George Denison (York)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Hicks Beach.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cory, Clifford John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Agnew, George William

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Elibank, Master of

Alden, Percy

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Erskine, David C.

Ashley, W. W.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Atherley-Jones, L.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Farrell, James Patrick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Fell, Arthur

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cleland, J. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, William

Ferguson. R. C. Munro

Barnes, G. N.

Clynes, J. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Beale, W. P.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cogan, Denis J.

Gill, A. H.

Bell, Richard

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ginnell, L.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(St. Pancras, W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't)

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Glover, Thomas

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bennett, E. N.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gooch, George Peabody

Bertram, Julius

Cowan, W. H.

Grenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crean, Eugene

Griffith, Ellis J.

Billson, Alfred

Cremer, William Randal

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hall, Frederick

Boland, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Halpin, J.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brace, William

Delany, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Brigg, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hart-Davits, T.

Bright, J. A.

Dillon, John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Doneland, Captain A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hayden, John Patrick

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Cheshr)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Menzies, Walter

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sears, J. E.

Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seddon, J.

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon. S.)

Mond, A.

Shackleton, David James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Hills, J. W.

Mooney, J.J.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hodge, John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hogan, Michael

Morpeth, Viscount

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murphy, John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murray, James

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Snowdon, P.

Hudson, Walter

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholls, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Spicer, Sir Albert

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Jackson, R. S.

Nuttall, Harry

Steadman, W. C.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jenkins, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Hare, Patrick

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Summerbell, T.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Mara, James

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kelley, George D.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Paul, Herbert

Tillett, Louis John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Toulmin, George

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ure, Alexander

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wadsworth, J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pollard, Dr.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lewis, John Herbert

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Lough, Thomas

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Walters, John Tudor

Lundon, W.

Price, Robert Hn. (Norfolk, E.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lutterell, Hugh Fownes

Radford, G. H.

Wardle, George J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'bs)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Maclean, Donald

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, George (Norfolk)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Redmond, William; (Clare)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rees, J. D.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macpherson, J. T.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

Whitehead, Rowland

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Richardson, A.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

M'Crae, George

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williamson, A.

M'Killop, W.

Robinson, S.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Maddison, Frederick

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Yoxall, James Henry

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Massie, J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Meagher, Michael

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the Amendment he was about to move was to take the place of the provision proposed to be struck out from line 2l to line 29. The history of that provision was that in the Standing Committee an Amendment was brought forward by his hon. friend the Member or Newcastle-under-Lyme. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would would press it, and made only a very
1022
brief speech. Nobody else rose and, the Question being put immediately, the Government were defeated by twenty-two to twenty-one. Hon. Members would see that the provision would not stand the test of criticism. It was obvious that the Government could not accept a provision giving power to the Secretary of State to compel every employer to insure, subject to a penalty not mentioned in the Bill. There was a

1023
widespread feeling in the Committee, and representations had been made to him from more than one quarter of the House, that those words should be cut out. The representations came principally from the pottery trade in which he was informed the majority of the employers did insure. Personally he saw very great difficulty in putting into operation the scheme he had framed in substitution of the provision, but he did not object to its form when safeguarded by a Provisional Order. The Amendment he proposed left full discretion to the Home Secretary to draw the Provisional Order as he thought best for the case brought before him, and the Order would come in the usual way before Parliament for approval.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 12, to leave out the words 'any such Order,' and insert, '(7) Where after inquiry held on the application of any employers or workmen engaged in any industry to which this section applies it appears that one or more mutual trade insurance schemes for insuring against the risks under this section have been established for the industry, and that a majority of the employers engaged in that industry are insured against ouch risks in the scheme or in one or other of such schemes, the Secretary of state may by Provisional Order require all employers in that industry to insure in the scheme or in one of other of such schemes upon such terms and under such conditions and subject to such exceptions as may be set forth in the Order. (8) A Provisional Order made under this section.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Any such Order' stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid he agreed with the Home Secretary as to the incident which took place upstairs. The provision was sprung on the Committee, and almost at a moment's warning a division was taken and the Government were defeated. But the right hon. Gentleman had followed the tactics pursued by the Committee on that occasion having brought forward this Amendment at brief notice. He thought that there were certain faults in drafting the new provision. The right hon. Gentleman said that it dealt with questions which arose in the pottery districts; but the provision would have a wider application than the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The clause as it
1024
was drawn would apply to any of the trades in the schedule of the Bill, and he directed attention to one enormous industry, that of mining, which might be brought in. In the mining industry there were large mutual indemnity companies in which employers were associated for the purpose of insuring themselves against payment of compensation for accidents. They admitted to the associations only those employers who were solvent and took reasonable precautions to safeguard their employees against accidents. The pits were inspected to see that they were up to the standard of other employers, which hon. Members would agree was a very desirable thing. Under this Amendment the Home Secretary would have power to force these mutual indemnity associations to admit those whom they would otherwise leave out. That was a serious power for the Home Secretary to take. He thought it would be better, as the clause had been drafted to meet the particular case of the Potteries, to defer dealing with the question until after the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman had promised. The matter should be dealt with as a whole, and in a comprehensive manner.
MR. J. WARDsupported the Amendment of the Home Secretary and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would press it with all the weight of his authority. The workmen in the district which he represented were exceptionally interested in this business and in this particular clause, which was first of all introduced in the principal Bill, and under no circumstances would they look with favour upon the exclusion of the principle, although they were not wedded to the words as they appeared in the Bill. They thought that the words of the Home Secretary embodied an improved and clearer way of carrying the principle into effect. He would like to say why it was that the workmen were so much in favour of this particular principle in the pottery trade. Without it it would be impossible to expect insurance and compensation from many of the smallest employers whom it forced to join insurance societies. It worked not only for the purpose of obtaining compensation, but its effect was more marked in

1025
the reduction of the number of cases of disease, which after all was the most important question for the. House to consider. The ordinary insurance company in cases of increased risk merely raised the rates of premium and cared very little what the methods of working might be or about anything of that kind. In the mutual insurance companies, however, it was different. Those companies met together once a month and took into consideration all the cases which had been reported in their particular trade during the month. By this means they found after a month or two the factories in which disease was prevalent. The Home Secretary and his officials claimed that the reduction of disease in the pottery trade was entirely due to their orders and efforts, but the workmen claimed—he was not saying whether they were right or wrong—that it was the mutual insurance system which had brought about the reduction more than the orders of the Secretary of State. The mutual insurance company had as their chairman an expert in the use of lead, who knew more about lead poisoning than any other man in the country. If at the end of a month it was seen that a certain pottery had a higher percentage of lead poisoning or illness from some cause or other, the chairman would be deputed to visit those works. He would inquire into the way in which lead was dealt with, the way in which they mixed it, and a hundred and one other things in order to see whether the latest methods were adopted, and he would keep on visiting the place until it was brought up to the standard necessary for the safety of the people employed. Therefore under the mutual system they had not only a guarantee that the money would be paid, but the benefit of the efforts of a number of persons who were interested in reducing the number of cases of disease. That system had had a very salutary effect. They were not so much interested as workmen in providing compensation as in preventing the diseases altogether. The workmen had had an opportunity of trying the system, and they were agreed that these periodical inspections of the employers themselves, who were responsible for the payment of the
1026
compensation, had resulted in a reduction in the number of cases of lead poisoning. That he thought was a substantial argument in favour of the proposed Amendment, and under those circumstances he hoped that upon no consideration whatever the right hon. Gentleman would recede from the position he had taken up. First of all, it secured that the compensation would be paid, because the small potter would have to join in the scheme of insurance. The important point was to see that the mutual business was properly conducted, and met the requirements of the Home Office, and, that Department having satisfied themselves that the method proposed was the best way to compel the smaller employer to join the scheme and to reduce the mortality to the lowest possible minimum, it should be carried into effect.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he was entirely in sympathy with the principle of mutual insurance, and he spoke with experience, being a director of one of these societies. He thought the system had proved very satisfactory and had worked extremely well. It must be remembered that most of these large industrial mutual societies in the colliery districts included the bulk of the colliery owners of the district, and that they made very particular inquiries in regard to any applications to join. This Amendment, however, gave the Home Office power to force an employer to join one of these mutual societies whether the society was willing or not, without any agreement, and simply on the terms laid down by the Home Secretary. These societies had large reserve funds, and it would not be fair to force them to admit an employer without some negotiation or consultation with the directors of the company as to the terms on which that employer should be admitted. If the Home Secretary would add the words "and subject to the consent of the society" he did not think there would be much objection to the Amendment.
LORD BALCARRESsaid it was obvious that this Amendment originated in the Midlands in connection with a particular industry,

1027
and he was quite prepared to take it from the hon. Member for Stoke that some such Amendment as this would be of use to that industry. He, however, wished to emphasise the effect which these great mutual insurance societies which now existed in the colliery districts had had. At the present moment they could pay compensation for everything, inside or outside the schedule of this Bill. They were not limited to accidents, they might or might not be universal in their character. The reason that they did not include all the owners of collieries was that if an association of this kind allowed the owner of a badly managed mine to join they would imperil the funds which had been gathered together by the proprietors and managers of well managed collieries. To take an extreme case, no colliery owner who used gunpowder in his mine was allowed to join one of these societies. The effect of the exclusion of all badly managed collieries had been the creation of large reserves, and if there was a disaster, which God forbid, the survivors and the widows of all those killed by the disaster could be paid at once. By excluding badly managed, badly ventilated, and badly controlled mines, and refusing their owners the opportunity of joining the societies, they had raised the standard of efficiency and protection of life and limb in all the mines in Lancashire. They had had this good effect on the management of the collieries. If a particular mine returned cases for compensation in excess of what the percentage should be week after week, the owner of that particular mine was visited by a representative of the society, who inquired how it was that there was so high a percentage of accidents in the mine, and who insisted upon whatever was wrong in the management of that mine being put right. The result was a complete system of inspection. There was inspection by the Home Office officials, by the trade union, by the owner, and finally by the insurance society, and all that tended to raise the standard of efficiency. All this time, owing to the absence of serious accidents, large reserves had been accumulated by these societies, and the levy paid on every £100 worth of coal raised was being annually lowered. But these reserve funds were created by and belonged to a group of
1028
employers, the persons who would have to pay compensation for injury, and now the Government proposed to remove from these persons the total and complete control over the funds which they themselves had collected. That was wrong and indefensible from any point of view. It was private money, and the Government, by this Amendment, was taking the right to deal with and manage it. As to the procedure contemplated by the Amendment, he did not think any single employer or any single workman ought to have the right to apply to come under this section. It ought to be some accredited body of either. Then the expression "the majority of the employers" by no means always connoted the majority of the employees. The one must be made to harmonise and co-ordinate, to some extent at all events, with the other. The Provisional Order was an Act of Parliament, and had to go through all the stages, although with, less formality, that other public Acts had to go through. It was introduced and passed through both Houses under the direct responsibility of the Government. Although no one was more in favour of mutual insurance than he was, he really disapproved on principle of the whole of this scheme. He asked the House to consider the power that would be invested in the Secretary of State. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman would have to proceed by Provisional Order, but he might require all employees in any particular industry to insure in any particular scheme upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such exceptions, as he, through his Provisional Order, might determine. The Amendment unquestionably took away from the insurance companies the control of their business. It enabled the Home Secretary to insist, for instance, that a mine-owner, who had been refused on account of the unsafe condition of his mine, should be taken into a particular insurance scheme. The proper course for the Home Secretary in such a case was to make that man bring his business up to the proper standard so as to justify the insurance company in admitting him. He feared the Amendment would seriously injure the whole system of mutual insurance, which had grown up and prospered

1029
under private enterprise without the interference of the State.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that no point had caused the framers of the Bill more anxious trouble than this question of mutual insurance, and the only reason for the delay in putting the Amendment on the Paper was that they were in consultation with persons interested in the matter. There were certain advantages in the insurance schemes that were contemplated which might make it desirable for the House, to consent to this proposal. In the first place it avoided the difficulty of proceeding against a number of employers where a man was suffering from a disease of gradual growth and had been in several employments. In such a case the mutual insurance company would pay and no complication would arise. In the second place, the workman was safeguarded in case of the bankruptcy of the employee. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Stoke had very ably pointed out, the company made it its business to bring up to a proper standard the safety of places of employment which wore backward in that respect. These were the reasons why the Government asked the House to grant these powers. The application of this provision for mutual insurance was most carefully safeguarded. Before it was put into force a majority of the employers concerned must be insured in the scheme, thereby showing their confidence in it; there must be an inquiry at which the whole matter would be fully discussed; the Home Secretary's sanction was required and he, of course, would most carefully consider the scheme before he pledged his credit to it; and, finally, it must have the sanction of Parliament. He did not think they could introduce more effective precautions against abuse of the powers given in the proposal. An hon. Member had said that one workman or employer could set the machinery in motion. That was not so; he could ask the Home Secretary to set the machinery in motion, but there was nothing to prevent the Home Secretary, if he thought it was a frivolous request, saying "no," and the right hon. Gentleman would say so if he thought the request was frivolous. So long as the present Home Secretary held the office
1030
he was sure these powers would be exercised in a reasonable spirit, and he would not allow his hand to be forced where only one or two in a particular trade desired to bring the proposal into operation. The noble Lord had complained of the expression "the majority of the employers." It was the employers as individuals who were concerned. These were the men who had to pay the compensation, and if they said "the majority of the workpeople," it would mean that perhaps half a dozen large employers might be able to coerce forty or fifty smaller employers, if they had the consent of the Home Secretary and Parliament. The matter of the reserve funds would be decided in a business-like manner, as the circumstances of the case required, and the House might be perfectly certain that the Home Secretary would not dream of putting this sub-section into force unless the company concerned was willing to accept persons who were outside. So certain was that, and so decided was his right hon. friend on the point, that he had no hesitation in inserting the words "and that the managers of the scheme assent." At another stage the word "society" would have to be substituted for "scheme"—merely to improve the wording of the paragraph. Of course the House might rest assured that before exercising these powers, the Home Secretary would thoroughly assure himself that the existing scheme was financially sound in every particular and that the company was willing to accept outside employers on reasonable terms.
MR. RAWLINSONattached great weight to the clause. Ha was very much impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under Lyme and by the substance of the scheme; but was it fair to all the people interested in the matter that only twenty-four hours notice should have been given of the Government's scheme? Although he took no exception to the Amendment, he would like to indicate certain obvious difficulties raised in the debate which had not been met by the Government. The Under-Secretary had very fairly met the point about

1031
the managers of a society not wishing to have a small man in. Might there not be the converse case? A small man might not be able to raise sufficient money to join these very excellent insurance schemes. The Government did not indicate who was to settle the amount of the capital which outsiders would have to put in before they could start an insurance scheme. He thought that in such an important matter it would have been much better if the Government had given longer notice in order that the people most interested might have brought forward their case.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid he desired to thank the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University for the way in which he had spoken of this scheme. The Bill introduced a new principle into compensation, and one particularly required under the clause now under discussion, which allowed a man to claim from his last employer, and gave that employer the light to claim back from a previous employer, or from any employer in whose service the disease was originally caused. This scheme of collective insurance allowed them to get over that difficulty and the disease was thus charged against the whole industry. Clause 8 was based upon an experiment carried out in the pottery trade during the last five years. The special rules introduced as the result of Lord James's arbitration had resulted in compensation for lead poisoning in, the pottery trade and special regulations, with a consequent very large reduction in the cases of lead poisoning. In 1899 there were 243 cases, but last year the number had fallen to sixty eight. That showed very substantial progress, and that was what the hon. Member for Stoke indicated when he said that the mutual insurance schemes greatly reduced the cases coming upon them. He asked a director of one of these societies the other day to give a description of the scheme and he called it a "collective insurance scheme." That was what it was—not a mutual scheme. The workman did not came in at all. Every employer was compelled to pay a certain proportion of wages into a common fund, and that common fund was either put
1032
aside or paid out as compensation. When a new man entered he either paid his part of the reserve fund if there was one, or he had no claim on the reserve fund and he paid in his annual subscription. It was not a question of forcing a small man to pay a large sum, but it was a case of collective insurance, everybody in the trade insuring his workmen by a tax—not a subscription. Thus it afforded another example of compulsory insurance, though instead of being a national it was only a a trade affair. It was the seed of the German system, which he was so anxious to see introduced all over this country. His main object in supporting the inclusion of this clause in the Bill was not merely to fulfil the wishes of his constituents, though they were extremely keen about it, but to provide a model on which future extensions of insurance might be based.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he did not deny the advantages of the mutual insurance system, but that was not the question before the House. The point before them was the extremely important one whether or not, for the first time in the history of this country, an employer should be forced against his will to enter one of these insurance societies. That was a most important step, and one which the House ought to consider very carefully before taking it. There were fatal objections to the scheme. The hon. Member for Sheffield had already pointed out that the existing insurance companies had large reserve funds. He wished to point out that a premium would have to be paid by a new member entering the society. For instance, an employer on application to the Home Secretary might be told that he would have to join some society. He would pass by for the moment the question whether the society was solvent or not. On application to the society that man might be told that he would have to pay £5.000.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if any Home Secretary would be likely to do' that?
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked if they were expected to make laws and

1033
regulations upon the assumption that any particular Home Secretary would not cause them to be put into force? They had to consider carefully what duties and powers they were conferring upon the Home Secretary. In the case he had given, if the man objected to pay the sum demanded, the House Secretary would have the power to say to him, "You have got to pay that sum, and I insist upon it." Had there ever been such a law introduced into this country before? With regard to the question of the solvency of these companies, he claimed to speak with some knowledge, having had considerable experience of a big superannuation fund. Many of the funds were not solvent, and the hon. Member opposite knew that it was extremely difficult so to manage those funds that they would be solvent in years to come. They were now face to face with the position that the Home Secretary was to be the judge, not only as to how much a man was to pay to enter, but also as to whether the society was solvent. He maintained that an employer ought not to be forced against his will to pay a large premium, because he might have very good reasons for thinking that a particular society was not solvent, although he would not like to state his reasons. There was also the objection that if a bad employer who conducted his business carelessly was admitted into the society, he might destroy the actuarial valuation that had been made of the society at the time he was admitted. They would compel it man to become a member, and he did not see how they could make that employer change his methods. He might have good reasons for thinking the society was not solvent, yet he would be compelled to enter it and pay, perhaps, the accumulated savings of two or three years in order to become a member. The Amendment would be an excellent one if made voluntary, but to make it compulsory would upset the principle and ruin the whole scheme. He urged the Government not to press the Amendment at the present stage.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the question of insurance was raised on the
1034
Second Reading because it was felt that it could not be adequately raised on the later stages of the Bill. That continued to be his view, and while he did not wish to offer any opposition to the proposal of his hon. friend, he wished to put in a caveat on behalf of himself and many of his friends and to say that it was to be understood that there was no intention, in advance of the inquiry which was to be made, of treating this as a stereotyped form to be adopted. All that they need do on this occasion was to put on record that they were by no means jumping at the proposal. They accepted it as an experimental scheme. He was sure it would be thoroughly understood that they were not binding themselves, and that the question would be open for consideration in the future after the inquiry.
MR. PARKESsaid one of the great objections to this clause was that it introduced the element of compulsory insurance in a particular society. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent had argued that this Amendment would ensure proper inspection of the different works in connection with a particular trade. He held that it would defeat that object, because if the management of the insurance society determined that a particular firm should not come in, that firm would not come in. If there were firms prohibited from coming into the society, that element would be left out which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent desired to get in, namely, the small employers. Their works would be the places where imperfect drainage or sanitation, or whatever it might be, would be most likely to occur. In the matter of joining the society why should compulsion be meted out to one section of the community and not to the whole? He could understand compulsory insurance, but he could not understand compulsion to insure in a particular society. An employer should be free to insure in what he considered a perfectly safe society, but the proposal here was one which would interfere with the liberty of the individual.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 460.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Fell, Arthur

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Balcarres, Lord

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Kimber, Sir Henry

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Bright, J. A.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cave, George

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Frederick Banbury and

Courthope, G. Loyd

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Mr. Parkes.

Doughty, Sir George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crean, Eugene

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Agnew, George William

Cremer, William Randal

Henry, Charles S.

Alden, Percy

Crooks, William

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crosfield, A. H.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dalziel, James Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hills, J. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hodge, John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hogan, Michael

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Delany, William

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Barnard, E. B.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Hooper, A. G.

Beale, W. P.

Dillon, John

Horniman, Emslie John

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hudson, Walter

Beck, A. Cecil

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Idris, T. H. W.

Bell, Richard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bellairs, Carylon

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Elibank, Master of

Jenkins, J.

Bennett, E. N.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bertram, Julius

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Billson, Alfred

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jowett, F. W.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

Farrell, James Patrick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Boland, John

Fenwick, Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kelley, George D.

Bowerman, C. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Brace, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fullerton, Hugh

Laidlaw, Robert

Brigg, John

Gibbs, James (Harrow)

Lambert, George

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gill, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Ginnell, L.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Lehmann, R. C.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Glover, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lough, Thomas

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gooch, George Peabody

Lundon, W.

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lupton, Arnold

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Cleland, J. W.

Hall, Frederick

Maclean, Donald

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macpherson, J. T.

Cogan, Denis J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hart-Davies, T.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

M'Callum, John M.

Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

M'Crae, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hedges, A. Paget

M'Killop, W.

Cowan, W. H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

M'Micking, Major G.

Maddison, Frederick

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Radford, G. H.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Sullivan, Donal

Massie, J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Summerbell, T.

Menzies, Walter

Redmond, William (Clare)

Taylot, John W. (Durham)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Mond, A.

Richardson, A.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rickett, J. Crompton

Tomkinson, James

Montagu, E. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Toulmin, George

Mooney, J. J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ure, Alexander

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wadsworth, J.

Morse, L. L.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Robinson, S.

Walsh, Stephen

Murphy, John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Walters, John Tudor

Murray, James

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Myer, Horatio

Rose, Charles Day

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Napier, T. B.

Runciman, Walter

Wardle, George J.

Nicholls, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Waterlow, D. S.

Nolan, Joseph

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, George (Norfolk)

Nuttall, Harry

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (M'nchester)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Hare, Patrick

Sears, J. E.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

O'Malley, William

Seddon, J.

Wiles, Thomas

O'Mara, James

Shackleton, David James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Williamson, A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Paul, Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Winfrey, R.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Pollard, Dr.

Snowdon, P.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Motion made, and Question, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone)—put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Proposed Amendment amended—
"In line 6, by inserting, after the word 'schemes,' the words 'and that the managers of the scheme consent.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR JOHN BRINNERsaid that he had naturally, as a large employer of labour, taken a great interest in the question of insurance since the 1st of January, 1881. During the year previous to that date he was solicited many times to effect insurance against the Employers'. Liability Act. From the first up to now he had refused to insure, because he wished to secure to every workman in the employment of his company the full amount of compensation due to
1038
them without the interference of any insurance company coming between him and them. It was fatal to good feeling between employer and workman if an insurance company, which desired to make a profit out of the transaction, stood between them and could say at its own sweet will whether the workmen should have to fight for their compensation or not. During twenty-six years experience every man in the employment of his company who had been injured, whether he had been negligent or not, had been paid full compensation without any possible expenditure in litigation. He wanted to know after that experience whether he was to be obliged to place an insurance company between his company and their workmen. If he read the words of the Amendment aright, and he thought he had some intelligence, the Secretary of State would have the power to compel every employer in a trade to enter into an insurance scheme.
MR. GLADSTONE: Only if a majority of the employers in the trade desire it.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he strongly objected to any Government, or anyone else, compelling him to insure if he did not wish to do so. He wanted to have the whole responsibility for the safety of the lives and limbs of the men "employed by his company, and nobody to interfere between them. The results of his refusal not to insure had been of the happiest description. There were a hundred men alive to-day who would not have been alive had he, by being compelled to insure, been relieved of all responsibility. The object of Parliament should be to put the responsibility on the employers, and to make sure that they used their best efforts to prevent accidents. Insurance took away from employers the wholesome sense of responsibility. He begged the right hon. Gentleman, when he found people right-minded enough to use their best efforts to prevent accidents, to leave to them the freedom which had been enjoyed hitherto with such happy results; and not to force upon them any insurance which would destroy existing pleasant relations. Another great benefit from non-insurance was that in twenty-six years his company had never had an action brought against them, either by an individual workman or a trade union; and every penny which had been due to a workman or his representatives as compensation had been paid to the full with a cheerful heart.
MR. WOLFFsaid the firm he represented was in the same position as that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. They used to insure years ago, and they found it led to continuous litigation and fighting. They stopped insuring and found it led to the happiest results. He wanted to know whether under the Amendment they would be compelled in the future to insure in some scheme or other. He would much sooner not, and he thought the men would be much better without it and disputes would be avoided. He hoped that whatever the Amendment did it would not compel to insure, any responsible firm which now carried on work without insuring against accidents.
1040
He hoped he might be mistaken in thinking that the existing state of affairs was to be disturbed.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, to leave out lines 21 to 29 inclusive."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to add the following sub-section, "(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a workman to recover compensation in respect of a disease to which this section does not apply if the disease is a personal injury by accident within the meaning" of this Act." He said the Amendment was merely proposed for the sake of greater caution. The class of cases which he had in his mind were such cases as sudden poisoning by sewer gas or sudden fuming in chemical works. This under the present law would probably be held by a Court to be an accident just as anthrax had been so held. Now, however, by this Bill they had put anthrax and several other illnesses into a category of diseases, and the Court might hold that since diseases had been put in the word "accident" might mean some violent injury to life or limb, and that therefore death by sewer gas was not an accident. By that means a man might be wrongly deprived of compensation.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In line 11, line 32, at the end, to add, '(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a workman to recover compensation in respect of a disease to which this section does not apply if the disease is a personal injury by accident within the meaning of this Act.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
MR. GLADSTONEformally moved to insert the proviso "Provided that in the case of a person employed in the private service of the Grown, the head of that department of the Royal Household in which he was employed at the time of the accident shall be deemed to be his employer." The right hon. Gentleman said that he

1041
did not think he need explain the necessity for this Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 36, at the end, to insert, 'Provided that in the case of a person employed in the private service of the Crown, the head of that department of the Royal Household in which he was employed at the time of the accident shall be deemed to be his employer.'"— (Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 12, line 7, at the end, to insert, 'Where a medical referee has been employed as a medical practitioner in connection with any case by or on behalf of either party or by any insurers interested, he shall not act as medical referee in that case.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. HICKS BEACH MR. HICKS BEACH moved the omission of Clause 12, which it seemed to him was quite unnecessary and only authorised the Government to obtain certain information for statistical purposes. Under the Factory and Workshops Act and the Notification of Accidents Act the Government could obtain any information which they might require. He particularly objected to the words of the clause providing that the employer, in addition to specifying the number of injuries and the compensation paid, should do so "together with such other particulars as the Secretary of State may direct." He thought that opened up a very wide field. Already the employers in the great centres of production had to furnish the Government with a great number of returns, and to add to them would, he thought, prove embarassing.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLseconded, and said it seemed to him that the clause inflicted a most unnecessary and severe burden on employers. It was quite true that under existing legislation the employers had to report accidents of a grave character, and that provision no one could take exception to, but he did not think they should be called upon to notify accidents of a trivial or insignificant character. He could not see what
1042
benefit would arise to commerce by insisting upon this provision, the carrying out of which must involve cost to the employer.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"Page 13, leave, out clause 12."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that he had received deputations representing all kinds of industries, and he could not recall any representation made to him in respect of this clause. The representatives of the employers were quite ready to accept it, and, after all, it was not a very serious demand. The clause only gave power to the Home Office to collect information which it was really necessary to ascertain. They did not ask the employers to report every accident to the Home Office, nor did they ask them to report any accident covered by the Notice of Accidents Bill of this session. All they asked was that they should give the total number of injuries sustained by their own workpeople for which compensation had been paid and the amount of compensation. Surely that was not unreasonable? He had no doubt that if hon. Gentlemen examined into this question in the case of France or Belgium they would find that this information was afforded, and why should not this country have it? It was not merely in the interests of the Government to have these statistics. They were for the use of Parliament, the country and the employers themselves, and they would be failing in their duty if they did not put in powers enabling them to get the information.
MR. COCHRANEthought that the clause went too far. The words "together with such other particulars as the Secretary of State may direct" were very wide words indeed, and went far beyond calling for any statistics which would give the slightest information or assistance to the Home Office. All the right hon. Gentleman desired or anybody really wanted was to know how many cases there were under the Workmen's

1043
Compensation Act and how they were settled. In other words, they wanted to know how they were getting on, but an inquisitive Home Secretary or somebody under him might ask all sorts of questions far beyond the statistics really required. He thought the provision that the employers in default of complying with this section should be liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5 was quite unnecessary. It would not weaken the general effect of the right hon. Gentleman's clause if he omitted those words. The passing of the Notification of Accidents Act had enormously increased the power of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the notification of accidents, and he thought that under that statute he would get all that was necessary. This clause had alarmed those engaged in certain important industries in the country, and he had received representations from various districts on the subject. He had paid quite as much attention to the question of workmen's compensation as the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought these words unnecessary.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if these words were struck out of the clause it would be very inefficient for its purpose. It would not permit anyone to ascertain the duration of the incapacity, neither would it enable one to ascertain whether it was a case of disease or accident. The clause was not only desirable for the information of Parliament and of students of the question, but also for the sake of the employers themselves, in order that they might see whether the insurance companies were charging reasonable rates. The clause was proposed in the Committee and unanimously accepted. The only point raised in the discussion in Committee had been that it was thought Parliament ought to have more cognisance of this matter, and in order to satisfy that point the Government had put down a further Amendment.
MR. CORYcomplained that this clause would put it into the power of the Home Secretary to ask very inquisitorial questions of employers, and, although he agreed that the present Home
1044
Secretary was not likely to do so, the time might come when they had a Secretary of State who would. He hoped, therefore, there would be some amendment of the clause.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the Under-Secretary had said that the statistics in these returns would be extremely useful to employers and others in ascertaining the number of accidents which occurred and in finding out whether the rates of insurance were excessive. That was what he gathered from the hon. Gentleman, and surely it was an argument in favour of the Opposition. They wanted something laid down in the Act—if anything was laid down at all—as to the details which might be required in these returns. What was the value of statistics if they could be altered every year at the whim of the Home Secretary?
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Home Secretaries never have whims.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid if the Home Secretary had no whims why give him this discretionary power? His Parliamentary experience was short, but so far as it went he thought both Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries had whims. If the present Home Secretary and Under-Secretary had no whims it might be that some in the future would have, and he could not see, whether they had whims or not, why the House should not lay down hard and fast rules as to the details of the return to be made. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 7, to leave out from the word 'compensation' to the word 'and' in line 8."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he desired to second this Amendment, because so far as he could see there was no object to be gained by leaving the

1045
words in. The only object could be to give the Home Secretary a roving commission to inquire into all the details of a man's private business. It was an inquiry he had no right to make, and it ought to be quite sufficient for the proposers of this clause for an employer to state how many accidents had occurred in the course of a year, and how much in compensation he had paid. In order also that these statistics should be of value they must be statistics of the same kind of facts for a period of at least five years, and they must not be liable to be altered at the whim of anybody. It was absurd to suppose that any insurance company would take any notice of an employer who complained that they were charging too high a rate and suggested that they should take less. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid there need be no fear that any Home Secretary would take fruitless burdens upon himself. The troubles and trials of his office were already sufficiently great. But to meet the objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite he was willing to limit the "other particulars" to the matter of compensation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved to add after 'other particulars" the words "as to the compensation."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 8, after the word 'particulars' to insert the words 'as to compensation.'"
"In page 13, line 9, to insert the words, '(2) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State containing such directions as aforesaid shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.'" —[Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the object of inserting the next Amendment was to make it clear that where a farmer lent a workman to another farmer—a common custom in the country—the farmer with whom the workman had entered
1046
into a contract of service should continue to be deemed the employer under the Bill.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'and where the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, the latter shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue to be the employer of the workman whilst he is working for that other person.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. ELLIS DA VIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said he had some doubt whether the words were sufficiently wide. He would be glad to hear the view of the Solicitor-General on the point. It had been decided by Judge Moss in North Wales that a workman who was lent by one employer to another could not in case of accident be said to be acting in the course of his employment, and could not claim compensation. By the Amendment the original employer was to be deemed to be the employer of the workman even when lent. No one disputed that, but the question was whether the workman could be said to be acting in the course of his employment when he was working for and controlled by and sometimes even paid by another person. In nine out of ten of these cases the question was decided not in the Court but in the solicitor's office. The point was an important one, and he would like the Solicitor-General's opinion as to whether the words now proposed were sufficiently wide to clear away all doubt upon the point.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid there was no doubt whatever that this point would be cleared up by the words now proposed. If one employer lent a workman to another, the question might arise as to whose employment the workman was in. If it did, the Amendment said that the man was to be deemed to continue in the employment of the person to whom he had entered into his contract of service. The mere fact that he had been lent meant that he was obeying the

1047
directions of his proper employer. If the Amendment was adopted there could be no legal doubt in the matter.
MR. WALTER LONGthought the Amendment met the whole case not only from the legal point of view, but also from the point of view of the employer of the labourer. If the lending of a workman to another employer invalidated his claim for compensation it would only be right that under those circumstances the workman should be entitled to refuse to carry out his master's orders.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHdesired to see some words inserted such as the hon. Member for Chester had on the Paper, to place the relationship of the employer and employed beyond dispute. They had to remember that an eminent judge had given a decision upon this point, and that if quoted in a Court of law would be regarded as being of more importance than the opinion just expressed by the Solicitor-General. It had been laid down as the law that a servant who was lent to another employer should be deemed to be in the employment of the person to whom he was lent. His object was to have the matter made clear, and the only point was whether the Amendment now proposed cleared away all doubts upon the question. He was inclined to think that some such words as those suggested by the hon. Member for Chester were necessary.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the question what was meant by letting a man on hire was important to agricultural labourers, who were lent to sportsmen for beating game or to others for timber felling. Their injuries in the course of such employment would not be covered by the insurance policy of their employer. There were other cases, such as accidents, which might occur when threshing was going on after the harvest. The original employer might find his men put to work of a dangerous kind which he never contemplated, and injuries might result in consequence which would not be covered by the insurance which he had effected. This was a very serious matter for those engaged in agriculture, and the point ought to be made clear quite.
MR. MOND MR. MOND moved the addition of the following words to the Amendment—
"And any personal injury by accident arising whilst he is working for that other person shall be deemed to have arisen in the course of his employment of the person deemed to be his employer."
He said the words could not do harm and they might do good. They would only mean two or three more lines in the Bill, and as there was some legitimate doubt upon the point dealt with, he thought the words might very well be inserted.
MR. KEIR HARDIEseconded the Amendment, and hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to accept it. After the experience of the Licensing Act it was their duty to remove all doubts and all possibility of escape under the Act.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
"At the end to add the words, 'And any personal injury by accident arising whilst he is working for that other person shall be deemed to have arisen in the course of his employment of the person deemed to be his employer.'"—(Mr. Mond.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid there could be no doubt when a man did work by the direction of his employer. The addition of the words would only provide material for fresh discussion and would not add to the lucidity or use of the clause. The various points raised by hon. Members were such as the county court judge would determine.
MR. MOND,in view of the remarks of the Solicitor-General, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir Robert Ropner—
"In page 13, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'remunerated by salary at a rate exceeding,' and insert the words 'whose earnings exceed.'"
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment in that form, but he would suggest an alternative to the hon. Baronet. He was willing to leave out the words "remunerated by salary at a rate exceeding," and to insert the words, "employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds." He objected to the hon. Baronet's Amendment because it excluded certain workmen who were already entitled to compensation under the Act. There were workmen who could earn more than £5 a week, and they should not be disqualified from enjoying the right which they had under the law. Many of the men who earned high wages were engaged in work which wore them out at an early stage of their life.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'remunerated by salary at a rate exceeding,' and insert 'employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid the words proposed by the Home Secretary did not quite meet what he desired. What he wished was to avoid litigation in future. They were all perfectly well aware that a man sometimes not only received salary but also commission. Would the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meet a case of that kind?
MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
SIR ROBERT ROPNER: Then I accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. COCHRANE*MR. COCHRANE moved to exempt outworkers from the clause. He said the effect would be to give outworkers the benefit of the Act. If any persons deserved protection it was those to whom work was given out to be done on premises which did not belong to the person who gave out the work. The Report of the Commission on Sweat-
1050
ing contained innumerable instances of the kind of labour to which these people were subjected. If employers who went in for sweated labour found that by giving work out they could escape paying compensation, there would be a large increase in the amount of work done under these conditions. He saw no reason why the outworkers should not get the benefit of this Bill.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, line 20, to leave out the words 'or an outworker.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid they all sympathised with the object of the hon. Gentleman. The question of outworkers was a very difficult and grave one, and it could not be dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Bill. It was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. Outworkers took work home to their own rooms where they worked alone, or with the members of their families. The hon. Gentleman had not suggested how they were to prove that an outworker had in the course of his employment received an injury. It was quite impossible, and he very much regretted it. He did not think that the exclusion of outworkers from the Bill would increase sweating. The tendency was to decrease the amount of outwork, and he believed that tendency would continue.
Amendment negatived.
MR. H. H. MARKS*MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet) moved to leave out from Clause l3 the words "or a domestic servant." This Amendment affected the largest class of workers in the country—mostly composed of women and girls—a class who from the character of their employment and its conditions were most defenceless against the evils which this Bill sought to deal with. He thought it would be admitted that the domestic servants deserved consideration at all hands. They must possess the qualities of fidelity, industry, and loyalty in a high degree.

1051
They were absolutely unorganised. They had no trade union; they had no benefit society; they had no organisation which would enable them to provide against the evils of unemployment and old age, and they had no votes. But he thought that they were not less entitled to consideration at the hands of Parliament than other workers. It was true that it had been customary in old days for employers of domestic servants to make a provision for them in old age, but that class of employer was decreasing in these latter days. There was one important consideration to which he desired to direct attention. Only a small proportion of hon. Members in this Assembly were employers of the workmen who were to receive compensation under this Bill, but there was not one who was not an employer of a domestic servant.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: That is not true.
MR. H. H. MARKSsaid that, at any rate, there was scarcely one who was not directly or indirectly an employer of a domestic servant; and it seemed to him that it would be in the highest degree cynical and most regrettable if the Members of the House of Commons were to refuse to their servants the rights and privileges which they were prepared to give to the servants of others.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 13, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words 'or a domestic servant.'"—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid he was quite aware that the Departmental Committee had reported that it was not desirable to include domestic servants in the provisions of the Bill; but the Report was inconclusive on the question, because they sanctioned the principle by including grooms and coachmen as entitled to compensation. His contention was that the principle should be extended as far as possible. This House frequently accepted a principle, but when it came to apply that principle in legislation they refused to give effect
1052
to it, although there was no ground in justice or logic for that refusal. The Report said that there was little risk run by domestic servants, but that argument was not conclusive, because it was no consolation to a domestic servant when laid up as the result of an accident to be told that the average risk run by a domestic servant was not so great as by a workman in any trade. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had spoken of domestic servants as being a helpless class who did not belong to any trade union. He knew that many employers did the best they could to support aged servants, and domestic servants as a class spent so much of their youth in supporting near relations that they were deprived of the opportunity of making any provision for themselves in old age. There was another important point which he wished to urge, and that was that the great proportion of these people were women, and this House, which was elected by men, should take care that justice was done to women. When they were making provision for workmen, they should not at the same time callously reject the claims of women. If they were not prepared to do justice to women, that would strengthen their demand to have a vote, in order to insure that justice was done to them in the legislation passed by this House. The only argument which could be urged against the proposal was that it might be a hardship on the small employer; but the House had already deliberately established the principle that in connection with the trade and industry of the country the employer was to be put under an obligation to provide compensation in the case of injury. If that were so in regard to the employer in trade it should be equally so with regard to the private employers. It was said that if it was established that a man should provide compensation for his servants in case of accidents and injury he would consider whether he should not keep fewer servants or indeed keep any at all. Simply that there would be a hardship on the employer was not a sufficient reason why a class of people who were poorly paid and led a hard life should be deprived of compensation or their relatives and

1053
dependents of support. He trusted that the Government would deal properly with a great and deserving class.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. This was the first time the question had been raised; it did not come before the Grand Committee. Accidents among domestic servants were extremely few in number, and though that was the case every employer would have to insure. The risk being extremely low the premium, on the other hand, was almost certain to be high. As a matter of fact, the premium charged would be altogether out of proportion to the risk run because of the cost of collection and agency, and it would hardly prove remunerative. There must be in the country something like 2,000,000 domestic servants, and a vast number of them, probably 1,000,000, in single service. Was he to be told that that vast army of people would insure their servants? Domestic servants were to be treated on an entirely different footing from workmen in the general industry of the country. He agreed that there were harsh employers of servants in many cases, but servants were generally well treated, and even with a harsh employer a servant if he got injured had his wages paid while he was ill. ["Oh."] That was his opinion, and he had never known a case of an injured servant who did not receive medical assistance, and whose wages were not paid and who was not looked after until she recovered. It was impossible, having regard to the treatment servants usually experienced, to bring this vast army of people within the provisions of the workmen's compensation law. There were, however, classes of servants, not necessarily domestic servants, who ought to be considered. He had put down an Amendment under which servants employed at hotels, inns, restaurants, and clubs would be brought within the purview of the Act. He could not accept the Amendment.
LORD R. CECILthought the Government's decision on this matter was quite wrong. The Home Secretary in the observations which he had made had pledged himself to an
1054
illogical proposition. He said that every one of the 2,000,000 servants if they were injured were paid their wages.
MR. GLADSTONE: I never said so. I said that the vast majority of employers treated their servants well, and that I had never known a case in which wages were not paid.
LORD R. CECILventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman and people like him treated their servants well, but the great majority of servants who were general servants led hard lives—far harder than the ordinary artisan. To say that they ran no risk of serious injury was not true. He did not see why the premiums should be high. The business would be a large one with small risks. The Bill convinced him more strongly than he would otherwise have been convinced of the urgent necessity of the enfranchisement of women.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was possible to have a high premium with a low risk. There were no statistics of the accidents that happened to domestic servants, but there was reason to believe that they were not numerous. The premium, however, in such a case depended less on the amount of the risk than on the cost of inducing people to insure and other expenses. It was worth remembering that, after all, this legislation was devised in order to deal with industrial occupations upon a large scale. The further they went in bringing small employers under the Act the more difficult became its application.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the same arguments were used against the inclusion of the single workman in a small workshop or the single assistant in a shop, but both those classes had been brought under the Bill, and why should the servant alone be left out? If he did not belong to the class which employed servants he belonged to the people from whom servants were drawn, and he could assure the House that a larger number of accidents occurred to servants than seemed to be believed. As to the difficulty of insuring

1055
it must be remembered that before the Act tame into operation arrangements were to be made for insurance through the Post Office. As everyone else had been included in the Bill he hoped they would not leave out the poor domestic servant.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERassured the right hon. Gentleman that if he inquired among his own domestic servants, and particularly of people who could afford to have only one servant, he would find that most of the employers and their servants were insured in one or other of the great industrial insurance societies like the Royal Liverpool Friendly Society and the Prudential. He, therefore, did not see the slightest difficulty in bringing domestic servants within the scope of the Bill, nor did he see any difficulty as regarded the question of cost. Anyone who had seen the premiums demanded for accident policies by these societies would find that for about ten shillings he could insure all his servants. They had a right to ask the Government to look at this question with a more open mind. Almost everybody else who worked had been included within the benefits of the Bill, and it seemed extraordinary that a House which was so generous as regarded compensation to others should hesitate when it came to the enormous class of domestic servants, who could be insured for a small cost, and who required the insurance because of their poverty. They could rely upon insurance companies meeting the want. There was no reason, except that these poor people had no votes, why the Government should refuse to give them these benefits.
SIR FREDERICK CAWLEYhoped the Home Secretary would leave this question to the House. He was sure a large section on the Ministerial side were entirely in favour of the Amendment. They were in favour of meting out the same measure of justice to the unrepresented classes of labour as they were to those represented in the House. So far as the insurance went, he did not think there ought to be any difficulty.
1056
If the insurance premium was 10s. per £100 of wages it would come to a very small amount in the case of a servant earning only £20 a year. He had no doubt some insurance companies would spring up which would make this their special line and tour for business. For the first time during the progress of this Bill the Government was considering more the convenience of the employer than the good of the workman. Every class of labour, whether domestic or other, ought to have the benefit of this Bill. The Government were already providing that servants employed in manufactures ought to be included, but apparently their view was that servants employed for pleasure or to save their masters doing their own work ought to be excluded from the Bill. In his opinion servants employed for pleasure ought to be in the same position as those employed for profit.
SIR J. RANDLESpointed out that the value of this Bill largely lay in its preventive nature, inasmuch as it would cause extra precautions to be taken which would make it safer for people to follow their employment. Though the amount of the premium in single servant households would be very small, yet there would be a tendency if this Amendment were carried to exercise in many households more care than would be otherwise taken. A large number of houses had ricketty staircases and awkward passages, and the tendency of the Amendment would be to remove these inconveniences. The great value of such an Amendment would be that the domestic life of millions of servant girls-would be made safer and pleasanter. For this reason very largely he should support the Amendment.
MR. MACLEANjoined in the appeal to the Government to leave this question to the decision of the House. What impressed him most was that domestic service was by far the largest class of employment in the country, and they were expressly excepting that class from the benefits of the Bill. The arguments which liberals had

1057
sometimes used to commend this Bill as compared with the Bills passed by Conservative Governments was that the Government included everybody, with certain exceptions, whereas the late Government excluded everybody, with certain exceptions. It seemed to him a somewhat illiberal proposition to exclude from the operation of the Bill the largest body of persons in the country.
MR. HUGH LAWjoined in the appeal to the Government. He was sorry to say it was proposed to make two very big exceptions in the Bill. It had been determined to exclude outworkers, and so increase the temptation and put a premium on sweating. It was too late, however, to go back upon that, but he did hope they would not exclude another great class as was now proposed.
MR. CORYsaid be would like to join in the request to the Government to include domestic servants in the Bill. He could not see why they should be excluded. They had an equal claim with employees in hotels, whom the Government said they intended to include.
SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANthought it might tend to shorten the proceedings if he said a few words. In excluding domestic servants from the scope of the Bill the Government surely followed a good example. During the last Parliament right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were now so feverishly anxious to admit domestic servants, all; the poor servants especially, to this privilege, brought in a Bill for the same purpose of giving workmen compensation, and they deliberately omitted from the Bill the very class whom they were now so anxious to include. His right hon. friend had been probably led astray by his desire to follow the pattern
1058
set by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Everyone must sympathise with the whole class of domestic servants. They were apt to think, however, of their own homes, and the footing upon which he hoped they all treated the servants who worked in those homes, and there was a natural feeling that if they were put into the relationship which was suggested it might tend to invalidate that healthy arrangement which was most pleasant as well as the most effective way of securing what hon. Members aimed at. That was one consideration. Then his right hon. friend had joined with the Solicitor-General in thinking that the insurance would be difficult to accomplish and be burdensome in some cases to those who took part in it—at any rate, there was a danger of it. They were apt—at least he spoke for himself—to think of the class of servants who were well off. But there were probably few people in the country worse off than the poorer class of servants, who were often treated, he was afraid, with great hardship, probably in many cases with necessary hardship, because there was nothing but hardship in the houses in which they were employed. Reviewing the whole question, he thought his right, hon. friend would be well advised to admit this class, and he thought he could do so and still hold up his head. He did not think it was a matter that should be left to the House, as it was called. It was much better that the Government should take such steps as would include this class of servants in the Bill.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was one of the authors of the Bill of last year, and he admitted that they did not include domestic servants in it. He was still of the opinion that they should not be included. If the House generally desired to take the course suggested by the Prime Minister, of course they would do so. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon this fact, at all events— that he had not left it to the House, but

1059
had taken the responsibility for including domestic servants in the Government Hill.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked what course the Prime Minister intended to pursue with regard to the Bill to-night. They had made considerable progress and there had been no attempt to use obstructive methods. But it was quite evident that unless they sat all night it would be impossible to finish the Bill at this sitting. He thought that if they were now to adjourn they would be able to bring the Bill to a conclusion somewhere about the dinner hour to-morrow-evening. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." —(Mr. Akers-Douglas).
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked what would be the fate of the Provision of Meals Bill, which was down for tomorrow, if the suggested arrangement were concluded. He thought if the whole of Friday was to be taken up with the discussion of the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, and only to-morrow evening was to be given for the consideration of the Children's Bill, it would be a one-sided bargain for those who were specially interested in the Bill.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the request of the right hon. Gentleman was a very fair one. As he said at the beginning of business, there never was any intention to subject the House to any violent extension of the sitting, and if by general consent they could get the close of this stage of the Bill
1060
before the House by dinner-time tomorrow, the Government would be prepared to adjourn the proceedings. The Bill to which the hon. Member for Merthyr referred would come on after this Bill and the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill, which would be put down as the second order, were disposed of. On Friday the first business would be the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the rest of the session, and then the House would resume, if necessary, the Provision of Meals Bill. The Motion on Friday would include that day, and, therefore, there would be ample time for the Bill.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid there were undoubtedly a great number of questions which must come up for discussion on the schedules of the Workmen's Compensation Bill. He wished to enter a caveat against the supposition that it would be possible to bring up all these questions before the dinner hour. If they had not been reached by the dinner hour, he hoped further opportunity would be given for their discussion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of inhabitants of parishes of St. Mark, St. Helens, and West Derby. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of Leeds Incorporated Chamber of Commerce; and Walsall and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (BOROUGH OF DARLINGTON).
  Order made by the council of the borough of Darlington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for chemists' and druggists' shops within the borough.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853–1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to William Jones under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before we proceed to the business on the Paper, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council whether he can give the House any information with regard to the course of business during the not too many days which remain to us between the present date and the Christmas holidays.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): I greatly regret the absence of my noble
  862
  friend the Leader of the House, who, I am sorry to say, is unwell, though I hope not seriously, and I trust he will be in his place, at any rate, at the beginning of next week. As the noble Marquess is aware, to-morrow we propose to take the Third Reading of the Education Bill, and, as it is possible that that may not lead to very long discussion, we are placing on the Paper the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill for Second Reading, and we hope we may be able to make some progress with that measure. On Monday, the 10th, we propose to put down the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill, and also the Merchant Shipping Bill (Committee) in case there should be time to deal with it. On Tuesday, the 11th, the Second Reading of the Plural Voting Bill and the Merchant Shipping Bill (Committee) will be taken; on Wednesday, the 12th, the Town Tenants Bill (Committee); on Thursday, the 13th, the Land Tenure Bill (Committee). That is as far as I am able to inform the House at present, but in view of the amount of business before us it is very possible that we may have to ask your Lordships to sit on Fridays—not next Friday, but on the remaining Fridays during the session—with a view of doing what I am sure we are all anxious to do, viz., winding up the business of the House before Christmas.
  I may remind your Lordships that one or two circumstances have been somewhat against us in the allocation of business during these autumn sittings. In the first place, nobody anticipated that the Education Bill would take quite so long in Committee as it did. I only hope that no failure of mine led to its taking longer than was anticipated. As your Lordships are aware, the Committee stage was unprecedented in length, nearly three times as long as that of any other Bill which has ever been before this House, and I think we could hardly have been expected to foresee that that would happen. In addition to that, the greatly regretted absence of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack prevented us from dealing with the Trade Disputes Bill as early as we might have done, and the Plural Voting Bill was in turn delayed in its passage through this House by the illness of Mr. Harcourt. Therefore, if we have to ask your Lordships to sit on Fridays, I hope the House will agree

  863
  that it is not entirely our fault, but that we have been to some extent the victims of circumstances. In the event of our sitting on Fridays, I have no doubt it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that we should sit early in the day, perhaps at twelve o'clock, in order to enable those of your Lordships who desired to do so to leave London in the course of the afternoon.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should like to ask the noble Earl, supposing we sit on Fridays, and we have to sit after Christmas, when does he propose that we should adjourn for the Christmas holidays?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am unfortunately not in a position to answer that Question. The object of the Friday sittings is to avoid sitting after Christmas, and I am not able off-hand to name the date on which we hope Parliament will be prorogued.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Might I ask further whether it is proposed to bring up to this House any more Bills other than those now before us?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As far as I can say without referring, there are certainly two measures which, in the natural course of things, would come before your Lordships, namely, the Workmen's Compensation Bill and the Provision of Meals for School Children Bill.

LAND TENURE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of the Land Tenure Bill, I should be the last person in the world to attempt to deny that when this Bill was first introduced there was a certain amount of unpopularity about it in some quarters, and I might go so far as to say that it excited a certain amount of apprehension. I am glad to be able to say that that feeling
864
has to a great extent died down. But there yet seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding on the subject, and the Bill apparently still causes a certain amount of unnecessary alarm. One reason for this apprehension possibly lies in the name "Land Tenure Bill." People seem to think there is something mysterious in the name. Personally, I think it ought properly to have been called the Agricultural Holdings Act Amendment Bill, 1906. One reason given why the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law this session has been that it was a private Member's Bill. But if my memory does not fail me Mr. Balfour himself in 1897 carried through the Workmen's Compensation Bill giving agricultural labourers compensation. While it was a private Member's Bill that measure was watched in the House of Commons by Mr. Long; it was passed through that House as a private Member's Bill, and taken over as a Government measure when it reached your Lordships' House, and passed into law, to the great advantage of all concerned. I venture to suggest that that is a precedent, and not at all a bad one, for the action His Majesty's Government have taken on the present occasion.
I may remind your Lordships that the Land Tenure Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 9th March by Mr. Agar-Robartes, the son of the Lord-Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire, a Member of your Lordships' House, who also owns a large and well-managed estate in the west of England. It passed its Second Heading by a majority of 253 votes, and was then sent up to Grand Committee, where it remained nine days, being well threshed out and a good deal altered. It was then brought back to the House of Commons, where it was discussed for nine days on Report, and, after a hostile Amendment moved by Sir Henry lumber, who could rally to his standard only twenty-seven Members, of whom only seven were county Members, against a majority of 260, there was no division on the Third Reading. The Bill occupied seventeen Parliamentary clays, so that I do not think anyone can say that, consisting as it does of only twelve clauses, it was not properly and fairly discussed in another place. Another reason urged against the Bill—which, if it had been well-founded, would have been

865
a potent and cogent objection—was that it would interfere with something your Lordships have very much at heart—the creation of small holdings. With all respect, I hold, on the contrary, that it will facilitate the creation of small holdings. If this Bill becomes law landlords will be more careful than ever of the kind of men they select to put on these small holdings, and at the same time the men themselves will be more secure in the holdings given to them. That this is a necessity has been shown by the legislation passed by both Parties in the House for the benefit of small holders—the Allotments Act, 1887; the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887; the Small Holdings Act, 1892; and the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895.
Perhaps the most serious difficulty experienced by the supporters of the Bill has been the organised opposition of that great practical agricultural body, the land agents, surveyors, and tenant-right valuers of England, who at first took up a decidedly hostile attitude towards the Bill, but who, I am glad to say, like other persons, have considerably modified their opinions. Within the last two days, the Surveyors' Institution have been courteous enough to send me a memorandum in which those words occur—
"That the apprehension against the Bill originally felt is to a great measure removed."
Different bodies have sent deputations to interview me on the subject. I well remember the first deputation I had the pleasure of receiving. It was introduced by Mr. Elias Squarey, a well-known and respected member of the Surveyors' Institution, who went so far as to say that he considered the Bill simply as spoliation. I need not quote other hard words which he used, but that is the attitude he took up. He was supported by another past president of the Surveyors' Institution, Mr. Arthur Vernon, of Great George Street, a man of great knowledge and highly thought of in the agricultural world, who maintained that not one farmer in a hundred cared three straws about the Bill. That was the opinion of a past president of the Surveyors' Institution in March, but when I think of the support that the Bill has received in the agricultural world, I
866
am not quite sure that that distinguished gentleman is right. I am not going too far when I say that the Bill has received the practical support of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, that great body which represents the different Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country. I openly confess that the Central Chamber of Agriculture did not agree with Clause 7 as it originally stood, but that was the only clause on which they disagreed with us, and, as that clause has been materially altered, I do not think I am stretching language when I say that, practically speaking, the Central Chamber of Agriculture supports the Bill. Then the Farmers' Club, a large body consisting of 915 farmers, had a special meeting to discuss the Bill, and passed a Resolution in its favour. Further, I was present at a mooting of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and, though it would not be correct to say that they were in favour of the Bill as it stood, I can truthfully say that they were in favour of all the principles save one contained in the Bill, and they even wont further in some respects than the Bill itself. What they objected to was the compensation for disturbance clause, very properly saying, "That is no good to us; we do not want compensation for disturbance, for the simple reason that we have nineteen years leases, so that we are never disturbed." They were in the same category as the northern miners, who objected to the Eight Hours Bill for the simple reason that they worked only six-and-a-half hours. I took the opportunity of pointing out to the Scottish gentleman that though they were, so to speak, in clover, they ought to think of their less fortunate brethren south of the Tweed, and give them the chance which they themselves did not need. Another great body, the Land Law Reform Association, met in London; they collected a great body of opinion from different parts of agricultural England, and also from representatives of towns, and they saw that the Bill would do something—I do not say a great deal—to help to stop the terrible congestion in our great manufacturing towns which is so great a menace and danger to the future.
I now come to the opinion of the farmers. There was a meeting at New-castle of 600 tenant farmers of the North of England. They did not

867
discuss the Bill; like the Caledonians, they would not give any opinion about the Bill quâ Bill, but I must point out that all the principles of the Bill were highly approved of by these hard-headed Northern farmers. ["No, no."] I speak under correction, but my opinion and recollection are that the main principles embodied in this Bill were approved generally by those tenant farmers. Like the Scotsmen, they went even further than I did, and recommended agricultural reforms that are not to be found in the Bill which I have the honour to bring before your Lordships. Then thirty Essex farmers came to see me. Most of them were of a different shade of politics from those of us who sit on this side of the House, and several of them farmed from two to three thousand acres of land, and they also were in favour of the Bill. Last, but not least, I had a deputation from 1,600 Lincolnshire farmers, who had bound themselves into a union, called the Lincolnshire Farmers' Union, and they said, "We are in deadly earnest over this Bill." Therefore, I think I can fairly say that the great consensus of agricultural opinion, especially of the farmers, is in favour of this Bill. I do not wish to exaggerate in any way or to create a false impression, but I believe that if you were to poll the tenant farmers of the country, at least 70 per cent. of them would be in favour of the Bill I am introducing. ["No, no."]
The object of the Bill is in no way to make an attack on any single landlord or on landlords as a class. Its sole and only object is to make a bad landlord, if there is such a person, do by law what all good landlords for years and years have done by grace, by favour, and by instinct. If I may be permitted, I should like very briefly to run through the main points of the Bill as it stands. Clause 1 simplifies and cheapens transactions between landlords and tenants and does not alter existing arrangements. I would call to your Lordships' attention one fact, namely, that where a tenant has made on his holding any improvement comprised in the first Schedule to this Act he is, at the determination of his tenancy, on quitting his holding to be entitled to obtain from his landlord as compensation for the improve-
868
ment such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. There are two points to be noticed in that provision. In the first place, by the insertion of the words "on quitting his holding" the sitting tenant is taken out of the Bill. Personally I am sorry for that, because if most landlords have a warm corner in their heart it is for the man who sticks to the ship, and I have never been able to see why the man who goes on with his farm on a new tenancy should not be treated as liberally as the man who leaves the estate, having perhaps made his fortune. However, the Conservative Party knocked out the sitting tenant, so it is no use talking about him. Your Lordships will observe that from the first subsection of Clause 1, the phrase contained in the Act of 1900 about the inherent capabilities of the soil being taken into account is omitted. The question of the inherent capabilities of the soil was well threshed out in the House of Commons and in the Royal Commission, so that without detaining your Lordships on the point I will pass to the next important part of the clause, viz., that all questions to be determined by arbitration should be determined by a single arbitrator. There has been a great deal of discussion about this single arbitrator, and as much diversity of opinion as to whether the provision is right or wrong has been expressed, I should like to read a few words written by one of the cleverest law officers of the Crown which explain the operation of the clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Would the noble Lord tell us who the, lawyer is?
EARL CARRINGTON: It is Mr. Clark, the lawyer of the Board of Agriculture He says—
"The clause would operate only in case the landlord and tenant failed to settle. It would not prevent them from arriving at any agreement without going to arbitration. If the parties did not come to an agreement the operation of the clause would be that there must be a single arbitrator, and the arbitration procedure must be that which was set up in Part I of the second Schedule of the Act of 1900."
I think that is all I need say about Clause 1.
Now I come to Clause 2, which is known as the game clause. Here I

869
should like to make a personal statement. Many of those for whom I have the greatest respect and affection have for the last few months bombarded me with the question, Why on earth do you want to do away with sport? My Lords, I will ask one question in return. Is it likely, if that was either my wish or the wish of the promoters of this Bill, that I should be supported by noble Lords who sit on this side of the House? is it likely that I should be supported by men who are well-known in the hunting-field and are celebrated for their prowess with the rifle and the shotgun? On the contrary, the object of this clause is simply and solely that British sport should be carried on in a sportsmanlike and British manner, and in that I feel certain I shall have the sympathy and support of both sides of the House. We do not wish to interfere in any way with either game preserving or game letting under proper conditions. Personally, I maintain that under some conditions game preserving is an absolute benefit to a neighbourhood. May I give an instance? Many of your Lordships travel by the Great Eastern Railway, and will have noticed that dreadful Peru-like piece of country between Thetford and Brandon, land only fit for growing rabbits and firtrees, nor fit for any decent sort of cultivation. In the old days that land had upon it only a few starved sheep and a few still more starved people, and a few stunted roots. But some gentlemen have settled in the neighbourhood and preserved game to some extent, and what is the result? Cottages have been built, churches erected, a water supply laid on, roads made, and, if I may use a Scriptural quotation, that one-time desert now seems to blossom as the rose. I do not for one moment say that game preserving should be initiated in any highly cultivated country. Far from it; but I defy contradiction when I say that there are portions of England where game preserving might be carried on without any great injury to the community at largo, and, in such instances as that I have quoted, with great benefit to society in general.
But, my Lords, on the other hand, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a great deal of game preserving is carried on under circumstances which are not at all good for farming or for
870
tenants. I should like to give an instance of what I moan. There are several shooting places to be let, and doubtless your Lordships from time to time receive particulars. I take one at random. It is a small estate of about 10,000 acres, which to some of your Lordships is a very small modicum of land, and the shooting is to let. The advertisement states that 10,000 head of game is annually killed on it, including 5,000 pheasants and it goes on to say that the property would easily carry 15,000 pheasants. I ask the House to consider what would be the position of the tenants on that estate if there was brought in a shooting tenant who decided to increase the pheasants by 200 per cent., and, instead of 5,000,15,000 were to be reared. What would happen? The shooting tenant on going down in November would be at once met by a deputation of the tenants who would say, "Mr. So-and-So, we greatly regret it. but it is impossible to farm against the great weight of your pheasants; we must have some compensation." The shooting tenant would naturally say, "I am an agricultural compound householder; I have paid a large sum of money for this amusement and this shooting; do not come to me; go to the landlord." If the estate happened to be the property of an ordinary landlord, of course he would at once give compensation to the tenants. But it might be one of those estates which are either in Chancery, or in Lunacy, or in a hopeless state of insolvency, the rents hardly covering the interest required by the society which had lent the money on mortgage. The wretched tenants would try to find the landlord, but they would never succeed: they would have to go to the lawyer who managed the estate, who would naturally say, "We cannot be bothered with you; the shooting tenant is of far greater importance; you have your remedy at common law; you can go to the county court if the damage is under £100. or to the High Court if it is more; take your remedy, but do not bother us" Moreover, he would most likely say further, "This is a tiresome litigious tenant; we must get rid of him;" and the man would lose his farm, because the shooting tenant on an estate of this sort—and it

871
is not an isolated case—would be of far greater importance to the people who had tent the money on mortgage. This game clause says that the amount of compensation should in default of agreement be determined by arbitration and should be recovered from the landlord. After all, what the clause does is to carry out the recommendation of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission of 1897, which stated that more effective and less expensive means should be provided whereby farmers can recover compensation for damage done by winged game.|
There is only one more word I need say on this clause, and that is in reference to the insertion, in the House of Commons, of the word "deer." I have grave doubts whether the Scottish Members of your Lordships' House will be inclined to allow the word to remain in the Bill. I believe it was originally inserted on account of the west country deer. There is very fine sport in the west of England, and the word was inserted to preserve the deer and prevent their being shot by the tenant; farmers in the hard weather.
Now, my Lords, I come to Clause 3, which deals with freedom of cropping. Is this wrong? Can your Lordships have any objection to allowing a tenant, under proper safeguards, to do the best he can for his farm, cropping it as he likes, provided, as is the case in this clause, the rights of the landlord are properly safeguarded? The clause simply carries one step further the provisions of the Act of 1900 which abolished penal rents and confined the amount of damage which the landlord could recover to the amount of damage done. I think that, without exception, every Chamber of Agriculture and every fanners' club is in favour of this proposal. I might point out that the section does not apply to the last year of leases nor to the year before a tenant quits a yearly holding. That is, as your Lordships will see, to bring back the farm into the state of cultivation in which it would be taken over by the incoming tenant, and under the clause I may fairly say that the expenses of the incoming tenant are not in any way increased.
872
I come now to the only really new proposal in the Bill, viz. Clause 4, which gives compensation for disturbance. The great objection urged against this clause is that it tends to dual ownership. I contend that it does nothing of the sort. What is dual ownership? It only exists where a tenant has the power to sell his tenant-right, and this Bill confers no power of free sale of improvements of any sort, condition, or kind. Of course, the difficulty in the clause was to define when a farmer without good and sufficient cause evicted a tenant. I believe the whole House is with me when I say that if a tenant were evicted capriciously, maliciously, or cruelly he ought to receive compensation for disturbance. I daresay that Lord Kenyon, who was with me on the Welsh Land Commission, will remember that it was calculated that in Wales a change of tenancy meant a loss of 20 per cent. on. a man's holding. It is not like a change of lodging. When a man is evicted from his farm, it must mean a serious loss, and we contend that this clause is perfectly fair, right, just, and honourable. I do not expect to find any noble Lord standing up in this debate for the power of a landlord capriciously or maliciously to evict a tenant who may have teen for years and years on the farm, without the tenant having some right to claim compensation for disturbance. The words we have put into the clause meet the difficulty, I think, as far as it can possibly be met; they are—
"Where a landlord for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, terminates or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy"
and so on. "Reasons inconsistent with good estate management" would be very well known to any ordinary valuer. I believe they would allow the desire of the landlord to take back his land for the purpose of creating small holdings or allotments, planting, working minerals, railways, or any public undertaking. I was extremely pleased to see in the memorandum from the Surveyors' Institution, to which I have referred, that these practical hard-headed men, who were so antagonistic a few months ago, say that no Amendment is suggested to this section.

873
The remaining clauses call for no special comment. I shall be glad to explain them in detail at a later stage if necessary, but I am afraid I have already trespassed too long on the time of the House. Clause 5 makes the Market Gardeners' Act retrospective, carrying out the original intention of Parliament which was nullified by a recent legal decision. This provision was not originally in the Bill, but was inserted on the motion of a highly respected member of the Conservative Party, Colonel Long, M. P. for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire; it is demanded by the fruit growers, and recommended by Mr. Griffith Boscawen's Departmental Committee. Moreover, I had a deputation from the nurserymen of London, composed of Mr. Veitch and other gentlemen, who told me that, while they were in no way supporters of the Party to which I "belong, they thought it only right that they should be included in the Bill. I told them it was too late to meet their wishes, but I was glad to receive them, because, after all, it showed that these men of position and respectability, and above all, of different political opinions from myself, could not have considered the Bill to be one of spoliation, or rascality, or robbery, or they would not have wished to be brought within its provisions.
Clause 6 enables the tenant of an impoverished landlord to carry out repairs to farm buildings. He has to do two things. He can execute the repairs himself and claim compensation for so doing, but he must give notice in writing beforehand to the landlord and give the landlord a reasonable opportunity of doing the repairs himself; then if the landlord neglects to mend the roof or make the house watertight or do whatever repairs may be necessary, other than the repairs the tenant is obliged to do for himself, the tenant may execute the repairs and claim compensation at the end of his tenancy. I do not think anybody can say that that is a hard or unjust principle.
I have one other remark to make before I sit down. It has been said to me over and over again, "Why do you bring this Bill in at all? What is the good of making all this stir? Why do
874
you not let sleeping dogs lie?" With all respect I would ask, Is it not better to propose moderate legislation when things are quiet than to have to bring forward hasty and ill-considered legislation in time of stress and storm? Let me give an example, of what I mean. Your Lordships may remember that 1892 was a year of bad harvest; there had been two bad harvests, and the harvest of 1892 was the third bad year in succession. Wheat fell to 17s. a quarter. Agriculturists and farmers were frightened out of their wits, thinking the end of the world had come, and all over the country, especially in the north of England, meetings were held, a very strong anti-landlord feeling sprang up, and strong measures were advocated, In Lincolnshire, Cheshire, Wales, and Northumberland they advocated land Courts for the fixing of judicial rents and Irish legislation generally as a remedy for the bad state of things that obtained, and the movement culminated in a great national agricultural conference where Irish legislation was openly advocated, and the Mark Lane Express urged the formation of a "farmers' Party." What happened? The Government at once appointed two Royal Commissions;, one a Welsh Commission, of which I had the honour of being Chairman, and the other an English Commission, which brought out an interim report recommending as a panacea for all the evils of the tenant fanner the Agricultural Rates Act, which cost the country £1,500,000 annually. I am not going to argue whether or not that Act was a success, but I hold that it was legislation hastily brought forward. What is the opinion of the President of the Surveyors' Institution on the point? In an address on 8th November of this year, he says—
"This Act has been frequently quoted by Conservative Members of Parliament, to show what the Unionist Government did for the tenant farmer, but I am sorry to say it has not been as much use to him as was at first anticipated."
Therefore, I think that we should not be blamed for trying in times of peace to bring forward moderate legislation which can be discussed and argued and put on a proper footing instead of waiting till bad times come, as come they must, when

875
perhaps hasty and ill-considered legislation would again have to be brought forward.
My last words, in thanking your Lord- ships very sincerely for the kind attention you have given me, are these. All we ask is that the recommendations of Royal Commissions and the declarations of Unionist statesmen should be carried into effect. We simply ask that the ordinary estate management practised by the House of Lords should be practically adopted all over the country. It has been said, I believe with truth, that your Lordships own one-fifth of the land of this country. So far as I know, there has never been any protest against these vast possessions—except perhaps from socialists who are genuinely anxious to see the nationalisation of land— because of the belief that these great estates are wisely and humanely administered. Of that there cannot be the slightest doubt. Some hard things have no doubt been said of your Lordships' House, but the severest critic of this House has never been able to attach any blame with regard to the manner in which these great agricultural estates have been administered. Why and how is this? It is simply because your Lordships, to your great credit, have managed your vast estates on the just and humane principles which you have initiated and carried out, and these are the principles which His Majesty's Government have copied and embodied within the four corners of the Land Tenure Bill, which with great respect and still greater confidence and hope I ask your Lordships this afternoon to read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has introduced this Bill in so sporting a speech that I feel I owe some apology to your Lordships for inviting you to consider a matter of such great importance to; the country in a serious fashion. I rise to make some remarks upon this Bill, but not for the purpose of asking your Lordships to deny it a Second Reading. I, as a land-owner, gladly accept at the hands of my friends small favours, and I am equally pleased when
876
at the hands of my enemies I receive but light punishment, especially when I know that their opinion in regard to minorities is that suffering is the badge of all their tribe. The noble Lord opposite has had an advantage which I did not possess when I had the honour of occupying the position he now holds. By the aid of a bumper majority in another place, by a not illiberal use of the power of the closure, and by the advantage of an autumn session, he has succeeded in passing into law several measures which he found in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Agriculture. But he did not find this Bill in any of those receptacles. It is not the child of the noble Earl at all. It has had a very chequered career, and its original ancestry is lost in the mist of ages, though I believe that since it has been sponsored by so respectable a person as the noble Earl opposite it has been claimed by several Members of the other House. At any rate, it | was brought in originally by an hon. I Gentleman who now sails the main in company with the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty but I suppose he thought that an agricultural Bill was scarcely racy of the soil of the quarterdeck and therefore he dropped it. Another gentleman who, having dipped his hand in the lucky bag and drawn the first place in the ballot, and having no particular Bill he wished to bring in, took charge of the Bill now before your Lordships.
No wonder the Bill is somewhat imperfect in its drafting. It does not bear upon it the marks of those intelligent lawyers who are always at the command of Government Departments. But no sooner had the noble Earl taken the Bill under his charge than he was told from all sides that nobody wanted it. He has informed your Lordships to-night that he has the support of the hard-headed farmers of the north, and of a great many other people. If you offer to give somebody something which he never expected and never asked for. it is not unreasonable to suppose that he will not throw the proposed gift back in your face, and I think it was under these circumstances that it was approved by certain Chambers of Agriculture in this country. But I read with great care the report of the

877
proceedings of the meeting at Newcastle, to which the noble Earl referred, and I do not think that anybody reading that report would consider the noble Earl was quite justified in saying that the hard-headed farmers of Northumberland were entirely in favour of the Bill. The noble Earl himself went down and addressed several meetings, at one of which he made a pathetic; appeal to the farmers "not to leave him in the lurch." and I suppose those to whom he has alluded this evening are those who have not left him in the lurch. I am glad that he has had some support, at any rate, from his own county, because there the noble Earl is well known and much respected. Everybody knows that the management of his estates in the county of Lincolnshire commands universal admiration; a deputation of Lincolnshire farmers were the first to approve of this proposal introduced by the noble Earl.
I must ask for this measure respectful consideration, because it emanates from His Majesty's Government; serious consideration, because the matter with which it deals is of considerable importance; and, perhaps I may add, not unfavourable consideration because the noble Earl opposite at any rate is of opinion that it will confer great benefit upon the country. I was glad to hear that the noble Earl did not entirely approve of the title of the Bill. It is called the Land Tenure Bill, but really it has very little to do with the tenure of land as we know it. Tenure of land in this country has gone through a time of trial, and, perhaps, the greatest tribute to our system of land tenure is the fact that, notwithstanding the depression in agriculture of the last twenty or thirty years, you may find on the same farms the children and the children's children of the men who occupied them fifty or 100 years ago. That points to the fact that the system of land tenure in this country is not one that can be seriously cavilled at. That position has been achieved by dint of many sacrifices on the part of those who own the land, with the desire to share the hardships and the difficulties of those who stood in the relation of tenants to them.
878
There are some Acts of Parliament called after their authors, such, for example, as the Ashbourne Act, passed by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, Lord Campbell's Act, and the one with the somewhat singular name of Michael Angle Taylor's Act. The noble Earl opposite has exercised self-denial in not endeavouring to secure that this Bill should be called Lord Carrington's Act. He has suggested that it should be called the Agricultural Holdings Act Amendment Bill. I hope his intention, although he did not state it, is. if your Lordships pass this Bill, at a very early date to introduce that which is really" seriously needed by the agriculturists of the country, namely, a Bill to consolidate all the Agricultural Holdings Acts. I think that such a measure would be more acceptable than the Bill now before your Lordships.
Clause 1 provides for the appointment of a single arbitrator. All through the Bill the arbitrator is the star actor of the piece. He must be a man of great talents, almost an omniscient Solomon, and he must be remunerated accordingly. He must not only understand all about farming and the value of farm-stock, but he must know all about the habits of game; he must be able to tell whether damage is done by pheasants or by wood-pigeons, whether it is done by winged game which the tenant may not kill or by hares and rabbits which he may kill; he must have that rarest of all gifts, the gift of prophecy, because he must be able to say whether, when a tenant quits his farm, the loss which he makes by an immediate sale of his live and dead stock is greater than he might have made had he been allowed to sell it at a later period Then he must know all about estate management, because he has to decide whether, when a tenant quits a holding on notice from his landlord, the landlord is acting in, or contrary to, the interests of good estate management, and he must, above all, be able to interpret the very difficult words "good and sufficient." I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack must be looking with equanimity, if not a little more, upon this Bill, and especially upon these particular words, in view of the rich

879
harvest which lies ready to be reaped by the gentlemen of the profession of which he is at once the head and the principal ornament. The arbitrator must also be able to define exactly the word "loss," and on that point I will quote an authority at which noble Lords opposite will not cavil. The Solicitor-General in the present Government says—
"Nothing looks easier to interpret than 'loss' but Highly trained and highly renumerated minds can find a dozen meanings for it."
I think it will be necessary very highly to remunerate the individual who is to decide all these abstruse and intricate questions.
Then the arbitration is to be before a single arbitrator. There has been a good deal of doubt in the minds of many people as to how far this will introduce a change into the existing practice. Personally I do not think it really means very much. In fact, there is a good deal in this Bill which I do not think means very much. If there is anything in this provision, I think it is a change for the better. We have been making use of misnomers. We talk about two arbitrators and an umpire, but what we really mean is two valuers and an arbitrator, and I do not think there will be any difference in the practice under this clause. You will have your two valuers or rather two advocates, one on each side, just as you have now, and they will go before the single arbitrator. If the noble Earl is anxious, as I am sure he is, to confer a benefit upon the agricultural community, might I suggest that he should do that which requires no Amendment to this measure, but is a purely executive act, namely, appoint throughout the country men of high standing in the valuers' profession who should be known as the official arbitrators ["No, no."], selected by the Board of Agriculture and above suspicion? I venture to think that that would be more satisfactory than the present method. ["No, no."] As I hear a noble Lord say "No, no." I would point out that I am not making that proposal on my own initiative; it has the support of the late President of the Surveyors' Institution and of the Lincolnshire farmers who waited upon the noble Earl.
880
I do not know what may be the opinion north of the Tweed, but I am certain that in this country there would be much more confidence placed in a person who had a responsible official position than is placed in a man chosen by the two valuers appointed by the parties.
I will not detain your Lordships at any length on Clause 2. The noble Earl tells us that the noble Lords behind him are all sportsmen. I hope they are. Of this I am perfectly certain, that neither they nor noble Lords on this side of the House nor anybody else are likely to have a good head of game on their property unless they are on good terms with their tenants. I really do not think it matters a snap of the fingers what you put into your Bill with regard to game; if you cannot agree with your tenants they will take very good care that you do not get sport. There is one point to which I would direct attention, and that is the provision that in awarding compensation the arbitrator is to take into account any agreement specially made providing for an allowance for damage by game. I am afraid that unless that provision is in some way amended there will be a danger of some tenants getting compensation twice over, because it is a matter of common knowledge that many farms are let to tenants it being well known that there is a certain amount of game on the farm, and the rent is fixed accordingly. Although the rent is fixed accordingly there may be nothing said in the agreement that, say, 15s. instead of £1 an acre has been agreed upon on account of the possibility of damage by game, but under the Bill as it stands, unless there is an actual amount stated in the agreement, the arbitrator will be bound to award full compensation for damage by game, notwithstanding the fact that the tenant has already been allowed for it in the amount of his rent.
Then I come to the next clause, which deals with freedom of cropping. The noble Earl said a great deal about the way in which your Lordships' estates are managed. I do not know of any estate on which freedom of cropping is not allowed, of course subject to the land being brought back into proper heart before the tenant quits the holding.

881
Therefore I see no objection to this clause, provided the words really carry out what the clause purports to do. I observe that it is to operate notwithstanding any contract or custom of the country. If you are going to override all contracts I think the noble Earl is right in saying that you must also override the custom of the country—for this reason: in many parts of England land is let without any agreement at all; in fact, some people are so suspicious that, if they have an agreement, they think the landlord wants to get something out of them, and they prefer to hold under the custom of the country, and these are principally the small men, especially in Wales and the West of England. Therefore, if you are going to override contracts of tenancy, I think it is a logical consequence that you must also override the custom of the country also.
Then there is one other point which, perhaps, in another place was not sufficiently considered. I observe that the tenant is to be required to return to the holding the manurial value of all the crops sold off the holding. That means that he is in some way to return the manurial value of the threshed corn sold off the holding, but that surely is not the intention of the Bill. Every farmer sells off the corn, but what he has to return to the holding is the bay and the straw, and I understand that the intention of the clause is to provide for that.
I now come to Clause 4, which, I confess, filled me with considerable misgiving. I do not profess to be able to give any exposition of the law of the land to your Lordships' House or anybody else, but I think I may go so far as to say that this is the first time that legislation has been proposed by which compensation is to be paid at the expiration of a contract where there has been no breach of that contract; although I readily admit that the noble Earl at the instance of friends of mine in the House of Commons, has largely modified the clause, and made it of such a character that perhaps in practice it will not work any injustice, I still think it is introducing into the law of the country a very dangerous precedent. The noble
882
Earl stated his belief that the effect of the Bill would be to encourage the creation of small holdings. I have been sitting now for some years on a Committee considering the question of how small holdings can best be provided. The Report of that Committee will be in your Lordships' hands in the course of, I hope, a few days, but, without in any way anticipating what will be the findings of the Committee, I think I may say at once that it certainly will not suggest that having to give compensation to a large farmer for giving up his farm to be turned into small holdings is one of the ways in which you can encourage the creation of small holdings.
The noble Earl believes the clause will prevent landlords from capriciously evicting their tenants, and I am glad to think that tenant-right valuers share his opinion. I hope that it may be so. But there is one point to which I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention. If your Lordships consider how it will work out in practice you will see that there is some danger of hardship, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenant. The question of whether or not compensation is payable can only be determined after the tenant has been turned out of his holding, and then by a valuer, a man without legal training and not accustomed to weigh questions of "good and sufficient" reasons, which are familiar to lawyers. I would suggest to the noble Earl whether he might not see his way to introduce some machinery whereby, as soon as notice is given to the tenant to quit, the one point of whether or not it has been given for good and sufficient reason should be determined at once by some legal tribunal. It would then be possible for the landlord, if the Court found that the reasons were not good and sufficient, to withdraw his notice. In every case the landlord would think the cause good and sufficient, and the tenant would invariably be of opinion that the cause was bad and insufficient. That is simply human nature. But there are many cases in which a landlord might think it his duty to his neighbours and to the property to get rid of a bad, dishonest, or perhaps immoral tenant. Is that a good

883
and sufficient cause, or not? If a landlord were told it was not, he would probably say at once, "That has been decided by a Court of Law; my hands, at any rate, are clean, and I shall not make any further attempt to turn out the tenant." I strongly hold that the question of good and sufficient cause ought to be determined by a legal mind and not by a mere valuer.
Then I come to the final clauses of the Bill. The noble Earl proposes that repairs should be made a matter for which the tenant may receive compensation. I do not think that clause is likely to be made use of often, as repairs in this country, at any rate, are almost invariably done by the landlord. Then there is the clause providing for a record of the condition of the holding. I note that while the record is made at the commencement of the tenancy or after the passing of this Act, there is no provision for maintaining the record. Surely it would hardly be equitable in a case where a tenant goes into a property in bad condition, being let off, as sometimes happens, a year's or two years rent on that account, and the landlord should subsequently come in and put the farm into good condition and good repair, that then the tenant should be able to say on going out, "Oh, when I came in the farm was in bad condition, it is in a much better condition now, and I am entitled to claim compensation for the alteration." I think the record ought to be maintained, and everything done and by whom done should he endorsed upon the record.
Then I wish to say a word on a point which is not in the Bill. There is no provision for waste, by which I mean that there is no provision for those omissions whereby a landlord's property is diminished in value by the action of the tenant. I maintain that the law as it stands provides ample compensation for the outgoing tenant. Everyone of your Lordships has had experience of what compensation to an outgoing tenant. means. It is generally admitted that the compensation is certainly equal to and often in excess of the increased value of the farm to the incoming tenant. I have had some experience of farming land myself and of bringing round farms which have been exhausted, and my
884
experience—which I do not think can differ from that of the majority of your Lordships—is that when the tenant goes out you have to pay full compensation for the value of his improvements, and it generally means that in addition you lose a year's rent before you can relet the farm. One person has been too little considered in the framing of this measure. It has been looked upon throughout as a Bill dealing with the relations between the outgoing tenant and the landlord. But there is another person to be considered, and that is the incoming tenant. It is quite true that the liability lies upon the landlord primarily, but in practice when a farm is re-let it is the incoming tenant who has to pay even-thing which is payable to the outgoing tenant. In these days we know only too well that the farmer is not over well supplied with capital, and anything which tends to swallow up the capital of the incoming tenant in paying the valuation of the outgoing tenant must necessarily diminish the amount he has available for the purpose of stocking his farm.
The noble Earl said that the Bill has nothing to do with dual ownership or fixity of tenure. I agree that it is difficult to put your finger on any provision in the Bill and say "This is dual ownership," and "this creates fixity of tenure," but I do say, in the words, I think, of my noble friend near me when he was Minister for Agriculture, that it is a mild flirtation with both those principles, and I believe it will create an inconvenient precedent. Notwithstanding all the noble Earl has said—and he cannot prove his statement without taking a poll of all the farmers of England—I do not believe that this Bill is bona fide desired by the farmers of the country. I believe it will interrupt some of those pleasant relations which have hitherto existed between landlord and tenant, and make the management of property more difficult than it has been in the past. Although I do not ask your Lordships to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading, because I recognise the conciliatory spirit of compromise which has actuated the noble Earl, I do say to him in the words of a great statesman who preceded him on that side of the House, "Why could you not leave it alone?"
LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords we have heard from the noble Earl opposite, who speaks with great authority, having himself been Minister for Agriculture, a speech which makes my task in following him considerably easier. I gather that while the noble Earl does not see much necessity for the introduction of this measure, and while he does not agree with many of its provisions, yet he is not going to take the course of advising your Lordships to reject it. To sum up the noble Earl's speech, it appeared to me that he did not actually damn the Bill with faint praise, but be blessed it with a sort of tepid disapprobation. My noble friend said that the history of the Bill was a very ancient one, and he went back to the Parliament of 1895 and the Bill introduced by Mr. Lambert who is now Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I would venture to take the history a little further back in the same Parliament. There was a Resolution passed nemine contradicente in the House of Commons in 1893 in which all and even more than the principles contained in this Bill were embodied and accepted by Parliament. The Parliament of 1892–95 did not contain a predominant number of Radical members, the majority reaching a maximum of forty, while towards the termination of our career, as I well remember, it generally ranged between about seventeen and seven. Therefore it cannot be said to have been in any way a Radical Parliament, and yet it accepted that Resolution unanimously—I admit there were some Members who spoke in opposition to it, but they did not vote against it. The Resolution declared that it was desirable to obtain adequate compensation for all agricultural improvements. The House of that day was not content with the compensation given by the Act of 1883 or other Acts, but considered that larger compensation should be given to tenants, and it is the object of this Bill to bring about that end. The Resolution proceeded to emphasise the necessity of giving greater security of tenure, thus going further than the present Bill, and then went on to say that tenants should have freedom to make improvements, and freedom to cultivate and sell produce, and that the landlord's
886
right to distrain for rent should be abolished. That improvement was advocated by Lord Randolph Churchill I do not know how many years ago, but even that old agricultural friend of ours is not included in this Bill. The Resolution also urged the importance of simplifying and cheapening the settlement of compensation cases and other differences between landlord and tenant, a result which, in the opinion of the promoters of this Bill, is brought about by the appointment of a single arbitrator. That Resolution was followed by Mr. Lambert's Bill of 1895, which, in many respects, was not nearly so moderate a measure as that now before the House. It was accepted by the Government of the day, and carried by more than the usual majority of the House of Commons. I would remind your Lordships that the Liberal Government of that day compared not unfavourably even with the present Government in regard to the agricultural authority of its Members. It contained two prominent statesmen whose absence we all regret to-day—the late Lord Kimberley, who was well acquainted with all agricultural matters and whose views would have carried great weight with your Lordships, and Lord Spencer, whose absence from our debates we so bitterly lament. Therefore, seeing that such a Parliament passed so far-reaching a Resolution and accepted that Bill, it cannot be said that the present Government are taking a very despotic course in asking your Lordships to agree to the present much more moderate measure.
Some dissent was expressed when my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture intimated that in his opinion the farmers of the country were in favour of the Bill. But if the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Farmers Club support it, I think that is an indication at any rate, that the farmers, if not unanimously, at least so far as a great proportion of them are concerned, do conceive that the Bill will confer upon them benefits which they are willing to receive. Since some noble Lords cried "No, no" so vehemently when my noble friend expressed his opinion, I would say from my experience that if farmers are not in favour of the Bill, it is because it does not go far enough, but that, so far from being

887
a reason why your Lordships should reject it, is rather a reason for your welcoming it. For my part, if the farmers of the country are willing to accept the measure as a settlement, at any rate during the duration of the present Parliament, of this long-debated, difficult, and technical subject, I can only say that if I had the honour of a seat on the other side of the House, I should vote for it with equal freedom and alacrity.
The noble Earl opposite drew attention to several defects, as he considered them, in the Bill. He referred to the single arbitrator. I would remind the House that we owe the invention of the single arbitrator, like the London County Council and other progressive blessings under which we live, in its original idea to noble Lords opposite, because the single arbitrator was brought in in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900, for which the Party opposite were responsible. Lord Onslow expressed some approval of the single arbitrator in words which I should have used if he had not done so, and then went on to express the view that the arbitrator would bring about a greater amount of litigation than arose at present. There is in the Bill, besides the provision dealing with the single arbitrator, a proposal to do away with the agreement in existing leases with regard to any arbitration that may be necessary. I am informed that these agreements, instead of leading to peace, often result in litigation, and that tenants and landlords when they come to a dispute, instead of at once proceeding to arbitration, often pass a long time contending between themselves, and even go to law on the subject, as to what the clauses in the lease in reference to arbitration really mean. I have heard of such a case in which the law-suit was carried not only through the ordinary Courts, but right up to your Lordships House, during which time, on account of the so-called agreement as to arbitration in the lease, the unfortunate tenant and landlord were waiting for an urgent question to be settled.
My noble friend then went on to refer to Clause 2, which deals with compensation for damage by game.
888
Those who have had any experience of the shooting of game in this country know that in 999 cases out of 1,000 those questions are always settled by agreement between landlord and tenant. In my opinion that state of things will continue almost universally, notwithstanding this clause in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend who preceded me in this debate that there might be some difficulty with regard to compensation if allowance was not made for a previous arrangement between landlord and tenant whereby the farm was let at a lower rent because of the possibility of damage by game. It does seem that there is a possibility, as Lord Onslow pointed out, that when the arbitrator comes in and the valuation is made the tenant may possibly obtain double remuneration it he had in the first case received it in the shape of a reduced rent and subsequently received compensation for damage to crops. I do not know whether by noble friend behind me (Earl Carrington) would accept my suggestion, but I think that in these circumstances the clause might be deferred in operation for some time, so that landlords might come to some decision with their tenants as to whether damage by game was considered in the rent or not. If that course was adopted I think it would, to some extent, meet the objection of my noble friend Lord Onslow. Lord Onslow found some fault with the last two lines of sub-section (1) of Clause 3, with regard to the full manurial value of all crops sold off or removed from the holding. I admit that those lines might receive further consideration, but I would point out that this proviso—it is a very valuable proviso from his own point of view as governing the whole of the section regarding the freedom of cropping—was put in by a Conservative Member in the other House. It was obviously drawn up after full consideration and probably after consultation with landowners, and it was on that ground, I imagine, that His Majesty's Government accepted it. I fully admit that this Bill does not go so far as many ardent land reformers would wish, but surely that is no reason why your Lordships should not give it a Second Reading and pass it into law. As I have said, this

889
Bill is more moderate than any of the preceding Bills on this subject. I would draw attention to one important clause which received very considerable alteration during the passage of the Bill through the other House. I refer to the clause which gave the tenant the right of making certain improvements and receiving compensation for them without either the consent of, or giving any notice to, the landlord. All the substantial improvements were struck out in another place. The only one which remains under this clause is repairs to buildings, which my noble friend described to your Lordships in his opening speech; and even repairs to buildings are not put, as was as first proposed, under Part III. of the First Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, for, as will be seen from the proviso, notice has to be given to the landlord. I could illustrate many other points in which this Bill is far more moderate than any of its predecessors.
I think your Lordships as landowners ought to welcome this Bill as a settlement of a long outstanding dispute, and for my part I cannot understand why any opposition to the Second Reading or to the passing of the Bill in its entirety should come from noble Lords opposite. I commend the Bill because I really think that the farmers will be content with it as a settlement of this question. I commend it also because it will in no way interfere with good landlords. I do not think there are many bad landlords. That you should bring in a measure which might have some detrimental effect upon a good landlord in order to punish a bad landlord may be a right or a wrong principle; but I noticed that during the somewhat lengthy debates on the Education Bill reference was continually made by noble Lords opposite, by noble Lords below the gangway, and by right rev. Prelates, to the local authorities. It was said that the great majority of the local authorities were the best and most excellent in the world, but that there were a few bad ones, and we were told that it was against those bad local authorities that we must safeguard ourselves and the schools. Now, that is the principle contained in this Bill. It safeguards the farmers from the proble-
890
matical case of a bad landlord, and I do not think it goes any further than noble Lords on the other side of the House vehemently advocated over and over again in the case of the problematical bad local authority. I venture with some confidence to hope that your Lordships will pass the Bill in its entirety.
I know there was one clause which aroused considerable opposition—the clause with regard to compensation for disturbance. It is true that as that clause was originally drawn, whether in Mr. Lambert's Bill in 1895 or in the later Bill, it was wide and somewhat difficult to work. I pointed out in 1895 that the word "unreasonable" was a very difficult one to interpret, and I would remind your Lordships that in this Bill the words have been very materially altered. The words now are "good and sufficient cause." My noble friend Lord Onslow dwelt on the difficulty of defining those words, but he did not read on. The governing words are "and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management." I think that those words to a very great extent safeguard this clause from unreasonable interpretation, and I consider them a very valuable addition to the measure itself. The original compensation for disturbance in Mr. Lambert's Bill covered a much wider field and allowed compensation for a sentimental grievance. It also left to the arbitrator no direction as to the amount of damages to be paid in compensation to the quitting tenant, and therefore it followed that if the arbitrator took a partial view he might have penalised the landlord. But this clause very materially limits the action of the arbitrator, and limits the sum which the landlord has to pay. I think the noble Lords will see that that is a very material difference, and I imagine that in their opinion it is a substantial improvement.
As a rule this clause would never be put into operation, and if it were it would be against a man who had almost avowedly put himself in the wrong, who had almost avowedly said he was turning out his tenant for some cruel reason. I think that is a case that is likely very seldom to occur, and so far as this section is concerned I think your Lordships

891
need have no fear that it will do any material damage. If I might presume to give advice to your Lordshps in this matter I would advise you to accept the Bill, in the first place, because the farmers of the country to a large extent desire it; in the second place, because of the very long agitation extending over a great period of time which there has been on these very difficult and technical subjects; in the third place, because these claims and far wider claims have been advocated on agricultural platforms during the past six years; and lastly, because considering the present composition of the other House, your Lordships will not be making a bad bargain in accepting this Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, this is the first time that I have ever heard the fact that Bills have at various times been introduced dealing with a subject brought forward as evidence that there has been considerable agitation with regard to it. It is an abuse of the word agitation. There were one or two statements made by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture which I think should be noticed at once, and upon which I can speak with some special knowledge. I refer to the support which the noble Earl says he has obtained from skilled opinion in favour of his Bill. I cannot help thinking that, it is rather an inconvenient custom that Ministers should come down to this House and narrate what has passed between themselves and deputations which have come before them. Your Lordships will not, and I am sure the noble Earl will not, suspect me of wishing to hint for a moment that his version of what passed was not absulutely fair and correct. Still, these conversations are very often taken in a different spirit by the parties, and I think it will be within the experience of your Lordships in other matters that those who interview Ministers come away and give a very different account of the impression left in their minds by what has passed than that which bona fide rests in the mind of the Minister.
The noble Earl mentioned three societies which had waited upon him at the Board of Agriculture. One was the
892
Surveyors' Institution, another was the Land Agents' Society, and the third I forget. I could not find that he received much support from the Surveyors' Institution, and he told us nothing about the conversation of the other societies. With regard to the Land Agents' Society, I can say with absolute certainty that they do not approve of the Bill, and I must complain of the noble Lord's having mentioned these societies in a string, one of which he-represented as having been more or less converted to his Bill without saying a word about the other societies, thus leaving the House, of course quite unintentionally, to draw the natural inference that the other societies were in favour of the measure. The Council of the Land Agents' Society passed a Resolution declaring that in the interests neither of landlords nor of tenants were the provisions of the Bill required, nor was there evidence of a demand for it on the part of those whom it affected. It is most extraordinary, if 70 per cent. of the farmers of England, as stated by the noble Earl, are in favour of the Bill, that the Land Agents' Society should be in absolute ignorance of the fact.
The noble Lord who has just sat down did not place it quite so high. He said there was a certain feeling in favour of the Bill, and that in his opinion a majority wished for it, but that is very different from 70 per cent. I should like to know what means the noble Earl has taken to ascertain this 70 per cent. of opinion. I admit that the noble Earl has been very active in trying to obtain it. He has travelled about the country very much. I hope he will not think that I am saying anything very offensive if I venture to suggest that he has been rather acting the part of the political commercial traveller. I will take an instance within my own knowledge. He came down to Newcastle, and was most cordial and most pleasant to everyone there, as he always is, and naturally the farmers were extremely glad to see him. Acting in the political commercial traveller line, the noble Earl said, "I have a little article in my bag which I am sure will commend itself to you. It is not an invention of my firm; it is another gentleman's patent, but we

893
have taken it up, and here it is." Then he laid before the fanners this measure. I have great respect for the farmers of England, and especially for those in my own part of the country. They are hard-headed men; but I do not think they are capable of altogether understanding a measure of this kind, which is not without its intricacies, upon an occasion of that sort, merely with the opportunity they then had of dealing with it. But if I remember aright, the farmer who got up to propose or second the resolution in favour of this measure took care to say that he did not agree with a great deal of it. I am reminded of the story of a gentleman who, wishing to do his fellow creatures good, went to preach them a sermon in a Scottish church. At the end of his address he asked all who wished to go to heaven to stand up, and when they had all stood up, he then said—
"Now anybody who wants to go to the other place will kindly stand."
No one rose for a time. At last one gentleman got up, and when the preacher said to him—
"Do you really know what you are doing? Do you really wish to make the journey which I indicate?"
the answer was—
"I have no particular leaning that way, but I do not like to see you standing alone, and you have come such a long way."
I have no doubt something of that spirit actuated the farmers of Newcastle when they gave the very limited amount of support to the noble Earl which he received. Really, my Lords, where does the support come from? It comes from the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Farmers' Club. Do they really represent the feeling of 70 per cent. of the farmers of this country? Does anyone in this House believe it? For the rest, the noble Earl has the support of the thirty farmers of Essex, and, I believe, a deputation from Wiltshire.
THE EARL OF GAMPERDOWN: My Lords, like the noble Lords who have spoken I have no intention of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Burghclere need not feel any anxiety on that account. The Bill is quite certain to be read a second time; the discussion that
894
will take place upon it will be in Committee. But it is important to know whether this Bill which is now before us represents the whole mind of the Government on the very important question of agriculture, because this is, as we have been told, an entirely different Bill from the one which was originally introduced into the House of Commons. As the noble Duke said, the noble Earl in charge of this Bill has been acting the part of a political commercial traveller. From the moment that the Bill was introduced in another place the noble Earl made speeches in its favour and received deputations, and it was therefore impossible to know whether the Bill was a Government Bill or the Bill of a number of private Members. The noble Earl went down to Scotland on 10th October, and I think he learned something while in Edinburgh. But the Bill which he then recommended to the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture is not the Bill, or anything like the Bill, which is now before your Lordships. What I want to know is whether this Bill represents the whole mind of the Government on this question, or whether it is the first of a series of Bills. I think every one of your Lordships will be of opinion that it is most inadvisable that Bills should be perpetually introduced dealing with the relations between landlord and tenant. Agriculture, as we know, is at the present time in a precarious position, and it depends for its future largely on the good relations which exist between landlord and tenant. The prosperity of agriculture also depends on the amount of capital invested in the soil, and that again must necessarily depend on the confidence of the owners in the security of their investments. I maintain that the Bill will have a prejudicial effect on the relations between landlord and tenant, and that it will increase the cost of management of land by bringing in lawyers, arbitrators, and valuers. It forbids contracts and limits the application of the custom of the country. I put it to those of your Lordships who understand agriculture, and I know I am speaking to an assembly as well acquainted with that subject as any assembly which could be collected in this country, is it not the fact that the farmers of England look far more to the custom of the country than they do to any legislation that Parliament may pass? For that reason

895
it seems to me to be a very dangerous policy to interfere with the custom of the country.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill omitted to state a most important fact with regard to it. He described the Bill without informing your Lordships that it is intended to refer to leases as well as to yearly tenancies, and to apply to Scotland as well as to England. But I venture to say the difference in the agricultural circumstances of Scotland and England are such as to make it very difficult indeed for any one to comprehend those two countries in one Bill. If an illustration of this wore wanted I would not ask for a better one than this Bill. When we reach the Committee stage I daresay I may have to trouble your Lordships with some Amendments and possibly with some remarks on the matters to which I have called attention.
In respect of Clauses 3 and 4, dealing with the method of cropping arable land, I would ask whether the words "arable land" include permanent pasture on a holding. This is particularly important, as the clauses affect Scotland. I will not labour that at this moment, but, in passing, let me say that most mistaken notions exist with regard to the systems of cropping which are inserted in leases. It is commonly supposed that a system of cropping is an arbitrary act of the landlord imposed on his tenant, whereas we who are familiar with nineteen-year leases in Scotland know perfectly well that the system of cropping is invariably the outcome of discussion and settled arrangement between the landlord and the incoming tenant before the lease is entered upon. The tenant would not think of cultivating his farm except on a recognised system. Let us suppose that a good tenant wishes for some reason to alter his cropping. In practice we know perfectly well that he has no difficulty whatever in doing so.
Reference has been made to bad landlords. It should not be forgotten, also, that there is such a such a thing as a bad tenant, a tenant who starves his farm, and as soon as it is ruined leaves it. It will be necessary to interfere with the procedure of such a tenant, while it will be more than ever essential for the landlord to watch more closely than hitherto the actions of his tenantry.
896
Everyone knows, however, that the less interference there is on the part of the landlord with the tenant, the better it is for the good relations existing between them. The noble Earl said he proposed that there should be a year left before the expiration of the contract of tenancy, during which the tenant could replace the land in a state suitable for the incoming tenant. Does the noble Earl mean, when the course of cropping has been broken for several years, when the land has been cropped in any way the tenant has seen fit, and more especially under a lease, that one year is sufficient to reinstate the land in a condition suitable for an incoming tenant? That may be so in England, though not in the part of England in which I live. But I can assure your Lordships that it is not the case in Scotland.
The noble Earl told us of Chambers and associations of farmers who had approved of his Bill, but I notice that he said very little of his experience in Edinburgh. He learned a good deal while in Edinburgh, not merely with regard to this Bill but with regard also to a Small Holdings Bill with respect to which he was wise enough to say nothing there. At the meeting of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture on 10th November, which the noble Earl attended, a Mr. Craig carried a resolution declaring that the Land Tenure Bill, as amended by the Grand Committee on Trade, contained provisions which it was not expedient to extend to Scotland. That was the opinion of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. In fairness I must add that in addressing the meeting the noble Earl said—
"I understand that it is thought that the clause is not absolutely necessary in Scotland because the general tenure in Scotland is nineteen years."
But I notice that Scotland is, nevertheless, in the Bill. The noble Earl continued—
"But I would ask you to think of your brethren in other parts of Britain who are not in such a good position as yourselves, and not prevent this portion of the Bill being carried."
A Scotsman generally thinks a good deal about himself, and I do not think the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture are likely to be converted to the noble Earl's view.
I would suggest that a Court instead of an arbitrator would be the better

897
authority to determine the "good and sufficient cause" for getting rid of a tenant, the arbitrator coming in afterwards to assess the damages. I must call the noble Earl's attention to the method by which he proposes to calculate the compensation. The tenant, in addition to everything else, is to be entitled to compensation for the loss or expense which he sustains or incurs upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his goods, implements, produce, or stock. How can anyone say what is the amount of loss that a tenant sustains? Presumably there will be a sale, and the tenant will receive a certain sum as the produce of the sale, but "loss" means the difference between that sum and the sum that he ought to receive. I hope the noble Earl will endeavour to clear the point up in Committee; but I ask, how is the amount of loss to be ascertained? How can yon say what amount a man ought to have obtained for his implements, produce, or stock? The day of the sale might have been a wet day; fifty different things might have happened. How anyone is to determine what a man ought to receive I am at a loss to imagine. Then I suppose "expense" refers to goods. What are goods? Does the noble Earl mean household goods? If so, let him say so. Did the noble Earl ever hear in any trade or business, or in any transaction, of a man being entitled to be paid the carriage of his goods? Those are practical points which I hope the noble Earl will consider between this and the Committee stage. I trust His Majesty's Government will give us an assurance that the Bill as now presented expresses their full and deliberate opinion on the subject of agriculture, because I am sure every well-wisher of agriculture would desire that there should be as few Bills as possible passed by Parliament affecting that important industry.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if I venture to detain your Lordships with a few observations upon the Second Reading of this Bill, I can assure you that I do so with considerable diffidence. In the first place, I have not the official experience as President of the Board of Agriculture which has fallen to the lot of the three noble Lords who first addressed your Lordships; nor, on the other hand, can I claim to be the possessor of a great estate
898
like the noble Duke behind me or the noble Earl who has just sat down. I am one of those humble persons who, I am afraid, are little regarded, according to what he has said, by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who have an estate of less than 10,000 acres. It is a small estate but it is my own, and I have managed it personally, as many landlords in England happily do, for nearly fifty years; and, therefore I do speak, if I may venture to say so, with some experience which perhaps has not fallen to the lot of all the Members of your Lordships' House, however large landowners you may be, and which certainly is not shared by many Members of the House of Commons, or by many persons who, whether belonging to a land law reform association, or banded together in other societies, talk very glibly of land law reform, while they know very little of the real relations between landlord and tenant in England, or what our land system really is.
The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture commenced his speech by pleading that there had been a great change of opinion in certain quarters—he instanced, I think, the Surveyors' Institution as one — with regard to the merits of this Bill. I do not think that change has been on the part of the Surveyors' Institution. It has been in the Bill itself. This Bill is utterly different from the Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons. That was a measure apparently designed by its authors—I am not speaking, of course, of His Majesty's Government—to take as much as they thought safe at the moment of the property of the landlord and give it to the tenant, and practically to deprive landlords in England of control over their property. A great deal, no doubt, may be said as to defects in our English land system. I do not deny it for a moment. It may be capable of improvement in many ways, but this I think any fair-minded person must admit, that it has tided the country through a great agricultural crisis during the last thirty years. I am speaking of what I know pretty well—the condition of agriculture in the corn-growing districts in the south and east of England. I will venture to say that but for our English land system there would have been the widest

899
possible distress, not merely among owners of the land or farmers of the land, but among the agricultural labourers. I believe whole tracts of country would have absolutely gone out of cultivation. I speak for a part of England where to my own knowledge rents have gone down more than 50 per cent. in the last thirty years, while the expenses of maintaining agricultural property have greatly increased; and I say that but for our English land system that would have been the unhappy result. What is that system? It is one under which the owner of the land practically does all the permanent improvements, erects all the buildings, provides fences, roads, and drainage, and does everything that is wanted for putting the farm into the condition in which a tenant may farm it with no expenditure of his own capital except for ordinary purposes of cultivation. And why do owners of land do this? Because of the magic of property, because of the pride and pleasure of ownership; and that pride and pleasure depend, I venture to say, upon the power of control of that property. If the Legislature should ever be so unwise as to deprive landlords of that control for a fancied advantage to their tenants or anybody else, there is one class that will suffer by it more than any other, and that is the class of English tenant farmers. English tenant farmers know this very well. Something has been said in this debate of the anxiety of English tenant farmers that this Bill should pass. I do not believe there was any anxiety that the Bill should pass in its original shape. English tenant farmers are honest men. They do not want the Legislature to give them anything of their landlord's property. They know very well what advantage they derive from his expenditure upon that property, and if this Bill had not been modified as your Lordships now see it, I venture to say it would not have had the support of any great number of English tenant farmers.
The Bill has been modified. It has been changed, I should think, out of recognition by its original authors, to the evident dislike of some of those extreme land reformers to whom I have alluded. If His Majesty's Government are satisfied with it, as I presume they are, if they look upon it as the reform
900
they would desire to make in the law between agricultural landlords and agricultural tenants, so long as the Bill clearly states what it means, which it does not quite do now, I do not think that we on this side of the House need raise any very great objection to its provisions. But there is just this to be said. The relations between English landlords and their tenants as a rule are not of a business character. They are the relations of friendly neighbours. Is there any kind of industry or commercial dealing in this country in which a creditor would say to his debtor, "Oh, you have been unfortunate; I will remit to you half of your debt to me?" And yet everybody knows that in a bad agricultural year remissions of this kind are constantly made by English landlords. There are many other minor amenities between the two which, I think, as a whole place the tenant in a better position with regard to his business than any conceivable legislation could possibly place him. What Act of Parliament could empower a tenant who had contracted to give his landlord a fair rent for his farm to claim from that landlord half or perhaps the whole of that rent back again because he had had a bad season? I do not think that we ought in considering this matter entirely to neglect the possibility, for I think it is a real possibility, that in attempting to place tenants in a better legal position than that which they have hitherto occupied we may, so to speak, stiffen the relations between them and their landlords and thus do them more harm than we do good.
Now I come to the question as to what course I should like to see taken with reference to this Bill, By all means let your Lordships give it a Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Burghclere, advised us to do so, first of all because some of the farmers desire it. I have not seen in my part of England that the farmers take much interest in this Bill even in its present shape. The noble Lord then suggested that we should Stop an agitation by giving the Bill a Second Beading. I have not observed in the district with which I am acquainted that any such agitation exists. Then he told us that if we did not pass it we should go further and fare worse, and he held out the terrors of another place. My Lords, the House of Commons

901
have shown their good sense by converting this Bill from its original shape into that which it now assumes. The real reason why, in my opinion, we should give a Second Reading to this Bill, and, after it has been properly considered in Committee, pass it into law, is that there will be no harm in it at all.
Now let me deal with what I may call the two principal clauses of the Bill—the game clause and the clause giving compensation for proved loss on removal. First with regard to the game clause, I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the suggestion made to them by Lord Burghclere that the commencement of the Act should be fixed at such a date that it may be possible, where agreements have been made between landlord and tenant allowing something for anticipated damage by game, for those agreements to be reconsidered by both parties in order that a tenant may not be compensated twice over by that clause in the Bill. That seemed to me a fair suggestion which deserved consideration. Then I come to the more important clause dealing with compensation for loss on removal. Lord Burghclere recommended that clause to your Lordships by suggesting that it would probably never be put into operation. I think that is a most remarkable reason for passing any clause.
LORD BURGHCLERE: What I said was that it would only he put into operation in the problematical case of a bad landlord.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble Lord admits now that it will be put into operation sometimes.
LORD BURGHCLERE: If there is a bad landlord.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Bad landlords are very few and far between. I should like to know what sensible landlord during the last thirty years would have turned out a good tenant, whatever his politics or his religious creed, in such parts of England as I have been alluding to, where it is not easy to got a now tenant if, unfortunately, a farm is vacant. I speak as one who has never turned out an agricultural tenant in his life, although I have had tenants of all opinions in politics and
902
religion, and by no means always good agriculturists. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that a clause which is comparatively rarely put into operation ought, perhaps, for that very reason to be as definite as possible. Take the point which has been alluded to by the noble Earl Lord Camper down. In his speech this evening the President of the Board of Agriculture referred to an interview which he had with some Scottish farmers on the subject of this Bill, and told us that they objected to this clause—that, I suppose, was in its original shape—because they held under nineteen years lease, and, therefore, they felt the clause did not apply to them in the same way as it did to yearly tenancies. But the clause does apply to leases. I invite your Lordships to look at the clause. It says—
"Where the landlord, without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, terminates or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy."
I suppose the words "refuses to grant a renewal" must moan a renewal at the termination of the lease, because a year to year tenancy is always terminated on one side or the other by notice to quit. Do His Majesty's Government mean that this clause shall apply to leases, although the noble Lord agreed with the Scottish farmers that they were in a different position from English farmers in that matter; and, if so, do they mean to treat leases on the same footing as a year to year tenancy? Anybody who is acquainted with the practice in this country knows very well that it might be fairly argued that a year to year tenancy, although it may be terminated by twelve months notice to quit on either side, is practically regarded on both sides as almost akin to a life tenancy. A lease for a term of years, on the other hand, is entered into by parties both of whom are well aware that the tenancy is open to reconsideration at the end of the term. Is there the same ground for compensation for loss on removal in the case of a lease for years in these circumstances as there may be, I admit, when a yearly tenancy is determined by an unexpected notice to quit? I thought that when this matter was under discussion in another place some Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, had definitely promised that the question of leases should be reconsidered, and

903
that in fact an Amendment should be moved in your Lordships' House dealing with this particular subject. The noble Earl did not allude to the matter in moving the Second Reading, but I hope that we may be made acquainted with the intention of His Majesty's Government before going into Committee.
Subject to the working of this clause being in some manner more clearly defined, and certain Amendments inserted in other clauses which would not take away anything that the Bill gives to tenants, but would merely make it more workmanlike in drafting and show more clearly what it means—subject to that I agree with the hope expressed by Lord Burchclere that the Bill may pass into law. I trust, as my noble friend Lord Camperdown has said, that we may take this Bill as representing the whole view of His Majesty's Government in the matter of dealing between English agricultural landlords and their tenants. I am aware that they have much wider and larger views on the general subject of agricultural land. They, I think, are pledged to changes in the law relating to the land which would increase the number of small holdings, which might give greater facilities for the building of labourers cottages and matters of that kind. I am quite sure that in anything which may tend to the real restoration of the population to the land they will find support on this side of your Lordships' House. But this Bill will have no such effect. If this Bill touches that question at all, it rather throws an impediment in the way by deterring a landlord from dividing large farms, or providing sites for labourers' cottages, on account of a possible liability for compensation to an existing tenant for his loss on removal. I trust that at any rate no further impediment will be imposed by legislation in the supposed interests of tenant farmers on the extension of small holdings, and the increase of good cottage accommodation in our country districts.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, in all the speeches we have heard to-night the great importance of agriculture in this country has been recognised. It is the greatest interest that we have, and the speeches that have
904
been made have shown that Members of your Lordships' House are very much alive to the necessity of maintaining good relations between landlord and tenant, and of doing the best for agriculture to make it both productive and agreeable to landlord and tenant alike. The noble Viscount who has just sat down has expressed a desire, which I cordially re-echo, that this Bill may obtain a Second Reading. The question, I think, that we have to put to-day is not whether this Bill is perfect in detail, whether it cannot be improved in many places, but whether on the whole it will be useful in maintaining good relations between landlord and tenant, and have the effect of easing and improving the conduct of agriculture. The noble Viscount drew a very pretty picture of the relations which existed between himself and his own tenants.
VISCOUNT St. ALDWYN: And in very many other cases as well.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I was going on to say that I believe the picture which the noble Viscount drew is one which is common throughout the length and breadth of the land, and especially in the case of Members of your Lordships' House. I can assure you that, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, what they wish to do is to level up to that high standard. I believe the good landlord will be little affected by the Bill. The object of the Bill is to raise the level of the standard of the bad landlord, and by legislation to obtain in that case the same advantages for the tenant as are now freely obtained from the good landlord. But, after all, I think the provisions of this Bill are only matters of ordinary estate management between a good landlord and tenant.
Now, what are those provisions? Clause I provides that the inherent excellence of the land should no longer be taken into account in cases where disputes arise. That is a provision which has been very much debated in the past, and which I think on the whole agriculturists are agreed should be abolished. The next provision is that there should be but a single arbitrator to decide in all these cases. That provision does not interfere with the ordinary practice which now exists of having a valuer on each side

905
and an arbitrator to decide between them. The clause only comes into effect when there is a difference of opinion and when the Board of Agriculture has to intervene, and then the Board appoint a single arbitrator to decide between the disputants. That also appears to me to be a plan which is desirable, and which will save both time and expense.
I now come to the game clause. I do not wish to put any improper check on sport, but I think your Lordships will all recognise that of recent years there has been an enormous increase in winged game in this country. By all means let noble Lords who are fond of shooting have good sport and let them kill as many head of game as they can, but do not let them do it at the expense of the tenant, who at any rate to a certain extent feeds that game. The shooting tenant and the proprietor to a large extent feed the game, but great damage is from time to time done to tenants, and it is only fair that they should be compensated for that damage. Then I come to the provision that the land should be cultivated by the tenant to the best advantage. That I think is very clearly stated in the Bill. If the tenant exercises his rights under the section in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate the holding, or is likely to injure or deteriorate the holding, the landlord will be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or | deterioration. Under the Bill I think the landlord is amply safeguarded, and will receive proper compensation if his tenant does not farm in a proper manner.
Then with regard to the question of compensation for unreasonable disturbance, there is no doubt that that clause as at present drafted does apply to leases as well as to year to year engagements. I myself am best acquainted with the nineteen-year leases, and I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Carrington that it might be well to consider whether we should not introduce certain provisions that would specially meet the case of nineteen year leases. As noble Lords know, of recent years the practice | of nineteen-year leases has been a good deal modified in Scotland, and we are coming more to year-to-year agreements; but I think the case of the old nineteen-year leases ought to be considered At the same time, I do think that if
906
the tenant is turned out, or does not get his agreement renewed on insufficient ground, it is only fair that the loss to him should be made up by the landlord. I think the time when the Act is to come into operation is a very important matter. That, again, is a point on which my noble friend might be able to give some concession. I think that if the Bill did not come into operation until January, 1909, instead of January, 1908, that would give time for the consideration of the conditions under which the Act is going to work, facilitate its operation and make things go much smoother.
I should like to assure the House that the Bill, as it stands, does represent what the Government think is desirable in the way of adjusting the relation between landlord and tenant. They believe that by adjusting it in this way no inconvenience will be caused either to one party or the other; that in the case of the good landlord and the good tenant the Bill would hardly operate at all, and the present system would work as it does now. At the same time they believe that by introducing these provisions they will cause the bad landlord, if there be such, to have considerable pressure put on him to come up to the level of the good landlord; and from that point of view the Bill will help rural life in this country, do a great deal to sweeten the relations between landlord and tenant, and help landlord, tenant, and labourer alike throughout the length and breadth of the country.
LORD BALFOUR OF BUKLEIGH: My Lords, I think perhaps it would not be inconvenient, as a large part of the First Lord's speech was taken up with questions which perhaps more directly affect the northern part of the Island, that I should say a word or two after what has fallen from him. I am not going to discuss the question whether or not this Bill has caused unnecessary alarm among those interested in land; nor do I desire to touch upon the question of good and bad landlords, and the difficulties which the latter class may sometimes create. I recognise at once, and I think most of your Lordships, at any rate those who are connected with Scotland, will have recognised the reasonable and conciliatory way in which

907
the noble Lord who has just sat down referred to some of the points upon which he touched. I was very glad indeed to hear him say that the Government were prepared to reconsider the question of applying what I still call the compensation for disturbance clause to leases. For my part I cannot see the slightest foundation for giving any compensation for disturbance to a man whose whole interest in the land has been for a period of years. If he has been taken as a tenant from year to year, and it has been going on for a long period of years without any revision, his position is allied to that of the English year to year tenant; but the great majority of those who hold land for farming in Scotland hold it on agreements for a period of years. I do not think that in ray part of the country any man would look at a farm unless he was to have it for a period of years. If on both sides there are adult men able to make bargains, and they make a bargain for a period of years, what possible justification can there be for saying that at the end of that period, if by the lapse of time the agreement is terminated, there should be any compensation? Why should not the presumption be that unless an agreement is renewed the whole arrangement is to come to an end? Those are my views, but, of course, after the speech of the noble Lord, we shall wait with willingness to see what the proposals of the Government are.
Perhaps while I am on that point I may just say this additional word, that there was during the passage of the Bill through the other House, at one of the early hours of the morning when the House was sitting late to pass the Bill, a distinct promise given on the part of the Secretary for Scotland, in answer to a question by the Member for Leith, that questions affecting Scotland would be dealt with in this House. I understand that a distinct promise was given that the Government would put down Amendments. I am far from supposing that all these Amendments will be in favour of landlords. Some of them will no doubt be in the nature of applying this Bill to Scotland, and some, for all I know, may tell in favour of the tenants. Whatever they are, I urge very strongly on the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that they should
908
appear on a very early date. I make this request on two grounds. We are anxious to consider the proposals of the Government perfectly fairly. We are anxious to see what they are in order that we may know what to say when the time comes; but it is even more necessary for us to have them at an early date than it would be if our advisers were with us in London. We shall have to refer some of the technical questions involved to those having technical knowledge of land management in Scotland, and it will take us a day or two to collect the opinions of those with whom we desire to act. Therefore, if this Bill is to go through Committee next week, as we understand it is, I urge strongly that before this week is out we should see the Amendments that are going to be suggested for our consideration.
The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty gave us a very comforting version of how he thinks the provisions about the single arbitrator are intended to apply, but I confess that with my lay man's mind I read the conditions of the Bill in a different way. I regard Clause 1 as enforcing the single arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture upon every landlord and every tenant whenever they have a dispute. I see the noble Lord shakes his head, and I will defer any further remarks on that till I see the Amendments on the Paper. But I am not alone in the view I take. I have received many communications from those who are apprehensive on that point. As far as I am concerned, in forty-two years of estate management I have only once had to have reference to arbitration, and it is some satisfaction to me that the arbitrator gave my opponent less than I had offered him before entering upon the arbitration. I attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of the present system of friendly arbitration conducted by a couple of neighbours, one upon each side. It is of great importance for this reason, that about half of the holdings in Scotland are under £50 in value; some of them are as low as £15 and £20, and if you inflict expense which is not absolutely necessary on changes of tenancy, you will do harm not only to the landlord but to the outgoing and incoming tenants, who will have to share those expenses.

909
The noble Lord said the Bill provided ample safeguards against landlords' property being deteriorated under the cropping clause, and the remedy which he suggests we should rely upon is that when our land is damaged the outgoing tenant who has damaged it, or the tenant, whether outgoing or not, should be made to pay. I suggest that that is a very flimsy safeguard indeed. The man who does that sort of thing is generally a man of straw out of whom you can got nothing at all. This is one of those cases in which every practical man will tell you that prevention is better than cure, and that you ought to be able to stop mis-cropping and damage before it has gone so far as to cause detriment to the holding. It is obviously for the public interest, as well as for the interest of the landlord and tenant, that the soil of the country should be maintained in the highest possible state of fertility.
I have boon asked to put one question to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I have been approached by gentlemen who are connected with the nursery and seed business. I think the noble Earl in his introductory speech alluded to a deputation he had received from these persons. I am bound to say I think they have a grievance if their apprehension is well founded, and I understand that the law officers of the Crown have said it is well founded, that they do not come under the compensation clauses of the Market Gardeners' Act. If a nurseryman's business is interfered with, say, in the summer time, and he has only a right to six months notice to quit and cannot choose his own time for removing his stock, he is liable to suffer serious loss. The subject has been explained to me and I think there is a grievance, but I am not quite certain whether the amending of it is really germane to this Bill. I think what is required is an amendment of the Market Gardeners' Act and other Acts read with it, but the only plea which I urge on the noble Earl is that he will allow me either to see himself with some of those with whom I desire to act, or the Permanent Secretary, to discuss whether it is possible to make an Amendment in this Bill which would be satisfactory to them, and if so, to endeavour to arrange the terms of such an Amend-
910
ment with him. I think there is a grievance, though I have grave doubts whether it is possible to remedy it in this Bill. At any rate, I think both those for whom I desire to act and the Board of Agriculture would wish to come to an understanding in regard to the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, after the discussion which has taken place I do not think any one will contradict me when I say that it is advisable that this Bill should be given a Second Reading. The measure as it appears now is very different from the measure as it appeared in another place. There have been great changes. Clauses have boon dropped and important modifications made. I should like to ask whether, in suggesting that the coming into force of the Bill should be postponed until January, 1909, the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I said it would be considered, and that it probably would be so with regard to some of the provisions of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That is an extremely important point and I should like to ask whether the First Lord was only expressing his own opinion or speaking on behalf of the Government.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Marquess overstated what I said. I did not point to January, 1909, as the final date of the coming into force of the whole of the Bill, but only certain provisions of it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYThen perhaps when we get to a later stage the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will point out to us which of the provisions it is proposed should not come into force until 1909. In spite of the alterations that have been made in another place, I cannot but think that the principle of the Bill is based upon the theory that a landlord and tenant cannot enter into a contract without the interference of the State. If a contract is not allowed to be entered into amicably between landlord and tenant it must tend to a certain extent to antagonism. I cannot help thinking that if this Bill should become law it will press very hardly upon good landlords.

911
There may be landlords who are good landlords, but who, owing to lack of resources at the moment, would not be able to pay the compensation demanded for improvements. Although considerable alterations have been made in many of the clauses of the Bill, I still think serious consideration will have to be given in Committee to those clauses.
I turn to Clause 1. It has been alluded to but not dwelt upon at any length. The omission of the proviso that in estimating the value of any improvement made by the tenant there shall not be taken into account the inherent capabilities of the soil, is to my mind an omission which ought to be remedied in Committee, because the absence of this provision is naturally a serious prejudice to the landlord. Under this Bill a tenant might obtain from a landlord compensation due to his having a good holding, and not to his own efforts or expenditure. Then Clause 2, giving compensation for damage to crops by game, opens a way for needless disputes between the landlord and the shooting tenant and the agricultural tenant. Unless some alteration is made to simplify this clause, there will be endless wrangling between those who at present are working well together.
But the most important clause, to my mind, is Clause 4, which gives compensation for unreasonable disturbance, and I cannot help thinking that it contains the germ of dual ownership, which many Governments at great cost have done their best to abolish in Ireland. The clause destroys freedom of contract. The tenant has a right to determine his holding, but the landlord can only get rid of his tenant at pecuniary loss. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said that there is a demand for this measure. I ask the noble Earl, by whom is the Bill demanded? He himself stated in the country that it would be impossible for him, when he brought the Bill forward, to get it through your Lordship's House if some Member could get up and say the tenant fanners of England did not care three straws about it. I have yet to learn that the tenant farmers do care three straws about the Bill. My noble friend Lord Camperdown has given a graphic description of the meeting at Edinburgh, and from what he
912
said it is clear that the Bill received a very lukewarm reception there. Then we heard from the noble Duke behind me that at his Newcastle meeting the noble Earl's references to the measure were most chillingly received, and it was only the great courtesy and charm of manner of the noble Earl that prevented those North Country farmers expressing in forcible terms the views they held with regard to it. I find that in Lincolnshire, in spite of what the noble Earl said, the Chamber of Agriculture passed the following resolution—
"That this Chamber, while welcoming the freedom of cropping clauses consider the Bill will an a whole alienate the sympathy and help of the landlords from their tenantry, and lead to litigation only to the benefit of valuers and lawyers."
At a meeting on the borders of Buckinghamshire and Oxford shire the noble Earl, with that generosity for which he is famous, stood the tenants champagne first and addressed them afterwards. A tenant farmer who was present on that occasion, subsequently wrote a letter to the local paper in which he said—
"I desire to express my opinion on the Land Tenure Bill, a right which was denied to me at the one-sided and unfairly conducted meeting last week at which Lord Carrington was the only speaker. When the Minister for Agriculture was first appointed, the idea was that he should find out the views of agriculturists, but here we have Lord Carrington cramming his views down our throats without giving us a chance of replying. Lord Carrington, seeing the tide was not in his favour, artfully filled up the time to the last moment, talking a lot of silly twaddle about Tommy Atkins's rations and hanky panky, and then rushed off, like a thieving dog out of a butcher's shop, to catch a train, he said, but I think because he would not face the music."
This tenant farmer declared that his class did not want the Bill or "any Government tinkering" between themselves and their landlords, whom they looked upon as their best friends. I cannot help thinking that, despite the alterations that have been made in the Bill, it will create friction between owners and occupiers, and may be the means of putting an end to those friendly relations which have existed for so many years. In the district in which I live the tenant farmers do not care about the Bill for the simple reason that they know full well that if any friction arose between themselves and their landlords it is they, and not the landlords, who would suffer. The Bill would jeopardise good relations

913
and discourage the outlay of capital. Look at the manner in which landlords have assisted tenants to tide over times of depression. This has been the result of the friendly relations existing between them, and in many directions there has been evidence of the hearty co-operation and good will between landlord and tenant. At present, agriculture is in a comparatively satisfactory condition, but depression may return, and, without good feeling and co-operation between landlords and tenants, how is it to be met?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to ask for that indulgence which your Lordships always extend to one who addresses you for the first time. My excuse for doing so must be that I am associated with a part of the country distant from that to which most of the previous speakers belong, a part of the country where nobody will say "Thank you "for a lease, and where families of ton continue on the same farms for generations on yearly agreements. I fully recognise the friendly spirit that characterised the speech of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I think many of your Lordships must have been disappointed by the manner in which he passed over some of the objections that have been taken to the Bill on this side of the House he gave no answer, for instance, to the suggestion that this Bill is more likely to benefit lawyers, valuers, and bad tenants than to benefit good tenants. A good deal has been said about the arbitration clause, in regard to which I hope His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give very serious consideration to the suggestions made by Lord Onslow. I think it is most important that the arbitrators who may be appointed by the Board of Agriculture under this Bill should be men of high character and of good repute in their localities, and that there should not be many of them. At present, in the West of England, the usual thing is for the umpire between the two arbitrators to be the local auctioneer. Under the provisions of this Bill the arbitrator appointed will have to give important and far-reaching decisions, which will involve considerable sums of money and lay down principles of wide application throughout the neighbourhood. It is most important, therefore, that they
914
should be men who would take an independent line, and be guided by the justice of the case rather than by partiality for either party connected with it.
There is a small, but deserving class of farmers whom this Bill will benefit; those who, by some sale, find themselves transferred from a considerate landlord to an arbitrary and capricious one. Such farmers are, I think, deserving of consideration, but I do not think a man who deliberately takes a farm under a landlord who has a bad name deserves any consideration at all. Land hunger is a good platform cry, but practical people know that there is very little in it indeed. The character of every landowner and land agent for miles around is known in every market town, and if a man takes a farm on an estate belonging to a person who is notoriously arbitrary he does so with his eyes open, and is not deserving of special consideration. Practical people know that in the majority of cases farmers are paying little or nothing for the land, their rent being a moderate interest on the cost of the buildings and the equipment of the farm. It is important, therefore, that the clause relating to freedom of cropping should be carefully scrutinised when it comes before your Lordships in Committee, and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept an Amendment limiting that freedom to what is consistent with good husbandry. The maintenance of the fertility of the estate in the public interest is not the least important of a landlord's duties; and as the clause now stands the freedom given by it might very easily be abused. As to tenants' improvements, if a tenant is in a position to lend money to his landlord, for that is what the sinking of tenants' capital on matters outside the cultivation of the land involves, he is in a position to make his own terms for the loan.
There are a good many small landowners still left in the West of England, and I should like to say a word or two as to the way in which this Bill will affect them. They do not, as a rule, get the best class of tenants, and they are less able than larger owners to protect themselves against an unscrupulous tenant. I think, therefore, that the Bill may deal hardly with small owners.

915
The noble Lord said that he thought this Bill, far from putting any difficulty in the way of creating small tenants, would, if anything, make it easier. I fail to see how a Bill which makes it more difficult to get land into hand is likely to promote the creation of small holdings; but apart from that, one great difficulty about small tenants is that these men, as a rule, have little capital beyond their muscles and their brains, and it is not uncommon, when a labourer, having saved a little money, and wishing to rise in the world wants to take a small farm, for him to bring with him to the estate office some friend or relative who is in a small way of business, and who is prepared to be put into the agreement as a joint tenant, and thereby to give greater security for the rent. But nobody is likely, after this Bill is passed, ever to take a joint tenant. As the Bill stands at present, the only chance that a landowner is ever likely to get of dealing with a farm without the possibility of interference by some outsider, is in the case of a tenant dying, or giving him notice, or failing; and the possibilities, except in the second of those events, are very much limited it you take in a joint tenant. And the same argument applies as affecting continuous occupation. Continuous occupation is a thing which everybody must wish to encourage, but nobody will be very much inclined to put in a son as a joint tenant with his father if the consequence is that it will be more difficult for the owner to deal with the farm in any way that may be desirable on the father's death.
I have to thank your Lordships very much for the indulgence you have accorded me. I only wish to say, in conclusion that though I do not think the Bill will do much harm, I fear it will do very little good, and those who, like the noble Lord opposite, anticipate that it is to a new Golden Age for agriculture will, I am afraid, be profoundly disappointed.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in the few remarks which I have to make I can undertake only to occupy a very few minutes of the time of your Lordships, but I think this is so peculiar a Bill that all of us, who have an opportunity of dealing with this
916
subject, are entitled to say a few words upon it. I think everybody in this House is agreed that legislation in the past has always been brought forward by the Government of the day in accordance with the demand—the articulate demand—of some large body of public opinion and, despite what has been urged by noble Lords opposite, I think the House has quite made up its mind that this Bill has behind it no bulk of public opinion. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, quoted just now what I think, with all respect for the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture, is rather the typical point of view of the farmer with regard to this Bill. There were a few words in a letter from Mr. Rider Haggard to The Times the other morning which I should like to be allowed to quote as corroborating the view expressed in the letter read by the noble Marquess. Mr. Rider Haggard, in his letter to The Times of 16th November said—
"The tenant farmer, in nine eases out of ten, would be the first to declare—indeed, he does declare loudly, although those who are intent on his salvation will not listen—that he is perfectly able to protect himself "
—that is to say in entering into a contract with his landlord for taking a farm, and dealing with his landlord and his landlord's agent during the period of his tenancy. This Bill seems to go on the assumption that the British farmer is blind, deaf, and dumb. But I think those of your Lordships who know anything of country life will be of a very different opinion. I doubt very much whether, in the history of this country, landlords have ever been able to dictate terms to their tenants; but I am perfectly certain of this—as I think previous speakers have mentioned—that during the last thirty years, certainly, they have not been in a position to do so. And the way in which British agriculture has managed to pull through all the difficulties and trials of the last thirty years has, no doubt, been due to the system of land tenure which at present prevails.
Now, my Lords, of course there may be—I do not deny that there are—in certain parts of the country hard cases; there are bad landlords here and there. But I am sure that the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture will be the first to acknowledge that hard cases make bad law, and that it would not do,

917
as a rule, to ask this House to legislate for the exceptions. I think the noble Earl said that the object of this Bill was to make bad landlords in future behave like good landlords do at present. But I am very much afraid that the tendency of the Bill will be rather this, that good landlords in future will be more inclined to follow the course pursued by the few sporadic bad landlords at present. I think the noble Earl would be surprised if he knew the amount of disturbance and anxiety that the introduction of this Bill has brought about in many parts of the country. There are a certain number of landlords—I do not say there are many, but there are a certain number—who, I am informed, have already given notice to a number of their tenants to quit their holdings, thinking it will save them an infinity of trouble and expense if they at once get back their property into their own hands. Those cases may be few in number, but there are many more landlords who, at this moment, are hesitating, or who are disinclined to make further capital expenditure, or to make improvements in their estates, because of their fear of the results of this Bill. And, although under the compensation clause, you may at present make the landlords pay compensation to tenants, eventually I am perfectly certain of this—that the compensation will come, not from the landlords but from the land, because the continual extension of the application of the landlord's capital to the land is, as every landowner is aware, absolutely necessary for the proper cultivation of the land, and for the prosperity on the land of the two other classes, the tenants and the labourers; and the result, I firmly believe, of this compensation clause will be to divert in future from the land portions of the landlord's capital which at present he is willing to put into it.
Now, my Lords, this Bill, tears up all existing contracts. On that I will not dilate. But your Lordships know that in England at present the amount of the landlords' capital invested in buildings—as my noble friend Lord Fortescue has just mentioned—is a very considerable item, and that the rent that is paid is, in many cases, really only a small interest on the capital which the landlord has put into the farm. Your Lordships will all agree, I am sure,
918
that, at the expiration of a farm tenancy, the outgoing tenant should receive full compensation for the unexhausted improvements that he may have made during his tenancy. But I contend—and I believe everyone in this House who knows anything of farming will agree with me—that, when the tenant goes out, he does receive, under the existing law, full compensation, and perhaps even more ample compensation than he is entitled to, for the improvements he has made.
Now, my Lords, a remarkable letter appeared in the Spectator of 1st December, from Mr. Munro Ferguson, who I think is still a Member of the other House, on the subject, not of this Bill, it is true, but of a very analogous measure, the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. Mr. Munro Ferguson said that in the event of that measure passing (and I think the same result will be likely to be brought about if the present measure passes) the question would be:—
"Where will the money for land equipment come from in the future? It is now provided to an extent of many millions a year by landowners, who for various reasons—chiefly because all return from the immense capital irrecoverably sunk in the land depends on a continued expenditure—are willing, both in England and in Scotland, to make an unprofitable investment. Responsible ownership being abolished, the capital expended on the land being no longer regarded as private property, and the re-allocation of land by compulsory leasing being entirely at the discretion of Land Commissioners, owners' expenditure will obviously cease, as no man will care or can be forced to develop another man's property."
With regard to the clause in the Bill called the Compensation for Disturbance Clause, it is true the word "reasonable" has been struck out, and "good and sufficient cause" substituted. But the effect, it seems to me, is very much the same, and it will be extremely difficult for any arbitrator, unless he has received a full legal training, to say what that "good and sufficient cause" will amount to. I confess that personally I should have been prepared, if I could have found any measure of support on this side of the House, to have voted against the Second Reading, because I am perfectly certain of this—that it will cause a great deal of friction between landlords and tenants, who have hitherto lived upon the most friendly terms in all parts of the country. It can only benefit lawyers and

919
valuers, and in the end I am convinced it will not be for the benefit of the farmers for whom it is ostensibly designed. On the other hand, the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture, and the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, I fully admit have made very conciliatory speeches on the subject, and have held out hopes to us that certain Amendments will be put down in the Committee Stage, and therefore perhaps my original objection to seeing this Bill read a second time has been to a certain extent removed. I apologise to your Lordships for taking up so much time, but, to one who lives in the country on his own property, and who takes a great interest in topics such as this, the subject of this Bill cannot be indifferent.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, in acknowledging the courtesy and the fairness of all the speeches made and criticisms pissed on the Land Tenure Bill to-night, I hope I may be permitted to congratulate the noble Lord opposite, Lord Fortescue, upon the excellent speech which he has delivered on the occasion of his addressing the House for the first time. I do so with all the greater pleasure because we recognise in him the son of a very old friend, whose memory many of us cherish with feelings of respect and affection. I need not detain the House one moment, except to express the satisfaction that we all felt at the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, and at his assurance, as far as I understood him, that any Amendments that may be proposed will not take away the advantages to tenant farmers which we hope to confer by the Bill. We are very grateful for that, and I need hardly say that anything which we can do to facilitate the passing of the Bill, without interfering with its principles, we shall be only too happy and pleased to do. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour asked me to put down the Amendments as soon as possible, and I can assure the noble Lord that that will be done with the greatest speed possible, and, as the Committee Stage will not be taken till next Thursday, I hope noble Lords opposite will have every facility for putting down or considering Amendments; and if the Board of Agriculture can be of any use in considering Amendments, I am your Lordships' most humble servant,
920
and shall be only too pleased to do what I can in that direction.
The noble Lord also asked about the inclusion of nursery men in the scope of the Bill. I think it will perhaps be useful if he will allow me to confer with him as to that. While I am afraid I cannot hold out any great hopes of being able fully to meet the noble Lord's wishes, I will, at any rate, see how far the views of the London nurserymen can be met, and I would only now express once more the regret I have felt at not being able to extend to them the acknowledged benefits of this Bill. I have only now to thank your Lordships once more for your reception of the Land Tenure Bill, of which I have moved the Second Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 13th instant.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Before the House adjourns, I have a small correction to make as to the course of business, of which I have already informed the Leader of the Opposition. Owing to circumstances which I need not explain, I have found, since I made my statement, that it is not possible to take the Committee Stage of the Trade Disputes Bill before Wednesday, the 12th December. So that, leaving to-morrow as already arranged, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Plural Voting Bill on Monday, with the Town Tenants Bill as the Second Order, and on Tuesday, the 11th inst., the Town Tenants Bill and the Merchant Shipping Bill (Committee stage). Then the Trade Disputes Bill (Committee stage) will be taken on Wednesday. Otherwise, the list will stand as I stated before.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not catch what the noble Earl said as to Monday.
THE EARL OF CREWE: On Monday we shall take the Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants Bill being put down as the Second Order, because it is not quite easy to say whether we may be

921
able to conclude the Second Reading of the Town Tenants Bill to-morrow (Thursday). I hope we may, and in that case I should ask your Lordships, if time permits, to begin the Committee stage of the Town Tenants Bill on Monday.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.