said, the clause certainly carried out the general undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman, and he had no observation to make upon it, except one; and that was to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he had chosen Sunday as the day upon which to take the Census? Sunday was a day which, in London, did not give so fair a view of the resident inhabitants as any other day. There were certain townships which would certainly be weakened in population by taking Sunday for the Census clay. He understood that the particular day was the Sunday before Easter, and he roust say he did not think that would be a convenient day. A Sunday ought not to be taken at all except for some special consideration.

said, he should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had assured himself that six weeks was a sufficient period to give the Local Authorities for the preparation of the first Returns? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he had made any inquiry.

said, he had no desire for a voluminous Census at the quinquential interval, and he was sure that a Census of the kind suggested would be of great assistance. They knew that the General Census had proved very wide of the estimate. The Registrar General had, no doubt, made the best calculation he could from the materials at his command; but he hoped that in the future there would be considerable assistance, in London at all events, arising from this Quinquennial Census.

said, that in some parishes of London, and especially in Hampstead, where the population was steadily increasing, to take the Census on Sunday, particularly at the time of Easter, would place them at a great disadvantage, for a large number of people would be out of town. He would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was meant by the allusion in the second line of Sub-section 3?

said, he had chosen Sunday because it was in accordance with the universal practice to take them upon that day. The Registrar General had informed him that there were certain conveniences in taking the Census on a Sunday. He had selected the Sunday before Easter, instead of the Sunday after Easter, as a small concession to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. That would be fair, at all events, to some parishes, and especially St. George's, Hanover Square. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Islington, the Local Government Board had carefully considered whether six weeks would be sufficient. All that the Local Authorities would have to do was to fill in the number of houses rated, which was not a very large work, and ought very well to be concluded in six weeks.

said, he could not pretend to be satisfied with the small concession that the President of the Board of Trade had made. It would be more proper to take this Quinquennial Census on some other day than Sunday. As he had said, on that day a large proportion of the population would be out of London. However, the right hon. Gentleman was master of the position, and he (Mr. Goschen) did not propose to move any Amendment, because he was afraid that in the present condition of the House it would be impossible to obtain a majority. In the interests of his constituents he repeated he did not think Sunday a well-chosen day for the Census.

proposed an Amendment omitting from line 6 the words "form a fund" in relation to the Equalisation Fund, in order to insert "open an account," contending that the latter was the more proper description of what was really done.

said, he had carefully considered this matter, and although the description "open an account" might properly describe the operation in the earlier sections, it did not describe the transactions later OD, and "fund" was the proper expression. The Government had a precedent for the term they had chosen in the Act of 1870, for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible, where the expression used was "the Common Poor Law Fund."

asked to be allowed to move the Third Reading of the Bill.

said, he did not wish to delay the Third Reading of the Bill. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having incorporated into the Bill an Amendment which he set down in almost his own words. So far as his opinion went, he thought the Bill would be advantageous to the Metropolis, less on account of its equalising results, which he did not think would be considerable, than on account of the requirement that the authorities should render a statutory account of the mode in which they had spent on the various services the grant out of the Equalisation Fund. The account required to be ren- dered would probably do as much to equalise rates in the true sense of the term as any other provision of the Bill, because it would bring to light the differences in the expenditure by the various parishes on these services which he pointed out in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would not give them the control they asked for; but the very fact of the rendering of an account being made compulsory would, he was convinced, operate as a check on some extravagantly disposed Local Authorities. Out of the 40 authorities enumerated in the Parliamentary Return, no less than 21 did not give a separate return of the amount spent on lighting. In these cases lighting was included in the general rate, and, as they all knew, lighting was just one of those services in which extravagance or luxury was possible without saying it was indulged in. He thought it would be a great advantage to have this expenditure included in a Parliamentary Return, and he was quite sure it would be extremely instructive to know how much of the Equalisation Fund was spent on the various services, so that Parliament might know to what extent this Bill had accomplished the end they all desired—namely, that of an aid to sanitary expenditure, especially in the poorer districts. In his view the success of the Bill would not be tested so much by its equalising results, which would not be large, as by the effect it produced on the efficient administration of the sanitation of London, which he hoped might be both lasting and important.

said, that whatever the opinion might be, with regard to the usefulness of the measure, of those hon. Members who sat on his side of the House, they certainly felt that they had done their best to limit the evil results that they saw would arise under the provisions of the Bill as it first came before the House. While he could not regard the Bill in the same rosy light as the hon. Member for Islington did, he believed it to be a genuine and honest effort on the part of the Government to introduce some reform in local finance and other matters directly connected with it.

felt that many wise Amendments had been brought forward by those who in the first instance opposed the Bill, and he begged to thank hon. Members for the assistance they had given him, which had enabled him to effect many important alterations in the Bill.

said, he only agreed with this Amendment so far as this Bill was concerned. Did he understand that this Amendment only applied to complaints arising under the Bill now before the House?

said, yes, that was so.

said, he had no doubt this clause would be accepted by the House, but he desired to point out that it must he accepted as a compromise, not as to the whole matters in dispute as between the traders and the Railway Companies, but a compromise with regard to only a portion of the matters in dispute. It did not deal with two subjects which received special consideration before the Select Committee—namely, the question of risk notes and the composition of the tribunal which was to decide matters of this kind. The Committee reported that the question of the risk notes of Railway Companies required consideration and alteration, and also pointed to other matters equally needing revision. This clause, therefore, did not settle the dispute, but dealt with only one portion of the dispute. As to the method with which it dealt with this one portion, he could not say ho thought it altogether satisfactory to the traders. He did not now propose to go into details, but he could only regard the sub-section, which compelled the payment by the claimant within 14 days of the 1892 rate, as one which would work unfairly, and he thought that injustice would be done under the sub-section if it became law as they amended it on Friday night, on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach). What would occur under that sub-section of the Bill as it stood was this: At present the 1892 rate was taken as the standard rate for traders. Presently an increase on the 1892 rate, which had not been challenged, would be taken as the standard rate; presently an increase on the increase, which had not been challenged, would be taken as the standard rate. Under those circumstances, he could not regard the compromise as altogether a happy one; but as it was important that the Bill should be passed through Committee that night, he should not ask the Committee to disagree with the clause.

said, he desired to support the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He thought they had a light to complain, and ought to complain, of the manner in which this great and important question had been treated by the Government. Last year the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told them that a Committee was to be appointed in order to accelerate the dealing with this important question in the interests of the traders. They were told the Committee would only sit for a few days, and they would then make a Report, and that upon that Report legislation would be immediately proceeded with. Many of them were not satisfied with the Report of the Select Committee, and he thought that if the Committee itself and the terms of Reference had been widened they might have had a Report which would have proved a good basis for legislative action. The interests of traders all over the country were such as to require the Government to give them proper and fair and reasonable time to discuss this question in the House; as it was they were driven to the fag-end of the Session when many Members were worn out, and were not able to be present to give them their assistance on this question. Traders could not regard this as a satisfactory measure, and he would not have accepted this clause if they had not been driven into a corner by the Government. They were, however, obliged to accept it, as it was in the power of the Railway Companies to press them for those rates which, even by the admission of the Committee, were excessive. He accepted the Bill simply as being better than nothing at all, but he claimed to have an early re-consideration of the whole question. He hoped sufficient time would be allowed between this and the Report stage to enable them to fully consider the clause as amended, because he doubted very much whether the Amendment would quite harmonise with the clause.

said, he would like to take that opportunity of saying that the action he had felt himself compelled to take with regard to this Bill was largely due to the fact that this year he happened to represent, as their Chairman, the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, and it must be well within the knowledge of many Members of the House that the Central Chamber had passed many resolutions demanding a much more stringent clause than the present one, demanding legislation that would give the right of appeal to traders in the case of all rates, and that it had also passed resolutions in the present year condemning in the most emphatic way the inadequate Report of the Select Committee and condemning this Bill, which was more or less based upon that Report. He thought these resolutions of an important Agricultural Body, representing many farmers and many large societies of the country, had deserved a fuller consideration, and should have received a fuller consideration, from the Government and the House than they had. He must express a hope that before they parted with this Bill they would have some more definite assurance than that which had already been given by his right hon. Friend that this stopgap Bill was not the end of this question. With regard to the action of the Railway Companies in reference to this Bill, and the changes which they had managed to obtain in it, he ventured to say that a large section of the country would be convinced that the Railway Companies had, as usual, got the best of them in regard to the essential questions at issue. The Railway Companies had been enabled to assert their influence with the Board of Trade in a way prejudicial to the interests of the trade of this country, and had practically secured for themselves and for their shareholders greater consideration than even the very inadequate Report of the Select Committee of last year would have led the country to expect. He would like to point out what the situation was that had arisen. They were asked to afford this small relief to traders now, and they were asked to afford it on the strength of the Report which condemned in the most emphatic terms the whole policy and conduct of the Railway Companies in using the powers which Parliament and the Board of Trade most unfortunately placed in their hands. The Report made it perfectly clear that the Railway Companies entered into under takings with the Board of Trade which they violated by the outrageous increase of rates carried out at the beginning of 1893. He did say, therefore, that they must have an understanding with the Government that this stop-gap measure was not the completion of the duty of Parliament, and of the Government with regard to this question, and that when the question of the reconstitution of the Railway Commission came under the review of Parliament, as it must shortly, they would have an adequate and complete investigation of and decision on all these questions, and thus supplement what was imperfect and inadequate in the present Bill. He must take great exception to the Amendments which were rushed upon the House at the very last moment on Friday night, without being even placed on the Paper, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol. He did not think it was fair in treating this Bill as an uncontested measure to have Amendments introduced——

said, he must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he must discuss the clause as it was. He could not discuss how particular Amendments came to be introduced.

asked if he could not discuss the clause with the Amendment as it now stood?

said, the hon. Member could not discuss the manner in which Amendments came to be introduced to in the Bill.

said, be would discuss that portion of the clause in which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol was embodied. Of course, it might be contended by the right hon. Gentleman that his intention was to provide for the case in which the existing rate might have been below the actual rate of 1892, and that in that case the Amendment would operate in favour of the trader, and that he would not be called upon to pay into Court the whole of the rate liable to be charged above the rate of 1892, but only to pay the rate which was actually being levied upon him and demanded from him by the Company immediately before the increase was made. So far that might be an advantage to the trader, but the words were liable to a very different construction and to a very different operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity of further explaining the intention of this Amendment, in which case the time of the House would be usefully occupied. The difficulty, he would point out, was this. They might have an increase made upon the rate of 1892. That increase might have been left uncontested by the trader. For various reasons he might not have taken some of the increases made last year before the Railway Commissioners under the powers of this Bill. In that case, if the Railway Company saw their way to make a still further increase on any class of traffic, under the wording of the clause as it at present stood, it was perfectly plain that the trader would be called upon to pay into Court, not the old rate of 1892, but the whole of the increase which, for various reasons, he might not have seen his way to challenge in the interval. The Railway Companies would, in fact, by the form of words now introduced into the clause, have a sanction for the increased rate as well as the rate of 1892. He did say that the Bill was objectionable enough already to the traders all over the country because of its fundamental principle, which introduced a sanction of the rates of 1892, and this mischief would be still more aggravated for the traders, if the Railway Companies were enabled, as the words might enable them, in case one of the increases of their rates was not immediately challenged under this Bill before the Railway Commissioners, and they made any further increases to secure, by a side wind, this result: that not only the rate of 1892, but the whole of the increase upon the rate of 1892 should be made unassailable and unquestionable before the Railway Commissioners. It was perfectly true that the Amendment only affected money paid into Court, but that might create a presumption against the jurisdiction of the Commissioners over the increase on the rate of 1892. Unless the explanation of those words was satisfactory, or unless words could be introduced which would remove and make wholly impossible the difficulty which had occurred to him in this connection, and which might operate very prejudicially to the traders in the future, he should feel it his duty to offer the most strenuous opposition to the further passing of this Bill.

said, he had no wish to go into the general question. They might discuss it that night and the next day also before they arrived at any common understanding or conclusion with regard to it. He had the honour to be a Member of the Committee which made the Report on which this Bill was founded. He concurred in that Report, which was supported by a very considerable majority, in favour of a limited discretion to the Railway Commissioners in dealing with the cases of increases of rates, and not throwing open all rates to question in the Railway Commissioners Court. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire and other hon. Members had questioned certain words which, at his suggestion, were inserted in the clause late on Friday night. He should have been very glad if he could have placed them on the Paper so that hon. Members might have seen them. But the fact was, that his own attention was only called to the wording of the Amendment which was to be moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University on Friday afternoon, so that he had no opportunity of doing so. What appeared to him, and what he believed also appeared to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the experienced permanent officials of the Board of Trade, was that as the Amendment of his right hon. Friend stood it only had regard to those cases in which the Rail- way Companies had, as had often been complained, raised the rates of 1892 on the 1st of January, 1893, and that those who framed the Amendment had omitted to consider those cases of future increases which, of course, if made, would be subject to redress by the Court of the Railway Commissioners. Of course, as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had just observed, supposing a rate existed at a certain point on the 31st December, 1892, was then raised on the 1st of January, 1893, and was subsequently lowered after that time, and then raised again to a point below that of the 31st of December, 1892, as the clause stood the traders would have been seriously damnified. Again, only a portion of their rates were raised by the Railway Companies on the 1st of January, 1893, when they endeavoured, as the Committee reported, to recoup themselves for certain diminutions which the Act of 1888 made in their power to charge in some matters by raising their previous rates on other articles on which they had the power to do so. But with regard to those rates which were not raised on the 1st of January, 1893? Supposing the Railway Companies were to lower them? No one would complain; but if, after they had lowered any of those rates, they afterwards tried to increase them, then it would be obviously unfair to call upon the trader, before his appeal could be heard, to pay into Court the rate calculated on a higher basis than that which existed at the time of the increase being made against which he appealed. That was the object of his Amendment. He believed the words as inserted in the clause carried out that without doing any harm to the trader at all. But he quite admitted the question was one of a complicated and difficult nature; and so far as he was personally concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should be advised by those who were very well qualified to advise him that any alteration of those words would be fairer to the traders or fairer to both parties, he certainly should raise no objection to them being altered. His sole object in moving the Amendment was to make the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, who he thought was very capable of taking care of the Railway Companies, more favourable to the traders than it was in the shape he moved it. He believed it carried that out; but if it did not, it was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to alter it later on.

I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol whether words to this effect would meet his view?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is competent to do that.

said, he only wished to say, on behalf of the agricultural interest, that he did not think the agriculturists of this country were of opinion that this Bill was much worthy of their acceptance. They could not regard it as a complete, or equitable, or fair settlement of this question, and they would undoubtedly look to future legislation to remove those grievances and inequalities which they thought would still exist.

said, he was responsible for the introduction of this Bill, and his name was on the back of it. He believed that the changes that had been made in the Bill, on the whole, made it a very fair and reasonable settlement of the question. The Bill now fairly carried out the recommendations of the Committee. He had looked at it very carefully, and he could not find that it in any way fell short of the Committee's Report. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Dodd) had said that it failed to reconstitute the Railway Commission. They all knew why it did not deal with that question. The Committee itself made no recommendations on that subject, but there was no doubt that the Commission must be reconstituted. It was not satisfactory. He did not think it was satisfactory to gentlemen sitting on either side of the House, or to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol himself. When the first opportunity presented itself for the reconstitution of the Commission there was no doubt it would be so constituted as to make the Commission more acceptable to the traders and the community generally. But, with respect to the action of the Railway Companies in raising the rates, no one had suffered more than he had, and he resented their action as much as the hon. Members (Mr. channing and Mr. Dodd), but ho believed that, so far from this being a mere stop-gap Bill, it was a much more important Bill than Mr. Channing considered. If it was a stop-gap Bill, the gap it occupied was a very important one, and it was a gap that the traders themselves wanted stopping. The Board of Trade had received innumerable letters, memorials, and deputations urging that the increase made on the rates of 1892 should be subject to revision; and he believed it to be a great satisfaction to the traders to have that question finally settled. He could not recall an instance in which they demanded that the whole rates should be opened. What they desired was that the rates which were raised by the action of the Railway Companies—he might say the capricious action of the Railway Companies — on the 1st of January, 1893, should be subject to revision, and that they should be reduced. He believed that, so far from the Board of Trade being subject to the pressure of the Railway Companies, great pressure had been brought to bear by the Board of Trade on the Railway Companies themselves. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) had carried through the negotiations with great firmness, and he thought the Railway Companies had really behaved at the last moment with considerable moderation and reasonableness. He believed the Bill, with the Amendments in it, would give satisfaction to the trading community; and with the operation of Section 31, which was constantly in operation and constantly doing excellent work in reducing typical rates, he believed the Bill offered a very important opening for the revision of any unreasonable rates to which the traders might be subjected.

said, that with reference to what had fallen from several hon. Members with regard to the Amendment settled on Friday night, he desired to assure the hon. Member for Northamptonshire and the hon. Member for Essex that what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol was perfectly accurate. This Amendment was introduced in the interests of traders, because it was plain that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University as it stood did not deal with one case in which they might be prejudiced. He did not think the Amendment was inequitable to the trader in the way in which his hon. Friends had pointed out, and he could assure them that it in no way affected the right of the traders, which was safeguarded under Clause 1. He would like to assure his hon. Friends that the words accepted on Friday had been very carefully considered; but he would, with those who advised him in this matter, carefully consider whether the danger which they apprehended could possibly arise; and if they were of opinion that it would arise, he would see what words could be introduced to guard against it. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire was entirely mistaken if he thought the Board of Trade had been influenced in this matter by the Railway Companies. On the contrary, the Board of Trade had put a great deal of pressure on the Railway Companies. The reason ho pressed the Bill, which was not all ho could desire himself, was because he believed that in the circumstances it was the most that could be effected, and that if it passed it would give a very substantial advantage to traders of which in the months to come they would reap the advantage.

said, he was surprised at the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield that the traders would be quite satisfied to have the rates of 1892 fixed.

said, that what he said was, that all the complaints which reached him when he was at the Board of Trade was with reference to the excesses upon the rates of 1892, and that the applications to the Board of Trade were that those excesses should be reduced—not that the whole of the rates should be re-opened.

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the deputation which waited upon him in one of the Committee Rooms, great dissatisfaction was felt that the Bill was so narrow in its scope, and that at that time he tried to pacify some of those who felt so strongly upon the matter by telling them that the Bill was so framed that it would re-open the whole question. He did lead them to expect that where the rate had been increased after 1892 it would be open to the traders to open the whole rate on the ground of reasonableness. They were certainly led to expect, when the Bill was brought in, that it would be open, under its provisions, to raise the question of the reasonableness of the whole rate.

said that, as Chairman of the Committee that investigated this matter, and as the one who drew up the Report, he desired to say a few words. He desired to point out that, the whole of the evidence was confined to the raising of the rates since 1892. He believed he was right in saying that there was no evidence whatever brought before the Committee in respect of any other rates than those that had been raised at the beginning of 1893. He thought it might be well worthy of consideration at some future time whether the operation of this Bill might not be extended. If it were extended, it must be after full inquiry as to the rates which existed other than those which were raised in 1893. But certainly it would not have been right for the Committee to have reported with regard to rates in respect of which there was no evidence before them, and which were outside the scope of the Reference. He was bound to say that the evidence in regard to those rates was not by any means complete.

said, he thought his right hon. Friend must have forgotten the last words of the Reference to the Committee, which gave them a perfect right to go into the whole question of the revision of rates.

appealed very strongly to the President of the Board of Trade to scrutinise closely the words of the Amendment, because some words had crept into the Act of 1888 which had had an entirely unanticipated effect as against the traders and which had proved most dangerous to the interests of the traders. It must be borne in mind that the Rail- way Companies bad the most experienced legal assistance, and knew the effect of every word they suggested to the President of the Board of Trade. He believed the professional advisers at the back of the Railway Companies were far superior to those at the back of the President of the Board of Trade, and he thought, therefore, that the Government would do well to be careful as to the words they adopted. He regretted very much that the Government had thought fit to proceed with this Bill at this period of the Session, as it was a most important measure.

said, the Members of the Committee had consisted largely of Railway Directors and friends of Railway Companies, and yet an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir B. Samuelson) was accepted, and this clause was inserted, commencing, "The minimum the trader is entitled to." It was upon this provision that Parliament was basing its legislation. He did not agree in the censure that had been passed upon the Report of the Committee. He regarded it as an excellent historical Report, although he thought that the recommendations it contained were weak.

said, no doubt in some cases, perhaps in many, it might be an advantage to traders not to have the question of costs determined by the tribunal, but at the same time he regarded the provision as being a two-edged sword. He thought it an extraordinary thing that the tribunal could not be trusted to deal with the question of costs.

I do not think my hon. Friend is fair, if he will allow me to say so, in suggesting that this clause shows any want of confidence on the part of the Select Committee in the tribunal. That was not the point at all. It was alleged, and I believe it was very strongly felt by the traders, that, whereas the Railway Companies could afford to retain the services of the very best solicitors and barristers at the highest possible fees, the private litigant in many eases could not do so, and it was regarded as hard that such a litigant should have to pay the costs of the Railway Companies on a high scale if the decision happened to be against him. The Committee therefore considered that the rule which, I believe, obtains in our Committee Rooms upstairs should be enforced in this case. Whatever may be thought of the Railway Commissioners as a tribunal, I may say that they cheerfully accepted this proposal, and in fact approved of it in their evidence before the Committee.

said, he considered the clause to be mistaken, inasmuch as it meant that if a complainant was ever so right, he could not have his costs. He preferred the ordinary English rule, that the man who won got his costs, while the man who lost had to pay them. The Report of the Committee, he thought, made it plain that the question of the composition of the tribunal, the Railway Commission, must shortly be considered, and that showed that the clause dealt only with a very provisional state of circumstances, and that the whole of this question would before long come again before Parliament. Under these circumstances, having expressed his own opinion on the clause, he would not vote against it.

asked whether the clause would cover the objects of the clauses which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton with regard to the analysis of rates, private sidings, and so on?

said, it would. The clause was really based upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It had been very carefully considered by the Government draftsman, and by the representatives of the traders, who were agreed that it carried out the object of the hon. Member's Amendment.

said, he thought the clause would furnish a very valuable amendment in the law.

said, his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. D. Plunket) had asked him to say that he hoped the Government would not accept this clause. It was not one of those proposals upon which the Railway Companies looked with favour, and he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) hoped the House would limit itself to those Amendments which had been agreed to by both parties.

said, he must, refuse to accept the Amendment, not because the Railway Companies objected to it, but because he thought on its merits it was not a desirable proposal. He thought that the Debates that had taken place, and the opinions that had been expressed by the traders, would be a sufficient record of the fact that they had not accepted this Bill as one that was satisfactory to them. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Channing), he did not think it advisable to overload the Expiring Laws Continuance Act with Bills.

asked for an explanation of the differences between the proposed new clause and one on the same subject which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Leicester (Sir J. Whitehead). He wished to know whether the words "at any siding or branch railway not belonging to the Company" were not rather ambiguous? Supposing a siding or a branch railway were leased by a Railway Company, would that be regarded as not belonging to the Railway Company?

The differences between the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester (Sir J. Whitehead) and my own are only differences of drafting. The words "not belonging to the Company" have been used in other Acts relating to this matter, and would cover the case of a siding that was leased—that is to say, that such a siding would not be excluded. The clause has been accepted by those who represent the traders, and I think the form in which it has been drafted will be found to be the most convenient and the safest.

rising to Order, asked whether the hon. Baronet had a right to make a Second Reading speech on the Bill?

The hon. Baronet is not entitled to discuss the Bill at all at this moment. He must confine himself to reasons for his Motion.

said, he was endeavouring to give reasons for reporting Progress. The Bill would have a much greater effect upon the country than the Budget of the present year; and when he remembered how many Members had paired and saw how thin the House was, he contended that they were not in a position to give all the attention they ought to give to a subject of such vast importance. The Government had taken the unusual course of granting facilities for a private Members' Bill, whilst they were leaving over for another year Bills which had been announced in the Queen's Speech, and which were of a much more national character than that now before the Committee. It was a most unusual course for the House at so late a period of the Session to take up a Bill of so important a character, and especially one that would interfere with the rights of adult labour.

Of course, I cannot go into the earlier topics dealt with by my hon. Friend in his speech, as they really did seem to me to be arguments against the Second Reading of the Bill. At an earlier period of the Session, when the House was very full, the principle of the Bill was affirmed by a very large majority, and, therefore, I think we can put aside all the earlier reasons given by my hon. Friend for having made this Motion. I would ask the Committee whether it is not the desire of the great majority of Members to deal with this Bill, and to deal with it now? If the Committee is not of that opinion it has the opportunity of expressing its view upon the Motion of my hon. Friend. Everybody has had full notice for weeks past that this Bill was to be dealt with, and there has throughout the country been a full expectation that it would be considered today. I think it would be a matter of great surprise and disappointment to the many thousands of people, on whose behalf my hon. Friend professes to speak, if it were found that the House of Commons was not willing to entertain the question to-day. Miners have for a long time looked forward to the discussion of this question, and would resent it if the Committee now determined not to consider a matter which has so long been pending. Those are the reasons why I for my part cannot assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend; but of course it is for the Committee to say whether or not they desire to proceed with this stage of the Bill.

said, he thought the Motion of the hon. Baronet was fully justified by the circumstances of the case. It appeared to him to be little short of a public scandal that a Bill of that important kind—not being a Government Bill—should receive facilities for discussion from the Government at a time so late in the Session, when practically the only proper business which remained to be got through was the business of Supply—a time moreover when probably more than half the Members of the House were paired and away. The hon. Baronet had emphasised, as he was justified in doing, the importance of the Bill, which introduced a most novel principle and was brought forward in the interests of a section of the community—indeed, he might say of a portion of a section of the community, although it must profoundly affect the interests of the community generally. The Bill dealt with an industry which numbered 600,000 workers—an industry which provided a cheap and abundant supply of fuel without which the great industries of the I country, on which their prosperity depended, could not be carried on. He would like to ask what discussion the Bill had received up to the present time? The only discussion which it had received was the extremely imperfect and perfunctory discussion of two Wednesday afternoon Debates. This showed that the Bill had not received mature consideration. He did not hesitate to say that a Bill of this extreme importance and far - reaching character should not receive facilities under any circumstances unless the Government of the day not only ensured that it should have mature consideration, but were prepared to take the responsibility upon themselves of making it a Govern- ment measure. But he contended above all that facilities ought not to be given to such a measure at a time like this. It was notorious that pairs were made on Party grounds. What did that mean? It meant that at the present time the House did not fairly represent the balance of opinion in regard to that Bill, or any Bill which was not drawn upon Party lines. These considerations seemed so obvious that one could not help asking what were the reasons which had induced the Government to give this Bill exceptional facilities? When the Leader of the House announced that it was his intention to give this Bill exceptional facilities, he offered to the House two reasons for doing so. One of these was that the supporters of the Bill had obtained an exceptionally favourable place by means of the ballot, and the other was that the Bill raised important questions which it was desirable should be submitted this year to the judgment of the House of Commons. If the first of those reasons was to prevail and form a standing precedent for future occasions it was clear that every year there would be half-a-dozen Bills or more which it would be necessary for the Government to add to their programme or to give exceptional facilities for, even at the end of the Session. As to the second reason—that the Bill raised important issues which should be decided by the House of Commons—that was an argument against giving facilities, not in favour of doing so. If a Bill raised important considerations it was all the more important that it should be brought forward at a time when the House could fairly debate those important considerations. If it was desirable that the judgment of the House should be expressed upon it, let it be expressed at a time when the House fairly represented the division of opinion in the House upon the question at issue. He thought it was impossible to doubt that the real reason why the Government had given these exceptional facilities to the Bill was that the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government, early in the year, at a time when the Government seemed to have given very little consideration to the Bill, and when lie must have been very imperfectly acquainted with the views of his colleagues upon the Bill, gave a promise that the measure should receive excep- tional facilities. He, of course, understood the difficulty of the position in which the Government was placed owing to those pledges given by its head. But the Government had duties to the public and to the House as well as to a section of its followers, and he thought the interests of the public and the House demanded that the Bill should not be discussed at that late period of the Session. He could hardly expect the Members of the Government themselves to support the Motion, but he thought they might fairly ask that they should not influence their followers to vote against it, and that if the Motion were carried they should agree that the Bill should no longer be proceeded with.

said, the position of the Bill was that it had passed the Second Reading by a considerable majority. It was brought in by a private Member, and was in the category of private Members' Bills. Were there no other Bills of the same character—no other Bills which had passed that House by large majorities and were as much entitled to the special consideration of Her Majesty's Government, if not more entitled? For instance, there was the Rating of Machinery Bill, which had been approved in that House by large majorities for two or three years, which was not a Party measure, and which, in his judgment, had far more claim upon the Government than had the measure before the House. He could not quite understand the position the Government had taken up on the Bill. He had been under the impression that the Government took the whole time of the House in order to push forward the measures to which the Party was pledged, but instead of carrying those measures into effect the Government had taken the Bill selected especially from all the Bills which had been passed by large majorities and had given it preference, not only over those Bills, but over their own measures. As a supporter of the Government, and as representing a district which had returned a large number of supporters of the Government to the House, he protested against their present action. He thought they had treated with but scant courtesy the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, which had for years sent an almost unbroken phalanx of Members to represent the Liberal cause in Parliament. If the Bill had been made a Government measure Members would have known upon whose shoulders rested the responsibility of pressing it forward; but the Government seemed, for some reason or other, not to have had the courage of their convictions. He could not see why they should not have taken the responsibility of the Bill upon their own shoulders; but what had they actually done? Not only had they given special facilities for the consideration of the measure, but they had issued a four or five-line Whip for the Second Reading, and that morning again a five-line Whip had been sent out and special attention called to the Bill. He regarded the discussion of the Second Reading as absolutely inadequate to the importance of the subject. He himself, as representing a constituency deeply interested in the question, was specially anxious to give his views upon it on that occasion, and rose practically every time there was an opportunity, but he failed to catch the Speaker's eye, and in the end the Debate was closured. He strongly supported his hon. Friend's Motion, and he hoped the Government would see their way to agree to the proposal he had made.

said, the hon. Baronet who had moved to report Progress and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken were such faithful supporters of the Government that he was convinced they would not have taken such a course as they had adopted had they not felt bound to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had only an hour before expressed the opinion that the inscription, "Abandon hope all ye who introduce Bills into this House in the middle of August," ought to be put up. What discussion had they actually had upon the Bill? Two miserable Wednesday afternoons in an attenuated and listless House; scarcely anyone speaking for more than 10 minutes, most of the people best worth hearing not speaking at all, and the discussion finally terminated by the closure. They had not heard the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition upon the Bill; above all, they had not heard the opinion of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He was specially anxious to know what that right hon. Gentleman had to say, as well as the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Under Secretary for the Home Department? As a good Party man he was ready to believe most things of the present Government, but he could never have believed that they would have assisted to rush such an important Bill through the House at that period of the Session. Apparently many other people were of the same opinion, for he noticed that of the gentlemen who had some of the most important Amendments down on the Paper, many were absent. Attention had been called to the fact that there were about 200 Sessional pairs, so that the Bill was apparently going to be decided by a House of about 100 Members. It must be borne in mind that the Bill was not only opposed from the Opposition side of the House, it was still more violently opposed by many of the Government's own supporters, and yet they were told that it was going to be rushed through the House in a couple of days. He had no hesitation in characterising the action of the Government as a Parliamentary outrage of the worst possible description.

suggested to the hon. Baronet who had moved that Progress be reported that, after the expression of opinion which had been evoked, he might fairly withdraw his proposition and let the Committee proceed with the discussion of the Bill. With regard to the action of the Government respecting the measure, he might say that as one of the least of the Liberal Party, he had been, in and out of the House, one of its consistent supporters. He had done his best to assist in the return to that House of Members pledged to support Liberal measures, because he believed those measures were best for the class to which they belonged; but during the present Session they had seen the most complete setting aside of any recognition of the views he and those from the North had expressed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that sufficient time had been given to the House to allow Members to prepare themselves for that Debate. From time to time, he, with others, had put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him to name the date on which the Debate would be taken, and to state, as nearly as he could, the amount of time which would be allotted to it. But there had been the most constant evasion of the questions. He had done his very best to ascertain that they might be prepared, but he ventured to say, looking at the pairs which had been made, as pairs are continually made, on Party lines, that the House was not in a state in which a question like that could be properly discussed. It seemed to him that the Government had taken upon their shoulders a burden they shrank from carrying. If they were so enamoured of the measure, why had they not made it a Government measure—why were they going to allow it to pass, with their support, as a private Member's Bill. He knew that he was expressing the opinion of a large number of working men outside when he said the opponents of the Bill had not been treated in the fairest of manners, but he would, nevertheless, advise the hon. Baronet that, having obtained that expression of opinion from both sides of the House, he should allow the Committee to proceed with the discussion of the Bill.

said, he had the honour of representing a large mining constituency—indeed, he believed the majority of those on the Register were employed more or less in mining occupations. He had been in communication with a large number of his constituents, and he felt that it would be a grave injustice to them if the Bill were forced through the House of Commons at the present time. The feeling against the Bill was most earnest and emphatic on the part of a large proportion of the mining population—a proportion so large that, though a minority, it was entitled to the utmost respect—and he felt that the great questions involved in the measure could not receive due consideration so late in the month of August. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had reminded the Committee that the Second Reading was carried by a large majority; but the Bill was essentially a measure of detail, and many Members who supported the Second Reading were anxious to see carried important Amendments which would, in their opinion, make the Bill more effective. The discussion of those Amendments must occupy some time. The interests involved were gigantic, overwhelming, almost overpowering; and he felt that the House would not be doing justice to those affected—employers, employed, or the country at large—if they proceeded further with the measure that day. For it was not only the employers and employed in the mining districts who were concerned in the matter—there was the great body of consumers; and he was certain that the passing of the Bill would enhance the price of coal.

I do not think that is quite the question under consideration.

I only mentioned it as an illustration of the gigantic interests involved in this question, and, therefore, as a reason why the Bill should not be discussed at this period of the Session. I am glad to have had an opportunity of making this protest, and I know I shall have the thanks of many in the borough I represent.

said, the Leader of the House had stated that he proposed to resist the Motion, on the ground that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by very large majorities of the House. He had taken the trouble to analyse the figures of the Divisions, and he found that in May, 1893, the number of Members who took part was 484, and that the majority was 78. In April, 1894, this year, 479 Members took part, and the majority was 87. Of the Members who voted in the Aye Lobby last year 45 were absent this year, and 63 who voted in the No Lobby last year were absent this year. One changed his vote from Aye to No. Four, owing to extreme pressure from the Government, changed their votes from No to Aye. Therefore, the total of those in favour of the Bill was 326, and of those in opposition to the Bill wore 257. Those who faced both ways were five, and those who were absent altogether were 82. The majority of those who voted was therefore 69, and that did not equal the number of those who abstained from voting. He thought that if a Bill of this importance was to be proceeded with, it should only be with the support of the majority of the whole House. This had never been the case with respect to this measure, and was another reason why they should not now legislate in a hurry. In the majorities to which he had referred the Nationalist vote of 64 Members went solidly in favour of the Second Reading. He hoped that that solidity would not be maintained in any future Divisions on the Bill, for though the Nationalist Members, in voting on the Second Reading, might have believed that they were supporting a democratic principle they were not voting for the advantage of the whole community. Another reason why the Bill should not go at that late period was that the Labour Commission Report had been issued since the Second Reading Division. That Report should have due weight attached to it in the consideration of such a measure as this. But that was an advantage which they could not have at this late period of the Session.

said, he wished to join in an appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press his Motion to a Division. A very timely protest had been entered against the action of the Government in specially facilitating the Bill, but, that protest having been entered, he did not think anything further would be gained by persisting in the Motion, and if a Division were taken upon it a wrong impression might be created. At the same time, he fully agreed with the strictures which the hon. Baronet had passed upon the shilly-shally attitude of the Government, who, he thought, had not even treated their own supporters fairly, and whose action in no way redounded to their credit. Not only had no adequate discussion taken place so far, but the country had had no opportunity of expressing an opinion either on the Bill itself or on the proposals which would be made to amend it. The Bill was not in the Government programme; it was not in the Newcastle programme. More than that, it was deliberately excluded, after full consideration, from that programme, on which, practically, the Government were returned to power. Several reasons had been given for the curious attitude of the Government, but he did not know that it was desirable to mince matters, and his own belief was that that attitude was due to the fact that several right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench represented constituencies in which the mining vote was too important to be lightly treated. At the same time, the Prime Minister had given a distinct pledge that the Bill should be considered in Committee, and he would be sorry to be a party to causing the Government to break any pledges; therefore, he suggested that the Bill should be proceeded with. It was not properly discussed on the Second Reading, and that was all the more reason why they should now take the earliest opportunity of considering it fully, so that those who did not fully approve of it might point out in what respects they considered that it failed most seriously.

said, he desired to say a word or two on behalf of a class whose interest had not been taken into view. He represented a constituency which was not directly con nected with the mining industry, yet depended for its livelihood on the regular and cheap supply of coal, and all the great industries conducted in his part of the country would suffer seriously if that supply were to be diminished, as certainly he thought it would diminish if this Bill passed into law. In the textile and in the iron trades the depression was now very great, many concerns were carried of without profit, and if they were subjected to a considerable additional charge for coal it would be difficult to carry on business at all. The Bill would operate very seriously in that direction if instead of eight hours actual work in mines per day the work was reduced to 6 or 5¾ hours, which would be the actual result. The Representatives of other than mining districts had not, perhaps, given attention to the details of the Bill, and many of them had paired and were away from the House. The discussion would suffer from their absence just at the time when they could make themselves acquainted with the real working of the measure. He protested strongly against the manner in which the Bill was being pushed through.

hoped that the hon. Baronet would not put the Committee to the inconvenience of a Division, but would yield to the appeal made to him, and withdraw the Motion to report Progress. He quite agreed that a protest against the action of the Government was called for and in stronger terms than had been used. In their own opinion the Government had made an adroit move, but, in his opinion, their conduct had been neither candid or courageous. This conduct would be noted out of doors and public attention would be secured by this Motion, which however might now be withdrawn and the discussion of the Bill allowed to proceed.

had no desire to comment on the action of the Government in regard to the Bill, though he could say a good deal about that. It was quite unnecessary, after the strong and cutting language which had been heard from supporters of the Government representing districts where the Government had hitherto appeared to enjoy a considerable amount of popularity. If this conduct should decrease that popularity, the Opposition could afford to look on the result with some complacency. To his mind it appeared quite indefensible that at the very moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced that it was impossible, looking at the length of the Session and the exhaustion of the House, for the Government to proceed with any single Bill of their own if it was in the slightest degree opposed, that they should ask the House to proceed with as thorny and difficult a question as could be presented to the House of Commons. But his object in rising was solely to add his request to others that had been made that the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion to a Division. Enough had been said to make sufficient protest on the part of Members against the conduct of the Government in regard to this matter, but for himself he would say that whatever might be the view taken of this Bill as the House was sitting this evening there would surely be a desire to proceed with some business or other. But if Members would look at the Order Paper having regard to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the fact that effective Supply had not been put down, it would be seen that if this Motion were carried in about 10 minutes the House would adjourn. He therefore expressed the hope that the hon. Baronet would not press the Motion to a Division, but having made his protest would allow the consideration of the Bill to proceed.

had some hesitation in speaking on this subject, but it did seem to him a very dangerous thing for the House in its present state and under the circumstances of the time to enter upon a policy entirely novel, contrary to all precedent, and opposed to English character and traditions. The House, which was unable to discharge its own business satisfactorily, was now going to regulate the details of labour for the whole of the country in all its varied forms. ["No, no!"] That was so, because when this new departure was understood in the country it was evident where it would lead. In other trades the question would be raised, "If miners have this restriction of hours why should not we?" The consequences would be very injurious. He was interested neither on behalf of employers or employed in this controversy, but speaking in the interest of employés generally he believed that this step would have the effect of endangering, and if proceeded with would largely decrease the employment and means of subsistence of large masses of our population. We were entering upon the application of a principle which statesmen of the past had considered most dangerous and objectionable. Perhaps the man who had done more than any other to promote the shortening of hours of labour was the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Mather), and his testimony was emphatic on this question that a rigid law passed by members of an Imperial Legislature when votes were given as required for Party reasons could never provide a safe remedy for the difficulties that arose in connection with hours of labour. This question was now brought on in a House that could not be said to represent the opinion of the country, while so many Members were absent, having no expectation that this business would be taken, and who had not a chance of returning the pledges they had given on the subject.

rose in response to the invitations given to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, which had served its purpose as a humble though strong protest on his part, strongly emphasised by others, against the conduct of the Government in bringing forward a Bill promoted by private Members on the 13th of August with the House in its present condition.

objected to the Motion being withdrawn now that it had served its purpose. If there was any validity in the reason alleged against proceeding with the Bill that there were too few Members present, let that allegation be subjected to the test of Division. Then would be shown where was the desire to have a fair discussion and where the intention to merely obstruct the Bill and prevent its consideration.

was very sorry the hon. Baronet was going to withdraw his protest, because a Division would have shown the country the extent and character of the support given to the Government on bringing forward so important a Bill at this period of the Session. He thought the hon. Baronet by his Motion had offered the Government a golden bridge to enable them to retire from their opposition and abandon the Bill. After the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda he might be allowed to express the opinion that the Bill would do a vast amount of harm to every colliery in South Wales. It was not an Eight Hours' Bill at all, it was a Seven Hours' Bill, and its effect would be to reduce work and to risk the sacrifice of life. He regretted the hon. Baronet withdrew his Motion, for it would have been well for the country to have seen, even in such a thin House, how strong was the condemnation of the conduct of the Government.

said, if be was in Order he would, even at the risk of censure from his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, suggest that this clause be postponed to a later period of the discussion. He would not press this to a Division if there was very serious objection to it, but certainly as the clause stood it was a misnomer and misleading.

hoped the hon. Member would not press this. It was a matter of small importance, but "Hours of Work" seemed the natural terms in which to describe the Bill.

asked, would it be in Order to alter the title of the Bill, which at the present did not make sense?

Not now; that will come last.

said, the clause as it stood was a misnomer and altogether misleading. It was not for "Hours of Work"; it was to regulate the hours from surface to surface, from bank to bank, or hours underground, and there fore he moved to omit the words "of work." He did not think it could be contended they were hours of work; in fact, the time of actual work would only be some six and a-half hours, the remainder of the eight hours being occupied in going down and up again, in getting to and coming from the place of actual work.

said, the acceptance JL the Amendment of which he had given notice, and which would speak for itself, would not necessarily be fatal to the Bill even in the opinion of the promoters. It was asserted that under the very peculiar circumstances the legislation the House was entering upon should be given an experimental character and less of a cast-iron form. There was a very strong precedent for his proposal in the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, to which a duration of seven years was given. At that time the fears of those who objected to the Bill were such as induced many to believe that the effect of the Bill would be bad.

interrupting, expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment.

desired to substitute "1897" for "1899." The Act would be experimental, and for the purpose of experience of its operation a couple of years would be an ample period and much to be preferred to five years. Of course, what was contemplated was the possibility or probability that long before the end of 1899 was reached the Act in its operation would be found so disadvantageous to the workmen subject to it, that there would be a strong desire for its repeal. That such would be the case he was convinced, for in many parts of the country it would be impossible to carry on colliery work under these restrictions. The shorter period was therefore desirable.

regretted that the hon. Member should have intervened with this after the Amendment had been so promptly accepted. He hoped it would not be persisted in, but that the Committee might be allowed to proceed to the discussion of more important Amendments.

thought that a period of seven years was too long for the experiment. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "Five years."] Five years was too long for experimental purposes, and personally he should much prefer the shorter period. The Bill might have all the advantages its promoters claimed for it; it might turn out to be a benefit to everybody concerned, but on the other hand there must not be left out of consideration the possibility of its being unsuccessful. If he were allowed to do so he would like to refer to reasons which led him to express some doubt as to the effect the Bill would have on our foreign coal trade.

I do not think that to do that would be in Order.

said, he was about to quote from the evidence given before the Labour Commission as to the desirability of making the Bill an experiment only. The Mining Federation did not give evidence before that Commision, but witnesses who were in favour of the Bill did. There was Mr. David Morgan, agent for the Aberdare and Merthyr Mining Association, who in reply to Questions 3,942 and following, approved of the proposal for an eight hours' day. When asked as to his opinion on the probable effect on trade, he said he would not be an advocate of an eight hours' legislative day in this country unless a similar proposal were adopted in foreign countries. And further on he expressed his belief that foreign countries would follow the example of this country.

I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Question before the Committee now, whether the date should be 1899 or 1897.

said, one more sentence would be to the point. The witness wont on to say that, if foreign countries did not follow our example we should have to return to the existing system. He admitted that such a Bill might not be an entire success, and certainly in taking such an unusual step it was well to be cautious. The proposal accepted was a fair and reasonable one, but the shorter period would be more satisfactory in view of contingencies that might arise. Should the Bill prove a success there would be no difficulty in renewing it, but if, on the other hand, it was destined—as he believed it was—to become a disastrous failure, then it would be well to have a ready means of retiring from a false position without undue delay.

confessed he was very agreeably surprised at the spirit in which the promoters of the Bill had accepted Amendments so far, and was even encouraged to hope that they might accept the Amendment he was about to move. He frankly admitted it was of a far more important and far-reaching character than those which had been accepted, yet still he hoped that by the time he came to the end of his remarks hon. Gentlemen would be convinced of the justice of the claim he made on behalf of the majority of those who would be chiefly interested. He had very little doubt that had the House gone into Committee on the Bill at an earlier period of the Session, when the normal number of Members were in attendance, the Amendment be was about to move would have been carried, but as to its fate now he had considerable doubt. Within the House and its precincts there were probably not more than a third of the Members of the House of Commons, and he was in the unfortunate position that many supporters of Ins Amendment were absent, having paired with Members of the other side of the House, who also were supporters of the Amendment. He hoped that those Members who were present would approach the consideration of this question with an open mind. The Government had over and over again declared they took no side as a Government upon questions involved in the Bill; the Prime Minister had said so, the Leader of the House had said so, and the Home Secretary had said the same thing, so that the prestige of the Government would in no way be affected by any decision at which the Committee might arrive. Members who were pledged to support the Second Beading were not committed to any line of action towards Amendments proposed at this stage, and in fact several hon. Members who supported the Second Reading did reserve to themselves the right to support any modifications they might see fit to adopt in Committee, and several declared that they would not be prepared to support the Third Reading unless the Bill were considerably modified in Committee. That view was taken notably by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West, Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and by tire right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). He would refer later on to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his clear and able speech in support of the Bill a couple of years ago, but first he would refer to the speech of the late Prime Minister in support of the Second Reading of the Bill, which was word for word identical with this. He, for his own part, attached very great weight to that speech, and the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and believed it contributed materially to the decision the House arrived at on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he hoped the Committee would bear with him while he read extracts. In 1893 the right hon. Gentleman recorded his vote with certain reservations. He said—

"I am bound to say I do feel that this is a question in which the protection of minorities, if they are thus to be called, is a subject having the utmost claims upon our attention. I frankly own that, after every fair allowance for uncertainty and disputed points, I am not ready to consent upon the Third Reading of this Hill to apply the compulsion it would impart to a community such as that which is represented by the miners of Northumberland and Durham. … For my own part, it appears to me, I confess, that a compulsory measure of this kind ought not to take effect except with the moral certainty on our part that the measure would express the sense of a majority so large in the various districts of the country that it might be said to be the general sense of the community."

Now, there was no proof whatever—far from a "moral certainty"—no proof whatever that the majority of the working classes affected favoured the Bill in its present form. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—

"It is quite clear that you cannot always have regard to minorities altogether insignificant in their numbers, but, at the same time, I must own I think it would not only be an unwarranted, but a dangerous course on the part of this House in compulsory legislation of this character, and in exceptional legislation of this character, to have no regard to anything except to the fact of a considerable majority of the mining class at large, and to be prepared to override the local sense of such important communities as those of the Northumberland and Durham miners. I almost think that many of the friends of the Bill, when they come to close quarters on the question, when we pass out altogether from the region of what might be called abstract discussion, and have to answer to ourselves what degree of compulsion and under what circumstances we were prepared to apply it, I almost think that some of them will shrink from the application of that compulsion in such a case as I have supposed."

That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in 1893, and from a recent letter it was to be gathered that he had not changed his opinion. In that letter he said—

"I am clear that if the miners desire the Eight Hours Bill with a degree of concurrence approaching unanimity, they have a moral title to it. Of the moral title to impose it on a considerable minority I am very doubtful, and I apprehend that if the minority is really considerable it will be found practically more difficult to overpower than some among the promoters of the Bill may imagine."

[Cries of "Read on!"] He had no objection to read the remainder—

"The general adoption of the eight hours will give me, personally, very great satisfaction. I must not omit to say that, in speaking of Local Option, I contemplate the action of districts rather than that of single collieries in near neighbourhood to one another."

His Amendment in contemplating local option proposed counties and not single collieries. He regarded this letter as showing that the right Gentleman still held the view that local option should be adopted as part of the Bill. He was doubtful of the moral title of the majority to impose a Bill such as this on a considerable minority, and it was only where the majority was so great as to amount to practical unanimity that he would support the Bill in its present form without local option. He (Mr. Thomas) did not think the hon. Member for Ince or any hon. Member present would dream of saying that there was anything like practical unanimity amongst the miners throughout the United Kingdom in support of the Bill in its present form. He should like to point out the very varying degrees of reduction which would take place in different parts of the country under the Bill in its present form. In some counties the Bill would cause hardly any reduction in the hours of labour, while in others it would involve a reduction of from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent., and thus the Committee would see that it would be very unequal in its treatment. He was not opposed to the principle of Parliamentary interference; his objection was entirely to the Bill in its present form. As the Committee knew, he himself had introduced a Bill on this very subject, so that his objection was entirely to the Bill in its present form. If an Amendment he had down for a later stage had been accepted by the promoters, it would, to his mind, have removed many of the most serious objections to the Bill, and he should not have been found here to-day moving this Amendment. The hon. Member for West Fife had stated that in his district the hours at the present time were eight from bank to bank. Then, again, from evidence given before the Royal Commission on Labour, it was clearly shown the hours of work in many districts were something like eight from bank to bank. Mr. Parker Rhodes, Secretary to the South Yorkshire Coalowners' Association, gave this evidence before the Royal Commission on Labour—

"7850.—Chairman: What are the average hours of the collier from bank to bank?—I got that out as carefully as I could, in order to make a Return to the Board of Trade, and also to your Commission; and the average hours from bank to bank are eight.

7851.—That is from bank to bank?—Yes, it is eight hours and eight minutes really."

Colonel J. B. Cochrane, Chairman of the South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire Coalmasters' Association, gave this evidence—

"10915. Mr. Dale: From your observation and experience, what would you put the average hours of the miner at from bank to bank?—I should say 7½.

10916. That of course must include the descending time, and the meal time?—But not the ascending.

10917. That is just as you choose to put it. It is better to put it including the ascending time?—Then I would make it from 7½ to eight hours, I think."

On the other hand, Mr. William Jenkins, manager of the Ocean collieries—the most extensive in South Wales—gave this evidence—

12103. Mr. Dale: "Of course that is equivalent to saying you know that the time now from bank to bank is 9¾ hours?—Quite so."

So that in many districts the hours at the present time were only eight from bank to bank. In Fife, Midlothian, Worcestershire, South Staffordshire, and South Yorkshire the hours were already eight from bank to bank, so that the Bill would not make any practical difference in those districts in the hours of colliers and hewers, who formed the most important section of workmen underground. It might make a little difference in individual cases, but nothing of a serious character. It was most curious that the original demand for the Bill came from districts where the miners already had eight hours. They practically had the Eight Hours Bill themselves, and, not satisfied with that, they wanted to impose it on other districts. They did not wish to have it in South Wales. They there had nine hours winding coal, which practically meant 10 hours from bank to bank. On some days in the week in various collieries they worked 10½ hours. He would give three main reasons for the Amendment which he proposed—first, that any district had a right to determine such a question for itself, without the intervention of Parliament, provided that it did not interfere in any way with other districts. If he could show that South Wales—for he spoke more particularly I in regard to South Wales—might be allowed to decide for itself what hours it would have, without affecting Yorkshire or other districts in England, he claimed that it should be allowed to do it. His second point was this: that there were different classes of coal produced in different districts, and that, while the Bill would not adversely affect the federated or home trade district from which it emanated, it would seriously affect the South Wales and Northumberland and Durham, which depended on foreign export business. The Committee would see that his second point had a very important bearing indeed on the question of local option. Men who wanted the Bill would not suffer in any way, but the men who did not want the Bill would be much prejudiced by it if it were passed in its present shape, as they would have to compete with foreign coal, the production of which could be increased in proportion to the falling-off in the output at home. His third and most important reason for asking the Committee to allow each district to decide the matter for themselves was this: there were differences in the geological and natural conditions under which coal was produced that made the present form of the Bill undesirable, and there would, therefore, be injustice and unreasonableness in applying the same cast-iron rule in every district. But, before discussing these points in detail, he should like to deal with an argument very constantly put forward, and which unless disposed of at the outset, might prevent due weight being given to the considerations he had to urge. It was this: it was said that, although the hours might be reduced, the output would not be diminished, because the men would work with increased enery, and in the shorter time would be able to produce quite as much as in the longer hours. They were told that the experience of the past bore that out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in the speech he had made in support of the Second Reading last year or the year before, put that argument forward very clearly and very forcibly. But he (Mr. Thomas) would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the illustrations he had used, the hours had been reduced from the long hours of 12, 11, and 10 to 10 and 9, but that in this Bill it was proposed to reduce the hours from eight—for the longest period worked in South Wales, he thought, did not exceed eight—to six and a-half, or six, or even, in some districts, possibly to even less thant hat. He wanted to show this: that this argument of the experience of the past, where voluntary arrangements had been entered into, was far from being an argument in favour of a reduction of hours by Act of Parliament, and was really an argument in favour of no interference at all. In the past, reductions had been made by voluntary agreement in almost all cases. What did that mean? It meant that employers conversant in each particular case with the nature of the employment engaged in, considered that by a reduction of hours a certain result would follow—that was to say, that the men by increased energy would be able to maintain the output. They had done so in the coal trade all over the country. Certainly in South Wales they had made reductions in the hours of work which they had felt would be followed by no material reduction in the output. They had been right. Then could they not claim to be right when they said that no further reduction could be made? That was why he claimed that the argument was in their favour. The employers were right in the past when they said that no reduction of output would follow from the reduction of hours, and they thought they were right when they said now that further reduction of hours would be followed by a reduction of output. There was a limit to the argument. They could not go on for ever reducing the hours without curtailing the output. There must be some limit beyond which they could not go. If there was no limit, they would soon be in the enviable position of doing no work at all, and enjoying themselves at leisure immensely on a toy output produced by nobody. He believed the limit in coal-mining had been, he would not say quite reached, but very nearly reached, for the present, and, if they would allow him, he should like to give his own personal experience in the matter. No doubt the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley would say he (Mr. D. A. Thomas) was not always against the eight hours.

Clewch, clewch!

The hon. Member said "Clewch, clewch." He (Mr. Thomas) confessed he was a convert, though perhaps not so recent as some people. He would tell the Committee the reason—which his hon. Friend, although he knew it, had never been candid enough to state in public. As a young man, he was ambitious to be a pioneer in this movement, and he put into force the eight hours bank to bank system.

With a double shift.

Yes, with a double shift, and he was certain his hon. Friend would not get up and move the prohibition of the double shift in the Bill. He would challenge him to do it. He tried the system in a colliery with the management of which he had a good deal to do. The result was that, at the end of 13 months, with the desire that it should succeed, and everything being done on his part to make it succeed, the men declared that they would not go on working in that way, because they objected to the double-shift system. But how did it affect their output and wages? The output per collier per day, working the shorter hours, was 1·67 tons per day. When they returned to the longer hours it was 2·06 tons, or a difference of about 23 per cent. Now, he was curious to know what his hon. Friend would have to say in reply to that. On the expiration of the 13 months it was shown that the reduction in the output under the system was almost exactly proportionate to the reduction in the time. That showed that in South Wales, at any rate, they had reached a limit, below which no considerable reduction in the hours could be made without materially reducing the output. In a neighbouring pita similar result bad been arrived at, though the average was taken over a longer period and single shifts were worked. The hours in this case were 10½ from bank to bank on Fridays, and eight on Saturdays. From 1888 to 1892 the averages showed that the production on Fridays exceeded that of Saturdays by, roughly speaking, a quantity proportionate to the increased time worked. The output was from 25 to 25¼ percent, larger on Friday than on Saturday. Those were facts from actual experience which were worth a ton of theory. They were in this difficulty in dealing with the question; he did not know what view the hon. Member for Eccles took, but some hon. Members declared that no reduction in the output would follow. The hon. Member for Normanton said that whereas the Members for Ince and Rhondda said it would, and no doubt they would not care a snap of the fingers for the Bill unless the out pit were reduced, for they belonged to a school of economists who thought that the less there was produced the more there would be to divide. He hoped that during the course of this discussion the hon. Members for Normanton and Rhondda would endeavour to settle their differences, and ascertain which was the correct view. He had on this point an extract from a speech made by the Member for Rhondda which he would like to read. The hon. Member said—

"It was only by the reduction of hours or adhering to the nine hours a day system that the restriction of output could be satisfactorily carried out under the present system."

The nine hours a day system meant nine hours winding coal and not from bank to bank, which they did not adhere to at present according to his hon. Friend, and this in itself seemed to show that there could be no very strong demand for eight hours from bank to bank. The nine hours' working day meant 10 hours from bank to bank, which was the system in vogue at the present day.

It is not a 10 hours' day.

said, that if it was nine hours winding coal it was practically 10 hours from bank to bank, for his hon. Friend must know that it took 40 or 50 minutes in a big colliery to let the men down, and a similar time to bring them up, and as they could not bring them up in exactly the order in which they went down, an hour must be deducted from the bank to bank time to get in the time left for coal winding.

The hon. Member gave just now this piece of information—that in South Wales they were winding coal 10 hours a day.

said, he thought he had said 10 hours from bank to bank and nine hours winding coal. If he had not said that he had made a mistake. Some hon. Members around him, who were on the same side as the hon. Member for Rhondda upon this question, assured him that he had said that: The hon. Member for Rhondda had also said, in a speech delivered a few months back—

"From a computation recently made it was found that between the overtime paid for and the overtime not paid for the men worked 11 hours per day instead of nine; and if they agreed to strike off that two hours they would restrict the output by about 20 per cent. Two hours knocked off from the 100,000 miners of South Wales would give additional employment to 20,000 more men. If that could be brought about it would create such a demand for labour as to considerably strengthen the market and do away with the danger of reducing prices."

The hon. Member had added—

"And he appealed to them most earnestly to do all in their power to bring about the nine hours' day."

So that the miners in the Rhondda Valley, whom the hon. Member represented, and whom he said were so extremely anxious to have a seven hours' winding day, he had to appeal to to do all in their power to bring about a nine hours' winding day. That did not look as if they were very keenly in favour of this Bill. He (Mr. Thomas) said, the reduction in the output in South Wales would be from 20 to 25 per cent., but his hon. Friend argued it would be more than that. He made it 40 per cent.

No, no.

said, he had read the hon. Member's speeches, and that was his view if he was correctly reported in The South Wales Daily News, which was a newspaper on very friendly terms with the hon. Member. He now wished to go a little more fully into his reasons against the compulsory form of the Bill. His hon. Friend would go with him as far as he could on this principle he was sure, because in the controversy which bad been going on between the sliding-scale party, and the federationists in South Wales, his hon. Friend had always been a strong advocate for Home Rule for Wales on the wages question. That was whathe(Mr. Thomas) was asking for Glamorganshire on this question, and he therefore hoped he should be able to carry his hon. Friend with him to some extent as to the first point he was endeavouring to make. But he thought the onus of showing that Wales could not be allowed to remain as it was and that the independent action of Wales would affect other districts, rested upon the promoters of the Bill. He contended that there was little or no competition between the South Wales district and the Midland districts, from which the demand for this Bill came. He assumed that South Wales, if left to itself, would not accept the Bill in its present form. The hon. Member for Rhondda would dispute this, and would no doubt speak for himself. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean disputed it; but if he was wrong, when South Wales came to take a ballot they could declare in favour of the Bill. At a recent ballot taken in the Merthyr boroughs, at 21 collieries no ballot was taken at the collieries in his hon. Friend's agency for obvious reasons—there was a majority in every case against the Bill in its present form. The total majority was four to one, the figures being 2,567 for the bank to bank and 8,838 against. One little point arose that he should like to draw attention to. After it was decided by the district generally that a ballot should be taken he received a letter from the secretary to the Dowlais Workmen's Committee in April last saying that the Dowlais workmen wished him to vote for the bank to bank Bill, that they had taken a ballot some few years previously, and by 1,600 to 300 odd had decided in favour of the bank to bank Bill, and saw no reason for taking a fresh ballot. He went to Dowlais himself and called a meeting of the colliers. About 1,000 men were present, and it was very clear which way the meeting was going, and an Amendment was proposed to the resolution against the bank to bank Bill in favour of taking a ballot by the very gentleman who had written to him. He suggested that both the motion and the amendment might very well both be passed, and they were passed, and the meeting decided against the eight hours' bank to bank Bill. On a ballot 1,973 voted against the eight hours' bank to bank, and 428 for. This showed the tremendous change which took place in the feeling of the workmen in two or three years. On the first occasion there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill, and then there was an overwhelming majority, even greater, against it. This was evidence that the leaders of the miners might sometimes be mistaken as to the feeling of the men; and it showed also that that House ought to take great care not to pass hurried legislation in regard to this matter. He had now, he thought, convinced the Committee that he had some authority for speaking for South Wales. They had taken a ballot, and over and over again they had challenged their friends on the other side to take a ballot; but they would not do so, and the only conclusion he could come to was that they were afraid to do so. He came now to his next point—namely, the character of the South Wales trade. The South Wales, Northumberland, and Durham trade was a foreign trade, while the trade in the Federation districts was a home trade. He should like to call the attention of the Committee to this fact—the South Wales and the Lancashire and the Northumberland and the Durham miners comprised altogether very nearly half the miners in England and Wales. There were over 250,000 miners in those districts, and 330,000 in the rest of England, which they might call the Federation district. In 1892 he found, from Returns which were available to every Member of the Committee, that the foreign exports from England and Wales (he was not speaking of Scotland) were rather less than 25,500,000 tons; the export from South Wales and Monmouth and Tyne ports was over 22,500,000 tons—that was to say, the exports from non-Federation districts were 22,500,000 out of a total of 25,000,000. Consequently, from these districts there was exported nine-tenths of the whole of the coal sent abroad from England and Wales. He would now point out what proportion of coal produced in South Wales was exported, and what proportion in the Federation districts. In 1892, Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire exported for foreign and bunker use 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 out of its total production of 30,000,000, or between 60 and 70 per cent. In the Federation districts, out of a total output of 90,000,000, there was exported only 3,000,000, or less than 3 per cent. That showed the Committee how entirely different the trade of the districts was. He thought this had a very important bearing on the question of local option. It was clear that a very insignificant proportion of the coal produced in the Federation district was exported, and therefore it did not matter, as far as foreign competition was concerned, what happened in regard to the hours of labour; but in South Wales, where 60 or 70 per cent, of the output was exported, if the Bill passed in its present form it would have a very disastrous effect upon their trade, increasing the cost of production by 20, or, as some people believed 30 per cent. He was l0th to say much about the question of foreign competition, because he knew it had often been put forward as a bogie in order to get reductions and put off advances in wages. There was no doubt, however, that foreign countries-had made very great progress as compared with this country in recent years. A few years ago we were millions and tens of millions of tons in advance of the United States, but now they had very nearly caught us up. He should like to give an instance or two upon this question of foreign competition, and the House would understand that he was speaking from actual experience, because he was engaged every day of his life in selling coal, and knew something about foreign competition. In many places abroad the competition was becoming exceedingly severe, so that English coal was being rapidly driven out by foreign coal. He knew it had been pointed out that notwithstanding this the total aggregate exports of the country were increasing. That, no doubt, was so; but many causes had contributed to that, to which he would refer later. Figures showed that in 1892 the coal exported to competitive points was materially less than in 1883, notwithstanding that there was a vastly increased number of steamers, as against 10 years ago. In 1883 we exported to the Russian Southern ports, 312,333 tons; in 1892, 42,506 tons; to British East Indies, 323,620 tons in 1883, and 202,894 in 1892; to China and Hong Kong, 64,804 tons in 1883, and 19,110 tons in 1892; to British North America, 174,314 tons in 1883, and 71,674 in 1892; to the United States, 111,736 tons in 1883, and 22,576 in 1892; and to the Foreign West Indies, 272,453 tons in 1883,and 117,788 tons in 1892. The total result was, that whereas in 1883 we exported over 1,250,000 tons, in 1892 we exported less than 500,000 tons. He knew from his own personal experience that steamers went out to the East and returned without using any English coal at all. They coaled at Antwerp, where they got Belgian coal at 13s. 6d. a ton, and at the other side they got Japan coal at Singapore at 7s. per ton less than best Welsh. The coal trade had been materially benefited during the last 10 years by the enormous drop in freights and the consequent cheaper conveyance. There had been enormous reductions in freights. The freights to Singapore, Martinique, and Bombay, which were something like £1, say, in 1880, were to-day 10s., 7s. 6d., and 8s. respectively. The quotation to Antwerp was now 4s. 3d., and to Malta 4s. This great fall had immensely stimulated the South Wales coal trade, but it could not be expected to continue. It had reached its limit in fact, and steamers had ceased to be remunerative. Japanese coal was fast cutting us out in Singapore, where it could be obtained at something like 7s. per ton less than Welsh coal. Another point he wished to make was the difference between the working conditions in the Welsh mines and the Midland districts, imposed by nature, and which could not be altered by this Bill. He had worked out from Government Returns some figures showing how much more difficult it was to work coal in South Wales than in some of the districts from which the demand for this Bill came. The hours were longer in South Wales, and the output was less; and the hours were longer because the nature of the strata demanded it. He daresay hon. Members had often observed how frequent accidents were in South Wales from falls of the roofs and sides as compared with other districts. The reason for that was the brittle character of the strata as compared with that in English collieries. In England one might go a long distance through a colliery without seeing any pitwood, whereas in Wales the sides of the road were studded with props; and it took three or four times more pitwood in a South Wales mine than in an English mine, which enormously increased the cost of production. It was not only the pitwood itself that was expensive, but there was the cost of putting it up to be taken into account as well. In order to produce 1,000,000 tons of coal per annum, with eight hours bank to bank, it took 338 repairers in South Yorkshire, while in Glamorganshire it took 734. Again, four men in Glamorganshire could only produce the same amount of coal in a given time that three could produce in Nottinghamshire. Hon. Gentlemen would see what bearing this had upon the Amendment he was moving. If it took so many more men to produce the same quantity of coal in a given time it was unreasonable to lay down the same working hours for each district. By reason of the natural condition of things men in the more difficult districts must either work longer hours or receive less wages. He believed that in South Wales the men would prefer to work a little longer than in other districts, and have their wages maintained. He would make an appeal to the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, who was a very strong opponent to the principle involved in this Bill some little time ago; he appealed to him to explain to the Committee the change in his opinion that had occurred. The hon. Gentleman told his constituents recently that he would do his utmost to put the Bill into a practical and working shape. He (Mr. Thomas) did not know what experience his hon. Friend had of the matter they were discussing, but he hoped he would tell them what changes he proposed to make in the Bill in order to make it workable. Did the hon. Gentleman think this Amendment a practical one? If not, why not?

said, his statement was that he should do his best to make the Bill workable.

(continuing) said, ho was bound to say ho should very much like to Lave the views of the Home Secretary. He (Mr. Asquith) had said he was convinced that this Bill was a practical one. Holding the position he did, he thought they were entitled to have his opinion, and that he should show them how this Bill could come into operation without prejudice to the district he represented. He did not know whether he might make any appeal to the Irish Members, but he hoped that they would carefully consider this Amendment and come to a decision entirely upon its merits. Hon. Members on his side of the House were divided, and he would remind them that three of the direct Labour Representatives were in favour of the Amendment, while three were opposed to it. The Liberal Party was divided upon this question, and he begged hon. Members from Ireland in their own interest not as a body to take sides or to do anything which might damp enthusiasm for their cause. Finally, he asked each individual of the Committee to recognise the vast responsibility that rested upon the shoulders of those who recorded their vote upon this Amendment.

said, he regretted that he should be in any way opposed to his friends from Northumberland, Durham, and Wales, but he could not help thinking that the)' looked with a too conservative eye at their own arrangements, without considering how much could be done without incurring the changes and risks that they feared. All these difficulties were dealt with upon the occasion of the Second Heading of the Bill, and he thought that those who voted for the Second Heading would be of opinion that the decision arrived at really involved the rejection of this Amendment also. He could understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to show that there was no competition between Durham and South Wales and the rest of the country; but, unfortunately, be was not right in that matter, because, during the coal strike, the colliery owners availed themselves of any opportunity they had of entering into competition with other districts. This Bill had from the first been one of a very limited and definite character. It did not permit any exception whatever, and he believed that no substantial exception could be admitted to the Bill. If they had eight hours enacted by the Legislature in one part of the country, they so far tied the hands of the masters and workmen in that part as against the other parts of the country. They could not, in a country which had so many facilities for carrying coal from one district to another, to be used in the manufactories, proceed upon the same lines as though a primitive state of affairs existed, and coal was consumed only in the districts in which it was produced. If the coal of South Wales was consumed only in South Wales there might be more to be said for the case of the opponents of the Bill. His hon. Friend spoke of Wales as though the miners there were all of his way of thinking, and as though their number was very large. The number of underground miners in South Wales was 70,000.

110,000.

The only place where the matter has been tested there were four to one against the Bill.

said, he did not think that would be a reasonable conclusion to draw. Such figures were really for a purpose of this kind worth very little. What should be done was to take the largo organisations and see how they had continued to act year after year in this important matter. The Aberdare and Merthyr districts were spoken of by Mr. David Morgan before the Labour Commission; but he could only speak for the men in the Union. The number of men in the Union was 7,000, while there were 15,000 men in the Valleys, so that more than half were not represented by the Union, in which only a majority was in favour of the old system. As to Northumberland and Durham, he frankly admitted that from the first he had seen that the case of those two counties was a strong one. If, however, this Bill were carried it would not force upon the hewers in Durham and Northumberland more hours of labour than they had at present, as they were now working seven or six and a half hours. The persons whose work it would reduce were boys, who were now working 10 hours, and in whose interest the eight hours might well be enforced. He regretted that this and other Amendments in the same direction had been placed on the Paper. He believed he was only expressing the opinion of the supporters of the Bill when he said that they regarded one and all of those Amendments as fatal to the Bill, and were not prepared to go on with the Bill if they were carried. If this Amendment were adopted, on Northumberland and Durham and the Aberdare Districts would rest the responsibility of rejecting a measure which was desired by all the other districts, and which would, he believed, be of great assistance to the country generally. The proposal must be fatal to the Bill, because it would prevent the system working with harmony all over the country, and would thus prevent the removal of one great cause of strife.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. D. Thomas) had admitted that he had laid himself open to the accusation of having changed his opinions. No one knew better than his hon. Friend how many times he had changed his opinions on this question, and any one who would look through the list of Amendments to this Bill would see that his hon. Friend had, with great ability, proposed a considerable number of contradictory Amendments. His hon. Friend had trimmed his sails so as to catch every wind that blew. Anything that was accepted he would accept, and if anything was refused he would also have a finger in the pie. His hon. Friend had contended that the difficulty in regard to the production of coal in South Wales was the physical difficulty of strata. The facts connected with his hon. Friend's own collieries, however, proved otherwise. The men in Wales, it was said, were able to produce 25 per cent. more coal than the men in Nottingham, but lately the system called "the Nottingham system" had been introduced into South Wales, and whore it had been tried it had been found that the men were able to produce about 25 per cent, more under the new system than under the old, so that means had already been provided by his hon. Friend and other coal owners of making it easier to carry out the change proposed by this Bill. He did not think it mattered much to that House what were the personal opinions of his hon. Friend and himself with regard to this question. They wanted to know the opinions of the working men themselves. It was well known that in South Wales and Monmouthshire there were 110,000 people working in and about mines. Since 1887 those men had been represented in the Trade Union Congresses in this country, and had always voted in favour of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and they had sent representatives to the International Congress, and the miners of South Wales each time until the last occasion had given their votes solid in favour of miners' eight hours from bank to bank. His hon. Friend (Mr. D. Thomas) himself, when a candidate for Merthyr, and for some time after that, was known to be a strong advocate of the eight hours from bank to bank. He had changed his opinions, and had given his reasons why.

My hon. Friend is quite wrong.

I again say my hon. Friend during the time he was a candidate for the borough of Merthyr, and for some time afterwards, was a strong advocate of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill from bank to bank.

If I may be allowed to correct the hon. Member, in 1891 I voted against the eight hours bank to bank. In this House, in 1888, I think there was no talk of any Eight Hours Bank to Bank Bill.