said that he desired to express his regret that the other House of Parliament should have struck out of the Bill the Clause relating to the -Women's Franchise: but, as he was aware of the necessity that existed for a proper water supply for Dublin, he would not take any further step in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the figures of experiments on living animals contained in Return No. 239 of this Session arc obtained from the licensees who perform them, and in that case whether any steps are taken to verify their accuracy; (2) whether each of the "licensed places" was inspected during the year to which the Return relates, and how many of them more than. once; whether any of the visits of inspection were surprise visits, and, if so, how many; and (3) whether he has personally satisfied himself that the licences and certificates are all issued only to such places and persons, and with such objects, as are contemplated by the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876?

Yes, the returns are obtained from the licensees, and the check, of course, upon them is supplied by the visits of the inspectors, which with a few exceptions, are paid without, notice. Four registered places at which no licences were in force, and the laboratory attached to the Board of Agriculture, winch was only registered on the 1st of December, were unvisited during the year. Five places were visited once ally, eight twice, 25 three times, two four times, three five times, and one six times. No licensee was found during any of these visits to he exceeding his powers. The answer to the last paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that professional professors in Queen's College s in Ireland are placed by The Colleges Act, 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. c. 66), and the College Statutes, as regards appointment, tenure of office, and duties, in the same position as the Arts professors, and that they fulfil the only two conditions laid down by the Superannuation Act of 1859 (22 Vict. c. 26) as qualifying for pensions, namely, appointment by the Crown, and payment from the Consolidated Fund: and whether, considering that the professional as well as the Arts professors in the Scotch Universities receive pensions on retirement, he would explain on what grounds the Treasury, while admitting the right of the Arts professors, refuse to grant pensions to the professional professors in the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.

The Queen's Colleges Act of 1845 does not bear upon the question of the pensionable rights of the professors. These rights (if any) are determined by the Superannuation Act 1859. Section 2 of the latter Act vests the ultimate decision of pension claims in the Treasury, "whose decision shall be final," and in the exercise of this power it has been the invariable practice of the Treasury to decline to admit as pensionable any officer who is not required to give his whole time to the duties of his office. The Queen's College professional professors, who are not so required, are therefore excluded. The grant of pensions to the Scotch University professors was transferred from the control of the Government to that of the Universities by the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889. Before that date they were pensioned, not under the Superannuation Act of 1859, but under the Universities (Scotland) Act 1858, which gave the Treasury no power to require whole time. Their case therefore is not, and never has been, analogous to that of the Queen's College professors.

asked who was the authority to determine whether the outside occupation of these professors was inconsistent with the performance of their college duties?

said the question did not arise whether it was the college as represented by the President of the Council that was the authority to determine whether the outside occupations of these professors were inconsistent with the performance of their college duties. It was a question whether they gave their whole time, and it was admitted that they did not, since they undertook private practice. It was because of that that the Treasury refused them a pension.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many Staff and Acting Staff Officers were on duty, detached from their own corps, at the Review at Aldershot on 1st July: and, whether he can state, from official reports, or other sources the number of Staff and Acting Staff Officers usually employed with a force of similar strength in the German Army?

Seventeen Officers detached from their corps were employed on the staff at the Aldershot review of the 1st inst. According to the regulations of the German Army, it is estimated by the military authorities that a force of similar constitution and strength would have a staff numbering altogether 92 officers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an arrangement between the Emperor Menelik and Her Majesty's Government was signed and sealed on the 14th May?

The answer is in the affirmative.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the King to send missions to this country.

I have not heard of any such intention.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why the second mail for Rathangan, county Kildare, is not sent out from Kildare at the same time as the mails for Fontstown, Dunmurry, and Lackagh, viz., at 8.10 a.m. instead of at 9 a.m.?

The reason is that the improved service to Rathangan cannot be arranged without additional expense, which is not warranted, as the existing service is conducted at a loss to the Revenue; while in the other three cases it was found practicable to improve the service without incurring expense.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the prisoners Conneeley, Fitzharris, Mullett, and O'Hanlon, now confined in Maryborough Convict Prison, have completed (including the period during which they were detained awaiting trial) over 14 years' imprisonment; (2) whether they are now, and have been since convicted, classed as well-conducted prisoners by the officials in charge of them, and whether the remissions so far earned by their uniform good conduct represent each of i hem as having virtually undergone a legal sentence of over 17 years; and (3) whether, seeing that three other prisoners, named Dowling, Fox, and Diskin, tried and sentenced at the same time, and subjected to similar prison treatment, were released on the ground of impaired health, and died shortly after liberation, lie will order a special report by the medical officers of Mary-borough Prison on the health of the prisoners Connolley, Fitzharris, Mullett, and O'Hanlon?

The fact is, as stated in the first paragraph. All four convicts are now, and have been for some years, classed as well-conducted prisoners. The suggestion in the second part of the second paragraph is correct, if it means that each (if the convicts has earned by good conduct and industry more than the number of marks which would qualify him for release on licence, had Ins sentence been one of 17 years; but the hon. Member is doubtless aware that the sentence on Conneeley was one of 20 years, and that Fitzharris, Mullett, and O'Hanlon were sentenced to penal servitude for life. The health of all four convicts is under constant medical supervision, and so recently as the 6th instant, the Resident Medical Officer of the prison reported that Conneeley would be in his usual health in a day or two; that Fitzharris enjoys fair health; that Mullett is convalescent after an attack of influenza; and that O'Hanlon, who suffers from dyspepsia, enjoys otherwise fair health.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether Army and Navy pensioners are promoted curators at the National Portrait Gallery without examination, but have to pay a fee of 5s. and be examined in the Tate Gallery; and could he explain why such different treatment should exist?

In the National Gallery, including the Tate Gallery, the posts to which pensioners have been appointed are permanent and pensionable. They have therefore to pass a very simple examination and to pay the small fee mentioned. In the National Portrait Gallery their posts are temporary and non-pensionable and so do not require any examination.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the proposed alteration in postal rates, which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as probably coming into force on the Jubilee Celebration Day, is yet arranged for; and, if so, when any official intimation of the alteration will be made to the public?

The alterations in the rates of the Inland Letter and Parcel Posts, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced would conic into force on Jubilee Day, were duly made on that date and were officially announced by public notice.

asked when and how this notice was given. He had inquired at a great many post offices and could not find it. If it were posted up at all it must have been in the private offices of the different postmasters?

said that the notices were sent out to all postmasters some time before the Jubilee Celebration Day, and in addition public notices were sent out to be posted up in all post offices. He was assured that this had been dime in London.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that certain tenant farmers in Ireland, commonly known as glebe tenants, purchased in 1874 their holdings at 22½ and 25 years' purchase of the then rental, and that the rent of 1874 is an impossible one now owing to the great fall in price of farm produce; (2) is he also aware that a number of these tenants have been paying for 23 years interest at a high rate on three-fourths of the purchase money advanced by Government to purchase their holdings; and, (3)as these tenants can no longer pay high interest on the money due to the State, will he consider their case with a view to giving them a share in the benefits of recent land legislation?

The average rate at which glebe tenant purchasers purchased their holdings under the Irish Church Act of 1869 may be taken at 22½years' purchase of the rental. The fact is not as stated in the second paragraph. The cases of these tenant purchasers were dealt with by the Land Acts of 1885 and 1887 with the result, generally, that their instalments have since been at a similar rate to those of purchasers under the Ash-bourne Act—the instalments including interest being at the rate of 3⅛per cent. Moreover, Section 26 of the Land Act of last year extended further advantages to Church purchasers as well as to other tenant purchasers. The question in the third paragraph seems, therefore, to have been put in ignorance of the facts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in recent years farmers in the north of Ireland experience no little difficulty in procuring labourers to assist in the work of the fields; (2) that the scarcity of farm labourers becomes more marked year by year, though wages are as high or higher than formerly; and that, owing to the want of cottages built under the Labourers' Acts, no encouragement exists for young men and women to remain, and they are forced to seek a home in other lands; and, (3) as the province of Ulster contains barely three per cent, of the cottages built under the Labourers' Acts in Ireland, will steps be taken to place agricultural labourers in Ulster on a level, as regards housing accommodation, with agricultural labourers in other parts of the country?

I believe it is a fact that the supply of labourers in Ulster has been decreasing in recent years, though I have no reason to believe that this represents a state of things peculiar to Ulster, and doubtless there are considerations other than those suggested in the Question which have influenced the emigration of labourers. As regards the second paragraph, in every case in which a complaint has been made to the Local Government Board, of the refusal of the local authority to act upon representations made with the view of putting the Acts into force, the Board have exercised the statutory powers vested in them; but they have no authority to take action in the matter unless these conditions are complied with.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether. he is aware that the employès of the Clogher Valley Tramway Company were from the 3rd to 8th of May engaged unloading coal at Tynan and Aughnacloy; and, if so, how was the safety of the line looked after if the men were absent; is he also aware that about half the permanent-way men have been engaged at work other than that connected with the line; and, can he state whether the Clogher Valley Tramway between Fivemiletown and Brookborough is properly supplied with ballast?

I have communicated with the secretary of the Railway Company, and have received the following reply:—

"Men from permanent-way staff who could be spared for time being were drafted from different gangs to unload locomotive coals for the Company's own use. Staff have not been employed on any but Company's business. Line is properly ballasted between Fivemiletown and Brookborough, and was inspected by Fermanagh County Surveyor one week ago."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Political Economy has for the last few years been eliminated from the examination of candidates for the Foreign Office; and, if so, whether there is any objection to its being reinstated among the subjects for examination?

There are already so many obligatory subjects in the Foreign Office examination——exclusive of those which are optional—that Political Economy was dropped in 1892, when the existing regulations were drawn up. It is not proposed to reinstate it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the plans for the rebuilding of Winchester Barracks are ready, and how soon the work will be begun; and if he is aware that part of the ruins of the old barrack buildings are in a dangerous state and on the verge of falling?

The site-plan for the new barracks at Winchester has been approved, and the detail plans are in progress. Work will be commenced at as early a date as possible, but the precise time cannot yet be stated. Any portion of the ruins found to be in a dangerous state will be at once removed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether lie will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between his Department and the Foreign Office relative to the erection of a light at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden; and from what source he proposes to obtain the funds for the erection of such light, since the surplus of the sum surrendered by Egypt from the light dues, over that required for the lights required in the Red Sea, has been granted to the Quarantine Board?

No, Sir; I do not propose to lay the correspondence referred to on the Table. Nor am I at present in a position to say from what fund the cost 4,f placing any light at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden will be defrayed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill giving effect to that part of the Departmental Committee's Report which advises the annual issue of a metal disc, to be worn by the dog when licensed, with a view to reducing the number of stray dogs, and thus avoiding, as in many foreign countries, the necessity for muzzling orders; and whether it may be possible for such legislation to be pressed forward with a view to taking effect as soon as the present muzzling orders can be relaxed?

A Bill for the purpose of giving effect to those recommendations of the Departmental Committee which cannot be carried out without further legislation is now in course of preparation, and will, I hope, be introduced very shortly. Whether it will be possible for it to be passed into law this Session must depend upon circumstances over which I have no control, but I do not anticipate that any great difference of opinion will arise with regard to its proposals.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his statement (made to the deputation from the Mining Association of Great Britain to the Marquess of Salisbury on Friday last) that the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, as drawn, relieves the employer to the extent of 30 per cent. of the cost of compensation, indicates that it is the intention of the Government that this proportion should represent the contribution of the workmen?

This Question refers to what I said in a speech, and I have already intimated to the hon. Member that I thought it was hardly a matter which was worth the attention of the House of Commons. As, however, the Question has been put to me publicly, I have to say that the hon. Member appears to have entirely misunderstood the sense of my observations. What I did say was, that in the Compensation Bill we had excluded the first two weeks as not to be paid for in any case, and I went on to say that the result of that was to exclude altogether 25 per cent., or one-quarter of the whole, of the accidents that took place. I further pointed out that besides these exceptions, amounting to 25 per cent. on the whole number of accidents, we took two weeks off the compensation that was given in the case of all other accidents; and as in the average of the majority of these accidents, which were known as accidents which caused temporary incapacity, the incapacity only lasted six weeks, the effect was to reduce the amount of compensation in such cases by about 30 per cent., and to that statement I adhere.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether any steps have yet been taken by the representatives of the Great Powers towards securing the promised withdrawal of the Turkish forces from Crete?

The question of the reorganisation of Crete, including the question of the Turkish garrisons, is under the continued consideration of the Powers; but it has not been found possible to proceed with it at Constantinople pari, passu, with the negotiations for the conclusion of the peace between Turkey and Greece.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any recent information concerning the condition of affairs in Crete; whether Candian refugees representing the mercantile and other classes of that town have made representations to the effect that whilst in other towns in Crete occupied by European troops efficacious measures have been taken to repress disorder in the towns and put a stop to hostilities in the country, in Candia, which is occupied by British troops, the Bashi-Bazouks plunder the houses and shops of Christians and organize raiding expeditions into the neighbouring country; and whether effective steps to cope with this dangerous condition of things will be taken, either by increasing the strength of the garrison or otherwise?

A telegram from Cretan refugees at Athens was received by Lord Salisbury on Tuesday night. Several of the statements contained in it are not in accordance with the facts as they have been reported to us, but the telegram has been referred to Colonel Chermside for his observations. The Turkish garrison at Candia has already been increased from Canea, but no request has reached us from Colonel Chermside for an increase of the British occupying force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any attempt was made by the Turkish troops in Candia to prevent the raid on the 26th June, when upwards of a thousand Bashi-Bazouks left that town to attack Mani Kasteli; and whether Turkish troops have been sent to re-inforce the garrison of Candia with the approval of the European admirals?

No information bearing on the first part of this question has been received since the telegrams from Colonel Chermside of the 26th and 28th of June, which I have previously communicated to the House. In the latter of those telegrams it is stated that cavalry orderlies were sent to the outposts, but that nevertheless a considerable raid occurred. The two companies of Turkish troops who have gone to reinforce the garrison at Candia have no doubt been sent with the approval of the admirals.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what object has the system of rout marching of European troops in the interior of Crete been ordered; and whether it will be carried out in spite of the Cretan insurgents?

It is believed that the march of European detachments through the interior of Crete was designed as a pacific measure to reassure the inhabitants and to acquaint them with the intentions of the Powers as regards the future of the- island. Six of the native chiefs, however, requested that the march might be for the present postponed, as they were not quite sure of their control over their own people until the election of chiefs had been finally settled.

Has it, then, been agreed to postpone the march?

Yes; the march has not taken place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when the Cretan Papers, dealing with the events of last February, will be distributed?

I hope the Papers in question will be distributed to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is a fact that in the town of Candia, the plundering of the houses of Christians continues daily under the eyes of the European troops?

No report as to plundering in Candia has reached us from Colonel Chermside since his telegram of 16th June, the substance of which I communicated to the House on the 2nd instant. We do not believe that the statement in the Question can be well founded, but a telegram from Athens containing allegations to the same effect has, as I have already stated in reply to a previous Question, been sent to Colonel Chermside, for his observations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much discontent has been caused among teachers by the alteration of Rule 154 of the National Education Board, as to promotion from one division to another of the second class without notice; and whether he will recommend that for the future notice shall be given before an examination is required for a promotion, hitherto dependent on the efficiency of the school, and that the new rule shall not come into force without a reasonably delay?

The subject-matter of this question will come before the Commissioners at their meeting to be held on the 20th instant, and I am not prepared to make any statement in reference to it until I have been furnished with the observations of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) in view of the evidence given before the Committee on Manual Instruction, and also of the strong representations made by the Commissioners of National Education showing the disastrous effects of maintaining the present high standard of average attendance at school in order to qualify for an assistant teacher, whether he will make a representation to the Treasury with a view to secure sufficient funds to enable the Commissioners to meet the expenditure which would result from a reduction of the average necessary from 70 to 60; and (2) whether he can state the average attendance necessary to qualify for a second teacher in English schools?

I can only repeat what I have already stated in answer to former Questions put to me by the hon. Member, that I shall be prepared again to bring this matter before the Treasury in connection with the Estimates for the year 1898–99, should the Commissioners so desire. I have no information as to the second paragraph.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated average attendance on which 10s. a head was hypothetically allowed in calculating the arrears of school fee grant due to Ireland in respect of the financial years ending 31st March 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896?

With the permission of the House I will reply to this Question. The school grant, under the terms of the Education Act, 1892, only commenced after the financial year ended March 31, 1892. Accordingly, the financial year 1892–93 was the first for which the sum of 10s. a head was allowed on the basis of the annual average daily attendance of pupils over three and under 15 years of age. The year 1891–92 was that in which a grant in aid, amounting to £90,000, was voted by Parliament for the Teachers' Pension Fund. The average attendance on which the 10s. a head was calculated in respect of the years 1892 to 1896 was as follows:—For the year 1892, 470,794; 1893, 503, 002; 1894, 502, 200; 1895, 495, 897; 1896, 510, 000.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain for what reason the Board of Works in Ireland insisted that the extensions of the Donegal Railway authorisad by Parliament in 1896 should be constructed as a separate undertaking; whether there is any precedent for such a requirement by the Board of Works, and under what Act the Board obtained power to so require; and whether there is any precedent for extensions in two directions, divided by thirty-two miles of the existing line, being constructed and worked as a single separate undertaking.

The Donegal Company of themselves by their Bill provided that the extensions referred to should be a separate undertaking in the recital of the original Bill the words used are:—

"it is expedient that the Company should he authorised to raise additional capital for the purposes of this Act, and should be authorised to construct the said railways as a separate undertaking with separate capital."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether his attention has been called to the serious complaints recently made in the Press by the Incorporated Medical Practitioners' Association, and by the matrons of many important hospitals, as to the mismanagement of the. Royal British Nurses' Association (an Association holding a Royal Charter) by the officials of that body, and to the allegations of irregular and improper administration of the affairs of the Association; and whether, with a view to instituting a public inquiry into the matter, he will consider documentary evidence in support of such complaints and allegations if laid before him?

Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State has had a representation made to him with regard to this matter; but it does not appear to be one in which he has any jurisdiction, and, as at present advised, he cannot undertake to consider the complaints with a view to instituting an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Waterford Dungarvan and Lismore Railway has been sold to the Rosslare Railway Company, or the Board of Works mortgage transferred to them; and (2) whether any Bill will be introduced relating to the matter?

The answer to the first paragraph is No. In answer to the second paragraph, I cannot obviously give such a large pledge as the Question implies. No Bill will be introduced during this Session at any rate.

said that, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, he wished to ask whether the negotiations indicated by the Question were in progress; had the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the resolution passed by the Corporation of Waterford, the Harbour Board, and by all the Public Boards of the City, strongly condemning any sale to the Rosslare Company; and whether he was also aware that public opinion was strongly against the sale?

Of course I have received these resolutions, and I am aware that some injury will be done to the city of Waterford by the sale of this line, but, of course, we have to consider the interests of the whole district.

If this line be sold, will it be necessary to introduce a Bill upon the subject?

That I cannot say, but this company are not the only persons who are concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentlman give the House an opportunity of pronouncing upon this sale before it is completed?

No, Sir; I do not think so. The only opportunity will arise upon the Board of Works Vote, which must be taken to-morrow. I have already explained that, in considering this question, the interests of the locality concerned have been taken into consideration, and I will do my very utmost, by consulting the representatives and others, to see that the Interests of the locality are thoroughly protected.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the expenditure will commence (if the sum allocated last Session for the construction of light railways in Ireland; and, whether he is aware that in the congested districts employment is required; and that many inquiries have been made as to when and where the proposed railways will be commenced?

Expenditure under the Act of last year has already commenced in connection with some of the smaller schemes. It is expected that tenders will be invited for the construction of the Buncrana-Cardonagh Railway in the course of a few days. I shall be prepared to give further information to-morrow in the discussion (in the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the -War Office whether he can state what decision has been arrived at by the inquiry respecting the supply of foreign meat, oats, and hay to the troops in Ireland; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of said Report, or furnish them to Members of the House?

A statement upon this subject will be made when the War Office Estimate is under discussion.

asked at about what date the reply might be expected. They had already waited a long time for it.

said that he understood that the War office Estimate was not likely to be taken, at any rate, within a fortnight; but the Question was one for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to decide.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Ins attention has been called to any complaint made by the Chief Khama respecting the establishment of huts for the sale of liquor in connection with the railway through his territory, and in contravention of the agreement made between him and the Chartered Company

The only complaint of this sort of which I am aware is one made by Khama in February last of the sale of liquor at Magalapse siding by persons who held no liquor licence whatever. The Assistant Commissioner reported that a detachment of police had already been sent to the place, and that there should be no room for further complaint, though he feared that such illicit practices had been going on previously.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state why the standard of qualification for appointment as dispenser to a Poor Law Union has been reduced, so that persons other than those possessing a statutory qualification in pharmacy are now eligible for such appointments; and whether, having regard to the special technical training required in such dispensers, the Local Government. Board will take steps to obtain for the sick poor in the various unions under their jurisdiction the security afforded by dispensers possessing a statutory qualification to dispense medicines?

The Local Government Board in June, 1895, issued an order by which compounders of medicines duly qualified in accordance with the regulations for the Army—Medical Staff Corps were recognised as qualified for appointment as dispensers by Boards of Guardians. The Board had previously issued similar orders as regards particular cases. The order referred to was not issued without careful consideration. The compounding in the Army, I am advised, is most satisfactory, and I see no sufficient reason for altering the order with regard to this qualification.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the cost of outdoor relief in the Belmullet Union during the months of May and June averaged £23 10s. per week, while the average for the corresponding months of last year was only £2 5s.; that the cost of outdoor relief for the week ending the 19th June was £37 10s., while the cost in the corresponding week of 1896 was only £3 2s. 6d.; and (2) whether, seeing that that this large increase is due to the existence of famine and fever in the Union, it is the intention of the Government to provide any special relief to ease the burden of the local rates?

The statistics of the outdoor relief expenditure given in the first paragraph of the Question are practically correct. With regard to the second paragraph, as the relief expenditure will be, to a great extent, a charge on the Union at large, the poorer Electoral Divisions, where distress prevails, will only have to pay a small portion of the cost; but whether the total expenditure will involve a rate over the entire Union next year of uncollectable dimensions is a matter which can best be decided when the Estimate for the new rate is submitted at the conclusion of the financial year ending 29th September next.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the conclusion of the Local Board of Guardians was that at the end of the financial year in September the rate would be 12s 8d. in the £1?

That may possibly be the conclusion of the Board of Guardians, but when the time comes the Government will, of course, consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can issue instructions to the Local Government Board officials that, in view of the outbreak of typhus fever on the Island of Iniskea, in the Belmullet Union, a temporary structure to serve the purposes of a hospital should be erected on the island, so that the fever-stricken persons might be isolated from the other portion of the population, and might, without danger to those who have escaped the epidemic, be nursed back to convalescence?

The Board of Guardians have already applied to the Commissioners of National Education for the use of the school-house on the island for the purpose indicated in the Question, and this application, which was supported by the Local Government Board, has, I understand, been complied with. The Board have further advised the Guardians of their powers, under Section 155 of the Public Health Act, to provide temporary places for the treatment and reception of the sick or convalescent, and the Congested Districts Board have placed at the disposal of the Guardians a large shed on the island for this purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is his latest information as to the condition of Miss Kenny and Miss M'Alister, the two trained nurses belonging to the City of Dublin Hospital, who are now suffering from fever in the Belmullet Hospital, as a consequence of attending the fever stricken patients on the Island of Iniskea?

Yesterday I was informed that one of the nurses was doing well, but that the condition of the other was not satisfactory.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what number of special nurses have been, and are, engaged in attending the fever patients on Iniskea Island; and (2) what has been the cost per week to the Belmullet Union of dealing with the epidemic?

The staff of paid nurses at present on the island consists of two trained and two untrained nurses. The nursing is under the direction of a temporary medical officer specially engaged for attending to the island during the continuance of the fever. The guardians have power to appoint as many additional nurses as the medical staff recommends, and the inspectors of the Local Government Board are advising them in the matter It is impossible to give the information indicated in the second paragraph without making local inquiry which may occupy some days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the epidemic of typhus fever which has now for some time been raging on the island of Iniskea, in the Belmullet Union, has extended to the mainland; and, if so, can he give the number of cases reported by the authorities as having broken out on the mainland?

Two cases of fever were reported to the Local Government Board last week as having occurred on the mainland and both were removed to hospital. The Board have not since heard of the occurrence of other cases.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the recent appointment of eight additional Assistant Land Commissioners, whether lie will consent to a Return giving the names, residences, former occupations, previous experience of land cultivation, and so forth, in continuation of the Return furnished on the Motion of the Member for South Down?

No objection will be offered to the further Return indicated in the Question if the hon. Member will move for it in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the future of the New Hebrides has formed or will form a subject of consultation with the Australasian Premiers during their stay in London; and, whether he is aware that the Australian Colonies are strongly and unanimously of opinion that this important and valuable group of islands, so close to their shores, should be saved from the threatened danger of a permanent foreign occupation?

It has been resolved that the interchange of views with the Australasian Premiers with regard to the future of the New Hebrides should be confidential, and I am not able to make any statement at present as to the subjects discussed. The position of the New Hebrides has had the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government for sonic time past.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the recent elections of Medical Officers of Health, especially for the urban district of Keswick and the borough of Brighouse (Yorks); and whether lie is aware that for both of these posts, although there were candidates possessing special diplomas in sanitary science and special training in public health work, the candidates appointed in both districts were non-possessors of any special diploma in public health, and had not received any special training in this particular department.

The Local Government Board have received reports of the recent appointments of Medical Officer of Health by the Urban District Council of Keswick, and the Town Council of the borough of Brighouse. I have no information as to the qualifications of the other candidates for these appointments, but in both cases the candidates appointed possessed the qualifications prescribed by statute. The Act only requires that a Medical Officer of Health should be the holder of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine, when the district for which he is appointed has, according to the last published census, a population of 50,000 or more. The population of Keswick in 1891 was 3,905 and of Brighouse, 20,666.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Britannic Majesty's Consuls at the port of Morocco are demanding from British ships visiting these ports a fee of 10s. for attesting the signature of the agents on the manifests of the British vessels: under what authority such demand is made: whether he is aware that the Consuls of other nations make no such charge for the same duty as regards vessels under their respective flags; and, if he will give instructions that the same course be adopted by our Consuls?

The fee of 10s. on the manifests of British vessels is only charged on exports from the ports of Morocco, and is levied under the Consular Fees Order in Council of 1892. The consent of the Treasury was obtained to the waiver of a similar fee on the manifests of imports in March of last year, but the same commission was not extended to exports. I will, however, consult Sir Arthur Nicolson as to the working of the present system.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with respect to the Agricultural Act, 1896, in the case of a Union, such as Scarborough, comprising several parishes, some of which have agricultural land and some have not, should the annual amount received by the spending authority (the Board of Guardians), under the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, be credited to the common fund of the Union, or should it be credited to the parishes in the Union separately, in proportion to the agricultural land in those parishes respectively that have agricultural land; and do the words "their share," in Section 3 of the above Act, refer to the share in the annual grant paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority, the guardians, or to the share of the several parishes in a Union in that sum after it has been received by the spending authority?

In reply to the Question, it may be said that in one sense the annual grant referred to is credited to both. What happens under Section 3 of the Agricultural Rates Act is this: the amount of the grant is paid to the spending authority—i.e. the Guardians of the Union. This amount is then to be deducted from the total amount that the spending authority would require to raise by rates, if this grant were not payable. The sum which remains after the deduction is to be raised by contributions from the different parishes, taking into account the amount of agricultural land in each of them, This is accomplished by raising the sum not on the rateable, but on the assessable, value of the parishes, the assessable value meaning the rateable value reduced by an amount equal to one-half of the rateable value of the agricultural land in each parish. The benefit to a parish with agricultural land will be derived not from the distribution of the grant directly to each parish—in proportion to its agricultural land (the grant being paid into the common fund)—but from the fact that they will br called upon for a lesser contribution to the rates in proportion to the amount of their agricultural land. The words "their share" refer to the spending authority.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government have offered to accept the line of the River Peneius as the new fronties, which would restore to Turkey about one-fifth of the territory ceded by Turkey to Greece in 1886?

I think the House will agree that, while negotiations are proceeding at Constantinople, it would be undesirable to make any public statement about specific details, which might only tend to create a false impression.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in compliance with the request contained in a memorial addressed to him by Lord Peel on behalf of the State Children's Aid Association, he will take steps to secure that the Children's Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board shall be strengthened by the nomination thereon of men and women experienced in dealing with children and interested in educational matters?

There are at present no vacancies in the number of nominated Managers, but when it again becomes necessary for the Local Government Board to nominate members, in March of next year, or if before that time the number of elected Managers should be increased, I shall certainly, in making such nominations, have regard to the new duties with regard to children which now devolve on the Managers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the arrangement of giving to postmen and officials nine clear hours off duty is frequently disregarded; and whether this complaint will be remedied?

There are some cases in which it has not yet been found practicable to afford a clear interval of nine hours off duty to postmen and sorters. But these cases are being considered with a view to arrangements being made to carry into effect, so far as the circumstances will admit, the recommendations of the Committee on Post Office Establishments.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can see his way to recommend to Her Majesty that the medal in commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee, which it is proposed to confer upon chairmen of county councils, mayors, and provosts, should be also conferred upon chairmen of hoards of guardians of the poor, and the chairmen1 of urban and rural district councils?

There is no proposal to confer this, medal on the chairmen of county councils, boards of guardians, or rural district councils. The medal will be conferred upon the Lord Mayors, the Lord Provosts, and the mayors and provosts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to take any step to facilitate a settlement of the dispute in the Engineering Trade, so as to avert the great misfortune of a widespread cessation of work in a great industry?

If the intervention of the Board of Trade is asked for I shall be happy to consider the application; but I do not think any action of the Department in this direction would at present be serviceable.

resumed the Debate. He said that if the clause remained he was satisfied that there would be no inducement whatever to any employer to formulate a scheme with his workmen to be substituted for the Act. He had discussed the point with some gentlemen who were not only legal experts, but had a large experience in milling matters, and they confirmed him in his view that if this clause remained as it was it was hopeless to expect that any employer would join with his workmen in producing a scheme that could be carried out for their mutual benefit. When a scheme was approved of by the Registrar of Friendly Societies it was substituted for the Act; and the employer was brought as completely under the operation of the scheme as if the scheme were embodied in the Act itself. What did that lead them to? Supposing a scheme was adopted, that the workmen contributed as much as the employer, and that the whole sum went into the revenues of the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund. Out of this fund was to come not only compensation for accidents, but superannuation and payments during illness. Supposing there was a sufficient surplus to pay compensation for accidents, but not to pay superannuation or sick allowances, would the employer be expected to contribute something more in order to give the compensation which was provided by the scheme adopted by the employer and workmen, and sanctioned by the Registrar of Friendly Societies? Supposing, again, that under the scheme, payment from the fund were made for two or three years to a workman who had sustained an accident, would those payments be taken into consideration if the fund became insolvent, or would the employer be expected to contribute the whole of the compensation for which he was liable under the Act, and would get no credit for the payments made previously? It was quite possible that a scheme might be adopted under which the employer was to pay a certain sum in the case of death by accident. In the event of any one being killed it might be decided that instead of handing over the whole amount to the widow and children, which was usually a very unwise course to pursue, because a lump sum was spent quickly with little or no benefit to the widow or children, a certain number of payments should be made. Supposing a serious accident took place, causing the death of 150 or 200 people, and involving the payment of £40,000 in compensation; and supposing that after the money had been paid to the common fund it became insolvent some few months later—the employer would be required to pay this enormous sum of compensation a second time. With this clause in the Bill there would be no contracting out at all.

said when the second reading and Committee stages of the Bill were taken the House was on pleasure bent, and not able to give proper attention to a novel and complicated Measure of this kind. In view of the great principles involved, it was necessary to make as clear as possible the intention and probable result of this Bill. The other night the Colonial Secretary mentioned, with that ingenuous air which he knew so well how to assume, that he had a kindly feeling for the joint schemes and hoped that they would continue and increase. But what inducement would there be for the employer to enter into them? There was nothing to prevent the Colonial Secretary, some two or three years hence, when he had completed that assimilation of the Tory Party which was now going on—[laughter and cheers]—from telling the House that the workmen ought not to pay anything towards their maintenance during sickness, and proposing to throw the whole burden on the employer. The employer, with his experience of what had become these mutual funds to-day, was not likely to start new ones. The Colonial Secretary had said that in his view the contribution of the employers to these funds was insufficient and ought to be increased. But in what degree? If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed at the last General Election to increase that contribution in the degree now proposed, the right hon. Gentleman would not now be sitting on the Treasury Bench. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The amount now subscribed annually to the South Wales Miners' Provident Fund was £65,000, of which the employers subscribed £12,500. The Colonial Secretary had declared that the burden placed on the coal trade by the Bill would not be 3d. a ton. Supposing it was only 1½d. per ton, that would represent a charge of £100,000 on the coalowners of South Wales instead of the present charge of £12,500. That Miners' Provident Fund had secured the industrial peace of South Wales for more than 20 years. The effect of the Bill would be to destroy that fund and bring about disputes between employers and employed.

The hon. Member is now discussing the policy of the Bill, and not the particular Amendment before the House.

said that the burden thrown upon the employers would make it necessary for them to put some of it on the men. The Government were evidently determined to impose this burden; and their supporters were willing to vote for it, as it would apply only to some trades. But hon. Members should remember that their turn would come. The turn of the shipowners was actually fixed for next year. [Cheers.]

regarded the speech just delivered ! as one severe indictment against the whole principle of the Bill, and he repudiated its insinuations altogether. He should vote against the Amendment if only in consequence of that speech, which had for its object, not so much the insertion of any special amendment as the defeat of this important Bill, which large numbers of workpeople were waiting for outside the House of Commons.

taunted the hon. Member for Leicester that his speech contained not one remark relevant to the Amendment. For his own part he regarded the insertion of the four lines which the hon. Member for Belfast moved to have expunged as the death-blow of contract, ing-out. If they remained in the Bill no capable and intelligent employer of labour would ever dare to contract out. 1The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary put the case of a fund to which the employer paid £1,000 and the workmen £1,000, and showed that the workmen would be benefited if such a fund existed. But no employer of labour was likely to enter into any scheme of contracting-out which would render him liable for the same amount as he would be liable for under the Bill. What he imagined would happen under the portion of the section already dealt with, would be this:—There might be a fund of £1,500 raised, £750 of which would be paid by the employer, and £750 of which would be contributed by the workmen. That would be £500 more than the case the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. A workman undoubtedly would be better off under a fund of £1,500 than under a fund of only £1,000 contributed by the employer. Now they were told that, suppose such a fund as this was in existence and a difficulty occurred and the whole fund was swept away, then the whole liability under this Bill to its full amount would be placed once more on the shoulder of the employer. That entirely militated against the possibility of contracting out. It seemed to him that these four lines constituted an overwhelming obstacle in the way of the possibility of contracting out, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was right when he said that if they passed this clause as it was, it meant the death-blow of contracting-out.

considered the speech of the late Home Secretary on Tuesday night as one of the strongest arguments in support of the Amendment. He shared the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Amendment was in favour of contracting out and in favour, naturally, of the friendly societies, but for that reason he proposed, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, to vote for the Amendment. The Colonial Secretary based his whole argument against the Amendment on the assumption that the employers' contribution to any scheme must be the same as under the Bill. He could not find any words in the Bill to that effect. The employers' contribution was not the whole part of the scheme; it also embraced the workmen's contribution. Hon. Members must clear their minds of cant, and he could not agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that employers did not altogether consider the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation under the Bill was uncertain, and particularly in dangerous trades. It could not accurately be ascertained or insured against, as in the colliery industry; and one inducement to an employer to enter a scheme was that he would know practically what his liability was. He would contribute a certain amount to the scheme, and that would be supplemented by the workmen's contribution. Therefore, he submitted, it could not be said on that ground again that the contribution of the employer must be as large as under the Bill. A fortiori, it followed, if these four lines remained in the clause, that one inducement would be taken away from the employer to enter into any scheme. The whole argument of the Colonial Secretary was founded on a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman said the amount an employer must pay to any scheme was the measure of the compensation he must pay under the Act. If so, he should like to have words put into the Act which would make that perfectly clear. Those four lines, unless taken out, would, he submitted, make it impossible for any employer to go into any scheme. He would like to say a word about contracting out, and the attitude of lion. Members opposite with regard to the principle. It was perfectly well known that hon. Members opposite were opposing the Bill because they hated contracting out. ["Hear, hear!"] They did not want to encourage the friendly societies. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That at least was his impression, and he should like to be convinced to the contrary. What was the real principle on which the objection rested? It was due to a feeling which existed many years ago, and which had now passed away — namely, that no workman should be bribed, coerced, or terrorised into making an unfair bargain, that he should be compelled to sell his life or his health for more money, that he should be compelled, so to speak, to coin his blood. That was the feeling which he believed had actuated many hon. Members in the past towards the principle of contracting out, but it was absolutely groundless now. No man under the existing law could be bribed, coerced or terrorised to go into any scheme which was not favourable to himself. Thus there was no argument on that ground against this Amendment. One of the great objections he had entertained to the details of the Bill— and in this he shared the apprehensions of his hon friends—was that he believed it would, particularly if these four lines were included, deal a death-blow to the mutual friendly societies. If an employer, entering into a scheme by which he gave the workman benefits outside the Bill, and by which he knew that his liability was defined, found by the insertion of these four lines that in some other circumstances lie would be compelled to pay an uncertain amount of compensation by the Bill, what, lie asked, would be the inducement for the employer to go into the scheme I The House was debating an important Amendment, and if it could make employer and employed get rid of litigation, form a scheme in which no lawyers could interfere, and according to which employers and workmen were alone responsible, in which compensation was paid without any question being asked and litigation entered upon, then many dangers incident to the Bill would be avoided. But the introduction of these lines would prevent tins, and would render the whole clause absurd and impossible of operation, while, at the same time, inflicting a serious injury on the industrial employers of the country. That was the reason why he supported the Amendment.

said that the speech of the hon. Member was very important. He did not agree with the hon. Member, however, that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, in voting against this Amendment, would desire in any way to discourage friendly societies.—[Cheers.]—He was disposed to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said that the words in the clause would, to a large extent, if not altogether, prevent contracting-out. [Cheers.] That was a very clear issue, and he did not believe that there was any answer to the arguments on that point. But, after all, the process of conversion ought always to be easy—[laughter]—and if the adoption of the view that contracting-out should not be permitted was facilitated by this particular form of words introduced in the clause he did not think, if they secured the substance, the House ought to object to the methods. It was because the clause as at present drawn would discourage, if not destroy, the principle of contracting-out in connection with all schemes of the character referred to that the Opposition would maintain the clause as it was, and would oppose the Amendment.

said that, having listened to the debate, and particularly to the statement of the Colonial Secretary, he failed to see the necessity for the retention of this sub-section. If the employers were to be responsible for the whole amount under the scheme, as well as for compensation, it was plain that the contributions of the men were in the nature of an optional and superfluous luxury. The only explanation he could suggest for the appearance of the sub-section was, that it was either put in the clause to please hon. Members opposite or because the Government were not entirely of one mind on this Question. [Ironical cheers.] It was important that the supporters of the Government should be reassured on this point by the Attorney General. [Ironical laughter and cheers.] What the Debate had done was to point out the somewhat ridiculous position in which, as a party, the Unionists now found themselves. [Ironical laughter.] Two or three years ago contracting-out was one of the principal battle cries of their party; but now they were engaged in furthering the progress of a measure the obvious result of which would be to put an end to these arrangements altogether. [Ironical Opposition cheers.]

said that the Leader of the Opposition thought it was desirable to make the process of conversion easy. Not being desirous to be converted—[laughter]—not having yet arrived at that happy stage, he heartily supported the Amendment. It was true, as the last speaker said, that it was only a few years ago when the whole of the Unionist party rallied on the great battle cry of contracting out. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] They were then told that they were vindicating individual liberty and maintaining not only the rights of capitalists, but the liberty of the workers. Although he had received one or two lessons in his life as to the somewhat doubtful character of party pledges—[ironical laughter]—he did really believe for once, at any rate, that they had a solid and substantial cry with which they might with confidence go to the country. [Ironical cheers.] The platforms rang with this cry; the principle of contracting out attained absolutely sacred limits—[laughter]—but where did the Unionist party now find itself They found that words had been put into the Bill which made contracting, out an absolute impossibility. ["Hear, hear!"] To tell him, or any one else, that any employer would be fool enough to enter into contracting out schemes in face of a provision like this was really trifling with the intelligence of men. [Laughter.] He hoped that some, at any rate, of the Unionist Members would adhere to their pledges of a few years ago.

said that if this proviso was left in the clause contracting out would be absolutely impossible. One of the great advantages of contracting out was to promote the friendly feeling which ought to exist between employer and employed, and if contracting out was not in the future to be permitted, litigation, arbitration and friction would destroy this friendly feeling which they were all anxious to promote and foster; any scheme under the Bill as it stood was not for the advantage of the employer so much as it was for the advantage of the employed, because in accordance with the words of the sub-section no scheme could possibly obtain sanction unless it was not less favourable to the men than the terms of the Bill, and there was no likelihood of any scheme being authorised unless it was more favourable to the men than the terms of the Bill. He thought that one of the great objects in connection with contracting-out was that the employer might in some form or other be able to gauge his liability, and to know the amount of compensation which he was likely to be liable for. If such a scheme was adopted it would be for the advantage of the employed that in such a scheme the liability of the employer might to some extent be limited. He looked with great fear on the results of the Bill so far the colliery employers were concerned. He knew from personal experience what the results of colliery accidents meant. He knew of one case in which 200 miners lost their lives. In ordinary circumstances, apart from the loss of business, there would be the compensation under this Bill, and such compensation would, he believed, mean the close of the mine, the loss of business in the district, and the loss of work for the men. He thought that in some form or another the amount of compensation should have been limited in the case of these big accidents.

said the hon. Member's observations did not bear on the Motion before the House.

was simply going to say that if such a scheme as that referred to in the sub-section were to be authorised, then the employers' liability might to some extent be limited in the case of accidents, such as the one to which he had alluded.

had no hesitation whatever in saying that this clause was most unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. He had said before that he supported the principle of the Bill, and spoke in its favour on the First Reading; but be also warned the Government that if in the slightest degree the principle of contracting out was tampered with he would have no hesitation in voting boldly against the Bill. Now this clause most emphatically did away with contracting out. He had no hesitation, as an employer of great experience, in saving so. There would he no more friendly societies; no more friendly arrangements would be made. He said so in spite of the heroic speech of the Leader of the House. [A laugh.] It was a truly heroic speech; but it was like the Charge of the Six Hundred at Balaclava. That was magnificent, but it was not war, neither did his speech mean business. [Laughter and Opposition cheers.] If the Leader of the House meant to convince his colleagues, he would advise them to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast. He was not afraid to go to his constituents, because, while he had supported this Bill in principle, he would not support anything that was unfair and unjust.

said he did not rise to continue the discussion on the merits of the Amendment. The Debate had been sufficiently prolonged. But he did rise to repeat the protest made by the Leader of the House the other night against speeches suggesting that there had been any inconsistency on the part of the Government—[Opposition, laughter]—in supporting the clause as it, now stood and their action on the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Those who had taken the pains to study the Debates with reference to the Dudley clause and who knew the conditions attached to that clause, those who remembered that hon. Members behind hint actually moved Amendments making the employers responsible for the solvency and efficiency of schemes under the Dudley clause, would at any rate have a little better knowledge of what the true facts were than those who said that, because the Government had intended that as far as possible no scheme should deprive the workman of his compensation under the Bill, they were acting inconsistently with anything they had previously done. [" Hear, hear ! He did not intend to go over the arguments again. He believed that when this matter came to be reviewed hereafter, upon sound considerations of humanity and good feeling and a desire for the benefit of the workman, the masters would be led very generally to make contracts and arrangements which would free them from the responsibility of submitting to arbitration and which would at the same time interest the workmen and effectually protect the masters against malingering. In fact, there were many circumstances under which the masters might feel that it was their interest to go into a scheme; and, notwithstanding all that had been said, he hoped the House would support the Government in their adherence to the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]

said they were face to face with a critical situation. He sincerely trusted that the Opposition would not exploit the character of the situation forced upon the Government by the reactionary rump of their own Party—[laughter]—but would really discuss the question before the House in the light of their own action in this matter three or four years ago. The Opposition were correct when they said that they had been consistently opposed to contracting out, and although they might chaff the Government and twit them with having been inconsistent, that ought not to induce them to vote for the Amendment moved on the other side. He sincerely trusted that, whatever view the Opposition as a whole might have about the Amendment, and the reason which induced I he Government to oppose it, they would not depart one jot from the consistent attitude they had taken up against contracting out. ["Hear, hear!"] Having said that, he now wished to say a word to some of the Gentlemen who supported Lord Dudley's Amendment. He would like to point out that those who (lid so were inconsistent in opposing the Government now, because Lord Dudley's words, or rather so much of his Amendment as could be applied to the Bill under discussion, were these,—

"Provided also that in case the insurance fund is insufficient to provide the agreed compensation, and the employer is unwilling to make up the deficiency, the agreement for contracting out shall be considered void.''

Yes, that was the question. The Government were twitted with inconsistency. ["Hear, hear!"] They were twitted with running away from the position they had hitherto adopted on this point. Well, he had been looking at the election addresses of Conservative Members in 1892; and this was what was issued in a stereotyped form for the whole of the candidates in London of the Conservative Party,—

"I would advocate an improvement and amendment of the Employers' Liability Act, making it impossible for the workman to contract himself outside its provisions, and making it easier for hint to put forward his just claims to compensation."

The hon. Member for Clapham and the Conservative candidate who opposed me, and I have a number of others which it is not necessary to read. The fact was that in 1892 no contracting out was the platform on which many Conservative candidates went to the electorate. It was true they changed to some extent in 1895; but that was no reason why the men who wanted to stick to their pledges with regard to contracting out, and really carrying out Lord Dudley's Amendment in so far as the Bill could possibly do it—that was no reason why they should desert the Government at the eleventh hour and join in the attack which had been made in the hope that the Government Bill would be destroyed. He should support the Government [cheers]—as against some of their own reactionary forwards, because he preferred Philip sober to Philip drunk. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"]

said he had given the matter some little consideration, and he objected to contracting out most entirely. But he thought that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were giving a somewhat unfair interpretation of the clause. He did not think the clause was at all so clearly

could not agree with that remark. As the clause stood the responsibility of deciding on a scheme was to be put on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but now the Attorney General spoke of a chief Registrar. That seemed to imply that local Registrars were to decide on the merits of schemes, and that another official who was named for the first time was to make a report to Parliament.

said there was a chief or principal Registrar who now made an annual report to Parliament. It was intended that to save a duplication of reports these reports should be included in the Paper which was now annually submitted to Parliament.

was desirous of knowing how these complaints were to be carried from the workman to the Registrar. Would it be necessary that three-fourths of the majority of the workmen should be in favour of the scheme? The proposal was very vague, and did not make it clear as to the machinery to be used. He hoped the Attorney General and the Colonial Secretary would indicate to them by what form of machinery the complaint made by the workmen could be conveyed to the Registrar? Would it, for instance, be competent for the trades union agent in an office in London to snake a complaint on behalf of workmen in the far-off North of Scotland or remote parts of England? Would it be necessary for 300 out of 500 men to make a complaint? What he asked was the form of the machinery that would be set in motion as to the complaint when it was made?

thought the Amendment would be a very commendable improvement if the clause stood as it was, requiring prima facie evidence; it would cause an immense amount of trouble and do a great deal of injury. All that was now required was that complaint should be made on behalf of the workmen.

was understood to object to the words "by or on behalf of the workmen."

ventured to make an appeal to hon. Members to take these drafting Amendments a little bit more shortly. It was thought that the clause might be construed more widely than intended, and, therefore, those words were suggested. They wished to leave the Registrar unfettered and to give the power more to one workman, so that if it was an important matter the Registrar could deal with it, and if it was a trumpery matter he might refuse to deal with it. He could assure the House there was no evil design.

warned the Attorney General that representation might be made in such a way as not to give the true views of the workmen.

could see nothing to take exception to in the words proposed which would give to the plaintiff a better status than he would have under the Bill as it stood. ["Hear, hear!"] The Registrar would differentiate between trivial and serious complaints whether from one man or a thousand.

said the Bill as it stood required the production of primâ facie evidence, but this Amendment, which removed the last rag of protection from the employer, would allow the Registrar to proceed without any evidence at all. The Government did not require that there should be the smallest tittle of primâ facie evidence. They did not propose to require any evidence at all. The mere tittle tattle of the workshop, the discontent of one workman was to cause the whole of the scheme, over which so much trouble had been taken, to be reconsidered by the Registrar.

thought the Attorney General had hardly considered the effect of this Amendment. What the House ought certainly to provide for was the protection of the majority of the workmen. His own belief was that no such scheme would come into existence; but if one did, it ought to have a chance. He did not think it was fair that an official in the position of the Registrar should be asked to interpret what the meaning of the Government was. He ought to have more definite instructions. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he did not think the hon. Member would consider him guilty of discourtesy if he did not argue this matter afresh. It was quite impossible for the Government to agree to strike out the clause. This question of sub-contracting formed the subject of a long discussion in 1893, and the Government had adopted this clause because it seemed to them on the whole to approximate as nearly as possible to a solution of the question. As far as the Government could judge the clause carried out the considered opinion of the country on this question. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he thought his hon. Friend was under a misapprehension as to the effect of this clause. It would not relieve the Subcontractor from anything for which he was not now liable, or impose any liability which he did not now bear. The clause as it stood would cover 99 cases out of a hundred.

said the clause interfered with the object of the Bill.

said he desired to support what the Attorney General had sail. He thought the clause was desirable for the protection of the employer, but as the principle of making the employer liable for the Act of any stranger had been adopted, the clause was quite unnecessary, and would complicate the Bill.

said the Amendment would involve an inquiry which could not possibly be traced out and would lead to complications far beyond any advantage it would confer on the workman.

hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press this to a Division. It was a wide extension of the proposition that had been accepted that there should be a lien on the insurance fund. Most of them wanted to get the Bill through to-night, and this Amendment would lead to wide discussion.

said he thought the Amendment was a useful one, but it was suggested by the Post, Office authorities that an addition should be made which he would accordingly move when these words were agreed to.

on behalf of Mr. URE (Linlithgow) moved after the words last inserted to add,—

"In the application of this Act to Scotland, the words 'have a first charge upon' shall mean 'be preferentially entitled to.'"

said he understood his hon. and learned Friend desired to add these words simply to make the Bill in accordance with the law of Scotland, and he was quite satisfied therefore to accept them.

said he did not know whether the hon. Member for Halifax was to be considered a friend of the Bill.

Certainly.

accepted the hon. Member's declaration, but he must protest against the hon. Member's Amendment as being altogether unfriendly to the Bill. This was one of the Amendments moved in Committee and discussed in Committee. He did not know whether there was a Division upon it.