said that before he moved the rejection of this Bill he desired to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to a matter affecting the privileges of that House. For his own part he desired to approach the consideration of this Bill in the most impartial spirit, but when he came down to the House about a quarter of an hour ago he found that a circular containing statements of an inaccurate character with regard to this Measure were being distributed among hon. Members in the Central Lobby, and he was afraid that those statements would prevent hon. Members from approaching the consideration of the Bill in an equally impartial spirit. The circular purported to he issued by a firm of Parliamentary agents, carrying on their business in Abingdon Street, Westminster. What he desired to ask the Speaker was whether it was in order for any firm of Parliamentary agents to interfere with the procedure of that House in Private Business in the way he had indicated, which would have the effect of preventing the impartial consideration of a Private Bill. The circular contained a number of statements which, at all events, from his point of view, were not accurate, and, therefore, he submitted that the House ought in defence of its own procedure and privileges to prevent hon. Members being met by a circular of this kind in the Central Lobby. He, however, did not wish to press the point too far, but he submitted that it was a little out of harmony with the dignity and position of hon. Members that Parliamentary agents should seek to influence their action by such means as these.

The hon. Member is probably aware that in the cases of private Bills, it is not at all uncommon for statements to be circulated on one side and on the other, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has laid before the House anything in the nature of a breach of Privilege. With regard to the circular in question having been distributed in. the Central Lobby, I must say I do not think the Lobby is the right place for circulating such documents. ["Hear, hear !"] I will, at all events, make inquiries and see that no attempts of an objectionable kind are made to canvass Members in the Lobby. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he now proposed to move the rejection of the Motion for the confirmation of this Provisional Order, because as far as he could see there was no other course open for him to take in connection with this Measure. This Bill showed the evils of the present system. The Board of Trade came before the House with a sort of omnibus Bill by which they sought to have confirmed a number of Provisional Orders relating to various localities in the north of Scotland, in the south of England and in Ireland. By this method of procedure the Measure was neither considered by a Committee, as in the case of a private Bill, nor had it the publicity of a public Bill. If a private Bill were promoted it was carefully examined by a Committee of the House upstairs, and if a public Bill were brought in it was considered in that House on its merits. In the present case they were merely asked to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Board of Trade, without any of the facts being brought under the notice of the House. For his part he could not understand why any Measure affecting the seaboard of Ireland should be promoted by the Board of Trade for England. However, they had to deal with the Bill as it stood. He would ask the House to follow the history of this Measure. This Bill proposed to renew the powers which were granted by that House in 1892 to build a pier and causeway and to construct other works at Killina. Those powers were to remain in force for five years, but during the five years, Mr. Frazer, the promoter of the Bill of 1892, had done nothing towards carrying out the authorised works, and he now came to ask that House for an extension of the period for constructing the works for another five years. He had had representations made to him that the locality was opposed to the term being extended for another five years. It appeared that it had been desired to construct a line of railway from Killina to Ballina, and the Government came to the assistance of the locality, and promoted a Measure for the construction of the line which was engineered by Mr. Frazer. Personally he had nothing to say against that Gentleman, whom the Government regarded as being a very capable engineer. But this Gentleman was a private individual, and the works to which this Bill was to apply were such public works as would, in the event of the change in the local government of Ireland, indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, being brought about, be constructed by the various new County Councils. In these circumstances it was in his opinion right that a private individual should be allowed to intervene between the new Councils and the construction of these works. The Government themselves had recognised the importance of the proposed works by offering a grant of £10,000 towards their cost. In these circumstances he thought that the least that Mr. Frazer could be asked to do was to give some guarantee that he really intended to proceed with the construction of the works at once. It was on these grounds that he opposed this Bill.

said that in his view it was not necessary for the House to spend much time in considering this very simple question. He could assure the hon. Member that the method of procedure by what he termed an omnibus Bill, was the usual practice. The Local Government Board had therefore done nothing out of the ordinary course in the procedure they had taken with regard to this Bill. The powers for the construction of these works were granted by Parliament in 1892, and all that Mr. Frazer now asked was that those powers should be renewed for another five years. The local authorities entirely approved of the extension of the period for the exercise of the powers conferred by the Act of 1892, and he hoped that the House would pass the Bill. Bill considered; to be Read the Third time to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state if it is intended by the Tweedmouth Report that double increment for sorting clerks and telegraphists at and after the age of 21 shall apply in the case of officers scheduled B, C, D, and E in the said Report?

The Postmaster General understands the hon. Member to refer to the double increment which is to be given in the large provincial towns in Schedule A (which have hitherto had distinct classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists) to those officers who prove themselves qualified and ready to serve in future on both the postal and telegraph sides of the Department. That double increment will not be given in towns under Schedules B, C, D, and E, where the officers have always been liable to perform the double duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether prior to 31st March last the sorting clerks or Plymouth and the sorting clerks and telegraphists of Devonport were paid according to the same scale, the maximum of which was 40s. per week; whether the maximum pay of the former has now been raised to 52s. and the latter to 44s. only; whether he is aware that the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Devonport perform counter and telegraph duties in addition to sorting duties, which are alone performed by sorting clerks at Plymouth; and, whether he will investigate the local circumstances so that the Devonport clerks may receive pay and treatment equal to that conceded to the Plymouth staff?

Prior to the 31st March last the maximum pay for the separate classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Plymouth was 52s., whereas the maximum pay of the amalgamated class at Devonport was 40s. The men were divided into two classes at Plymouth, the lower rising to 40s. and the higher to 52s., while at Devonport they formed only one class, rising to 40s. Under the Tweedmouth Scheme the two classes at Plymouth were thrown into one the maximum pay remaining at 52s., while the maximum at Devonport was raised from 40s. to 44s. It is the case that the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Devonport perform counter and telegraph duties in addition to sorting duties, while the great majority of the sorting clerks at Plymouth, though they take part in the counter duties, are not called upon to perform telegraph duties. But new entrants at Plymouth are now required to perform all the duties mentioned. The difference in pay is based upon the difference in the amount and importance of the business at the two offices, and it would be contrary to the approved system of classifying offices to raise Devonport to the same category as Plymouth.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conditions of the contract which has been entered into with Messrs. Peterson, Tate, and Company for the Canadian fast Atlantic service are in all respects the same as those set forth in the advertisements inviting tenders, and in reply to which advertisements, tenders at higher figures than were afterwards accepted by Messrs. Peterson were submitted; or whether there is any alteration in the conditions that will explain the lower subsidy accepted by Messrs. Peterson; and What ports have been definitely decided on and named both as ports of call on each side of the Atlantic?

The conditions of the contract are the same as those set forth in the advertisement for tenders, except that in some particulars they are more onerous for the contractors. The steamers will start from Liverpool and run in summer to Quebec and to Montreal, when the navigation permits; in winter they will run to Halifax, Nova Scotia, or St. John, New Brunswick, at the option of the contractors, such option to be declared before May 31, 1899, the date fixed for the commencement of the service. Her Majesty's Government have stipulated that the vessels are to call at an Irish port if required, and that condition has been accepted by the contractors.

asked whether the Irish port referred to in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman had been defined?

No, Sir.

said his hon. Friend had told him that he proposed to postpone his Amendment to a later stage. He understood the learned Attorney General to have said that it was the intention of the Government that shipyards should he included. That was the only matter in which he was interested at present, and he hoped that if he could show in a very few words that ship yards did not come within the Bill as proposed, the Government would give a favourable consideration to the Amendment which his hon. Friend would propose hereafter at a more suitable place. The whole question whether ship yards came within the words of the Bill or not depended upon the definition of the word "factory." The Bill stated that the word "factory" had the same meaning as in the Factory and Workshops Acts 1878 and 1891. The definition clause which governed the whole matter was Section 93 of the Act of 1878, which said: "The expression non-textile factory "—under which a ship yard would come if it came under anything—

"shall include any premises or places named in part 2 of the said schedule, or within the close, curtilage, or precinct of which steam. water, or other mechanical power is used in aid of any manufacturing or other processes carried on therein."

said that on the understanding that he should be able to propose an Amendment to increase the meaning of the word "factory," so as to include all vessels, whether being constructed in yards in which there was mechanical power or not, and all vessels under repair in mid-stream, he proposed to withdraw the Amendment which he moved last night.

said no pledge had been given, but it was quite open to his hon. Friend to move the Amendment. The Government were desirous of keeping within the definition of the Factory Act. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said he was afraid the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment. If the hon. Member said that the exclusion of canals might involve some anomalies, he was quite prepared to admit it. He had not denied that the exclusion of certain industries would give rise to anomalies under the Bill. But the line of demarcation was very near and close. They had gone on the general principle of limiting the Bill to dangerous trades, and the Committee so far had accepted it. If they were going to put in all canals because, in the first instance there was a clear line between canals owned by railway companies and those by private owners, and, in the second, because of the difficulty of drawing a very clear line between the finish of the construction of a canal and its occupation or user—then he thought they would be getting into very great difficulties. He did not think, whatever sympathy they might have with the population concerned in the working of the canals, that there was any exceptional danger in the employment, and certainly there was no reason why they should be included in the Bill if they were not also to include that large class of the industrial population whom the Committee had already agreed to exclude —namely, the agricultural labourers. ["Hear, hear !"]

said he could understand the Government saying, with regard to the agricultural labourers and other trades not specified in the Bill, "We will not include them," but he understood them now to say: "We will include a canal when it is the property of a railway company, but when it is not the property of a railway company the unfortunate people who are employed upon it shall be exempted." He thought there was no parallel between the exclusion of the agricultural labourers and the exclusion of one section of canal employés, while another section was let in. He might say that the reason why he rose on this question was this: The district of South Staffordshire was traversed by the Birmingham Canal as if it were a street. There were hardly any works in the whole of South Staffordshire that were not in communication with the Birmingham Canal. Now that canal was practically, though not technically, the property of the London and North Western Railway Company, who guaranteed a dividend of 4 per cent. Therefore practically the Birmingham Canal was the property of the London and North Western Company, and yet, as they were not technically its owners, it would be outside the Bill. Thus a large class of operatives were not to have the protection of this Bill, whereas some trivial canal in another part of the county which actually belonged to a railway company was to have that protection. If that was so, he was at a loss to see what ground there was for refusing the Amendment and depriving operatives of their remedy, owing entirely to the position of the owners of the canal. ["Hear, hear !"]

pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted it would not be the ownership of the canal which would be included, it would simply be the small boat owners who employed one or two men. The canal company, practically speaking, merely received tolls, the canal trade being carried on by the owners of barges employing one or two hands. The fact that the real property was owned by a railway company did not bring it within any of the principles by which this Bill had been supported. No one could suggest that this was a dangerous trade, and if the House was wise in excluding ships it would surely be wise in excluding the less dangerous trade carried on by barges. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

called upon Mr. Tennant to move his Amendment, that being the next which was in order.

inquired why the Amendment relating to light railways had been passed over.

considered that the proper place for raising such an Amendment would be in that part of the clause which dealt with the definition of a railway.

was afraid he could only reply to the hon. Gentleman in the same spirit that he had replied to similar Amendments. The inclusion of "workshop" would mean a considerable addition to the classes of industry brought under this Bill, and although he did not say that that in itself was an objection to the proposal, yet he did say that all the arguments which the Government had endeavoured to enforce upon the House since the introduction of the Bill applied emphatically in this case, and if they had in the first instance included workshops in the Bill the satisfaction with which the Measure would have been received might have been very different from what it had been. The distinction was one which was drawn by the present law. He was not denying that there would be difficulties in the carrying out of the Measure, but the Government had contended throughout that when they were introducing a new principle in a tentative manner, they were justified in acting as other countries had done and applying it in the first instance to the more dangerous trades. The hon. Member talked of the great number of accidents which occurred in workshops under the Factory and Workshops Act. That was perfectly true, but he should like to repeat the figures he gave to the House on a previous occasion. This was the very first year in which they had any official Report of the number of accidents in workshops as compared with factories, and he found that in the first three months of the year there were only two fatal accidents in workshops against 188 in factories, the number of persons employed in workshops being larger than the number employed in factories. The number, too, of non-fatal accidents in workshops reported in these three months was only 34 as against 9,247 for a similar period in the factories of this country. If, in favour of the Amendment, it was argued that workshops were as dangerous as factories, then these figures showed there was a real and substantial difference in point of danger between trades as carried on in factories and workshops. This might not be a conclusive reason, but it was a reason why the Government should resist the inclusion of workshops in the Bill. Over and over again they had impressed on the Committee—and so far with great success—that the Bill did not pretend to apply to all the industries to which they would wish to see it applied, but they applied it to all those industries to which they believed they saw their way to apply it satisfactorily. He trusted the Committee would support the Government in the position they had taken.

regretted the speech of the Home Secretary, because he him- self and his hon. Friends understood that if in Committee on this Bill they could show that a particular industry had a special claim to inclusion, and this did not affect the principle of the Bill, the Government would be prepared to consider the matter on its merits. The Government were perhaps wise, when introducing the Bill, in not applying it to too many trades. The Opposition had no desire to "smother the Bill with Amendments." The Government must admit that the Bill had been received with greater favour than they anticipated, and when Members of the Opposition desired to extend the Bill to other trades, they did not wish to destroy the Bill or smother it with Amendments, because they believed the country generally accepted the principle of the Bill. The Amendment was unlike some others that had been proposed. It involved no new principle or departure, like the Amendment on health which the Government resisted as beyond the scope of the Bill. It could not be argued, as it was in regard to sailors, that the position of persons in workshops was so different from those in factories and docks that they should be kept outside the Bill. All the tendency of modern legislation, while keeping up a nominal distinction, had been to level workshops up to factories and place them under the same regulations to prevent accidents. Fifty percent. of the factories which would come under this Bill were factories in which less than 10 persons worked. The Home Secretary implied that if the Bill were extended to small employers it would bring about their ruin, because it was impossible that they could compensate their workmen. Accidents, fatal and non-fatal, were of infrequent occurrence in workshops, and so small consequently would be the liability cast on the owners of workshops that it was not likely to effect their ruin. The Home Secretary said the responsibility thrown on large employers of labour by the Bill would be really no more than they, out of their generosity, gave in compensation to their men. That might be the case as regarded workmen in factories, but when they came to the class of workshops with which the Committee were dealing, the labour was less skilled, the employers had not the same regard for the welfare of those whom they employed, or the same public eye directed to their proceedings. As regarded the relations between masters and men, employés in workshops required statutory compensation rather than those in factories, because they did not get compassionate allowances. The majority of employés in workshops consisted of women and children, and where there were men also they had few trades unions to take up their cases. They did not belong to friendly societies, and, when injured, as regarded the possibility of obtaining a weekly allowance from a trades union or friendly society, they were in a far worse position than people engaged in factories. Under all the circumstances to which he had alluded, he hoped the Government would reconsider the exclusion of workshops from the Bill.

said that of the logic of the Amendment and the justice of including workshop employés in the Bill there could not be the slightest doubt. When miners, railway employés, and other workmen were included, there was absolutely no justice, right, or logic in keeping anyone else out of it. But as far as he and most of them understood this Bill, it was not based on justice, logic, or anything of that sort. [Opposition cheers.] It rested on expediency, and the result was not whether it was right to include workshop employés, but whether it was expedient, and he was strongly of opinion that the Government were right in saying it was not expedient. The Bill was a new departure in the relations between employers and employed, and he could perfectly understand that under these circumstances the Government should wish to confine it at present to dangerous trades and see how it worked before they extended it to other trades. If the Bill was found to work well, nothing could prevent its application to other trades than those mentioned in it. Probably next year, but certainly the year after, the trades now excluded from the Bill would be included in it. Meantime, there would be an opportunity of discovering what the defects of the Bill were. The Government had distinctly declined to include other trades at present, and it was waste of time for hon. Members opposite to try to persuade them to do so, especially when they knew that with the majority they had, they could do whatever they pleased. [Opposition laughter and "hear, hear!"]

asked if the Government really declined to include in the Bill any more trades than those mentioned?

I think the Committee are fully possessed now of the mind of the Government on this question. I entirely agree with almost every word which has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, except that I did not say the Bill was not based on justice—[laughter]—because I really think it is based on a desire to do absolute justice to all who come within its purview. [Cheers.] Only we have said, and have stated again and again as plainly as it is possible to state it, that we considered when we introduced this great and novel principle that if we at once applied it indiscriminately to all trades and all classes of workmen, we should not have the ghost of a chance of passing our Bill. Therefore we conceived it to be expedient to limit it to trades in which the demand for reform was most urgent, and to see whether it cannot be safely extended further. But we have said distinctly that we cannot undertake to add to the Bill any of these great classes, such as agricultural labourers, seamen, and those employed in workshops, and, further, that we confine ourselves to the limitations already existing in different Acts of Parliament to which we refer in the Bill, and the only exceptions which we can make are with regard to building, laundries, and machinery plant, in respect of which we are putting down our own Amendments to the Bill.

I think that after that declaration it would probably be taking up the time of the Committee to go on discussing in detail arguments in reference to particular categories of workmen whom we know the Government are not going to include. ["Hear, hear !"] We understand the position; logic, my right hon. Friend admits, has been banished, and justice, or, at any rate, perfect justice has been adjourned until the Greek Kalends. In the meantime, we must make the best we can of this position; the Government are the masters of the situation, and I venture to appeal to my hon. Friends to accept the situation, and to come as speedily as we can to the discussion of matters which are debateable ground. ["Hear, hear !"]

said that he would like to call attention to the result of the refusal of the Secretary for the Colonies in this case. It would specially affect the carpentering and joinery trade. If there was a gas engine outside in the yard by which a certain amount of sawing was done by men at work inside, the building came within the definition of a factory; but if there was no gas engine outside the yard they did not come within the Act at all. If a man carried on a large business with the same machinery on one side of a road, with a gate across the fence leading into the road, and on the other side of the road had very large workshops where hundreds of men were engaged, those men would not come within this Act, while if they happened to be working in the yard 50 or 60 yards away from it on the same side of the road, they would come within the Act. That was an extremely inconsistent position, and he thought it was expedient that that kind of work should be included. Question put, "That the word 'workshop' be there inserted." The Committee divided: —Ayes, 115; Noes, 191.—(Division List, No. 229.)

said that, in accordance with what he said the previous evening to the hon. Member for Leicester on the question of buildings, and in fulfilment of his promise, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper. His proposal was intended to include not only those buildings in which steam machinery or other mechanical power was used, but also buildings to which at present the Factory Acts applied. His Amendment was to make the Bill apply only to employment on, in, or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work,

"and to employment on, in, or about any building exceeding 30 ft. in height which is being constructed or repaired by means of a scaffolding, or on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power is being used for the purpose of the construction or repair thereof."

acknowledged that in this Amendment the Home Secretary had redeemed the promise made the previous evening, but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone further in the direction of the Amendment which had been suggested by including all places where building material was being prepared, and where buildings were being constructed. The limitation of height to 30ft. would only produce further anomalies. He pointed out, moreover, that the ordinary practice was to erect buildings in an irregular manner—that was to say, one end of the building was sometimes erected at a quicker rate than the other, so that one end might be 30ft. high and the other end 25ft. high. It would be curious to see how a Judge would construe this portion of the clause in a case of that kind, and whether or not the entire building would come within the scope of the Bill.

suggested to the Government that it was desirable to insert in the definition clause the definition of a "building," and to make some reference to the Factory Acts. He agreed with the view that the height of 30ft. was an arbitrary limit.

asked what was meant by height—was the mea- surement taken from the street level to the eaves or the top of the roof? A large number of houses in the North of England were constructed about 30 ft. high from the level of the street to the eaves.

said that the Government had adopted as a convenient definition the words of the Factory and Workshops Act, which had already received statutory interpretation. That definition had really the further advantage that it would to a considerable extent relieve the smaller builders from the obligations of the Bill. The Government felt that there was a considerable difference in the position of a small man employing one or two labourers and that of a man engaged in large contracting operations.

appealed to the Government, seeing they had agreed to include three-fourths of the building trade, to bring in the remaining fourth. The portion excluded represented that which stood in the greatest need of protection. Those builders who undertook large contracts were usually men who employed the more experienced workmen, whereas the smaller builder was in nine cases out of ten the sweater. He engaged inexperienced workmen, and put on two or three men where four or live were required for the job. And why should the small builder not be subject to the same liabilities as the owner of a small factory or workshop? In the Operative Plasterers' Society alone he found that last year they had no fewer than four deaths, live accidents causing total disablement, and 250 other accidents, or 16 per cent. of accidents in that particular trade. A very large amount of plaster work was done in buildings under 30 ft. high, where there was no scaffolding and no machinery used.

reminded the Secretary for the Colonies that this Act would be put in force by the County Courts, and therefore the statutory interpretation which had hitherto obtained would be of no avail at all. Passing from that, he could not see why, in addition to height, they should superimpose the two conditions of scaffolding and machinery. Surely if a building exceded 30 ft. in height the Act should apply whether there was scaffolding or machinery or not. A man who fell from the Tower of Babel would have no compensation under this clause; and so would the steeple-jack who, without scaffolding or machinery, ascended to the top of the Trafalgar Monument the other day. The height was the thing, and the addition of scaffolding or machinery should make no difference at all. Another effect of the Government Amendment would be to discourage sound employers and the use of machinery in the building trade. The logical thing would have been to refer to the building trade generally, and define the term in the definition clause.

asked whether there would be any objection to inserting the word "demolish" after the ward "construct!"

said that there would be no objection to inserting the two words "repair" and "demolish."

said that the question was one of drawing a line somewhere, and he was only concerned to see the line drawn in a practical way. He had no sympathy with those who tried to extend this tentative Measure first in one direction and then in another; but the line proposed to be drawn by the Government was not practical. The Government were going to make legal rights depend upon an exact measurement of 30ft., and yet they were leaving wholly vague the methods by which the measurement was to be determined. Were pinnacles and weathercocks to be counted in the height of a building? Was the measurement to be taken from the concrete, and, in the case of sloping ground, from the lowest point? Was the Act only to apply when a building in course of erection had passed the height of 30ft.? It really did not matter in the building trade whether this experiment were made a little larger or smaller, and he thought the words "30 feet" had better be omitted.

said that the difference of opinion was perfectly clean. Some hon. Gentlemen desired the provision to be extended, and the Government could not agree to it. Upon that point the decision of the Committee must be taken. If the anomalies which would arise under any definition were to be discussed, the Committee would never get to an end of its labours. The Government were anxious to meet any suggestion, if doing so did not involve lengthened discussion; and they would accept the insertion of the word "demolish" if it would not add to the controversial matter in the Bill.

said that after the concession of the Home Secretary he should not move the Amendment of which he had given notice making the Bill co-extensive with the Notification of Accidents Bill.

asked the Government to say whether they regarded these exclusions limitations as vital to the Bill?

said that he could not say that a point of this kind was vital to the Bill; but the Government had clearly declared how far they were prepared to go. They could not advise the Committee to go further.

thought that the builder would be able to insure better if all his men were covered by the insurance. The question of the height of the building did not come in at all.

asked the Home Secretary to give him a practical definition of "30 feet high." [Ministerial laughter.] If the height was not clearly defined it would be the source of endless litigation between workmen and their employers. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Government had been charged with not having sufficiently included the building trades in the Bill. They had gone as far as they could go in that direction in the Amendment which he had moved, and they had taken the words "30 feet high" from the Act of 1885.

said he felt sure that both workmen and employers would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman inserted after "30 feet" the words "front the ground level." ["Hear, hear!"]

said that what they wanted to ascertain was how the Courts would interpret "30 feet."

Who can tell?

asked if the Attorney General could give any information as to whether there had been any cases decided under the Act of 1885 which threw light on the question? Question put, "That the words of the Amendment as far as the word 'constructed,' inclusive, stand part of the proposed Amendment." The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 120.—(Division List, No. 230.)

said that a good many people had suggested this Amendment, but he was bound to say it was a rather dangerous one. Buildings were demolished by people called "knackers," who were a special class ill themselves; and if this Amendment were accepted there would be admitted one of the poorest class of wretched employers from whom the difficulty of obtaining compensation would be the greatest. Amendment amended by inserting, after the word "constructed," the word "demolished," and after the word "construction," in the last line, the word "demolition." Words, as amended, inserted. Amendments made: Sub-section (2), first paragraph, "87" struck out, and "1873" inserted—(The Attorney General.) Sub-section (2), second paragraph, the word "or" omitted—(Sir Matthew White Ridley)

pointed out that this Amendment raised the question mooted last night, but reserved for further consideration. The Government would be landed in a very strange anomaly if this Amendment were accepted. Sometimes ships were unloaded at the dock side, and at other times into lighters. If the unloading process went on at the quay the docker was protected, but if it took place into lighters the docker was not protected. Often a ship lay in mid-stream, and her unloading took place into lighters while she was in that position. The men employed in that case ought, he thought, to be protected. He, therefore, moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert the words:—

"or as far as relates to the process or loading or unloading every ship while in port, harbour, or river, and all machinery or plant used in that process."

thought this was a separate Amendment.

pointed out that his words also included "machinery and plant." His Amendment extended the effect of the Home Secretary's Amendment, and, therefore, he respectfully submitted, that with the usual practice, it would be in order here.

said the Home Secretary had the same words in before the hon. Member, and he was, therefore, entitled to get the decision of the Committee first. If the Committee rejected the right hon. Gentleman's words, then the hon. Member would be in order.

said that would make the wording of the clause extremely clumsy. It would not meet his purpose if the Home Secretary's words were first submitted.

accepted the Amendment as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

said that if this Amendment to the Amendment were accepted, it would include all cases of loading or unloading of ships by ship's tackle whether in dock or in mid-stream and would impose a liability on the shipowner indirectly. What the Government proposed was that where the machinery of the dock was being used for the purpose of loading or unloading a ship at the quay it should come under the Bill; but if that machinery was also used for unloading into a lighter, it would also, he took it, come under the Bill. They must draw the line somewhere, and, as the Colonial Secretary had pointed out more than once, they had thought it wise to draw it at the definition, which had already been accepted, of the loading and unloading by machinery which was part of the dock premises, and which was used as the dock premises. They could not possibly accept the Amendment, which would be, to a large extent, negativing the decision which the Committee, indirectly, came to last night.

submitted the Attorney General was mistaken in supposing that the Home Secretary's words would cover the particular case he had quoted of machinery on the quay which was being used to convey goods from the ship into the river on the other side, for this reason, that the words which the Government proposed to insert were "machinery or plant," to which the provisions of the Factory Act of 1895 applied. The "machinery or plant" to which the Factory Act of 1895 applied were machinery or plant which were used in the process of conveying the goods to or from the quay. Therefore, it was clear that these words would not cover the case of goods being dealt with even with the gear of the dock company.

said he believed that the cases to which he referred, in which a crane could be used for conveying goods on to the other side of the ship, were very exceptional cases, but the real strength of the Amendment was the tackle and gear of the ship which was being used for that purpose, and in that case it would be excluded.

asked if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to take out the words "either to or therefrom." That was all that was required to meet this particular case.

said this matter was fully discussed in the Debates on the Factory Bill of 1895, and he thought that the sense of the House was that if words could be formed it should extend to the loading and unloading of ships, though they might not be actually attached to the quay and were loading from or into lighters. There was no question here of extending it to the sailors. It was entirely a matter with reference to stevedores and dockers, and if the Government would consent to consider the matter on Report, so as to see whether it was not possible, with regard to them, to extend this protection which they had now when the ship was attached to the quay, and whether some words could not be adopted to bring these men under the protection of the Bill, from which they were at present excluded, simply because the ship was not attached to a quay, he thought they would meet the objections which had been raised.

was a little surprised at the appeal which had just been made by the hon. Member opposite, because he thought he thoroughly accepted the view taken just now by his hon. and learned Friend that it would be wise to accept the definitions already laid down in the Factory Act. The Government would not engage in the extremely difficult task of amending the definitions of the Factory Act. He did not say that they might not be able to amend those definitions in many particulars, but it would be too great a task for them to undertake in that Bill.

said that by the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, a grave injustice was being done to the stevedores. The dividing line would be far better drawn if it were to refer simply to those men whose occupation was docking, and who lived on shore, and who were not part of the actual complement of a ship's crew.

desired to ask the Attorney General a question. If a ship was alongside a quay, and one of the shore gang, while working a winch on board towards the quay met with an accident, he presumed he would come within the range of the Bill. But if, while working at the same winch, he met with an accident while lowering anything into a barge alongside, he was without the Bill. If that were so, that man would be in a very awkward position.

said he had raised a small but very important point, and if the Government would agree, either now or on Report, to withdraw the words "either to or therefrom," so as to cover the case of unloading with the gear or crane of the dock company into a lighter he would not divide. If they would not consent to do that he would divide the Committee.

said that if they were to at once agree to withdraw those words they would have to insert a clause repeating again Section 23 of the Factory Act. He thought the hon. and learned. Member must see that to enter into this kind of discussion was just one of those very difficult and complicated matters with which the Colonial Secretary declined to deal. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, he certainly should have thought that the machinery referred to in the Factory Act was the machinery belonging to the dock, wharf, warehouse, or quay. He was not aware whether there had been a decision on that point, but he should think that was the intention of the Factory Act, and did not include machinery on board a vessel. The point was one he should inquire into before giving a positive answer.

, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that "machinery or plant," to whomsoever it belonged, whether the ship's tackle or the dock tackle, which was actually used for conveying cargo to or from a ship, came within the intention of the Factory Act.

thought that the words must cover all plant. Question put, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment." The Committee divided: —Ayes, 113; Noes, 217.—(Division List, No. 231.) Words inserted.

proposed to add to the words last inserted in the paragraph the following words, which he thought did not go beyond the principle the Government had laid down: —

"also includes every shipbuilding yard, whether or not such shipbuilding yard is one wherein or within the close, curtilage, or precincts of which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used; also includes vessels under construction or repair, or any other employment in which the operation of plating or rivetting is performed."

, interposing: This Amendment is not on the Paper. Would it not be better—I make the suggestion, but, of course, if he insists, the hon. Member has a right to press his Amendment—but would it not be better that he should put it on the Paper for Report. It is rather lengthy, and it is impossible to understand unless we have the words before us.

I am quite willing to have the Amendment considered on -Report. It is one in connection with which I moved last I withdrew that Amendment in order that this matter might be considered at this stage, but I should be willing to withdraw if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that it shall be considered on Report.

Yes, certainly. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

wished to propose at the end of the paragraph to insert the words: —

"'Light railway.' has the same meaning as in the Light Railways Act 1896; 'tramway' has the same meaning as in the Tramways Act 1870."

ruled that it could not be put after the rejection last night of the proposal to include "tramways" in the Bill.

said he should not like to expunge the words without consulting the draftsman. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

promised to consider the question. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said he could not accept this Amendment as it stood. They never heard of the "demolition" of railways or docks or harbours or canals. He did not know that such a thing ever did occur.

said there were extensions and many alterations in railways.

asked whether the hon. Member would be content if he put in "alteration?"

said that demolitions went on when railways were widened. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Words "or alterations" inserted after the word "construction."

asked the hon. and learned Member to give the Government time to consider this proposal. They were not unfavourably disposed towards the Amendment, but they would like time to answer it.

said he was quite willing to allow the matter to stand over until the Report stage, and he would withdraw his Amendment now. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

remarked that though the words might have been quite necessary in the Act of 1875, he was informed that they were quite unnecessary now. Amendment negatived.

said the same remark applied to this as to the previous Amendment. There was no necessity for the words, and that being so they ought not to be inserted. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3,—

was of opinion the Government could not be expected to consider the Amendment at this stage. He feared the effect of the Bill, without the Amendment, would be to increase the employment of military as against civilian labour in purely civilian work, which would be a bad thing, both for the labour and the military world. The evidence before the Committee on Government contracts showed that an increasing amount of civilian work was done by soldiers—which took them off their proper military duties—for the purpose of saving money, and he was afraid that the effect of a Bill under which the Government would have to pay heavy compensation to their civilian labourers who were injured would have the tendency to make them. employ soldiers to a still greater extent. However, the difficulties raised by the Amendment were great, and he was not prepared to face them.

said the Government were in the same position. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was wrong in supposing that, if these persons were left out of the Bill, that would be any temptation to the Government to employ them in work on which they would not otherwise be employed. He would point out that where Government servants were injured in the course of their employment at the present time something was done for them, although there was no statutory liability. He believed that was the practice in the great workshops at Woolwich and elsewhere. ["Hear, hear !"] The Government were quite willing to consider the matter, but they should have to consult the two Departments concerned. He could not say anything now, but on the Report stage he might be able to do so.

would, on that understanding, withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4,—

proposed to leave out the words "one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight," and to insert "one thousand eight hundred, and ninety-nine," so as to postpone the operation of the Bill for a year. He ventured to think the Amendment involved considerations of great importance. He had had some conferences with the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and the impression conveyed to his mind was that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to listen favourably to him. He had also had some conversation with the Attorney General, and, considering the importance of the subject, he hoped the Committee would pardon him if he occupied a little time in stating, his case. The practical effect of the Bill was to put a tax upon certain classes for the benefit of the whole community. This Bill has been introduced without notice to the constituencies and without the parties interested having had time to realise the effect it would have upon their industry. He therefore contended that plenty of time should be given before the Bill came into operation. All the small employers would be compelled to federate. The figures that had been given as to the effect in the coal-mining industry differed very materially. The Government had been appealed to to give the figures, and they had not done so. At any rate, different authorities differed very widely. The rate of insurance against employers' liability was at the present moment very low, about 3s. 6d. to 5s. per cent., but it was likely to rise to 40s. or 50s. per cent. if the whole liability under this Bill had to be insured against. The Debate the previous evening on the inclusion of agriculture in the Bill was really one of the best arguments he could use, for in that instance the uncertain effect of the Bill was pleaded as a reason why agriculture should not be introduced. Everything that had been said with regard to the small farmer in connection with this Bill applied in an equal or even a greater degree to small colliery owners; but all he was asking for now was that the small colliery owners should have an opportunity of federating amongst themselves and that time should be given to them to prepare for the liability that would be imposed upon them. He had been told by an hon. Member of the House that he had private information that if the Bill passed bankers would not extend the same credit to collieries which they were giving at present. That was a practical effect of the Bill. That was a thing the owners must provide against. He would like to give a few figures with reference to a great industry in the constituency which he represented. The borough of St. Helen's was the seat of the glass trade. Something like one-third of the inhabitants were dependent for their daily bread on the glass trade. That trade consumed no less than 10,000 tons of coal a week throughout the year. That meant, at 2d. a ton, an impost of £4,300 a year, which with the 1 per cent. to meet the glass trade employers' own liability to their 25,000 employés, would impose a burden of £8,300 on that trade. Somebody would have to pay that. They were told that the consumer could be made to pay, but, so far as the coal industry was concerned, it was not possible, in his opinion, to make the consumer pay. For the last seven years the trade unions had been endeavouring to put up the price of coal and wages, and they had absolutely and entirely failed.

said he thought the hon. Member was now dealing with matters from a Second Reading point of view. The hon. Member was entitled to use arguments why the Bill should be delayed coming into operation, but he was now travelling rather beyond that.

thought that these arguments directly affected the postponement of the operation of the Bill, and showed that time should be allowed to the men who were affected by it. He was only using these arguments for the purpose of showing that. In considering on whose shoulders the burden would fall, they had to remember the increasing competition with foreign coal fields and glass industries. Let him tell the House the position of the glass trade. [Cries of "Oh !"] Half the glass works in the country had been shut up during the past 30 years, and the importation of plate and sheet glass had enormously increased; yet upon this struggling British industry they proposed to throw a new heavy burden. Surely, in such circumstances, time ought to be given to insure against the new conditions, either by federation or by insuring in the ordinary commercial companies. The economic law of supply and demand prevented the burden of their compensation being put on the shoulders of the consumer. Foreign coalfields had been discovered. The price could not be raised on the foreign consumer, and, if it was raised on the home consumer it would inflict a fresh burden on an industry which was already struggling with very serious difficulties. There was one other reason why he submitted that the operation of the Bill should be postponed, and that was that there were many existing contracts for the sale of coal extending over long periods. Those contracts had been made on the faith of the existing law, and no one had any knowledge a month ago, that the law was going to be altered so largely. A solvent contractor might become an insolvent one owing to the operation of this Bill. That would be a serious hardship. From the point of view of workmen and employers alike it was important that this relief should be equitably adjusted, and that an unfair and unjust burden should not be placed on the industry in which they were mutually interested. Small collieries were often worked by half a dozen men who had been practical miners. When they found themselves face to face with a new state of things they would federate with other small employers or settle the rate of insurance they could afford to pay. Before this Bill came into operation they should have time to make satisfactory arrangements. He had suggested that the operation of the Bill should be postponed for 12 months, but he would not object to a longer period. He had received a petition from the glass industry at St. Helen's stating that if the Bill passed in its present shape it would inflict serious injury on that trade, and possibly lead to the closing of more glassworks.

said there could be no doubt that if the Bill came into operation too soon it would cause great difficulty, loss, and, perhaps, in some cases ruin. The opinion was widely held that some system of insurance was absolutely necessary for the safe and proper working of the Bill. If the insurance companies saw a difficulty in ascertaining what their actual risk would be they would put their premiums at such a rate as to satisfy what they thought the maximum would be. It was desirable in the interests of all engaged in this important industry that the changes involved in the Bill should be brought about without friction and the mischiefs that must necessarily arise if it came into operation too soon.

hoped the Government would not consider it unreasonable to concede the 12 months suggested. The Bill would impose a serious burden on the coal trade, and the margin of profit was already very small to work upon. He was able to say with authority that the majority of the coal mines of this country were at present owing money to their bankers, and if these bankers imposed restrictions, that alone would have an important prejudicial effect on the finances of the collieries. There was no crying need for the Bill. The Government had made a present of the Bill, and the working classes would be glad to accept it. In six months he believed most of the insurances could be arranged. But when it came to making contracts for millions of tons of coal which ran to June and December next year, the burden imposed by the Bill would work a great injustice. Employer, workman, or consumer would have ultimately to bear the burden. But there was no need to impose it hurriedly, and he trusted the 12 months asked for would be conceded as a fair and reasonable demand.

said that if the Government desired to encourage a friendly arrangement between workmen and employers, it was clear that it would be impossible in the short period prescribed for the Registrar of Friendly Societies to examine the great number of schemes laid before him. He therefore hoped the Government would consent to a reasonable and moderate extension of time

said that naturally the Government were desirous of considering how the Bill might be brought into operation with the least possible friction, and with reference to the duration of contracts, and arrangements which might have to be made as to insurance, and arrangements which might be necessary on the part of friendly societies, some longer time might be necessary. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Helons would not expect the Government to go so far as to postpone the operation of the Act for 12 months. The Government had looked at all sides of the question, and they thought they might fairly consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire to bring the Bill into operation on March 31, 1898, which would be giving another three months. This should go some way towards meeting the objections urged against bringing the Bill into immediate operation. If the Committee were agreeable the Government would consent to the date he had mentioned.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he had made. At the same time he could not help thinking that a delay of only three months would not be enough, and that the minimum extension ought to be six months.

hoped that the Home Secretary would remember that a good many Members on the Opposition side of the House and probably on the other side also did not take part in these discussions, because they. did not want to hinder the progress of the Bill. Many of those Members regretted, he was sure, the concession which the right hon. Member had made.

thought the concession made by the Government was unprecedented. He did not remember any occasion when the operation of a Bill had been postponed for so long a period as was proposed. The Government had made a very considerable concession to the other side, but they had not accepted, as far as he could remember, any equivalent Amendment on the side of the men. He trusted that the Government would not prove amenable to any further pressure exercised by the opponents of the Bill. When, in his innocence, he ventured to suggest, a short time ago, that with a view to making the Bill absolutely perfect, they might well devote a little more time to its consideration, he was charged, most unfairly, with wishing to delay the Measure. But now the Government themselves accepted an Amendment which would cause considerable delay. He trusted that they would have no more concessions of this kind. If the Government acted in this way, the Opposition might have to reconsider their attitude towards the Measure.

regretted that the hon. Member should have thought it right to speak in a minatory tone. The hon. Member declared that no concessions had been made by the Government in favour of the workmen. [Mr. BROADHURST: "I said equivalent concession !"] That did not alter the case. As a matter of fact, many considerable alterations had been made to meet the views of hon. Members opposite. In fact, a day or two ago the Government were very sharply criticised for having given way so much to the Opposition. He deprecated such criticisms, however, either from the one side or the other. The Government regarded all Amendments according to their merits, and did not consider that they were dealing with opposed interests. They hoped that the interests of workmen and of employers were identical. Nothing would induce them to agree to any great delay before the Bill should come into operation, but they were of opinion that a fair case had been made out for a short delay so that employers might have a better opportunity of making their arrangements. The Bill certainly did involve great change, and he attached high importance to the arrangements which he hoped would be made between employers and employed. He meant amicable arrangements within the Bill, and he thought it was reasonable that time should be given to those concerned to make their plans.

thought the Members on his side of the House would be prepared to support the Government after the speech of the right hon. Member. [Some cries of "No !"] A short delay was expedient in order that arrangements might be perfected in regard to insurance, contracts, and substituted schemes.

did not think that a delay of three months would be long enough. He would have preferred the period mentioned in the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens. He had gone into the Lobby against the Government on more than one division since this Bill had been in Committee, but on the present occasion he should support them.

, viewing the matter impartially, approved the proposed extension of time, because he believed that the peaceful operation of the Measure would be thereby facilitated. In the proposed interval Committees could be formed and friendly arrangements made between employers and workmen.

said he did not believe that the colliery owners would be ruined. There appeared to be very much consideration for the employers of labour in that House, but what about the workmen? These contracts were among the ordinary risks of trade, and colliery owners must take their chance with other employers. He understood that colliery owners looked for very handsome profits. [Cries of "Oh !"] He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not go back on the concession which he had offered.

pointed out that the coal contracts for the City of London and all the railway contracts were made from June to June, and had already been made up to June 1898. He thought it was a very small concession to ask the Government, instead of fixing March 31, to fix a time which corresponded with the time for which the contracts were made. He did not agree with the hon. Member for the Falkirk Division. He thought they were justified in pressing the Government for this further extension. He wished to say that he was not now an opponent of the Bill; he had been, but now that the Bill had passed the Second Reading he and his Friends wanted to remove some of its evils, and to defer the incidence of such evils.

said in order to make his position clear he wished to say that he had been opposed all along to the incidence of the compensation, but he had always been in favour of the principle of universal compensation. To some extent, he thought, they had managed to make the Bill a better Measure.

was understood to say that he had only quoted the Home Secretary.

Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?

said he understood the Government would give them an extension of three months. On that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said that if the Committee allowed the Amendment to be withdrawn the Government would be prepared to support an Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire for the extension of the time to the 31st of March. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Colonel DENNY), moved to insert at the end of the clause, the words

"and shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred· and two, provided that any cases remaining unsettled at that date shall continue as if this Act had not expired."

said the Government could not accept the Amendment, as they did not think it was desirable that the Bill should be of a temporary nature. ["Hear, hear !"] It was quite obvious from the discussions which had taken place that in all probability amending Acts, and possibly extending Acts, would be brougt in, and there would then be ample opportunity for discussing the working of the Measure. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,

said that with a great many of the propositions stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite he found no exception at all. This clause undoubtedly was a very important one, and he was not quite sure whether the limitations the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested were really sufficient. There were one or two points to which he should like to direct his attention and that of the Attorney General so far as sub-contracting was concerned. Suppose the work of the sub-contractor was in connection with the general scope of the work of the head employer. From that point of view, he thought the workman should have a remedy in a case of that kind, but he thought it was extremely important that it should be strictly limited. Suppose an employer brought a sub-contractor on to his premises, say a factory, for the purpose possibly of repairing the premises, and that in the course of the work the workman suffered from some injury. He did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that in such a case the factory owner should be liable.

pointed out that the words of the clause were "within the scope of his trade or business."

said that, if it were limited in that way, for his part he thought it was a proper Amendment, and ought to be introduced, but that any extension of it beyond that limitation ought, on the other hand, to be rigorously excluded. There was another point on this clause which he could not pass by, although he thought it had to do with the general scope of the Bill. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman had made certain Amendments in the words of the Amendment so that it should only apply to the "personal negligence "or" wilful act "of the employer. He wanted to protest against these words being introduced. If the first clause was not to be altered on Report, of course the words would have to stand, but he had always protested against the introduction of these words into the first clause.

I have protested as stoutly as my hon. and learned Friend, and I quite agree with him.