seconded the Amendment. His principal reason for opposing the Bill was that he could not understand why the House should allow a private syndicate to introduce a monopolist system—the curse of every country, especially in regard to its food supply—into Liverpool. Had that fact been known to the House the Bill of last year would never have passed its Second Reading. The parties with whom he had acted in this matter had no desire to interfere in any way with the Dock Board's management, but they thought they had a right to interfere when that board interfered with the Irish trade. He thanked the President of the Board of Agriculture for his timely intervention, and he was glad that the Corporation of Liverpool had at the last hour helped them. Had they taken the proper steps in due time, the Bill would never have reached its present stage.

supported the Amendment. He said that in doing so he did not in the smallest degree fail to realise the undesirability-, as a general rule, on the part of the House as a whole offering opposition to Measures that had fome from the Committees; but he had celt, whether he had approached that question from an Imperial point of view as President of the Board of Agriculture, or from the local point of view as one of the Members for Liverpool, that this was a Bill distinct altogether from the general cases. The previous speakers had omitted to refer to one fact which he thought was of sufficient importance to be brought under the notice of the House—viz., that when the Bill was brought before the Committee of the House of Lords applications were made for a locus standi in order that evidence in opposition to the proposal might be heard, but these applications were declined. When the Bill came down to this House the opponents thought it would be waste of time to repeat the application. He confessed he regretted that they did not try their fortunes a second time—["hear, hear!]—for he could not help thinking that they would have had an opportunity of stating their views in opposition to the proposal. It was quite true that the powers possessed by the Liverpool New Cattle Market Company were conferred upon them by the Act of 1896, and that by this Bill the Board proposed to carry out an obligation which the board believed that Act of 1896 created on their part, on which they were not consulted. Circumstances bad materially altered since the Act of 1896. There was no doubt that the proviso about two years, to which reference had been made, was inserted to secure protection of the interests of the cattle trade of Ireland by preventing the old market being closed until not only the new market had been opened, but proper access provided in the form of a convenient landing place. No steps, however, had been taken since then to create the new market, though application was made by this Bill to provide the new landing place, and it was urged by the opponents that this proposal would give the proprietors of the new market an unfair advantage. The Corporation of Liverpool—whether they ought or ought not to have moved earlier in the matter—now offered a strenuous opposition to the Bill. He hoped they would make it their business to provide a suitable market, both from the trading and the humanitarian points of view, in the city of Liverpool. ["Hear, hear!"] Certainly the House had times without number affirmed the cardinal principle that such institutions should be vested in municipal authorities, who were responsible for the prosperity of the community. Therefore if the Corporation were prepared, as he hoped they were, themselves to make proper provision—although he admitted that this might involve some hardship to those connected with the original Act—in the interests of the whole community he hoped the House would accept the amendment, which had been accepted by the promoters.

thought there ought to be some assurance given by some representatives of the city of Liverpool—or by Sir Arthur Forwood, who he understood, was connected with the syndicate in question—that the syndicate was willing to accept the arrangement which had been arrived at between the opponents of the Bill and the Dock Board.

, assured the House that he had no interest, directly or indirectly, in the syndicate referred to. He would like to assure the House that the Corporation of Liverpool and the Dock Board had given proper consideration to the subject now before the House. There were very good reasons for the Dock Board endeavouring to carry out the proposal in the Bill. It was true that there was one convenient landing stage for the purpose of ocean traffic, but it was also true that that stage was now largely used for landing steamers from Atlantic and other ocean-going steamers, and he could conceive nothing more objectionable than three or four hundred passengers landing from an Atlantic steamer in conjunction with pigs, sheep, and cattle from Ireland. It was particularly to avoid that that the Dock Board proposed this new landing place. Then the House also should know that the new market would have been only half the distance from the landing stage that the present market was. As to another point which had been raised—that of monopoly—the existing market was a monopoly in private hands, and had never been in the hands of the Corporation.

, on behalf of the promoters, said that they were willing to accept the Amendment. The Dock Board, in seeking by this Bill to obtain powers for the construction of the landing stage at Bootle, thought that they were merely carrying out a condition which had been imposed by Parliament in passing the Bill of the preceding Session. They thought that Parliament then sanctioned the principle of the establishment of the cattle market tit Bootle after having made full inquiries by Committee of both Houses, without, so far as he knew, an expression of disapproval by the Corporation of Liverpool, and after the trailers, who now raised objections to this Bill, had been heard; in fact, the Dock Board thought they would have been open to sonic censure if they had not taken measures to carry out what they believed Parliament had in principle approved. However, now that it appeared that the Corporation of Liverpool, the traders, and particularly the Board of Agriculture were opposed to the Bill, the Dock Board thought that their proper course was to withdraw the clauses objected to. In carrying out what they thought was the intention of Parliament, they were only actuated by one consideration, and that was what was best for the commerce of the country and the port of Liverpool. ["Hear, hear!"] He was quite satisfied that if an opportunity had been given to the Corporation of Liverpool and to the Irish traders to appear before the Committee they would have had no doubt whatever on the subject, and would have been convinced that the Dock Board had no idea of interfering with the Irish Cattle Trade.

said that he wished it to be clearly understood that the Corporation of Liverpool had made no application whatever for a locus standi in the House of Commons. The only petition before the Court of Referees was from the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. The Corporation of Liverpool therefore were not refused a hearing on the Bill, because they did not apply for one. They could not claim that they were unjustly treated in being refused a hearing for which they never applied.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the reason for which Lord Rossmore was dismissed from the Commission of the Peace for the county Monaghan in 1883 was publicly stated to be that Lord Rossmore had headed a band of armed Orange rioters in that county in an organised attempt to break up a Nationalist meeting, and broke through the ranks of the Queen's troops; also, that in November 1893, after the reinstatement of Lord Rossmore in the Commission of the Peace, his conduct was brought under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in connection with his action in a case before the Land Commission, in which a tenant of Lord Rossmore's had been induced by the agent of that nobleman to sign an agreement excluding himself from all proprietary rights in his own improvements, a transaction for which NI r. Justice Bewley stated from the Judicial Bench no censure could be too strong; and (2) whether, having regard to these circumstances, the Government will reconsider their decision in appointing Lord Rossmore to the Lieutenancy of Monaghan?

The circumstances under which Lord Rossmore was superseded in the Commission of the Peace in November 1883, are fully detailed in the correspondence which was presented to Parliament in the following year. It has already been pointed out that this super session did not extend to the office of Deputy Lieutenant which Lord Rossmore has held for 23 years. The second part of the first paragraph formed the subject-matter of a question addressed to my predecessor in office on the 10th November 1893, and the conclusion arrived at by the late Lord Chancellor was that Lord Rossmore had no personal knowledge of or connection with the act of his agent, and that there was no ground whatever for taking any action against hint as a Magistrate. He has been appointed to the Lieutenancy of the County, and there is no intention to reconsider the appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, there being now no chance of discussion during the present Session of the suggested further relaxation of the law relating to the application of the Factory Acts to the fish industry, nor of the strengthening of the law on that subject, it may be understood that the law as it stands will now be applied, and prosecutions in the case of the working of hours beyond those named in the Factory Acts be allowed to proceed?

There would be great difficulties in the way of adopting the course which the right hon. Baronet suggests. The law is not absolutely free from doubt, anti the practice of the last 20 years has been to allow the exemption, the right to which the Bill now before the House is intended to make clear. Further, the enforcement of the stricter view of the Act which the right hon. Baronet takes would have the effect of injuring the smaller men employed in the trade to the benefit of the large employers who can afford to put their fish in ice. I do not see my way therefore at present to putting a more stringent construction on the Act than my predecessors have done.

Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the law officers?

I am not at all sure that the opinion of the law officers has not been already taken, but of course the highest opinion will be taken.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether he has received from the North Uist District Committee of the Inverness County Council a resolution deploring a public insult offered by Sir John Orde to the sheriff substitute of the district; (2) whether he is aware that the insulting language used arose out of some question as to the sheriff's residence as a tenant under Sir John Orde, and that the sheriff has since felt constrained to quit the island:(3) and whether, seeing that Sir John Orde is a J.P. and D.L. of the county, the Scotch Office will bring the matter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of the county.

I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. As information was laid before the Procurator Fiscal, the incident referred to was investigated and reported upon by Crown Counsel who have come to the conclusion—with which I agree—that, though the language used was insulting and offensive the facts do not amount to a breach of the peace. It is not the fact that the sheriff's absence from the island is due to the incident in question. In view of the determination of Crown Counsel that no proceedings should be taken, the Scottish Office do not propose to take any steps in the direction indicated in the last paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the North Uist District Committee of the Inverness County Council on 26th June, the statements therein put forward that owing to the refusal of Sir John Orde to sanction a scheme for the proper supply of water to Lochmaddy, the water supply of that place was filthy and unfit for human use, and the resolution agreed to by the District Committee to prosecute Sir John Orde under the Public Health Acts; and whether, considering the danger to public health entailed by a continuance of the state of matters described, the Local Government Board can intervene and compel its remedy?

The Local Government Board are aware that the water supply of Lochmaddy has long been in an unsatisfactory condition and repeated efforts have been made by the Board to bring about improvement. A Special Water Supply District has been formed but as the proprietor saw reason to disapprove the proposed direction of the pipe-track, the Board, looking to the urgency of the situation, took the somewhat unusual course of remitting to a Special Engineering Commissioner to report on the whole matter in order to be in a position to advise the Local Authority; that gentleman accompanied by the medical member of the Board visited Lochmaddy recently and his report is understood to be nearly ready. The Local Government believe it is the case that the Local Authority have resolved to prosecute the proprietor. I am not aware that the Local Government Board can do anything further till their Commissioner's report is before them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, taking into consideration that sheep dogs will not work over mountainous land in muzzles, he will exempt such dogs when in work, and treat them in the same manner as sporting dogs?

I have caused further inquiries to be made into this matter, and the results go to show that if owners of sheep dogs will be good enough to take steps to provide their dogs with well-fitting muzzles of a good pattern, and to accustom them to their use, the work of the dogs will not be materially interfered with. I am most anxious to avoid taking any step which would seriously impair the efficiency of the Orders which have been issued and render it necessary to continue them in force for a longer period than would otherwise be the case, and I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state to the House whether, in the event of a spending authority ceasing to be the spending authority over part of its area, it could under any circumstances continue to receive the grant under the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, for the area over which it has ceased to be the spending authority; and whether, considering that Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, provided against the grant due to one area of a spending authority being used to the advantage of the remainder, can a spending authority use the proportion of a grant paid for an area which has ceased to belong to it in the reduction of the rates of the area over which it retains authority?

When there has been a change in the spending authority of a district or in the area under the jurisdiction of a spending authority the grant originally assigned to the district would be continued to that district unless the certificate as to the grant was altered. But the Act contemplates that under those circumstances the certificate shall be varied, and it would be the practice of the Local Government Board, in such a case, to alter it. The sum assigned under the original certificate would be reduced by the amended certificate, and, therefore, would not be payable to the spending authority.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether £74,969 is the whole amount due to Ireland for one year or the amount due to Ireland for half a year, under the Agricaltural Rating Act?

The sum named is the whole amount due in 1896–7, representing one-half of the annual "equivalent grant," in accordance with the English Agricultural Rates Act. The amount payable in 1897–8 will be for 12 months, and therefore double the amount payable in 1896–97.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what date has been appointed by the Local Government Board or their auditor for the purpose of auditing the accounts of the Town Commissioners of Bangor, county Down, for the year ending 31st December 1896; what is the cause of delay in this audit; and will arrangements be made to have it proceeded with and completed forthwith?

No date has yet been fixed for the audit of the accounts of the town referred to. The reason attributed for the delay is illness of the town clerk. Arrangements will be made for proceeding with the audit as soon as the accounts are completed and the balance-sheets ready for the auditor.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have decided to continue the advance lip the valley of the Nile; and, if so, what troops are to be employed; and, if the command is to be given to a distinguished general as stated in the newspapers; in that case, is it intended that he should supersede Sir Herbert Kitchener, now commanding the troops on the Nile?

Any operations on the Nile would be conducted by the Government of Egypt. There is no intention of superseding Sir Herbert Kitchener in his command.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what provision will be made by the Government for the maintenance of the families of the six petty officers of H.M.S. Collingwood, who were recently drowned in Bantry Bay?

Under the regulations, pensions and allowances to the widows and children of petty officers and men can only be granted in cases where the men have been killed or drowned on duty. The petty officers referred to were on leave at the time of the accident which caused their death, and their families are not therefore eligible for pecuniary assistance. Children can, however, be maintained at the expense of Greenwich Hospital in schools or homes, and any application to the Admiralty with this object in view will be considered.

asked whether there was any Jubilee fund available for this purpose?

No, sir; I am very sorry to say there is not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the collection of tolls and customs at fairs and markets in the town of Bantry, Co. Cork; whether he is aware that the agents of the Bantry Estate charge tolls on the sale of cattle, sheep, horses, &c., at fairs held in the streets of the town, and can he state whether it is by charter or letters patent that the said tolls are levied; and whether schedules of the tolls demanded are published?

I am informed that tolls are levied at the fairs and markets held at Bantry, and that it is believed these charges are made under the authority of letters patent. I am not aware whether schedules of the tolls are published.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what alterations, if any, are contemplated in the postal arrangements of the parishes of Exford, Winsford, and Exton, in the county of Somerset?

The hon. Member's Question, no doubt, has reference to an application which he recently forwarded to the Postmaster General, and which is still under consideration. As soon as a decision is arrived at, the hon. Member shall receive a reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the system in operation in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and India, whereby the Post Office collects the purchase money for goods sent by parcel post and remits it to the sender less a small commission; and, whether, in view of the expected development of the parcel post, consequent upon reduced charges, he will consider the advisability of introducing the system into this country?

The Postmaster General is aware of the system in operation in many countries abroad, whereby the Post Office collects the purchase money for goods sent by parcel post and remits it to the sender less a small commission. The question of introducing the system into the postal service of this country has been for many years before the Department, but hitherto there has not appeared to be throughout the community any strong or widespread desire for its adoption, while retail traders are much opposed to it. It is significant that a resolution in favour of its introduction brought forward at the last autumn meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce was lost by a large majority. While public opinion remains so greatly divided, the Postmaster General would not feel justified in taking any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to afford the Colonial troops now in the Mother Country, themselves mostly volunteers, as well as the Indian chiefs and officers, any opportunity of seeing the unpaid Military reserve possessed by Great Britain in her 230,000 Volunteers, now that they have seen both the Royal Navy and regular Army, as well as some brigades of Militia?

The great number of functions, including three military displays, which have taken place in connection with the Jubilee, have rendered it impossible to arrange a special Volunteer review. Our colonial visitors had, however, some opportunity of seeing the picked bodies of volunteers who paraded on the jubilee day.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it will he practicable to invite the Colonial Premiers while visiting London to consider the desirability of bringing before the respective governments the need for making the conditions of admission into the various professions uniform throughout the Empire, so that a person entering a profession in any part of it may practise it in any other part without more difficulty than if he remained in the country in which he originally qualified?

I shall be glad to see progress made in this direction, and hoped to see the Colonial Solicitors Bill passed this Session, but there are so many subjects of pressing importance to be discussed that I fear it will be impossible to consider the details of this question with the Premiers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge of certain additional privileges with respect to Delegoa Bay recently accorded by the Portugese Government to the Mozambique Company: and, whether he has any confirmation of the statement telegraphed from Berlin to the Daily Mail that negotiations are pending for acquisition of the control of the Mozambique Company by a Foreign syndicate?

. The concession held by the Mozambique Company has recently been extended from 25 to 50 years: but we have no knowledge of any privileges with respect to Delagoa Bay; and have received a formal assurance that there is no truth in the report. Neither have we any confirmation of the statement that negotiations are pending for the acquisition of the control of the Mozambique Company by a Foreign syndicate.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government, in assenting to a certain increase in the customs tariff of Egypt, obtained an undertaking that £40,000 a year of the lighthouse dues would be surrendered, out of which the cost of additional lights in the Red Sea and of a light in the Gulf of Aden would be defrayed; whether that sum has now been reduced to £30,000, and whether that reduction was understood to omit the provision for the latter light; whether the Board of Trade were informed of such omission; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence between the two Departments on the subject?

In 1889 the Egyptian Government undertook to surrender £40,000 per annum of the light dues when the new tariff should come into force. No arrangement was made as to the disposal of that sum, but Her Majesty's Government had in view the construction of new lights in the Red Sea. No mention appears to have been made in any of the dispatches of a light in the Gulf of Aden. The new tariff has not come into force, nor has it been possible to see when it will do so. Nevertheless the Egyptian Government agreed to relinquish £40,000 of the light dues from January 1st 1894; and out of this sum about £65,000 has already been encashed for the construction of new lights in the Red Sea. From and after September 1st next the clues will be reduced by amounts per ton equal to about £32,000 per annum; but this figure has nothing to do with the omission of a light in the Gulf of Aden, which as I have said has never been provided for; the balance being devoted to expenses of the Quarantine Board, so as to avoid an extra tax on shipping. The Egyptian Decree respecting the reduction of the Dues will be published, but there is no correspondence of a character to be laid.

asked whether the provision of a light in the Gulf of Aden was not contemplated at the Fame time as were the additional lights in the Red Sea?

I have had all the dispatches looked into, and there is no mention of it at all.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what is the definition of "maintenance," for the purposes of Table G on page 52 of the Report of the Committee of Council on Education for 1895–6?

The payments included under the head of maintenance are those tabulated in the specimen account page given on page 49 of the Revised Instructions for this year, and those mentioned in the small print to Article 90 of the Code.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether British steamers which call at Havre to receive cargo on their outward voyage for America are precluded from conveying from America to England live cattle for slaughter on landing, unless a period of 21 days has elapsed between the time of call at the French port and their arrival at the English port, on the ground that infection from the cargo received in France but landed in America may be conveyed to the beasts subsequently received on the vessel in America and landed in England; and, whether, as there is no restriction on the direct importation and distribution of merchandise from France into England, he will re-consider the regulations of the Board as regards vessels?

The landing of foreign animals has for very many years Fast been subject to the requirement that the vessel in which they are brought should not before taking them on board have touched within a specified period at a port in a country from which the importation of animals is entirely prohibited. This requirement is rendered necessary by the fact that some of the diseases against which we legislate can be transmitted not only directly from animal to animal, but also through the medium of persons, substances, and things, and actual experience has shown that the danger is a very real one. I regret, therefore, that I am tillable to withdraw the requirement, and with regard to the particular period to be prescribed, I would say that some years ago it was reduced from 28 to 21 days, and t hat I do not think it could be further reduced consistently with safety.

asked whether it was not the fact that goods and persons coming directly from France, only a few hours distant, Came into England without any restriction?

said it certainly was the fact, but if his right hon. Friend desired to assume that they regarded it as entirely free from danger, he should be obliged to say that they reserved their opinion.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as representing the Charity Commissioners (1) whether after a local inquiry held at Upton Snodsbury, in the county of Worcester, it has been decided fiat the only trustees of the charity lands are the vicar and churchwardens of the parish; (2) whether this decision has been made on the sole authority of an inclosure award, notwithstanding that the parish hooks appear to show that the administration of the charity was always under the control of the parishioners; and (3) if any authority exists for treating an inclosure award as a declaration of trusts?

The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The decision was arrived at after an examination (If an the available evidence in the case, including the parish books, which show a usage only whereby the trustees allowed the parishioners a voice in the administration of the charity. Charitable trusts are frequently declared by an enclosure award which, being established by the authority of Parliament, constitutes in these eases a declaration of trust of an exceptionally permanent, character.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the English mails have been twice late in the last week of their delivery at Tralee, not arriving on the 29th instant until 4.15 p.m.; and whether in view of the continual inconvenience caused by the late delivery of these mails and the repeated representation which have been made to the postal authorities by the inhabitants of the Tralee district., he will cause immediate steps to be taken to remedy the grievance?

The Postmaster General is aware that on the dates referred to the English mails failed to effect a connection with the day mail train from Limerick junction to Tralee owing to delays from fog on the passage from Holyhead to Kingstown. When failures of this kind occur the Department takes the only steps which are open to it to remedy the inconvenience, that is to say, the route viâ Mallow is resorted to, by which means the bags for Tralee arrive at their destination about, 4.15 p.m. or several hours earlier than if they were kept for the next Train from Limerick junction to Tralee viâ Limerick.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Jubilee medals will be ready for issue; and whether he is aware that many ordered a, month before, the 22nd June have not yet been issued?

The issue of the Jubilee Commemoration medals commenced on June 16. They are being supplied through the Banks of England, Ireland, and Scotland and their various branches. The demand for gold and silver medals is being dealt with in the first instance. As soon as the supply of the large gold medal approaches completion, the large silver modals will be proceeded with more rapidly, and the bronze medals will be commenced. It is not, however, anticipated that the issue of the latter will begin before next month. Up to Saturday afternoon 36,600 medals had been issued. At the last jubilee no issue of medals took place before July 18, and the distribution lasted over a period of eighteen months.

May I ask whether a medal has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman himself? [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that in London up to the time of the recent Commission the number of hours per week was fixed for sorters at 48, and that they were entirely exempt from sunday work, in marked contrast with the provincial sorting staff, and also with both the London and provincial telegraph staff, Sunday work being a portion of their duty; whether the Postmaster General in ally changes he intends to follow in the interests of the service will direct that, the vested interests of the London permanent Sunday force are not interfered with; will he explain why the Sunday rates fixed by the Treasury Minute years ago for the London sorting staff have, contrary to all precedent, been considerably reduced even for officers over 20 years on the duty; whether the Postmaster General has received two petitions from the London permanent sorting staff protesting against this, and will the Postmaster General receive a deputation of two or more of the officers concerned before conning to a decision; and, whether he will supply those men who are already chosen in anticipation with the reasons why the authorities little interfered.

It is the fact that the hours of work for sorters were, and are fixed at 48 irrespective of Sunday work. This applies both to Lyndon and the Provinces. No change has been made in this respect by the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee. Sunday work, both in London and the Provinces, is separately paid for, and up to time time of the report of the Tweedmouth Committee was paid for at higher rates in London than the Provinces. In view of the very great advantages conferred on the London sorting staff in the shape of higher rate of pay, and higher rates for some classes of overtime, it is understood that the Tweedmouth Committee considered that it was reasonable and desirable that the exceptionally high allowance paid for Sunday work in London should cease and the Committee made a distinct recommendation that it should be assimilated to the rate paid in the Provinces. If the staff, or any portion of the Stall prefer to recur to their old scale of pay and retain their old allowance, their application shall receive careful consideration from the Postmaster General. But they must distinctly understand that they cannot have the advantages which the Tweedmouth Committee secured for them without surrendering the other privileges which they had before and which the concession of these advantages was intended to cover. The memorials referred to have been received, and if—after this answer the Staff should still desire to see the Postmaster General he will have pleasure in following His usual practice of receiving deputations of officers of the Department who may wish to see him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 20th June, a police officer apprehended two men (named respectively Nicoll and Low), who were addressing a public audience at the corner of Beckton Road, Canning Town, without any warrant or other legal authority, and that these men were kept in custody for several hours; that, on two Town Councillors presenting themselves at the police station to offer bail, they were told that there was no charge against the men, the police officer admitting that he had no charge against the men; whether it is legal for a police officer to apprehend persons addressing public meetings without any warrant or other legal authority; and whether he will cause a strict investigation to be made into the conduct of the police officer in question, with a view of seeing that justice and fair play is meted out in cases of this kind?

I understand that Nicoll, who was accompanied by Low, was found to be distributing leaflets of a scandalous character, containing a most offensive description of the Queen; and that the two men were, in accordance with instructions, taken to the nearest station. Nicoll, however, expressed regret for his conduct, and promised not to repeat it, and, as he kept his promise, no proceedings have hitherto been taken. The action taken by the police in the case of these men had no connection whatever with their addressing a public meeting.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the 6th Section of the Irish Judicature Act (40 and 41 Vict., c. 57), which provided that the the number of the then existing Common Law Judges in Ireland should be reduced from 12 to 10 in certain events, which have since happened, thus by implication fixing the number for the future at 10; and whether, seeing that since the death of the late Mr. Justice Harrison nearly two years ago, there has been only nine such Judges, and since the recent promotion of Mr. Justice Holmes only eight, he will explain what legal authorisation there is for the delay in filling up the vacancy so created nearly two years ago?

The statute referred to did not make it imperative on the Government to appoint a Judge immediately on the occurrence of the vacancy in the Judicial Bench. The vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Justice Harrison was not filled up in view of the intention of the Government to legislate on the subject of the Judicial Bench in Ireland.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that no one in Ireland is opposed to the reduction in the number of Judges except the lawyers?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he his aware that during the present law sittings in Dublin the Court of Queen's Bench and the Nisi Prius Court have had on more than one occasion to adjourn their Courts for want of Judges, to the great inconvenience and delay of the suitors, also in consequence of both the Lords that, in consequence of both the Lords Justices of Appeal in Ordinary having to go circuit, the sittings of the Court of appeal in Ireland will be practically suspended during the month of July, thereby necessitating the postponement of important appeal cases to the next November sittings; and, whether he can now be good enough to state On what day the Bill for reducing the Trish Justiciary will be introduced into this House?

My attention has been directed to the statements of the learned Judges in reference to the matters mentioned in the Question. I am not aware that any similar complaints have been previously made. It is proposed to introduce the Bill under the Standing Order at the commencement of public business on Monday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been brought to his notice that the constables of the Metropolitan Police Force did nearly four days' duty in overtime during the period of the Diamond Jubilee; whether it is proposed to give only ordinary pay for the extra time worked, whereas it is customary with workmen to receive at least a time and a-half rate for extra service of this kind, which was most arduous and exhausting, some item having had only a few hours' sleep out, of 24; whether be will consider the, advisability of a least granting extra leave, pay going on, to added to the annual leave, as is have been done upon three previous occasions, and on a far more generous seale than in the present case, considering the severity of the service rendered; and whether members of the Force, in possession of the 1887 Jubilee medal, will receive the 1897 medal, and not a clasp, to which they do not attach the same value?

I have already informed the House of the manner in which the services of the police on Jubilee Day are to be recognised, and I have nothing to add to lay previous statement except that I ascertained that tin; men preferred extra pay to extra leave, and that I made my decision in accordance with their wishes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Inspector Brewster, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who was in charge of the police in Rutland Square, Dublin, on the 22nd of June, Her Majesty's Jubilee Day, swore at the inquest of Mrs. Fitzsimmons, whose death resulted from injuries received in a baton charge, that he did not order the charge, and would not have done so under the circumstances; whether he is aware that the charge was ordered by a subordinate officer, Inspector Lynam, without consulting or obtaining the sanction of his superior officer, Inspector Brewster, who was within three yards of him at the time; and whether the Government propose to hold a sworn Inquiry into the conduct of the police in connection with the occurrence in. Rutland Square?

The substance of Inspector Brewster's evidence before the Coroner in this case is not correctly given in the Question. Before the police used their truncheons there was a consultation between Inspector Brewster and Inspector Lynam, and shortly after the consultation, when the Inspectors were separated by a surging crowd, a shower of stones fell and Inspector Lynam's men were driven back. It was at this juncture that the police were ordered by Inspector Lynam to disperse the mob, and Inspector Brewster stated in evidence that if he had been in Inspector Lynam's position he would have done what the latter did, as he believed every policeman's life was at the moment in danger. The Inspectors were separated, as I have stated, by a surging crowd and each had to act independently and on his own responsibility; they are of the same rank and inspector Brewster, though senior, was not Inspector Lynam's superior officer. The action of the police was fully gone into at the inquest, and the Government see no reason to hold a sworn Inquiry as suggested.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State will convey to those responsible for the transport of Members to and from the Review Ground at Aldershot, on 'Thursday, and for their comfort on the ground, the satisfaction which was generally felt at the excellence of the arrangements?

It has been a great gratification to the Secretary of State to know that the arrangements for the review, which entailed very heavy labour on the War Department, have proved satisfactory to the guests, and Lord Lansdowne will have much pleasure in conveying to the Quartermaster General at headquarters and to the Staff Officers at Aldershot charged with the arrangements referred to the very gratifying remarks contained in the hon. Member's Question. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and what, public recognition is to be made of a bony of men who have done valuable services during the Jubilee, namely, the Metropolitan Fire, Brigade?

I am afraid I am unable to answer the Question of my hon. Friend. The control of the Fire Brigade rests with the London County Council, not with me.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to deal with the question of the equalisation of the municipal and the parliamentary franchise in Ireland in connection with the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, proposed to be introduced next Session?

As has already been said by the First Lord in inner to previous questions, the Government do not think it advisable to enter into any details with regard to the Bill of next Session. The hon. Gentleman will probably himself be in a position to judge how far it is possible to deal with the subject of local government without at the same time touching the question of the municipal franchise.

subsequently asked whether, in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary in regard to municipal franchise that franchise will apply to incorporate as well as corporate towns?

I think it would be very inexpedient to go into any details as to what it is proposed to introduce into our Bill of next year, and I think it is hardly a fair Question to put. We shall hope to make the scheme of the Government as complete as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest and imprisonment by the Venezuelan authorities at Ciudad Bolivar, in November last, of Mr. James Gibson, a British subject, engineer on board the steamship Caura on the alleged ground that the owners of that vessel had refused to pay a fine imposed in respect of a violation of the rules of the port; whether it is true, as alleged by Mr. Gibson, that he was forcibly taken from his steamer and lodged in prison without any of the formalities enjoyed by Venezuelan law; whether he has sent in a claim for compensation for the suffering and injury to health caused by this illegal treatment; and whether her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to support his claim?

We have heard nothing of the case and have received no claim. If the hon. Baronet cares to place any information before me, I shall be happy to give it attention.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in connection with the recent raid made by Mahomedan Bashi Bazouks and the report of Colonel Chernside on tile plundering of the houses of Christians in Candia, whether the Candian delegates have petitioned the admirals and complained of the inaction of the authorities?

No official information has reached us of any such action on the part of the Candian Delegates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now state what has been the result of the trials of these concerned in the massacre of Armenians at Tokat: and, what punishment, if any, has deen dealt out to those found guilty of being implicated in the massacre?

The Tokat Commission tried 115 prisoners, of whom 61 were condemned; 15 to death, five to 15 years imprisonment for murder; seven to ten years imprisonment for pillage or as accomplices of murder, and the remainder to various shorter terms of imprisonment for complicity in the massacres. As regards the death sentences they have been confirmed by the Council of Ministers at Constantinople, but the Sultan's Trade for their execution has not yet been obtained.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any actual punishment has been yet inflicted beyond the, sentences decreed?

I believe all those who have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment are in prison.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will agree to the Return as to grants to board schools in Scotland in respect of evening school attendances, which stands on the Paper this day?

I cannot undertake to give a return with reference to the first head in the form asked for. With reference to the second the return is already in the printer's hands and will be issued at once.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to the recent disturbances at Chitpur, and especially as to the losses among the police?

I have received the following telegrams from the Government of India:—

"From Viceroy, July 1, 1897."

"Riot in Calcutta due to possession being taken by estate of Hindu, under orders of Court, of land alleged, it is said falsely, to contain mosque. Monday, police assisted in giving possession. Tuesday, 2,000 low class Mahomedans assembled to rebuild building alleged to be mosque dispersed by police, and 70 arrests made on Wednesday morning. Midday Wednesday rioters re-assembled and attacked municipal pumping station in the neighbourhood; dispersed by police and military. Encounters between police and mobs in different places on Thursday, in which eight rioters reported killed and many wounded. Europeans attacked in places by rioters and some reported injured. No shots tired by military. Rioters quiet Friday and Saturday, and leading Mahomedans reported to be desirous effecting compromise about land."

From Viceroy, July 5, 1897.—"Calcutta quiet Sunday."

Mr. Stevens, the Acting Lieutenant Governor, who was in Behar at the time of the outbreak, returned to Calcutta yesterday evening. The Government of India are of opinion that Mr. James, the new Commissioner of Police, acted "with promptitude and judgment." The Government consider the outbreak purely local, and the accounts of it are exaggerated. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the ancient, ruin of St. Michael's Church on Skellig Michael, in the county of Kerry, is and has been for some time past in a very dangerous condition owing to the fall of the castle', or enclosing wall; whether the attention of the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, in whom this monument is vested under section 25 of The Irish Church Act, 1869, has been called to this fact, without any attempts having been made to repair the damage; and whether some steps will he taken (luring the present summer to save this primitive church from complete destruction?

It is the fact that, owing to the fall of part of the enclosing wall, St. Michael's church has been for some tune in danger of injury. When information of the fall of the enclosing wall reached the Board of -Works in 1895, orders were immediately issued for inspection by the superintendent of national monuments with a view to repairs. Owing, however, principally to the difficulty of access to the island on account of storms, the inspection was not, carried out at the time. A report has lately been made by Mr. Cochrane, one of the Board's Surveyors, on the subject, from which it appears that the fall of the enclosing wall has not as yet caused any actual damage to the walls of the Church as they stood immediately before the fall of the enclosing wall in 1895. Directions were given immediately on receipt of the report for the execution of works for the repair of the enclosing wall and fur restoring support to the Church wall. These works will be carried out in the present summer without delay under proper supervision.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the Report of the City of London Livery Companies Commission of 1884 does not afford full information as to tine bye-laws or ordinances of the Plumbers' Company, a copy of the charter and of the bye-laws, and a statement as to tine present resources of the Company could be laid upon the Table of the House prior to the further consideration of the Plumbers' Registration Bill?

I stated in reply to a Question on the 21st June that I had no doubt that if it were desired, the Company would cause to be furnished a brief statement of the constitution and resources of the Company which might, if it were moved for, be laid on the Table of the House. But no motion for any such return has been made. I do not know if it would be possible to obtain it now, before Wednesday, when the Plumbers' Registration Bill is to be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to tine Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how many telegraph offices have been established under guarantee in the crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland within the last three years; and whether any, and, if so, how many of these offices now pay expenses.

also asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how many telegraph offices have been established without guarantee in the crating counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland within the last three years?

The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to answer the two Questions together. It will take some time to prepare the particulars asked for, but the Postmaster General will be happy to combine the further information with that already promised on the 4th ultimo.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether £5 per annum is the guarantee usually demanded for the establishment of a money order office when a guarantee is requisite, and whether any money order offices have been established in the Crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland under guarantee during the last three years; and, if so, how many; and will he state how many money order offices have been established in these counties during the last three years without guarantee?

The guarantee demanded in the case of money order offices is always £5 per annum, but in future, in view of the arrangements announced in the Budget, the Department will share any deficiency that may accrue with the guarantors, so that the maximum liability under a guarantee will be £2 10s. only. During the last three years ten Money Order Offices have been opened in the Crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, nine of which were opened without a guarantee.

I beg to ask tine Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether he is aware that the £1,000, hitherto placed at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland for providing telegraph extensions in the Highlands and islands of Scotland, has been eliminated from this year's Estimates; and (2) whether, in view Of the difficulty experienced by the people of the Highlands in providing guarantees for telegraph' extensions, will he place himself in communication with the Treasury and the Scottish Office with a view to earmark for guarantees for telegraph extensions in the Highlands a portion of this year's Post Office Telegraph Extension Vote of £18,000, so that extensions may be guaranteed to such places in the Highlands of Scotland, as the Secretary for Scotland may designate?

Yes, Sir; the Postmaster General is aware that the amount referred to is not included in this year's Estimates. The Postmaster General is nut sure that he understands the second paragraph of the hen. Member's Question; but the sum of £18,000 referred to will be available for any extensions in the Highlands for which guarantees may be forthcoming, and extensions on guarantee will, of course, be granted in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, as elsewhere, on the easier terms announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year's Budget. There does not in the circumstances appear to be any necessity for the Postmaster General to communicate with the Treasury and Scottish Office on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Brennan torpedoes have been manufactured since 1887; and, how many of these torpedoes have been supplied to each of the Naval stations in the United Kingdom?

No, Sir. It would net be for the good of the public service that I should answer either part of the Question. The hon. Member has been already informed that the supply of these torpedoes is satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the Government are paying any royalties on the Gardner, Hotchkiss, Nordenfeldt, and Gatling guns; and, if so, will he state how much royalty is paid on each of the respective guns and when the royalties will cease?

The War office is not paying royalties on any of the guns mooed in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the grave state of affairs in India, he will advise the immediate return of the Government from Simla to Calcutta; and will he also make such arrangements for the future as will secure the presence of the employés at all seasons (save when on leave) in Calcutta, and thus obviate the necessity for the large annual expenditure involved in moving them to and from Simla?

I have no intention of offering advice on this subject to the Government of India as I have complete confidence in their judgment as to the necessities of the situation. The question of the annual migration to and from Simla was carefully considered by one of my predecessors in office about nine years ago, and I see no reason for altering the arrangements which were then sanctioned.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will provide facilities fur the discussion of the present critical condition of affairs in Poona?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him a Question of which I have given him private notice? It is this—whether the Government have received any such information from Bombay as will enable the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary a State for India, to express an authoritative opinion upon the contents of the memorial relating to the measures adopted for the suppression of the plague which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banffshire last week in connection with the recent murders in Poona?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer the Question, which will take precedence of that upon the Paper. The House will recollect that on Thursday last the hon. Member for Banffshire put to me a series of Questions, in connection with the Poona murders, upon the contents of a memorial addressed to the Bombay Government as to the methods adopted at Poona for the suppression of the plague. The memorial contained also allegations of gross misconduct against the search parties employed by the Government. The memorial was sent to me by the hon. Baronet the day before he put the Question, and it was unaccompanied by any statement supporting its allegations. I was unable then to express any opinion as to the credibility of its assertions, but I at once telegraphed to Lord Sandhurst asking him to send me a categorical reply to each series of accusations. In the meantime the memorial has been published, no doubt in good faith, by certain newspapers, and strong expressions of opinion have been given in the belief that these allegations and others even stronger by anonymous writers could not in the main be false. I have now a full reply from the Bombay Government, which I will read to the House. [Cheers.] It is of considerable length, but in the circumstances the House will feel that I am justified. ["Hear, hear!"] The reply is divided into several heads, and therefore each will be prefaced by a statement of the allegations to which it refers:—

"From Governor, Bombay, July 4, 1897. Deccan Subha Memorial, dated May 10, and petition were not received till May 21., by which time the search, lime washing, and disinfecting parties had been discontinued and military camp broken up. Statements in petition grossly misleading."

Allegation A:—

"People are often sent to the plague hospital without a proper medical examination being previously made to satisfy the authorities that the persons removed are suffering from plague."

Reply:—

"People only sent to hospital after careful medical examination, and if showing symptoms indicative of possible plague."

Allegation B:—

"Relatives and neighbours of plague patients, and even passers-by, are at once hurried to the segregation camp, without being allowed time to make proper arrangements for the custody of the property in their houses."

Reply:—

"Greatest care was taken not to remove to segregation camp any but those necessary to keep under observation. Time was allowed for preparation, and one member of household was allowed to stay behind to look after property."

Allegation C:—

"In the inspection of inmates of houses sometimes persons are subjected to the indignity of being forced to remove all the clothes from their bodies in the presence of the members of the search parties and other people."

Reply:—

"I have not yet heard any allegations of indignity being substantiated. I know that genlteness and consideration were shown."

[Cheers.] Allegation D:—

"The native gentlemen who volunteered to accompany search parties, and were appointed by the committee to that duty, are slighted, and their suggestions are disregarded. In support of this we beg that reference may be made to these gentlemen, who, feeling that they are not properly trusted, decline to accompany the search parties."

Reply:—

"Native gentlemen were asked to accompany search parties, and did so to the very end. They were specialty desired to bring to notice all complaints which reached them and to mark down any offending soldier and report to officers."

Allegation E:—

"In the inspection of houses no respect is shown to the religious sentiments of natives. in regard to the sanctity of the kitchen and of rooms where worship is offered. In some cases the idols in the Hindoo temples have been polluted."

Reply:—

"Search parties were instructed to have regard to religious feelings. Possibility of abuse of those feelings minimised by the presence of native gentlemen."

Allegation F:—

"Notwithstanding the injunctions of the committee in that behalf, much mischief is done in regard of property in burning or destroying, though the rules of the committee require that only the bedding and the clothing of the deceased should be burnt."

Reply:—

"Special care was taken to avoid needless destruction of property, and compensation given for property destroyed."

Allegation G:—

"Persons occupying houses are threatened, and in some cases assaulted, When they remonstrate against the procedure followed by the search parties in the matter of forcibly opening locks and destroying property."

Reply:—

"No unnecessary violence was used in entering houses."

Allegation H:—

"In a few cases the modesty of native ladies has not been respected.''

Reply:—

"I do not believe the possibility of indignity to native women, owing to presence of lady doctors and other ladies with the search parties."

["Hear, hear!"] Allegation I:—

"Complaints were made to the committee, but the persons injured have failed to obtain redress. The parties injured have no means of finding out the names of the soldiers who misbehave, and who thus bring discredit on the whole body."

Reply:—

"Officers were in plentiful attendance, and it was made known that complaints should be made to them. See also D as to agency employed. English soldiers amounted to little more than one-third of total number, remainder being natives. English soldiers employed mainly for search parties, and their employment certainly not more calculated to cause annoyance than employment of natives, and experience showed for this work the necessity for European agency where procurable. In Poona the only European agency obtainable on a large scale was military. Results show the great efficiency of system adopted."

With respect to himself Lord Sandhurst says:—

"I went to Poona to see about ladies and native gentlemen accompanying search parties; called together leaders of communities and explained what must be done, and that all regard would be paid to religious and other feelings, and asked their aid. I visited Poona twice during operations for inquiry and discussion with Rand and others; never could I find serious complaints substantiated. I kept close touch. hearing from Rand daily. No specific charge of misconduct was made to me during progress of the operations. I give strongest and most emphatic contradiction to the statement, that search parties exceeded instructions and grossly misconducted themselves. [Cheers.] The search parties when at work were under commissioned and non-commissioned officers. One of the ladies, Miss Bernard, having 20 years' experience zenana work, and most sympathetic to natives, authorises me to say that she was much struck by the gentleness of the officers and the control of the soldiers, that the officers impressed on the Men the delicate nature of the duties, that after the first day or two when there was some little apprehension which was easily allayed by the ladies and native gentlemen accompanying the search parties, they were met with cheerfulness; that Rand listened to all complaints and suggestions, and was kind and courteous to all. In Rand the Civil Service loses a most able and devoted officer. From inquiries made from various sources I am convinced that Poona owes gratitude to officers and men, English and natives, for the duties so well and so considerately performed."

[Cheers.] I would only wish to add an expression of my own opinion on two matters. I would wish to endorse the high opinion entertained by Lord Sandhurst of the late Mr. Rand and his work ["Hear, hear!"] He was a most capable and promising public servant, who carried out with rare success the terrible trying duty of stamping out the plague in Poona. During the whole time he wits thus engaged he was subject to the most violent personal denunciation and defamation by a certain section of the Press and community. He has fallen a victim in the successful discharge of a great public duty, and I am sure that, under these circumstances, both Members of this House and the Press of this country will exercise great caution before they put into circulation statements calculated to defame his character and work, unless they are personally convinced of the accuracy of any charge they publish. [Cheers.] This caution will, I am sure, be observed also in reference to the more grave charges that, without one iota of evidence, are being made about military officers and their men. As to Lord Sandhurst, he has from the first outbreak of plague personally supervised and controlled the measures of its suppression. Whenever any hitch occurred either at Poona or Bombay he has personally visited the locality, and by his consideration, tact, and forethought reassured and carried with him the natives whom he has met. He emphatically repudiates these charges, and I unhesitatingly endorse his repudiation. [Cheers.] Lord Sandhurst's conduct throughout the whole period of these plague difficulties has been such as to merit and obtain the complete confidence of Her Majesty's Government, and I think I may add of his late political colleagues and associates. [Cheers.]

After what has fallen from my noble Friend, it is only necessary for me to say, in answer to the Question on the Paper, that, in the opinion of the Government, it is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interests that the discussion which the hon. Baronet desires should take place. [Cheers.]

asked whether the memorial referred to did not contain specific statements in proof or attempted proof of the different heads of complaint, and whether the reply contained any explicit explanation or denial of those statements?

In no single case has any serious charge of misconduct been substantiated.

asked whether it was true, as reported in certain newspapers, that negotiations had been entered into by the police authorities with the rioters?

did not understand that there was any intention on the part of the Government that any compromise whatever should be come to between the police and the rioters.

asked whether he was to take it that the statement in The Times was in error?

So far as I know, you may take it that it is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the want of sanitary accommodation in the Castlebar Post Office, where the work has to be done by 12 officials in a room 12 feet square, without the slightest regard to ordinary sanitation, and will he see that proper sanitary accommodation is provided; is he aware that, with a population of 4,000, Castlebar is supplied with only one postman, and that it is impossible for one man to deliver letters in a town of that size in sufficient time for the replies to catch the Dublin mail train; and will he remedy such inconvenience by the appointment of another postman?

The room in which the main business of the Post Office at Castlebar is conducted measures 20 feet 9 inches by 14 feet 6 inches. The accommodation is inadequate, and for some time past the Postmaster General has been looking out for larger premises; but, although several proposals have been under consideration, nothing suitable has been as yet found at a cost which the amount of business would justify. The inquiry is still continuing. As regards the sanitary accommodation in the present office, it is reported to be the kind usually found in houses of that class. Two postmen are already employed at Castlebar, and inquiry is now being made to see whether the services of both these men cannot be utilised in the delivery of letters.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the decision arrived at by the Government with reference to the permanent housing of the Wallace Bequest?

As the House is aware, a Committee was appointed to consider the question dealt with by the hon. Gentleman in the interrogatory which he has addressed to me. That Committee has reported almost unanimously in favour of the purchase of Hertford House for the retention of the Wallace collection at Hertford House. The report of the Committee will be laid before Parliament very shortly. The Government propose to follow the advice given by the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can say why the Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill (No. 1), which relates to the Kilkenny Waterworks, and which got the Royal Assent on the 3rd ultimo, is not yet printed; whether he is aware that such delays in the printing of such Bills is usual, and causes much loss of time and inconvenience to those interested in carrying out the works authorised by such bills; what is the cause of the delay in this case; and, can he say when it will be issued? The hon. Member added that he did not propose to ask the first paragraph of the question, as the Bill referred to had now been issued.

I do not thoroughly understand, myself, the whole process that has to he gone through, but I am told that some delay is unavoidable, in order to get the statutes when passed into their proper order on the Statute-book, I am also informed that had the printers known that this was a matter of urgency the Bill would have been in the hands of the public at a somewhat earlier day than that at which it was offered for sale.

asked the President of the board of Agriculture whether he could give any information as to the extent of the disaster occasioned by the recent storm in Essex?

said he was unable at that moment to give any exact information as to the area affected by the recent storm in Essex, but he would endeavour to obtain it as speedily as possible from his inspector on the spot.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether under present circumstances, he will fix the Debate on the Indian Budget for an early date?

I do not think that there is any reason for giving a different answer than that which I have already given the hon. Gentleman in answer to the same Question in the course of the present Session. I am, of course, anxious to consult the convenience of the House in regard to this matter, but I doubt whether it would be desirable to make any, alteration in the ordinary date fixed.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed this afternoon with the first Order on the Paper, the Naval Works (Committee).

said he put down that Order on the Paper in deference to a wish expressed by the Leader of the Opposition last Friday, and he still thought that if the House would be content to take this stage sub silentio, as they did last year, and defer the discussion till the Second Reading of the Bill, it would be the most convenient course. He could not afford time to-night for this discussion, and if hon. Gentlemen desired such discussion at the present stage he should of course put off the Order.

submitted that it was unreasonable that money should be voted without any explanation on the part of the department concerned. The Committee had only a vague general idea as to what the money was for. He thought there ought to be some explanation, otherwise it would be his duty to move to report progress.

said the Bill did not authorise the raising of any new money at all. What happened last year was that the surplus of 1895–96 Was voted by Parliament for the purposes of naval works, and the proposed Bill would simply increase the power of the Admiralty to spend the money which had been already provided by Parliament for that very purpose.

, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

supported the clause as being a distinct improvement on the original clause.

rose to move the rejection of the clause on the ground that the principle involved in it was one which ought not to be adopted. The principle was that it was not right to make an employer liable for the act of a stranger over whom he had no control, either direct or indirect. It would be a novel principle to incorporate not only in a Bill of this kind, but in respect of a liability between citizen and citizen. The Home Secretary pointed out that if this clause was adopted he would have to amend the form of Clause 1; but that remark raised the question whether the House of Commons was to introduce for the first time a principle hitherto unknown in English law, and utterly inconsistent with justice. If the Committee were discussing the matter, not as between employer and employed, but as between citizen and citizen, he did not believe that any hon. Member would suggest that it would be consonant with natural justice to make one man liable for the wrong brought about by another, and in respect of whose act the employer had no control either direct or indirect. It was suggested that the point might be met by the principle of insurance. The answer to that was that they could not remedy an injustice which was created by making an employer insure in respect of a liability under which he ought never to have been placed. In the case of the smaller employer it was doubtful whether the principle of insurance would apply at all. Take the case of a small employer who employed workmen almost as well-off as himself, and assume that a workman was injured by the act of some stranger for whom the employer was not liable directly or indirectly. If the workman was injured, or if death was caused, the full responsibility for the act of the stranger would, in the first case, be transferred to the shoulders of the employer. What could be more unjust than the case of a small employer who was being ruined by a liability of that kind in order that they might give this special form of remedy to the employé against his employer? If a workman had a liability to impose on any one let him impose it on the person who had caused the injury. Suppose, again, the man who had caused the injury was a mere man of straw, or a man against whom the employer could not proceed. The Committee threw the responsibility on the employer; they made one citizen responsible for the act of another; and he challenged any hon. Member to show an instance where up to this moment such a principle had been adopted. The Committee had been told that at certain stages of this Bill they had to throw logic on one side and justice was to be disregarded. If they attempted to bury the phantom of logic he thought it would arise in the form of a convincing deity before long. He heard the Colonial Secretary say that justice was to be disregarded because the Committee were dealing with a question of expediency. But in matters of legislation they could not disregard justice except on one principle—and that was when they sacrificed a less justice in order to obtain a greater; and if on any other principle they sacrificed logic and justice they obtained a cynical opportunism which ought not to be taken as the basis of any legislation. [Cheers.]

said that his hon. and learned Friend had misunderstood the point of the Amendment. The House had decided by Clause I. that there should be compensation for injury by accident; and then, that where such injury should he caused by the act of a stranger a workman might have the option ion of suing either at law or against his employer for compensation. That having been the result of the decision of the House he had undertaken to put the matter in a better form, and the whole effect of the clause against which such strong language had been used was to give the indemnity over to the employer against the third person.

said that it was obviously the intention of some hon. Gentlemen to discuss the principle underlying the Bill. But that was not the most convenient time to select for the purpose. The time to select was when the first clause had to be dealt with. This clause gave the employer an indemnity over and against any stranger who might have caused an accident.

could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was not the proper occasion to discuss a question of principle. He observed that those who supported the Bill always thought that criticism ought to be deferred to a more convenient season, though it was seldom pointed out when that season should arrive. It was urged that criticism on this clause ought to be reserved until the Committee was asked to discuss another clause of the Bill; but if that advice were taken hon. Members would then be told that the Committee already affirmed the principle, and that it was too late to reopen the question. The Attorney General upbraided his hon. and learned Friend for speaking at great length; but he thought that his hon. Friend had condensed his remarks within very narrow compass. The House was now a Court of Appeal. It was their duty to review the decisions of the Committee, and he hoped they would reverse a great deal of what the Committee did, for they had played fast and loose with the fundamental principles which had hitherto guided the legislation of this country. The House was asked to agree that a person was to be responsible for the acts of individuals over whom he had no control whatever. He could conceive of nothing more strenuously unjust. It was all very well to be benevolent and charitable at other people's expense; but he hoped the House would bear in mind that a clause such as this committed them to the enunciation of a doctrine fraught with danger of injustice to all persons concerned. They might be told it would affect only one class—the employers. He ventured to say the workmen themselves would have cause to find the greatest fault with legislation that was likely to drive capital and trade out of the country. The principle contained in this clause appeared to him to be, if possible, more unjust than a great deal already in the Bill; and as there would be no opportunity of eliminating it, he hoped the right hon. anal learned Gentleman would give ear to the appeals which had been made to the House's sense of. justice. He did not approach the subject with any prejudice. He had always thought that compensation should be paid from smite quarter to those upon whom misfortune fell in the course of their employment. But he could not see why the whole burden of what was really a national obligation should fall on one class. He protested altogether against such legislation. He had hoped that some scheme would be found under which the burden should he more fairly distributed over the whole community; and he trusted the Government would at this stage of the Bill devise some method of avoiding what seemed to him to be rank injustice.

wished to say a word as to the meaning of the proposed substitutionary clause. The words of the first clause, to which the Attorney General had referred were very plain, and defined clearly that it was against the stranger that the employer would have to go for an indemnity. The clause that was to be substituted was much broader in character. He understood the definition of "a stranger" in the first clause to be some one altogether out of the employment. The new clause said that "where the injury was caused under circumstances creating legal liability in some person other than the employer," and he wanted a definition of "other persons." He took it that the words meant any person either in the same employ or outside it. He would put a case to `the Attorney General or any other hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. Suppose a foreman, or any other person in the same employment, should be the cause of injury to a workman; as he read the clause, the employer would have an indemnity against that other person. A great deal had been said about the workman getting benefit from the Bill. He failed to see how he was going to get much benefit if Amendments of this sort were introduced. Many, if not most of the Amendments already inserted into the Bill had been, in his opinion, to the detriment of the workman. He wanted to know, therefore, whether under this clause an employer would be entitled to get an indemnity for any man in his employ who caused injury to another. Not only for the working of the Bill, if passed into an Act, but also to justify the acceptance of this clause, they ought to have some statement from those in charge of the Bill as to what "other person" would include. In his opinion the terms of the Bill as it stood were better, for they knew that it was against the stranger only that the employer could proceed. Perhaps the Attorney General would tell them that "other person" meant a stranger outside the employment, but they ought to know clearly what was meant.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, if he remembered correctly, the Amendment giving the employer the right of claiming indemnity was put into the Bill in the Committee stage without being even on the Paper.

said the hon. Member was in error.

said at all events there was very little discussion upon it. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee stage was taken very quickly after the Second Reading. Members had had an opportunity of meeting their constituents between Committee and Report on the provisions of the Bill. He should like to say with regard to this point that the question raised in the clause, or in Clause I., when it was reached, had been unanimously disapproved at a large meeting of employers in the County of Renfrew. They regarded it as going far beyond the original scope and intention of the Bill. Speaking as an employer, it seemed to him that they were being placed in a very unfair position, even though the term "stranger" was not used, but he was introduced under the alias of "some person other than the employer." Grave as was the burden thrown on the employer by the provision originally introduced, it would be materially increased by this clause, and he hoped the Government would not pass it. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs spoke as if the clause dealt only with the act of a foreman. It was not, he apprehended, the act of any foreman that employers generally were anxious about under this clause—it was the interference of absolutely outside individuals; and it was because they protested against being made responsible for the actions of persons in whom they had no interest, and over whom they had no control, that he should vote against the insertion of the clause.

wished to say one word before the right hon. Gentleman replied, because the Bill had been rushed through the House and many hon. Members had but a vague idea as to its effect. The Bill contained a principle which, as a hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said, had not hitherto been recognised in any of our legislation. Take a case or two to show what would be the effect of this Amendment. A workman in the course of his employment had to go a journey by railway, and the man was injured. He gathered from this clause that the Workman would have the right to claim compensation from his employer for an accident caused by a railway company, over which, of course, he had no control whatever.

Oh, no.

said he would like the House to be satisfied on that point. They had been led to understand that the Bill was to do away with litigation and law expenses; but, assuming that, he was right in his view of the clause, the employer, after appearing before the arbitrator, would have to sue the railway company, and there would be more litigation and more costs. Take another case. An employer found it, necessary to send a workman from one pant of London to another; and in crossing Piccadilly the man was knocked down by an omnibus or cart. He gathered from this clause that the workman would have the right first of going against his employer for an accident with which his employer had nothing to do, and the employer would have to take his chance of whether the owner of the vehicle was a man of means or not. He should be glad to be satisfied by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the cases he had mentioned would be comprised in the clause; because if they were, there was, in his judgment, something in the principle here laid down that the country ought to be informed of before the House passed such legislation as this. They were making such departure that nobody knew what it would lead to.

said he would not discuss the whole principle of the Bill on this clause. The opposition to the clause was largely due to misunderstanding. The two cases the hon. Baronet opposite had given would not involve the employer in liability. In reply to his hon. Friend behind him, he might make the same remark. He did not see what ground he had for fear. According to the Bill, the accidents to workmen, for which the employer would be liable, must arise "in the course of his employment or arise out of his employment." If a man in the employ of a railway company met with an accident, due to a defect in machinery, owing to the negligence of the person supplying the machine, the clause gave the workman the option of going against the person who supplied the machine instead of the railway company, and gave the company a remainder over against the person who supplied the machine. This diminished the employer's liability rather than increased it. If a carpenter, in works subject to the Bill, ran over a workman, the workman in that case would have the option of two remedies. Whether the clause was right or wrong, it was not open to the objection that had been raised against it. The whole object of the Government was to make clear and improve the phraseology of an Amendment which hall been accepted without opposition from any quarter.

contended that the words of the clause did not create any liability which was not created by the words of the Bill. They were words of procedure, which placed employers in a better position than otherwise. They did not apply to any cases but those arising in the course of or out of employment, in which alone the workman was entitled to compensation. The words created no new liability, and in the interets of the employer it would be dangerous to omit them from the Bill.

said that if a workman brought an action against a third party, from whom he had received injury while following his employment, the latter might plead contributory negligence. But the man's employer could not, when sued, plead this, however justified, and that was an unfair position for the employer to be placed in.

agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that this clause created no new liability, though it might enlarge or extend what was or would be enacted when they came to Clause 1. He himself was in favour of the clause for several reasons. He could see nothing more unjust in making an employer liable for the act of a stranger than in making him liable for "the act of God." Under the Bill he was clearly liable for the latter if the injury arose out of or in the course of the workman's employment. It was clear that the cases put by the hon. Member for Durham would fall within the scope of the Bill.

The point has been foreseen, and there are Amendments on the Paper expressly to include these cases.

said he had not observed them, though he had studied the Amendments. It was quite clear under the Bill that if a commercial traveller sustained personal injury on the railway while soliciting orders for his firm the latter were liable to pay compensation. The right hon. Member for Thanet said the Bill was founded on no doctrine of moral responsibility whatever. [Cheers.] Moral responsibility had nothing whatever to do with it. [Renewed cheers.] The Secretary for the Colonies had said so over and over again. The theory of the Bill was not that the employer should be liable in some respect in which he was blameworthy, but that what was called "the trade" should be made liable as one of its necessary and incidental expenses for all injuries sustained. On whom that would fall was a question about which they might argue. The clause was necessary for the protection of the employer, and to make clear and definite the rights of the workman. If the Bill were left without the clause, it might be argued that the workman, being given this right of compensation, had forfeited the right he would have had against a third person. But if the clause was not passed, the employer, who was bound to pay compensation to his workman for the wrongful act of another, could not sue the latter for indemnity.

said employers of labour entertained grave apprehension about this clause. It was to his mind unjust that any person should be made responsible for the act of another person of whom he might know nothing whatever, and over whom in many cases he had no control whatever. Natural justice revolted against it. He believed that insurance would be impossible except at such high rates as would impose a most unjust burden upon trade. He hoped the Government would reconsider their course.

submitted that nine-tenths of the discussion on this clause had not been relevant, as the words "where the injury was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability" were governed by the preceding words in Clause 1, where a legal liability was defined. The words in the first clause to which he referred were,—

"If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman,"

and the discussion they had listened to would be relevant on the point as to whether those words were a sufficient definition of an accident in order to enable a workman to get compensation. It was not, however, relevant, he submitted, to this particular clause, which simply gave a relief to the employer.

said the intention of this clause was on the introduction of this Measure distinctly repudiated by the Secretary for the Colonies. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

said their view was that it was in the original Bill; this clause did not make it any different, but only made clearer what was intended.

said the right hon. Gentleman, on the introduction of the Bill, said they were dealing, not with accidents caused by negligence, but with inevitable accident or misfortune. Now this clause dealt solely with accidents caused either by guilt or negligence. It stood to reason, therefore, that this clause was never thought of when the Bill was introduced, but was now brought forward owing to the irresistible pressure which had been exercised. It seemed to him that the right hon. Member for East Fife had given a diametrically different construction of the clause to that put upon it by the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney General, and he thought it was absolutely imperative for Members on that side who objected to the clause to divide upon it. They had been surprised to see the Amendments at this stage put down in the name of the Home Secretary, as it was the Secretary for the Colonies who took charge of the Bill in the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, had put down 92 Amendments, which together were greater in length than the whole of the original Bill, including the Schedule.

Order, order; The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that.

No, Sir; I was commenting on the inconvenience of having the Amendment of one Minister explained by another. [Laughter.] He thought they ought to have some further explanation from the originator of this clause. He cited the case of a workman who, while travelling on a railway in the service of his employer, met with an accident. He denied that any subsequent Amendments upon the Paper modified this clause—they left the clause exactly as it stood. This clause showed for the first time the injustice, in all its naked proportions, that would be inflected by some of the provisions of this Bill. It seemed that logic, justice, and responsibility had gone. It had been shown that this clause would impose a liability on the employer unknown to English law, and he hoped that every Member who believed in the principle which was the bed-rock of the Tory Party—that honestly earned property should he safeguarded—would vote against this clause.

asked why the words "or firm" were not inserted after the words "in some person?" There were many cases where a workman was injured by the negligence of a man. and could not discover who the man was, although he would knew by what firm he was employed. He instanced the case of an engineer who was employed in a shipyard on the outside of a vessel, and a man up above let fall upon him a rivet or hammer, by which he was killed or seriously injured. Such cases were of common occurrence, and the injured man might often be Unable to discover who was the actual man by whose negligence he was injured. He thought the clause needed Amendment so as to cover firms employing "other persons."

thought the House was entitled to a little more information in regard to the effect of the clause before they disposed of it. He was a loyal supporter of the Bill, but if the interpretation of the clause given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was correct, then none of the employers of the country had any adequate conception of the enormous scope and application of the Bill. It seemed that not only were employers to be responsible for all accidents that took place in the course of their employment, but they were to be responsible for a number of accidents under circumstances that none of them ever supposed would be included within the scope of the Measure. He thought the House was entitled to information from those in charge of the Bill as to whether the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct.

said he could only speak again by leave of the House. He desired to make perfectly plain that the clause did not increase the liability of employers at all. ["Hear, hear!"] If anything it was in favour of employers. ["Hear, hear!"] Take the case of an engine which had been so badly put together that while working in a mill the fly-wheel went to pieces and injured 20 persons. That being an accident which happened in the course of employment there would he compensation under the Bill and the compensation would he payable by the employer of the workmen—that was the mill-owner; but as the accident was really occasioned by the engine maker the object of the clause was to give to the employer a remedy against him. There was another case—the case of an employer who sent his carter to the railway station in order to unload goods from trucks, and a crane which was badly managed led to an accident in which the leg of a railway porter and the leg of the man who was sent with the cart were broken. There would be no remedy by the carter against his employer for that accident, but he would have a remedy against the railway company for negligence, and, of course, the railway porter would also have a remedy against the railway company as he was in their employment.

put the case of a man sent on an errand by his employer, and run over at the level crossing, through his own wilful negligence. The defence of contributory negligence would be good for the railway company against any claim by the injured man. But would the employer he able to plead the same defence?

The employer would not be liable at all.

said that the point was likely to lead to litigation, and the House was entitled to an authoritative declaration on the point. This clause would increase the liability of the employer far beyond anything contemplated when the Bill was read a Second time. Nothing could more increase litigation than a provision giving the workman the choice of two kinds of action, one of them involving another action. It was no answer to say that the employer's liability would be covered by insurance; because in the long run insurance must be more costly than damages. Insurance only distributed the payment; and the insurance company had to make the profit. Since the Second Reading he had consulted his constituents, and he found that every employer, Conservative and Radical alike, was diametrically opposed to this Bill and to any extension of it.

said it was a surprise to find this clause defended on the ground that it was necessary, for the protection of the employer. It had been conceived on the ether side in quite a different spirit. At present there was a provision in the Bill to the effect that the contractor was liable for his own men; but the Home Secretary had an Amendment on the Paper to omit that provision, and that fact gave much more significance to the clause under discussion. He entirely accepted the principle of this Bill, but the present point could only be justified by regarding the Measure as an insurance scheme carried out to the fullest extent. But the employers had not yet been convinced that the charge which this Bill would impose was a charge which could justly be passed on to the public; and they would feel it as a great injustice if their liability were extended to the case where the workman was injured by the act or neglect of a stranger, over whom the employer had no control. The Government would be doing an ill-service to the Bill if they insisted on a provision which, on their own showing was of no particular value to the workman, and which raised the greatest feeling of resentment among the employers.

said that the explanation given by the Attorney General did not meet the case put by the hon. Member for King's Lynn—that of the workman of one employer injured through the fault of the workman of another employer. Would the employer of the injured man have the right of action against the other man's employer? The right hon. Member for Fife had not defended this clause on the ground that it was necessary for the employer's protection. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that if the employer was made responsible for the act of God, why not also for the act of a stranger? That argument would not commend itself to the employers in those trades affected by the Bill.

said that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were quite clear that the Amendment was a limiting Amendment in the interests of the employer. Under the Bill the employer was liable for injury to his workman, whether the employer was to blame for the injury or not. This clause did not extend this principle. It only proposed to give a remedy against the stranger, for whose act the employer was already liable under the Bill. As the clause originally stood, the remedy given to the employer was only against the stranger, but now, as amended by the Government, it was given against everybody, including the foreman and fellow workman. Therefore, the employer was given something which he did not possess before. He consoled with the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill as good men struggling with adversity. The Debate on this clause had gone, not against small points, but against the whole principle of the Bill.

said that he had to move a slight addition to the clause in order that the remedy which was afforded should not be an illusory one.

desired to move a verbal Amendment in the clause to carry out the purpose which had been indicated He moved to leave out the word "not" in order to insert the words "may not recover."

said it seemed to him that this was a very considerable alteration to make in the clause. It allowed a man to proceed against both parties, and opened the possibility of a new course of procedure to the workman by providing him with two courses.

said he would not press the Amendment if it was not looked upon as a verbal one.

pointed out in reply that in the action the employer would be the plaintiff and not the defendant, and thus the words "avail himself of" would not apply. The scheme of the Bill was that the workman should bring his action against the employer, and that then the employer should bring his action against the third person.

asked whether the House was to understand that where a person had been injured by a stranger, and where the servant had contributed by his own negigence, the employer was to be debarred from setting up the defence in the action? This was a point which deserved the careful consideration of the Government. Even when they had abandoned moral responsibility and the claims of justice, there came a point when equity would arouse even the House of Commons to resentment; and this point was reached when they allowed the man who caused the accident to plead a defence against the employer which the employer could not plead against the man who caused the accident.

pressed for a word of explanation from the Government on a point felt to be of great importance.

asked whether it was intended by the words to give a complete indemnity to the employer in this case, or was a liability put upon him which he would not have apart from these words? Was the liability of the person who originally caused the accident to be extended by these words? Supposing the employer tried to get rid of the liability by insurance, would the person who caused the injury be entitled to say in advance against the action by the employer that the employer was insured?

repeated the concrete case put by the hon. Member for Gateshead to the Government. An employer sent one of his engineers to work at the boring out of the post of a ship. A man dropped a hammer upon the engineer, and the engineer's employer would have to compensate the man. Would the employer of the engineer have a right of action against the employer of the man who dropped the hammer?

considered it was perfectly clear in that case that the workman would have a right to claim compensation from the employer. In the case put by the hon. Member for St. Albans the injured workman would have a right to claim compensation against his employer, but the employer would not have a right to be indemnified by either the workman who did the injury or the employer of the workman. The measure of liability imposed on the employer by this Bill was distinctly different from the liability which existed under common law or statute. This Amendment was a very good illustration.

did not think that the Attorney General had grappled with the case put before him. Was the employer not to have the same defence as the stranger himself? It seemed to be just that the employer should have the same defence.

said the intention was perfectly clear that by the Bill it was not intended to give the employer the same remedy against the stranger as the employé had against the employer. Supposing a man who had come from engineering works in London with a bolt in his pocket to do certain work should be run over by his own carelessness, and it was shown that he had contributed by his own negligence to the accident. By this Bill the employer would have to pay full compensation, but when he proceeded against the stranger it would be pleaded that the employé, not having used proper precautions, no case lay against the stranger.

asked whether no Member of the Government was going to rise to deal with the point? Was it to be left to the late Home Secretary to explain it? This indemnity was no real indemnity to the employer at all. It was going a long way in the direction of injustice to say that the employer was to be liable for the act of a stranger. The House was prepared to go that length, but the House was also told that the employer in his turn, though possessing a right of indemnity against the person who had brought about the accident, would not be able to plead contributory negligence. The stranger, on the other hand, would he able to plead contributory negligence against the action of the employé. If that be so, then the indemnity was clearly an illusory one.

asked whether the Government would accept these words,—

"Such other person shall not be allowed to avail himself of any defence which would not be open to the employer."

[cheers.]

said that he could not accept the words, because they would enlarge the liability of the person in circumstances contrary to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was that an employer against whom a claim was made by a workman should not be allowed to plead contributory negligence. It was part of the system which formed the scheme of the Bill, that for this purpose contributory negligence should not be pleaded. Now, it was sought to say that the liability which was put upon the employer should also be put upon the third person. That was plainly beyond the scope of the Bill. The special liability which it had been thought desirable to impose upon the employer was not one that ought to be imposed upon the third person in this roundabout way. The Government, therefore, must adhere to the principle of the Bill; and if a third person had any good defence to a claim brought against him, there would be no legal liability on him.

said that after the reply of the Attorney General it appeared to him that they would have to trust for legal guidance to the late Home Secretary—they were not going to get any on their own side of the House. It seemed that the liability put upon the employer was far greater than he had any means of remedying. It amounted to this—that while your workmen might come upon you under this Bill and bar you from pleading the doctrine of contributory negligence, you went into the fight with one hand tied behind your hack, because the third person could plead against you the doctrine which you are debarred from pleading against your workman. It showed the danger of accepting Amendments without sufficiently considering how far they went. Personally he was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he did insist in his capacity as an employer, that he should receive, at any rate, equitable treatment at the hands of the Government.

said that, after the unmistakable expression of the opinion of the House, he did not wish to press his Amendment.

proposed to add to the clause the words—

"Such other person shall not be allowed to avail himself of any defence which would not be open to the employer."

He thought that in submitting these words to the consideration of hon. Members, he might fairly appeal to their sense of justice. It was monstrous that the employer should be put in the position which he understood, from what had fallen from the Attorney General and the late Home Secretary, he would be placed in if this Bill were placed in the Statute-book in the form proposed. He hoped their common sense of what was just to employers would prevent them from being placed in that false position.

said that in again repeating that it was not possible for the Government to 'accept the Amendment, he only desired to make one observation. The hon. Member for Dumbarton, who was no longer in his place, had complained of the absence of legal assistance from members of the Government. He did not wish to say anything about himself, but he did not think, in view of what passed in Committee and of the assistance which Ministers endeavoured to give on legal points, that Members on their side of the House were in any way justified in such an observation. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to this particular Amendment, he must again point out that it could not possibly be accepted, because by this Bill they were dealing with the liability of the employer and not with the liability of a third person. It might be right or wrong to say that when compensation was claimed under the Bill, the employer did not have the defence of contributory negligence. The hon. Gentleman did not propose an Amendment which would enable an employer to avail himself of that plea. He was only desirous that in a case in which there happened to be a remedy against a third person, this third person should not he allowed to plead the contributory negligence of the person injured. It was perfectly obvious that such an Amendment was not in accordance with the principle of the Bill. They had altered the law, rightly or wrongly, by saying that where compensation was claimed against an employer, the employer should not be allowed to plead the contributory negligence of the workman. It was not possible to go further and say that a third person who had nothing to do with the matter except that he was liable to an action should also have his right of defence cut down.

said the Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrew seemed to him to be out of order, being outside the scope of the Bill. It was impossible to introduce in this Bill an Amendment to deprive a large class of persons, who were neither the employers nor the employed, of their common law rights.

, On a point of order, submitted that the Bill did put a liability on a third person—["No, no!"]—when it gave the employer the right to sue a third person, and the only thing they were seeking to do was to make it possible for the employer to recover the full amount of compensation he had to pay in consequence of that person's act.

said the workman might sue the third person, and the Bill only gave the employer the same right that the workman possessed. The Amendment was clearly out of order.

said that in the original clause the employer, after compensating the workman, was entitled to recover in the name of the workman such damages as he could himself recover. Under this clause the employer was to have against the third person a right to an indemnity. Now the liability for indemnity thus cast upon the third person might be considerably larger than any right to damages which might be asserted and maintained by the workman. Surely it was not intended that the liability of the third person should be enlarged by the procedure provided in this Bill. If time workman were to elect to sue the third person, he might recover such damages as a jury might award. If he elected to go against his employer he would get compensation of a certain kind, according to a rather intricate schedule—it might be £1 a week for life. It could not be intended to cast upon the third person an obligation to indemnify the employer against his liability to give a pension for life. Clearly some words of limitation were needed, and he proposed to add to the clause, which he took it would now be adopted by the House, the following words:—"The employer shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person to the extent of such damages and costs as the workman might have recovered against such other person by an independent action."

said there had been no oversight in putting the words on the Paper. The clause was advisedly intended to cover the very special difficulty raised by his hon. and learned Friend and he was told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, that the case was amply met by the words on the Paper. He was not himself a lawyer, and he was bound to accept the Attorney General's assurance.

said the words on the Paper were:—"shall he entitled to be indemnified by the said other person." It came to this, that if a stranger driving a dogcart ran over a workman in the street, who was there in the course of his employment, the workman might obtain from his employer a pension of £1 a week; and the employer under this clause was entitled to recover as against the third person, who might have injured the workman through no fault of his own—the thing might be a simple accident. The employer was thus given a right against outside public far exceeding anything the workman could recover as damages in a court of law. Under the principles of the Bill it might be quite right to impose liability for this larger compensation upon the employer, but it was not intended that such an extended liability should fall upon the general public.

did not agree with his hon. Friend. If a person by his neglect caused an accident in such a manner that he was now liable by law to pay compensation for, the compensation, awarded by whatever tribunal, would be fair and full. If that was the case, he could not see why the employer should not recover the damages and thus be indemnified. That was what was intended, and it was only just.

suggested that if a workman was entitled as against his employer to £500, but might have recovered from the other person £1,000, this Amendment would entitle the employer to get the £1,000 from the other person—and he thought he ought to have it.

said the proposal was that the employer should be indemnified for what he paid. There could be no question of profit or loss.

withdrew his Amendment.

said he must confess he was unable to understand the object of this new clause, still less did he understand the object of the interesting speech which his hon. and learned Friend had made in support of it. His hon. and learned Friend had told the House the whole history of the doctrine of common employment from the beginning, with variations and incursions into Scottish jurisprudence, and although he thought the House was well acquainted with the subject, he should not have complained had it had any bearing whatever on the present Amendment. But the present clause proposed to abolish the doctrine of common employment, not universally—in that case there would leave been something in the argument of his hon. and learned Friend—but in any employment to which this Act applied. What was the case in the Bill in regard to any employment to which this Act applied? Why, the doctrine of common employment was abolished in every case of an employment to which this Act applied. ["Hear, hear!"] If an accident occurred through the negligence of a fellow-workman, the doctrine of common employment went to the wall and the workman was entitled to claim damages under the Bill. The only object of this clause must be to give him an alternative process, and to say that in the case, and only in the case in which an accident was due to the negligence of a fellow workman, the injured man was to have not only the opportunities which were given him under this Bill, but "the same right to compensation and remedies against the employer," and so on, as if the accident had occurred through the negligence of a stranger.

said there was one very large class of cases to which this applied; he thought the right hon. Gentleman had recently said that I hey were 25 per cent. of the total number of accidents. He referred to cases where a man received an injury, but was not disabled for a fortnight.

asked if the object of this clause was to give an opportunity of having an action for damages in the case of an accident which did not incapacitate him for work for more than a fortnight, and where that accident was due to the negligence of a fellow-workman.

assented.

said that class of cases certainly would not be anything like 25 per cent. What he had said was that the number of accidents which only incapacitated for less than a fortnight amounted to 25 per cent. of the total number of accidents, but they were not by any means all due to the negligence of fellow-workmen. Now that he understood exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would say that he must not ask them to overburden this Bill. He certainly did not believe that to do so at that time would be in the interests of the workmen; moreover, it would materially complicate what they desired to simplify, it would raise a new question continually, and would bring within the possibility of litigation all these cases of short accidents, which, after all, were hardly worthy of the attention of the Legislature, and were rather cases to be attended to by the friendly societies. It would raise such a crop of difficulties that they could not possibly undertake to deal with them. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would show himself to be a friend of the Bill, and would understand the line they had definitely taken. They had gone as far as they thought they ought to, and were not prepared in any such way as this to increase the scope of the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the working classes of this country had for some time been anxious to have the doctrine of common employment abolished. He pointed out that this Bill did not apply to all the industries of the country.