Sitting of 3 May 1907

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Brighouse Corporation Bill; Burnley Corporation Bill; Shanklin Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill. As amended, considered to be read the third time.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Chester, Chorley, Fenton, Hanwell, Rochford (Rural), Scunthorpe, and the Thornton Joint Hospital District," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns;read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Dunstable and the counties of West Suffolk and East Sussex and West Sussex," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Leicester, against; to lie upon the Table.
  HOME WORK REGULATION BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Dalny;Edinburgh (two); and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Guthlaxton; and Shrewsbury; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Guisborough, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Branch of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 2, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the International Conference on the White Slave Traffic, held in Paris, October, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS (BURNHAM (SOMERSET) PIER BILL).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd May; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 137.]
  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and Statement of Accounts for 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Resident Magistrates—Names, Ages, Religions, and Salaries.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names, ages, religions, and salaries of the resident magistrates at present serving in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The names, ages, and salaries of resident magistrates at presentserving in Ireland are as follows: —

  Name.

  Age on 1st March, 1907.

  Salary.

  £

  Bell, A.

  49

  550

  Bourke, U.

  61

  675

  Brady, A. N.

  57

  675

  Brown, R. L.

  55

  550

  Bull, R. G.

  58

  550

  Butler, G. B.

  50

  550

  Byrne, J. P.

  47

  425

  Callan, W. E.

  32

  425

  Crane, Captain C. P.

  49

  550

  Creaghe, P. C.

  56

  550

  Crosbie, Captain C. H

  40

  425

  Crotty, R, D.

  64

  675

  Dease, Major E. J.

  46

  550

  Dickson, J. M.

  46

  550

  Dunsterville, J. W. E.

  56

  550

  Edgeworth-Johnstone, Captain W.

  43

  425

  Fitzgerald, V. S. Vesey

  58

  675

  Fitz Patrick, F.

  50

  425

  Flanagan, J. G. Woulfe

  43

  550

  French, J.

  53

  550

  Gardiner, J. C.

  62

  675

  Gibson, T. D.

  62

  675

  Gosselin, Captain B.

  36

  425

  Gray, J.

  48

  425

  Name.

  Age on 1st March, 1907.

  Salary.

  £

  Griffin, G.

  52

  550

  Hardy, J. A.

  44

  550

  Harper, A. M.

  56

  675

  Harrel, A. G. W.

  41

  425

  Henn, F. B.

  59

  675

  Hickson, E. F.

  59

  550

  Hodder, F. G.

  60

  550

  Holmes, W.

  35

  425

  Home, A. E.

  63

  675

  Hornibrook, M.

  33

  425

  Jephson, C. D. H. J.

  50

  550

  Jones, W.

  59

  550

  Kelly, P. J.

  52

  550

  Kilbride, J.

  42

  550

  Kilkelly, J. M.

  63

  675

  Lloyd, E. T.

  46

  550

  MacDermot, E. J.

  60

  550

  M'Lean, J.

  60

  550

  Meldon, A. G.

  61

  675

  Mercer, G. D.

  64

  675

  Moore, W. M. S.

  36

  425

  Nagle, G.

  54

  675

  Newell, A. C.

  60

  550

  O'Hara, W. J.

  49

  425

  Olphert, R. F.

  56

  550

  Orr, W.

  48

  550

  Paul, Sir W. J., Bart.

  55

  675

  Name.

  Age on on March, 1907.

  Salary.

  £

  Pery, Captain Hon. H. de Vere

  55

  675

  Preston, J.

  56

  550

  Purdon, B. R.

  56

  550

  Rice, W. H.

  54

  425

  Shannon, G. H.

  51

  675

  Sullivan, P. D.

  44

  550

  Sullivan, W.

  47

  550

  Smith, W. F. H

  63

  675

  Starkie, R. F.

  51

  550

  Thackeray, Major M.

  52

  550

  Townsend, N. L.

  60

  675

  Turner, H.

  57

  675

  Tynte, Lieutenant-Colonel M.

  60

  550

  Welch, Captain F.

  61

  675

  White, J. T.

  38

  425

  Wynne, E. M. P.

  47

  425

  Fifty of the above gentlemen are Protestants and seventeen are Catholics. In addition to salary, each resident magistrate receives a fixed allowance of £100 a year to meet the expense of travelling on duty within a radius of fifteen miles from his headquarters, and one of £8 a year for postage, stationery, etc.

  Religious Views of Irish Officials.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of judges of the High Court, County Court judges, recorders, lords-lieutenant of counties, deputy lieutenants, justices of the peace, Crown solicitors, and clerks of the peace in
  1170
  Ireland; and how many, under each head, share the religious views of the majority of the people of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The total number of each of the above classes is as follows: Judges of the High Court, 17; County Court judges (including five recorders), 21;lieutenants of counties and of cities, 34; deputy lieutenants, 666; justices of the peace, (a) holding ordinary commission of the peace, 5,518, (b) ex-officio justices as chairmen of county or district councils or of town commissioners, 200, total 5,718; Crown solicitors (including, 10 sessional Crown solicitors), 41: clerks of the Crown and peace (including three clerkships of the peace that have not yet been united to the clerkships of the Crown), 36. Of the 5,518 persons holding the ordinary commission of the peace, 1,805 are believed to be Catholics and of the remainder there are 75 whose religious persuasion has not yet been ascertained. The religious persuasion of the 200 ex-officio justices is unknown. There is no official record of the religious persuasion of the members of the several other classes above-mentioned.

  Roman Catholics in Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of county inspectors, district inspectors, and head constables now serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and how many under each head are Catholics.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 1st January, 1907, the latest date for which statistics are available, the number of county inspectors serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary was thirty-seven, of whom five were Catholics; the number of district inspectors was 202, of whom 62 were Catholics; and the number of head constables 225, of whom 156 were Catholics.

  Houses in Ireland Valued at £2 or Less.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of houses in each province of Ireland valued at £2 or less.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have not this information, and to procure it would involve a far greater expenditure of time, labour, and money than I feel justified in authorising.

  Administration of Irish Affairs.
  MR. HIGHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names of the various Boards under which Irish affairs are now administered;and will he give in each case the date of their institution.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am considering the question of laying upon the Table, in connection with the proposed legislation for Ireland, a Return as to the Irish Government Departments. I would ask my hon. friend to await that Return.

COMPULSORY WEIGHING AND MEASUREMENTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid the Bill the Second Reading of which he moved was a measure of considerable importance to a large number of workers throughout the country, particularly in regard to those engaged in piecework. The title of the Bill showed that it had particular reference to workers in the iron and steel industry. His hon. friend the Member for Gorton represented that particular section of workers, and therefore he would not occupy any time in dilating upon that topic, but would leave the subject to his hon. friend who, from his practical knowledge, would be able to state the case much better than he could possibly do. It was well known that a large number of those workers had a great grievance, and it very often happened that they suffered reductions from their wages through the lack of any measure providing for compulsory weighing in that particular industry. In all those questions in which wages were primarily concerned, he submitted that when workmen had entered into an honourable agreement to perform work at a stated sum they should be assured of receiving the amount they earned by their labour. He intended devoting his remarks to the case of a considerable number of workers who
1172
were not directly represented in the House. The title of the Bill covered workers in various cement factories in the country. Perhaps he might explain that cement was composed of a mixture of chalk and clay in certain proportions, added to which in the process of burning were coal and coke. The chalk and clay were weighed for the purpose of getting the necessary proportions, but, although this was done, under existing conditions the men had no means of knowing the weights with which they had to deal. After weighing, this mixture was put through the wash mill and reappeared in the form of slurry. It then passed on to the drying floors. The next process was that of breaking it up and putting it into kilns together with the coal and coke, and this produced what was called clinker. The compound was then drawn out and ground up and became the finished product. In all those processes the men were paid by weight—that was, by tonnage. The men who had to dig the chalk were sometimes paid by measurements at so much per yard, but in neither of those processes had the men any means of checking the weight of the product of their labour, and consequently they had to rely upon the disposition of the firms by whom they were employed to know how much work they had performed, and what wages they were entitled to. It sometimes happened that the chalk dug by the men was not only used directly by the cement works to which the chalk works or quarries were attached, but was very often transmitted to other firms in different parts of the country. It would be readily seen that a situation of this character often caused disputes between firms and the men they employed, and all they were asking for in this Bill was an extension of the principle of the check weighmanclauses of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. Therefore they had a good precedent to work upon and something which he thought would commend itself to the favourable consideration of the House. In the case of the cement workers many hard cases had been brought to his notice where men had been defrauded of wages to which they were justly entitled. He did not intend to weary the House by quoting all those cases, but in order to prove that these men had a substantial grievance he would mention one or two. In one case

1173
the difference worked out at forty tons per week. In other words, £3 or £4 per week was deducted from the wages that the men had really earned, owing to the inability of the men accurately to get from the firm the weights they had dealt with. There was also a great difficulty in getting the men to swear to such cases for fear they might be discharged. In one case an action was taken, but it had to be dropped mainly owing to the fear of the men to appear in Court to substantiate their grievance. Ono glaring case had been brought to his noticein which it was proved that the manager had placed pieces of lead on the scale, which made a difference of 6d. on every barrel of clinker weighed. Information was given to the Inspector of Weights and Measures, and he went down to the works, took possession of the pieces of lead, but legal proceedings were not taken because of the difficulty of getting the men to appear in Court for fear they might be discharged from their situations. A difference of forty tons, worked out at the rate of 1s. 10d. per ton, came to £3 13s. 4d., or an average of 2s. per man employed. A sum of 2s. deducted from the wages of this class of labourer was often a very serious matter, and all those who were directly connected with the working classes knew that it frequently meant the difference between making both ends meet and being landed in a serious struggle against poverty. In another caseit was pointed out that the firm alleged that the men had been paid for more tons than they had produced. Again the men had no check against the firm's statement, and a certain amount was deducted from their wages week by week until the men had refunded the extra sum that the firm alleged they had received. It was most unsatisfactory that a firm should have the power to make a statement of that sort and the men should beunable to check the weights in a matter satisfactory and convincing to themselves. He would now deal with the class of men known as dock labourers. If his information served him correctly, he believed that the Government were not unwilling to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider this question, and he believed that the promoters of the Bill were quite agreeable to that course being adopted. He hoped that if such a
1174
Committee was called into existence it would be composed of an equal number of employers and workmen's representatives, so that their findings might be of a satisfactory and impartial character. He hoped that any Bill subsequently framed would be wide in its scopeso as to include all sections of workers who were paid by weight or measure. With regard to dock labourers, they had no method of knowing by the production of the bill of lading or the invoice how much material they had handled. They could not demand to see the way bills or bills of lading certifying the amount of tonnage worked, and consequently they had to accept the statement of the foreman or the employer as the case might be. He knew of one organisation of labourers who had repeatedly to pay a fee of 5s. at the Customs House for the purpose of securing a copy of a way bill. He thought it would be agreed that a procedure of that sort should be unnecessary, and that the men ought to have an easy method of knowing how much material they had handled. It would be seen that when these men handled pig iron, railway iron, ballast, coal, salt, and all cargoes where piece prices prevailed, the men might suffer deduction in an unwarrantable fashion. In the case of dock labourers, he knew that interminable disputes had been produced under this particular head. With regard to this class of labour he had one or two very glaring cases brought under his notice. In Aberdeen about four years ago some men complained that they had been deprived of considerable weights in the case of nearly every steamer they discharged. Subsequently upon inquiries being made it was found that the son, who was the manager, and a foreman were in collusion, and when action was taken the case assumed such a serious aspect that the son was bailed out at the very high surety of £600 and the foreman at £250. Unfortunately both of them were able to take flight and got across the Atlantic before the action was tried. In another case the men alleged that they had been deprived of forty tons weight. This, worked out at 9½. per ton, represented £1 11s. 8d. for one boat. When it was pointed out that many boats were discharged by these men each week it would be seen that they had a very substantial grievance,

1175
and that the provisions of this Bill were necessary in order to protect their labour. The provisions of the Bill brought no new or novel principle into the legislation of the country, and were simply anextension of a principle already legally enacted which he thought would bereadily admitted to have worked very satisfactorily in the coal mines of the country. He felt that the enactment of this measure in the wide sense he had indicated would tend to allay friction, prevent disputes, and establish harmonious relationship between employers and employed. It was sometimes alleged that Parliament ought not to be troubled with these matters, and that they were best settled by trade unions. Trade unions had been attempting to adjust these matters for a great many years past, but, after all, it would be admitted that trade union action very often involved a large number of men in small disputes. They were anxious as far as possible to make the occasion for strikes as rare as possible. Strikes might occasionally be necessary, but they represented a somewhat antiquated method of conducting industrial disputes. The heaviest responsibilities of strikes fell not alone upon the workmen, but rather upon the women and children behind them, who had to suffer out of all proportion to the needs of the case. He submitted that it was much wiser and better that they should come to the House of Commons indicating lines along which peaceful methods might be established, and he felt sure that all portions of the House would recognise that they were simply desirous of securing justice for the men in ways that would be in no way inimical to the best interests of the employer. After all, the fair and honest employer had nothing whatever to fear from the enactment of such a measure as this. On the other hand, it was in the best interests of the fair employer that all who were not quite so willing to deal justly with their workmen should be brought into line; otherwise competition would be accentuated and the fair employer would suffer because of the unfair methods of his competitors. He submitted that on the Second Reading of the Bill it was unnecessary for him to speak at any greater length, because its provisions were not new to an Act of Parliament, and Members were pretty well able to gauge what the promoters
1176
were aiming at and what were the possibilities of the measure. He trusted that the Bill would receive due consideration at the hands of the House, and if the Government were not opposed to the appointment of a Departmental Committee, he hoped that Committee would be composed in such a way as to inspire confidence in all classes of workmen concerned, and that as a result the Government would frame a measure which would establish justice for the men, and at the same time not be inimical to the best interests of the employers or the trade of the country as a whole.
MR. HODGEin seconding, said that a few weeks ago the Home Secretary was good enough to receive a deputation of those interested in this particular measure, and on that occasion he promised them a Departmental inquiry. At the same time he thought it was wise that the principle of the measure should be established by a vote of the House. As was stated when they met the Home Secretary, they had nothing to fear from inquiry, but everything to gain. He thought it would be an easy matter to establish the fact that this particular proposal was absolutely essential, not only in the interests of the workmen concerned, but in the interests of fair competition with honest employers. In an article in a trade journal devoted to the employers' interests it was stated that the existing methods had been found satisfactory. That statement was made in view of the introduction of this measure. He had sent out a circular of inquiry to seventy steel works, with respect to the question of compulsory weighing. Hediscovered that there were only three at which every ingot was weighed. In eighteen works the employers gave facilities occasionally for weighing material the men produced, and the workers were paid on the average of the results ascertained. At forty-nine of these works the men complained most strongly of unfair treatment in the matter of weighing. He would mention a case in point. He had a letter from a works in Scotland where the men were so dissatisfied with the amount that was being paid to them that they demanded a test weighing. When the test took place they discovered that the average weight of the ingots was 4 tons 12 cwts. Later

1177
on when they asked the stock taker as to the amount allowed they found that they had only been allowed 4 tons 6 cwts. Naturally the men complained strongly of being robbed of their wages in that fashion. No other word could properly designate that act on the part of the employer. It was simply robbing the men of what they had earned. The promoters of the Bill were not asking the establishment of a new principle. There were already the check weighman clauses of the Mines Regulation Act, and there were the "particulars" clauses in the Factory Acts for the protection of the interests of operatives in regard to payment for piecework. The system of weighing a certain number of ingots occasionally and then paying on the ascertained average, so far as the steel trade was concerned, was unsatisfactory for the reason that the weight of the material differed according to the carbon in the metal at the time of testing. If there was much carbon in the metal, then naturally the ingot was more solid and weighed more than another of a lower carbon. There was more expansion in the lower carbon than in the higher carbon, and he had found in his experience that employers, when they were, as a result of dissatisfaction, forced to weigh, were always careful to have the test weighing done from a low carbon, because it paid them to do so. The only fair method of weighing was to weigh every ingot, and the fact that there were three up-to-date works which did this showed that such a system was practicable. What was possible in these cases was possible in all. The latest and most up-to-date works were those erected at Cargo Fleet. If it was said that it was practically impossible to weigh each ingot the statement was of the most inaccurate and misleading character. Nothing could be more simple or more easily done in these particular works. For twenty years the steel workers had been agitating in this direction, but until the present Home Secretary promised a Departmental inquiry they had made little progress. When a deputation waited on him recently, the present Home Secretary inquired as to whether they had ever taken any action with the view of getting at any firm whom they had charged with unfair dealing. About two years ago they got affidavits sworn as to the manner in
1178
which the workmen in certain works were being robbed, but the works were owned by a limited liability company, who had neither a soul to be saved nor a body to be kicked, and they were informed by counsel that it was impossible to raise a criminal prosecution against the manager, because he was not pocketing any gain. In order to bring a criminal prosecution, it would be necessary to prove that he had gained by the transaction. He thought the Home Secretaries before whom the question had been brought had been with the workmen in regard to the principle they were seeking to establish. As to the custom in the tin-plate trade, the workmen had an arrangement with the employers that if a workman, who received the correct weight of metal for the purpose of making tin sheets, drew them light, on account of faulty workmanship, he might be penalised by the employer taking sheets to make up the weight for such light or faulty work. But the workman had no means of knowing or checking whether the iron put in was correct in weight or not. Some of the employers in South Wales had recognised that fact, and in three instances they had voluntarily given the men the privilege of putting on a check weigher to check the weights. If the iron went in light that was the fault of the employer, and the workman was not penalised. The workmen agreed to that, and, on the other hand, they said that if a workman, through negligent workmanship,' ran the sheets light, he should be penalised. The deputation that waited on the Home Secretary a few weeks ago represented over 100,000 men, but that number did not cover the whole of the men whom a Bill of this kind would affect. Having looked into the question, he believed he was safe in saying that the measure affected at any rate 250,000 men, who would be directly benefited if the measure were carried. He and his friends were very much indebted to the Home Secretary for granting a Departmental inquiry. The workmen had nothing to fear, and everything to gain, by such a course of procedure. The promoters of the Bill, on whose behalf he spoke, would be perfectly prepared to adopt the idea of the Home Secretary that the Bill should be committed to Committee of the Whole House, so that it might be practically shelved for this session, in view of the

1179
fact that they had no desire to force legislation until the Departmental Committee had reported. He begged to second the Motion.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said this was a Bill which raised questions of very considerable importance, and certainly it was one which created throughout the country very widespread interest. The arguments for it had been very fairly stated by the two hon. Gentlemen who had already spoken. He was glad to think that the arguments for the Bill did not rest, speaking generally, on any allegation of malpractice on the part of the employers, but rather on the general broad ground of the defective system under which the men concerned had no precise and definite method of ascertaining exactly what wages were due to them. This question had been raised in his Department periodically since 1893. It was not a new question to him, because fourteen years ago, when he was Undersecretary at the Home Office, it was raised, and, looking back at the Papers, he found that in November, 1893, he argued that if it was right to adopt the checkweighman system in coal mines, it was right also that it should be adopted in other employments where the conditions weresimilar. He suggested to the then Home Secretary that he should receive a deputation on the subject, and his right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the following spring receive the first deputation. In reply to the deputation his right hon. friend said heagreed that where payment was by weight the process of ascertaining the weight should be above all suspicion; that he had complete sympathy with the object of the deputation, but that he could not promise legislation definitely until he had ascertained the views, in the first instance, of the employers. That Government came to an end. The Home Secretary in the next Government, who received deputations in 1897, 1898, and 1900, stated that he agreed with the opinion of his predecessors and he said, moreover, that
1180
a strong primâ facie case had been made out. He also said that he wanted to make further inquiry as to the views of the employers. Difficulties seemed to have been raised at that time and subsequently by the employers. They said that they had no objection to the appointment of checkweighmen, but that there were certain practical difficulties in the way which made the change undesirable. They said further that in view of the fact that there was practically no grievance, it was not worth while making any alteration in the system. Nothing further seemed to have been done for the next half-dozen years. He recollected receiving the deputation to which the hon. Gentlemen had alluded. That deputation presented the same case with perhaps greater force, and represented that there were short weights given by some employers, especially in iron and steel works. He said in answer to the deputation that he was anxious that the matter should be considered broadly so as to secure the greatest possible accuracy where wages were paid for piecework by weight without interfering with the necessities of an industry. It was really to attain that object that this Bill had been introduced. Hecordially supported the Second Reading. Of course, he could not be committed to the clauses as they stood. But the Bill affirmed two principles—one, that in certain industries where men were paid by rates of weight or measurement they should be able to check the weights by a check weigher or deputy; and the other, that where men were paid by piece they should have particulars. He thought the House would assent to both those principles. So far as the question of particulars was concerned, his sincere wish was to deal with it as a whole as soon as possible. He had had experience of the excellent working of the particulars clause of the Act of 1895, and there was no earthly reason why that principle should not be made universal for all piecework. There were practical difficulties owing to the immense variety of trades concerned, but the Government were taking measures with a view, if possible, of bringing in some legislation by which they could make the principle of the particulars clause general. There were one or two weak points in the Bill. Its scope was too narrow. He saw no reason why it should be limited to the

1181
industries specified in the second clause. There were many industries in the Birmingham district which might be excluded from the operation of the Bill as it stood, and the measure did not include the loading and unloading of ships where the men were paid by weight. Their case and the case of other trades not included ought, he thought, to be considered. Then the Bill evaded the central difficulty of the question. It did not establish any precise method by which the exact weight was to be ascertained, but left the difficulty to be solved by the Home Office in framing and administering Rules. That task the Home Office could not undertake They must get into closer relations with the different trades. Many industries working by different methods were concerned. It was desirable, if possible, to arrive at some common basis which would be accepted and applied by both masters and men without any friction or trouble. The Government thought it desirable, especially as the matters involved were highly technical, that they should have an expert inquiry. The contention of the iron and steel masters who were chiefly concerned in this matter, was that modern developments made weighing a matter of difficulty, that even half a minute's delay in the different processes which had to be gone through meant loss. His hon. friend denied that. That was one of the points the Government wanted to see settled by experts on both sides. Whatever difficulty there might be in establishing a suitable method, he thought modern ingenuity would be able to overcome it. There were also technical questions in connection with cement works, chalk quarries, and so forth. He proposed to set up a committee and submit to it, in the first instance, the case of the iron and steel trade; then the case of other trades. They might then be able to arrive at something which would afford a common basis for dealing with all cases where wages were paid by weight. The Committee, which was practically now made up, would comprise Mr. Ernest Hatch, chairman, a factory inspector, and Mr. Lloyd Morgan, the Member for West Carmarthen, who would form the neutral element on the Committee; and then the expert element, consisting of Messrs. Ains-worth and Eccles, representative members of the iron and steel trade, and, as repre-
1182
sentatives of the workmen, his hon. friend the Member for the Gorton Division of Lancashire and Alderman P. Walls, of Workington. He thought that Commttee would bevery well capable of sifting the evidence and coming to some sound conclusion in connection with the different trades. The Government accepted the Second Reading of the Bill, and were also prepared to agree to the suggestion that it should go to a Committee of the Whole House. Whatever might be said as to the merits of the new Standing Order, he could assure the hon. Member for North Armagh that it was never intended that all Bills read a second time should necessarily go to a Grand Committee. There were many measures of a pioneer character which were simply brought forward for general discussion in order to open out public opinion on a certain principle. To send this Bill to a Committee would be of no practical use. Therefore he thought that it should be dealt with in the way suggested, and that when the psychological moment arrived it should receive with all dignity its discharge for the session. Meanwhile, the Committee would get to work, and as the result of its labours he hoped to be able to bring in next year a non-contentious Bill which would finally settle this matter which had been the subject of friction and unnecessary trouble for many years.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he would support the Second Reading of the Bill and of the principle which it embodied; but as the Bill was to be hung up for some months, he wished to make a a few observations which had occurried to him in reading the details of the measure. He did not agree with the view that the scope of the Bill was too narrow. The measure was drafted from the point of view of two or three particular trades, and he thought it would be unfortunate to include in it the loading and unloading of ships. If legislation were desired on that subject, it would be better left to the Board of Trade. In laying out new steel works, it would be feasible to arrange for a continuous system of checking and weighing, but there were many steel works against which no charge could be brought of ever having defrauded their people systematically,

1183
where it would be impossible to carry out a continuous system.
MR. HODGEsaid that the purpose of the Bill was simply to provide that the men who were paid by the ton or measurement should have a means of checking their work and so secure the amount of money which they had really earned.
LORDBALCARRESsaid he was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Member, and he was much obliged for it. An hon. Member below the Gangway had said that he had sent out seventy circulars to steel works and he found that there were only three at which there were facilities for continuous measurement and weighing. In regard to Cowden-heath, he knew that in that particular steel works, in three out of five processes of steel-making there was an arrangement for estimating the weight of every ingot. With regard to the Committee, he would have been better pleased if it had consisted of three representatives of the iron and steel trade like the hon. Member for Gorton, and one Member of the Home Office to hold the scales even. He did not think these outside impartial men were required at all. Everybody knew what the difficulties were and the object to be attained, and he very much feared—
MR. GLADSTONE (interrupting)said the Committee would have to inquire into other things affecting distinct and separate trades, and they could not ask Members representing a particular trade to do that. What he proposed to do by way of experiment was really to adopt the principle of nucleus crews and to have three impartial men who could sit continuously and then Members representing particular trades who could go away when the inquiry in regard to the particular trade which they represented was finished and be replaced by members of another trade.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he understood then that there was to be a permanent committee and trade and expert members would be imported for each particular trade. That of course made all the difference, and he should think no difficulty would arise. He hoped, however, the draft rules would be published in good time during the
1184
present autumn so as to give those concerned an opportunity of considering the matter in a friendly manner before the Government Bill was introduced next year. There was no difficulty in the Bill, but only in the rules. He thought the Home Office would not be prejudiced in any way by taking the steel and iron trades into their confidence early and publishing the rules in good time. The principle was good, and he hoped the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman would lead to a good result.
MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)said herose to express his satisfaction at the Home Office having committed itself fully to the principle that the wage earner should be able to find out what he had earned and what was due to him, and should not be obliged to take whatever was given him. This principle was embodied in the "Particulars Clause" of the Factory Act of 1895. He himself took some part in the Committee work of that Bill upstairs. He was satisfied that a large number of poor workers, women and young persons, were called upon to give their work from Monday to Saturday and take what was given to them without having any power whatever to ascertain whether they were receiving what was due to them or not. In his own constituency there were many young, poor, and ignorant workers who were bitterly disappointed at what they received, and who were unable to say whether they received enough for the work or not. The Bill touched the principle of the right of the worker to see that he got a satisfactory wage, and he heartily supported its Second Reading.
MR. WATTsaid he would not have intervened in the debate, but for the fact that it seemed to him from the remarks of the Home Secretary that while the right hon. Gentleman seemed willing to pass the Bill he was preaching its funeral sermon. The noble Lord said the Bill would be hung up for a few months. Had the noble Lord said a few years or even a decade he thought he would have been nearer the truth. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the Bill was too narrow; that the trades dealt with were not sufficient in number; that he would have the Bill considerably broadened, and he indicated in the latter part of his speech that he

1185
would appoint a Committee to inquire into the iron and steel trades.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that was not so. The Committee had an extremely limited function; they had only to inquire into and ascertain the best way of computing the wages.
MR. WATTsaid the right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint this Committee for two or three trades first, and then a fresh Committee would be appointed to inquire into other three or four trades, and so on ad infinitum.They might reach the Day of Judgment before they reached the Act. This Parliament would not last for ever.
SIR F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
MR. WATTsaid the pendulum might swing back, and the next Parliament would not think of dealing with the iron and steel trades on the lines of this Bill. He expressed his regret that the Bill was likely to be always in the future and not in the present.
Question put, and agreed to. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next. —(Mr. George Roberts.)
SIR F. BANBURYcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted, and forty Members being found present,

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CROMBIEin moving the Second Reading, said the Bill was non-controversial and was supported by the Scottish Members of the House. All it did was to make a small alteration in the Law of Intestacy. At the present time, if a husband died, leaving no children, his property was divided into three shares if it was movable property, and the widow was entitled to one tierce or third of the amount, the remainder going to the husband's relations. While this might be perfectly fair in the case of large
1186
estates, it was extremely unfair in the case of small ones. If only a small amount was left it was highly probable that the widow had had a greatdeal to do with the saving of it, and it was extremely hard upon her that the bulk of it should pass away to other persons. In the case of heritable property, as it was termed in Scotland, or real property as it was called in England, the case might be even harder. In that case she was entitled to only one-third of the value of the cottage it might be, unless it was registered as the property of her husband, and it generally happened that a poor man was precisely the sort of person who was not likely to register property of that sort. That had been found very hard in cases of small property, and all the Bill proposed was to do for Scotland what was done for England by the Act of 1890—that was to say to enable, in small cases below £500, the widow to take the whole, and in cases above £500, for the widow to take £500, and that for the rest she should rank as she did at present and take one-third. He begged to move.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONin seconding, said the existing law on this point caused great hardship among the poor labouring people. He knew cases where working men, when they saved money, rather than risk their relatives coming in and taking it from their, widows, gave their wives the money to bank in their own names. In such cases matters often became complicated owing to the wife dying first of all instead of last of all according to the Biblical law. It did not very much affect cases where only a little furniture was left, but where there was a little money in the bank the husband's relatives usually asserted their right to take their share. It was only right to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England in this matter. He begged to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Crombie.)
SIR F. BANBURY:said the object of this Bill was one to which few could object, but it was unfortunately another example of the evils which were likely to arise when private Members brought in Bills of this sort. Such a Bill, dealing

1187
with an important question with regard to property, ought not to be brought in except by a responsible member of the Government, for the reason that private Members were actuated by sentimental motives. Because they knew of grievances they rushed into legislation without having regard to the fact that, while that legislation might reduce the grievance they had in mind, it might bring about other grievances not contemplated by them. It was one of the many fatal objections to private Members bringing in important Bills that they were apt to consider only the particular grievance put before them. He was informed, in the first place, that the memorandum of this Bill was incorrect The memorandum said "one-third of the heritage"; he was told it was not one-third of the heritage, but a life rent of one-third of the heritage. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said the Bill was to deal with the cases of poor people, but the hon. Member must remember that it would apply not only to poor people but to everybody. What would happen under the Bill in cases where there were marriage settlements? Notwithstanding the fact that there was a marriage settlement the widow would have £500, and the remainder would be divided, and she would take her share to provide for herself, although she was already provided for. It might be that the husband was maintaining a sister in ill health, or a brother who for some reason or other was not able to work, and that he had made no provision for the allowance he had been making to his brother or sister. Under the law as it at present stood they would be provided for but under this Bill the brother or sister would be deprived of the money which they would otherwise have inherited, and,£500 would go to the widow already well provided for.
MR. J. M. HENDERSON: It is the same provision as in the Act of 1890 for England.
SIR F. BANBURY:said he had not that Act before him and could not say whether that was so or not, but he heard it contradicted by an hon. Member below him. But supposing it was so, what had that to do with it? Was it suggested that, because there was injustice in
1188
England, injustice should be perpetrated in Scotland? The proper course to take in that case would be to bring in a Bill to remedy the injustice in England and not one to perpetratethe injustice in Scotland. In Clause 5 an arbitrary provision was made as to the number of years purchase at which the value of the property was to be taken. Why should twenty years purchase be taken? He was informed that in many cases, especially in such cases as the mover and seconder had in mind, the heritable property was in a very dilapidated state and not worth anything like twenty years purchase. Why had a number of years been taken instead of the market value of the property at the time of the husband's death? The Bill would in many cases deprive the heirs of any proportion which they would be entitled to receive. Had he been a lawyer, he would, no doubt, have been able to detect many more defects in the Bill, and he, therefore, hoped the Government would introduce a properly drafted measure in lieu of the one now before the House.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs)said he didnot think the hon. Member for the City of London need apologist: for not being a lawyer, because he had advanced his objections in a plain commonsense manner which might not have been the case had he belonged to the legal profession. Still, every one of the points raised by the hon. Baronet was answered by the procedure in the English Act of 1890. That Act was introduced by a private Member, and the only speech delivered on it was that by the most non Party man of the last generation, Lord Bram-well. Some complaint had been made of the draughtsmanship of the measure. He had looked into that matter and averred that the Bill was framed in the proper legal terminology. He hoped that before the Committee stage was reached the learned societies in Scotland would do him the honour of reviewing it, and on behalf of the Government he would be glad to attend to all matters of draughtsmanship. As to the hon. Baronet's point regarding the twenty years valuation, it was highly important that in a matter of succession and valuation of real and other estate in Scotland, the law of the two countries should not be different. This Bill had been drawn

1189
on the lines of the Act of 1890. He entirely agreed that the time had come for assimilating the laws of the two countries. As to the hon. Baronet's allegation of injustice, the matter was all the other way. In small estates of this kind, where the total value was £500 or under, what was proposed was not to interfere with the discretion of the testator—he could leave the property to whom he liked subject to the ordinary law of Scotland. It was proposed to interfere when there was a direct issue of the deceased, and to deal with the hard case where collateral relatives came in in order to take away one-half of the property from the widow. If the estate was £500 or under, England had said it was a fair thing that, confronting, as she might do, very distant relatives of the husband, she should be entitled to at least £500. That would avoid hardships sometimes of a serious kind, and he could hardly imagine there would be any serious objection to it. As to the question of marriage settlements, they were prepared in Scotland on the footing that the rights granted to the relict were exclusive of other rights of succession which she might have. If a wife was provided for by marriage settlement that marriage settlement was held to be part of the law of contract and was enforced against all distribution of the estate after the testator's death. On that point no trouble would arise. The Bill was a sound Bill; it was small,
but it dealt with certain injustices, and he hoped the House would agree to the Second Reading.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that although the measure dealt with Scotland, questions would arise in regard to property in England, and therefore he hoped the Bill would not be sent to the Scottish Commitee. He appealed to the Speaker to say whether the Bill would in the ordinary course of things go to the Scottish Committee.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that somebody must decide, under the new standing order, what Hills should go to the Scottish Grand Committee, and he had come to the conclusion that he was the only person in a, position to decide. It would be his duty to decide, if this Bill were sent upstairs, whether it related exclusively to Scotland or not; and if he decided in the affirmative, a notification of the reference of the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee would appear in the Votes and Proceedings.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House." —(Lord Balcarres.)
The House divided: —Ayes, 8; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 155.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn.SirAlex.F.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Gov'n

Lord Balcarres and Sir

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Smith,F.E, (Liverpool, Walton

Frederick Banbury.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Donelan, Captain A.

Jowett, F. W.

Barnard, E. B.

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kekewich, Sir George

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Laccy

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Fenwick, Charles

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lundon, W.

Boland. John

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brodie, H. C.

Ginnell, L.

MacVeagh,Jeremiah(Down,S.

Brooke, Stopford

Glendinning, R. G.

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Grant, Corrie

M'killop, W.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Maddison, Frederick

Byles, William Pollard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

Cameron, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

Meghan, Patrick A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Menzies, Walter

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Gr'st'd)

Hodge, John

Mooney, J. J.

Crean, Eugene

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Crooks, William

Hudson, Walter

Murphy, John

Delany, William

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor (Swansca

Nicholls, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

R ogers, F. E. Newman

Ure, Alexander

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wardle. George J.

O'Doherty, Philip

Samuel, Herbert. L.(Cleveland)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Seddon, J.

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Grady, J.

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Hare, Patrick

Sheehy, David

Whitley.John Henry (Halifax)

O'Malley, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Steadman, W. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Mr. Crombie and Mr. John

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thorne, William

Henderson.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDin moving the Second Reading of the Limited Partnerships Bill, said it was a measure for which the commercial opinion of the country had been agitating for the last thirty years, because it was felt that, for lack of some such proposal, commercial development had been considerably hampered and hindered. In the lastsession of Parliament this measure had the good fortune to pass through the House of Lords, an Assembly which at times could do very expeditious work, especially with a measure of a non-contentious character. But, unfortunately, when the Bill came down to the House of Commons there was so much pressure of business that it was unable to make any progress. Some work, however, was done last session while the Bill was on the Order Paper; in that the draftsmen of the Board of Trade paid the closest attention to its provisions, and suggested several alterations which had been embodied in the Bill. In addition to that there were the names of some conspicuous lawyers absent from the Bill last year, but which were present this year. Some of those lawyers were rather opposed to the measure at the outset, but certain alterations having been made init, they were now strongly in its favour, and, therefore, he was now able to quote the great authority of the hon. Member for Kingston on the one side and of the hon. Member for Reading on the other, than whom there were few, if any, greater authorities at the Bar on a question such as that with which this Bill dealt. He was glad also to know that the
1192
attitude of the Government was entirely friendly to the measure. He had conversed with the Attorney-General, and he felt sure that if he had been present the hon. and learned Gentleman would have pronounced his benediction on the Bill. The object of the measure was to make it safe for a man with capital to furnish financial assistance to a. firm, on the footing that he was to be remunerated for the employment of his capital by receiving a share of any profit which might be realised in thebusiness, without jeopardising his whole fortune in the event of the business going wrong. At present there was considerable risk of a capitalist being penalised in that way, and the consequence had been that many men preferred to keep their money lying idle rather than put it into a business, because if a capitalist lent his money in that way—he was so advised—and sought to tender any assistance in the conduct of the business, even in a casual degree, he ran very considerable risk of being adjudged a full partner if things went wrong. This Bill set up a sort of intermediate stage between a limited company and a private firm. It allowed one or more partners to be limited partners, and the rest must be full partners. This, obviously, would be a very great convenience in the case of families, perhaps, who wished to keep businesses in their own hands, or as an arrangement between friends, who, themselves in possession of money, were disposed to help others who might have brains, but were rather short of capital, and, in that way, business might be verysubstantially developed. They had seen an instance during the present session of the advantage that might accruefrom trying to learn from our foreign competitors. When the Patents Bill was introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, one of the arguments, and it was a

1193
Strong and irresistible argument, was that we were considerably behind other nations in the matter of patent legislation. Exactly the same remark might be made in regard to limited partnerships, because our principal foreign competitors had already this system in vogue. In France they had what was called a partnership en commandite. The result was that businesses had been developed to huge dimensions which perhaps would never have got their start had they not been assisted by this form of partnership. He could give specific instances of very substantial businesses in leed which had been developed in this way. A Departmental Committee sat a short time ago to deal with the question of Joint Stock Company Law. It was a very competent Committee which sat for eighteen months, and the result of its Report was that the Companies Bill had been introduced which was now under consideration in another place. There was one clause in the Report of the Joint Stock Company Committee which specifically referred to this Limited Partnerships Bill and referred to it with entire approval. Besides business men, the banking community were strongly in favour of it, and no wonder, because it opened the door to the profitable employment of some of their idle funds. The House of Lords' Bill last session was in charge of Lord Avebury. He had personally received a good many communications from various Chambers of Commerce in favour of the Bill, and also a petition from the Glasgow and West of Scotland Guardian Society for the Protection of Trade, in which occurred this sentence—
"That in the opinion of your petitioners the passing of this measure would be of the greatest benefit to the trading community of the country."
Another society in Scotland had expressed a rather unfavourable opinion in regard to the measure, for the reason that the Bill did not go far enough. They urged that the powers of limited partners should be extended beyond the provisions laid down in this particular Bill. He agreed with that criticism, because he thought the limited partners ought not to have their powers restricted merely to inspecting books, and to advising thereon. When the Bill came before the Committee he would be very glad indeed to support an extension of
1194
the powers of limited partners. The Bill was not at all heroic in its nature nor exciting in its provisions. Some would say it was small and very unimportant. The House knew that it often happened that small Bills were at great disadvantage because they did not lend themselves to electoral purposes nor to dramatic displays on the platform. It would be impossible for an orator to move great masses of people to enthusiasm in regard to a measure of this kind, and for that reason much of the impetus derived from public opinion was lacking in the present case. And yet the potentialities of a Bill like this were often immense. Such a measure, in his opinion, might have a very striking effect, because it would tap reservoirs of accumulated capital and thus render incalculable service in encouraging enterprise, extending trade, and increasing the employment of labour. There was no better way of dealing with the problem of the unemployed than by establishing new industries which were likely to be permanent in their benefits, without being pauperising in their character. He begged to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman had given a very clear statement of the object of the Bill, and the effect it would have if passed into law. This was an exception to the general rule of Bills brought in by private Members. He objected to the habit of private Members bringing in Bills, because the House generally saw only one side, and had very little experience of the effect they would have. But the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Second Reading of this Bill was thoroughly conversant with the subject, and although, as he said, it was one which would not create enthusiasm, yet it was an extremely useful measure and one which he was quite competent to bring in. For the last fifty years a system somewhat similar to that which was proposed had existed in France with very good results. He had had some experience of businesses controlled and advanced by such a system, and not having heard of any bad effects resulting from it, he would certainly support this Bill.

1195
For a number of years there had been a great prejudice against any Bills of this sort, but he thought it had arisen from the conservative nature of Englishmen about their businesses. One objection which had always been raised was that people would not know who the limited partner was, or that a person was a partner only to a limited extent. Clause 5 provided that every limited partnership must be registered. He did not quite know who was going to keep the register. The Bill also provided that the statements should be filed in the Registrar's office where they could be inspected by any person desirous of inspecting them. Very often people were rather careless in business, and in the hurry of carrying through a transaction they might forget that the firm consisted only of limited partners whose means were not very great. He gathered that the amount of capital put into the firm by a partner would be stated when he filed his statement.
SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: Undoubtedly, and the term as well.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the only objection would be that people might be too careless or too lazy to go to the Registrar's office to find out the actual state of affairs. That objection had been advanced before, but he did not think there was very much init, and if this Bill became effective such an objection would probably disappear altogether. He thought the Bill provided a scheme which would be successful, if there was any money left in the country. At the present moment money was going out of the country very fast, and it should not be forgotten that there would be so little left that this Bill might not be taken any advantage of at all. Some modifications might be required in Committee, and he had an idea that it was not the same Bill as the one which was introduced last year. The general principle of the measure, however, had his approval and he would support the Second Reading.
SIR A. TORRANCEsaid he had had forty-three years experience in the City of London, and when the hon. Member spoke on reservoirs of accumulated capital
1196
he touched a question which he was very sore upon. Succesful businesses had only been created by enterprise, and these reservoirs would lead to money being lent to suit the purposes of the lender. He would, however, want to know more about the matter before he could consent to such a state of things. Considerable speculation had been going on and business men might do well one year and badly another, and this limited liability system was a most dangerous one. He knew of a firm in London which had failed, and the debenture holders practically got all the money. This seemed to him to be a dangerous principle, and it would have to be very much better explained before he could accept the principle of limited partnership set forth in this measure.
SIR F. CAWLEYsaid that if a man desired to help a friend to start or extend a business he was not able to do so without risk to himself unless it was registered as a limited liability company. If a man desired to help a friend in that way and get some recompense in the shape of a share of the profits he became a partner, and was liable to the extent of every halfpenny he possessed in the world. Therefore he thought it was desirable that a man should be able to put money into a business and reap some recompense out of the profit without having the whole of his estate made liable for any default or failure of his partners to do their work properly. He regretted that the Bill had not come on at a time when more Members of the House were present, in order that more hon. Members could have expressed their views. The Bill was really a very important departure. It seemed to him that one of the clauses in particular might lead to some loss to people who were doing business with a firm because they knew that a certain capitalist had money in it. He did not believe that a partner ought to be able to draw his money out without its being advertised that he had ceased to be a partner in the firm. There were cases in which men of good reputation became members of firms, and afterwards became bankrupt, and he thought some provision should be made for cases of that sort. There were other clauses in the Bill which he thought required very careful scrutiny, and although he was prepared to support

1197
The Bill he regretted that the Second Reading had not received the scrutiny and criticism of a larger House.
MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)Said there was only one thing he had heard in the debate which called for an answer. His hon. friend apprehended that this Bill might possibly do a certain amount of mischief which arose already from the Limited Liability Bill and other Acts. The fact was that this Bill would only play a very small part, and he doubted whether it would make a substantial difference in the amount of money that was put into trading concerns on those terms. He wished to say a word as to the principle on which the danger of liability rested when a man put his money into a concern and wished to be a sleeping partner. He was not liable merely because he had put money in and agreed to take in return a share of the profits. As a matter of fact he was only liable as a partner if, in addition to his share of profits, there was an agency between him and the other members of the firm. During his experience he had never found the slightest difficulty in framing an agreement to avoid all dangers of that kind. Often when men put their money into business they insisted upon mixing themselves up in the management and sometimes held themselves out as men with influence who could control the other partners or as being in the position of agents for the other members of the firm, or else implying that the other members of the firm were agents for them. This now legislation ought to be directed towards finding an easy way of expressing what the obligations of the sleeping partner wore, and the most valuable thing in the Bill was the clause which said that hemight examine books. Let them suppose that a man acted in such a way as to hold himself out to be a partner. People might then rely upon his credit, and he was not sure whether under Clause 7 there was a provision which did not come in conflict with the end of sub-section 2 of Section 4 which said he was not to be liable beyond the amount contributed by him. The Bill ought to be considered with a view to prevent creditors relying on a man's position and credit when he was not really liable, and, on the other hand, to remove the pitfalls which acted unfairly
1198
in the case of a man who put his money into a concern as a sleeping partner.
SIRA. ACLAND-HOOD:said there seemed to be a great difference of opinion in regard to this measure, especially amongst business men. It was obviously a Bill of great importance, and therefore he did not think the House of Commons ought to pass it in a hurry after a few minutes discussion on a Friday afternoon, especially when the great bulk of hon. Members had gone elsewhere on pleasure bent. There were seventeen clauses in the Bill, and many of them raised important points. Under one of the clauses a new offence was created for which the unfortunate victim would be liable to two years hard labour. He had always held that the House should be very careful in creating new offences. At the present moment the Board of Trade and the Treasury were not represented, nor was there anyone present representing the English Law Officers. In those circumstances he thought that it was in the interest of the business men of the country that he should move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. BRIDGEMANseconded the Motion.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Sir A. Acland Hood).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,Yorkshire, Cleveland)said that this Bill was not in any way connected with his Department, but at the same time all Ministers were in some degree responsible for one another, they were in a partnership, however limited, and, therefore, he ventured on this occasion, feeling sure that his colleagues of the Board of Trade would approve of his action, to express the desire that this Bill should pass the Second Reading. The President of the Board of Trade had been detained at a meeting of the Cabinet, and that prevented his being in the House. If the Bill were really contentious, he would have agreed with the

1199
right hon. Gentleman as to the undesirability of its passing the Second Reading under the circumstances of the moment, but it had been generally regarded as an agreed Bill. He had reason to believe from personal knowledge that it was very greatly desired among bankers in the City of London, generally. It passed last year through the House of Lords. The present Lord Chancellor had expressed warm approval of the Bill. It was a measure which received in this House the support of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and, therefore, they might be sure that it could not have anything very objectionable or contentious in it. The Board of Trade approved of the Bill and desired its passage. They had been in close consultation with the lion. Member who had moved the Second Reading. He trusted the House would read the Bill a second time.
Question put, and negatived.

JURORS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. LLOYD MORGANin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said its object was to provide for the payment of the expenses of jurors who attended assizes and quarter sessions. It was not intended to remunerate jurors for the services they rendered, but merely to provide the out of pocket expenses incurred by jurymen in the discharge of their duties, He was sorry for many reasons that the attendance in the House was so thin, for the question with which the Bill dealt was not only important, but it was one in which large classes of people were considerably interested. The modest proposal of the Bill was that jurymen who attended assizes and quarter sessions should be paid their travelling expenses, and the other expenses incurred if they had to spend a night away from home. The way in which that was provided for in the Bill was quite simple. The county
1200
council or the borough council had to make a scale of allowances for each night a juryman was away from home, and of the sum which he was to receive per mile for travelling expenses. That scale of charges was to be submitted to the Home Office for approval. The other part of the Bill dealt with the machinery by which that was to be carried out. The Bill only applied to England and Wales. The question of the payment of the expenses of jurymen had not been discussed in the House during the eighteen years he had been a Member, but it had been before the House a considerable number of years ago. In 1868 the question was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee reported in favour of the payment to special jurors of £1 1s., and to common jurors of 10s. 6d. a day. The recommendations of the Select Committee were embodied in an Act of Parliament in 1870, but difficulty arose with regard to machinery when the assizes were going on, and the payments could not bemade. In 1871 the Attorney-General of the day moved the repeal of the section which provided for the payments. In doing so he intimated that he himself, and the Government he represented, agreed that the payments should be made, but that the repeal of the section was moved because of the difficulty which had arisen in the matter of machinery. It was the intention of the Government in the following year to deal with the subject by legislation, but from that day to this the question had never been dealt with. He submitted that there was a strong case now why jurymen should be paid their expenses when attending assizes. The circumstances were quite different now from what they were years ago. The work had vastly increased.
And notice being taken at twenty minutes before Three of the Clock that 40 Members were not present, the House was told by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and 19 Members only being present, Mr. Deputy Speaker retired from the Chair until Four of the Clock, when the House was again told by Mr. Speaker, and 33 Members only being present, the House was adjourned by Mr. Speaker without a Question first put till Monday next.
Adjourned at Four o'clock till Monday next.