Sitting of 18 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting owing, to indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. Emmott, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the

1237
Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ure Elder Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats, and DistrictTramways Order Confirmation Bill, [Lords]; Dumbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
Two Petitions from Cardiff, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
Petitions for extension to women; From Cardiff (four); Derby; East Ham; and North Salford; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG.
  Copy presented, of Fifth Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie and Mallaig Railway, the rates and charges for traffic, and the receipts and expenditure of any company in working the railway, for the year ended 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 388.]

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative
  1238
  (County of Devon, Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 389.]

  TIENDS, ETC. (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "Of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland, and of the value of the tiends appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such payments and which still remain available for the future-augmentation of minister's stipends. (The information to be given under the head of the respective presbyteries and synods.)"—(Mr. M'Callum.)
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (SCOTLAND) (COMMUNICANTS).
  Return ordered, "in regard to the Established Church of Scotland giving, in separate columns, the number of male and the number of female communicants on the roll in each parish in Scotland for the year 1905."—(Mr. M'Callum.)
  ECCLESIASTICAL EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing 1. As regards each quoad omnia and each quoad sacra parish in Scotland; (1) The amount of expenses incurred for the past ten years in respect of (1) beadles; (2) sextons; (3) precentors; (4) pew openers; (5) communion elements not specified in decreets of court; (2) The amount of money voluntarily contributed by congregations or by individuals for the past ten years in payment of (1), building and repairing of kirks and manses; (2) ecclesiastical furniture; (3) organs; (4) heating apparatus; (5) stained glass windows; and (6) seats purchased from own councils, trade incorporations, or others; and (3) the amount of dues received during the past ten years for proclamation of banns of marriage."—(Mr. M'Callum.)

  OCCUPIERS OF FARMS (SCOTLAND),
  Return ordered, "showing in the subjoined form the number of occupiers of farms (whether owners or tenants), in
  County of
  Parish of

  Rental.

  Numbers of Persons.

  Gross Rental as per Valuation Roll.

  At £1 and under

  Over £1 and at or under £2

  Over £2 and at or under £3

  Over £3 and at or under £4

  Over £4 and at or under £10

  Over £10 and at or under £15

  Over £15 and at or under £20

  Over £20 and at or under £30

  Total not over £30

  Over £30 and at or under £40

  Over £40 and at or under £50

  Total over £30 and not over £50

  Over £50 and at or under £60

  Over £60 and at or under £70

  Over £70 and at or under £80

  Over £80 and at or under £90

  Over £90 and at or under £100

  Over £100 and at or under £150

  Over £150 and at or under £200

  Over £200 and at or under £300

  Over £300 and at or under £400

  Over £400 and at or under £500

  Over £500 and at or under £750

  Over £750 and at or under £1,000

  Over £1,000 and at or under £1,500

  Over £1,500 and at or under £2,000

  Over £2,000 and at or under £2,500

  Over £2,500 and at or under £3,000

  Over £3,000

  Total over £50

  Grand total

  —(Mr. Sinclair.)

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Irish Evicted Tenants—Application of James Gore of Rathkenny.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE (Meath, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    1240
    each, county and parish in Scotland, with the gross rental according to the valuation roll, for the year ending at Whitsunday, 1906.
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector to whom the application for reinstatement from James Gore, Mount Iress, Rathkenny, Slane, county Meath, was referred by the Estates Commissioners, has had any previous experience of such work or any commercial training.

    1241
    whatever; what was the date of his appointment as inspector, and by whom recommended; if the Estates Commissioners will call upon him for an explanation as to why he has not yet reported upon a farm visited by him about three months ago; and whether, considering the urgency of the evicted tenants question, will he suggest to the Commissioners the advisability of having their claims dealt with by inspectors who have some regard for business methods.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the inspector in question was originally appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant to the service of the Land Commission more than seven years ago, and was similarly appointed as an inspector to the Estates Commissioners when the Act of 1903 came into operation. He has thus had considerable experience, and the Estates Commissioners inform me that they have every confidence in his ability and impartiality. The Commissioners add that they deprecate personal imputations on their officials as being both unfair to the officials themselves and calculated to interfere with the proper discharge of their duties. In the particular case referred to the holding was inspected on 7th September last, and the inspector visited the evicted tenant at the same time. The delay in furnishing the report was mainly due to the fact that the inspector was in correspondence with the owner's agent with the object of procuring the reinstatement of the evicted tenant. The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of his estate, and is not disposed to sell the evicted holding separately. Nothing, therefore, can be done in the case in the immediate future.

    Assistant Clerks in the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy.
    MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether there are any assistant clerks (new class) in the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy who are engaged on the same work as, and who share similar responsibilities with, the majority of the second division clerks; and, if so, whether, seeing that owing to the recent reorganisation in this Department promotion to the second division is stopped for an indefinite period, he will say what
    1242
    steps, if any, are being taken to ensure practical recognition of the service of such assistant clerks.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and it is therefore not anticipated that any trouble is likely to arise.

    The Collard Court-Martial.
    MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a battleship and three cruisers were sent from Devonport to Portsmouth for the Collard court-martial in order to comply with the Admiralty regulation that in the port where a court is held the admiral's flag or captain's pennant must be flying; and, if so, whether such regulation could be altered.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The circumstances were wholly exceptional, and the revision of the regulation in, question is not considered necessary.

    Percentage of Cavalry Men in Hospital.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the percentage of men in hospital, for the last twelve months, from the cavalry regiments in England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.).The figures required are as follows:—

    Percentage daily sick.

    England

    2·8

    Scotland

    3·7

    Ireland

    4·5

    Defective Postal Service in Martinstown and Glenravel, County Antrim.
    MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the defective postal service in Martinstown and in Glenravel, county Antrim; whether he is aware that although both offices are within a few minutes walk of railway stations, there is only one collection and one delivery on each week day, and no service on Sunday; that letters posted after six o'clock on Fridays

    1243
    are not delivered in Belfast until Monday; and that letters from England or Scotland, if they arrive in Belfast or Ballymena after the despatch of the morning mail, are delayed for a day; and whether, as there is no telegraph office within eight miles, he will give instructions to have a morning despatch, an evening delivery, and a Sunday mail in addition to the present service.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Button.)The postal service at Martinstown and Glenravel is correctly described by the hon. Member; but it appears, from the latest information available, that the cost of the service is already high as compared with the amount of correspondence. I have, however, directed further inquiry to be made, with the view of ascertaining whether it is practicable in any way to meet the hon. Member's wishes. I will communicate the result to him in due course.

    Altering Closing Hours of Irish Post Offices.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of offices in Ireland affected by the change of closing hours from 10 p.m. to 8 p.m., and the number of officials affected thereby.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The offices in Ireland at which the hour of closing to the public has been changed from 10 p.m. to 8 p.m. are six in number. The attendance of twenty-two officers was affected by the change.

    Sunday Delivery of Letters at Ballyduff, County Kerry.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that public inconvenience and loss is caused to the fishing and butter industry by the want of a Sunday delivery of letters at Ballyduff, North Kerry; and whether he will accede to the request of the people by granting a Sunday delivery of letters at Ballyduff.
    (Answered by Mr, Sydney Buxton.) I am sorry to find that the cost of the existing service to Ballyduff is so high that I should not be justified, under existing conditions, in establishing a Sunday delivery there at the public expense.

    Overcrowding of the Telegraph School at the Central Telegraph Office.
    SIR J. BETHELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the telegraph school at the Central Telegraph Office is greatly overcrowded, and that repeated complaints have been made by those responsible for teaching the male and female learners; whether the chief medical officer has inspected this part of the building since these complaints have been made; whether his Report can be made known; and whether he can state when the necessary alterations will take place.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The large room formerly allocated to the learners' school was only partly occupied. In August last the urgency of demands for space necessitated the use of the room for other purposes, and the school was removed to one of the instrument galleries; but it was found that at a certain hour in the afternoon the space there was somewhat overcrowded. The medical officer inspected the school in August, and again recently, and was of opinion that measures for relief were necessary. Temporary relief was afforded, and arrangements for further relief are about to be carried out. No formal complaints have been made by the teaching staff. The sick absence of the learners is below the normal.

    Postal Pensions—Established and Unestablished Service.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a pension would be granted to an officer who had served twenty-two years in an unestablished capacity, followed by four years established service, or whether it would be held that he was only entitled to a gratuity.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the case to which he refers I will inform him what the position of the officer in question is as regards a pension.

    Battleships under Repair.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the time under repair given for different ships in Return No. 319 (Casualties to Ships on the Navy List) is

    1245
    taken from the data of the accident or the date on which repairs are actually commenced.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The time under repair is taken from the date on which repairs are actually commenced.

    Fires in Irish National Schools.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the scarcity of turf in certain school areas in Ireland, and the distance many children have to walk over mountainous roads in inclement weather to attend school in the winter season, he will place on the Estimates a sum of £24,000 to provide fires in all Irish national schools.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce) The Commissioners of National Education have submitted proposals on this subject, and these are now under consideration.

    Increase of Salaries for Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. MOONEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Newry national teachers urging that there should be an all-round increase of 50 per cent. in the salaries of Irish national teachers; whether an increase of 50 per cent. would put the salaries of Irish national teachers on an equality with those paid to English and Scottish teachers; whether he has received recommendations from the Commissioners of National Education on the same subject; and can he state whether these recommendations have been sanctioned by the Treasury.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received the resolution referred to, as also a number of other resolutions making various suggestions as to the salaries of teachers. All of those will receive due consideration. The Commissioners of National Education have submitted proposals which would have the effect of improving the position of teachers, and the matter is now under consideration.

    Irish Land Cases.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the
    1246
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to judgments delivered in Dublin on Monday last on nine appeal land cases from county Cavan; whether he is aware that five cases were confirmed, and in four cases rents were raised; did an assessor visit the lands in these cases; did the same assessor act in the nine cases; and, if so, what was his name, and do these decisions which bind the parties for fifteen years show a reduction equal to the average reduction obtaining in like cases in other and similar parts of Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that the facts are as stated in the earlier part of the Question. An assessor visited the lands in each case. Two assessors acted in the nine cases, one in five cases, and the other in four cases. The assessor in each case sits in open Court, and the parties to the case are therefore aware of the composition of the tribunal by which the case is decided. The Land Commission inform me that they do not think it right, in reply to Parliamentary Questions, to discuss the effect of the judicial decisions. They are required by statute to fix the judicial rent in each case, having regard to the interest of the landlord and tenant, respectively, and after considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district.

    Purchase of Holding by Patrick Deegan.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector from the Estates Commission named Booth on the 28th November last, called upon Mrs. Molloy, a sub-tenant to Patrick Deegan, Garroon, Mountmellick, on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, and, accompanied by the agent and bailiff of the estate, attempted to force Mrs. Molloy to sign an agreement and pay Deegan £5 for the privilege of being allowed to purchase; and seeing that subtenants are entitled to purchase, under the Act of 1903, will he take steps to protect Mrs. Molloy from being compelled by this official of the Land Commission into contracting unfair terms of purchase.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector did not in any way attempt to

    1247
    compel Mrs. Molloy, the sub-tenant, to purchase, but he did suggest that, as Patrick Deegan had paid more than £100 for the interest in the farm, it would be reasonable that he should receive something for his interest in the portion occupied by Mrs. Molloy, if she should purchase under Section 15; and he mentioned £5 as the possible redemption value of the intervening interest, and advised Mrs. Molloy to consult her solicitor before deciding what to do.

    Increased Pay for Irish School Teachers on Removal to Larger Schools.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether under present regulations any special consideration with regard to increments and promotion can be granted by the Commissioners of National Education to teachers who are removed from small to large and important schools.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that under Rule 112 (e) assistant teachers who may be promoted to principalships of large and important schools receive special consideration when their salaries as principals are being fixed. The Commissioners have submitted proposals for extending special consideration to the cases of teachers generally who may be transferred from small to large and inportant schools, and the matter is now under consideration.

    Disease of Hoose in Calves in West Clare.
    MR. HALPIN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the number of calves that have died from the disease of hoose in West Clare, he will give instructions to the agricultural instructor of West Clare to show the small farmers in his circuit, who are unable to pay a veterinary surgeon, how to perform the intertracheal injection for hoose in calves, which is so rife in the district owing to the wet soil and humidity of the climate.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Myhon. friend has asked me to answer this Question, which concerns the Department
    1248
    of Agriculture in Ireland. The agricultural instructors are not qualified to give demonstrations in intertracheal injections; such operations should only be undertaken by a veterinary surgeon. The methods of prevention of hoose are set forth in the Department's leaflet, No. 44, a copy of which I have sent to the hon. Member. The Department consider that the treatment described in that leaflet is more efficacious than the operation mentioned.

    Value of Admiralty Contracts.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the total value of the contracts placed in connection with the large cruisers "Indomitable," "Inflexible," and "Invincible," laid down this year in private yards.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total value of the main contracts were as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Inflexible

    1,224,808

    0

    0

    Invincible

    1,253,348

    13

    4

    Indomitable

    1,248,072

    5

    0

    These figures do not include cost of gun mountings or armament, contracts for which were placed separately.

    Appointment of Irish Assistant Teachers—Knowledge of the Irish Language.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an assistant teacher was appointed since the 1st of July last in each of the following schools in Irish-speaking districts in the county of Galway: Selerna Boys, Selerna Girls, Spiddal Girls, Claregalway Girls, and Lackagh Boys, and that the teachers who were appointed had not the requisite oral knowledge of Irish referred to in the note to Rule of Commissioners re Regulations; if so, will he explain why the appointments were sanctioned in contravention of the rule; whether any applications were received from candidates who had the necessary knowledge; and, if not, what steps those responsible for the administration of primary education in Ireland intend to take to meet the demand for the services of suitable teachers for Irish-speaking localities.

    1249
    The commissioners of National Education inform me that all the appointments mentioned in the Question were made before 12th September, 1906, when the code for 1906–7, containing the footnote alluded to, was issued to the managers of national schools. These appointments were all made by the local managers, and the Commissioners have no information as to whether any applications were submitted for the positions by candidates possessing an oral knowledge of Irish. As regards the last portion of the Question, the Commissioners include Irish as an optional subject in the programme for admission to training colleges. In most of the colleges provision is made for the teaching of the Irish language. Prizes are awarded annually by the Commissioners to encourage the study of the language in the colleges, and facilities are afforded to teachers for attending

    Training Colleges.

    Number of new Students summoned in the year beginning September 1906.

    Number of those who rank in the Third Grade (the highest grade in which any of them was recognised).

    Number of said Students who before entering took Irish as an optional subject.

    Marlborough Street

    171

    142

    5

    St. Patrick's, Drumcondra

    96

    67

    29

    Our Lady of Mercy, Blackrock

    133

    80

    27

    Church of Ireland, Kildare Place

    70

    24

    Nil

    De la Salle, Waterford

    99

    25

    44

    St. Mary's, Belfast

    57

    43

    25

    Mary Immaculate, Limerick

    49

    27

    18

    As the authorities of each college arrange their own terms of admission, the Commissioners have no knowledge of the colleges under local management that place Irish as an obligatory subject to qualify for entrance. In the Marlborough Street Training College, which is under the Commissioners' management, Irish is placed as an optional subject.
    courses of instruction in the special Irish colleges.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of students summoned to each training college for national teachers in Ireland in the year beginning September, 1906; the number of those so summoned in the various grades; the number in each college who, before entering, took Irish as an optional subject; the colleges that place Irish as an obligatory subject to qualify for entrance, and the colleges that place it as an optional subject.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education have furnished me with the following statement, which gives the particulars asked for so far as they know them:—

    Irish National Education Board—Suggested Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the general dissatisfaction given in Ireland to teachers and people by the Board of National Education, he would appoint a small committee to inquire into their work, policy, and constitution.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Several inquiries by commissions and committees are already in progress in Ireland, and I am not sure that it would be desirable to add to their number at present. The whole subject of education in Ireland, and of the authorities responsible for it, engages my unremitting attention, and any such legislative reforms as may be needed do not seem to me matters in which the judgment of any committee would be recognised as authoritative.

    Arrest of Canadian Sealers by Uruguayan Government.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give information as to the fate of the master and crew of the "Alice Gertrude," who were arrested by the Uruguayan Government on a charge of illegal sealing.
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Minister at Montevideo reported on the third instant that he had obtained the release of the Canadian sealers on their own bail.

    Decline in the Fijian Population.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Office has recently been called to the continued decline in the Fijian population of Fiji, and to the high death rate among that portion of the population of the Colony; and whether he can state what fresh steps it is proposed to take to prevent the Natives, whose interest was alleged as a reason for annexation, being replaced by other Polynesian and by Indian immigrant labourers.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The hon. Member will have seen from the Fiji Report for 1905, published last month, that the decline in the Native population has been checked, that year showing for the first time a slight increase. The death rate last year, though still considerable, was lower than for some years past. I am not aware that the past decline in the native population has been in any way accelerated by the introduc-
    1252
    tion of other Polynesian or Indian immigrants.

    Postal Employees Organisations.
    MR. DU CROS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the instruction issued in the Post Office Circular, No. 1702, on 13th February, 1906, stating that memorials or appeals may be addressed to him either direct or through the postmaster or head of a department by the secretaries of any of the postal associations, is still in force; if branch secretaries of the various organisations are still at liberty to make representations relating to the service and affecting their class to postmasters and surveyors; whether the secretary of a branch of a postal organisationis liable to censure for addressing memorials to his surveyor and submitting them through his postmaster; and if a higher official is permitted to inform the secretary of a branch of a postal association that he would get himself into trouble for addressing memorials to his surveyor, oven if submitted through his postmaster.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The instructions issued in the circular referred to are most certainly still in force. Branch secretaries of associations of Post Office servants are at liberty to make representations relating to the service and affecting the class of which the branch is representative to the postmaster or head of the department. If the hon. Member will furnish me with information about the particular case to which the remainder of his Question appears to refer, I will inquire into it.

    Post Office Factory—Trade Union Wages.
    MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, of fourteen men who are employed in D block, General Factory, Mount Pleasant, and are engaged on the ordinary trade wood-working machinery, only two are receiving the proper rate of wages, the remainder being much below the usual rate; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Sidney Buxton.) The factory staff, both skilled and unskilled,

    1253
    have been heard before the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, and pending the Report of that Committee, I must postpone consideration of the matter.

    Second Delivery of Letters at Glenarm.
    MR. O'NEILLTo ask the Postmaster-General if he can now state when a second delivery of letters will be established at Glenarm, in the county of Antrim, in accordance with the general desire of the inhabitants.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.): I will send the hon. Member an Answer on this subject as soon as possible.

    Regulations Under the Fertiliser and Feeding Stuffs Act.
    MR. BRODIE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in view of the fact that The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, will be in force in a few weeks time, the Board of Agriculture, if they have not already done so, will will take immediate steps to frame regulations, as they are empowered to do, as to the manner in which the analyses under the Act should be made.
    MR. BRODIE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture realise that it is possible in many cases, for instance under sampling regulations, Section 6, sub-section 1 (iv), for the analyst to obtain the full amount of nitrogen or none, and that there are various ways, well known to experts, by which an analyst can, within limits, obtain any result he desires or thinks desirable unless he is directed to a well-defined and universal procedure; and if so, whether the Board will take steps to secure uniformity of procedure in regard to analyses throughout the country.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.)Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these two Questions together. There is much to be said in favour of the
    1254
    issue of regulations having for their object the securing uniformity in the methods of analysis, and the matter is now receiving careful consideration. With regard to my hon. friend's second Question I can only say that no regulations can ensure satisfactory results if the analyst is intent on fraud, and that in every case of chemical analysis the honesty and capacity of the analyst must be assumed unless the contrary is proved.

    Wearing of Uniform by Customs Officers.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the duties of officers in Customs and Excise bonded warehouses are identical and governed by a common code of regulations; and if so, will he state why the wearing of uniform by officers in Customs warehouses is considered necessary in the public interest, whereas it is not so considered in the case of officers in Excise warehouses; and whether he will consider the advisability of abolishing the wearing of uniform by surveyors and examining officers of Customs.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I understand that the duties of Customs and of Excise officers in bonded warehouses are governed by a common code of regulations, but are only identical in so far as the business of the warehouse is of a similar character. Customs officers, unlike officers of Excise, are required in the ordinary course of their duty to examine goods on open wharves and quays, on board vessels, in transit or other sheds, and in baggage warehouses, as well as in bonded warehouses; and in the opinion of the Board of Customs, this wide range of employment renders it necessary in the public interest that their officers when employed in the performance of these duties should wear a uniform, which at once establishes their identity as persons authorised by the Crown to examine merchandise and private property for revenue purposes. They inform me, therefore, that they cannot recommend the abolition of the wearing of uniform by surveyors and examining officers. I learn, moreover, that the Board of Customs recently received a deputation of their officers on the subject of uniform, and, after fully

    1255
    considering the matter, decided that it was not advisable to make any change in the regulations.

    Local Train Service from the City.
    MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the discontinuance of the direct train service from the City to New Cross, via Rotherhithe and Deptford Road, and the consequent inconvenience to a crowded part of London which is lacking in any other means of communication, he will make representations with a view to having this service restored.
    MR. WEDGWOOD BENN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the discontinuance of the direct service of trains from the City to Shadwell and Wapping; and whether, in view of the fact that the railway is, during the winter, the only means of communication with Wapping, he will make representations with a view to having the service re-started.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have communicated with the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway Companies n this matter, and am informed that the withdrawal of their steam trains upon the adoption of electric traction on their lines has necessitated the discontinuance of the through service referred to, as the joint committee of the six companies to whom the East London Railway is leased have not as yet seen their way to equip that line for electrical working. It is added, however, that arrangements have been made for a convenient interchange of traffic at the White chapel Station.

    Aliens and Board of Trade Pilots' Certificates.
    MAJOR COATES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many pilots hold certificates from the Board of Trade who are of foreign origin and allegiance; and whether he will state their several nationalities, and whether any of them hold commissions from or are in any way at the disposal of their respective Governments.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have no power to issue
    1256
    licences or certificates to pilots. They can, however, in certain circumstances, grant certificates to masters and mates enabling them to pilot their own vessels. There is one person of foreign origin and allegiance holding such a certificate granted by the Board. This officer is a Dutch subject and is master of a Dutch vessel. I cannot say whether he holds a commission from or is in any way at the disposal of the Dutch Government. The hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware that the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill contains a clause which will prevent the issue of fresh pilotage certificates to foreign subjects in the future.

    Irish Land Purchase—Stone Quarries and Gravel Pits.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in whom are vested stone quarries and gravel pits where a sale takes place directly between the tenant and landlord, under the Act of 1902; and whether the tenant has the power of selling or using a quarry or gravel pit for his own or other use.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This Question is one of law which, as I am informed, has not yet been the subject of judicial determination, and I could not not give an opinion upon it without much consideration.

    Teachers who Completed their Training in Irish Colleges.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many teachers completed their course of training in the various training colleges in Ireland during the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906; how many of those have since been employed in Ireland; how many have come to England; what is the cost of training each teacher; whether he has any official information showing that the exodus of trained teachers from Ireland is due to the rate of salaries paid in Ireland, and more especially to assistant teachers; whether it is proposed to consider the salaries of Irish teachers as a whole, and make them in some way proportionate to the importance of the work they discharge.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of teachers who com-

    Training Colleges.

    1900.

    1901.

    1902.

    1903.

    1904.

    1905.

    1906.

    Marlborough Street (Dublin)

    156

    165

    184

    144

    181

    123

    122

    St. Patrick's (Drumcondra, Dublin)

    103

    94

    99

    90

    103

    74

    61

    Our Lady of Mercy (Blackrock, Dublin)

    92

    76

    92

    73

    92

    76

    126

    Church of Ireland (Dublin)

    60

    51

    71

    66

    72

    59

    63

    De La Salle (Waterford)

    72

    77

    84

    73

    68

    59

    67

    St. Mary's (Belfast)

    nil

    18

    77

    40

    63

    54

    53

    Mary Immaculate (Limerick)

    nil

    nil

    25

    50

    38

    59

    48

    Total

    483

    481

    632

    536

    617

    504

    540

    The Commissioners are unable to say with any degree of accuracy how many of these teachers have since been employed in Ireland. The latest statistics as to the number of teachers who have gone to England is contained in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for East Cork on 25th June last.†The cost of training of each teacher depends on whether the student is a man or a woman, and whether entered for a one-year's or a two-years' course. Grants for resident King's scholars are as follows:—(a) A fixed grant of £50 for each man in training for one year, and of £100 for each man in training for two years; (b) A fixed grant of £35 for each woman in training for one year, and of £70 for each woman in training for two years; (c) In addition, a bonus of £10 for each man of the one-year's course of training, and of £20 for each man of the two-years course of training, after two years probationary service of a satisfactory character in the actual work of teaching; (d) A bonus of £7 for each woman of the one-year's course of training, and of £14 for each woman of the two-years course of training, after two years probationary
    †See (4) Debates, clix., 625.
    pleted their course of training in the years mentioned are as follows:—
    service of a satisfactory character in the actual work of teaching. In the case of non-resident students the bonus is the only cost to the State. The Commissioners have no official information as to the reasons why trained teachers leave Ireland. The question of improving the salaries of teachers is now under consideration.

    New Year's Day as Holiday in Irish Government Offices.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why New Year's Day was given as a holiday in former years; if it was an irregular holiday, can he say what is meant by an irregular holiday; and whether he is aware that the denial of those privileges is one of the causes of the discontent existing amongst the staff.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I regret that I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 14th instant.‡

    Army Motor Reserve—Uniform Contracts.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War
    ‡ See Col., 832.

    1259
    Office whether he is aware that the supply of uniforms for the newly established Army Motor Reserve Corps is practically limited to one firm in London; will he say whether the War Office mention this firm only in their communications to the officers; whether he is aware that an officer who wished to give an order to a Dublin firm was unable to do so, by reason that the War Office stated that the pattern of uniform in question had not been approved, although the London firms had taken orders for supply of uniforms; and whether he will take measures to insure equal treatment to all tailoring firms who wish to tender.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The details of the uniform of the Army Motor Reserve were only settled on the 12th instant, and were communicated to the General Officer Commanding, London District, for the information of the officer commanding, on the following day. No mention of tailors' firms is made in this communication, and individual officers have not been addressed on the subject. The provision of uniform by officers of this body is voluntary, and they are at liberty to obtain them where they think fit.

    Service with the Army and Civil Service Pensions.
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to recommend that service with the Army shall count towards a qualifying time for Civil Service pension or bonus.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This subject is at present under consideration.

    New Stables at Tidworth Barracks.
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether new brick stables are to be built or whether the old corrugated ironstabling from Bulford is to be moved and used for cavalry at Tidworth Barracks; whether the old stabling would, if re-erected, be weather proof and water-proof; and also when the new stabling is to be begun, and when finished.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is proposed to transfer serviceable hut stabling from Bulford to Tidworth as
    1260
    may be required. No unserviceable hutting would be removed from Bulford. No definite dates can be given at present as regards the beginning and completion of the work.

    Pay of Government Workmen at Weedon.
    MR. GROVE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the cost of living is dearer in Weedon than in London, and that the rents of workmen's cottages in Weedon have increased by 2s. to 3s. per week during the last five years, he will reconsider the adjustment of the wages of foremen and artificers employed in the Government works, so as to bring the rate of pay more into accordance with the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 6th March, 1893.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This matter is receiving consideration.

    The Commissioner of Woods and Forests
    MR. ALDEN: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state what are the exact powers over the Crown woodlands exercised by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the Board of Agriculture respectively; whether he would consider the advisability of establishing a Board of Forestry for Great Britain under the Board of Agriculture; whether he would also consider the advisability, in view of the need for new industries, of establishing a similar Board in Ireland; and what is the entire amount expended on experimental forestry areas at the present time.
    (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Crown woodlands are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, by whom clearing, thinning, and replanting are carried on as occasion requires. I may add for the information of my hon. friend that three large areas of woodlands have been placed under systematic sylvicultural treatment, the management of one of these having been placed in the hands of a forestry instructor to the Armstrong College of Science at Newcastle, so that practical demonstrations in forestry are available for students. As regards the second part of the Question, I may point out that by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 2 of The Board of Agriculture

    1261
    Act, 1889, the Board of Agriculture is entrusted with the promotion of the interests of forestry. The Answer given by the Board in reply to a Question of my hon. friend the Member for Denbighshire West, on 20th June last,†contains information as to the steps taken by the Board of Agriculture in carrying out this important branch of their duties. In Ireland the Department of Agriculture exercises somewhat similar powers, and if my hon. friend will refer to the Answer of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, of 23rd November, to a Question of the hon. Member for Wexford South,‡he will find a brief account of the manner in which the Department are discharging their duties. I am afraid that it is impossible at short notice to state exactly what sum is devoted annually by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to experimental forestry areas, and I am informed that in some cases it would be difficult to say whether a given area may properly be regarded as "experimental" or not.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Submarines and Naval Programmes.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the rapid development of submarines has caused any material alteration in the shipbuilding programmes of this or other countries with regard to the size and number of battleships and cruisers; and whether in order to secure adequate protection to the hulls of war vessels from the attack of submarines, the Admiralty will consider the advisability of offering a substantial reward for the best design offered for this purpose.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): So far as the Admiralty are aware, the reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative; and as regards the second part, the Admiralty are fully satisfied with their own design for this purpose.

    Hours of Work in His Majesty's Dockyards.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
    †See (4) Debates, clix., 160.
    ‡See (4) Debates, clxv., 1114.
    1262
    whether the wages of workmen in His Majesty's dockyards are based on the number of hours per week they are actually engaged in work, and calculated on the rate of wages per hour of similar classes of workmen in private yards; whether by this method the workmen receive less wages per week in the dockyards than those in private yards; and whether the concession of a previous Government of the 48-hours week to men in such dockyards is no longer applicable, but the shorter hours are to be worked at a loss to the men.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The total number of hours worked per week and the hourly rate of wages for similar work in private yards are both important factors in determining the dockyard rates, but they are not the only points taken into consideration. In some cases, the total weekly wages are less than those in the private trade, where the week is five or six hours longer. The introduction of the 48-hours week has in no case resulted in a reduction from the weekly rates previously paid.

    Cost of New Cruisers.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the total value of the contracts placed in connection with the large cruisers "Indomitable," "Inflexible," and "Invincible," laid down this year in private yards.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The total value of the main contracts were as follows:—"Inflexible," £1,224,808, "Invincible" £1,253,348 13s. 4d., "Indomitable," £1,248,072 5s. These figures do not include cost of gun mountings or armament, contracts for which were placed separately.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why no attempt was made to secure competitive tenders in the case of the three large cruisers "Indomitable," "Inflexible," and "Invincible."
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have already told the hon. Member, in reply to a previous Question on the 11th December,†that this matter was dealt with by the late Board, and I do not feel
    †See Col. 116–7.

    1263
    in a position to make any statement as to the reasons which may have led to their decision.

    Tradesmen and Tidworth. Barracks.
    MR. RENDALL: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many tradesmen have settled at Ludgershall with the object of being better able to cater for the various wants of men in barracks at Tidworth; whether he is aware that whilst brigade passes into the camp have been granted to traders living as far away as Portsmouth and Swindon, the military authorities have refused passes to traders actually living and carrying on business in Ludgershall parish; and whether he will consider the advisability of giving the local rate paying traders preference over strangers, or at least of placing them on equal terms with them; and will he express such a desire to the proper quarters.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): Traders who live and carry on business in the neighbourhood of Tidworth barracks are invariably granted passes provided that their character is satisfactory and that there is not already a large number of passes issued to others in the same way of business. Preference is always given to local tradesmen.

    Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he received a petition last June from the cutters employed at the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico, asking for an increase in their rate of wages equal to that paid by private contractors to their employees; and whether he can accede to that request; and, if not, what decision has he come to on the matter.
    MR. HALDANE: No such petition has been received by me. I understand that certain representations were made informally as to the rate of wages of cutters in the Clothing Factory at Pimlico, but nothing definite has yet come before me for my consideration or decision.

    Soldiers in Hospital.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if
    1264
    he can now state the percentage for the last twelve months of men in hospital from the cavalry quartered in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
    MR. HALDANE: I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer I gave on this subject yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for the St. Andrew's Burghs.†

    The Aden Hinterland.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British troops are to be withdrawn from Dthala in the Aden Hinterland; whether, if so, the Amir of that place will be left unsupported against Turkish aggression; and whether the Frontier Delimitation Treaty, which assigned Dthala to the British sphere of influence, has been abrogated.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. Morley, Montrose Burghs): My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I have already stated that the permanent location of troops in the Aden Hinderland has never been sanctioned either by the late or the present Government. The withdrawal of troops from Dthala, now that the delimitation proceedings are completed, is in accordance with the statement of policy made by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords on the 30th March, 1903, as to the demarcation, viz., that His Majesty's Government had never desired to interfere with the internal and domestic affairs of the tribes on the British side of the boundary, but had throughout made it plain that they would not assent to the interference of any other power with those affairs. The frontier defined by the Commission and accepted by the Turkish Government, has settled all questions of the boundary between the Turkish dominions and the territory of the Amir of Dthala, and this definition constitutes a firm guarantee against Turkish aggression. The agreement with the Turkish Government has not been in any sense or degree abrogated. I should add that a Political Officer remains for the present at Dthala, and our political supervision will be exercised in such manner as may be necessary for the discharge of our obligations.
    †See Col. 1242.

    Indian Excise Administration
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I bag to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received the views of the Government of India upon the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Excise administration; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement upon this subject.
    MR. MORLEY: It has been decided to publish the Report in India without waiting until the Government have reviewed it, and I will lay it on the Table of the House as soon as the necessary copies are received from India.

    Indian Excise Revenue.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Excise Report of the Central Provinces to the effect that the revenue from country liquor during the year 1905–6 increased by 17 per cent.; whether he is aware that during the same period the Excise Revenue of the Punjabrose by Rs.413,503, the increased consumption in four districts alone amounting to over 98,000 gallons; and whether the Government of India contemplate taking immediate steps to arrest the spread of drinking habits among the people of these provinces.
    Mr. MORLEY: Large changes have recently been made in the excise system of the Central Provinces and the increase in Excise Revenue in 1905–06, which is correctly stated by the hon. Member, is believed to be of a temporary character and in large measure due to the unsettlement caused by the changes. These have the object of increasing the control of the Government over the liquor trade, and it is too early yet to judge the results. The increase in the Punjab both in revenue and in recorded liquor consumption, was caused by an attempt to substitute licit for illicit supplies by the sale of cheaper liquor experimentally in certain areas. A Report on the experiment is, I understand, under consideration in India, and when it reaches me, I will lay it on the Table.

    Royal Scots at Bombay—Religious Services.
    *SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
    1266
    India whether the Bishop of Bombay has refused licence to the regiment of Royal Scots, now stationed at the Colaba barracks in Bombay, to worship according to the religious solemnities of the Church of Scotland in the Government garrison church at Colaba; whether he can state if the Presbyterian soldiers in that regiment attend in parade form at any other church; what arrangements will be made for them as to churches in the hot months of the year to save them from exposure to the sun; whether the Bishop of Bombay refuses licence to Wesleyan Methodist soldiers, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, for divine service in the said Colaba garrison church; and whether these Methodist soldiers are enabled to march to any other church with their officers in military form.
    MR. MORLEY: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 28th May last, † it was arranged that parade services for the Scottish troops should beheld in the garrison church at Colaba during the hot months—from May to October inclusive—while for the rest of the year it was understood that they would attend the Presbyterian Church in the fort at Bombay. So far as I am aware, this arrangement still holds good. As regards the Wesleyan Methodist soldiers, there is, I understand, a Wesleyan Church at Bombay which is attended by the soldiers stationed there. The precise arrangements have not been reported to me, and I will make inquiry as to thorn.
    *SIR J. JARDINEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the close connection of Scotland with India, the strong religious convictions of Scotsmen and Presbyterians, and the natural feeling of a gallant regiment, he did not think this was a case in which the remedy against prelatic unreason or mistake promised in 1900 by Lord George Hamilton ought to be applied, namely, pressure by the Civil Government.
    MR. MORLEYreplied that he must inquire further into the Question before answering that.
    *MR. J. D. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether
    †See (4) Debates, clviii., 64.

    1267
    it is not the fact that the church which is being thus monopolised was built and is being maintained out of public money?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Native Labour in Natal.
    MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what was the number of natives in each of the last five years who rendered compulsory labour to the Public Works Department of Natal, and what relation the wages at the rate of £1 per month and rations bear to the current rate of wages, as complaint has been made by the natives that they are compelled to work for less than half the current rate of wages.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N.W.): The numbers of natives employed in Public Works Department of Natal and Zululand were:—1901, 6,708; 1902, 6,403; 1903, 6,175; 1904, 5,677. Total number employed in all departments in 1905 was 5,382. The number employed in Public Works Department is not stated. The wages of £1 per month and rations appears to be in excess of the wages for farm labour. The information at my disposal does not enable me to say what amount of justification there may be in the alleged complaint.

    Unemployment in the West Indies.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention bas been called to a resolution passed at a public meeting at Port-of-Spain, in October last, to the effect that, having regard to the sufferings of the middle and lower classes of this island, and the readiness of the West Indians to labour for a reasonable wage, as is evident by their recent departure to the Isthmus of Panama, in view also of the cane-farming industry being presently sufficiently well established in this island, the Trinidad Working Men's Association in public meeting assembled protested against any further appropriation of £70,000 per annum of public money to continue the importation of East Indian indentured immigrants to this Colony to compete with the West Indian labourer, and that such practice
    1268
    has tended not only to add to the Colony's commercial depression in its contribution to the impoverishment of the Colony and to be an obstacle to the relief of taxation, but was a standing menace to public peace and property in the island; and, if so, whether he is prepared to give instructions for an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances complained of to be held, and a Report presented thereon.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the resolution in question, but he cannot admit that it accurately sets out the facts relating to East Indian immigration. It is not the case that £70,000 of public money are annually applied to the introduction of immigrants. The East Indian immigrants (the majority of whom remain in the Colony after serving their indenture) and their descendants form a large and valuable element in the population of Trinidad; they contribute most materially to the revenue of the Colony and are in no way a menace to public peace and property. The Secretary of State is informed by the Governor that such distress as now exists in Trinidad is not among the agricultural labourers, and is not, therefore, the result of East India immigration. Lord Elgin sees no reason for ordering an inquiry to be held into the matter. The proposals which have been submitted by the Governor with a view to mitigating such distress as exists have been approved.

    Ceylon Goverment Railway—Employees' Grievances.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which exists amongst the whole of the grades of the service employed in the manipulation of the traffic on the Ceylon Government Railway; whether he is aware that the men have been for a period of two years seeking an interview with the responsible officials with a view to finding a remedy for their alleged grievances; and whether he can give to these British subjects the right of representation through their union to settle grievances which arise in connection with their employment.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State received a communication

    1269
    last month on behalf of the locomotive engine drivers employed on the Ceylon Government Railway. As it was not sent through the Colonial Government in accordance with the standing rule it was sent out to the Governor with a request for a full and early report upon the complaints contained in it. There has not yet been time for an answer, but the matter will not be overlooked. No complaints have been received at the Colonial Office on behalf of other grades of Ceylon railway employees.
    MR. HUDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question as to the right of the representation?
    MR. CHURCHILL: That is a large question of policy of which I ought to have notice. I certainly feel that all employees on railroads should have the right of representation. Perhaps the hon. Member will see me privately.
    MR. HUDSON: I shall be happy to do so.

    Bagdad Railway.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps have been taken to secure British control over the section of the proposed Bagdad Railway from Killis to Bagdad, as well as over the section Bagdad to Koweit.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey, Northumberland, Berwick): The Answer is in the negative.
    *MR. REES: Is there any foundation for the assumption in the last sentence of the Question that there is any British control over the Bagdad and Koweit section?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir; that is a German and not a British section.

    Turco-Persian Frontier Zone
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause to be placed in the Library of this House a copy of the identic map of the Turco-Persian frontier zone delivered in 1869 and 1870 by the English and Russian Governments to Ottoman and Persian
    1270
    Governments respectively, together with a copy of any correspondence or documents necessary to elucidate the circumstances under which it was prepared, and the purposes it was designed to serve.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: This subject is now under negotiation between the Powers concerned. In these circumstances it would not be desirable to publish maps and papers, which would no doubt be of historical interest, but which relate to a frontier in which British territory is not concerned.

    Whisky Transactions with the United States.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act which have been issued by the United States Department of Agriculture and are to come into force on 1st January next, and to the effect such enforcement may have upon the transactions which take place in whisky between this country and the United States owing to the want of any recognised standard in this country; and whether he can do anything to secure a suspension of such rules until the question now sub judice is decided.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to furnish a Report on the matter. On receipt of this Report, His Majesty's Government will consider what action, if any, they can take in the interests of British trade.

    Mining Royalties.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has sufficient information to form an opinion if mining royalties and way leaves are fit subjects for taxation, and the annual income derived by the owners there from; whether, seeing these owners contribute nothing towards local taxation, and only pay income-tax on minerals actually wrought, and nothing on the capital value of unworked minerals, and that some royalty owners refuse, owing to increasing value, to work or let their

    1271
    minerals, he will consider the desirability of taxing this unearned wealth.
    MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the Report of the Royal Commission, signed by the hon. Member for Rhondda and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, in which it was stated that such a system of royalties had not interfered with the general development of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): Yes, Sir, I am familiar with that Report. In my opinion all the necessary information for forming an opinion on this matter is available. I cannot at present make any statement as to the future, except that suggestions for new sources of revenue are always welcome to a Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing the burden placed on the coal, iron, steel, and allied trades due to way leaves and royalties, he will, in view of the millions of persons dependent on these trades, consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to report on the effect of these burdens on trade in relation to wages and foreign competition, and what taxation could be derived from these sources, seeing that no taxation is paid by mineral owners for unworked minerals, either for imperial or local purposes, though their value is continually increasing.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): As my hon. friend may be aware, a very exhaustive inquiry was recently made into the economic operation of the royalty system. The Royal Commission which undertook the inquiry reported in 1893, and, in view of the mass of information collected by it, I doubt if it is necessary or advisable to institute another inquiry.
    *MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission of 1893 reported that in royalties and way leaves no less than £4,000,000 annually of blackmail was
    1272
    levied on the coal industry alone of this country?
    MR. MARKHAM: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Report does not deal with way leaves?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered that he had all the information that he desired on this subject.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that, according to an ancient law of Scotland, these mineral royalties were the property of the State, and whether he would take steps to have that law enforced.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no doubt that if it is an old Scots law it is probably a very good law.

    Inspection of Docks and Wharves.
    *MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether docks, wharves, and quays are registered for the purposes of inspection with reference to safety, and, if so, what means are employed for inspection; whether in view of the fact that the number of docks, wharves, and quays subject to factory inspection under Section 79 of Factory Act are 3,067, and the number of inspectors' visits totalled 2,147 only annually, steps will be taken to ensure an annual minimum number of visits to each place registered under the regulations; whether he will give authority to inspectors and staffto tabulate in classified form accidents aboard ship, quay, shed, or warehouse; whether gears and plants are dealt with by regulations and inspected, and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure periodical inspection; and whether inspectors are experienced men in ship cargo gearing and plant for discharging and loading purposes.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): Yes, docks, wharves, and quays are registered, and are inspected regularly, as part of their general work, by the factory staff. The total number of visits paid to docks other than docks forming part of factories or workshops in 1905 was 4,787, not 2,147 as

    1273
    stated in the Question. Many of those unvisited in the course of the year would be small canal wharves. As I have stated more than once this session, steps have been taken by me to strengthen the staff with a view to improving still further the inspection at docks. Arrangements have already been made to classify in more detail the accidents at docks. Gear and plant are dealt with by the Home Office regulations which are enforced by the inspectors. The testing and periodical examination of chains and other gear is provided for by the regulations. Special inspectors are not appointed for docks, but the staff is carefully selected with regard to the nature of the duties they will be called upon to perform.
    *MR. O'GEADY: May I point out that the figures quoted in the Question are those given by the right hon. Gentleman himself earlier in the session as the probable number of visits, but those did not include the canal wharves, a totally different thing.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will inquire into that.
    MR. J. WARD: Does the Answer apply to wharves in course of construction, whore, of course, dangerous machinery is employed?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think so; if not, I will let the hon. Member know.

    Licensing Acts.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that there are about forty Licensing Acts now in force, commencing from the year 1660, affecting the sale or control of intoxicating liquors, many of which contain the perplexing system of legislation by reference, and of the number of important judicial decisions thereon, and in view of the difficulty caused thereby in their construction and administration, he will promise that the new Bill to be introduced next year upon this subject shall be one of consolidation.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am fully alive to the importance of consolidating the Licensing Laws, and I have been considering it for some time past. But I
    1274
    cannot at present make any statement as to next year's legislation.

    Labour Sweating—Colonial Remedies.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of recent inquiries into the sweating system, he proposes to take steps to obtain reports on the remedies which have been applied by the legislation of Colonial States, such as the Wages Board Acts of Victoria.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Before that Question is answered may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will also make inquiry as to the alleged sweating of women and young girls employed by religious institutions expelled from France, and now domiciled in England?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. In view of the importance of this subject and the interest of the measures taken in several of the Australasian States to deal with the evils of the sweating system, I propose sending a Commissioner to investigate and report upon the effects of the Wages Board and Compulsory Arbitration Acts in force in Australia and New Zealand. The opportunity will be taken of obtaining information at the same time on the results of the legislation to secure the earlier closing of shops which has been adopted in certain of the Australasian States. In answer to the supplementary Question, I am afraid that I cannot add anything to Answers I have already given, although I must say that it seems to me it is as far a cry to Australasia as the subject of this Question is apart from that on the Paper.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: But may I—
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Question is not relevant.

    Civil Rights of Police Officers.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the conditions of service in the police force are such as to prevent police officers from using their civil rights in all respects; whether the conditions preclude a member of the force from writing to the public Press commenting upon matters connected

    1275
    with the terms of service; and, if so, will he issue an order instructing that there shall be do undue restraint upon police officers in these matters.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The members of the Metropolitan Police, like other public officers, are necessarily subject to certain restrictions in the exercise of their civil rights. They cannot, for instance, sit in this House or on county or borough councils, nor can they act as directors of companies. They are also prohibited from communicating with newspapers on police matters without the consent of the Commissioner. The last is a restriction similar to that imposed on all Civil servants, and is clearly necessary in the public interest. I have no reason to think that any undue restriction is imposed.

    Boston Pilots' Charges.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he contemplates granting an Order in Council to the Boston Pilot Trust for the purpose of reducing the regular pilotage charges of the Boston pilots; and, if so, will he permit the Pilots' Association to lay their views before him before any definite action is taken.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs): As stated in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Limerick on the 14th November,†the Boston Pilot Commissioners have applied for an Order in Council to confirm a new by-law made by them dealing with the pilotage rates at Boston. Public notice of the application has only within the last few days been given by advertisement, and I am not in a position at present to say whether the by-law is one which it is desirable to submit to His Majesty in Council for confirmation by Order in Council. I have already received the views of the United Kingdom Pilots' Association by letter, and should they wish to discuss the matter with me personally, I shall be happy to meet them.

    Railway Commissioners' Salaries.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Presi-
    †See (4) Debates, clxiv., 1493–4.
    1276
    dent of the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners of railways and canals are paid at the rate of £100 for each day on which they sit; and whether he will state on how many days they sit in the course of a year.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Each of the two appointed Railway and Canal Commissioners receive a fixed salary of £3,000 a year. The average number of days in the year on which the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission has held public sittings has been about thirty-two. The Commissioners also hold private sittings, of which there is no record. I may also refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 28th ultimo, to the effect that the newly-appointed Commissioner is to give his whole time to the public service, and will be available for public work generally in addition to his ordinary duties as a member of the Commission.

    Midland Railway Employees' Long Hours.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the long hours being worked by the drivers and firemen at the Midland Railway locomotive depot, Leeds; whether he is aware that these men are frequently working thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen hours per day because of an inadequate relief staff; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the matter with a view to securing a reduction of these long hours.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Representations have been received in regard to the hours of work of the men at this depot, and inquiry is being made.

    Swansea Distress Committee
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department on 12th October refused to make a grant to the Swansea Distress Committee, and informed that body that if it anticipated that it would be requisite to provide temporary work during the forthcoming winter, it must rely upon voluntary contributions for meeting the cost, and in that case every effort should be made by means of public appeals and

    1277
    otherwise to obtain the contributions required; and, if so, whether, with a view to encourage local contributions, he is now prepared to make a grant to Swansea and other distress committees similarly circumstanced.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): The first part of the Question appears to refer to a circular which I sent to some of the distress committees, including that for Swansea, on the 12th October last, in which I stated that on the information before me I did not propose to make any payment to them out of the grant. I have not since received any communication from the Swansea Distress Committee. The object of the grant is not that a payment should be made out of it to every distress committee, but to enable this to be done in those localities in which the need for assistance in providing or contributing to the provision of temporary work is of a clearly exceptional character. It is only where this is the case that I am prepared to consider an application for a share of the grant.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Swansea there are 800 unemployed men on the register, that there are no local funds to deal with them, and that unless a grant is made nothing can be done for these destitute workmen?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I shall be pleased of course to receive any application from the Swansea Distress Committee, and it should not only embody the number of unemployed on the register, but indicate any useful works of public utility upon which they could be employed. I can assure the hon. Member the letter will be promptly answered.
    MR. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaint from the Local Distress Committee as to the action of a contractor in the locality in advertising for men when he has no work to give them, thereby increasing the distress there?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am sorry to hear that any contractor should have
    1278
    done that. I have received no communication on the subject.

    Work of Distress Committees
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has suggested certain lines for Distress Committees to follow in respect to finding employment, and made the carrying out of particular schemes a condition of granting a share of the.£200,000; whether his Department has taken any action in cases where local authorities have not put the Unemployed Act into operation; whether he is aware of the diminished voluntary subscriptions in relief of distress due to unemployment; and whether he contemplates a more speedy distribution of the Government grant, the greater part of which is still unused.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I issued a circular to some of the Distress Committees stating the particulars which they should furnish if they desired to apply for assistance from the Grant. One of the particulars asked for was a statement of the work to be provided. The Unemployed Workmen Act required that distress committees should be appointed in certain circumstances, and appointments have been made in all such cases. I am aware that in some instances voluntary subscriptions have diminished. All applications for assistance from the Grant are dealt with as speedily as possible, and where I am satisfied that a case for assistance has been made out, a payment is made at once. We are, however, at present only in the early part of the winter, and it is important that a due amount of the Grant should be kept in hand to meet any claims that may arise during the remainder of it.

    Religious Instruction Regulations.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the syllabus of religious instruction issued by the Board of Education provides for the daily use of the Lord's Prayer; and whether in the provided schools the Lord's Prayer is usually said daily.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.): The functions of the Board of

    1279
    Education are certainly very varied, but they do not include, I am glad to say, any duty or any power to issue any syllabus of religious instruction, this being left to the local education authority in provided schools and to the foundation managers, acting under trust, in voluntary schools. In reply to the concluding paragraph, I can only say that I have no information beyond that contained in the Parliamentary Return recently issued; but I should imagine the reply is in the affirmative.

    Pelden Postal Arrangements.
    MR. A. L. LEVER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that there is not a post office with a money order or savings bank department within five miles of Pelden, Essex, he will arrange to add such to the existing post office in that village.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): A guarantee has been given for the transaction of Money Order and Savingss Bank business at the Pelden Sub-Office, and the necessary arrangements are being made.

    Mount Pleasant Supernumeraries.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a large number of Christmas supernumeraries are being employed at Mount Pleasant and other sorting offices on night attendance, viz., 12 midnight to 8 a.m., for a wage of £1 per week; and whether, seeing that these men are paid less than sixpence per hour for all night work, he will undertake to see that they receive treatment at least equal to that given for a similar class of labour by the London County Council and other municipal bodies.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will look into the matter.

    House of Commons Post Office.
    MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if in any changes he may make in the post office of the House he will so arrange that receptacles may be provided for such Members as desire them in which their letters may be
    1280
    placed and that such receptacles may be placed in such a position that the Members may see them from the lobby, so as to save the time of the officials in sorting over a large number of letters when a Member asks if there are any letters for him.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As my hon. friend is aware, with the co-operation of the First Commissioner of Works, I have made considerable improvements in the postal arrangements of the House of Commons for the convenience of Members, both in regard to greater counter space, and also in regard to a larger and more convenient number of pigeon holes for their letters, and in other ways. There is no available space, apart from other difficulties, in which to carry out the suggestion made by my hon. friend.

    Gooseberry Mildew.
    MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture has received any Reports that the instruction sent out by the Board, with a view to the prevention of gooseberry disease, have had a good effect, or whether it is deemed necessary for more definite action to be taken.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It is too soon to say whether the recommendations issued by the Board will prove sufficient to prevent the introduction or spread of the disease. The position is being carefully watched, and if it should appear that further powers are necessary to deal with the disease, the Board will not hesitate to ask for them.

    Boat Cove, Glen, County Kerry.
    MR. BOLANLD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have endeavoured to complete the toe-end of the slip at Boat Cove, Glen, county Kerry, by using, against expert local advice, creosoted balk instead of concrete, which they had used for the rest of the slip; that, having found that the balks would not stand the high tides and gales, they have now taken the work to pieces; and whether, in view of the

    1281
    fact that the fishermen of the neighbouring fishing stations have been enabled to secure catches of from 20,000 to 30,000mackerel weekly, whilst the Boat Cove fishermen have only secured about 1,600, owing to the want of proper landing facilities, the Congested Districts Board will now use concrete for the completion of this slip.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Bryce, Aberdeen, S.): I am informed that the work in question can only be executed at low spring tides. The work had been satisfactorily advanced at the recent low spring tides when an exceptionally severe gale caused the demolition of the work before the concrete part of it had time to set. The method of construction employed is, in the opinion of the Board's engineer, the only possible one. Mass concrete such as was used for the original structure would not be suitable for the extension to deeper water. No expert advice, local or otherwise, was tendered to the Board. The work will be completed, weather permitting, next spring. The extension will have the effect of allowing fishermen to haul up their boats from half-an-hour to an hour sooner than at present, in the case of low tides. In the Board's opinion, it is quite impossible that its presence or absence can materially affect the result of the fishing. It will be an occasional convenience, but nothing more.

    Darcy Hillard Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on the Darcy Hilliard estate, in Dunkip, Manister, Croom union, county Limerick, preparations are being made by the lady who owns the estate and by the agent to let out the untenanted lands to the tenants as it may best suit their own views; and will he and the Estates Commissioners, through their inspector, put themselves in communication with the owners, so as to acquire the untenanted lands in the interest of the labourers and the poorer tenants of the estate.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are considering the question of purchasing the Dunkip portion of the estate referred to, and, with a view of making an offer for purchase, have directed their inspector to
    1282
    furnish a Report upon the property. If the Commissioners should acquire the property they will, when distributing the untenanted lands, pay due regard to the claims of persons in the locality.

    Dunkip Untenanted Lands.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, why the Local Government Board inspector, Mr. Barnewall Crofton, refused to give a house and allotment on the untenanted lands of Dunkip, in the last scheme of the Croom District Council under the Labourers Act, to Patrick Maguire, Abbeyville electoral division, considering that this man has no claim to the house in which he and his mother live, with no other alternative to getting the house but emigration to America.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board's inspector found that there was no necessity for the cottage applied for on behalf of Patrick Maguire. The house in which Maguire has been living for the past seven years was not medically condemned as unfit for human habitation, and no complaint as to its unfitness was made. No suggestion was made at the inquiry that the applicant would have to emigrate if he should not obtain the cottage applied for; on the contrary, the applicant gave evidence that there was plenty of work for him in the locality, and that his mother also obtained employment.
    MR. LUNDON: The man has had to get the loan of a house from a charitable lady. He could get no other although he had work in the locality.

    Official Appointments in Ireland.
    MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will authorise, as far as possible, the employment of natives of Ireland in official positions in that country instead of strangers.
    MR. BRYCE: I am quite in sympathy with my hon. friend's evident desire that Irishmen should have full opportunities of finding a career in their own country. But if, for example, a Yorkshire man should be found to be the most fitting candidate for a certain post in Ireland,

    1283
    my hon. friend would scarcely say that he should be debarred because of his place of birth. My hon. friend will agree with me in thinking that it would be a great misfortune for England were she not to receive the benefit of the services of Irishmen and Scotsmen.

    Drumboe Evicted Tenant.
    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 Denis Ward, who claimed through John Ward, deceased, who was evicted from his holding on the estate of Lady Alice Hayes, Drumboe, near Stranorlar, county Donegal, on 19th January, 1891; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have an inspector sent down immediately to inquire into the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the application in question and have referred it to their inspector in county Donegal for inquiry and report. The inspector will doubtless inquire into the matter when he reaches the district in which the holding is situate. It would obviously greatly impede the inspector in making his inquiries into the numerous cases referred to him if he were sent hither and thither to inquire specially into particular cases.

    Irish Assistant School Teachers.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average salary of assistant teachers in England, Scotland, and Ireland; what is the number of assistants in Irish schools; what is the percentage of assistants in England, Scotland, and Ireland who have obtained a teacher's certificate; and whether any steps can be taken to increase the salary given to the Irish assistant teacher.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken to improve the position of the assistant teacher in Irish national schools; whether he is aware that, owing to the salaries given and the poor prospects of promotion, the best men are leaving the service, to
    1284
    the detriment of education, and that the salary given in Ireland is little more than half what it is in Scotland; and whether steps will be taken to give assistant teachers of ten years efficient service second-grade salary.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: May I also ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether assistant teachers in Ireland, though serving the same apprenticeship and passing the same examination as principal teachers, can never go higher than third grade either in salary or pension, no matter how long or efficient their service may be; whether he is aware that the maximum salary for men is about £80 per annum, and the average about £63; and whether steps will be taken to place on the Estimates of next year such a sum as will give second-grade salary to all assistants of ten years efficient service.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the average salaries (omitting fractions) of assistant masters and mistresses, respectively, are:—In England, £112 and £80; in Scotland, £120 and £73; and in Ireland £73 and £58. As I have said in reply to previous Questions, the Commissioners are of opinion that the larger salaries in Great Britain are due to the greater amount of local aid given, and to the fact that the schools are generally larger than in Ireland. On 31st December, 1905, there were 4,338 assistant teachers in Irish national schools, viz., 1,219 men, and 3,119 women. The Commissioners have no information as to teachers' certificates in England and Scotland. In Ireland, all assistant teachers have been trained in training colleges, or have passed the prescribed examinations, or are University graduates. The Commissioners are aware that there is a decrease in the number of male candidates for entrance to training colleges, but they have no statistics to show that the best teachers are leaving the service. Under the Commissioners' rules, assistant teachers appointed since 1st April, 1900, are ineligible for promotion beyond the third grade, save in exceptional circumstances. The maximum salary of men assistants is £77; but in addition, assistants receive residual capitation grants, as well as bonuses under the

    1285
    Act of 1892, The Commissioners do not propose to give assistants of ten years service second grade salary. They have, however, submitted proposals which would have the effect of improving the position of assistant teachers, and these are now under consideration.

    The Late Major Healy's Folkscourt Estate.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire if negotiations for the purchase of a portion of the estate of the late Major Healy, Folkscourt, county Kilkenny, have been entered into; if he is aware that, while a portion of the tenants have been induced to purchase at the price demanded by threats of legal proceedings for rent and arrears, another portion whose holdings are interspersed through the estate are not allowed to purchase at any price; will he inquire why, while three-fourths of the tenants in the village of Johnstown on the said estate are allowed to purchase, the other quarter are not allowed; that those who hold under middle landlords, who are willing to accept reasonable compensation, are also debarred from doing so; and will he see that an investigation into all the circumstances stated will be held, and that no sale is sanctioned until all the tenants are given an opportunity of purchase.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. Portion of the estate of Major Healy has already been sold to the tenants, and the Commissioners have no information as to any negotiations for the sale of the remainder which may be in progress. If full particulars should be furnished to them they will have the matter inquired into.

    Wicklow Evicted Tenants.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of evicted tenants in the county of Wicklow (West Division) on 1st January, 1904; how many of them have applied to the Estates Commissioners for restoration to their former holdings; how many of them have been restored to their holdings; and whether
    1286
    any of them have been provided with farms on untenanted land.
    MR. BEYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their records are not kept by Parliamentary divisions, but by counties. The Commissioners have no information as to the number of evicted tenants in county Wicklow, but they have received applications from seventy-eight persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants in that county. Up to the present, four applicants have been restored to their former holdings, but none have been provided with holdings elsewhere.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able before the House rises to give any further information as to the action of the Estates Commissioners in regard to the reinstatement of evicted tenants?
    MR. BRYCE: I am afraid it will not be possible for me to do so. I saw one of the Commissioners the other day and he told me the work was proceeding rapidly, but he was afraid it would not be possible to go into details.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the progress been considerably accelerated since the question was last before the House?
    MR. BRYCE: Oh yes; we have more inspectors at work.

    Hugh Byrne's Claim.
    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 claim of Hugh Byrne, of Cavan Lower, to a portion of land said to be wrongly in occupation of Edward Bogan, on the estate of Miss Stewart, near Killygordan, county Donegal, which estate is now sold to the tenants; and whether he will direct that an inspector be sent down to inquire fully into the claim of Hugh Byrne before the sale of the estate is completed.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Hugh Byrne an application for reinstatement, and have referred it to their inspector for inquiry and report.

    Bruff Evicted Tenants.
    MR. LUNDON: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, when Colonel O'Grady, of Kilballyowen, Bruff, county Limerick, was arranging for the reinstatement of his evicted tenants through the medium of the Land Purchase Commission, who purchased in the interest of the tenants some four years ago, the representatives of the late John P. Carroll, of Ballyvranna, were deprived of the greater part of his farm; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners through their inspector will open communications with Colonel O'Grady for the restoration of the farm to the rightful owner.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question, and have received no application for reinstatement from the representatives of John P. Carroll.

    Bantry Fair Rent Appeals.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sub-Commissioner McElligott who has recently heard land cases to have fair rents fixed at Bantry, Castletown, Berehaven, is the gentleman whose judicial conduct in Longford gave such dissatisfaction as to have his removal called for; and whether, seeing that he owes his original appointment to the Earl of Kenmare, and that the Earl of Kenmare has a large estate, convenient to the sphere of Mr, McElligott's duties, he will suggest his removal from that district.
    MR. BRYCE: Mr. McElligott was originally appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant as an Assistant Land Commissioner so far back as 1896, and he has since been continuously so employed. The Land Commission inform me that they are not aware that Mr. McElligott's work has caused dissatisfaction, though, of course, it is not unusual for both the landlord and the tenant to be dissatisfied with the rent fixed, the one being of opinion that it is too low and the other that it is too high. The Land Commission have no information as to the circumstances in which Mr. McElligott; was originally appointed, and do not
    1288
    believe that any such circumstance as is alleged in the Question would in any way influence him in the performance of his duties.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the grave complaints made against this official from various parts of Ireland will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the advisability of reappointing him?
    MR. BRYCEsaid he was not aware that there were complaints of a general character. There were individual cases, no doubt, in which people were dissatisfied. The whole subject of the appointment of these Commissioners would shortly have to be considered.

    Killucan Postmastership.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will issue a Return giving particulars of the services, qualifications, and records of the sorting clerks and telegraphists who applied for the position of postmaster of Killucan, to which he has recently appointed a messenger in the secretary's office in Dublin; and whether, seeing that the rank of messenger is inferior to that of sorting clerk and telegraphist, he will state what opportunity a man of this rank has to qualify himself for the duties of postmaster.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The messenger whom I appointed to be postmaster of Killucan was formerly employed in the parcel office, and had a good knowledge of sorting and parcel work. He had also acquired a knowledge of telegraphy in his own time and at his own expense. All the applications were carefully considered, and I am not prepared to give the Return suggested.

    Ireland and the American Mildew and Black Currant Mite.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to reports that American blight or mildew and black, currant mite were imported into England by plants from Ireland; whether he is aware that the disease was imported from England into Clare by the Department of

    1289
    Agriculture sending gooseberry and black currant plants that were full of mildew or blight and mite to farmers who planted fruit trees under the Department scheme, as farmers who received them can testify; and whether he will instruct the Department to have an export to examine small fruit plants before importing them into Ireland from English nurseries in future, and arrange that the same export shall examine apple trees, so as not to allow cancerated and stunted trees being imported into Clare like those sent there three years ago.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: So far as the Board are aware there is no evidence which suggests that the diseases referred to in the hon. Member's Question were imported either into Ireland from England or into England from Ireland, but in any case the institution of precautionary measures against the introduction of disease into Ireland is a matter that would fall to be dealt with by the Irish Department of Agriculture.
    MR. HALPIN: I am aware of cases in which it has been imported into Clare.

    Cavalry for Scotland.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of allaying the agitation in Scotland, he will take into consideration the desirability of placing on the Estimates for next year an instalment of the sum stated to be necessary by the Secretary for War for the housing of two cavalry regiments in Scotland.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No undertaking can be given as to next year's Estimates. My right hon. friend has not before him the materials for a decision.

    Standing Orders.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give an opportunity, before the session closes, for the discussion of the proposed new Standing Order which appears on the Paper in the name of the Member for Halifax.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Either my friend who puts the Question or the other friend who has the notice on
    1290
    the Paper must be of a very sanguine disposition. I am afraid no opportunity can be found this session.
    MR. WHITLEY: Would to-morrow or Thursday not be available for the purpose?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think in the present exhausted state of Members of Parliament, it would be undesirable to commence consideration of this large subject.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: May I ask what the business will be to-morrow?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid to-morrow the first business would be the Lords' Amendments to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and afterwards any other Lords' Amendments that were available. They would also proceed with the Public Trustees Bill, if it was not finished to-day.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the day for the Army discussion had now been definitely abandoned. If so, could not the Procedure Rules be further taken?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think so; those who asked for the Army debate do not want it. As to the Report on House of Commons procedure, that is too largo a question to be revived in the last days of the session.

  NEW BILL.
    POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890," presented by Mr. M'Crae; supported by Sir Lewis M'Ivor, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Price, and Mr. Dundas White; to be read a Second Time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 376.]

    RADIO-TELEGRAPHIC CONVENTION.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONin moving, "That, in view of the experimental and undeveloped condition of

    1291
    radio-telegraphy, this House regards with apprehension any engagements hampering the complete freedom of action of the State, and asks His Majesty's Government to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the proposals embodied in the Berlin Convention previous to ratification," said he felt convinced that His Majesty's Government were fully alive to the far-reaching potentialities of wireless telegraphy, and that the House as a whole was deeply grateful to the Prime Minister for affording an opportunity of discussing the matter at a time of political stress. The Motion spoke for itself. Although the Papers relating to the subject had not been in the hands of Members for long, he thought that those who had followed the course of the discussion in Berlin must have found it comparatively easy to assimilate the literature, to penetrate the true inwardness of that extraordinary document, and to disentangle the main and salient principle at issue. That principle was no less than the maintenance of our wireless system entirely unhampered by engagements with foreign nations, at any rate until such time as fresh developments and further knowledge might justify His Majesty's Government in adopting a forward policy. In that broad and general proposition he thought he had the cordial acquiescence of hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House. Before he concluded his arguments he hoped to convince the House that this country had played second fiddle to Germany and to her automaton voters at the Conference. The special representative of an eminent journal in this country, devoted to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Daily Chronicle—who had special opportunities of gauging the pulse and feelings of members of the Conference in Berlin, wrote to that paper—
    "As far as important business is concerned, with the exception of the British delegates themselves, the Conference is of opinion that Germany has gained all along the line."
    In bringing forward this subject he was not in any way actuated by Party motives. The interests at stake were far too precious to permit of Party calculations, sordid and squalid as they would be in this connection, being brought into play. Neither had he any ulterior motive in bringing forward the Motion, because he knew nothing of the internal economy of wire-
    1292
    less telegraphy nor of its constituent elements, nor had he the remotest personal interest in any shape or form in the future prosperity of the system in use by us. His right hon. friend and he, together with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, had before now stood in the breach against the unfair treatment meted out to the public and the Press by cable companies, and he therefore hoped the House would acquit him of any leanings towards monopolists; on the contrary, he had always advocated that no contracts for any lengthy period should be entered into with the British organisation, so that the hands of the State should be entirely unhampered to revise those contracts, or, if necessary, to acquire the undertaking in the public interest. They on that side of the House did not question either the soundness or the wisdom of the policy of sending our delegates to Berlin, for he believed the late Government were themselves inclined to accept the invitation from Berlin. His contention was that delegates having been sent to Berlin and the Conference having concluded its labours, it was of the utmost consequence that no agreement tying the hands of the State, indeed of the Empire—for, be it remembered, there was not a single representative of the Colonies at theConference—no instrument involving even the remotest risk to our delicately organised wireless system, or operating in restraint of the entire freedom of our maritime system, should be sanctioned unless and until Parliament, in the plenitude of its judgment, had had full and ample opportunity of addressing itself to and pronouncing upon the main bearings of the problem. That was the whole question in a nutshell. He did not propose to enter into the scientific aspects of the question for the simple reason that he was wholly ignorant of the technicalities with which it bristled. But there was the business aspect and the non-technical side—the principle of working and the method of administration—which was most important. By common admission this country possessed the most efficient and reliable system of wireless telegraphy extant. The department over which his right hon. friend presided for many years declined to enter into a contract with the organisation which now worked the wireless telegraphy service in this

    1293
    country. The Admiralty, after still greater deliberation, threw their ægis over that association. How it was that the Admiralty delegates in Berlin deviated from that attitude after having entered into such an arrangement seemed to him wholly inexplicable. Again Lloyds had entered into a fourteen years agreement, and Canada and Newfoundland had both signed contracts, after a great deal of circumspection, to accept the service of our present system. His first contention was, therefore, that having the most efficient and most reliable system we ought not, in an outburst of altruistic benevolence, to deprive ourselves of that unquestionable initial advantage. If the House would bear with him for a few minutes he should like to read a few extracts from two or three influential newspapers in Berlin commenting upon the action of the Conference and its results. The first quotation was from the Vossiche, September, 1906:
    "The German industry has indeed found Incrative occupation in the construction of apparatus, but apart from a small beginning, it has shown little interest in exploitation.…It is evident that the difficulties of competition have grown very much, and it will need an arduous straining of all available energy and efficiency to counteract a supremacy which England is aspiring to.…The English tenacity, supported by remarkable capacity for organisation, shows itself here prominently. Where is there a prominent point of any importance and suitable for the erection of wireless stations that does not belong to England, or is not under English influence?…
    Alluding to our own organisation it said—
    "However gratifying this progress may be from the standpoint of civilisation and the augmented safety of navigation, it is regrettable that German capital takes such a small share in this advance. At any rate with the exception of England and Italy all the other Powers have an urgent and a pressing interest to see that the British service falls, as it cripples their industrial competition and grants to England a rather dangerous influence from this system of communication."
    The Reichstote stated—
    "It would be even more impossible for the other States to admit a British supremacy over atmosphere than the British supremacy over seas."
    He apologised to the House for the length of those extracts, but he thought they would be convincing. He desired to know whether the Committee of Defence, which they owed to the patriotic sagacity of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, were of one
    1294
    mind on the subject, because rumour had it to the contrary. His second contention was that our Colonies had had no means of taking cognisance of the proposals or of the difficulties of enforcing the regulations discussed in Berlin. The House as a whole did not realise the magnitude of the Canadian and Newfoundland interests in the matter. Canada and Newfoundland together had a coast line of not less than:3,400 miles, whereas the whole of the British coast line from Dover to Land's End barely exceeded 280 miles. The reproach could not be levelled at Canada, still less at the Laurier administration, of desiring to strangle the competitive systems. Their view seemed to be that, until this science emerged from its experimental stage, it was best to leave well alone. His third contention was that in any agreement providing for the interchangeability of messages between different systems indiscriminately there must be the danger of these waves being shot through ether promiscuously, and in the welter and confusion that would be thereby created it was by no means improbable that our own messages which we had to send to our reserve stations on these shores would be blurred, obliterated, or intercepted, with the general result that the whole of our service would be dislocated. His fourth contention was that, unlike the cable and telegraphs, where they required an international understanding in order to lay ends of cables and wires at certain fixed points on the coasts, wireless telegraphy scorned all geographical limitations and barriers and know no frontiers. Therefore he thought that, until such time as arrangements with foreign Powers were considered necessary for our system, this country ought to be allowed to carry on the service which suited it best, and which, so far, had worked admirably. His fifth contention, and it was the last and most important, related to the status, utility, and general economy of our own organisation as compared with the organisation of foreign nations, notably that of Germany, in so far as any reliable comparison could be instituted with regard to their respective capabilities; for, while we were the common carriers at so much a word, the bulk of the people abroad were merely manufacturers of instruments. This was the second time that attempts had been made to

    1295
    draw us into international agreements, and, it might be presumed, judging from the anxiety that had been displayed, that their aim was to fortify the German position and the position of other Powers, which were untenable except with our adherence. He had no doubt that was an object of great use to the foreign Powers, because what they desired was to secure the establishment of their own systems upon our shores. Should we permit that object to be carried out? He would say certainly, if any such service could be conducted, and did not involve the principle of division of authority and competition between tbe different authorities, with the corollary of the joint use of the same stations. His right hon. friend knew the difficulties inherent in the domain of international cable agreements and how difficult it was to secure the introduction of even the smallest reform. The House was aware that the telegraph services in this country were under a central authority. What would the Postmaster-General say if the different makers of telegraphic instruments were to wish to co-operate with him in the conduct of his enterprise? What would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have said in the early days of the telephone if it had been suggested that he should allow communication with every single instrument to be effected through the central exchange? He would have said it would mean chaos. It would be more irksome and intolerable in the case of a wireless service between ship and shore or shore and shore. Let them take a simple case, and assume that two foreign ships were approaching our station. The House would easily see that if those ships were equipped with different instruments confusion would be the inevitable result. Our own delegate, Mr. Babington Smith, in proposing to the Conference that each State should have the right to reserve certain stations on its territory from the obligation to intercommunicate, urged that the well-organised service in this country would be subject to great jeopardy from the effect of messages transmitted under the provisions of the Convention. If the service would suffer disturbance from mere attempts at communication by ships not under the control of our stations imagination staggered at the prospect of a service
    1296
    which would be compounded of a far greater number of conflicting elements, ships worked by shipping companies, ships worked by wireless companies, shore stations worked by Government, shore stations worked by wireless companies, and the reserve stations worked in such a way that they were sure to be crowded out. He thought the result would be confusion worse confounded. Was it worth while, even in times of peace, to do anything that would, remotely even, disturb our well-conducted wireless service? What was the advantage of it? If foreign stations had at least as good a system as our own he could have understood the sense of entering into some arrangement in the direction of international convention; but so far as he could see the result of the Convention would be to encourage foreign Governments to collect information as regards the disposition of our own wireless arrangements round our coasts. We were the largest maritime Power in the world, and if anybody was to call the tune for the rest of the world we were the people who ought to do it. The difficulty of patent rights would constantly be cropping up, and it would be a matter of the utmost difficulty to adjust and reconcile the protection of these rights. They were told that the tendency of the Convention would be to advance and benefit science. He could not conceive a diplomatic instrument more calculated to hinder and check the progress of science; for it practically said to the inventor and the patentee, "Your patent will not be usable until every single State in the Convention agrees to use it," and even then he would probably get very short shrift for his rights. As a last resort they were told that unless the Convention was passed they would be working towards the creation of a monopoly. Whatever might be the drift of services abroad, there was no such thing as a monopoly in this country, and the suggestion merely created a false prejudice in the public mind. We had enough ships and wireless stations all over our dominions to keep our present system busy throughout the twenty-four hours; and if foreign nations wished to communicate with us, let them do so by all means; but let them use the instruments that we considered best, so that they might not disturb and unnecessarily injure the working of our present

    1297
    organised system. The Convention bristled with regulations the enforcement of which would be, if not practically impossible, so difficult, so harassing, and so irksome, that it should really cause any Government to withdraw from it if it unfortunately entered into it. We were on friendly terms with the nation that had been so conspicuous in initiating this Conference, but we could not overlook the colossal sacrifices she was making to build up her powerful Navy—a state of things that was bound to affect our Navy Estimates. Whether those sacrifices were for purposes of offence or defence the question was one which could not be overlooked. Wireless telegraphy was fast becoming an indispensable element in naval equipment. For other nations it might be more or less of a toy; for us it was the very breath of our nostrils. Were we to forget that "charity begins at home," and to go out of our way to stimulate the efforts of other nations at the cost of a possible injury to ourselves? If our naval programme was to be increased, the first section of the community to suffer would be the working classes, and he therefore appealed to the Labour Members to look upon the question as one specially affecting them. He did not know whether he might appeal to hon. Members from Ireland. He knew certain aspirations of theirs unfortunately circumscribed the range of their political vision, but he felt certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman who so brilliantly championed the cause of the Nationalists was animated by sentiments larger than mere local patriotism. He would be glad, therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would help in disentangling these questions, if only on grounds of expenditure. He would remind the Irish Members that the brilliant and gifted inventor of our system of wireless telegraphy was a son of Erin, and that a considerable portion of the capital, labour, energy, and brain that went to build up that powerful undertaking came from Ireland. Whatever the results of the appeal which he made to the Government to mark time as against a policy of immediate and forward action—or rather he should say a leap in the dark—it could not afterwards be said that respectful remonstrance shad not been addressed to them. Theirs was the responsibility. Might it not
    1298
    prove to have been exercised at the risk and peril of two of the most cherished interests of this country, imperial and industrial defence. He begged to move.
    MAJOR SEELYin seconding the Motion, said his interest in the matter arose from the fact that he had had to consider it in reference to communication between lightships and the shore. It was to Mr. Gerald Balfour that the use of wireless telegraphy for this purpose, and with the happiest results to life saving, was due. There were two aspects of this question. Of the commercial aspect he would only say that it would be unwise, at the bidding of a Conference, composed as it was, to standardise an industry so completely in its infancy. He would say no more about the commercial aspect of the question. Nor was it necessary to deal with the fact that the Marconi Company had very nearly a monopoly in this country. We gave this monopoly of our own free will for our own purposes, and if we did not like monopolies our proper course was to buy the company out, stock, lock, and barrel. But from the strategical aspect the matter was of supreme, vital, overwhelming importance. In time of peace it was but a fractional percentage of the electrical communication of the world that was sent by wireless telegraphy.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Because it is undeveloped.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid it would be so during our lifetime. But when this country went to war,.probably communication with our island by cable would cease. Would it not then be well, before we committed ourselves to the far-reaching provisions in this document, to reflect that probably we should have to rely on wireless telegraphy for communication with our fleet? If history was any guide, capability of communicating with a fleet would probably be worth twice the naval force that at any one moment could be put upon the sea. It had been suggested to him by a high naval authority that a Power with ten battleships and able freely to communicate with them by wireless telegraphy was in

    1299
    a position equal to that of another Power with twenty battleships but no such means of communication. He asked the Prime Minister, as representing the Committee of Defence, whether it was not true, looking back at the naval battles of the past, that the possession of such a system by the defeated force might have reversed the actual results. At the Conference the Great Powers of Europe were represented, none of whom had interests equal to our own, and in addition there were representatives of Brazil, Persia, Rumania, Uruguay, and Monaco, It was too much to ask the House to accept the document without further inquiry. It was always a delicate and difficult matter to know how far to invoke the co-operation of our Colonies in an international matter; but this was a matter of high interest to our Colonies, most of whom had wireless telegraphy stations of their own. They were not represented at the Conference, though they were to be in the future, but a Colony like Canada would have no more voice than one of the small German Crown colonies. The composition of the body was not such as should induce the House to accept the result without further inquiry by Select Committee. He drew attention to Articles 6 and 8, and noted the words "as far as possible"in an attempt to standardise an inchoate system. It was impossible to foretell what might result from the energy of inventors, and we might bitterly regret agreeing to the setting up of other stations alongside our own. Reference would, no doubt, be made to our reservations in the Protocol, but therein were reasons for further delay before signing this document. The House did not understand radio telegraphy, nor yet did Mr. Marconi; and who could say where we might be driven by the decision of the Conference? As a plain man he had a great dread of experts assembled in conference upon matters affecting the very life of a nation. No doubt our own representatives were well qualified to look after British interests, but he asked for the application of common sense after experts had given their opinion, and he begged the Government to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—"That, in view of the experimental and undeveloped condition of radio-
    1300
    telegraphy, this House regards with apprehension any engagements hampering the complete freedom of action of the State, and asks His Majesty's Government to grant a Select Commitee to inquire into the proposals embodied in the Berlin Convention previous to ratification."—(Sir Edward Sassoon.)
    MR. BELLAIRSsaid he was glad that the hon. Baronet had by his speech taken this question out of the arena of Party politics altogether, because otherwise it would have been incumbent upon someone to point out that the late Postmaster-General had publicly blessed this agreement, and had stated that the Admiralty, the Post Office, and the War Office under the last Government were in agreement in regard to it. Evidence that that was the case was to be found in Article X. of the Post Office agreement binding the Marconi Company to concur in any arrangement the Government might make with foreign Powers. That showed that the Admiralty were in complete agreement with the Post Office in 1904. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe had said that the agreement with respect to the using of certain instruments would result in chaos. Personally he disagreed altogether with that view. The hon. Baronet had also said that there had been a want of consistency on the part of the Admiralty. He did not think that that had been proved. With regard to the statement that the Colonies had not been consulted as to whether they would enter into such an agreement, the matter would come up at the Inter-Colonial Conference next year, and if it were then found that their interests did not square with ours the agreement made at the Berlin Convention could be broken on one year's notice, and no great harm could be done in a year. The hon. Baronet had made a stalking-horse of maritime cables, especially in the case of the Pacific Cable to Australia which involved a loss of £90,000 a year. He denied that we were dependent on the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy for communication between the ships of the Navy or the mercantile marine. Experiments could be tried with waves of quite different length from those employed by

    1301
    the Marconi system between the shipping and coast stations. The House ought not to be asked to be guided by purely naval considerations, having regard to the fact that the work of our commerce went on year after year, whereas it was a hundred years since we had had a maritime war, and our mercantile supremacy had not been challenged since. His argument was that there should be an open market for all systems of wireless telegraphy as long as they did not interfere with each other. In that way we might get the best system in the future which would be for the benefit both of the Navy and of the mercantile marine. What the hon. Baronet was contemplating was a monopoly made by law. Our supremacy in the mercantile marine of the world had been attained by free competition; and the same result would follow if we allowed free competition with all systems of wireless telegraphy. We had 43,000 miles of coast-line—ten times the coastline of Germany, twice the coast-line of Germany and the United States—and half the shipping of the world. We had got the start in the mercantile marine, and he could not see how our monopoly was to be infringed upon by Germany or any other nation. Undoubtedly the Marconi Company had succeeded in getting a monopoly of the Press. Hon. Members had been bombarded with newspaper extracts presenting only one side of the case. He had read them all, and they gave a blood-curdling picture of what was to happen to this country as the result of the convention. The same predictions were made when the Navigation Laws were abolished; and yet they all knew what had happened since. Before the abolition of the Navigation Laws our commercial shipping was by no means supreme; but since it had become the greatest in the world. He believed that a similar system employed in regard to wireless telegraphy would bring about a corresponding result. On that side of the House they were not free-traders by compartments, but free-traders all along the line; and he did not see how they could adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy in regard to wireless telegraphy.
    *Mr. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe had appealed A to the sympathetic nature of the Irish Members for support to his Motion on the ground that the inventor of this system of wireless telegraphy was to some extent an Irishman. However ready they might be to respond to appeals of that kind, there was another element in an Irishman's nature, and that was that they thought justice should be done; and they believed that justice would not be done unless the Motion made by the hon. Baronet were adopted by the House. Much had been said in the course of the debate about monopoly; but if there was a monopoly it had been created by themselves, They had allowed it to grow up and encouraged it by contracts entered into with the Marconi Company by the several Government Departments. If the Marconi Company should be unable to perform the terms of the contracts entered into the Government Departments would be themselves to blame. It was well known that monopolies were created by other Departments than the Post Office. Monopolist rights were given through the Committees upstairs to railway companies, and good care was taken by every kind of inquiry that no infringement was made of those monopolists' rights. An agreement had also been made between the Marconi Company and Lloyds, which showed that the latter, who were the best judges of all the requirements of shipping, were of opinion that one system of wireless telegraphy should be in general use. Lloyds, after having expended £45,000 in experimenting with other systems on their own account, said that the Marconi system had been proved to be a good working system. With that knowledge the Post Office Department entered into an agreement with the Marconi Company for fifteen years with the condition that if another system of wireless telegraphy were introduced the Marconi Company were to be protected against interference at their stations—coastal or inland. That argument disposed of one Department of the State, but he now came to

    1303
    the agreement between the Admiralty and the Marconi Company. That company under the rules for the time being in force, by virtue of the Berne Convention had to give priority to Admiralty messages in cases of emergency, in regard to the necessity of which the Admiralty, it was provided, should be the sole judge. That was a most important provision. The Marconi Company were also bound to give certain privileges to the Post Office, and yet the Government, knowing that the company had signed the agreement, joined this Convention which invaded the rights of the company, and allowed something to happen which might disable the company from being able to perform the terms of the agreement. He therefore submitted that there was no question of monopoly. Under the Convention interference by foreign vessels might take place with our wireless telegraph stations, say, on the coast of Ireland, at Castletown by vessels coming from the west and at Rosslare by vessels coming from the east in trying to get into communication with the International Station which by this Convention, if ratified, could be erected midway between those two. There was another way in which the power of the company under the agreement would be interfered with. The Marconi Company had devoted themselves to manufacturing instruments of the highest power, and of the most delicate character. The machines manufactured in Germany were not of so delicate a character, and if the Marconi Company were compelled to receive messages from vessels that were not supplied with their own instruments one of the effects would be that they would be obliged to furnish their own stations, whether afloat or ashore, with instruments of a low grade character, and they would thus be disabled from sending their messages to the furthest distances, and from receiving messages from abroad. That would be of the greatest detriment to the company, especially in that they would have no control over their system. At the present moment there might be nothing like perfection in the Marconi system. Still they had done their best to secure it. In order to make their working more perfect they had offered and given to their servants a bonus if they carried
    1304
    out the regulations which would ensure perfect working. If they had to give a bonus to their own servants to secure regular working, what would be their difficulty if they had to work with persons over whom they had no control? If they had to receive messages from those under the control of foreign agencies it would be a detriment to their service and prevent them from carrying out their contracts with public departments. The incentive to take the initiative on the part of this country would also be taken away, and the general efficiency of the public service would be impaired. For these reasons he supported the Motion of the hon. Baronet and thought that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee which should have the advantage of expert opinion before a decision was arrived at.
    *MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he was sure that they all sympathised with the idea of the hon. Baronet that any Convention which would prevent advance should be regarded with considerable suspicion. He ventured, however, to differ from the hon. Baronet as to the alleged effect of this Convention. It seemed to him that the proposed arrangement had not been entered into lightly or without careful consideration. These proposals were of the same general character; as the Protocols published in 1903, which had been specially referred to in Clause 10 of the Marconi agreement of 1904. That clause dealt particularly with the possibility of such an International Convention being agreed to. The same ides was in the mind of the late Postmaster-General when he entered, into the Marconi agreement two years ago. He mentioned the Marconi agreement without the slightest idea of making Party capital out of it, but because that agreement and this Convention were very closely related. There were other systems in the field, but under the agreement we gave the Marconi Company important rights which amounted to a virtual monopoly. At the time we did so, there were other systems in the field which were formidable rivals to the Marconi system, and notwithstanding that the Marconi Company was accorded these exceptional advantages not only for the term of their master patent, but for a

    1305
    term extending some years beyond the time when that patent would expire. His hon. friend opposite had quoted from Clause 3 of the Marconi agreement, but he had omitted to refer to Clause 10 which made special provision for the event of our entering into such a Convention as that now under discussion. Indeed, the Marconi agreement contained special provisions for an "additional rate" to be paid to the company in certain events under such a Convention. He thought it only right for the House to recognise that the Marconi agreement had very seriously hampered the Postmaster-General in exercising his discretion in this matter. In view of the fact that this agreement was entered into by the predecessor of the present Postmaster-General he thought any action which had been taken should be criticised in a very generous manner. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe had made an eloquent appeal to hon. Members sitting below the gangway. He would appeal to the terms of the Convention itself. He hardly needed to remind the House that its object was to utilise wireless telegraphy for ship to shore and shore to ship messages all over the world in order that ships might receive from time to time messages which would be extremely useful to commerce. It had been said that the effect would be to standardise the system and to impose uniformity. He would remind the House that Article 3 of the Convention provided that coast stations and ship stations should be obliged to exchange reciprocally radio telegrams without regard to the particular system adopted by them. That was intended to secure fair play for all systems. It has been suggested that the convention would interfere with our National defences, but he would point out that by Article 21 high contracting parties retained all their privileges and naval and military installations were not affected. The only qualification to this, and they were only the loosest of requirements, were those relating to Article 9, which referred to the giving of priority to signals of distress from ships, and Article 8, which provided that the working of the radiotelegraph stations should be organised as far as possible in such a manner as not to interfere with the work-
    1306
    ing of other stations of the kind. He thought, however, that in relation to military and naval working the giving of priority to distress signals might very well be left to the good feeling of those in charge of the ships and naval stations, and that as regards interferences the use of the system for military and naval operations should be unqualified. As regarded the Colonies he thought the hon. Baronet had overlooked the fact that by Article 1 of the Final Protocol they had not come in automatically, and they would have a free hand as to whether they joined it or not. Personally, he thought that the Colonies would be benefited by joining. The mover of this Motion had asked where the benefit came in. In reply to that question he would say that in the first place the use of wireless telegraphy for all ships navigating along all the coasts of various countries would result in considerably lessening the loss of life and property from shipwrecks. He was sure all hon. Members would be very pleased that distress signals should have priority over all others. Wireless telegraphy would also be very useful to seafaring men because it would enable them to know at once what were the weather reports, what was the depth of water on bars and in harbours, what facilities there were for supplying fuel and food and other valuable information necessary for the safe and speedy navigation of ships. When the system was in full working order it would largely obviate the necessity of calling at ports for orders, and ships would be able to go direct to their destination, although they might not have had full instructions when they first set sail. He thought that would be a great advantage to British commerce. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had stated that very little commercial use had been made of wireless telegraphy, but one of the reasons for that was that they had so very little international arrangement, and his opinion was that under this Convention a great deal more would be done. In view of the fact that other nations desired this Convention, the question was whether we should join in the Convention or stand out. It should not be overlooked that this country

    1307
    did the lion's share of the carrying trade of the world, and therefore it was of the greatest importance that our ships should get in communication with foreign stations in order to keep up our commercial position. It would have been taking a serious responsibility if the Postmaster-General had decided to stand outside the Convention and thus place the whole of our British ships off foreign coasts in a worse position than foreign ships would be in. There was a considerable guarantee against interference because it was specially provided by the Service Regulations annexed to the Convention that certain wave-lengths should be adopted, and that if several ships came to a station at one time they were to be taken in a certain order. As regards the more general danger of interference on a larger scale, he would point out that it was quite open even now to any foreign Power to set up a wireless transmission station of its own just outside our territory in such a way as might seriously interfere with our own internal arrangements. The Convention did not deal with that point because it would be impossible for us to impose such an obligation unless we were willing to accept a reciprocal obligation from them. He thought we should be the last in the world to say that our use of wireless telegraphy should be hampered in that way. He failed entirely to follow what the hon. Baronet had said about interference with patents. It seemed to him that the Marconi agreement had done much to interfere with patents, and one object of this Convention was to secure equality of opportunity and to stimulate competition. But the best safeguard of all was that Article 11 provided for the parties modifying the terms of the Convention from time to time, and that Article 22 provided that—
    "The present Convention shall come into operation on and from the 1st July, 1908, and shall remain in force for an indefinite period, or until the expiration of a year from the date of its denunciation."
    Thus if any country found that the arrangement did not suit it it could retire on giving twelve months notice. That was a most important safeguard, as it supplied the necessary flexibility, and adapted the system to the various changes which might take place through the pro-
    1308
    gress of invention. He thought hon. Members would agree with him as to the rapid progress which wireless telegraphy had made. Great improvements had recently been made both in the transmitting and receiving arrangements, and messages could now be sent over greater distances than before, and with a less expenditure of electric energy. Considerable progress had also been made in directing the messages and attuning the instruments It was a remarkable thing that since the beginning of this Conference an entirely new system of radiotelegraphy had been developed. The kind of radiotelegraphy contemplated in this Convention was the kind with which they were familiar which consisted in sending a series of individual impulses from the transmitting station. The now radiotelegraphy of which we had learned only in the last few months was of a continuous-current character which could compare for speed with ordinary telegraphy and which had already developed far greater facilities for attunement than any previous system. The progress of invention within the last week did not stop there, they had had news of a new system of radiotelephony in which it had been found possible to utilise electric waves instead of light waves for wireless telephonic messages, and such messages had been exchanged at a distance of sixty kilometres. This showed how rapid was the progress of invention and emphasised the importance of the provision which gave a country a free hand on twelve months notices if they found the Convention did not suit them. He was glad that the British delegates were amongst those who insisted that that provision should be inserted. The Postmaster-General had had a very difficult task before him, because he had to endeavour to secure as far as possible the full international benefit of wireless telegraphy in the present state of the art, and had also to see that structure did not hinder future developments. It seemed to him that object was well achieved. This Convention would give most-favoured-nation treatment to British ships in all parts of the world so far as wireless telegraphy installations were concerned, and it would give better security to life and

    1309
    property at sea. It would increase the volume of our trade, and by providing an international working of wireless telegraphy on a scale larger than before we should be taking an important step towards knitting the nations of the world closer together. Whether the Government granted the further inquiry which had been asked for or not, he ventured to say that the Convention would be of great use, and that it had nothing to fear from the most searching scrutiny that might be bestowed upon it.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDhaving congratulated the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark upon his return to the House, said he would not follow the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire in his long and intricate arguments in reference to the various systems of wireless telegraphy. In his opinion the hon. Member's speech was the best and most potent argument that could be used in favour of the Motion before the House. Nobody could deny that the subject was one of great intricacy which ought not to be discussed and decided off-hand. What was asked for was the appointment of a Select Committee, so that all the arguments might be gone into and the House fully informed as to the facts of the case. The hon. Baronet who proposed the Motion had referred to the Irish Members and to the Labour Members in the most flattering terms. He was aware that many of these stations would be in Ireland, but all they were anxious about was that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider all the issues at stake. He did not know how the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire could possibly object to so reasonable a proposal. They had not all studied the matter so closely as the hon. Member, and he thought the House generally ought to have an opportunity of acquainting themselves with all the facts. That was a proposal so reasonable that he felt sure the Postmaster-General would accept it. He did not think the reference to the Colonies had been quite satisfactory. It had been said that it would be optional for the Colonies whether or not they would be bound by the Convention. He had heard some opinions expressed by gentlemen interested in Australia and in
    1310
    shipping, to the effect that the Colonies ought to have an opportunity of taking part in all such conferences as the one held in reference to this matter. In all international matters Colonies like Australia and New Zealand ought to have their claims thoroughly recognised. They ought to have been invited to send delegates, and no Convention ought to be ratified by this House without the most detailed consultation with the representatives of the Colonies. He appealed to the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General to recognise that there was a very deep feeling that this important matter should be inquired into by a Select Committee, and he hoped that the interests of Australia and New Zealand and our other Colonies would not be overlooked in any inquiry that might be decided upon.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not rise to make any attack upon the Postmaster-General, although he had had occasion to cross swords with him in regard to wireless telegraphy earlier in the year. He wished to join in the appeal in favour of the Motion before the House. He thought a Select Committee on this subject would be of very great service, because it would to a great extent set at rest many of the contentions advanced by the different companies and inventors and those who desired that the Marconi Company monopoly should be brought to an end. If the Government found that it was desirable both from a national and from a commercial point of view to terminate its agreement with the Marconi Company its hands would be strengthened by the Report of the Select Committee. He did not speak on behalf of any company or inventor, nor did he support in any degree the Marconi Company or the agreements between the Admiralty and the Post Office with the Marconi Company. Those agreements might possibly have been of some advantage in the past, but they were of little advantage now, and they might be sources of danger in the future. He hoped the Postmaster-General would acquiesce in this Motion, and he did not believe that any disadvantage would result from the loss of time involved in the appointment of a Select Committee. A delay of three or four months would not imperil the

    1311
    national interest or injure our mercantile marine.
    *MR. REESsaid he failed entirely to see where we came in upon this matter or what this country could possibly get by this Convention. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had summed up his remarks in favour of the Convention by saying that if it had not contained a stipulation that it might be discontinued with a year's notice he would not have supported it. He would remind his hon. friend that it was much more difficult to get out of an engagement than to get into one. We were not out of the Sugar Convention yet. If the Postmaster-General replied upon this matter he trusted that he would be able to put forward in a much more convincing manner the advantages which this country was to gain from participation in the Convention. The only working business system at the present moment was the Marconi system, and if the action of the Government tended to perpetuate that system he would not regard it as a disadvantage. The Marconi Company were the people in possession. In spite of his hon. friend's enumeration of the merits of the Convention, how could he contend that a mere stipulation that distress signals should be taken first and that there should be general intercommunication was any justification for entering into such an agreement? Were they going to be frightened by the word "monopoly"? The Postmaster-General's Department was a great monopoly, and a very beneficial one it was. What harm was there in the Marconi system being a monopoly? Were not our cypher codes a monopoly? He wished that all matters connected with our defences were much more a monopoly, instead of being known to almost every foreign nation as they were. He thought everything connected with our defences should be as far as possible a monopoly. What was the use of shying at a mere word. For the matter of that every monopolist was not a Sir Giles Overreach, and he did not consider that for Government to favour a British company, by the way, was any crime in a British Government. Here, however, there was no question but that of the public and strategic interests concerned. He understood moreover that the Post-
    1312
    master-General was not precluded by his agreement with the Marconi Company from licensing other stationson the south coast of England. There was no doubt it would be more beneficial and agreeable to a foreign Power to have its own machinery instead of using ours, but it was no part of the duty of this country, indeed it was not advisable, to assist foreign countries in that way. He hoped his right hon. friend would accede to the request made in the Motion, and appoint a Select Committee. In spite of the able representatives they had upon this Convention, and no nation could have a better representative than his friend Mr. Babington Smith, they were beaten every time over these matters. They were bound to be beaten when they had all the small Powers coming in to vote. It was not this country but other nations that would be left in the cold if we withdrew from the Convention. In all these arrangements we went in as the one man who had any money to play a round game of cards with the other Powers. The Convention would involve us in all kinds of difficulties and confusion and he positively dreaded such arrangements because in nearly every case we had much to lose and nothing to gain, while other Powers had little, at any rate less, or nothing to lose and a great deal to gain, from pinning us down to restrictions which suited themselves.
    *MR. BEAUCHAMPsaid that in 1901, when the agreement between Lloyds and the Marconi Company was made, it was thought advisable that one system of telegraphy should be in general use. He agreed that the Marconi system had proved very satisfactory, but time passed rather quickly, and he thought Lloyds would think carefully before entering into another agreement of the kind. When that agreement was entered into the Marconi system held the field and was the only workable one. It had been stated that Mr. Marconi had obtained a monopoly, but that was subject to certain stipulations. It was part of the agreement with the Post Office that if we did enter into a Convention of this sort the Marconi Company would relieve the Admiralty and Lloyds and all other persons with whom the Company had contracted, from any

    1313
    obligations arising under their contracts, and that they should refuse to exchange messages with ships or shore stations in the United Kingdom not using the Marconi system. He thought that covered the point that they were doing something which they ought not properly to do. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had spoken upon this subject from a strategical point of view. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member when he said that ten ships equipped with wireless telegraphy would be equal to twenty ships which had not that advantage. Entering into this agreement did not prevent the Admiralty having a system of wireless telegraphy. They could still have their own system whether they entered the Convention or not. If the Government did not enter the Convention at the present time it was possible that they might not be able to enter it when they desired to do so. As had been pointed out, if we did not enter into the Convention now, other countries might set up their systems, and we might be left out. He was of opinion that the Government were absolutely right in entering into the Convention. He thought it was the duty of the Government to advance as far as possible anything which would be of advantage to the world at large, provided that it would not interfere in any way with British interests. There was no doubt whatever that there were other systems of wireless telegraphy which were progressing very rapidly. The Marconi Company had been insisting with the Admiralty, the Postmaster-General, and Lloyds that they should be under no obligation to receive messages from any other system than the Marconi system. The result of that was, he thought, to prevent people from improving any particular system which they might have, and to operate as a distinct monopoly for the Marconi Company. There were two companies which he understood were quite ready to adopt what they considered a better system, but they were unable to put it in their ships, because it would be of no use when they approached our coasts with which they desired to communicate, the only practical receiving stations on these
    1314
    coasts being those of the Marconi Company, which refused to take any messages except those of their own particular system. He agreed that if this question, was referred to a Select Committee there would be no reason to fear that the result of its deliberations would lead to a conclusion unfavourable to our adhering to our determination to enter into the Convention.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that, of all Conventions that had ever been signed, this was one of the least objectionable in itself. He was one of those who felt bound to treat with a considerable amount of suspicion any Convention which put, or was at all likely under any conceivable circumstances to put, the interests of this country under the domination of any foreign Power or Powers. [An Hon. Member: "The Sugar Convention."] Yes, the Sugar Convention included, to which he was personally much opposed. He approached this particular Convention in that spirit with the object of endeavouring to understand whether the arrangement would be likely to be of advantage to this country, or whether there was anything in it which might possibly do us harm. He took rather the opposite view to the hon. Member who said that this country had not been engaged in a naval war for 100 years, and suggested that we need take no precautions of any kind, as there would probably be no naval war for another hundred years. He was in Berlin on the day that the news of the Spion Kop disaster was received, and he formed a different opinion. He thought they ought to act with the most jealous care regarding anything that might by any possibility interfere with the interests of this country. As to the effect of this Convention the evidence was conflicting. Some hon. Members who had spoken, apparently with authority, had stated that it would have the effect of creating a system of wireless telegraphy on the ships and shores of foreign nations which would interfere with our interests. It had been suggested that the Marconi instruments might be interfered with. He was unable to say whether the Marconi instruments would be injured

    1315
    or destroyed. It had been suggested also that if the Convention were carried out the effect would be to introduce into wireless telegraphy chaos and confusion which would seriously damage our existing system, and that by going into this Convention we should be helping what was tending to become a deleterious monopoly. He spoke against the Wireless Telegraphy Bill last year and the year before. It seemed to him that anything that would hamper science and prevent experiment was a mistake. If we could do anything to break down monopoly, to improve wireless telegraphy, and to advance science we ought to do it. On the whole, he thought the Convention was a judicious one, but it was not quite clear, and under the circumstances, having regard to the vast interests at stake, he thought the Postmaster-General would act wisely if he agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee.
    *SIR HENRY NORMANappealed to the Postmaster-General to accept the Motion. It appeared from the debate that the House was practically unanimous in favour of the proposal. He had heard no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee. He had taken some interest in this matter from the scientific and other points of view. In reading the Convention one thing that struck him was the extreme difficulty of realising at once its scope and far-reaching character. The conditions under which the Convention was arrived at had not been such as they could regard with satisfaction on all points. Some of the reasons for dissatisfaction had been stated and others which had better not be stated were known to Members of the House. The Government had not had an opportunity of considering the matter in great detail, and no harm could possibly be done to any interest by postponing the decision for sufficient time to enable it to be investigated by a Select Committee. The Postmaster-General had already done admirable work in his Department during his brief tenure of office, and by agreeing to the Motion they would be under still deeper gratitude to him.
    *THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said the discussion had shown that Members fully realised the importance of the subject; and his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Abercromby would recognise that the insular position of this country and our interests as a naval power were predominant considerations in the minds of members of the Government, the commercial aspect being also taken into account. He was glad to recognise that no Party question was involved, and that the Government were carrying on a continuity of policy. The late Government considered the first Conference of 1903 premature, and had no means of enforcing its conclusions. The following year they considered the matter very carefully from the point of view of the draft Convention, since very considerably amended. Careful consideration was given, and it was decided to accept the principle of intercommunication subject to the view of the Admiralty that provisions essential for safeguarding our naval interests should be adopted. They were prepared to go into the Conference on that basis. In order to enable them to enter into such a Conference it was necessary to pass legislation, and one of the primary reasons for passing the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, was to enable the Government of the day to adhere to the Convention relating to inter-communication if it was carried through. The Post Office Agreement of 1904 also anticipated and made provision for the same event. Therefore the principle of intercommunication had been recognised by the late Government as a good thing if it could be properly fenced round with due safeguards of the Admiralty. Then it became necessary for the present Government to consider the matter, because it was obvious that wireless communication required more control than it had had in the past. The invitations to the Conference were issued last spring, and the Government continued the policy of their predecessors. After careful consultation between the Post Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, the War Office, and

    1317
    the Admiralty, they came to the conclusion that the invitation should be accepted, and that they should go into the Conference prepared, subject to certain necessary safeguards, to accept the principle of inter-communication. He could assure the House that great consideration was given to the question in order to be quite sure that they did not commit themselves to any proposals that would in any way injure our naval or commercial interests. An hon. Gentleman below the gangway had raised the question of the Colonies, saying that they had not been consulted on this important matter. But the Colonies were specifically consulted, and the draft Convention was sent to them for their observations. Some of the Colonies suggested certain details which were accepted and were included in the Convention. He wished the House to understand that the Colonies had been in no way ignored; they appreciated the fact that they were consulted, and the Government had their support generally in regard to the present position. Although this Convention had been subjected to the examination and criticisms of our delegates at the Conference, the Government were now asked to refer it to a Select Committee in order to obtain further information and to bring to bear on it expert opinion. It was contended that, if the Select Committee came to the conclusion that the Convention was a proper one, that decision would remove any apprehension that might, at present exist in the minds of Members of the House, and perhaps in some quarters of the country, and that therefore the Convention when it was agreed to would have greater force. He quite agreed that the matter was of the utmost importance, and that it was an intricate question bristling with details which hon. Members could hardly be expected to have mastered. It was not a Party question, and therefore if it was referred to a Select Committee it would be understood in all quarters of the House that it was sent to that Committee with a view to arriving at a satisfactory conclusion which would give confidence to the House and to the country. It was obviously the feeling on both sides of the House that there should be further inquiry into this matter; and therefore
    1318
    he could say on behalf of the Government that they would at a very early date next session appoint a Committee to which the Convention—the Articles, the Protocol and the Regulations—would be referred with a view to assist the Government in arriving at a conclusion on the whole question. The ratification of the Convention need not take effect for some considerable time, and therefore there was ample time for the inquiry. He wished to say emphatically on behalf of the Government that they had nothing whatever to conceal, and they were not afraid of any inquiry. They firmly believed that the more the Convention was examined the more it would be found that our naval interests were fully protected, and that our commercial interests would certainly be benefited by it.
    Perhaps the House would allow him to state the reasons why they went into the Conference, and to say what the Government believed had resulted from it. They were not actuated by "altruistic benevolence,"but acted because they thought that this country would benefit. The British Government could not lightly refuse an invitation to an International Conference which was intended, at all events ostensibly, for the public good. He did not say that other nations did not expect to benefit also from the Conference, but he believed that there was a general desire on the part of all the countries represented at the Conference to arrive at a solution which would benefit the world at large. Was there then any valid reason for a change of policy? After considerable consideration of the whole question, the Government came to the conclusion that we should enter into the Conference subject to certain essential conditions in regard to our naval and commercial position. Therefore instructions to our delegates were drawn up, and at the first meeting of the Conference our delegates publicly declared the conditions on which alone they would be entitled to sign the Convention. What were those conditions, every one of which were secured? A great deal had been said about our naval and military position. One of the principal articles of the Convention was that no

    1319
    naval station was affected in any way by the Convention itself. Our naval position stood outside the Convention. It was obvious also that in a time of war a Convention of this kind would fall to the ground, and any country would be entitled to seize, dismantle, or utilise any wireless telegraph station in its territory quite regardless of any Convention. Then there was a specific clause that each State was entitled to use secret apparatus and to carry on secret signalling when they so desired, without giving any information about the methods used. Further, the Admiralty attached considerable importance to the power of exempting any station they desired from the operation of intercommunication. The only qualification of that power was that there should be certain stations in the United Kingdom open to intercommunication for the purposes of international commerce.
    SIR E. SASSOONasked how close the two stations might be.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that was left entirely within the discretion of the Government who exempted stations. The only obligation was that there should be a station suitable for international intercommunication in the same region. The Admiralty also attached the utmost importance to regulations VI. and VII., which, at the instance of the British delegates, secured Regulations and provisions for their enforcement, adequate to prevent interference and confusion. Those were some of the positive safeguards which accrued under the Convention. In addition our delegates, acting under instructions, were able to outvote the Article in the original draft Convention, which would have required every country to boycott any system which did not carry out the Convention. They also changed the proposal for compulsory arbitration to voluntary arbitration, because the Government said they were not willing to place themselves in such a position as to be compelled to go to arbitration with some other country in regard to a matter in which they considered they ought to be the sole arbiters. Also, in regard to the American proposal for ship-to-ship communication, they
    1320
    considered that the time had not come when this great extension of the regulation of wireless telegraphy should take place, and from that they were exempt.
    He believed one of the great advantages of the Convention, if we ratified it, would be that it would tend to enlarge, or, at all events to protect, the number of wireless stations in Great Britain, and that it would discourage the erection of foreign stations which would interfere with British stations already erected. There was an obligation on all those signing the Convention not to work stations in such a way as to have that effect. Further, the nearest station was to have the preference, and a minimum of energy was to be used. These international regulations were a very material benefit to Great Britain, because we were already in possession in the Channel of the best stations, and at all the strategical points we were also in possession of the nearest stations, and the effect of the Convention would be to discourage other stations being put up which would interfere with those existing stations. That was a very considerable advantage to us, from both a naval and a commercial point of view. We should really be actually securing, and not abandoning our predominance, our priority, and our geographical position. He thought the hon. Baronet implied, and it had certainly been implied in the Press, that if we stood out of the Convention, the Convention would fail. That was an entire misconception of the position. Every other nation, rightly or wrongly, was in favour of intercommunication, and, whether we entered it or not, the Convention would go through. If, therefore, we stood out, we should stimulate what we expressly desired to discourage—the erection of additional stations on foreign soil. If Germany, France, Holland, and other countries were not able to communicate with stations in Great Britain, they would be bound, however friendly they might be, to erect those stations in their own territory; and that would be disadvantageous to us in time of war because we should have no control over them, and in time of peace from the point of view of enterprise and revenue. And what was more, the erection of these additional stations would injure our existing stations, because there would have to be greater

    1321
    power used, and this would lead to more confusion between the various wireless stations. He wanted the House to understand that there were two ways in which they must look at this Convention—nimely, not only how we stood in regard to the Convention itself, but also as to what would happen if we did not join it.
    He had endeavoured to show that, as regarded our naval interests, we were fully protected in the Convention, and that those interests might be jeopardized if we did not join the Convention. The hon. Baronet had laid great stress on the point that, by this Convention, we were, as he alleged, hampering the complete freedom of this country. If he meant by that that various regulations were to be carried out for what might be called the administrative use of wireless telegraphy, it was perfectly true. Any regulations which facilitated and improved the general administration of such a matter as wireless telegraphy were, to a certain extent, a restriction on freedom. On the other hand, they added very much to the use of wireless telegraphy. He would point out that, as regarded the general position, we had complete freedom as to any station or stations that we chose to exempt altogether from the operation of intercommunication, and that, though they might be exempted from the obligation of intercommunication, they retained all the other advantages which were given to those stations by the Convention. We had entire and complete freedom, from the point of view of both commerce and the Navy, to utilise any particular system that the Government might think advisable. Far from lessening our freedom in this matter, if we joined the Convention we should really be regaining it, because, unfortunately, the Admiralty, the Post Office and Lloyds were, at the present moment, hampered to a large extent by the obligation of various Agreements with the Marconi Company. To his mind, one of the great advantages of adherence to the Convention would be that, for the first time, and much sooner than would otherwise have been the case, we should be able to attain to complete freedom in regard to these Agreements. It had been suggested that there were
    1322
    four or five matters in which the British delegates were outvoted at the Convention, that, therefore, they were forced to accept many matters to which they objected, and that we were put in a worse position by the Convention than we should otherwise have been in. The only matter in which the British delegates did not carry their way, either directly or indirectly, was in regard to the proposal that additional rates should be charged for intercommunication. That was a matter to the detriment, no doubt, of the Marconi Company, but, at the same time, we were bound, under our agreement with them, to make up to them, for a certain number of years, these additional rates. The hon. Gentleman had said that we had only one vote while Montenegro had one also. That was true, but he would point out that, whether we had one vote or fifty, our delegates went to the Convention with certain instructions, and every single point in connection with those instructions was carried out. In addition to that, our delegates, through their ability, zeal, and tact, were enabled to obtain considerable advantages to this country which had not been anticipated. It was a question, not of the actual voting power, but of the influence which the country could bring to bear. And now the Conference had adjourned for five years. All that was left was the International Bureau, but there was not a word of truth in the allegation that that Bureau would have control over the action of the Government, or that the Admiralty would beat its mercy. There was no voting power in the Bureau because there was no representation on it; it was merely a branch of the telegraph union at Berne. It merely sat to collate and circulate information. Further, by giving a year's notice this country could retire from the Convention, and no Government would hesitate for a moment to do so if they found that our naval or commercial interests were injured by the Convention. The position of the Colonies and India had been raised, and one hon. Member had said that they ought to have been invited to the Conference, and asked to join the Convention. They did not themselves desire this, however, nor did the Government, for thus they were not

    1323
    made responsible for the actual drawing up of the Convention, and they could adhere to it or leave it at any time they desired. With regard to the question of voting, each country could put forward a claim to five votes for her colonies. We should thus be able to propose five votes for the Colonies; and these the next Conference, acting on the analogy of the Postal Union, would almost certainly allot to us. There was no doubt that the Government in power would do their best five years hence to communicate with the various countries concerned, so that the question of the colonial voters, he thought, could practically be disposed of before the Convention met. He hoped he had shown that the Government had been fully alive to the importance of the Imperial interests of this country and done their best to protect them.
    Commercially, as a great maritime nation we stood to gain for freedom of intercommunication. And in regard to the commercial qnestion, it appeared to him that international control was essential, and that the difficulties which had arisen from one station interfering with another could only be thus effectually dealt with. At all events, one of the real advantages of the Convention would be that it would not add to the interference and confusion which at present existed, but would largely diminish it, because there would be very effective control over the methods and regulations under which ships and coast stations would communicate one with another. Besides, the ship and the operator would each have to have a licence, which would be forfeited if there was any disobedience to orders. The hon. Baronet was mistaken in thinking that the intercommunication introduced would stand in the way of improvements. In his opinion an essential element of the regulations was the encouragement of a good and the discouragement of a bad system. Special provisions, which were inserted at the instance of our delegates, only allowed licences in the case of an apparatus which conformed to a certain degree of efficiency and to competent operators. An inventor would be able to maintain absolute secrecy as to his improvement, the only obligation on him being the general one of inter-
    1324
    communication in the ordinary way and with the ordinary apparatus. He confessed he should have thought the general principle of free trade and enterprise in these matters was from our point of view better than tieing ourselves to one particular system, which even if at the present moment the best certainly was not likely to remain so for ever.
    He had no quarrel with the Marconi Company; he had himself a great admiration and respect for Mr. Marconi, and he was sure they all felt that he had done a vast amount in this field of scientific improvement, though he was not sure that Mr. Marconi's friends did not claim a little too much for him. But it should be remembered that if Mr. Marconi had benefited England, England had also been of considerable advantage to him. The Marconi Company had received something like £40,000, and they were receiving £5,000 a year under the Admiralty Agreement. This country, therefore, had not treated them badly. He was not concerned in the claim from various companies, but he would point out that, after all, the Marconi Company was not the only British company with stations in England or the Colonies. The claim made by that company that they were the only British company, that the British Empire was bound up with them, and that British ships ought, therefore, to be fitted with Marconi apparatus, exclusively, was a grass and great exaggeration. One of the great arguments in favour of the Convention was that under the Marconi system of refusing intercommunication many British ships were increasingly hampered compared with their foreign rivals. Though the Marconi Company had not a monopoly, they had done their very best to obtain one. But the fact that they had not succeeded made it largely necessary to have this Convention. The only alternative to a world-wide monopoly was organisation under International convention and regulation. There were other powerful companies, British and foreign, and good systems besides the Marconi. New and startling inventions were constantly appearing. The company complained that they were being badly treated. But he must

    1325
    point out that only two years ago the Marconi Company themselves voluntarily entered into an agreement with the Post Office, for valuable consideration received, to the effect that, if the Government adhered to the Convention, they would agree to allow their stations to be placed under the obligation of intercommunication, and that they would free Lloyds and the Admiralty and others from any obligations not to intercommunicate and for any consequent pecuniary claim which the company might have on them at that time. Now that the company were asked to carry out their side of the bargain they complained that the Government were doing them damage. If it were true, as they boasted, that the Marconi Company and the British Empire were so bound up together that to injure one was to injure the other, he could only say that a few years ago they were willing to sell the country's birthright for a mess of pottage. The Marconi Company had the best stations, and if their claim was true that they had the best system, the Convention could not hurt them, for in competition they must succeed.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Has the agreement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers ever been reduced to writing?
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the hon. Gentleman would find it among the Parliamentary Papers. It was published in April, 1906.
    In conclusion he stated that it would have been a serious thing for this country if it had stood out from the Convention. By going into it at the first we secured our own terms; if we had not gone into it at first we should have had to go into it some time on the terms of the other countries; for everyone admitted that a Convention would be sooner or later essential. He did not say it was not possible to pick holes in it here and there, but looking at the Convention all round, he was convinced that it safeguarded our naval interests and was advantageous to our commercial supremacy. He thought the country was greatly indebted to the delegates representing the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Post
    1326
    Office at the Conference for the ability, pluck, and tact with which they had discharged their mission.
    MR. BONAR LAWsaid he was very glad that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman made it unnecessary for him to indulge in a task which he did not look forward to with pleasure, and that was to make a speech against the Convention. He happened to be the first Chairman of the Committee appointed to consider the question in this country, and he therefore had a sense of responsibility in regard to the matter. Moreover, he knew how able were the delegates sent to represent this country at the Convention, and he did not wish to take action hastily, and with no more information than it had been possible for him to obtain. Though he did not intend in the least to meet the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, he still felt, so far as he had information before him to enable him to judge, that the Convention was not one to which it was to the interest of this country to adhere. It seemed to him it was not good business on the part of this country to give a great deal more than we were going to get. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that our delegates went into the Convention with a real desire to do good to the world at large.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What I said was that, having first safeguarded our interests, they believed that any advantage to the world at large would be an advantage to us.
    MR. BONAR LAWsaid that did not make much difference to the point he was going to make. He said that the right hon. Gentleman went into the Convention with a strong desire to do something for the benefit of the world at large, but he thought the other parties went into it with a much stronger desire to do something to benefit the world at home. In the conflict between these two interests, he was afraid that ours had rather suffered. He was very glad that the subject was to be considered further, and it was, therefore, not necessary for him to meet the very interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But supposing the position

    1327
    had been reversed and Germany in this industry had got a great start, either in consequence of the superiority of her system or of her territorial position, and that we had desired to come up to her and rival her, would Germany have allowed that initial advantage to be taken away from her by any Convention? The right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Convention would not destroy our initial advantage, and, if that were proved to be true, he did not think there would be much hostility to the Convention. He was very glad to have the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the position which he had taken up in the matter. There had been no pressure whatever put upon him, and it would have been perfectly reasonable for him to have said that it was a question for which the Government was responsible and that the Cabinet must be the judges in the matter. Instead of doing that, he had realised that there was in the House and in the country a feeling that we were going into the matter rather in the dark, and he had met the general wish of the House by agreeing to allow it to be thoroughly considered by an impartial Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was to be most sincerely congratulated on having taken that course.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON,in view of the exhaustive and extremely lucid statement made by the Postmaster-General and the announcement that His Majesty's Government had decided to appoint a Select Committee next session, begged leave to withdraw the Motion.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether the Postmaster-General would bear in mind the words of his own agreement with the Marconi Company, and see that the terms of reference to the Committee directed attention to any system of wireless telegraphy which might be installed with the object of securing non-interference with other wireless telegraph companies, and also whether the reference would include the words "without prejudice to the patent rights of the Marconi Company."
    *MR. SYDNEYBUXTONsaid he could give no such promise. The Government
    1328
    had promised that a Select Committee should be appointed, and that the whole of the Convention would be referred to them.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS].
    Considered in Committee:—
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
    Clause 1:—
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to add words to the clause restricting its operation to "cases where the trust property is sworn to be under the value of £500." He said he approached the first Amendment on this most important Bill with great diffidence because the points at issue did not merely touch matters of temporary interest, but dealt in a most vital way with interests of the greatest possible magnitude. Personally he had a very large experience to guide him as to what this section would be likely to do if not amended. There were some hundreds of millions held in this country subject to trusts. Therefore the Bill proposed to deal with a subject of enormous importance to the community, and one the consideration of which should be approached with the utmost care and diffidence. He could understand that a very good case might be made out under certain circumstances for appointing a public trustee to deal with small estates. In regard to small estates under £500 it was frequently necessary to wind them up in a speedy, reasonable and safe manner, and to ensure nothing should be lost by the appointment of a person of little education and position. But that argument did not apply to the larger trust estates where there was no necessity for immediate winding up and where it was often necessary that they should be administered for a long period of time. When he saw the machinery that was proposed to be set up by this Bill, he was anxious to prevent its being applied to the larger estates. He noticed that six kinds of trustees were to be set up—

    1329
    the official trustee, the public trustee, the judicial trustee, the custodian trustee, the ordinary trustee, and the managing trustee. If all those trustees were to be appointed, he could only say God help the estate. He further noticed that a public trustee need not take up an appointment; that he could pick and choose the estate that he would administer, which seemed to him a ridiculous proposal. If the Government were inclined to accept this Amendment it would so modify the measure that almost all the rest of the Bill might be allowed to go through as an experiment. It would be perfectly easy if it were found to work well to extend the limit. But, if the Government did not accept it, it might be necessary to devote some weeks to the Committee stage in order to take the Bill clause by clause and word for word. He was tempted, however, to think that the Government were not serious in taking the Bill at this period of the session, but were only marking time. He noticed in the Bill some indication that certain powers of the Bill should be confined to estates of small value, particularly in regard to Clause 3and the whole of the sub-clauses. He suggested that the whole of the operation of the Bill should be limited to small estates. It would be far easier to extend its operation to larger estates than, in the event of its being a mistake, to turn back after setting up offices and machinery the cost of which no one could tell. The position of this country in respect to its system of dealing with trusts had been for centuries past remarkable as against all other countries in the world. It had created the great investments which were the backbone of our enterprise, and he thought that the unhallowed hand proposed to be laid on this system should be restricted as far as possible.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 6, at end, to insert the words "for cases where the trust property is sworn to be under the value of five hundred pounds."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR E. CARSONsaid that when a Bill with the same object
    1330
    as the present one was introduced by a private Member in a previous session it received assistance from every quarter of the House. He was quite sure that if hon. Members had read, as he had done, the correspondence in favour of that Bill from numbers of people, rich and poor, throughout the country they would think it a pity that it had not then become law. It had been said that the present Bill was revolutionary and would shake the system of trusts to its foundation. But this was not a compulsory measure, and that fact ought to be borne in mind throughout the discussions. They were not compelling anybody to employ the public trustee; all they were doing was to give people who found very great difficulty, more especially in large estates, in getting people to act as trustees and look properly after the estates, the opportunity of receiving the services of a public official whose duty it would be to take over the ordinary duties of trustee. He saw no reason for limiting the measure to small estates. Undoubtedly the Bill would confer large benefits on poor and rich alike. He would therefore have great pleasure in doing everything he could to promote its passing into law. It had been said that the system of trustees to be set up would involve a considerable cost to the country. That assertion, however, was refuted by the calculations on the subject made by the Treasury before sanctioning the Bill of last year. It had been computed that with a very small percentage of fees on estates, and if a reasonable number of estate, came in, there would be no expense on the public at all as the office would be self-supporting. If he understood the Bill aright the department would not be expensive, because existing offices were to be used. He trusted that the Bill would be passed with the greatest possible speed. It would be a great convenience to the public, it put no compulsion on anybody, and at the same time it relieved many people from grave difficulties.
    *MR. R. PEARCEsaid the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool had spoken of the estates in trust in the kingdom as amounting to hundreds

    1331
    of millions. That was very far short of the total. The evidence before the Income Tax Committee showed that the income of the country was £1,100,000,000 a year. If they capitalised that at twenty years purchase they would have a sum of £20,000,000,000. He ventured to say that a very large proportion of that—more than a half—was in the hands of trustees and that these trustees managed that vast amount of private property. The proposal of the Bill was that instead of its being managed by private person sat their own expense it should be managed by the State. [Cries of "No."] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had said the cost would not be very great. But there was another element arising from consideration of what had happened in New Zealand which ought not to be lost sight of. When the Bill was introduced the Attorney-General referred to the experience of New Zealand in favour of this proposal. That experience was also referred to in the Report of the Select Committee which reported in 1895. The experience of New Zealand opened up an extremely interesting note to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. New Zealand was very much in want of money. Under the New Zealand law an enormous amount of the private property of the country had been brought into the hands of the Government. Whether that was a desirable thing or not he would not stop at present to consider. The Government of New Zealand had at the present time about 4,000 estates representing a capital value of some £4,000,000. Looking at the process which was gradually going on in this country in connection with the savings of the working classes—
    MR. EUGENE WASONasked whether the hon. Member was in order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: As often happens, a Member came to speak to me privately, and I have not been able to listen to the hon. Member who was speaking.
    *MR. R. PEARCEsaid he was calling attention to the large amount of private property which was already in the lands of the State in the shape of the savings of
    1332
    the working classes, and to the fact that, under the proposal in this Bill, further large sums of money would come into the coffers of the State.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is not a question of putting property into the hands of the State, and therefore the argument of the hon. Member is not in order.
    *MR. R. PEARCEsaid the trust funds would be guaranteed by the State, and therefore to some extent the State would become liable for all the moneys which came into the hands of the public trustee.
    *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.)said it was impossible to accept the Amendment, because it was absolutely destructive of the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment proposed to reduce the application of the measure to estates of the value of £500. Were the mischiefs which were sought to be remedied by this legislation confined to small estates? A person wishing to leave money was anxious that it should be safeguarded, and that the provision he made for his widow or children, when he had gone, might be above the reach of avarice, and might not be subject to dishonesty, carelessness, recklessness, or improvidence. That happened in cases where the estates were over the value of £500. Then there was the difficulty to which the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had referred—the difficulty which many persons had in finding someone to fill the position of trustee. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had said that the measure should be experimental. It would be experimental; it was not compulsory. It was a facility which was demanded and afforded. If the public availed themselves of it, it would be a success, and if they did not, it would be a dead letter. In that way it would be seen whether there was a real necessity for this legislation.
    *MR. RADFORDsaid he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not said a word

    1333
    as to the financial effects of this Bill, especially in reference to the appointment of officers in a large number of small towns.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that that had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
    *MR. RADFORDsaid that he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool because he thought that the poor man, of whom the hon. Member said he was particularly solicitous, was not likely to profit by it. The poor man would not know that there was such an official as a Public Trustee. The only man outside the House whom he had met who was in favour of this measure was an ill-conditioned millionaire who thought he had not a friend in the world—and in that opinion he was quite right—and said that he would be glad to have a Public Trustee with the security of public funds to administer his estate.
    *MR. CAVEsaid that he knew only too much of the losses which had been incurred through the defalcations of private trustees. He thought that the provisions of the Bill as to the appointment of a custodian trustee and as to compulsory audit were excellent; but if it was proposed or intended either at once or eventually to hand over a large number of private trusts to a public official, they were, he believed, going in the wrong direction. The appointment of a public trustee should not be the rule but the exception. He agreed that they should limit the size of the estates to be administered by the public trustee as a general trustee, and he had an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. But he thought that the Committee ought to pause before throwing all ordinary trusts into official management. It had been admitted that the present Bill was going to make a revolutionary change—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was not now speaking to the Amendment.
    *MR. CAVEsaid he could not support this particular Amendment because it
    1334
    would limit the amount of an estate to be entrusted to the public trustee in his capacity as a custodian trustee.
    *MR. BILLSONsaid he took it it would not be an ordinary testator who would appoint a public trustee. He had known many cases in which men of the world and not ill-conditioned millionaries desired a public trustee to whom to entrust the administration of their estate. The hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had only said that a public trustee should be available into whose hands trust funds might be placed. He should oppose the Amendment.
    *MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid he was not a great believer in this Bill, but he advised the hon. Member for Liverpool to withdraw his Amendment. If a public trustee were appointed he had always been afraid of a charge being placed each year on the Exchequer to support the large administrative staff that would be required for the work. He was not and never had been opposed to the principle of a public trustee. He asked his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment because if they were to have a charge on the Exchequer it was better they should get big estates as well as little ones into the hands of the public trustee. The difficulty of getting a private trustee had been spoken of, but there was a limited company registered and called "The Public Trustee, Ltd," and further every insurance company and even banks could be appointed trustees and they would all compete. Therefore if they were going to have the Bill, let the public trustee get as many estates as he could. What he was afraid of was that the public trustee would never have enough estates to pay his expenses. Therefore he asked the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the Attorney-General in making an appeal to him rather misunderstood what he had said, because when the Bill passed the Second Reading last year his was the only voice in the House raised against it. He had never assented to the principle of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there

    1335
    were two reasons why this Bill should apply to large as well as small estates. One was that there was a considerable amount of dishonesty that required to be provided against and that if an official trustee were appointed he might be availed of. He would say that there was not one estate in a thousand in which money was lost through default of the trustee. He did not think that there was any kind of business in the country in which there was less dishonesty and loss of money than in the administration of trust estates, and that spoke well for the country. He had often been nauseated when he saw cases in the newspapers about defaulting trustees, because they had been referred to 500 times before; but on each occasion that case was referred to as if it were a new default. The Attorney-General had said that another reason for passing this Bill was that there was great difficulty in testators finding trustees to administer their estates. That was the case some ten or fifteen years ago because of trustees having been made liable to banks and insurance companies for investments even after they had done their best for the estate of the testator. Therefore they fought shy of accepting trusteeships. But since then the air had been cleared, and his experience which was probably greater than that of, any other Member of the House, was that there was now no difficulty in securing gentlemen to act as trustees for private estates. Another point was that if his Amendment were passed it would not do any damage to the audit clauses of the Bill. He would, however, withdraw the Amendment under compulsion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 9, at end, to add "But any instruments sealed by him shall not, by reason of his being a corporation sole, be rendered liable to a higher stamp duty than if he were an individual."—[Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question "That those words be there added," put and agreed to.
    Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to omit the words "for the purpose of saving expense to persons of small means" in sub-section (a), on the ground that they were unnecessary in that place. He wished to alter the position of the words. At present they simply dominated sub-section (a), but if they were put in the position in which he wished them to be they would dominate sub-sections (a) (b), (c) and (d).
    SIR JOHN WALTONaccepted the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'for the purpose of saving expense to persons of small means."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. DUNNmoved to omit the words "of small value" in sub-section (a) and insert, "unless the instrument (if any) creating the trust otherwise directs." His object, he said, was to allow the public trustee to administer rich and poor estates alike on the motion of any person who at present had a right to apply for administration to a Court of law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had pointed out that this was not a compulsory provision, but there was distinction between the administration of the estate by the ordinary trusteeship under the Act and the action of a custodian trustee who was voluntarily appointed. It was easy to see at a glance that where they had a legatee who was discontented with his legacy he might, although not entitled to apply for administration in a Court of law, come and set the public trustee in motion, while other persons who might have a larger interest than the person aggrieved might not want to have the public trustee. He knew that the word was "may" and not "shall," but the public trustee "may" move in spite of the objection of those other persons who had a larger interest than the person aggrieved. The

    1337
    Bill provided that the fees paid should be sufficient to discharge the salaries of the officials and other expenses incidental to the working of the Act, and the expenditure might be very large. To a great extent the estates which would come under the management of the trustees would be estates of under £1,000, and this Amendment proposed to do away with that limitation. If the proposal was a good thing for small estates it was a good thing for large estates. If the administration was economical let it also be applied to large as well as to small estates, and then if the experiment was a failure the expense would not fall wholly upon the small estates but upon the large estates also. It was for that reason he proposed this Amendment, so that there should be no difference between rich and poor estates.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In, page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'of am ill value,' and insert the words 'unless the instrument (if any) creating the trust otherwise directs."— (Mr. Dunn.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had some sympathy with the hon. Member, but he could not accept the Amendment. The object of the measure was to put the administration of estates where the trustee became the administrator into an entirely different category from those in which he acted as custodian trustee, and it had been felt that it was desirable that that category should include only estates of a somewhat limited value. That there should be some limit as to the amount of estates to be dealt with under Clause 2 he thought would be apparent if Clause 3 were looked at. That was to say, they might go to the public trustee and point out that they would be entitled to an administration order. That might be an expensive proceeding. That was an important power to give to an official who was not an officer of the Court, and it was obvious that it could not be extended without any sort of limitation. It was obvious also that a summary power of that kind should be limited, and for that reason in Section 3 it had been
    1338
    limited to estates of small amount. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. CAVEsaid he now moved his Amendment to limit the power of the public trustee to act as an ordinary trustee to small estates. He had no desire to limit the power of the public trustee to act as custodian trustee, but he did not want to bring about a state of things by which a number of trusts would come into the hands of the public trustee as an ordinary trustee. Everyone knew that millions of money were in the hands of private trustees, and by far the greater part of those trusts were being administered carefully and with every desire to keep to the terms of the trust, and to consider the wishes of the beneficiaries, and were administered at little or no expense. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no harm resulted. When a beneficiary desired to change his investments he went to his trustees and put his case before them, and the matter was considered. But if the power were transferred to the public trustee rules would have to be complied with and the investments chosen might be such as would give a small income instead of a large one; the beneficiaries would lose, and nobody would gain except the officials employed in a Government office. He did not think that was a state of things that the country desired. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that all the Bill did was to enable a testator to appoint the public trustee as his trustee, but that was not so. It went further and enabled the person having power to appoint new trustees, to appoint the public trustee, and it enabled a beneficiary to go to the Court and ask for the appointment of this public trustee. This was an experiment, and the Government had very properly limited the amount in respect to the administration of estates, and he did not see why they should not limit the amount in regard to ordinary private trusts. He asked the Committee to consider whether it was not a wise thing to do. He did not propose to put so small a limit as that moved by his hon. friend on a

    1339
    previous Amendment, but he proposed by a subsequent Amendment to limit it to estates not exceeding £2,000. With the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give it his careful attention, he begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 18, after the word 'trustee' to insert the words 'in cases where the trust property is of small value."—(Mr. Cave.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the proposal was one of weight, but he felt it would be unwise to fetter by this financial limit the discretion of the Court, or of the public trustee, or to limit the rules which the Lord Chancellor might make in the matter. The adoption of the Amendment would leave many estates outside the reach of this beneficial legislation, and would largely curtail its useful experimental character.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it would relieve the anxieties of many Members on both sides of the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give some indication of whether he would limit the operation of the ordinary trustee to some reasonable amount of estate. If he could give some idea that. an Amendment would, either at this or some subsequent stage of the Bill, be accepted, it would relieve them of a good deal of anxiety. With regard to larger estates, the Bill, it was quite clear, should be experimental.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR JOHN WALTONmoved an Amendment to enable the public trustee to take possession of the estates of persons convicted of a felony, and whose estates were in the hands of the Crown.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page, 1 line 19, at end to insert—(e) be appointed to be the administrator of the property of a convict under the Forfeiture for Felony Act, 1870."—(Sir John Walton.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. DUNNmoved an Amendment to prevent the trustee refusing to take up an estate because of the character or disposition of the cestuique trust or beneficiary. There were persons who would go two or three times a day to know how a trust was progressing and such persons would be known to the public trustee, but he did not think it would be right for him to say, "I will have nothing to do with this estate, because if I do I shall be pestered to death." In order that the public trustee might not pick and choose, he moved the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    " "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'property,' to insert the words 'or the character or disposition of the cestuique trust or beneficiary."—(Mr. Dunn.)
    SIR JOHN WALTONexplained that the words were necessary.
    MR. DUNNasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the next three Amendments standing in his name practically amounted to a Motion to leave out all the words in sub-section (4) after the word "business."In the first place there was no indication whatever as to what rules might be made although reference was made "to rules under this Act."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the rules which the Lord Chancellor would make under this section were simply rules to allow the business to be carried on.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid if the intention in these rules was to confine the expenditure to cases where the business was carried on simply for the purpose of winding up such business there could be no objection to the words remaining.
    *MR. R. PEARCEasked why the words "except for the purpose of winding up such business" should not be inserted if that was all that was intended. He would move the insertion of such words.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 11, after the word 'business' to insert the words 'except for the purpose of winding up such business."—(Mr. R. Pearce.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR JOHN WALTONpointed out that the insertion of these words was not required to secure the object of the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmove to leave out the words "nor any trust under a deed of arrangement for the benefit of credtiors." If the words in question were to make it clear that the public trustee was not to become the liquidator of the estate, he agreed with them, but if they were to have a more extended application, and prevent the public trustee from undertaking any trust where there happened to be a trust for payment of debts or expenses he thought the words would be found to be very objectionable and would probably lead to a mass of litigation. He certainly thought the public trustee should have the right to refuse in his district any kind of trust so long as it was understood that he was not going to be a winder-up. If he took that attitude, there was no occasion to insert these words which might create a confusion which was entirely unnecessary.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'nor any trust under a deed of arrangement for the benefit of creditors."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    "Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR JOHN WALTONthought the hon. Member would recognise that a technical expression appeared in the matter which was quite intelligible to persons engaged in the practice of the law. It would not do to deprive persons of the right to have an estate administered in this way simply because there were trusts in settlement, but he did not think such a settlement
    1342
    could be properly described as a deed of arrangement, and it was intended that the function of the public trustee should be kept as widely as possible apart from the functions of the official liquidator or the trustee in bankruptcy or from functions which were connected with the winding-up of insolvent estates. The words had been used with that object.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved an Amendment to leave out the words which provided that the public trustee should not accept any trust which involved the administration of an insolvent estate. He said in a very large number of cases estates which were understood to be solvent turned out to be insolvent and vice versa.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 14, to leave out the words 'nor the administration of any insolvent estate."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he quite appreciated the point, and he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Watford if that would meet the point.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that quite met the point, and he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 14, to leave out the words 'insolvent estate,' and to insert the words 'estate known or believed by him to be insolvent."—(Mr, Micklem.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3:—
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to omit the words in the first line "apply to" for the purpose of substituting "an order of."Anybody was entitled to apply for, although they might not be entitled to an order, and those who were to have this privilege ought to be the persons who were entitled to an order, which was quite a different thing. Although this Amendment looked simple as far as the words were concerned, it was nevertheless of considerable importance.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 22, to leave out the words 'apply to,' and insert the words 'an order of."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR JOHN WALTONadmitted that the words of the clause were open to misconception. He suggested that they should omit the words "entitled to apply to" in order to insert "who in the opinion of the public trustee would be entitled to an order of."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was willing to accept those words, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 22, to leave out the words 'entitled to apply to,' and insert the words 'who in the opinion of the public trustee would be entitled to an order of."—(Sir John Walton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. MICKLEMpointed out that at the present time nobody was entitled to an order, and all that they had was a right to apply. He suggested that the words should be "any person who, in the opinion of the public trustee, is entitled to apply for an order of."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the Attorney-General's words were quite
    1344
    satisfactory, and if they were found to be unsuitable they could be put right on the Report stage. Any person who was reasonably entitled to an order should be at liberty to apply.
    *MR. BERTRAMsaid there was a great difference between a man making an application and being entitled to make an application. The words suggested by the hon. Member for Watford would limit the privilege to the person who was entitled to apply for an order. No one was nowadays entitled, as of right, to an order for administration, and the class of persons entitled to apply for such an order was strictly limited and easily ascertained.
    *MR. R. PEARCEsaid it was very desirable that beneficiaries should be entitled to apply for an order asking the public trustee to take up the administration of a small estate.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that, upon reflection, he felt inclined to adopt the words suggested by the hon. Member for Watford, and he hoped the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool would be satisfied with the alteration. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 22, to leave out the words 'entitled to apply to,' and to insert the words 'in the opinion of the public trustee would be entitled to apply for an order of."—(Sir John Walton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was sorry that the Attorney-General had allowed himself to be talked out of his own Amendment by an hon. Member behind him. He withdrew his own Amendment in favour of that proposed by the Attorney-General, and he thought it was rather unfair to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman should now withdraw his Amendment. The effect of the original Amendment was—
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the effect of the original Amendment which was withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: On a point of order. I am entitled to have my original Amendment reinstated.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, it cannot be reinstated; it was withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his Amendment was withdrawn on a promise which had not been carried out.
    Question put and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Amendments proposed—
    "In page 2, line 23, after the second 'the' to insert the word 'gross."
    "In page 2, line 27, after the word 'persons' to insert the words 'other than creditors."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Amendments agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 27, after the word 'creditors' to insert the word 'beneficially."
    Question, "That the word 'beneficially' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the next Amendment he had to propose was to make it clear that an estate, whether it was worth £50 or £950, should be administered by the person whom the testator had appointed, or the trustees of a settlement, unless it could be made manifest to the public trustee that the estate would be mal-administered, and that someone would be injured if he did not take it over. He hoped the Attorney-General would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 28, after the word 'means' to insert the words 'and that the estate would be likely to be mal-administered otherwise."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words be there inserted."
    *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that the Amendment would unduly limit the scope and object of the clause, which was intended not only to provide a method of administration in reference to estates in danger of mal-administration, but also to provide a cheap method of administration in small estates as an alternative to what would be a more elaborate and costly system. Moreover, the Amendment would impose upon the public trustee an invidious duty without giving him the means by which he could make the necessary inquiries.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the Courts to-day never made an order for the administration of any estate, however small, unless it could be shown that there was some reason to suspect that something was wrong in the action of the trustees appointed by the testator. That was all that he wanted. For half a century they had been trying to release themselves from official control in the management of estates. He knew that it was no use his going to a division, but he wished to raise his solemn protest against the Government's handing over the administration of small estates to officials without any suggestion that there was likely to be mal-administration.
    Question put, and negatived.
    *MR. BERTRAMmoved an Amendment to provide that on the public trustee's undertaking to administer an estate, the trust property, other than stock, should vest in him. This would bring the wording of the clause into line with the Trustee Act 1893, and the Definitions Clause at the end of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 32, to leave out from the word 'estate' and to insert the words

    1347
    'trust property other than stock."—(Mr. Bertram.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR JOHN WALTONaccepted the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 35, to leave out the word 'a,' and insert the words 'as if vesting orders had been made."—(Mr. Bertram.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MICKLEMsaid it was quite certain that under the Bill questions might arise between the original trustees and the public trustee. The Amendment which he proposed to add to sub-section (2) provided for an indemnity to the original trustees at the time when the trust was handed over to the public trustee, except in respect of past acts.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 37, at end, to add the words, 'and from such vesting any trustee entitled under the trust to administer the estate shall be discharged from all liability attaching to the administration, except in respect of past acts."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Question proposed, "That the words to there inserted."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not think the words were required, but he saw no objection to accepting them.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to leave out sub-section (3), which provided that the public trustee might exercise such of the powers of the High Court as might be conferred upon him, subject to certain conditions. He said that in a few years the public trustee would have become a Judge
    1348
    having the powers of the High Court. The effect of the proposal would be to establish another set of judicial functionaries in the kingdom. The public trustee would have to deal with small estates in Cornwall and Yorkshire, and if the Act were extended to Ireland and Scotland, with that class of estates in remote parts of Ireland or Aberdeen. Naturally the public trustee would have his office in London. The result would be that all the advantage we now had of using the County Courts for dealing with small estates would be lost. Applications in regard to estates of under £50 would have to be made in London, and probably another large public office would have to be built in Whitehall to accommodate the public trustee and his assistants. By this means the Government would create the most difficult, and most absurd tribunal which by legislation it had ever been sought to set up in this country. He could not too strongly protest, not only against the appointment of this public trustee, who was to be given judicial functions, but against a single official being appointed to sit in London to deal with estates all over the country. He objected to judicial powers being given to one man who would be trusted alone to deal with matters. They had come to a point where it seemed to him they ought to protest as strongly as they could against the provisions of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 28, to leave out sub-section (3)."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the whole object of the clause was to lead to simplicity and economy and to prevent estates being wound up in Chancery. Under these circumstances the public trustee, who would be responsible, must as a matter of administration have some powers to enable him to discharge his duties.
    MR. MICKLEMhad great difficulty in seeing the necessity for the clause or its beneficial nature. He thought the clause might be omitted.
    *MR. BERTRAMwished to say a word in favour of the clause. It was often necessary, even in the case of very small estates, to make applications to the Court for leave to take some formal step, and it was desirable that power should be given to the official trustee to do what might be necessary without going to the High Court.
    *MR. J. M. HENDERSONpointed out that it was provided that the Act should not apply to Ireland or Scotland as hon. Members seemed to assume. He did not understand what were the powers to be given to the official trustee. If he was to have judicial functions he disagreed, but if he was to have administrative powers he agreed to that proposal.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDreiterated that if these powers were conferred upon a single individual sitting in London to deal with small estates the effect would be that the jurisdiction of the County Court would be ousted. The whole policy of the legal system of the country was to bring justice home to the doors of the people. If this matter were referred to a Central Board in London, it would not be satisfactory, and in the end they would have to have a hydra-headed trustee with a representative in every town. If this proposal were carried it would mean that they would have to have a new Chancery Judge sitting in London to deal with small estates. For these reasons he respectfully insisted upon his Amendment.
    MR. DUNNsaid they had been assured by the Attorney-General that the clause was merely a matter of administration and did not confer judicial power. He suggested that they should, after the first "the" in line 39, insert "administration."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that if the Amendment before the Committee was withdrawn that Amendment could be moved.
    SIR E. CARSONurged the acceptance of the suggested alternative Amendment.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would consent to the words suggested in amendment of that sub-section.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he would withdraw his Amendment if the words suggested were inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    In page 2, line 39, after the first 'the' to insert the word 'administration."—(Mr. Dunn.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to leave out all the words after "administration." He said if these words were left out and the clause ended with the word "administration"it would meet every purpose. If the opinion of the High Court had to be taken it was obvious that there must be some amount of judicial proceeding. Again, it was perfectly obvious that whatever rules were made a certain amount of expense and complication was bound to arise. If the rules were made with intelligence they would make the procedure as simple and inexpensive as possible. But why should they complicate the matter by putting into the Bill words of the sort he proposed to leave out. Why not say the rules should be made in order to enable the trustee to obtain the opinion of the High Court? He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 3, to leave out from the word 'administration,' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the object of this clause might be very briefly stated. If no rules were prepared and no power was to be given to the public trustee to obtain the opinion of the Court in the inception of a matter he would only be able to approach the tribunal in the ordinary way as a private trustee, which

    1351
    might be a more or less costly proceeding. In dealing with these small estates it was hoped to escape all that expense and therefore it was provided that the opinion of the Court might be obtained by this official without resort to the same proceeding as the private trustee. Under ordinary circumstances the procedure would be prescribed by the rules. He imagined that the result would be that the public trustee might have a right to resort to the Court, it might be by some document which might raise a point of law, without expense. He could not imagine why anyone who desired to ensure inexpensive administration of these estates should seek to omit these words. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DUNNmoved to substitute "estate being under the value of £1,000" for the words "small value of estate." That, he thought, would get rid of the objection of leaving the Court to decide the very difficult question of what was a small estate. He moved.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'small value of the estate,' and insert the words 'Estate being less than £1,000."—(Mr. Dunn.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'small' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the hon. Gentleman by this Amendment sought unduly to fetter the discretion of the Court. He would have observed that this clause dealt with an entirely different state of things from that with which the public trustee had to deal in the earlier part of the Bill. That was to say, that in an application to the Court he would prevent the Judge coming to the conclusion that the estate was a small estate, that the people were poor people, that this would cause a great expense, and that under the circumstances it was advisable that the estate should be handed over to the public trustee.
    MR. DUNNsaid he quite appreciated the point. He had intended his Amend-
    1352
    ment to be an extending Amendment, but in the form it was moved it became a restricting Amendment, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he understood that the limit of £1,000 applied to the whole of Clause 3, because although the capital value was first mentioned in the second line of the first sub-section, the whole clause was headed "in the administration of small estates." If that was so it would meet all the difficulties which the hon. Member for Camborne raised by his Amendment. When there was a clause with two or three sub-sections, and one referred to a £1,000 limit, whilst in the other cases there were only general words about the smallness of the estate, they might be held to refer to estates under £100. Was it understood that £1,000 was to refer to the whole of the sub-sections?
    SIR E. CARSONhoped the Attorney-General would adhere to the clause as it stood. It might be that the Court found that there was nothing to be done but pure administration; and it was almost a disgrace to keep the matter in the Courts, involving expense, when it could be handed over to somebody and the money divided in accordance with the wishes of the testator.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 4:—
    MR. MICKLEMmoved an Amendment to provide that the public trustee might be appointed to be custodian trustee of any trust in any case where the Court was of opinion that, having regard to the nature of the trust estate or its protection or security, or the wishes of the beneficiaries, such an appointment was desirable. As the Bill was drafted there was nothing to indicate on what principle the order should proceed. He thought there ought to be some indication on the face of the Act as to the grounds for the appointment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 23, after the word 'trustee,' to insert the words 'in any case where the Court shall be of opinion that, having regard to the nature of the trust estate, or its protection or security or the wishes of the beneficiaries, such an appointment is desirable."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR JOHN WALTONagreed that the considerations in the Amendment were such as would influence the Court in making an order for the appointment. They were obvious considerations, and he could not understand how any applications could be determined without regard being paid to them. Therefore he did not agree that the words were necessary, and that being so, they were dangerous, because the moment they began to specify considerations they were apt to be construed as the only considerations that ought to be regarded.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to leave out sub-section (c), which prescribes one of the methods by which the custodian trustee may be appointed, namely, "by the person having power to appoint new trustees."There were, he said, three ways of appointing a custodian trustee. The first was that in which the Court made an order, the second in which the testator, settler, or other creator of any trust appointed the trustee, and the third, which he desired to leave out, by the person having power to appoint new trustees. The effect of this section, if passed, would be that a trustee on a large estate might want to get rid of his trust, possibly under circumstances in which he ought not to Should there be a right to complicate the trust at an inconvenient juncture? Was the individual to import one or other of these fancy trustees into that particular trust? It was perfectly unreasonable to allow the retiring trustee, who would in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred be the person referred to in sub-section (c), to anyhow the estate was to be conducted is the future.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 25, to leave out sub-section (c)."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would refer back to the beginning of the clause he would see that the public trustee would only consent to the appointment in question if he thought fit, so that there was no obligation upon him. He begged the hon. Member to allow the Bill to proceed.
    SIR E. CARSONsaid that where a person having power to appoint new trustees came to the conclusion that the public trustee was the best possible person to appoint, he ought to appoint him.
    MR. MICKLEMsaid that if the testator or settler deliberately left out the public trustee, it was a strange thing to say that a person who had only a modified interest in the estate, but had power of appointment, should appoint the public trustee, and thus take the property out of the hands of the managing trustees.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 25, after the word 'trustees' to insert the words 'if expressly authorised in that behalf by the will, settlement, or other instrument creating the trust."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR E. CARSONopposed the Amendment on the ground that if it were accepted the Bill would not operate in respect of existing wills and settlements, In case a testator who had no opportunity of judging did not put into the will the words here proposed, there would be no alternative but to appoint probably a man of straw, although there was the Government official who might be appointed and who would keep the property perfectly safe.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it would be a relief to the trustees to have some person who could be charged with the

    1355
    custody of the property. The balance of the argument was in favour of leaving the sub-section as it stood.
    *MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that this provision provided that any trustee should be able to go to the public trustee and get him appointed as the custodian trustee, and so remove the securities out of danger, which was one of the great objects they had in view in this Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it had been stated that this clause would enable a trustee who was dissatisfied
    with a co-trustee to require a custodian trustee to be appointed. That was exactly what the clause did not do. There was not one word in it which enabled one of the trustees to make the other trustee do anything at all. He was very much in favour of the words of the Amendment, as it would have the effect of preventing hardships which might otherwise arise.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 17; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 500.)

    AYES.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Keswick, William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Radford, G. H.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bull, Sir William James

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fell, Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marlyebone, W.)

    Mr. Micklem and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    NOES.

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Agnew, George William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hart-Davis, T.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Harwood, George

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Armitage, R.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

    Clough, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.

    Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

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

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

    Barker, John

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hills, J. W.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Cox, Harold

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Beauchamp, E.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hogan, Michael

    Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

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

    Crooks, William

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Bell, Richard

    Crossley, William J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Bennett, E. N.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Bertram, Julius

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Billson, Alfred

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)

    Essex, R. W.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Boland, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Brace, William

    Ferens, T. R.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

    Branch, James

    Findlay, Alexander

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Brigg, John

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Brooke, Stopford

    Gilhooly, James

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Gill, A. H.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ginnell, L.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

    Lambert, George

    Byles, William Pollard

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Cairns, Thomas

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Halpin, J.

    Levy, Maurice

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Lough, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Summerbell, T.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tomkinson, James

    M'Callum, John M.

    Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

    Toulmin, George

    M'Crae, George

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    M'Kean, John

    Richardson, A.

    Ure, Alexander

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Valentia, Viscount

    M'Killop, W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Ward, Jn. (Stoke upon Trent)

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

    Robinson, S.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Massie, J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Mond, A.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Murphy, John

    Seddon, J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

    Nolan, Joseph

    Shackleton, David James

    Wills, Thomas

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Winfrey, R.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Silcock, Thoms Ball

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Partington, Oswald

    Soares, Ernest J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

    Paul, Herbert

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Steadman, W. C.

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

    MR. MICKLEMsaid he understood the Attorney-General intended to accept his next Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 34, to leave out sub-section (b) and insert, '(b) As between the custodian trustee and the managing trustees, and subject and without prejudice to the rights of any other persons, the custodian trustee shall have the custody of all documents of title relating to the trust property."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section (b) of Clause 4 stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was quite clear that this Amendment ought to be adopted, because there were numerous cases in which the managing trustees had not the custody of all documents.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *MR. BERTRAMmoved to insert in line 3 of the Amendment after the word 'all' the words 'securities and,' in order to provide that stock certificates and
    1358
    bonds should be included as well as legal documents and title deeds.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "In line 3, after the word 'all,' to insert 'securitiesand."—(Mr. Bertram.)
    Words proposed, as amended, there inserted.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he hoped the Attorney-General would see his way to accept his next Amendment which entitled the managing trustee to have access to all documents, and to take extracts from them.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 35, at end, to insert the words 'but all interested parties, including the ordinary trustees and the managing trustees, shall have free access thereto, and be entitled to take copies or extracts thereof."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would certainly accept the latter part of the

    1359
    Amendment which, would enact that the managing trustees should have free access to the documents and be entitled to take copies of and extracts from them. If the hon. Member would limit his Amendment to those words he would accept it.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he would move the Amendment in that way.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the best way would be for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and move it in its altered form.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert the words, 'but the managing trustees shall have free access thereto, and be entitled to take copies or extracts thereof."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved the omission of the words providing, that the custodian trustee should not concur in any act the effect of which might be to vest in him property involving a personal liability on him in respect of calls on shares. He did not see why the trustee should take over the whole estate and leave out shares as to which there might be only a nominal liability.
    SIR JOHN WALTONaccepted the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 4, to leave out lines 10 to 14 inclusive."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments proposed—
    "In page 4, line 14, to leave out sub-section (e)."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    "In page 4, line 28, after the word 'direct,' to insert the words 'or into such bank to the credit of such person as they may direct."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    "In page 5, line 16, to leave out sub-section, (3), and insert, '(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to any banking or insurance company or other body corporate entitled by rules made under this Act to act as custodian trustee, with power for such company or body corporate to charge and retain or pay out of the trust property fees not exceeding the fees chargeable by the public trustee as custodian trustee."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Amendments agreed to.
    MR. DUNNmoved that an Amendment to provide that solicitors might become custodian trustees. He said he moved this Amendment because custodian trustees had for the first time been given a legal status. The Government had recognised the advisability of appointing bankers and insurance companies, and a clause had been inserted for the purpose. There was a body of men known as "family solicitors"who had practically been custodian trustees for many years. It might be said that some of them had abused their trusts, but they were exceptions and exceptions were not the rule. He proposed by this Amendment to permit the Court to appoint a solicitor as a custodian trustee, and he safe-guarded matters by directing that he should give such security as the Court might direct in making the appointment. He hoped the Attorney-General would accept the Amendment which, in practice, he thought would be found very advantageous.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 5, line 31, to insert the words, 'Provided that any solicitor may be appointed custodian trustee provided he gives security for the due administration of the trust in such manner and for such amount as the order making the appointment shall direct."—(Mr. Dunn.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the acceptance of the Amendment would be unfortunate from the point of view

    1361
    of the inference that might be drawn from it. It would be invidious to suggest that members of an honourable profession should be compelled to give security. By this Bill they were only providing for a public trustee acting as a custodian trustee. They were making a provision for safeguarding the trust where persons were dissatisfied. In such a case it was desirable that the property should go into the hands of a public official. The only reason for the insertion of the clause was that it was part of the business of bankers and insurance societies to take charge of securities and valuables of all sorts. A solicitor might be a poor man, though he was none the worse for that, with only one small room, which he occupied himself, and no place in which to keep property or securities. He saw no reason why solicitors should wish to become mere custodians of property over which they had no function of administration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 4, agreed to as amended.
    Clause 5:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 5, line 41, after the words 'new trustee' to insert the words 'or as an additional trustee."—(Mr. Hills.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 9, to leave out subsection (3),"—(Mr. Dunn.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR E. CARSONsaid if they took away from the testator the right of handing over the property to the public trustee they would seriously infringe one of the main principles of the Bill.
    MR. MICKLEMhoped the Committee would not agree to allow this sub-section to be omitted.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not agree to the Amendment.
    MR. DUNNasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 12, to leave out the words 'unless the court otherwise order."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept this Amendment.
    MR. R. PEARCEsupported the Amendment.
    Amendment negitived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 20, to leave out the words 'one week,' and insert the words 'twenty-one days."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 23, to leave out from the word 'made,' to end of sub-section, and insert the words, 'a person dealing in good faith with the public trustee is not concerned to inquire respecting the giving of any such notice as is required by this section."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that serious consequences might follow from the adoption of this Amendment, and he could not accept it.
    MR. MICKLEMasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments proposed—
    "In page 6, line 26, after the word 'trustee,' to insert the word 'or."
    "In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words 'or next person in the entail."
    "In page 6, line 27, to leave out the word 'in,' and to insert the word 'under."—(Mr. Micklem.)
    "In page 6, line 30, after the word 'accordingly,' to insert the words 'even though there is no vacancy."—(Mr. Hills.)
    Amendments agreed to.
    Clause 5, as amended agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendments to Clause 7 must be held over until the other clauses have been disposed of.
    Clause 8:—
    *MR. R. PEARCEmoved to add the words:—"But no such appointment shall be made, nor salary or fees be provided out of taxes, while the other charges on such taxes exceed £100,000,000 in the year." His only anxiety was that they should redeem the pledges which they gave at the general election. There was hardly a Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House who did not issue placards and circulars calling attention to the extraordinary increase of expenditure during the last few years. A good deal yet remained to be done before they reduced the expenditure to the extent continually referred to at the election. To establish a new department and create a large number of public trustees all over the country to manage private trusts at the expense of the public purse was hardly the way to begin a career of economy such as
    1364
    that to which hon. Members were pledged. In the present session the House had already voted £1,000,000 a year as the price of the settlement of the education question. Was there any way during this long and extraordinary session in which the House had saved a single pound per annum beyond a small amount in Army and Navy expenditure? The Bill meant no benefit to the people. He ventured to say that the wage-earning class that would come within the purview of the Bill was very small in comparison with the persons of means whose estates were well able to pay the expenses of administration. He would be ashamed to go to his constituents and tell them that he had voted for the management of private property at the public cost while children were not fed and while old age—
    *MR. BERTRAMasked whether it was in order to discuss the general taxation of the country.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must cease to discuss these outside matters, and confine himself absolutely to his Amendment.
    *MR. R. PEARCEsaid he was not discussing the general taxation of the country when he pointed out that there were claims of a pecuniary kind for the benefit of all classes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do even with the form of the Amendment. The hon. Member must entirely avoid the question of the other purposes on which money could be spent.
    *MR. R. PEARCEsaid it was his duty to call attention to the fact that there

    1365
    would be startling expenditure under the Bill at a time when members of the House had not been able to keep their promises to the country in respect of the reduction of expenditure generally. The nearest analogy that he could give to the present proposals was the case of the Charity Commissioners who managed public trusts. That Commission cost the State £40,000 a year. If this Amendment were not accepted by the Government there would be an expenditure of something like that sum. That would be an addition to the national expenditure, and he thought he might rest his case on that fact in view of the pledges which had been given to the country. He wondered how those who had pledged themselves to bring about economies would be able to justify their action in voting for the erection of a great State department of this kind for the management of private trusts at the public expense. If the general expenditure were reduced to £100,000,000 they would perhaps be justified in undertaking this new expenditure. He appealed to the Government not to create a new department, which would involve the expenditure of money which was wanted for other and more urgent matters.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again beginning to talk about the Bill. I warn him that he is becoming highly irrelevant; he must keep to his Amendment.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 7, line 36, at the end, to add the words 'But no such appointment shall be made, nor salary or fees be provided out of taxes, while the other charges on such taxes exceed £100,000,000 in the year."
    Question proposed, "That those Words be there inserted."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he thought the Attorney-General would have had something to say in regard to this most important point. He was entirely in sympathy with the Amendment, though he thought an extraordinary impasse would be created if they were to say that no salary or fees should be provided out of taxes to the holder of the office of public trustee "while the other charges on such taxes exceed £100,000,000 in the year"when they knew that the present Government had not the slightest intention of so reducing public expenditure. He thought they were entitled to some information as to what the Government proposed to spend on this important new scheme. The cost of the Charity Commission was upwards of £40,000 a year, and they carried on their business exclusively in London. In connection with the public trustee's department there must be offices all over the country involving heavy cost on the Treasury. He believed the department would cost £240,000 a year.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to me that the hon. Gentleman is in order. The clause says—
    "The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a fit person to the office of public trustee, who shall hold office during pleasure, and receive such salary or fees and be appointed on such terms as the Treasury may determine."
    The Amendment is to add some words at the end. I think the hon. Member is not talking about that.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid all he wanted from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was some information as to the expenses involved. He did not think the clause should be passed sub silentio.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. RADFORDmoved an Amendment that the officers of the Public Trustee, who were not already in the public service, should be appointed by the Treasury after open competition, the same as in the Civil Service. His reason for asking for support for his Amendment was, first, that the system of open competition for posts in the Civil Service was an excellent one; secondly, because the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, which was very considerable, had not been exercised by the ex-Lord Chancellor in such a way as to meet with the general approval of mankind; and thirdly, it must be a painful, tedious and invidious thing for any Lord Chancellor to make such appointments.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was entirely out of order in reflecting on the late Lord Chancellor.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 7, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'may' in line 39, and to insert the words. 'The appointment of officers of the public trustee not already in the public service shall be governed by the Order in Council of the fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, establishing the system of open competition for posts in the Civil Service of the Crown, and such officers shall be appointed as the Treasury."—(Mr. Radford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and agreed to without a division.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that while they were all glad that the system of open competition for posts in the Civil Service had been established, he
    1368
    thought it would be generally admitted that the men wanted for the class of work which would have to be done by public trustees were men of a special character whose qualifications could not be gathered from a public competitive examination.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace Bill, with an Amendment; Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.
    TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 377.]

    RECORDERS, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES, AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
    Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
    Adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Templemore sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD HARRISsaid he had some Amendments on the Paper which he understood the Government would accept. They were Amendments which had been put into every Bill of the same character hitherto, and they were practically drafting Amendments. He therefore proposed to move them en bloc.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 33, page 10, line 29, after the word 'therein' to insert the words 'there over'; in Clause 64, page 48, line 13, after the word 'tramways' to insert the words 'and the said section thirty (except sub-sections one and five thereof) shall in its application to the tramways have effect as if wires or apparatus laid in a road included wires or apparatus erected or carried over a road or footpath"; and in Clause 92, page 58, line 4, after the word 'general' to insert the words 'or telephonic communication by means of any apparatus of the National Telephone Company, Limited."—(Lord Harris.)
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Onslow): Before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill informs the House whether or not the Government are prepared to accept these Amendments, I should like to enter a protest against the course pursued. In the first place, I do not think the Amendments can be called drafting Amendments; nor is it accurate to say that they have always been inserted in Bills under similar conditions. Secondly, I do not think it is a practice which ought to be followed for Amendments of this kind to be proposed in your Lordships' House on Third Reading when there has been ample opportunity under the Scottish Procedure Act of bringing them under the notice of the Commissioners in Scotland and getting a decision there after the arguments have been heard. I think your
  An Asterisk (*)at the commencement of a Speech indicates revision by the Member.
  1150
  Lordships would be well advised, where Amendments of this kind are proposed on third reading and are opposed, not to give your sanction to them. These Amendments are, as I understand, agreed Amendments, I shall, therefore, not invite your Lordships to reject them.
  LORD HARRISexplained that the power which the company on whose behalf he was acting had was to apply for a Joint Committee of both Houses in another place; but they were advised by those who generally helped them in these matters in the House of Commons that owing to the mass of business and the late period of the session it was practically impossible for them to obtain that Joint Committee. The First and Second Readings were taken very unexpectedly on Friday, and it was only yesterday that he had an opportunity of putting down Amendments.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees was quite right in advising the House not to accept opposed Amendments at this stage. He renewed the protest he had made on the previous day against Order Bills of this kind being brought up from the House of Commons one day and passed through all their stages except the Third Reading, and then put down for Third Reading on the following day, thereby preventing the moving of Amendments except without notice. There ought to be at least an interval of one day between the notice that the Bill was to be read a second time and the actual reading of the Bill.
  *LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: These Amendments are not opposed by the promoters of the Bill, and I am instructed to accept them.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I quite agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Balfour. I think he is quite right in saying that it is undesirable that this sort of thing should take place; but, as I understand, my noble friend at the Table is not inclined to question the matter at this moment either on that or on any other ground; I think your Lordships, therefore, need not press the matter further. If my noble friend at the Table had

  1151
  objected to these Amendments in the circumstances, I certainly should have supported his authority.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  *LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLmoved two Amendments on the Paper standing in his name. He said the first gave effect to an arrangement between the promoters and the Postmaster-General, and the second simplified the process of arbitration in the case of the undertaking being taken over by a local authority.
  Amendments moved—
  'In Clause 92, page 58, after subsection (4) to insert the following subsection: (5) All provisions of the Conveyance of Mails Act 1893, relating to the conveyance of mails on tramways shall apply and have effect in relation to the omnibuses provided under this section as if such omnibuses were carriages on tramways authorised after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety three; and in line 11, to leave out from the word 'account' to the end of the sub-section."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETITIONS.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Petition against; of inhabitants of parish of Oundle-with-Ashton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Report of the Army Medical Department for the year 1905. Volume 47: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG.
  Fifth Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie to Mallaig Railway, the rates and charges for traffic, and the receipts and expenditure of any company in working the railway, for the year 1905–
  1152
  1906: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of 28th November last), and to be printed. (No. 250.)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to members of the Committee until further order. (No. 251.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon),who had given notice to move that Standing Order No. XXI. be dispensed with, and the adjourned debate on the Education Bill be resumed after the consideration of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, said: My Lords, I have a Motion on the Paper for suspending one of the Standing Orders, but I understand that on the whole it would be more convenient if the Education Bill were not taken to-day. Therefore, I shall not move my Motion, and the business will proceed in the usual manner.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: With reference to the statement which the noble Marquess has just made, I should like to ask him whether he merely desires to give priority to the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Bill in Committee, leaving the consideration of the Education Bill on the Paper in case any further statement has to be made with regard to it; or whether, on the contrary, he wishes that the Education Bill should not be further considered till to-morrow. I venture to suggest that there might possibly be some convenience in taking the former course.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I shall be very ready to adopt my noble friend's suggestion. I did suggest that it should be put off till to-morrow, but after what the noble Marquess has said I propose that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill and the other Bills on the Paper shall be

  1153
  taken in the order in which they stand, leaving it open to bring on the discussion on the Education Bill at a later period.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: In the event of there being a debate on the Education Bill to-morrow night, I should like to ask what will happen to the Land Tenure Bill? There have been a great many Amendments made in that Bill, and I know there is a general desire on both sides that the measure should not be lost. As time is short, I should like to know what arrangements are likely to be made with regard to that Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have not really considered that point, but I suppose the course in that case would be that the Education Bill should be taken first and the Land Tenure Bill afterwards. I have no idea of removing the Land Tenure Bill from the Paper for to-morrow.

  BURIALS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, and one Amendment agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment to be considered on Thursday next.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with one Amendment agreed to, with an Amendment and a consequential Amendment to the Bill; and several Amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement, the said Amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 252.)

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwho had given notice to move the insertion of the following new Sub-section in Clause 6,—
  "(2) A claim for compensation under this section shall not be made after the expiration
  1154
  of three months from the time at which the tenant quits his holding,"
  said he understood, after consultation with noble Lords opposite, that the settling of the time within which claims for compensation were to be made under this clause was a matter more properly dealt with by rule made by the County Court Judge. That was the practice under the Act of 1870, and he presumed it would be the practice under this Bill. If that were done, it would obviously meet his point better than by rigidly laying down a time in the Act of Parliament. He, therefore, did not intend to move the Amendment standing in his name. His second Amendment on the Paper was to insert after the word "contrary" in line 17 of Clause 6, the words—
  "Unless such agreement was, in the opinion of the Court, reasonable, and not made under direct or indirect compulsion."
  The object was to make it perfectly clear that Clause 6did not conflict with Clause 10. Clause 10 provided that any contract made after the passing of this Bill, by virtue of which a tenant would be directly or indirectly deprived of his right to obtain compensation,..
  "Shall be void unless the court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was reasonable and that it was entered into by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion."
  The words in Clause 6 were "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary," and did not allow the provision which was made in Clause 10. It was important that contracting out should be allowed in all cases of large properties, and it was in order to make that clear that he moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 4, line 17, after the word 'contrary' to insert the words 'unless such agreement was, in the opinion of the Court, reasonable, and not made under direct or indirect compulsion."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid it was not very convenient to introduce and discuss important Amendments at this stage of the measure. Clause 6 was introduced by noble Lords opposite. The choice was given him between that clause and no

  1155
  clause at all. Therefore, he was obliged to choose the clause, but he greatly preferred the clause which stood in the original Bill. He contended that this was not a convenient time to tamper with Clause 6, and to whittle down its provisions to the detriment of the tenant. The noble Earl had made a point of the fact that the clause as it stood was inconsistent with Clause 10, but he would like to point out that there was an Amendment later on in the name of Lord Dunboyne which would make Clause 6, even if they adopted the Amendment of the noble Earl, quite inconsistent with Clause 10. On behalf of the Government he had to say that he must resist the Amendment, and if the noble Earl pressed it upon them they would be obliged to divide against him.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was some truth in what the noble Lord has said about the inconvenience of moving Amendments on the Third Reading, but he was afraid it had been an invariable practice to insert Amendments at that stage. Even most important Bills had been constantly amended on Third Reading. The Amendment now before their Lordships was obviously moved in the most perfect good faith, and he was not himself impressed with the seriousness of the objection raised to it by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The Amendment took up words that were already in another clause in the Bill, and why those words should be incapable of being even looked at now when they appeared in another part of the Bill he could not see. It was really only a drafting Amendment, seeking to bring forward the qualifying provisions in another clause. He submitted that the Amendment was a reasonable one and would not defeat any object in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWEdid not quite gather from the noble and learned Lord whether, speaking as a lawyer, he regarded this as a purely drafting Amendment, and whether he considered that the insertion of these words in Clause 6 would have no extra operation on the clause beyond that which was already conferred on it by the words in Clause 10.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It was in that belief that the Amendment was inserted.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he would have supposed at first sight that the words might have an operative effect upon cases under Clause 6 which would not be provided for under Clause 10.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought the matter lay in the narrowest possible compass. The general clause with reference to contracting out was Clause 10, which contained words in deference to which Lord Barrymore withdrew his Amendment the other day. It was pointed out by Lord Donoughmore and by himself that the words in Clause 10 left it to the County Court Judge to say whether the contract was reasonable and had been made by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion. That was an idea they thought reasonable and fair, and in deference to its reasonableness and fairness Lord Barrymore withdrew his objection. Lord Donoughmore only desired to bring forward the idea in Clause 10 and annex it to the words in Clause 6; but, if it was thought more desirable by the legal advisers of the Government that a reference to Clause 10 would be a more convenient way of doing this, he thought Lord Donoughmore would be quite satisfied with that.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment standing on the Paper, and to move the insertion of the words, "subject to the provisions of Clause 10." He begged to amend his Amendment accordingly.
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government were unable to accept that Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD DUNBOYNEsaid the object of his Amendment was to put the onus of proof upon the party who impugned the written document, and not upon the party who supported it. He could not understand why in this clause such an elementary principle of law and equity should be departed from. Clause

  1157
  10, as he proposed to amend it, would read—
  "Any contract (other than a contract either to make or not to make an improvement) made after the passing of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation under this Act, shall be held to be void if the Court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was unreasonable and that it was entered into by the parties under any direct or indirect compulsion."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 10, page 5, line 14, after the word 'be' to insert the words 'held to be' and to leave out the word 'unless' and insert the word 'if'; in line 17 to leave out the word 'reasonable' and to insert the word 'unreasonable,' and to leave out the word 'without' and to insert the word 'under."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment. The noble Lord desired by his Amendment to place the onus of proof on the tenant. There were exceptions to the elementary principle to which the noble Lord had referred, and the particular clause in question was founded upon Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. In the opinion of the Government the Amendment would be detrimental to the interests of the tenants, and on that ground he was obliged to resist it. If the noble Lord pressed the Amendment the Government would have to trouble their Lordships to divide upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANthen moved two Amendments which were not on the Paper, one of which was to insert a sub-section which the Government accepted from Lord Ashbourne with regard to the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. He believed there would be no objection to the insertion of the sub-section in the place proposed.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaw no objection to either of the Amendments, a typewritten copy of which had been supplied to him. They were merely drafting Amendments to make the Bill read more harmoniously.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 26, after the word 'Act' to insert the words '(3) Any rules under this section should be made after consultation with, or notice of consultation sent to, the President of the Incorporated Law Society."—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to; and Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  *LORD AMPTHILLmoved an Amendment to sub-section2 (c) which would have the effect of making insobriety or the wilful breach of any rule printed and published by the employer for the safety and protection of his workmen "serious and wilful misconduct" within the meaning of the Act. He was assured that it was most necessary for the proper and consistent working of this Bill that certain defined acts should be specified in the Bill as coming within the expression "serious and wilful misconduct." The views of county court judges in the past had differed very largely on the interpretation of the phrase "serious and wilful misconduct." He had been told of the case of a judge who held that although a man was admittedly drunk and, therefore, violating the rules of the factory in which he was working, it was not serious or wilful misconduct. There was another even stronger case illustrating the extreme variety of the opinion of judges in this matter, and that was the case of a man who, in spite of very well-known rules for the safety of workmen, insisted on probing a dynamite charge with a steel crowbar and consequently met with a serious accident; but even in this case the judge did not hold it to be serious or wilful misconduct. He could quote a considerable number of cases of the same kind, such as, for instance, the opening of a safety lamp in a mine when a workman wished to light his pipe. He had another case in mind of a workman who met with an injury because he insisted, in violation of the

  1159
  rules, in oiling machinery while in motion in order to save himself trouble; but in all these cases judges were to be found who did not consider that these breaches of the rules constituted serious and wilful misconduct, and to such a pitch had this timidity on the part of judges gone—this fear of establishing a precedent by committing themselves to any particular interpretation of this vague phrase—that employers and others had ceased to fight these cases because they knew it was almost impossible to get a judgment condemning a breach of the rules. The object of the Amendment was merely to make the Act more clear and definite and to ensure that its working should be uniform and consistent throughout the kingdom. He was aware that a similar Amendment was rejected in the House of Commons, but he could not find in the Reports that there was any very lengthy discussion upon it. He hoped that since that time the Government had altered their opinion as to the necessity of the Amendment, and that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would allow it to pass.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'disallowed' to insert the words 'insobriety or the wilful breach of any rule printed and published by the employer for the safety and protection of his workmen shall be serious and wilful misconduct within the meaning of this Act."—(Lord Ampthill.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPresisted the Amendment. The Government could not accept it, because in the terms in which it was drawn it would allow an employer to prevent the Act coming into operation at all within his factory. An employer merely would have to frame a sufficient number of rules, and it would be almost impossible for a workman not to have broken some rule or other. Insobriety, when it was serious and wilful misconduct, was already within the clause.
  LORD NEWTONsaid that under ordinary circumstances he would have felt disposed to support the Amendment, but so far as he was able to gather, without assuming any legal knowledge, it appeared to him that his noble friend would not effect any benefit
  1160
  by the Amendment. As he understood the Bill, serious and wilful misconduct of any kind would be condoned, and there was no possibility of denying compensation to a man if he injured himself sufficiently seriously, if he only damaged himself to the extent of losing a finger or a toe, he would obtain nothing; but if he carried his wilful and serious misconduct sufficiently far either to bring about his death or permanent incapacity, under the Bill the employer would have to pay compensation. He submitted, therefore, that there was not much object, in view of this fact, in the moving of the Amendment.
  LORD BELPERsaid the provision with regard to serious and wilful misconduct was in the original Workmen's Compensation Bill of which he had charge in their Lordships' House, and he had to resist a similar Amendment to the one now moved by Lord Ampthill. This matter was carefully considered by the Committee which reviewed all the difficulties that had arisen under these Acts, and they declared that it was open to grave objection to lay down by legislation any such hard and fast rule. The Committee stated in categorical terms that they did not think it possible for the Legislature to lay down a statutory definition of serious and wilful misconduct. In those circumstances he hoped his noble friend would not divide the Committee on the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment in sub-section (a) of the clause providing that the failure to make a claim within the period should not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings, if it was found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, "absence from the United Kingdom"or other reasonable cause. He explained that the object of this Amendment was to make proviso (a) correspond with proviso (b.)
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 14, after the word 'mistake' to insert the words 'absence from the United Kingdom."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved to amend subsection (b) by omitting the words "it is found," and inserting the words "the court is satisfied." He said this was an Amendment of some importance. The Committee would see that the Clause dealt with two matters. In the first place, it dealt with a notice which had to be given. In that case the terms in the original Bill were adhered to, that the notice should be given as soon as practicable. With regard to the claim, it was now laid down that it should be made within six months of the occurrence of the accident, a sufficient time, one would certainly have thought, where notice had been given, for a man who had met with an accident to send in his claim. The Committee in their Report recommended that the time for making the claim should be three months. He did not propose to move any alteration with regard to that, and was content to leave the longer period in the clause. But when they came to sub-section (b), to which his Amendment referred, they found it provided that—
  "The failure to make a claim within the period above specified shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, employment abroad, or other reasonable cause."
  He was afraid that that sub-section as it stood would put a great premium on carelessness and lead to men not paying due regard to the regulations as to the making of claims. In every case where a man had been careless, and had not made his claim within six months it would be very easy to say it was a mistake. If it was enacted that a mistake cleared him, he would always adduce that as his reason why he should not be precluded from making his claim at a later period. The same thing applied in regard to employment abroad. A man who was absent from the United Kingdom could perfectly well make his claim through the post, although it might not be so easy to do so as if he were at home. He should, therefore, be required to make the claim within the time specified.
  1162
  At all events, there should be some security for the employer. The object of making the claim within six months was that the employer might not be prejudiced in his defence to the action when the time arrived. He proposed subsequently to move the insertion at the end of the clause of these words—
  "And that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim."
  If those words were inserted, it would be some safeguard, and would point out to the workman that he must use his best endeavours to make the claim within the specified time. Moreover, it would carry out the recommendations of the Committee which considered this matter. The Committee discussed the question a good deal in their Report, and the conclusion they came to was that, although they did not wish the time either for the notice or the claim absolutely to preclude a claim being subsequently made, if there was good reason for it, yet in no case should a claim be allowed after a specified time unless the person claiming obtained the permission of the Court. The insertion of his Amendment appeared to him a proper safeguard for the employer, and to carry out the scheme of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'it is found' and to insert the words 'the court is satisfied."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdid not think the noble Lord comprehended the importance of his Amendment, which would go a great deal further than he suggested. The words as they stood were introduced into the Bill of last year by the late Government, and this was the first time that they had been seriously challenged. The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the application to a court and to bar arbitration proceedings under this section. The words "it is found" could be taken cognisance of by the arbitrator, whereas if the Amendment were carried it would be impossible for the arbitrators to take this into consideration, and it would have to be done by a court.
  LORD BELPERsaid that if the noble Earl would accept his second Amendment, to insert the words "and that

  1163
  the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim," he would withdraw his first Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he was unable to accept either Amendment. Lord Belper's idea appeared to be to try and make the alternatives the same in sub-sections (a) and (b), to give safeguards in both cases. The noble Lord would see that the words at the end of sub-section (b) were "or other reasonable cause" and not "and other reasonable cause." The effect would be to give the employer a second safeguard against any attempt to make a claim under this section.
  LORD BELPERsaid there were the same words in both sub-sections.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPreplied that sub-section (a) contained the word "or," thereby giving the workman an alternative. The alternative was not given in sub-section (b), because it was desirable to discourage undue delay in proffering claims. Therefore the workman ought only to be excused on the ground of mistake or reasonable cause.
  LORD BELPERquite recognised that there might be some force in the remarks of the noble Earl with regard to the substitution of the words "if the Court is satisfied" for the words "if it is found." But his general object in moving the Amendment was to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, that in the case both of giving the notice and of making the claim it should be open to the workman to make the claim after those times, but only by leave of the Court. The clause as it stood was an absolute invitation to carelessness with regard to making the claim within the specified time, and there was no safeguard whatever to the employer. He might be very much prejudiced by the fact that the witnesses might be dead or out of the way, and there would be no means of defending the claim.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Loreburn)said it was a mistake to attempt to draw a Bill of this kind to meet all kinds of imaginary and ex-
  1164
  tremely improbable contingencies. The point was that a man was required to give his notice within a fixed time—six months. It was, of course, desirable that there should be some time fixed, but it would be a very great misfortune if the person injured were liable to be tripped up because, for some reasonable cause, he failed to give the notice in time. This was really in the nature of an insurance Bill, and they wanted the very fullest good faith and the most complete absence of technicalities. He thought it best to leave the provision as it stood that the failure to make a claim within the period specified should not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings if it was found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, employment abroad, or other reasonable cause.
  LORD BELPERsaid he did not propose to interfere with that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the noble Lord wished to provide that there must be something else proved in addition—namely, that the employer was not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claims. If he was prejudiced it was not the fault of the workman ex hypothesi.
  LORD ASHBOURNEdid not think it at all reasonable that there should be a complete absence of any limit after which no claim could be made.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsuggested that the Committee should dispose or Lord Belper's first Amendment and then take the second.
  LORD BELPERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERthen moved the Amendment to which he had previously referred.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 19, after the word 'cause' to insert the words 'and that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim."—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought Lord Belper would make his case a good deal stronger if he altered his Amendment to read "or" that the employer is not prejudiced, instead of "and."
  LORD AVEBURYasked why the word "mistake" was included in subsection (b). If the mistake was a reasonable one it would come within the words "reasonable cause," and, if it was not reasonable, why should it be included?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he imagined the word was put in for the purpose of indicating the general character of what was intended by the Bill. The words "other reasonable cause" would mean other reasonable cause of the same character. The Department concerned might have good reasons for objecting to the insertion of the Amendment, but, reserving liberty to strike the words out later, he saw no objection to accepting them now. With the substitution of the word "or" for "and" the Amendment gave an extra option to the workman whereby he might escape the consequence of not making his claim in time.
  LORD BELPERamended his Amendment to read "or that the employer," etc., subject to reconsideration on Report if necessary.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment in sub-section 2 providing that notice in respect of an injury should give the name and address of the person injured, the cause, and the date at which "the accident happened." He said Clause 8 provided that disablement or suspension on account of disease was to be treated as the happening of the accident. This clause therefore ought to refer to the happening of the accident and not to the sustaining of the injury.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words 'it was sustained' and to insert the words 'the accident happened."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment providing that if the Registrar of Friendly Societies certified that any scheme of compensation provided scales of compensation not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the corresponding scales in the Act, and "that where the scheme provides for contributions by the workmen, the scheme confers benefits at least equivalent to those contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled under this Act,"and that a majority of the workmen were in favour of the scheme, the employer might, while the certificate was in force, contract with any of the workmen that the provisions of the scheme should be substituted for the provisions of the Act. He said the Amendment was intended to carry into effect a promise given on Report in the other House. He understood there were some schemes to which workmen themselves contributed. If the words in his Amendment were inserted, such schemes would also be included as well as those which were originally in mind.
  Amendment moved—
  In page 3, line 41, to leave out from, the word 'and' to the word 'and' in page 4, line 2, and to insert the words, 'that where the scheme provides for contributions by the workmen, and the scheme confers benefits, at least equivalent to those contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled under this Act."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD INVERCLYDEsaid the object of his Amendment was to exclude seamen from this clause. The Bill was primarily drawn up for compensation for workmen on shore, but under Clause 7 seamen were brought within the Bill. Later on he proposed to move that that clause be struck out. All that shipowners desired was that they should be put on an equal footing with employers of labour on land, and if this Amendment were adopted it would be possible for shipowners to have the benefit of the contracting-out clause. In many respects he thought the Bill would be very difficult to work in regard to seamen, because under this clause the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies could only certify

  1167
  a scheme after ascertaining by ballot from the workmen that they were in favour of the scheme. That was an impossibility with seamen. In a large line employing a large number of seamen those men were distributed all over the world, and it would be impossible to take a ballot of workmen in those circumstances. He would like to know whether the Registrar General of Friendly Societies had approved of this clause and had stated that it was workable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 2, after the word 'that' to insert the words 'except in the case of seamen."—(Lord Inverclyde.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that he could not enter into an examination of this question at that particular stage of the Bill. A similar Amendment was withdrawn in the other House on the understanding that the Registrar-General should frame rules for the holding of a ballot on all the ships of a company. While it was true that it was very difficult to secure a ballot among seamen it was obviously quite as difficult to put a scheme before them to secure contracting out. He trusted that the noble Lord would not press the Amendment, reserving what had to be said until they reached a later clause. The subject had been referred to the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, and he was not aware that he had found any difficulty in regard to putting the clause in operation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved that the words "any of those workmen" in sub-section (1) should read, "any of his workmen." He said the word "those"might possibly be construed as meaning the workmen who had voted in favour of the scheme. That was not intended.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 5, to leave out the word 'those' and to insert 'his."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD INVERCLYDEsaid the object of the new sub-section which he now moved was to allow the Registrar of Friendly Societies provisionally to certify a scheme. This would enable a scheme to have more consideration, especially when seamen were out of the country, than if the matter was left as it stood.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 10, after the word 'Act' to insert the following new sub-section: (2) The Registrar of Friendly Societies may, if required, by the employer grant a provisional certificate for any scheme before ascertaining the views of the workmen, but in such a case the employer shall not contract with any workman that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of the Act until the Registrar of Friendly Societies has, after ascertaining the views of the workmen, further certified that the scheme satisfies all the requirements of this Act."—(Lord Inverclyde)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the idea of the Home Office was that this Amendment was consequential on Lord Inver Clyde's other Amendment dealing with the questtion of contracting out in the case of seamen. Any difficulties there might be would be met by the regulations which the Registrar of Friendly Societies would draw up.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend the latter part of the clause so as to provide that just as the workman was to have the right to recover from the insurance company in the event of the bankruptcy of the employer, so the insurance company should have the same rights and remedies as the employer had against the workman. The matter was, he said, perfectly simple, and he did not anticipate that there would be any objecttion to the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 5, to leave out from the first 'and' to the end of line 7, and to insert the words 'upon any such transfer the insurers shall have the same rights and remedies and be subject to the same liabilities as if they

  1169
  were the employer, so however that the insurers shall not be under any greater liability to the workman than they would have been under to the employer."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the object of his next Amendment was to make it quite clear that the £100 referred to was the limit applicable to each individual case and not to the whole amount of the compensation.
  Amendment moved
  "In page 6, line 17, after the word 'exceeding' to insert the words 'in any individual case."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained that the object of the next Amendment was to define more clearly how the capitalised value of a weekly payment was to be taken.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 24, after the word 'accordingly' to insert the words 'Where the compensation is a weekly payment, the amount due in respect thereof shall, for the purposes of this provision, be taken to be the amount of the lump sum for which the weekly payment could, if redeemable, be redeemed under the First Schedule to this Act."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  LORD INVERCLYDEmoved an Amendment to provide that only one set of costs should be recoverable. He said that under this clause a workman was entitled to raise two actions and to obtain two judgments, He contended that only one set of costs should be recoverable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 7, after the word 'compensation' to insert the words 'nor the costs of both proceedings.'" (Lord Inverclyde.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP,seeing no reason why the workman should be deprived of his costs, opposed the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  LORD INVERCLYDEmoved to insert among the modifications to which the application of the Act to seamen should be subject the following:—"(a) If it is proved that the injury to a seaman is attributable to any offence against discipline by that seaman, or to any act or default of that seaman dangerous to the safety of the ship, or of the cargo or lives of those on board the ship, or that it occurred while the seamen was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed."Unfortunately, in the case of seamen there were many occasions when they were the worse for drink, and his Amendment was proposed in order to protect shipowners from liability in regard to accidents happening to men in that condition. In this matter seamen were in a very different position from men on shore. If a man was the worse for drink on shore he could be put out of the factory or workshop, but that was impossible on board ship, and it was most unfair to make shipowners liable for accidents to seamen who were the worse for drink.
  Amendment moved—
  In page 7, line 25, after the word 'modifications' to insert the following new paragraph: '(a) If it is proved that the injury to a seaman is attributable to any offence against discipline by that seaman, or to any act or default of that seaman dangerous to the safety of the ship or of the cargo or lives of those on board the ship, or that it occurred while the seaman was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed."—(Lord Inverclyde.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobjected that if the Amendment were adopted a seaman would be deprived of compensation if the injury could be attributed to any breach of discipline, however trivial. If the default of the seaman coming under the other conditions of the Amendment amounted to serious and wilful misconduct it was obvious that, without any Amendment of the Bill, the compensation would not be payable.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid the triviality of the breach of discipline ought not to affect the question if it was the cause of accident, and as regarded intoxication it ought to be laid down for the guidance of the Court whether this was or was not a cause for disallowing compensation. It would be very hard on shipowners if they were obliged to pay heavily because a seaman had met with an accident owing to his being intoxicated.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsuggested the omission, as superfluous, of the words—
  "Or to any act or default of that seaman dangerous to the safety of the ship or of the cargo or lives of those on board the ship"
  A seaman would not, of course, wilfully incur injury while in a state of drunkenness, but such things had happened before as a seaman being drunk and falling into the hold. That was a case which his hon. friend wished to meet.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My point is that it probably is already met under the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: "Probably." That is just it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Courts at the present time commanded the confidence both of employers and employed, and His Majesty's Government would be very sorry if, by any Amendment in this Bill, the Courts were prevented from having that full jurisdiction in the matter which they had had in the past. It was not desired to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts by minute directions.
  LORD BELPERsaid these difficulties were due to the inclusion of the seamen in this Bill, instead of in a separate measure. The proposed procedure was contrary to the recommendation of the Committee which dealt with the subject.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he now came to a number of small Amendments which hung together. The intention of the Amendments was to make the clause applicable to masters of ships, who were included within the scope of the Bill
  1172
  by an Amendment moved in another place by a friend of noble Lords opposite.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 27, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'except where the person injured is the master."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 32, after the third 'the' to insert the word 'master."—Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked how the master would come in. He was neither a workman nor an employer.
  *LORD HAVERSHAMexplained that the master was included in the application of the Act by the words in the first line of Clause 7.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  *LORD INVERCLYDEmoved to amend sub-section (b) which provides that in the case of the death of a seaman or apprentice the claim for compensation "may" be made within "six months" after the news of the death has been received by the claimant, by making it necessary that the claim "shall" be made within "twelve months" after the date of death. He urged that under the sub-section as it stood it might be years before the claim was made.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 33, to leave out the word 'may' and to insert the word 'shall,' and to leave out the word 'six' and to insert the word 'twelve.'"—(Lord Inverclyde.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid there was no objection to change the word "may" to "shall," but in the opinion of the Home Office "may" was the proper word from the draughtsman's point of view. There were occasions when "may" was equivalent to "shall," because it was governed by other words. There was, however, very little difference and if it was any satisfaction to his noble friend he would be glad to agree to the substitution proposed.

  1173
  But he was unable to accept the rest of the Amendment. It might be many months before the news of the death of a seaman abroad reached this country. He thought it would be better on the whole that the provision should remain as in the Bill, and that the date when the news was received should be treated for the purposes of this Act as the date of the death.
  LORD INVERCLYDEsaid the point was not so much that the limit should be twelve months but that there should be some limit. He would be quite agreeable to substitute eighteen months if that would be acceptable.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he could not accept the proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  LORD INVERCLYDEmoved a further Amendment to leave out paragraph (e)—
  "(e) The weekly payment shall not be payable in respect of the period during which the owner of the ship is, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, or otherwise, liable to defray the expenses of maintenance of the injured seamen or apprentice,"
  and to insert the following new paragraph—
  "The weekly payment shall be payable as from the date when the injured seaman or apprentice is brought back to the United Kingdom."
  He argued that the clause as it stood was a direct discouragement to owners to allow their seamen to run risks in saving life at sea.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, line 13, to leave out paragraph (e) and to insert the following new paragraph—'The weekly payment shall be payable as from the date when the injured seaman or apprentice is brought back to the United Kingdom."—(Lord Inverclyde.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Bill was not in any way intended to interfere with the Merchant Shipping Act; but when a man come on shore that Act no longer applied, and at that stage this Bill took him up. It was possible that an injured seaman might be landed in a foreign port,
  1174
  and one result of the Amendment might be to encourage the landing of seamen at foreign ports, where they would not be entitled to weekly payments.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendments ageed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to leave out paragraph (h).
  " (h) Where any matter under this Act is to be done in a county court, or by, to, or before the judge or registrar of a county court, it shall be done in, or by, to, or before the judge or registrar of, such county court as may be prescribed by rules of court."
  He explained that this paragraph would be unnecessary if the Amendment proposed to be moved in paragraph eleven of the Second Schedule were agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, lines 1 to 5, to leave out paragraph (h),"—(Earl Beauchamp)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved the insertion of a sub-section dealing with the case of pilots.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 9, at the end, to insert as a new sub-section—'(2) This section shall extend to pilots to whom Part X. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, applies, as if a pilot when employed on any such ship as aforesaid were a seaman and a member of the crew."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD INVERCLYDEprotested against the Amendment on the ground that it was very hard on shipowners to be made liable for accidents to men who were forced upon them.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Lord INVERCLYDEopposed the clause altogether, on the ground that as recommended by the Departmental Committee seamen ought to be provided for by an Amendment of the Shipping Act and not by a Bill dealing with land employment. On

  1175
  that Committee there were no shipowners at all, but there was a Labour representative who signed the Report agreeing to that. This was the first time that any shipping matters had been brought directly under the Home Office. The shipping trade had a special Department in the Board of Trade, which was the right Government Department to deal with shipping affairs. If seamen were to be brought under the workmen's compensation arrangements, it ought to be by an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, and not by means of a Bill applying to land employment. In moving the Amendments which stood in his name he had endeavoured to show the difficulty there was in the machinery of the Bill as far as seamen were concerned. Under the Bill foreign sailors would get compensation. When the measure was first introduced His Majesty's Government did not propose that foreigners should get compensation, but the Bill had since been altered, he believed, on the ground that if foreigners did not get compensation, it would be an encouragement to shipowners to employ them. It was often said that shipowners employed too many foreigners and wanted to employ foreigners. He repudiated that a together. All that shipowners wanted was to get the best seamen they could, and if for various reasons the foreign seaman was more suitable than the British seaman he would be employed; but he was quite sure that on the whole British shipowners would sooner employ British sailors if they could get them. The bringing of foreigners under the Bill was an inducement to foreigners to come to this country to get employment. If a British ship was in collision with a foreign ship, and the foreign ship was to blame, and was sunk, then the British shipowner could not, under the Bill, recover any damages for compensation which his men might have received. He was not entitled to speak for the whole body of British shipowners, but he had authority to speak on behalf of a very large number of representative associations of shipowners, and he was prepared to say that if His Majesty's Government would exclude seamen from this Bill, the shipowners were perfectly ready to meet the Board of
  1176
  Trade and agree upon a scheme which could be brought forward next year as an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act, which would bring seamen under the Workmen's Compensation provisions. If His Majesty's Government agreed to his proposal he felt sure that there would be no difficulty in next year arriving at a Bill which would be satisfactory to all parties interested.
  *LORD BRASSEYsaid no class of men had rendered more service to the country than the seamen class; none were more exposed to hardship and danger in the execution of their duty. It would be hard that they should remain in a position of exceptional disability in regard to compensation.
  *EARL BEAUCHAMPheartily associated himself with Lord Brassey. Seamen should have at least equal advantages in the case of disability as persons employed in factories and workshops. In including seamen the Government had, he claimed, done something to encourage merchant shipping, and to encourage men to go to sea. He could not agree with Lord Inverclyde that there were any serious difficulties in applying the Bill to seamen. The Departmental Committee to which the noble Lord had referred did not have the point before them as it had been settled in the present Bill. The Departmental Committee were against seamen being dealt with in this legislation on the ground that while seamen were on board ship they received their wages and worked under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The idea of the Committee was that seamen should continue to be provided for under the Merchant Shipping Acts. But he did not think the Committee had in their minds at all the scheme of this Bill by which seamen only came under the operations of the Bill when on shore. That was a very great distinction. As to foreign seamen, in the Bill introduced by Lord Belper foreign seamen were given equal rights with British seamen. There was no departure from that rule in the present Bill. He was convinced that the retention of the clause would confer a very real benefit on a large class of deserving workmen.
  LORD BELPERsaid that at this stage he could not support the noble Lord, in his proposal to leave out Clause 7 He still felt, however, that it would be a more convenient course to deal with seamen in a different manner.
  LORD INVERCLYDEwished to repeat that he had no desire to prevent seamen getting compensation.
  On Question, Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  THE EARL OF LYTTONmoved the omission of the words "mentioned in the third schedule to this Act"with the object of ensuring compensation for all workmen injured in the course of their employment by disease directly incidental to and caused by their employment. This Amendment was, he said, a very important one. It went to the root of one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and he asked their Lordships' serious attention to the question with which it dealt. The object of the Amendment was to ensure that all those who were injured in the course of their trade by a disease directly incidental to and caused by their employment should receive compensation exactly as if they had been injured by an accident. That was a principle which was already admitted by the Government's Bill. He submitted, however, that the machinery by which it was intended to carry that out would in practice have the effect of excluding a very large number, if not an actual majority, of persons who were so afflicted by industrial diseases. In the third schedule there was a list of six diseases specially mentioned, and if any workman contracted a disease in the course of his industry, and if that industry was included in the schedule, the workman would receive compensation; but if, in the course of his employment, he contracted a disease which was not included in the schedule he would get no compensation. The schedule as it stood was incomplete. A large number of trades certified as dangerous were not included in the schedule. He did not, however, wish to press that point,
  1178
  as he understood the Government themselves did not regard the schedule as complete. Their Lordships would notice that by sub-section (6) of this clause power was given to the Home Secretary to extend the schedule and include in it other diseases. But that was not his point. His contention was that the whole method of proceeding by schedule was unworkable. However much they might extend it, it was impossible to cover the whole area of industries affected, and a great injustice would always be done to those who did not come under the schedule. In the case of a worker who contracted a disease in any industry mentioned in the schedule, once he could establish his case he would get compensation and the machinery would be quite simple; but there were a great many diseases incidental to trades, which not only were not in the schedule now, but which it would be quite impossible at any time to put into the schedule by reason of the fact that they could not be called dangerous trades. Take, for instance, the boot trade. No one could call the boot trade a dangerous trade, and yet in the manufacture of the cheaper classes of boots there was an ingredient used which was a poison, and might inflict great injury to those who handled it. No one could say that the boot trade should be included in the schedule, and yet it was surely very unjust that a workman who was injured in the course of such a trade should not get compensation. Then there was a trade in which disease was caused by the use of boxwood, and a similar disease had been caused by the use of satin wood. The poison was incidental to the presence of the sap, and therefore when the wood was used in bulk there was this danger. That being the case, all these trades would be affected. The danger existed in ship-building, cabinet-making, sawmills, and joinery of all kinds. It would be obviously unfair to call any of these trades dangerous trades, and yet very serious injury might be caused in every one of them. There was another trade—the oxidising of silver. In that trade there was a chemical which ought to be used, and was generally used, diluted, and which when so used was harmless; but when a careless employer used that

  1179
  chemical undiluted and thereby poisoned his workmen, he maintained that those workmen should receive compensation Then there was the case of lacquer work Cases had been mentioned in the Factory Reports where disease was caused through simply lacquering tin in a jam factory. Those were injuries which were happening every day; yet if the Bill passed in its present form it would be impossible for workmen who contracted these diseases, although they were specific industrial diseases, to get compensation. The Bill would work unjustly even where a particular disease was scheduled. If their Lordships turned to the third schedule they would see that the first disease mentioned was anthrax, a disease caused by a bacillus of a very virulent kind. Their Lordships would also see, in the second column, a description given of the processes under which this disease most commonly occurred, namely, handling of wool, hair, bristles, hides, and skins. So long as a workman contracted anthrax by handling any of those trade ingredients he would be entitled to compensation; but anthrax could be contracted by handling leather, and it also occurred in the use of sacking. Moreover, the bacillus might be freed by one worker handling hides and skins, and might attack another workman who would not have handled them at all, and who, therefore, would not be entitled to compensation. Cases of anthrax had occurred in upholstering and bedding work, and in harness manufactories where no hides were handled, but where leather was used. There was a case of a grain dealer who contracted anthrax probably from the sacking in which the grain arrived from a foreign country. All these were cases which would not come under this Bill. Unless a worker got anthrax in the process of handling the ingredients mentioned in the schedule he could not obtain compensation. He mentioned these cases as showing how unworkable the schedule system was. The proper principle was that the compensation should be determined by the injury inflicted, and not by a particular trade in which that injury occurred. He asked the Committee to imagine the feeling of a man or woman who had contracted an industrial disease and was afterwards told that he or she
  1180
  could not get compensation because the industry engaged in was not included in the schedule. The workman who was injured by lead poisoning in potteries could get compensation, but if he was injured by what was known as potters-rot, he could not get compensation as that was not a scheduled industry. He could not help thinking that a very grave injustice would be caused if the Bill was allowed to become law as it stood, and he made an earnest appeal to the Lord Chancellor on the points he had raised. He could not think that His Majesty's Government really intended that industrial diseases should be dealt with in such a one-sided and unsatisfactory way. In the House of Commons the Under-Secretary for the Home Department urged that if all diseases were included, as would be the case under the Amendment now before their Lordships, it would be impossible to prove that the disease was due to the nature of the employment itself. The worker had to prove that. He had not only to get the fact of his disease certified, but he had to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that it was a disease specifically caused by the nature of his employment. He submitted that if a worker could prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had incurred a disease by reason of his employment, he was and ought to be entitled to compensation. Then it was urged that this method would lead to a great deal of litigation. It was perfectly true that if they excluded a large proportion of cases which might come under the Act they thereby got rid of a number of cases which possibly might be taken into Court; but he ventured to think that very considerable litigation would be incurred by the Bill as it at present stood. Let them take, again, the case of anthrax. Anthrax was included in the schedule in the processes of handling wool, hair, bristles, hides, and skins. He had already pointed out that cases had occurred in which anthrax had been caused by handling leather. The Court under this Bill would have to decide the question, When is a hide not a hide? Presumably the answer would be, When it is a subject for compensation under this Act. If a workman contracted anthrax in the process of sewing up bedding, he would not himself

  1181
  have handled the horse-hair, but in sewing up the mattress he might contract the disease. All these were very difficult and complicated points of law, which, under the Bill as it stood, would have to be taken into Court. Some difficulties would undoubtedly arise under the procedure recommended in his Amendment. He did not deny that there might be cases in which the border line between what was specifically due to the nature of the employment, and what was a disease contracted otherwise might in some cases be rather difficult to define. By a subsequent Amendment he proposed to exclude two industries in which that difficulty would be more especially marked—namely, agriculture and shipping. Those two industries were excluded because in them diseases might often be contraced in which exposure to the air would play a very large part, and, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to define whether they would come under the Act or not. He submitted that it was far better to exclude certain specific industries in which the difficulty was very great rather than proceed by a schedule which included only a few diseases and excluded a large number of workers who ought to come in. He held that unless this change was made a very great injustice would arise in the future, to avoid which some procedure of the sort suggested was indispensable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved that the noble Earl, whose interest in problems of social reform was so well known, had delivered a most stimulating speech. His quarrel with the Government was not that they had done wrong in this clause, but that they had not gone far enough. The noble Earl was one of the very few men in that House who held that view. This principle of giving compensation for diseases was quite a new one in this country, and it would be very rash of the Government to proceed with such an innovation in any but a very tentative and careful way. The diseases for which compensation was to be payable must be limited in the first instance to those
  1182
  which were perfectly well known and had to be notified under the Factory Acts. It was only prudent to postpone the inclusion of other diseases in the schedule until inquiry had shown to what extent they were due to particular industrial processes. If the definition of any disease were made too wide or too narrow, considerable hardship would result either to employers or workmen. The Home Secretary had appointed a small committee that was now investigating between twenty and thirty trade diseases, and a pledge had been given that many of them would be added to the third schedule by the time the Bill came into operation in July. The difference between the Government and the noble Earl was one of administration rather than of principle. The Government did not wish to proceed too hastily, or without such inquiry as would satisfy the employers. The Amendment was of a very far-reaching character. It would strike out all limitations and enable a workman to claim compensation for any disease on the ground that it was due to the nature of his employment. The onus of proving that the disease was not so contracted might entail great hardship on the employer, as well as lead to litigation, and make the clause unworkable. For example, a shop-girl suffering from anæmia might complain that her anæmia was due to the nature of her employment, and it would be very difficult to prove that it was not. The Government had taken the middle way on this question, which was the wisest in the circumstances.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that the Government, in framing the clause, had recognised that they were dealing with a new and novel aspect of an extremely important question, and had deemed it right, he thought wisely, to proceed in a tentative and moderate manner. It was best to approach this question in a cautious and prudent spirit. He therefore hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.
  LORD NEWTONsaid he was inclined to dispute the contention advanced by the noble Earl that his Party enjoyed an exclusive or, at all events, a preponderating, sympathy for the working classes. He was disposed to think that on the

  1183
  whole the working classes had benefited just as much from legislation proposed by the Party to which he belonged as from that brought in by the Liberals. It was gratifying to observe that His Majesty's Government were advancing with due deliberation in any direction. At the same time he confessed that, on the spur of the moment, he was not altogether convinced of the good logic of the noble Earl opposite. The contention of Lord Lytton was that supposing workpeople contracted any of the diseases mentioned in the schedule it would be exceedingly hard upon them if they obtained no compensation because they did not happen to be engaged in one of the employments scheduled. Logically his noble friend Lord Lytton appeared to be in the right. If a person was to be compensated for one of these diseases, it seemed fair that he should be compensated through whatever cause it was contracted. A person would consider himself exceedingly aggrieved if he suffered from one of the diseases mentioned and yet was unable to claim compensation because the employment in which he was engaged was not mentioned in the schedule.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that he sympathised unreservedly with the purpose of the noble Earl. He would like to see all diseases made the ground for compensation as all accidents were. But it would be going outside the scope of the Bill to strike out all limitation. The safer method was to specify those diseases which were certainly attributable to particular employments, and to give the power of indefinitely extending the list to the Home Secretary. That course had been assented to by the representatives of both employers and workmen. Any disease that was scientifically traced to any particular work would be immediately included in the schedule.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHdid not like to pass the Amendment over entirely in silence. He held views that were not perhaps held by those immediately behind him. He to a very great extent sympathised with the object which Lord Lytton had in view, and agreed very much with what the noble and
  1184
  learned Lord had just said. On the face of it, it seemed to him that it was impossible to have any fair legislation on the principle of a short schedule which gave compensation to workmen who contracted disease in very limited cases, and excluded a large number who might feel themselves aggrieved and might fairly be entitled to compensation. But having heard the argument used by his noble friend behind him, and the arguments which had been advanced on the other side, and understanding that the Government were now engaged in enlarging the description of diseases set out in the short schedule, he ventured to think it would be unwise to press the Amendment. It would be preferable to proceed on the lines on which the Government were now moving.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that, though the Government were taking a safe course, he was not convinced of its wisdom. If noble Lords supported him, he was quite willing to go to a division on the point.
  THE EARL OF MEATHhoped the noble Earl would press the Amendment to a division. He would like the Committee to divide for the simple purpose of showing the noble Earl who spoke from the Government Bench that there were others besides those sitting behind him who had an interest in social reform. He thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, and he ventured to predict that some day schedules would be left out of Bills of this character altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I hope the noble Earl will not take the advice which has been offered to him by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I think if your Lordships were to divide upon the Amendment it would lead to a misapprehension and misrepresentation of the views of the House generally. We sympathise with the object of the noble Earl, but we desire, and I think rightly, to proceed with greater caution. Do not let the noble Earl take a step which is not likely, I think, from what has been said in this debate, to be successful,

  1185
  which would give a false impression as to the feelings of this House generally, and which would rather prevent the extension of the provisions of this clause.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to leave out the word "such" and to insert "the requisite."The purpose of this proposal was to complete an Amendment inserted on Report in the other House. It was thought that the word "such" might lead to misapprehension. He was afraid there was some misapprehension in the mind of Lord Meath. He could not charge his recollection with having said that noble Lords opposite were not anxious for social reform. He thought a phrase to that effect slipped from Lord Newton. He did not contradict the noble Lord at the time as he thought it was one of his witticisms. He could assure noble
  1186
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,"
  Lords opposite that he was entirely innocent of harbouring such an idea, because he knew there were many noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who were extremely anxious for social reform.
  their Lordships divided:—Contents, 87; Not-contents, 14.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Verulam, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Crowe, E. (L. President.)

  Emly, L.

  Churchill, V.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Cross, V.

  Forester, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Glantawe, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.] [Teller.]

  Northumberland, D.

  Hill, V.

  Wellington, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Bath, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Hamilton, of Dalzell, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Haversham, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Inverclyde, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Avebury, L.

  North, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Craven, E.

  Belper, L.

  Reay, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Brassey, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Derby, E.

  Burton, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Morley, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Milner, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Newton, L. [Teller.]

  Lytton, E. [Teller.]

  Boston, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Stewart of Garlies, E. (E. Galloway.)

  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 7, to leave out the word 'such' and to insert the words 'the requisite."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment to provide for the case of local insurance societies.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 15, at end to insert the words 'Where such a company or society has been established, but is confined to employers in any particular locality or of any particular class, the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of this provision treat the industry, as carried on by employers in that locally or of that class, as a separate industry."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to leave out the words "either party" and to insert the words "an employer or workman"in the provision which read:
  "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."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 13, line 13, to leave out 'either party' and to insert 'an employer or workman."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11:—
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12:—
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid there was at present no definition of summary conviction so far as Scotland was concerned. The object of his Amendment was to remove any possible ambiguity.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, lines 16 and 17, to leave out 'summary conviction' and to insert 'conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  THE EARL OF LYTTONmoved to omit the words "or an outworker"so as to bring outworkers within the scope of the Bill. Their exclusion was, he held, contrary to the principle of the whole Bill in this case, by reason of the fact that the class of people excluded were the poor, helpless, unorganised workers. They ought to make sure that this class were not excluded from the operation of the Bill, unless they were certain that their inclusion would prevent the provision of the Bill from being put in operation. Therefore he would devote his remarks as closely as possible to the question of practicability. The chief argument used against this Amendment was the difficulty which would be incurred in proving that in the case of an outworker the accident, or the disease, from which he was suffering was really due to his employment. Here again he submitted that the onus of proof rested with the workman. He would have to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was not suffering from some casual disease to which all flesh was heir—that he was suffering from a particular disease, or that he had met with an accident in the course of, and due to, his employment. If the workman could prove that, he submitted that he ought to receive compensation. He granted that in many cases it would be very difficult for an outworker to prove that the accident, or the disease, of which he complained was incurred in the course of his employment, but if he was able to prove that to the satisfaction of the Court he could not conceive any grounds for his exclusion from the receipt of compensation. Another argument used against the Amendment was that in the case of outworkers they would be removed from any supervision of the employer. They would be working under conditions over which the employer had no control. That argument appeared a very plausible one at first, but he would like to ask the Committee whether it could be applied at all more strongly to the case of outworkers than to the case of a miner working by himself at the end of a shaft in a mine, or

  1189
  to a railway man working entirely by himself on a siding of a railway. In both those cases, as in the case of the outworker, the employer would have no control over the workman while at his work, and would have no knowledge of the circumstances under which the accident happened; and in the case of all these people they would be obliged to prove, if an accident happened, that it happened in the course of their employment, and in consequence of their employment. But against those two arguments he would put forward one of a strong general character, which, in his opinion, far outweighed them both, even if they were stronger than he was prepared to admit they were. The class of outworkers which he desired by this Amendment to include in the Bill was a class at the very bottom of the industrial ladder. It was a class which was ill-paid, and which carried on a very hand-to-mouth existence, and the conditions under which they worked were often of an insanitary and unsatisfactory nature. In fact their work was exactly that class of work which their Lordships desired to discourage as much as possible. What would be the effect of this Bill? If it passed in its present form, and the outworkers were excluded, there would be a direct inducement brought to bear upon employers to give more outwork rather than less. There would be a direct temptation to employers to evade their responsibility under the Act by giving out work, which would be carried on under conditions the reverse of satisfactory. He did not put that forward only as his own opinion; he maintained that there were facts in support of it. The whole past history of factory legislation went to show that when a particular class of factory was excluded from the operation of the Acts there was a great increase in that particular exempted class. He would instance the case of laundries, and the precautions imposed against fire. It was laid down there that those precautions had to betaken if there were as many as forty people employed in a factory or workshop, but that, if there were less than forty, they need not be taken. They had seen in the past where, that being the state of the law,
  1190
  employers had deliberately cut the number of their workmen down to thirty-eight and thirty-nine in order to get out of the provisions of the Act. He did not approach the question from the point of view of either the employer or the employee, but from the point of view of the State, and he submitted that the whole tendency, both of the Factory Acts and of Acts like this Workmen's Compensation Act, was to improve the conditions of labour as far as possible, and to secure that in the course of the industry of this country there should be as few accidents and casualties as possible. Therefore, to leave this Bill as it stood would, he submitted, be to give direct encouragement to that class of work which was contrary to the whole spirit of the Factory Acts, and of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He would also like to urge upon the Committee one more general consideration. This seemed to him to be an opportunity of making a change in the Bill which would be very acceptable to all parties in the House of Commons. When the Bill was read a third time in that House a direct appeal was made to His Majesty's Government not to resist attempts which would be made in the House of Lords to insert this Amendment. The occasions were only too frequent in which their Lordships' House had inserted Amendments in Government Bills which were not cordially accepted by the House of Commons. Here, on the other hand, they had an opportunity of inserting an Amendment which would be welcomed in the other House—an Amendment which would render the Bill more acceptable than it was at the present moment; and he therefore most earnestly hoped that the Government, in consideration of the appeal made to them on Third Reading in the House of Commons, would give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line 37, to leave out 'or an outworker."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he was afraid he was not able to accept the

  1191
  parallels which had been suggested by the noble Earl either with respect to the railway man on a siding or the miner in a mine, because he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that the railway company, if they had not inspected the siding, ought to know all about it, and, if an accident occurred, they were a great deal more responsible for it than an employer would be for an accident which might take place in a room which he had probably no opportunity whatsoever of inspecting or finding out anything about. And so also with regard to the mines. A mining company certainly ought to know all about the farthest corner of their mine, even the part which had been most lately opened, before they allowed the miners to work there. In those two respects, the parallels of the noble Earl hardly ran on all fours as completely as the noble Earl seemed to think. With regard to the question of outworkers as a rule, he was sure that on behalf of His Majesty's Government he could express the sympathy which they had already expressed in another place. They expressed their regret on the Third Reading of the Bill that it had not been found possible to include this class. As Lord Lytton was aware, the chief reason for excluding them was that the outworkers were on premises of the nature of which the employer could know very little, and over which he had no sort of control. If they put this liability upon the employer, it would become a matter for consideration whether they should not give the employer some sort of control over the place in which the work was done. He thought he might remind the noble Earl, too, that outworkers were a class who were not very susceptible to disease arising from their employment, and that this Bill did certainly give compensation to very large numbers of people throughout the country. Considerable expressions of opinion had reached His Majesty's Government with regard to the extent to which compensation was given, and they were unwilling to enlarge the area of compensation, at any rate at present, however much they might desire that they could meet the wishes of the noble Lord now, or might hope to be able to do so sometime in the future.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHhoped Lord Lytton would not press his Amendment to a division, because he thought if he did so the Committee would be placed in a position of considerable difficulty, and the noble Lord would be raising—quite unintentionally, he was sure—a false issue. Nobody who had heard the noble Lord speak could doubt his thorough sympathy with these, in some cases, unfortunate men the outworkers, and he was sure that all their Lordships would sympathise with that part of his remarks. But it was impossible not to see the force of what had fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—that this would be impracticable, in the sense that it went too far, and that they were throwing what was really an unfair responsibility upon the employer. These outworkers were so very often employed by small employers. They had it on the authority of His Majesty's Government that the Bill dealt very hardly with the small employer. They had that on the highest authority they could have it, namely the hon. Member who took charge of the Bill in the other House. He ventured to point out one other consideration, and that was whether this proposal would really redound to the benefit of the workman. If they put too heavy a burden upon the employer, and especially the small employer, it would certainly tend gradually to reduce employment throughout the country. If they put too heavy a burden upon him and strained him to the breaking point, they almost forced him to take every opportunity that he could, though no doubt very often against his will, to employ as few workmen as possible. He trusted the Committee would take that view into consideration. They would see that it was really not ultimately to the benefit of the worker to put undue and practically impossible burdens upon the shoulders of the employer.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that as the Government had exhibited such nervousness on the question of the progress they were going to make, and in view of the diverse opinions which had been expressed, he would not press his Amendment to a division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to omit from the definition of "dependants" the words—
  "And where the workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate child, leaves such a child so dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings shall include such an illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively."
  This was the first time that the word "illegitimate"—at least so far as he knew—had appeared in an Act of Parliament, and he submitted that it would not be expedient to insert these words. First of all, he would say a word or two with regard to their history. The Government had changed their mind on the matter. A similar Amendment was moved in Grand Committee in the other House; the Home Secretary voted against it, and it was defeated. But, on Report, Mr. Keir Hardie moved the words which were now in the Bill, saying he had good reason to suppose they would be accepted, and they were accepted What was the reason for the insertion of the words? He had asked the noble Lord on the Woolsack the other day, and he admitted that it was an entirely new kind of provision, but he pointed out that being illegitimate was not the fault of the child. The noble and learned Lord also stated that in Scotland the matter was dealt with otherwise. He quite agreed, and he thought that the proper way to deal with the matter was to deal with it in the same manner in which it was dealt with in Scotland—namely, by altering the marriage law, and making it similar to the marriage law in Scotland, by which a parent was able to legitimatise his children subsequently by a declaration. But he did not think that the right way of doing it was the way adopted here—to do it by a side wind, in a clause. It was quite true that there were some cases of hardship. But let them think how much greater hardships they would create by inserting these words in the Bill. If the case were simply this—that there was a child born before marriage, and its parents were subsequently married, he quite agreed that that was a hard case. But by inserting these words in the clause, in the first place they introduced a considerable temptation to fraud. A person might
  1194
  have a servant who was unmarried, and have no reason to suppose that he or she had any children. But if the servant happened to die, a child might turn up and say that it was the child of this servant, and was dependent on him or her. It seemed to him that they exposed themselves to cases of that sort. Where a married man had children, and had also an illegitimate family, considerable hardship might be caused by bringing in the illegitimate children to share the compensation with the legitimate children. He could easily show that it was a discouragement to marriage, because if it did not matter, from the point of view of the Court, whether the parents were married or not, clearly that was an inducement to them not to be very particular about being married. He thought he had said enough to show their Lordships that it was not desirable to introduce, for the first time, words of this sort. If they wanted to remedy illegitimacy, let them do it by altering the marriage law, and not by words in a particular clause. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 15, line 12, to leave out from 'dependent' to the end of the paragraph."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLORvery strongly deprecated the adoption of the view of the noble Earl. He had not the slightest doubt that his Lordship wished, by the method he proposed, to promote marriage and regularity of life. He would ask him to consider, in the first place, what the general meaning and scope of this Bill was. It was a Bill, and the Act of which it was an Amendment and a consolidation was an Act, really in the nature of a general insurance—that an industry should suffer itself the losses, and compensate the losses incurred in the industry. It was a large and a fine idea. It was not given by reason of the merit or demerit of the sufferer, because a man might have been guilty of misconduct, though not serious and wilful, and yet have the benefit of the Act. It was not limited to liability on the part of persons who were blameworthy, because the employer in all these cases was personally free from blame,

  1195
  and it was in no sense a penalty for anything he had done or omitted to do. In his opinion the scope of the Act, notwithstanding his difference in many points from its author—and he supposed he differed from Mr. Chamberlain as widely as it was possible for one man to differ from another—would always stand as a lasting monument to his humanity and breadth of view. As he had always said, in the House of Commons and out of it, the Act was passed with the idea that an industry was to be taken as a whole, and that it was to bear theconsequences—the wear and tear, and the human wastage, so to speak, that attached to it. And the reason—he remembered perfectly well being appealed to himself—of what took place, and what led largely to the passing of the measure, was that on the pay day in the yards there would be seen a small row of the widows, and the little children, of those who had perished. In most cases he was quite certain they were cared for by the employers, who in this country were as a rule humane people; but in some cases these poor people, especially the dependants of those in company employ, were not cared for, and there they were on pay day, and the men would put their hands in their pockets and help these poor people out of their trouble. It was felt that that ought not to be, and that was the origin of the measure. It was dealt with quite apart from any question of merit or demerit on the part of the employer, and quite apart from specially deserving conduct on the part of the workman; in fact the question was dealt with quite apart from merit altogether. Why were the children, because they had the misfortune to be illegitimate, to be excluded from this scheme? He could not understand it. He could have understood the noble Earl doing a thing he was quite sure he would not do—throwing stones at the parents, but he could not understand people thinking it right to punish the poor children. Blame the parents by all means; punish them by secular punishment if needs be—although secular punishment had never been applied to people of that kind in this country. It was not attempted to do this, and to his mind all the fabric of the law which had
  1196
  the effect of punishing illegitimate children, so to speak, with the view of warning the parents, and teaching other people not to do the same, was a mistake, and essentially inhumane in its nature. He asked them to look at the French law. The French law allowed part of the property to go to the illegitimate children, and there was nothing wrong or inhumane in it. They might throw as many stones as they pleased (as long as they did not ask him to join in throwing them) at the parents, but he asked them not to throw stones at the children, and not to injure the children. Why should not one of these little creatures get its compensation because it was illegitimate? It was dependent upon a breadwinner; that breadwinner was one of a number engaged in a great industry, and this was a great, wide scheme for the purpose of preventing the leaving unprotected and unsolaced its own victims. And he would make this further observation: for his part he did not believe that this provision would have the least effect in promoting a regular and seemly life. It seemed to him difficult to imagine, if they thought of it, that those who had trespassed would really think for a moment, as an incentive towards virtuous courses, that in the event of an accident taking place, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in the case of a victim of such accident leaving an illegitimate child, that child would be unprovided for. The thing was so remote from human nature. This was a humane Bill; let it remain a humane Bill.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
  First Schedule:—
  *LORD AMPTHILLmoved to amend the first schedule (scale and conditions of compensation) so as to secure that where death resulted from the injury sustained the dependants who were only in part dependent upon the workman should be compensated at the rate of 156 times

  1197
  the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards their maintenance. He said the Amendment was not an ambitious one, but he thought it was nevertheless well worthy of the serious attention of the Committee, and particularly of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Its object was simply to make the Bill more consistent than it was in its present form and to prevent, or to minimise, the risks of unnecessary litigation. He did not wish to prevent any litigation by which the workman would benefit, but there was no object in having litigation which benefited nobody except the lawyer. In the preceding sub-section the allowance for total dependency was ascertainable on a definite and fixed principle, and therefore he was unable to see why the same principle should not hold good in cases of partial dependency. That was what he meant by saying that the object of this Amendment was to make the Bill consistent. With regard to avoiding un-necessary litigation, he would point out that the words "reasonable and proportionate" opened a wide field for differences of opinion among lawyers and judges. The Committee would realise at once what an immense field those words gave for differences of interpretation and for an enormous amount of unnecessary litigation. He hoped the Government would agree that this was a reasonable and necessary Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 18, line 20, to leave out from the beginning of paragraph (ii.) to 'and' in line 26, and insert 'If the workman does not leave any such dependant, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum as shall represent one hundred and fifty-six times the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards the maintenance of such dependants for a period of twelve months prior to the date of the accident causing the death."—(Lord Ampthill.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPagreed that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl was a perfectly logical one. It was not resisted by His Majesty's Government on the ground of its being illogical, but for quite different reasons. Amendments to the same effect as that of the noble Lord
  1198
  and of Lord Zouche were moved in another place and rejected on the ground that the Government did not propose to interfere with the main scales of compensation provided in the existing Act. Lord Ampthill, he was quite sure, had realised by this time that the present Bill was a very complicated measure, and one nicely adjusted to very various interests. It was already complicated, but if His Majesty's Government had decided to interfere with the different scales which existed under the present Act there would have been a very large number of Amendments in addition, which would have made the Bill even more complicated. Those were the grounds upon which he ventured to hope that the noble Lord would not insist upon his Amendment. The Government from the first moment rather intimated to the other House that they did not propose in this case to interfere with the scales which already existed, and that intention of theirs was acquiesced in. He ventured to think that it would be very inconvenient if now the Committee were to interfere with the scale because, in view of that intimation of the Government, Amendments which might have been moved by Members of the House of Commons were not brought forward. Any Amendment, therefore, on the lines of that of the noble Lord, however logical, would, he was afraid, interfere very seriously with the plans of His Majesty's Government as they had been carried out so far. He might also say to the noble Lord that if he saw his way not to press the Amendment, after all no very great harm would be done, because the matter would be left to the discretion of those Courts of whom he (Earl Beauchamp) had already been able to say—he was glad to think with the acquiescence of the Committee—that they commanded the confidence of both employer and employee. What Lord Ampthill's Amendment would do would be to take away from these Courts certain discretion, and as, so far, at any rate, these Courts had not exercised their discretion in any way which was thought unfair by employer or employee, he ventured to hope that they might be allowed in the to exercise that same discretion.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHagreed that there was a great deal to be urged on behalf of this Amendment from a mere logical point of view. In those cases where there was a definite weekly contribution by a workman out of his earnings towards a partially dependent relative, no doubt the basic figure of 156—which was the same as that in the earlier part of the schedule—would simplify proceedings in the way of enabling a claim to be easily calculated. But it was impossible not to see at the same time the force of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had said, that although the Amendment might be strictly logical yet in many cases it might produce the very complication which was sought to be avoided. They could not have exactly the same class of case always occurring, because where there was a money payment more or less regular that was a very simple thing, but among the poor workmen he fancied it was a very common custom for a generous man to support a relative who was not his wife or child, partly by money perhaps, in the shape of an occasional gift, partly by help in the way of sharing his dinner for example, or some method of that sort—sometimes by a gift of clothing or what not—noneof which methods would be exactly a money payment, and the value of which would have to be calculated and a weekly average struck and the amount of such weekly average multiplied by the figure 156. That would no doubt, as had been represented, cause some complication, and would, on the part sometimes of very unscrupulous people, unfortunately promote or tend to promote the very litigation, which it was sought to avoid. Therefore, although he was sorry, looking at the matter in its simplest form, that His Majesty's Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment, yet he could not think that even if it were rejected any great harm would be done practically, inasmuch as the Court before whom the case would be tried, if it had a free and unfettered jurisdiction, would probably deal out as far as might be practical justice in cases brought before it. It might often happen that where a claimant came in the guise of a partial dependant, the employer, if a just man, might say, "Well, this is
  1200
  rather a doubtful case, but I do not wish to be hard, I will try and settle this matter by paying a fair sum down;"and he thought that very often—possibly in nine cases out of ten—that would settle the matter.
  *LORD AMPTHILLsaid that he fully admitted the force of Earl Beauchamp's reply so far as it related to the convenience of the Government, and the last thing that he would wish to do was to embarrass the Government, even if he could count upon any degree of support for this Amendment. But there was a further argument used by the noble Earl which he could not allow to pass unchallenged. He had declared that the effect of his Amendment would be to interfere with the discretion of the Courts, in whom both employers and employees, as well as the country generally, had the greatest confidence. He could not admit that the Amendment would have that effect. It would not interfere with the discretion of the Courts, but he thought it would rather give them a line of guidance. They would have a basis, a principle, upon which they could frame their decisions, and the result would be a more even and consistent working of the Act throughout the country. He did not think that could in any way be described as interfering with the discretion of the Courts, and he need hardly say that he did not in any way dispute or deny what the noble Earl had said about the confidence which was felt in the Courts of law in this country. He was not inclined to withdraw the Amendment until he could ascertain whether he had some support or not, and he should therefore challenge a division. It was impossible to see until this was done whether his Amendment, which had been admitted to be logical and consistent, was supported or not.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out to Lord Camperdown that if he moved and carried the Amendment standing in his name it would have the effect of shutting out the subsequent Amendment of Lord Belper.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would be very sorry to shut out Lord Belper's Amendment, and so far as he was concerned he was perfectly prepared to let it be taken first. He did not, however, suppose that that would be in accordance with the ordinary rules of the Committee. Therefore, if the noble Chairman thought it better, he would proceed to state the case for his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsuggested that the difficulty might be met by a slight modification in the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he could not move the Amendment by simply alluding to half a sentence; he must either state it or postpone it. Perhaps he had better state his case and at the same time say what he had to say with regard to Lord Belper's Amendment. What he proposed to do was to provide that—
  "unless the incapacity arises from a fracture of limb or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or from any other personal injury which prevents the workman from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed for a period exceeding twenty-one days, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week."
  As the Bill stood, for the first seven days a workman was not to receive compensation. Then if the injury lasted for fourteen days or thirteen days he would receive compensation for six days. But supposing it lasted for fifteen days, then he would receive compensation for fifteen days. He suggested that this was evidently a temptation to malinger. That was not his own opinion only; it was the opinion of the Home Office Departmental Committee which was appointed to inquire into this law in 1904. They said as regarded the suggestion that in the case of injuries incapacitating a man for two weeks or more the compensation should be dated back to the day of the accident.
  "The danger of malingering if a fortnight's compensation became due at the expiration of fourteen or fifteen days would be very great and must, in our judgment, be regarded as a fatal objection."
  He thought that spoke for itself, and it was unnecessary for him, therefore, to trouble their Lordships in elaborating
  1202
  that point. What he proposed was that that fourteen days should be extended to twenty-one days, because there was much less probability of a man malingering for twenty-one days than for fourteen. If the Committee excepted the cases of incapacity arising from a very severe injury, he thought all justice would be done, and there would be much less probability of anything approaching to a fraud arising under this clause than if it were left as it now stood. With regard to Lord Belper's Amendment it was only slightly different from his own. He must say that of the two he preferred it to his own, and if the Government preferred Lord Belper's Amendment he would be quite content to withdraw his own and accept that of Lord Belper. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 19, to leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert '(a) unless the incapacity arises from a fracture of limb or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or from any other personal injury which prevents the workman from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed for a period exceeding twenty-one days, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week, and."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BELPERsaid perhaps it would be convenient that he should say a word or two on Lord Camper down's Amendment, especially as the noble Lord had intimated that he preferred his (Lord Belper's) Amendment to his own. If both Amendments were before the Committee perhaps the one standing in his own name would be accepted. He would say at once that he was very reluctant to move any Amendment which would have the effect of limiting the compensation which had been agreed in the other House to be paid to workmen, and which to a certain extent at all events—although he did not say the exact terms had been agreed—had not given rise to so much discussion there as might have been expected. The history of this clause, or of the part of the Bill which dealt with compensation, was rather remarkable. In the original Bill the provision was that no compensation should be paid until after the first fortnight. That point was very carefully considered indeed by the Committee

  1203
  which sat upon that Bill, and after full consideration, and after hearing a great many arguments on both sides, it was decided that it would not be wise to extend the compensation payable by making the fortnight into a shorter period. Notwithstanding that, when this Bill was brought in, the time was reduced to seven days. In the Standing Committee in the other House it was still further reduced, in spite of the remonstrance of the Government, to three days. When it went back to the House the seven days was re-inserted, but it was accompanied by the proposal that in the case of an incapacity which lasted a fortnight, compensation for the first week should be paid to the workman who had suffered the injury. He entirely shared Lord Camper down's view with regard to the principle of dating back. He did not think any stronger words could have been used in a Report from a Committee than those which he read, declaring the view of the Committee that it was absolutely out of the question to adopt a proposal to date back in a case where the injury had only lasted for a fortnight. He was quite aware that the principle was the same, even if the period was extended to three weeks, but at all events it would do away with a very large number of cases where there would be a very strong inducement—he would not say to malinger, because he had not the least desire to cast any aspersion of that kind upon the workmen, but to stay at home when, otherwise, they might go to work. Let the Committee consider what the provision meant. It meant that by staying at home the workman would get a considerably larger sum than by going to work, and anybody under those circumstances, would be rather influenced to stay at home. The temptation to regard one's self as not thoroughly cured of the injury suffered was almost too strong to be withstood. Under those circumstances he ventured to press that the time should be extended to twenty-one days. It was clear that the cases they wanted to meet, and to give extra compensation to, were the cases of really serious injuries. The more serious those injuries were the more important it seemed to him that the workman should have some extra compensation. Where the doctor's bill
  1204
  was a large one, and the workman was kept from working a considerable time, the necessity of his family must be greater, and, therefore, the longer the injury lasted the more desirable was it to give some larger compensation than could be done by giving the compensation for the first week. He hoped the Government would understand his reason for putting down the Amendment standing in his name. He thought the clause as it stood was really a premium on malingering, although he hardly liked to put it in that way; at all events it was not human nature to resist where such a temptation was held out, and it was certain to have the effect of extending these injuries, especially when such a very great inducement was held out to a man not to go back to his work at the time he might have done. He could not, of course, move his own Amendment now, but in case Lord Camperdown withdrew his, he would certainly move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid there was an Amendment upon the same point by another noble Lord, who was not present (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and he had thought, perhaps, that it might have tended to the convenience of the Committee if all three Amendments were discussed together, seeing that they dealt so much with the same point. He might say at once that he would like to accept fully the account which the noble Lord had just given of the history of this provision in the Bill. It was perfectly true that the Bill as first introduced was not the same as it was now, it had been altered in Committee, and it had been changed again since then. There was one point which came into his mind while the noble Lord was speaking, that if to workmen—it was difficult to choose a phrase on this subject, as all the members of that Committee were so tender—there was a tendency on the part of any workman to delay his return to work, would not the suggestion of the noble Lord that he should wait for twenty-one days, rather go to show that he would delay his return for three weeks instead of for a fortnight?
  LORD BELPER: No.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: After all there was that point—that if he was likely to delay his return for a fortnight was it as likely that he would be still more anxious, or just as anxious to delay his return for the full three weeks. But that was not the ground upon which he wished, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord. He thought it might be taken that the noble Earl, who had expressed a preference for Lord Belper's Amendment, would not wish in any case to press his own.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I withdraw mine at once.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that as a matter of fact, as their Lordships were made well aware by the noble Lord, this provision was the result of considerable discussion in the lower House. It had been arrived at generally, he thought he might say, with the consent of all Parties, and it represented the consensus of opinion upon a matter of very considerable difficulty which had evoked a great deal of criticism and discussion, not only inside the House of Commons but also outside. The Bill of last year, which was introduced by the late Government, mentioned a fortnight as the qualifying period. This Bill started with seven days. The Committee reduced it to three days, and then by arrangement the seven days, with the dating back after fourteen days, was inserted. He could not help thinking that that system, even if it did not commend itself to the Committee as being entirely logical, had that atmosphere of compromise about it which he hoped at that time would be likely to approve itself to the Committee as one that would be agreeable to both sides. The general question of dating back, it was perfectly true, was one upon which the Committee to which Lord Camperdown had referred did not feel itself able to recommend that legislation should proceed upon those lines. But the answer, and the only answer, which he could give to the noble Lord upon that point was one which would not be entirely unexpected by him, namely, that there was now a Government in office which
  1206
  did not agree with the Committee which reported so long ago as 1904, and that they had proposed more generous terms. On the general question of expense he thought that on the whole the associations of employers and the insurance companies, whose opinion had been somewhat freely circulated amongst noble Lords, and which had also been sought by His Majesty's Government, were of opinion that there was very little difference between the proposal which emanated from the Committee in question and the proposal now before their Lordships, He could only say that this was a provision which His Majesty's Government had considered at great length, and which they had introduced into the Bill in another place in the hope and in the belief that it would end by being acceptable to all Parties.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdid not think the noble Lord could quite say that this clause was acceptable to all Parties in the other House, because, unless his recollection served him wrongly, there was a division, or two divisions, against it. It was acceptable to this extent: that, where there was a majority and a minority, what the majority wanted was determined to be the decision of the House. But, with regard to the question of whether fourteen days was more likely to en courage a tendency, to use the noble Earl's phrase, not to desire to return to work, there could be very little doubt, because twenty-one days meant at all events a considerably longer abstention from work and also a considerably smaller gain on the part of the person who did not return to work than in the case of a person not working thirteen days and being paid for six, and not working fifteen days and being paid for fifteen. It seemed to him that the encouragement given by full payment as soon as a work man had been fourteen days away from work must necessarily encourage a person to desire to stay at home. He felt sure that would be so in the case of any of their Lordships, and it would certainly be the case with himself. Therefore, if Lord Belper moved his Amendment and divided the Committee he should certainly vote with him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 19, line 2, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'three."—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEquite felt the force of the arguments adduced on both sides of the question. He was sure, not only from what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated, but from what he had read of the progress of public business, that this was a matter discussed more than once very fully in the other House, and he, therefore, would advise his noble friend not to press the matter further.
  LORD BELPERsaid that under the circumstances he should not press his Amendment to a division. But he wished to make a protest, because he did not think this was a desirable way of dealing with the question of compensation. He thought it would have been far better that compensation should have been paid at an earlier day rather than that they should go back and hold out this inducement to workmen which they would not otherwise have had. He thought the noble Earl had rather lightly passed over the remarks he had made in quoting from the Committee of 1904. He had said, "Oh, there is another Government in office now, and they do not adopt the views of that Committee." He would, however, remind the noble Earl that the Committee in question was an absolutely impartial one, and was not appointed as representing either the late Government or the present Government. The Chairman of it, as everybody present would admit, was as impartial a man as could be found; and the present Government had already asked Sir Kenelm Digby to sit on one or two Commissions appointed by themselves, which showed their confidence in his impartiality. That Committee considered the point he had put to be a fatal objection to the proposed system. That was all he desired to say, and he begged to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERmoved a new sub-section providing that a workman
  1208
  who had obtained a medical certificate stating that from age or physical or mental infirmity he was specially liable to accident, and who had entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him, the compensation should not exceed the maximum, or be less—
  "(1) Where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependant, than £25, or a sum equivalent to thirty-nine times his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger; (2) where total or partial incapacity results from the injury, then a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week of 5s. or one quarter of his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger."
  He hoped this Amendment would not only receive the sympathy of the Committee but also its support. He had been very much disappointed to find when the Bill came up to their Lordships' House that this Amendment, which had been proposd in a somewhat different form by His Majesty's Government, had been cut out on the Report stage. What was the proposal? It emanated like other suggestions which had not in all cases been adopted from the Report of the Committee of 1904, to which so much attention had been drawn to-night. That Committee said that the evidence had led them to the conclusion that the Workmen's Compensation Act had largely increased the difficulty of old men finding and retaining employment. They went on to say that they feared the tendency of these difficulties was to grow, and that when the working of the Act of 1900 came to be more fully and generally understood (that was with regard to agricultural labourers) there seemed to be ground for apprenhension that the difficulties might be more felt in rural districts, and they further went on to say that they thought the danger was sufficiently great to justify the attention of the Legislature. That was a very weighty opinion, but he might remind the Committee that, if it was weighty at the time it was written, it had infinitely more weight now, because this Bill proposed to add to the workmen who would be able to get compensation if injured, another 6,000,000 in addition to the 6,000,000 under the original Bill, and, he believed,

  1209
  the something like 2,000,000 who were supposed to be added under the Act of 1900. What were the classes of these workmen? The original Bill dealt with workmen in large employment, railways, large commercial undertakings, and dangerous trades of such a character that the great proportion of them had benefit societies of which they could reap the advantage in old age or when they were suffering from any infirmity. The present Bill added to those an equal number, but a great proportion of them were in small employment, where they would not have the same advantages—to as large an extent at all events—as was the case with those employed by large companies and large industrial undertakings. It seemed to him, therefore, that their sympathy ought to be even stronger than before for those workmen who would lose their places and be turned out owing to the compensation given under this Bill. With regard to the old people, he believed it was perfectly clear that they were more liable to injury than the young men, with the result that a large number of old men had lost and would lose their places in consequence. His Amendment also dealt with those who, owing to physical or mental infirmity and incapacity, were specially liable to accident. He would like, with the leave of the Committee, to leave out the first portion of his Amendment, because he understood, since he put down the Amendment, that there was an objection in the other House to dealing with, or at all events recognising, the case of men of a particular age; and he found, on reading his Amendment, that the case of an old man would be sufficiently covered by the latter part of the Amendment, under sub-section (d), which said—
  "In the case of a workman who has, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, obtained from a medical referee a certificate to the effect that his age, or any physical or mental infirmity and incapacity from which he is suffering, is such as to render him specially liable to accident,"
  and that they should be met by being allowed to agree with their employer for a smaller amount of compensation. Therefore, he would like to amend his Amendment by taking out sub-section (c) and leaving in sub-section (d). He believed that was very
  1210
  much the form in which the Amendment was left by the other House; and probably, if that was the case, it might be more acceptable to them than if be put in the first part of his Amendment. With regard to the case of those suffering from some physical or mental infirmity, it was quite clear, from the evidence given before the Committee, that that was a very serious case indeed for many of them. In one case there were six men in one employment who had each lost an eye; and the insurance company had absolutely refused to insure them on any terms whatever. More than that, he understood that the mutual insurance companies of the men themselves would decline to insure men who were suffering from an infirmity of that sort. Therefore, it was not to be wondered at that there was a great reluctance on the part of employers to give employment to men who were suffering from some infirmity of that character. He regretted that this Amendment, although there was a closer division upon it in the other House than there had been on some Amendments to the Bill, had not been accepted. As far as he could learn the arguments against it were that to recognise in any way the principle that a man in a particular trade should receive less wages, and therefore less compensation, was contrary to the principle of trade unionism. He did not quite understand why in these cases there could not be an exception made. There were men who were obviously suffering from old age or from some infirmity, and, therefore, it could not be supposed that they would be earning the same wages as men in possession of all their faculties or younger men. However, that was the argument used, and it proved fatal to the Amendment. He was bound to say that when Parliament brought in this measure for the good of the workmen, and when their attention was called to the fact that there was a large class of workmen who especially deserved sympathy and support and who had suffered in this way in consequence of the measure that was brought in, the least that could be done was that Parliament should try and meet their case and do what it could to prevent their suffering in that way. Under these

  1211
  circumstances he trusted the Committee would support the Amendment, and that, if it was sent down to the other House with a strong expression of feeling from their Lordships, at all events some further consideration would be given to it, because it seemed to him to be eminently a matter on which their Lordships were not only able but bound to express their opinion. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 9, after the word 'shillings,' to insert '(d) in the case of a workman who has, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, obtained from a medical referee a certificate to the effect that his age or any physical or mental infirmity and incapacity from which he is suffering is such as to render him specially liable to accident, or to render the result of an accident to him specially serious, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act, the compensation shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less: (i.) Where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependant, than twenty-five pounds, or a sum equivalent to thirty-nine times his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger, (ii.) Where total or partial incapacity results from the injury, then a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week of five shillings or one quarter of his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid there had been two points really raised by the Amendment of Lord Belper—one with regard to the principle and the other with regard to the details of the Amendment he had proposed. With regard to the principle, he would say at once that His Majesty's Government proposed to follow the course which they had taken in another place, of not interfering directly in any division which might take place on the question, leaving it to be settled exactly as their Lordships' wished. There was a remarkable division in another place, when the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill, and also the Under-Secretary voted for a clause on lines similar to the present Amendment. In spite of that, however, it was defeated, and the Bill had reached their Lordships' House without that clause. Under those circumstances it would be improper for him to express his views on either one side or the other, or to endeavour
  1212
  to influence their Lordships' vote in either direction.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What were the arguments of the Home Secretary?
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that the Home Secretary had voted, and had also spoken, in favour of the clause, but what he had been about to observe was this. There was the further point of the drafting of the Amendment In the event of the Committee carrying, or desiring to carry, the principle of this clause, the Home Office trusted that their Lordships would not carry it exactly in the form proposed by Lord Belper, but would rather use the form of words in which it left the Standing Committee. The Home Office would wish it rather to appear in the form proposed by the Home Secretary himself. Perhaps it would be convenient if he were to read it—
  "( (c) In the case of a workman who has in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State obtained from a certifying surgeon a certificate to the effect that on account of old age or the loss of an eye, or a limb, or of any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in the regulations, he is specially liable to serious accident if employed in any employment of any class specified in the certificate, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act. the compensation if payable in respect of an accident happening to the workman whilst employed in an employment of any such class shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less—(i) where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependants, than fifty pounds; (ii) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury than a weekly payment during the incapacity, of ten shillings; and)"
  and then it would follow on accordingly.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Is it intended to leave out all reference to mental failure?
  LORD BEAUCHAMPimagined that would be so. The regulations made by the Secretary of State would perhaps cover that, because, as the noble Lord (Lord Ashbourne) was aware, the Secretary of State was in favour of regulations based on that idea. Having said so much, he was bound to confess that he should vote against the Amendment if it proceeded to a division, in spite of

  1213
  the high authority there was for the Amendment and for the principle now before the Committee. He did not know what opposition there was likely to be to the noble Lord's Amendment, but unless it was considerable he should not think of dividing the Committee on the subject.
  LORD BELPERsaid he was quite willing to accept an Amendment in the terms proposed by Earl Beauchamp. As far as he could see it would fully carry out his object, and it appeared to be really very much in the form of the words contained in the second part of his Amendment, the only difference feeing in reference to the amount of compensation.
  LORD STALBRIDGEsaid he was very glad indeed that His Majesty's Government at last had really done an act of justice to the workmen, because if they had insisted on opposing the Amendment of Lord Belper they would undoubtedly have inflicted a great injustice upon a very large body of deserving men. He, of course, spoke only from one point of view—the railway point of view—and he represented a railway that employed an enormous number of men. It stood to reason that in one of their departments, which employed 5,000 or 6,000 men, there must every year be a certain number of old men falling out of the ranks, and when it came to reducing the numbers of employees it naturally followed that the oldest men must leave. To render the hardships of those men as light as possible they endeavoured to give them employment at a reduced rate of wage wherever they could, but it was obvious that in justice to their shareholders they could not place such men in positions where the company would stand a grave risk of losing largo sums of money if any accident happened to them. The men were perfectly willing to forego it themselves if the opportunity was given them. He was sure that if noble Lords were able to vote according to their own feelings, even the noble Earl himself (Earl Beauchamp) would vote for the Amendment, although he had said that he would not. He meant that he would do so
  1214
  if he thoroughly understood the position. He was very glad indeed that the House was left free to vote as it liked, because there were many on the Government side who had strongly sympathetic feelings for these old men who would lose their employment if the Bill was carried in the form in which it now stood.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord, I understand, moves the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill?
  LORD BELPER: Yes, I withdraw my own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 19, line 9, after the word 'shillings' to insert (c) In the case of a workman who has in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State obtained from a certifying surgeon a certificate to the effect that on account of old age or the loss of an eye, or a limb, or of any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in the regulations, he is specially liable to serious accident if employed in any employment of any class specified in the certificate, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act, the compensation if payable is respect of an accident happening to the workman whilst employed in an employment of any such class shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less—(i) where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependants, than fifty pounds; (ii) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury than a weekly payment during the incapacity, of ten shillings; and)."—(Earl Bauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD AMPTHILLmoved an Amendment to provide that in the case of partial incapacity the weekly payment should in no case exceed, not the difference, as the schedule proposed, but half the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he was earning or was able to earn after the accident. At the risk of appearing monotonous, he must repeat once more that the only object of this Amendment was to make the Bill

  1215
  consistent, and to prevent unnecessary litigation—litigation which would not be of any advantage either to the employer or to the workman. He further explained that this Amendment restored the Bill to the original form in which it was approved by the Government—to a form which was approved in principle by the late Government and by the Departmental Committee. In fact the omission of the words "one half" was made by the Standing Committee on Law. They had the weighty authority of the late Government, the present Government, and the Departmental Committee for the insertion of these words. The whole principle of the Bill was based on the "half"—the principle that one half of the loss in these cases was to be borne by the employer and one half by the workman. That was what he meant by saying that the effect of this Amendment was to make the Bill more consistent, or rather to restore the consistency of the Bill. It stood to reason that if the limit of compensation paid to a man who was totally disabled was half his earnings, when a man was only partially incapacitated he should still be compensated to the extent of only one half of his loss. To make the matter quite clear he instanced the case of two men of the same age, each earning £2 per week. One of them was permanently disabled, and received £1 per week as compensation, or one half of his wages. The other man was able to earn £1 per week in spite of his disablement. Nevertheless, as the Bill stood, the second man would be able to receive the same compensation as his fellow workman—namely, £1 a week—and he would pro tanto be the better off. Although only partially disabled he would be getting, by way of compensation, supplemented by what he was earning, £2 per week, while his fellow workman, who was totally disabled, would only receive £1 per week. He did not see on what grounds that arrangement could be described as fair, and he must also point out that to leave the Bill as it stood was to encourage what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had very aptly described as a tendency to delay a return to work. That, he thought,
  1216
  was a serious objection, and he hoped the noble Earl would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 20, line 2, after the word 'exceed' to insert the word 'one half of."—(Lord Ampthill.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he was afraid this Amendment really sprang from what he was quite sure was not in the mind of the noble Earl who moved it, and that was some desire to fetter the discretion of the Courts. It was quite obvious, in spite of the contradiction which Lord Ampthill had entered to his previous argument on that point, that if the Court was prevented from giving more than half, its discretion was to that extent fettered. Here they had the noble Lord, once more asking that the Court should not give more than half. It was perfectly possible to conceive of a case where it would be just as unfair to give more than half as it would be to give less than half. The instance the noble Lord had given was perfectly obvious, and they could all think of instances in which they could introduce unfairness either on one side or the other. But the objection which he should take to the noble Lord's Amendment, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, was that the County Court Judges had really so far, administered the Act in a way which had met with the approval of all litigants, both on one side and the other, and, as they had done that in the past, he hoped their Lordships would not now feel inclined to put in any Amendment which would prevent them from continuing to carry out in the future those functions which they had exercised with so much wisdom and discretion in the past.
  LORD NEWTON,in supporting the Amendment, said that the Bill had been described that afternoon by the Lord Chancellor as an "Insurance" Bill, and the noble and learned Lord had pointed out that it was desirable that it should be complicated as little as possible by legal technicalities. The object of his noble friend's Amendment was to secure simplicity, and, still more, uniformity of procedure, so far as he could understand.

  1217
  The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had asserted that the varying decisions of County Court Judges had met with the approval of all parties. He would like to have the opinions of the noble Lord the Chairman of the London and North Western Railway, and of his noble friend the chairman of the Great Northern Railway, on that point. He thought that if inquiry were made it would be found that a considerable variety of opinion existed as to the varying decisions given by County Court Judges upon this particular point. The principle of this Bill—and, as far as he knew, the principle of the existing Act—was that the workman's loss should be divided between himself and his employer. Under the Bill as it stood it was perfectly obvious that that loss might fall solely upon the employer, because the decision of the County Court Judge might, as had been already pointed out, amount to this—that a partially incapacitated man, who was able to earn something, might be awarded the same proportion of his earnings as a man who was incapacitated from earning anything. He knew perfectly well the sort of argument with which such an Amendment was met; but he submitted that it was in accordance with common sense, and he really thought the noble Earl might be generous enough to leave this Amendment, as he had done the last, to the decision of the Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that allusion had been made to a remark of his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who had expressed a desire that this Bill should be kept as dear as possible from technicalities. He confessed that he could not see any question of technicality in this matter at all. There was nothing of the kind. The proposal of the noble Lord was to place a limit upon the discretion otherwise left to the County Court Judge. His Amendment was rather the technicality, because its object was to restrict and confine the County Court Judge within the limits that he laid down. Now, as he understood, and believed to be the case, speaking generally, the Compensation of Workmen Act had been administered very satisfactorily by the County Court Judges. He did not understand that there was any charge made against them. In-
  1218
  dividual County Court Judges might have made mistakes in particular cases, but on the whole he believed they had administered the law very well Under those circumstances it seemed to him that it would be exceedingly inadvisable to place upon them a restriction of the kind proposed.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwas disposed to think that it was nearly always advisable, in framing legislation, to trust the tribunal—to lay down certain guiding lines, and then leave the tribunal free to apply itself to the particular case, keeping, of course, within those guiding lines. The Bill, as it stood, laid down a maximum, and said that under no circumstances was that maximum to be exceeded. That maximum was the difference between the amount the man was earning before the accident and afterwards. Then followed certain cautionary words to the effect that the amounts awarded to the workmen—
  "Shall bear such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circumstances of the case may appear proper,"
  showing that the maximum was not to be given as a matter of course, but that the tribunal was bound to consider how far it should be given. Under those circumstances he was inclined to think that it would be better to follow the usual rule in considering these questions, and that it would be nicer, safer, and more in accordance with the ordinary principles of administering justice, to trust the tribunal.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,in moving an Amendment to provide that reference should be made to a medical referee on the application of either party, instead of, as the Bill provided, only with the consent of both parties, said that the proposal embodied in his Amendment first came before the public in the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1904. Its subsequent history was that it was inserted in the original Bill, was approved of by the Standing Committee, and was altered

  1219
  only on Report, and certainly it seemed the most natural thing that when the two parties had both consulted their medical advisers upon the question of the health of the workman, and had failed to agree, either of them should refer the matter to the referee of the County Court, and so get a speedy decision. The whole object of the clause was to give a speedy reference in which this dispute, which was not one of law, but one purely of medical fact, should be settled. But as the schedule stood at present it required the consent, not of one of the parties but of both, to refer the matter to the referee, and that certainly appeared to him to be the most extraordinary form of reference he had ever heard of. The word "referee" was suggestive rather of the football field. He did not know how the system would work on the football field, but on the cricket field it certainly would seem a most extraordinary thing that an appeal to the umpire should only be made with the consent of the batsman as well as of the field, and it seemed to him that the natural and proper method was to put the provision back into the form in which it originally stood, and allow either party to refer the matter to the medical referee of the county court, and to get a speedy decision which would prevent a danger which was very obvious—that it might be to the interest of one of the parties to keep the matter hanging on for the time that it might take to bring it before the Court, during which period he would be enabled to claim the actual amount which was practically in dispute. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 22, line 3, to leave out 'both parties' and insert 'either party."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  *LORD AMPTHILLhoped this Amendment would be accepted, and observed that his name appeared in connection with it on the Amendment Paper. The words "both parties" had a specious appearance of fairness, and he imagined—though he did not know whether it was the case—that they might have been introduced in another place when the House was not fully alive to their effect,
  1220
  and where, perhaps, if he might say so without disrespect, that House was in as drowsy and unreceptive a condition as their Lordships' House occasionally fell into during very late sittings. The words had a specious appearance of fairness, but they were really most unfair. His noble friend had taken an illustration from the football field, and he would take one from the Courts of law, He would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill how it would work if legal proceedings might not be taken against a man, except with his consent. That was practically the principle which the Bill was introducing if the words "both parties" were left in. If those words were omitted, and the words "either party" inserted, they would restore the principle which prevailed in regard to ordinary litigation, and indeed in regard to all matters of dispute which were decided on ordinary principles of equity and common sense.
  LORD NEWTONsaid that as his name also appeared upon the Amendment Paper, in connection with this proposal, he might be allowed to make an appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The Amendment dealt with what had been delicately described by Earl Beauchamp as a disinclination to return to work—a disinclination which was reluctantly admitted in all quarters to exist. He only wished to point out that as it stood the clause was perfectly useless. It was quite obvious that in all cases where it would be most desirable to have the opinion of the medical referee—in cases where a man was reasonably suspected of shamming—those would be exactly the cases in which the workman would refuse to join in the application. He submitted that this was most emphatically a clear case, and he hoped that the Committee would, if necessary, divide upon the subject.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPwas sorry that he was not able to agree at once, or indeed at all, to the Amendment. The fact was that the Government could not regard the words "both parties" as having merely that specious air of fairness which Lord Newton had mentioned. The Government thought that the words "both parties" were really fair, and that

  1221
  it was only if both parties agreed that reference should be had to the medical referee. He thought their Lordships would see that if one party was allowed to hale the other party before the medical referee, that side would have an advantage which was denied to the other.
  EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Why?
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought the Committee must see that in the event of any accident occurring, it was open to the employer to hale an injured workman against his will before the medical referee. It appeared to him that that was giving him, without any doubt at all, an advantage which there was certainly no reason for giving him, and it also seemed to him unfair, because the workman would have been already examined by his own medical man, and that ought to be sufficient. This provision had been inserted in the Bill upon the motion of one of the Members for a mining district in South Wales, and it was accepted by the Home Secretary on the ground that he considered the point to be one for the workmen themselves to decide. This was without any doubt, in his (Earl Beauchamp's) opinion, one of the points upon which the workmen felt very strongly indeed, and upon which they would be most unwilling to allow themselves to be called before the medical referee without their own consent. He could not help thinking that their Lordships would see that it did inflict, at any rate, something of a disability upon the workmen, and therefore upon those grounds he trusted their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  LORD ALVERSTONEthought the noble Earl had really not grappled with the case. Under the clause a work man could not be called upon to submit himself to examination except under the regulations of the Secretary of State, and when he had so submitted himself to a medical practitioner selected by himself, and when he had seen that practitioner's report, then he was to be allowed to say: "I will not allow myself to be examined by an in-
  1222
  dependent man. All he could say was that if it were desired to make the clause unworkable, the best way of doing so was by putting in a provision that there should be no review of the report of the workman's own medical man. It might be supposed to be in the interest of the workman, but he was sure the clause would practically be a dead letter. If there was to be a dispute and an appeal, why should there not be an appeal at the request of the party who thought himself aggrieved by the report?
  LORD BELPERsaid he had had a very strong representation with regard to this Amendment from an official member of the Committee of 1904. The whole of the scheme, which was drawn by the Committee, and adopted by the Government, would be knocked on the head if this Amendment were not accepted. The object was purely a medical one, to get at the medical state of the workman, what his injury was at the particular time, and the report was to be brought before the referee in order that he might know what the state of the workman was, for the purpose of saving money and avoiding litigation if possible. He really thought that the words must have been inserted under some misapprehension, because they defeated the whole object of the clause. If both parties were obliged to make the application, it was clear that when there was any dispute about what the medical state-of the workman was, they would not both agree. But the object was to get at the real, true state of the workman, and therefore it was extremely desirable that the Amendment should be introduced into the Bill.
  *LORD SANDERSONwished to call the attention of Earl Beauchamp to the words of a paragraph a little lower down in the schedule—
  "If a workman, on being required so to do, refuses to submit himself for examination by a medical referee,"
  and so on. There was no sense whatever in those words if the workman had already agreed. If his consent was absolutely necessary the paragraph must have been left in by mistake.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved to amend the provision permitting any weekly payment which had continued for not less than six months to be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum of such an amount as would, when invested, purchase an annuity. He proposed to substitute the words 'not exceeding such an amount" for "of such an amount." He said that as the words stood in the Bill it was perfectly clear that the amount must be a specific lump sum of a certain amount which was described as a sum, which, if invested, would purchase an annuity equal to 75 per cent. of the annual value. As far as he could see the argument, there ought to be an option to the workman and employer to agree on a lump sum even if it was not the exact sum mentioned in the schedule. For instance, in the previous paragraph it was provided that—
  "Any weekly payment may be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and such payment may be ended, diminished, or increased."
  It was clear, therefore, that where a weekly payment was being made there might be circumstances which would suggest that that weekly payment should be made at a particular time; and in the same way, where a lump sum was agreed to be put in place of that weekly payment it would have been thought that an option would have been given for the parties to agree if they thought it desirable so to do. He understood that in the past there had been hardly any settlement of a compulsory character, but there had been an immense number of voluntary settlements, and a lump sum had been agreed to by both parties. His Amendment, therefore, proposed a lump sum not exceeding such an amount. It did not say that that should not be the amount fixed as the maximum, but that in a case where the parties wished to agree together they should agree for a lump sum. He would point out that it was just as much in the interest of the workman as of the employer.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 22, line 39, to leave out the third 'of' and insert 'not exceeding."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained that the object of the clause in the schedule was that if the workman wished to commute for a lump sum, the lump sum must be sufficient to purchase a Post Office annuity equal to 75 per cent. of the annual value of the weekly payment. The result of the noble Lord's Amendment would be altogether to alter the intention of the clause, making it not a fixed sum but a maximum sum.
  LORD BELPER: It would give an opportunity for the sum to be a less sum.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that was so, but the view of His Majesty's Government was that commutation was not, as a rule, and as a matter of experience, a very good thing for the workmen, because lump sums were apt to be squandered in foolish ways, and therefore it was not thought desirable to enable either party to commute on easy terms. In the view of His Majesty's Government it would be very much better to adhere to the clause in the schedule as it stood, and he trusted the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid there was nothing in the nature of the case to assure them that the weekly payments would, under ordinary circumstances, be continued for the rest of the man's life; and therefore there might be cases in which it was questionable for what periods the weekly payments would go on. That was an element which might induce the workman to take a fixed sum down rather than to trust to the chances of the period of his disability. The argument of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill appeared to him to be, that if the weekly payments had gone on for six months they must necessarily continue for the rest of the workman's life. But that seemed to be a very large assumption.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained what perhaps he ought to have said before,

  1225
  namely, that both, parties might agree for any sum they liked; but the paragraph in question only dealt with commutation against the will of the workman;
  LORD BELPBR: Where does it say so?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think that is what the noble Lord will find.
  LORD BELPERsaid he should like to have that made clear, because that was the very point his Amendment was addressed to. If the parties could agree for a less sum, then the workmen would not suffer, because no application could be made. He understood that in the past there had been enormous numbers of agreements, but very few compulsory settlements. With regard to the argument used by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that the money was sure to be squandered at once, he must point out that there were very many cases in which it might be to the interest of the workman to have a lump sum paid. He might want to set up in a business in which he could be occupied even though incapacitated from his ordinary work; and he thought it was very desirable that he should be encouraged in doing so. Unless it was made clear that a settlement could be made by agreement—as the workman himself could not apply but only the employer—there would be a great many cases in which he would not apply to have an annual payment commuted, because he might think he would have to pay too
  much. He thought it was quite as much in the interest of the workman as of the employer that there should be an option of commuting for a less sum.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he was informed that the commutation would be compulsory under those circumstances.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that until the noble Earl had stated it, such an idea had never crossed his mind as that the compulsory element would come in. If the noble Earl would look at the last two lines of his own clause, he would find this—
  "Such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or the arbitrator or judge of the county court to be invested or otherwise applied for the benefit of the person entitled thereto."
  It was not treated as being a matter entirely for the benefit of the workman. The workman might desire to have a lump sum in order to pay for the emigration of his children, or to emigrate himself, or to go into business, or for many other objects; and therefore power was given to the arbitrator or other authority to invest the money "for the benefit of the person entitled thereto."
  LORD STALBRIDGEsaid he could assure the noble Earl that this was very often done by agreement, and many such cases had come within his own experience.
  On Question, "That the word 'of' stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 37.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Castletown, L,

  (Glantawe, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Overtoun, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Pirrie, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Emly, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Craven, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Portsmouth, E,

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Devon, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Camperdown, E.

  Lytton, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Plymouth, E

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Abinger, L.

  Belper, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Allerton, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Amphtill, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Balfour, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Forester, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Newton, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Proposed words there inserted.
  LORD BELPERsaid that his next Amendment was really a drafting Amendment, and followed as a matter of course on the Division which had just been taken.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 22, line 44, after 'settled,' to insert 'in default of agreement."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the noble Lord was quite right, it was a consequential Amendment.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, reported to the House.
  Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 253.)

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP,in moving to go into Committee, said that he had two Amendments, but they were not upon the Notice Paper. He preferred before moving them that they should be printed on the Paper, and perhaps he might be allowed to move them on the Report Stage, in order that their Lordships might have an opportunity of seeing them beforehand.
  Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1:—
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the object of the Amendment of which I have given notice is this. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1, line 19, you will see that it is directed that notice shall be given to each Commissioner of all meetings of the Commission. It is supposed that as the clause has been drafted that would mean that notice shall be given to every Commissioner in Great Britain and Ireland of every meeting of these local persons. That would be exceedingly inconvenient, and I was last night requested by the Treasury to give notice of the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper. However, the Treasury have thought better of their Amendment, and they now send me some other words. I quite agree with my noble friend (Earl Beauchamp) who has just said that he does not like moving Amendments which are not in print. But as the matter is so very small a one, perhaps the House will allow me to raise the other Amendment, which I think is preferable, because I think it really carries out the object which the Treasury have in view. What I propose is this—in line 19, Clause 1, after "commissioners" to insert "of the country, shire or place for which he acts." That is the object—that the local Commissioner shall have the information, and not the whole of the British public, and perhaps your Lordships will, in the present circumstances, allow me to insert that Amendment, although I have not laid it upon the Table.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 19, after 'commissioners' to insert 'of the county, shire, or place for which he acts."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2, 3, and 4, agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Amendment reported.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the Bill is of such a character that I think your Lordships will allow me to carry it without further trouble.
  Bill read 3awith the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
  *THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may state that the Bill is of quite a non-contentious character. Its object is really to obtain statistics of our home production. At the present moment, we have no idea whatever of what is going on with regard to our home trade. As your Lordships are aware, very ample statistics are published regarding the exports and imports of this country, but that is not the case with regard to the home trade. In America since the year 1850 such statistics have been published and in some States, such as Massachusetts, statistics of the kind now asked for have been, issued from an even earlier date. It is not intended to make the inquiry anything like as inquisitorial in this country as is the case in the United States. It is intended to leave out any detail not absolutely necessary for the purpose of the Return, and as regards the schedule which it is intended to draw up we intend to invite representatives of the various trades to come to the Board of Trade before the schedule is actually decided on in order that they may be asked whether they agree to the proposed form or not, and if there is anything to which they do not agree, the Board of Trade will do its best to change it in such a way as to meet the views of the traders. As your Lordships will see, Section 6 makes it quite impossible that the business transactions of any particular firm should be in any way
  1230
  divulged, and it will be impossible to identify the particular profit or gain of any given firm. The Board of Trade have consulted the representatives of all the trades concerned, and they have come to an agreement on the form of this Bill. I may say that this Bill as presented to your Lordships' House is entirely an agreed Bill, and for these reasons I sincerely trust that your Lordships will be good enough to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Granard.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This Bill is undoubtedly a non-contentious measure, and is indeed a very remarkable Bill, because it is about the only measure upon which all Members of this House, who hold all sorts of opinions on the fiscal question, can cordially join hands. It is undoubtedly an important Bill, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will pass it into law. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading, has implied that unless carefully administered, the Bill might be open to the charge of being of an inquisitorial character. That undoubtedly is the fact, and perhaps the clause which, one views with the least satisfaction is the Rules clause, under which the Board of Trade have very wide powers for making regulations for carrying the Bill into effect. But I have such confidence in the discretion of the Board of Trade that I am convinced they will not use the powers under that clause in other than a proper manner. It would perhaps have been a better arrangement if the Rules provided under that clause had not been merely laid before Parliament, but laid before Parliament for a definite period in order that either House might have an opportunity of exercising some control over them. I am sorry to say that in my experience of Parliamentary life a mere direction to lay Rules before Parliament does not amount to very much. There is a process, with which I think the Under-Secretary of State for War is not unfamiliar, of laying things "in dummy" and when things are laid "in dummy" they sometimes do not arrive at a more perfect condition until very

  1231
  shortly before the Rules are put into force. That is undoubtedly a great abuse, and I should like to ask the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade so admirably in this House whether, at any rate, the first Regulations cannot be laid upon the table for a sufficient period to give Parliament a real control over them before they are brought into force. If we can have an assurance of that kind, it will not be my painful duty to move any Amendment upon the clause.
  *THE EARL OF GRANARDI think I can give that assurance. There will be no objection to lay Papers on the Table a sufficient time beforehand to allow of ample opportunity for discussion in both Houses of Parliament before any further census after the present one is taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
  Read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg to move the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. This is a matter of ordinary administration—it is an Act which has to be brought in every year.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD CLONBROCK: I beg leave to refer to a rather remarkable omission from the list of Acts contained in the schedule—that is to say, the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, commonly called the Arms Act. This Act does not interfere with or annoy any
  1232
  law-abiding person in Ireland. In the first place, it is only brought into operation by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council proclaiming certain districts for putting this Act in force. Further, when the Act is in force every respectable individual can easily obtain a licence to have firearms in his possession. I know it may be urged, as it has been urged in another place, that the state of the country as regards ordinary crime is so satisfactory that there can be no question of any special legislation. Well, this particular Act has nothing on earth to do with ordinary crime. It is directed against illegal conspiracy and outrage. Further, it may be urged that the state of the country now is very different from what it was when this Act was passed in 1881. I have too keen a recollection of the state of the country in the year 1881 to dispute that for a moment. But at the same time the country is not free from disquieting symptoms in the West. Within the last few weeks a police constable was fired at and severely wounded by an armed party which, either for the purpose of intimidation or outrage, was approaching the house of a gentleman with whom I have the honour of being acquainted. They were, as I say, an armed party. I have also heard it said that this Act was not one that would be productive of any great results, because a gun can always be found to shoot a man. No doubt that is the case, but nevertheless it is a very valuable and important Act. In case of any outrage with firearms it enables the authorities to trace the offender by reason of the few arms in the district, and their knowledge of the only people who have the right to possess them. Therefore it is a valuable Act, and, as it remains dormant until it is put in force, I must protest, in the name of all law-abiding people in Ireland, against its ceasing to exist, because if it is now taken off the statute book it cannot re-appear there unless it is re-enacted. If it is not wanted now it may be wanted at some future period, and why, therefore, His Majesty's Government cannot be contented to leave it dormant until it is wanted I am unable to understand. I can only protest, in the name of all law-abiding people, who look askance at anything that tends to lessen their security

  1233
  and the peace and order of the country, against its omission.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: His Majesty's Government have carefully considered this question in all its bearings, and they have come to the conclusion that in the present state of Ireland the renewal of this Act is not necessary, that it is not required, and that, being an Act of an exceptional character, it ought not, without necessity, to be renewed. That is very strongly my own individual opinion. I think that all these exceptional Acts may be necessary, and at times are necessary—I do not profess that they are not—in many countries; but I have always held, and I hold now, that they ought not to be continued beyond the time when the state of the country justifies their existence. They are in themselves exceptional laws, placing those who are brought under their action in an exceptional position and I have always held that such laws, when they have ceased to be necessary, ought not to be continued. It is upon those grounds that His Majesty's Government have determined to omit this particular Act from the schedule of the Bill now before your Lordships. If the noble Lord wishes to move an Amendment to the schedule, it will of course be quite open to him to do so, and the subject can then be discussed at greater length.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am sure that my noble friend who has drawn attention to this matter has no desire to move any Amendment, but that all he desires to do is to register his protest against this strange and unexpected omission.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have no objection at all to the noble Lord doing so.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Quite so, but the noble Marquess says that such a law,
  1234
  which is merely an Arms Act, should not be continued unless there are exceptional circumstances in the country to justify it. I take it that that is a good and sufficient statement for an executive action which I am not disposed to question, but surely it is a very grave thing to suspend an Arms Act which has been put in operation by the present Government, as anyone can see in the Irish Gazette, within the last three months. That being so, it is a serious thing for them to arrive at the conclusion that the state of every part of Ireland now is such as to justify the withdrawal of this very important law, which works quite moderately and does no harm to anybody. My noble friend (Lord Clonbrock) speaks with very great authority and knowledge of the west of Ireland, being a local proprietor who resides in the County Galway, of which county he is Lord-Lieutenant, and anyone who is acquainted with the condition of Ireland now knows that, peaceful as it may be, generally speaking, and free from all offences against the law, the state of the West of Ireland is full of cause for anxiety. The country is in a very grave state, and the most thoughtful observers think that although its present state may be serious it may become more serious still. Therefore many of them hold that it is a serious thing to select this occasion for the omission of this Act which has been in existence for a great number of years without causing any inconvenience. But I feel the force of the suggestion made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, and made incidentally also by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment—that this is a matter for executive administration, and that the Government must take the responsibility, whether grave or light, of the decision at which they have arrived. The responsibility is theirs. It must remain theirs, and they must naturally not be surprised, if it should turn out that they have been mistaken in accepting this

  1235
  responsibility, if those who do not agree with them now should remind them later on of the fact.
  THE LORD PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): I am sure none of us can complain of the manner in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, has spoken on this question. He has spoken upon it with great moderation, and in a tone which we should naturally have expected from him, remembering the high position which he has occupied in Ireland. It is perfectly true that it always is a grave matter for an executive Government to undertake a responsibility of this kind. But my right hon. friend the Irish Secretary, from his knowledge of the present state of the country, thinks he sees his way to undertake it, and as the noble and learned Lord fairly says, it is with the Government that the responsibility must rest. I should like, however, just to protest against the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Clonbrock, seemed to take when he said that, after all, legislation of this kind need not be used, and that if not used it hurt nobody, I am not prepared to admit that. I do not think you can reasonably expect any country to sit down quietly under a system of what I might call in terrorem legislation, which is held in reserve, while it behaves well, and left in the cupboard, so to speak, to be pulled out if the country behaves badly. We should not like it in England, and it is not altogether surprising if they do not like it in Ireland. Perhaps I may say there is one point in connection with the matter in which it is quite possible we might ask the assistance of noble Lords later on. I refer to the Pistols Act, which is somewhat too weak, I think, in its operation. It was passed two or three years ago, I believe, at the instance of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore, and it does not, if I am rightly informed, apply to Ireland. I think it very desirable that it should, and if,
  1236
  at some future time, we are able to extend that particular piece of legislation to Ireland, we shall hope for the support of noble Lords opposite.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Hope on, hope ever.
  Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Fourth Report from the Select Committee considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

  NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow.—(The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.) (No. 254.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.