I desire to make a few observations on the changes the Bill has undergone since it was first introduced to the House. The Bill was described last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire as one of the most important, if not the most important, Bill of the session. I do not know whether it quite deserves that description, but certainly the boon which this Bill will confer on the agricultural labourer will, I am sure, be largely appreciated throughout the country. I was not able to be in my place to move the Second Reading of the Bill, and my hon. friend behind me, who, ever since the introduction of the Workmen's Compensation Act, has shown a strong interest in this subject, was kind enough to undertake the motion on my behalf. I am sure it must be satisfactory to him, as it is to me, to find that the steps we took in 1897 in endeavouring to induce the Government to include the agricultural labourers within the scope of the Bill have borne fruit. In 1897 my hon. friend behind me and myself, at different stages of the Bill, moved amendments and divided the House for the purpose of introducing the agricultural labourers. At that time we were met by the Government with two or three classes of objections. One was that the Bill would impose a burden on the agricultural interest. Then it was stated that it had not been demanded by the agricultural labourers. I think the Secretary of State for the Colonies was responsible for that statement. Well, both of these statements have, I think, been disproved by what has subsequently taken place. With regard to the burden on agriculture some impressions are still felt that this Bill will impose a serious burden. I do not think it can be too widely known that there is no foundation whatever for that impression, because for a mere trifle—3s. or 3s. 6d. per £100 of wages per annum—employers of agricultural labourers will be able to get indemnity from responsible insurance offices for any liability which may be imposed on them under the Bill. No one will contend, in view of that fact, that this Bill will impose any serious burden on agriculture. With regard to the agricultural labourers not having demanded the Bill in 1897, I can certainly say, as representing a division of one of the eastern counties, that if they did not demand the Bill then they very much resented subsequently their exclusion from the Bill. I think that events in more than one Division of Norfolk amply prove that fact. I must consider myself fortunate in having got the assistance of the Government in support of this Bill, because without them it would have been impossible to carry the Bill through this session, and, more than that, I must express my indebtedness to the House, without whose assistance generally the Bill would not have occupied the place it does to-day. It was said on the Report stage by an hon. Member opposite that the Bill had been emasculated. I do not think anyone can fairly make that charge against the Bill as it stands to-day. The Bill has, I think, been greatly im- improved as compared with the necessarily skeleton form in which it was introduced and passed the Second Reading. It was necessary to impose some limitations, but no one has pointed out more clearly than the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean that these limitations were required if the Bill was to be really an effective working measure. The Government have lent their assistance in order that it should be a comprehensive measure, and to ensure that everyone who ought to be included in its scope is included. There was one suggestion made on the Report stage which was withdrawn, and which my hon. friend the Member for the Devizes Division tells me he does not intend to propose. I think he exercises a wise discretion in not proposing it. I mean the proposal to take this Bill out of the operation of a recent decision, in which it has been held that, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, unless a workman has been employed for at least two weeks, he is not within the provisions of the Bill. It is quite certain that it never was contemplated by the Government or the House he should be so excluded, ft is certain that the decision has come as a surprise to those responsible for the Bill, and when an amending measure is proposed, and not only amending, but extending the benefits of compensation to all classes—a measure which cannot be long delayed—that mistake will be remedied, but I think it would be open to grave objection that a measure dealing only with one class, the agricultural labourers, should have an amendment of that kind. I trust that when this Bill goes to another place Her Majesty's Government will take as great an interest in it there, and ensure as much protection for it as in this House, so that the measure may be in no sense emasculated through fear as to the nature of its provisions towards agricultural labourers. I am sure those who desire to see the benefits of compensation not only extended to agricultural labourers, but to other trades, will regard this measure as the necessary precursor of that extension at no distant date.

I join in support of the Third Reading of this Bill. I trust that the great hopes based upon it will be fully realised in its working. This is a measure which lie-longs to neither side of the House, nor to any party. Both sides of the House have been equal in their devotion and in the efforts they have made to secure the passing of this measure into law, just as many of us four years ago were interested in the passing of the Act of 1897. We then endeavoured to do for the agricultural labourer what we have now done, and we were only frustrated by influences which had great fear as to the disastrous consequences it might have on agriculture. As we are nearing the time when we shall have again to meet our supporters in the various constituencies, our fears have become considerably lessened, and our courage has risen to the occasion. I think we must all recognise the influence these events have had in ripening our judgment and our opinion on various subjects. One very important member of Her Majesty's Government has just arrived, and if I might, without presumption in one so feeble as myself, make a suggestion which would be of great value to the Government, it would be to occupy the early part of next session in an effort to secure the consolidation of the law relating to compensation for the labourer, and to make it inclusive and not exclusive. At the present moment we are engaged on a measure which, however good, it is no exaggeration to say is not inclusive, except of one industry, and. even there I fear in the working of it many will be excluded whom we intended, when passing this Bill, should be included. The hon. Member for North Suffolk is fully alive to the fact that there is an enormous industry, one of the most deserving of Parliamentary protection and assistance, namely, our sailors and our fishermen, still excluded from this beneficent legislation. There is the greater part, nine-tenths probably, of the building trades still excluded from the Act of 1897, and I should strongly advise Her Majesty's Government to thoroughly put their house in order with regard to the question of compensation, and to bring in a consolidating Bill, making it apply to all sections of the community who have to work for their living, and who are liable to accident in the course of their employment. If Her Majesty's-Government will undertake this work I am sure on this side of the House they will find an undivided desire to assist, them at every stage of the Bill. If such a measure were carefully drafted— drafted I mean by experts and not. amateurs, as some recent Acts are alleged to have been—there is no reason why the Bill should not be through the House in the course of ten days or a fortnight at the outside. I present this handsome-suggestion to the Government, and I hope they will accept it. With regard to the measure now before us, I think we may say of the labourers—

"We keep them at bay as long as we may, And then, when we must, we give them a crust."

I hope we shall take larger views of our duty, and that we shall soon see a complete enfranchising measure that leaves, no meritorious case outside its scope, and, whoever may have the nominal honour of passing this Bill, we shall all rejoice in the accomplishment of the task, and all join hands most ardently in securing its. complete triumph as an inclusive scheme. I have only one word more to say; I have said it before, but I think it will bean repetition. Before there is any complete settlement of this great scheme of compensation to the labourers for injuries, we shall have to consider a plan for some kind of contribution of the State towards the funds for this purpose, and for this reason. In many cases, as we all know, if a small employer was left to meet the whole burden of compensation in certain emergencies, it might mean absolute ruin, and I do not think any employer is entitled to have the whole of that burden cast upon his shoulders. All labour is for the State as well as for the individual, and we should all take a share in bearing the burden of those undertakings which are necessary to the maintenance of the nation and the empire. I do not think it is a thing we should do in a hurry. It is easy to conceive of cases where it is the duty of the community to share to some extent in the great calamities that do occasionally overtake some branches of our industrial system. I join heartily in the congratulations on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I only regret that the Bill is not wider in its scope. I have done what little service I could. [Laughter.] I do not see why the hon. Member for Southwest Manchester should laugh. I have been engaged on this question thirty years, probably before the hon. Member for South-west Manchester ever heard of it. I have rendered whatever service I could to bring this Bill to its present stage by active co-operation, in order that it might become law this session.

I entirely agree with those who say that this is by far the most important Bill of this session, and that it is no party question. I somewhat regret that the hon. Member who has just sat down has endeavoured to make it a matter of party recrimination that the Bill was not passed earlier. I quite agree that the hon. Member has given us great assistance with the Bill. In the Grand Committee he took a keen interest in it, and I am glad to say that he and I were always on the same side. He suggests that all industries should contribute to a common fund to provide for all accidents. On the part of the agricultural interest I most entirely protest against that. Ours is a safe undertaking, and we can insure for a comparatively small sum, and I do not think we ought to provide insurance funds for accidents which occur in industries which are of a very dangerous character. They draw large profits from the work of the men, and they ought to provide for the risks incidental to that work. I rose for the purpose of dispel- ling, if possible, a misunderstanding which has been widely circulated in the country. Anyone who reads the comments which have appeared in the press on the discussion which took place on the Bill last Wednesday will see that the usually enlightened writers who follow our debates so diligently are entirely mistaken in one particular, and when there is a mistake in the press it is of the utmost importance that it should be corrected, because people do not read Acts of Parliament for themselves. The presumption of the law that everybody knows the law is a vainglorious presumption, and is not founded on fact. If people read the Act, the misunderstanding to which I am going to allude would not arise, but if they take their opinions from the press they will be under a misapprehension. Nearly everybody takes his opinions from the press, or from speakers who take their opinions from the press. The misunderstanding to which I refer is this. It has been widely circulated that there are words in this Bill which exclude from the advantage of it all agricultural labourers who are not habitually employed in agriculture. It has been said in many papers that we have excluded all those who are only casually employed in agriculture. That of course is not the case. The limitation is not one to keep out workmen, but to protect certain very poor employers. I think the Bill might have been more simply expressed if it had said in the first clause that it is to apply to every agricultural labourer, and then in the second clause that that should not be the case if an accident happened when working for an employer who does not habitually employ one or more workmen. If that had been so, no such misunderstanding could have arisen. My hon. friend has said that there must be some limitation, and I entirely agree with him, for this reason. The new liability which we are pitting on farmers is for accidents for which they are not themselves responsible. If they are responsible for the accident, they are now called on to pay compensation under the law as it stands, but we are putting on them responsibility for accidents for which neither they nor the workmen are responsible, and which could not have been prevented by either of them. The only logical justification for that is one of two presumptions—either that the employer is better off than the workman, or chat he is a man of business, and having an interest in the lives of his workmen, can insure them wholesale better than could be done retail. In the case of the very small men who do not habitually employ one or more employees, they are not men of business, and they have no great wages bill—a regular wages bill which reminds an employer of his duty of insuring himself against accidents —so that in the case of the small men both of these presumptions are entirely unfounded. The hon. Member spoke of forming a trust. We must be very careful how we deal out other people's bread. In the case of the small man it would be ridiculous to take away his bread and give it to others. One of these employers might, while working with his labourer, be injured as well as the workman. They might be both thrown out of a cart and seriously injured, and would it be right to add to the sufferings of the employer by taking away all that belongs to him and giving it to the workman? I am, certainly, not very well satisfied with the limitation as it stands, but fortunately there is another opportunity for reconsidering this Bill in a place where those present thoroughly understand the question of agriculture, and I rather gathered from the President of the Board of Agriculture that the words of limitation will be still further considered in that place.

I think the thanks of the House are due to my hon. friend for his perseverance in this matter, for I believe the Bill is one which the House and the country will generally approve, and I feel a doubt as to whether I ought not to refer in the plural, rather than in the singular, to the authorship of this measure, as some friendly controversy appears to have arisen thereupon. If, however, my hon. friends near me are entitled to share the credit, I am bound to say that from the energetic manner in which the Member for Lowestoft came to the rescue when the Member for Cricklade threatened its existence by overloading upon the Report stage, it scarcely needed a Solomon to discover the true parent of the Bill. There is one thing I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out, and that is that a vast deal of misconception and strong public feeling in respect to a similar measure, of which this is more or less the outcome, was due to the fact that when that measure was presented to Parliament and the country there was no. scheme of insurance submitted in connection with it, and no precautions taken to afford essential information under that important heading. The hon. Member for Leicester, and others, spoke of insurance in. connection with this matter. The Workmen's Compensation Act of a previous session was hurried through Parliament without any proper scheme being prepared, and I trust the experience gained with regard to the dangers which arose from that course will be borne in mind. I hope that experience will lead the Government seriously to consider the question of insurance. I think that those employers who are affected by this Bill, are deserving of some guidance if there is not actual participation on the part of the State. I could suggest a source whence the necessary funds might be derived, which I daresay in this connection would not be altogether unwelcome to the agricultural interest, for I say that any State assistance given to objects of this kind, in which I include old. age pensions as well as funds for meeting cases of accidents, which fails to reach all classes of the community must necessarily partake of the perilous character of socialism. Therefore the fiscal provision which I have myself indicated is one under which every human being would be in the position of contributing towards the compensation. I trust my right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, will realise that some facilities should be afforded agriculturists—who are not, as a rule, very well up in commercial transactions—in getting information as to the direction in which they should look for assistance and. co-operation. I do not wish my right hon. friend to give his imprimatur to any second edition of the Liberator Society, and to become the manager or director in his own person of any organisation for a purpose of this kind; but I think some assistance ought to be afforded to agriculturists in the remote districts to enable prudent persons to know how they can guard themselves from undue liability in connection with what is now becoming part of the law. Insurance has been denounced. We have been told that insurance lends itself to the encouragement of carelessness on the part of the employers, and that is an argument which was frequently used in connection with the Work- men's Compensation Act. The House and the country will not be disposed to lend countenance to that doctrine. I think it is universally recognised that prudent persons, especially those who from want of capital are not able to act as their own insurers, should be insurers in order to guard themselves. I hope that my right hon. friend will, at any rate before this Bill becomes law, see his way to afford some reliable information for guidance in the quarters to which I have referred. The question of exclusion of many occupations from the operation of this Bill has been spoken of. I own that I object to piecemeal legislation. I think to bring in a Bill dealing with one class of employment one session, and then to hurry through a Bill dealing with another class in another session, leaving out a large number of occupations, is scarcely a businesslike way of treating so important a subject, though I do not go the length of saying that all callings could be effectually included.

The hon. Member for Leicester said he did not know why I should laugh while he was speaking. I was amused when he was importing, or endeavouring to import, into the debate a portion of the credit for this measure to his own party. I know the interest the hon. Gentleman took in the passing of this measure. I notice that the late leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, absolutely came down here on a Wednesday afternoon— a most unusual proceeding on his part—and asked us not to discuss this Bill at all. In fact I think I am right in saying that he asked my hon. friend in charge of the Bill to withdraw it altogether in order that some other Bill in which he was interested should be discussed. I also noticed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle wrote a letter to The Times in which he complained that a discussion had taken place on this Bill. It was a somewhat extraordinary proceeding on the part of the hon. Baronet, for he is well aware that we usually discuss Bills in the House. In fact I believe that is what the House is for. Seeing that it is wholly due to the efforts of my hon. friends around me and to the action of the Government that the Bill is likely to become law, the claim of the hon. Mem- ber for Leicester to an equal share of credit for his party cannot be allowed. As to the means of effecting insurance, the companies may be trusted to bring before employers their responsibilities; and as competition is very great, if one company does not offer satisfactory terms the employer can go elsewhere for his insurance. While I agree that consolidation is ultimately desirable, I think the time has not come for it. There are many points which have arisen under the 1897 Act of very great difficulty. I think it is generally admitted that it never was intended by Parliament that a man injured in an employment which he had only been in a day or a week should be put on a different footing to the man who had been in employment more than a week. I regret that that condition should still remain, and if an alteration of the law is made it should be done by an amending Act. It will be better to wait until the Bill has been extended to all trades, or as far as it is intended to go, before an amendment is made on the original Act. The hon. Member for Thirsk referred to the word "habitual," which has already given rise to some misconstruction. I think the word will lead to much legal difficulty in the construction. It is bound to give rise to a large amount of litigation, until at all events it has been decided by the Courts exactly what the word does mean.

As Member for a large industrial town not directly affected by this Bill, I have not thought it necessary to take any active part in the framing of the measure. I merely rise now to congratulate the hon. Members who have been instrumental in passing the Bill, and I am very glad indeed that it is likely to go through this House without any further opposition. At the same time it seems to me that it was perfectly right not to have included agricultural labourers in the Act of 1897. We were then for the first time introducing into the law of this country the new principle that a man should be compensated for any injury he sustained, by his employer who had no part in failing to prevent or in bringing about the accident, which accident also was incidental to the employment in which he was engaged, and which might be supposed to be taken into consideration in fixing the remuneration for that employment. When we introduced that new principle it seems to me that it was perfectly right to limit it to trades and employments in which there was special danger, and then, after two or three years experience had shown that the Act was really beneficial to the employee and that the adoption of a system of insurance had prevented the terrible danger to employers which was anticipated, to extend it by degrees to other employments. I am very glad that the agricultural labourer is now to be brought within the scope of the Act; but when it is stated by my hon. friend the Member for Thirsk that the Bill is based on two principles, that the employer is to be made liable for injury to his workmen, first, because he is better off than they are; and secondly, because he is a better business man; I cannot realty assent to any propositions of that kind. I should like to test them by putting them in a negative way. Suppose the Bill said that every employer should be liable for compensation for an injury sustained by any of his workmen while in his employment, provided only that the employer should be better off than the employee, or was a better man of business; just conceive any Judge attempting to decide questions of that kind. It is altogether a wrong principle that the private circumstances of a plaintiff or defendant should be taken into account, because they can have nothing to do with the merits of the case. It seems to me an absolutely absurd principle, and it would be impossible to determine liability by any such rule. There is a principle at the bottom of this Bill much better than these unsound propositions. It is that when there is injury from an, accident in any manufacture the cost of compensation in such cases shall be considered as part of the cost of making the goods, and, therefore, though the compensation is paid in the first instance by the employer, it is ultimately paid by the purchaser of the goods. That was the only principle upon which I was able to support the Act of 1897, and it seems to me to be the only sound principle in legislation of this kind. In the first instance, of course, the employer must pay the compensation, and then he adds that expense to his rent, rates, and other expenses, and fixes the price of his goods accordingly. That is also the principle on which the Act must be extended to other trades. The system of insurance has now become universal, and the risks are found to be much less than were expected. Even in factories where dangerous machinery is employed the insurance rate, which was 30s. per £100 of wages, is now reduced to 6s., which shows that the fears which were entertained that the employers would be ruined have not in practice been justified. Then, with reference to consolidation, I hope we may not proceed with it for some little time. We have to see further how the Act of 1897 works, and also how this Bill will work, and we have to look with great care on all the decisions which have been given by the Law Courts. Workmen, I am sure, had occasion to say once again this morning when we opened our newspapers, "Thank God we have a House of Lords," which, not for the first time, yesterday performed a most important function with reference to the Act of 1897 by wiping away the cobwebs which had been placed on that enactment by the Court of Appeal. A County Court Judge had decided that when fair notice had been given within six months of an injury it was sufficient. The Court of Appeal by two to one, Lord Justice Romer dissenting, overruled that decision on a technical point that the notice ought to have been a formal notice, but the House of Lords yesterday swept that decision away and upheld the decision of the County Court Judge. There are several cases in which the parties have not gone to the House of Lords, and in which the Court of Appeal has inflicted on claimants some of these legal cobwebs. I hope, when the time for consolidation comes, all these decisions will be carefully studied, and I hope where defects have been shown in the Act they will all be swept away. I only wish to add, as a Member for an industrial town, I did not think it necessary to take part in the discussions on this Bill; at the same time I do not know any persons who are more anxious that this Bill should pass than artisans in industrial towns. That is certainly the case in Walsall, which I have the honour to represent. I heartily support the Third Reading of the Bill.

I have a very great interest in this Bill, and there are one or two matters I should like to refer to before it is read a third time. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who said that this is not a party question, and I agree also that in a desire to pass this Bill into law, there has been nothing to choose between the two sides of the House, so far as my observation went. Nothing has been said or done on either side of the House to obstruct this measure in any way. Still, I notice that the Bill has been used for political purposes and a certain amount of political capital has been made out of it. We on this side of the House have been told that we opposed this measure in 1897, and are in favour of it now, because the General Election is nearer now than it was then. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth in so many words made the same observation on the Second Beading of the Bill. Many hon. Members, like myself, voted against the agricultural labourers being included in the Bill of 1897, and now we not only vote for that inclusion, but have worked for it in every way we could. I maintain that these two attitudes are absolutely consistent. What we said in 1897 was exactly what we say now. We have not varied our position in any single degree. What we said in 1897 was that we were introducing a very novel principle which might inflict considerable hardship on employers; that we did not know what the liability would be, or what the rate of insurance would be; and that, although the large employer did not much matter, it might inflict great hardship on the small employer who was no better off than the labourer. I made inquiries in 1897, and was told that the premium for insurance was £1, then it came down to 10s., then to 5s., next to 3s. 6d., and now it is 3s. Is not that worth waiting for? We have protected the small employer, and our interest is not only for the agricultural labourer, but also for the small employer who will come under this Act if it passes. We have the interests of both classes to consider. The very best class of labourer is the man who succeeds in saving money and getting a little holding for himself. Many farmers in the east of England trace themselves back two generations to agricultural labourers, and these are the men to be encouraged and protected. If a man like that who has one labourer in his employment has to pay £1 or;5s. as insurance is it not a matter of great importance to him? When the Bill of 1897 was under dis- cussion we said that it was impossible to apply it to all employers, and that we should wait for two or three years and then extend it. That is exactly what happened, and there has been no inconsistency whatever in our attitude. There is one matter in regard to the small employer which has not been sufficiently considered, that is with reference to the insurance rates. The minimum insurance rate quoted under this Act now is 5s. That means that a large employer who has a wages bill of over £150 will be able to insure at 3s. per cent., whereas the small employer whose wages bill is only £40 or £50 will have to pay 5s., i.e., at the rate of l5s. per cent. It is therefore very important that some means should be devised to enable small employers to insure themselves by some method of combination or through their landlord. I think it would be an excellent plan if it were possible that the insurance should in the first instance be paid by the landlord. It is not the case that the landlord in, many instances can, as has been stated bear the burden of insurance himself, but what he can do to the great advantage of all concerned is to take out a policy for his estate and be repaid by the farmers when they pay their rents. In that way the small tenants will be able to insure at a smaller cost. If not through the landlord, he may be able to secure the same advantage through some agricultural association. I do not think it yet appears to be thoroughly understood what was stated so clearly by my hon. friend the Member for Thirsk with reference to the limitation in the measure. An hon. Gentleman just now seemed to repeat the error into which many hon. Members have fallen. He appeared to think that in a case of accident, compensation could not be paid to the injured man unless he had been habitually employed by his employer. That is not the proposal, and it cannot be made too clear what the Bill states. It is not a question as to whether the injured man was or was not an habitual employee, but whether the particular employer who is to be rendered liable had or had not in habitual employment at least one man. The injured man may have been working only for two or three weeks, but whether he had been working for a week or a month does not affect the question if he had been working for an employer who habitually employed at least one labourer, otherwise no liability would attach. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet said that he objected to this legislation because it was piecemeal. I can only say that I believe that the great merit of our legislation in this country is that it is piecemeal. I constantly hear the argument used that some measure is objectionable because it does not deal with the whole subject; but is there any hon. Member in this House who would be able to deal comprehensively and completely with the whole subject of workmen's compensation? We all know that is impossible. We know it is only by putting one small measure on another that we can proceed. In this matter we have not only to see that the agricultural labourer is benefited, but also that the small employer does not suffer; and I believe that we have, as far as possible, safeguarded the interests of both classes, and that the Bill will result in great advantage to the agricultural labourers. I know from personal experience that this measure is welcomed by the farmers themselves quite as much as by the agricultural labourers. The farmers not only do not oppose it, but a large number of them have actually insured their men beforehand. A case came within my personal notice where a man was killed by being run over by a wagon, and when I made inquiries I found that the farmer had insured the man under the terms of the Act, and that the widow received £75 compensation. The farmers are ready to give the Act a good reception, and I hope it will prove of benefit to the labourers, and be an additional bond of union between the two classes.

The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division appeared to imply that I said that the landlords were well able to bear the insurance under this Bill. I said nothing of the kind, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not wish to misrepresent me.

I assumed, as the hon. Gentleman wished to put the burden on the landlords, that he considered that they were able to bear it.

The hon. Member implied that the landlords are badly off, and that therefore it would be unfair to put the burden on them; but it would be still more unfair to put it on the unfortunate farmers, who are still worse off, because if the landlord is badly off his tenants must be worse off. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman rather gave the case away when he said that the small farmers could combine among themselves voluntarily; but, if voluntarily, why not compulsorily, and then the labourer would be be certain to get compensation. If the word "habitually" had been struck out of this Bill, as we attempted to strike it out in the interest of a very large class of agricultural labourers, then the small farmers would combine as a matter of course. I think the hon. Gentleman did not make his case at all strong. He admits that every farmer should insure his men, and yet he seems to object that that insurance should be compulsory, except in the case of large farmers. I think the hon. Gentleman gave the whole case away.

This is not the time for opening old controversies. On all sides of the House it is honestly and really believed that considerable benefit will accrue to the class concerned by the passage of this Bill. At the same time I think there is no reason why we should not acknowledge that there are elements of danger connected with it in certain cases, and it is because I realise that danger strongly that I rise to make a suggestion in the direction of mitigating it. Where I see the possibility of danger is in connection with the class of smaller employers of labour who live in out-of-the-way districts, and are not brought into contact with town life and who do not know what is going on. They may neglect altogether to take the precautions necessary under this Bill, and they may find themselves as the result of an unfortunate accident liable for heavy compensation. That is a danger which is not only possible, but probable. We know very well how reluctant certain classes of farmers are to take any new steps, and they will be apt to let the thing slide and not make any move in the direction of insurance until the necessity of doing so is brought home to them by experience. I think something should be done to give a warning to these classes in time, and to put before them the danger they run in neglecting to take precautions under the Bill.

The President of the Board of Agriculture has already stated that in the event of this Bill becoming law the Board will not only issue circulars, but also circulate information throughout the country calling attention to the provisions of the new Act.

I was not aware that that undertaking had been given; but that was the suggestion I intended to make to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. we all desire to see that promise fulfilled, but I am perfectly certain that it will be necessary not only that the information should be disseminated as widely as possible, but that some suggestion should be given to farmers as to where they may get the assistance they require. I suggest information should be distributed through the local chamber of agriculture in each district. It is certainly very desirable that whatever information they get should be correct and genuine, and not spurious and haphazard, and I hope this information which the Board of Agriculture have undertaken to spread will be disseminated in every direction, and that it will reach all those out-of-the-way places which are particularly affected. If this is done we shall be relieved of some sad and distressing cases where this measure is intended to do good. I shall be quite satisfied if this extra expression of opinion from the House insures the dissemination of this knowledge among the class to whom I have alluded.

said this Act applied to a very poorly paid class of persons. Agriculture was much subject to foreign competition, but at the same time it must be remembered that accidents were very few amongst those employed in agriculture, and consequently the rate of insurance would be only a trifle. As one who three years ago voted not only for the inclusion of those employed in agriculture, but also for the inclusion of all trades whatever, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he rejoiced to know that this step had been taken and he regretted that the Government had not seen fit to bring in a measure which would have done a vast amount of good in the country to remedy the law in other respects so as to prevent a vast amount of the litigation which still went on under the Act. He hoped that the Government would, at the first opportunity, bring in a compensation measure which would include all the-trades in the country.

On behalf of my hon. friend the Member for Dundee, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name, to leave out the words "Without their actual fault or privity. "The object of this Amend-mend is to secure that the present liability as regards the dock authorities shall not be altered by the addition of these words. I quite understand that these words have been put in in, the case of the dock authorities so as to correspond with the same words in the Merchant Shipping Act as applied to the shipowner, and the object is to preserve-the law of liability in regard to dock authorities exactly as it is at the present moment. I move this amendment formally, but if the promoters are ready to accept the Amendment to be moved later on by my hon. friend the Member for Cork my objection to these words will be met. In the meantime I beg to move this Amendment.

said these particular words were necessary in order to establish the reciprocity between the shipowner and the dockowner which was contemplated by the Bill. If the dockowner was aware that the harbour was in a defective state, and he did. not remedy it, it was only reasonable that the common law of liability should be fully extended to him. He was glad to hear that the hon. Member did not intend to press his Amendment. In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, although they did not think it was altogether necessary, they were willing to accept it.

said he thought there was more to be said in favour of this Amendment than had been stated by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. When the Merchant Shipping Acts first embodied these words there was a very large ownership of ships either by individuals or by associations of individuals who were not registered as companies. That distinction existed in the case of docks, for some of them were owned by private individuals and some by public authorities. In the case of harbour boards, which were public authorities, the members of them had no personal interest in the concerns they managed. Those bodies must always act by their officers. The distinction which the clause would endeavour to set up between damage from negligence within the "fault or privity" of a dock authority and the result of negligence not within their privity was an entirely futile distinction, because a harbour or dock authority always acted through the advice of their harbour master, engineer, or other officer, and therefore any negligence would by law be imputed to the authority. He did not think that there was any real reciprocity between dock owners and shipowners established by this clause. The shipowner would practically always escape, because, in 999 cases out of 1,000, he would not be managing his own ship; but the dock authorities would always be liable, because they can only act through their officers, and the law would hold that the act of their officers was within their actual fault or privity, and they would be made liable. He should like to hear the views of the Solicitor General on the subject.

I certainly think that the words as they stand in the clause are absolutely necessary. The clause proposes to limit the liability of dock-owners and harbour commissioners as it is limited in the case of shipowners. It does not propose that where an accident occurs through actual fault or privity on the part of the dock owners or harbour commissioners they should be released from paying the penalties. That is exactly the same way as the law stands in regard to shipowners. The hon. and learned Member for Cork seems to think that the circumstances are such that the protection will be removed in all cases, but I think I can suggest to him an example where the Act, as it stands at present, would apply. Take, for instance, the case of a harbour board or dock company who have had before them a report from their officers of something faulty in the construction or arrangement of their docks. That would be held to be a matter in which the harbour board or the dock-owners had been informed, and if damage was done in consequence of this fault it would be held to be a case "within the actual fault or privity" of the authorities. In a case where a fault was brought to their notice, and they took no notice of it, they ought to be made liable. It is extremely essential that the words should stand as they are. I think there was a question as to whether it might be argued—though I do not think it could be argued successfully—that this clause creates a new liability, but that will be met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, which the promoters of this Bill will accept, and then the law as to the liability of dock and shipowners will be in the same position.

said the words in the clause had given rise to an apprehension that there would be an extension of liability, but he believed that the main thing was a fear that a new liability would be created. He gathered that those who were in charge of the Bill were willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork upon this point, and he was therefore inclined to take the responsibility of advising the hon. Member for Mid Lanark not to press this Amendment.

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

The lion-Member in charge of the Bill has spoken of the necessity of establishing reciprocity between the dock owner and the shipowner. In order to bring about that reciprocity I think the hon. Member will see that the Amendment I now move is absolutely necessary. As it stands this Bill is practically a Liverpool Bill.

No, no!

The hon. Member interrupts me because he does not know the sense in which I use that phrase. I do not mean it in the sense that Liverpool only will be protected, because I know that there are a great many large harbours besides Liverpool to which it will extend protection. I simply use the phrase as distinguishing harbours like Liverpool from harbours of a much smaller size, which will get no sort of protection from Clause 2. I quite agree that, in the case of harbours like Liverpool and Belfast, this clause will give ample protection, but the authorities at Cork Harbour will get no sort of protection from this clause. In these large ports the limitation which is proposed of £8 per ton on the tonnage of the largest ship entering the port is a very valuable provision. But lot us take the case of a small port like Cork. In Cork harbour we have sometimes some very large ships, and even the steamship "Oceanic" goes there, but such vessels only enter Cork harbour for the purpose of taking up mails and passengers. They do not ship cargo and make use of the harbour in the same sense as those vessels use the Liverpool harbour. If a vessel of that kind is injured what possible protection is it to Cork harbour to say you shall not be liable for injuries of that kind beyond £8 a ton? I understand that the case of Cork is parallel with the case of a great many small harbours in the United Kingdom. I think that establishes my point. If in the Liverpool docks an accident happens, or one of the sluice gates on the Manchester Ship Canal goes wrong, and a number of small vessels are injured in consequence, the dock or canal authorities will only be liable for damage at £8 per ton. In Cork harbour, however, we should be liable for the full amount of the actual injury incurred, and therefore this clause is absolutely no protection for Cork harbour. The hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken of reciprocity, and I invite him by this Amendment to give us reciprocity. The shipowner is only liable for £8 a ton in respect of the ship doing the injury, and we should be liable to the extent of £8 per ton for the ships injured. In the case of small harbours like Cork and Dundee this is substantially no limitation whatever, and the state of things if this Bill passes will be that the shipowner is to be protected in this difficulty, and will only be liable for £8 per ton on the tonnage of the ship doing the injury, although the injury done may be enormously in excess of that amount, but if the dock authority is unfortunate enough to injure a number of small vessels, that authority will be liable for the full amount of the damage, and will not have any reference to the tonnage of the largest ship, entering the port. My Amendment would give protection here, because it would make the limit of the liability the same in both cases.

In, reply to the hon. and learned Member opposite as to whether this clause does establish that reciprocity between shipowners and dock-owners which we aim at, I would remind him that in case a shipowner becomes liable for damages in respect of a number of vessels, his liability is limited to £8 per ton upon the tonnage of his own vessel in respect of the aggregate damages to all the other vessels. Where the dock-owner, through whose negligence a number of. ships are damaged, is liable the same principle should apply, and the only question is as to what the amount of the liability shall be. The hon. Member has contended that a dock should be treated in the same way as a single ship; but that is impossible, because a dock or harbour is intended to accommodate a large number of ships, and therefore it would not be possible to treat a, dock as a single ship. The question as to what would be a fair basis of liability between shipowners and dock-owners has been very carefully considered, and after a discussion between the shipowners and the dock-owners it was agreed, that the maximum liability of dock-owners or harbour authorities with respect to shipping should be measured by a sum equal to £8 per ton for the largest ship which has entered the dock or harbour during the five years previous. We considered that to be a fair measure of liability on the part of the dock or harbour authorities in relation to shipping. They would then be protected in case a mishap occurs on a large scale by which a large number of vessels are damaged, for then the dock-owner would only be liable to the extent of, £8 a ton in respect of the aggregate damages. What shipowners require is to have a full indemnity in individual cases. If an accident occurs through some act of negligence they want to be able to recover in full, and in nine cases out of ten this clause enables that to be done. Take as an instance a ship of 1,000 tons. Suppose she is wrecked with her cargo, owing to the neglect of the dock authority. That ship with her cargo may be worth £30,000, but the amount recoverable under the Amendment of the hon. Member would only be about £8,000. With reference to what the hon. Member for Cork has said about this being a Liverpool Bill, that is not the case, as the Bill is the result of an agreement arrived at between the shipping associations and the principal dock and harbour authorities throughout the United Kingdom.

I did not intend it as a term of reproach.

I agree that all ports are not equally benefited by this Bill, but it is impossible that there can be any general rule which will work out the same in every case. All ports do benefit, but not to the same extent. In the case of Cork harbour, if a large steamer is lost through the negligence of the Cork harbour authorities this Bill places a limit to their liability. It is not possible to have a general rule which will work out the same in every case.

said he failed to see any reciprocity whatever in the clause as it now stood. The liability of shipowners was limited to £8 per ton in the event of their vessels damaging the docks—he meant £8 per ton on the tonnage of the vessel causing the mischief. But if, on the other hand, the dock authority caused damage to a vessel, its liability was not by any means limited to £8 per ton on the tonnage of that vessel, and in the case, say, of a vessel of 1,000 tons burthen the liability would not be limited to £8,000; it would be based on the tonnage not of the vessel injured, but of the largest vessel entering the dock during the preceding five years. Where, then, did the reciprocity come in? The tonnage of the vessels entering some ports might be comparatively small; but then, as the value of the cargo was included, a vessel of 1,000 tons register might easily prove to be worth £20,000 or £30,000, and if that ship and its cargo were sunk the responsibility of the dock authorities might practically go to the extent of £24,000, because on some previous occasion a vessel of 3,000 tons register had happened to call at that particular port. That showed the difficulty of treating a dock company on the same lines as a ship. The limit of £8 per ton was agreed to in the case of a ship because it was realised that a vessel was engaged in a more or less hazardous enterprise, and had to run risks which were unavoidable. But the case of a dock authority was very different. It had no difficulties of navigation to deal with, and, to his mind, there was no reason why there should be any limit at all. The fact was, a bargain appeared to have been struck between the dock authorities on the one hand and the shipowners on the other. They had come to an agreement to limit their respective liabilities, and now this Bill was being forced through the House of Commons on a Wednesday afternoon, when there was nobody present interested in it except the dock authorities and the shipowners. He had a strong objection to Bills going through the House in that way. He thought it would be better to delete this clause altogether. There could not be said to be reciprocity when the shipowner's liability was limited to £8 per ton in the event of his vessel damaging the dock, while the dock authority's liability, on the other hand, extended to £8 per ton not merely on the vesse damaged, but on the largest vessel that happened to have entered the dock during the preceding five years.

This Amendment is pressed in the interest of the dock-owners. It is very much easier to argue that a shipowner is entitled to a limit of liability than it is that a dock-owner should have any such limit granted him. I remember that in the debate on the Second Reading on this Bill the hon. and learned Attorney General said the subject of limiting the liability of shipowners was well worth discussion, and he did not think there was any real answer to their claim to such a limit. The problem now is to give the dock-owners also a limit, and it seems to me that the terms in which the Amendment has been moved and supported by hon. Members show that there is a singular confusion of ideas with regard to the limit of liability. That limit is fixed upon the assumed value of the thing which does the injury, not of the thing to which the injury is done. If it is a ship that causes the injury its liability is fixed at £8 per ton, that being for that purpose assumed to be the value of the ship, but should it be the dock which is responsible for the mischief to the ship then the problem arises, what should be the limit of liability of the dock authority? You have to find, if you apply the same principle, not the value of the ship or ships injured by the neglect of the dock authorities, but some value which can be assumed to be the value of the dock for the purpose of assessing the dock-owner's liability. At the present moment the dock-owner has unlimited liability. You cannot base the limit of the dock's liability upon the value of the vessel which the dock has injured. Shipowners are most anxious to arrive at some limit of liability on the part of the dock-owner, and they have therefore agreed that the assumed value of the dock shall be based upon he tonnage of the largest ship entering during the preceding five years. I admit that that is not logical, but then it is impossible to put the matter on any logical basis. We must, however, have some basis for the valuation of the dock, and, if this is not a very favourable arrangement for the dock authorities, I am very greatly mistaken. The provision is one from which the dock authorities have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I hope, therefore, the House will see fit to accept the limit proposed by the clause as it stands, as it embodies a compromise made between the different interests who alone will be affected.

agreed with the last speaker that this provision of the Bill was in the nature of a compromise and had no logical basis. Undoubtedly the value of a dock was enormously greater than that of a ship. Take the case of the Liverpool Docks. He believed their capital value stood in the company's books at eighteen millions sterling, and a vessel damaged in entering them would probably not be worth a thirtieth or fortieth part of that sum. That showed the enormous difference between the value of a dock and the value of a vessel; and, although the compromise which had been arrived at would no doubt act unequally, it was impossible to have any scheme of arriving at a valuation which would not also have unequal operation. Still he contended that the compromise to which his hon. and learned friend objected was bettor than the position in which the dock authorities stood at the present moment, of having an unlimited liability. If his hon. and learned friend could suggest any other method which would be fair all round, the House, no doubt, would gladly consider it; but, as he believed the clause as it now stood would be a welcome relief to both shipowners and dock authorities, he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said that, speaking on behalf of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, he wished to point out that they had a deep interest in this matter. The opposition to this clause came from Queenstown. He was quite prepared to admit that his hon. and learned friend was justified in standing up for the interests of that port. But he thought he might fairly appeal to him to consider that there were not other interests which required safeguarding. So far as Manchester was concerned he had no authority to say that the carrying of the Amendment would wreck the Bill, but he would assert most distinctly that Manchester would withdraw its support from the Bill, and that, he thought, was a matter worthy of very serious consideration. He would ask the hon. and learned Member to consider if the Bill after all, was not more in the interests of Queenstown than the law as it at present stood. he hoped that, having regard to the interests of the Manchester Ship Canal, the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment.

said there was undoubtedly a great difference between England and Ireland with regard to port and harbour authorities, and there was a strong feeling in a number of Irish ports that the shipowners in the House, who constituted a very powerful interest —more powerful, indeed, than the railway interest, because they worked more unitedly—had been able to prevent the Irish port authorities having so good a show as they were entitled to. The English port authorities, in his opinion, had, in coming to an agreement on this Bill, entirely omitted to take cognisance of the poorer ports in Ireland. No doubt the Bill would be a great advantage to such places as Liverpool, but it should be remembered that the Irish ports were largely ports of call, and did not get the benefit from cargoes and passengers which the English ports reaped. He quite accepted the view of the last speaker that the Manchester Ship Canal Company deserved consideration. But the point was whether that consideration ought not to be given by means of a private Bill, in view of the exceptional position of that undertaking. Was it fair that they should be asked to legislate for the whole country on the basis of an exceptional undertaking like the Manchester Ship Canal, which had special difficulties in the shape of locks, etc.? He hoped they would have some statement of the views of the Government. The Solicitor General should remember that in this matter he represented both England and Ireland, and although it had been said that Dublin sanctioned this Bill, it was clear that Cork and Belfast were opposed to it.

The points raised by the hon. and learned Member have been very fully considered by the Board of Trade and by the Government Departments concerned in the Bill. Certainly the proposal to which exception is taken is not a logical or an ideal proposal. The Board of Trade, however, have endeavoured to obtain as far as possible the views of the great shipowners and associations represented, and in the same way they have the opinion of the dock-owners that the proposal as to limitation is the only one they can agree upon, and it has been embodied in the Bill. As regarded harbours like Cork, with which I am somewhat familiar, and! some harbours in this country, I fully concede that the proposal contained in the Bill does not give the same amount of relief as is given to larger harbours, but that is not saying that they get no relief. When we speak of reciprocity, we cannot give the same benefit in all cases. The Bill as it stands does deal in all cases with limitation, and if it is abandoned or not passed the advantage which would be conferred under limited liability will be lost. If the Bill is not passed there will be no limitation at all. Under the circumstances, as this is a matter mainly concerning ship-owners and dock-owners, it seems reasonable that they should put their heads together and try if some reasonable way cannot be found to bring about a limitation of liability. I hope the Amendment, therefore, will not be pressed.

I also trust that the hon. and learned Member opposite will not press this Amendment. I should like to remind him that in this Bill as originally introduced there was no protection whatever for the dock authority; in fact, the limitation of liability under it would have been against the dock-owning authorities. Under these circumstances I ventured, on the Second Reading, to oppose the Bill, and the promoters of it at once agreed to consider the question of reciprocity. This clause is the result of that consideration. We must all realise that the standard measure of limitation of liability is illogical. It is an imaginary standard, and to a great extent the hon. Member for Mid Lanark is quite right in saying that there is no absolute reciprocity. It was necessary, however, that some kind of compromise should be arrived at, and I believe that on the whole this clause represents the most, satisfactory form. Cork harbour may not receive the same amount of protection as is given to other places, but undoubtedly this Bill will place it in a better position than it stands in under the present law. Under these circumstances I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will see that every effort has been made to arrive at a fair arrangement, and I trust, therefore, he will not press his Amendment.

I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has introduced this Amendment, but in the Standing Committee we discussed practically the same Amendment, with the result that we arrived at the best conclusion we could under the circumstances. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that as things stand the liability is not accurately measured, but there were difficulties on both sides. The representatives of port and dock boards all over the country met and considered this question, and arrived at what they conceived to be the best possible solution. If we endeavour to raise fresh discussion now I am afraid the result will be that we will not get the Bill at all. I therefore appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow the Bill to stand as it is, because we have practically agreed as to what can be done under the circumstances.

In deference to the appeal which has been made I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I protest against the manner in which the Government have treated foreign countries as compared with the manner in which they have treated Ireland. In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment I beg to give notice that on a subsequent Amendment I will again raise the question of the unfair treatment meted out to the port of Cork under this Bill.

This is not a Government Bill. It is a measure which has been brought forward by the shipowners and the dock-owners, and if an Amendment had been agreed to by both sides the Government would not depart from their attitude of agreement with what was acceptable to all parties concerned.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Linlithgow I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name, which I may say has been agreed to by all the parties to this Bill. I will briefly state to the House the object of this Amendment. As the Bill was brought in the liability of the harbour or conservancy authority might extend to an amount not exceeding £6 per ton of the tonnage of the largest registered British ship which within a period of five years previous to the damage had been "within" the area over which the authority exercised any power. It was pointed out when the Bill came before the Standing Committee on Law that the word "within" might have the effect of admitting within the clause vessels which simply passed through the area of the port or entered it for shelter, and it was agreed, and I think correctly, that it would not be right that the maximum liability of the port should be fixed in relation to vessels which had entered it for a temporary purpose in the course of a voyage elsewhere. To meet that view the words "trading to or from" were suggested on the spur of the moment as indicating the description of vessel to which the clause would apply. After careful consideration it was found that these words were also open to objection. One objection was that they might not have the effect intended, because it might be argued that a vessel which passed through the area of a port was "trading to or from" that port and might consequently come within the clause. Let us take a concrete case. Suppose a vessel from Glasgow entered Greenock for shelter it might be held that that vessel was "trading to or from" the area of the latter port. Then again the word "trading" is a very ambiguous term and would exclude from the scope of the clause ships in graving docks, although it is intended that the Bill should apply to them. Suppose a ship in a graving dock were damaged, if these words were retained there would be no maximum liability at all, because the vessel could not be said to be "trading to or from" the port. After consideration it was considered better to restore the Bill to its original form, so as to include all vessels within the area of a port and then to add an Amendment taking out those vessels to which the clause was not intended to apply. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Before this Amendment is accepted, I wish to be satisfied that it is not a further assault on the position of Cork Harbour. As the hon. Gentleman explained it, I do not think any exception can be taken to it, but when we consider the change in the wording it appears to me that it might give rise to very great difficulty. As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment is this. As the clause left the Standing Committee, the limit of liability was based on the largest vessel "trading to or from" the port. Under the Amendment now proposed the limit of liability is to be based on the tonnage of the largest vessel which has been "within" the port during the preceding five years, with certain qualifications pointed out in a further Amendment. I have in my mind the case of the ocean liners calling at Cork. They do not represent the normal shipping of the port at all; they simply call to pick up passengers and mails, but the bulk of their passengers and cargo are taken on at Liverpool. As this clause originally stood, T think it might fairly be argued that these vessels were not "trading to or from" the port of Cork, but if the Amendment now proposed is accepter, any vessel which has been within the area of the harbour, with the limitations mentioned in the next Amendment, would come within the scope of the clause. The hon. Member has very carefully protected the interests of his own port in the Amendment which he has introduced; perhaps, I ought not to say his own port, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with Leith, but at any rate the ports where shipbuilding is carried on and graving docks exist are very carefully protected by the Amendment of the hon. Member. I think I have proved that the Amendment would be a distinct assault on the interests of Cork harbour, which I represent, and I shall certainly oppose it unless I get some pledge from the promoters of the Bill to extend the qualifications set forth in the second Amendment by the addition of such words as "or that it has unloaded or loaded mails or passengers within that area." I think it is plain that injury will otherwise be inflicted on the port which I represent. The limit of the liability of the port should be its normal shipping, such as ships loading or unloading cargo, but as the Amendment stands large Atlantic liners which cannot in any way be said to trade to or from the port would be included.

I am not at all sure that the words "trading to or from" which it is proposed to omit would not be held to include Atlantic liners calling at a port to land mails and passengers. The very effect of this Amendment is to protect the port of Cork from liability to the danger which the hon. and learned Member has spoken of. The object of the second Amendment is that the liability of the port shall be measured by the vessels which are really within the port, not by the vessels which call at it.

I do not think that the Amendment suggested, coupled with the Amendment that follows, really gives the port of Cork the relief which the hon. Member has just suggested. The words "trading to or from" might, no doubt, be held to include the "Oceanic," supposing it landed mails, and therefore that vessel might be held to be the measure of the liability of the port. The second Amendment only refers to vessels which have entered a port for safety or have only passed through, which is a very different thing from a vessel entering a harbour such as Cork to land passengers and mails. Such a vessel is not taking shelter, and it is doing something more than "passing through." This limitation might apply to wide areas, such as Glasgow or Leith, but it certainly would not help Cork in any way. There would, of course, be the chance of the words "trading to or from" being interpreted as the hon. Member suggests, but they are obviously open to a great deal of discussion.

I am quite sure nothing is further from the minds of the promoters of this Bill than to make any attack on Cork harbour. I think the hon. Member for Cork put his case a little too high. He said that the large ocean liners calling at the port of Cork are rather a nuisance than otherwise.

Oh, no; I never said that.

I consider that these ships confer a certain amount of advantage on Cork, and I would be sorry to see them withdrawn. I hope the hon. Member will put one thing against the other, and that when we release him from any idea of thinking that these liners are a nuisance he will release us of any idea of intending to make an attack on Cork.

Surely it is legitimate that we should put forward local points as they strike us. That is no justification for the hon. Member saying that we regard these ocean liners as a nuisance. We got them after a struggle of many years, and we have built at enormous cost facilities for them, but at the same time we do not want to be in the position in which Liverpool will be under this Bill. Ought Cork to be placed in the same position as Liverpool, which has all the advantage of the initiation of this Atlantic cargo and passenger trade, whereas only a score or two of passengers and a few bags of mails are put off at Queenstown? We are within our rights in pressing the case of Cork, and in taking steps to prevent the Cork Harbour authorities being one rated in the same way as the harbour authorities at Liverpool, Hull, and other great ports. We have put our case in a moderate form, and in view of our anxiety that some compromise should be arrived at, I think our action should not be treated almost as if it were an act of treason.

I should like to suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Cork that the words proposed in the Amendment are really better than the words in the Bill from his point of view. The words in the Bill are "trading to or from," and he seemed to think that it was perfectly clear that the "Oceanic" or any other Atlantic liner calling at Cork harbour for the purpose of taking off passengers and mails would not be held to be trading to or from that port. I should be inclined to take the opposite view. It certainly would appear to mo to be very difficult to draw distinction between a port where passengers and mails are embarked and the ultimate port of call. If that were held to be trading, then the words in the Bill would bring these Atlantic liners within its scope. Then as regards the words in the Amendment, "passed through such area on a voyage between two places," I do not in the least say that it is clear that they would include Atlantic liners under the circumstances mentioned, but I think they are quite as good as the words in the Bill. I have not made these obervations in any hostility to Cork. For my own part, I should be very glad to see Cork having all possible advantages, but I do not think that anything would be gained by refusing to pass the Amendment.

The specific question is, I understand, whether, under the words now proposed to be inserted, the limit of liability in the case of Cork would apply to the Atlantic liners. Cork is no more protected by the words of the Amendment than it is by the words in the Bill. T would call the attention of the promoters of this Bill to the fact that at regards these words and other words to which exception has been taken, opposition and criticism have come from Scotch and Irish Members. The plain inference to be drawn from that is that the promoters of the Bill would be wise if they consented to insert a clause that the Act should not apply to Scotland or Ireland. If they assented to that, all opposition would be withdrawn.

I will not persist in my objection to the present Amendment.

I now beg to move the second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, up to and including the word "area" in the fifth line, and excluding the words "or that it has been fitted out, ballasted, or repaired within that area." The first part of the Amendment was that put down by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and it was accepted on behalf of the shipping and docks representatives. The words which [have omitted appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning, and I have since received a communication from the hon. Member for Linlithgow, stating that he did not press for the inclusion of these words, and asking me to move the Amendment without them. The Amendment which I now beg to move excepts vessels which have only passed through the area or have put in for shelter. There appears to be no reason why an exception should be made in the case of vessels which have been fitted out, ballasted, or repaired within the area. They pay dues to the port, and there is no reason why the port authorities should repudiate their obligation in regard to them. A further reason is that if these vessels were excluded, in the event of an accident the amount which would be recoverable would be altogether out of proportion to the value of the vessel. Take the case of a large Canard steamer that may be worth £300,000 or £400,000. The Bill as it stands proposes to reduce the maximum liability from that amount to £8 per ton on 14,000 tons, or £112,000. That is a very great concession. Shipowners will not assent to such vessels being further exempted, and the majority of the dock authorities do not wish them to be so exempted.

I beg to move to add the following words, "or that it has loaded or unloaded mails or passengers within that area." I think I am justified in saying that as the Bill now stands it cuts against the port I represent and other small ports in Ireland. I began by describing this Bill as a Liverpool Bill. It is admitted that the Bill originated in the peculiar position of Liverpool, and in the special liabilities which have arisen in connection with the Manchester Ship Canal. I have not the smallest desire that that great commercial concern should not get from this House the treatment that it deserves, but I think it is unfair to deal with small ports on a basis specially suitable to the Manchester Ship Canal. It is only in the case of the; Manchester Ship Canal that we can even imagine such serious accidents as are contemplated in this Bill. It would be quite impossible that they could, occur in, any-ordinary dock. When, therefore, it is proposed to change the whole shipping law of the United Kingdom, it is unfair. that no distinction is made between small, ports in Ireland and ports such as Liverpool and Hull. My proposal is that the port of Cork, should not be treated under this Bill as if it were the port of Liverpool. That is all I ask. The hon. Member opposite ventured, to say that I referred to these ocean steamers calling at. Cork as a nuisance. That is not our view. We are not so, absurd. We are delighted, that they call at the port, and we benefit from them, in. many directions, and I must proceed to argue my case on the basis that Cork does benefit by these steamers calling at the port. But can anyone say that the port of Cork, benefits by these liners in the same way as Liverpool benefits? Such a statement would, be absurd; and accordingly; while these provisions may be perfectly fair to the port of Liverpool and to. other large, ports,. they are not fair in the case of Cork, because the Atlantic liners do not use that port as they use Liverpool, and only confer upon Cork a fraction, of the benefit they confer on Liverpool. I suggest that when we are devising this measure of. liability, and, are founding it upon the traffic of a port and the ships using that port, we should take as the measure the normal traffic of the port. In the case of. Cork the liners do not even, come alongside the quay, and very often do not come inside the harbour at all, in many cases taking passengers and mails from a tender outside the limits of the harbour. I thought it would be at least arguable that these liners were not trading to or from the port of Cork. I may be wrong, but I do not know whether it would be similarly arguable that, in the words of this Amendment, they are merely passing, through on a voyage between. New York and Liverpool. Perhaps that would be arguable also. We are now passing an Act which will settle the measure of the liability of Cork on the basis of these ocean liners, whereas it ought to be measured by the vessels using the port.

I think it has been tried to be shown in this debate that the larger ports in England and Scotland are being treated in this Bill with exceptional favour as compared with smaller ports, and especially as compared with the port of Cork which my hon. friend represents. I think that is not taking a fair view of this Bill. The Bill is the best compromise that could be arrived at by those who considered it. The hon. and learned Member says that Cork should have separate treatment, because the Atlantic liners only call there, and on many occasions do not enter the port at all. I have passed the port of Queenstown some thirty or forty times. Coming East the steamers do not enter the port, but going West they usually, although not invariably, enter it. Then he says that the vessels do not go alongside a wharf, and only discharge mails and passengers, because there is no cargo to be shipped or discharged, but, if cargo offered, the case would be different. The argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Cork is, that because the large steamers require very little service in the port of Cork, that therefore it should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. But the harbour authorities benefit by the dues which these vessels pay. The Bill is a fair compromise, and makes dock owners liable on the basis of the tonnage of the largest vessel which has been within their area, although the tonnage of the vessels usually trading to the port may be of far less tonnage. And this applies to Glasgow. Vessels as large as the "Oceanic" are built in Glasgow, and the harbour authorities receive nothing from them except small dues paid once only, and when they leave, after being fitted for sea, they may never be seen in Glasgow again. Nevertheless the largest of these vessels will, under this Bill, be the measure of liability of the harbour authorities in Glasgow. The Liverpool and New York liners call at Cork harbour three or four times a week, and every one of them pays harbour dues to the port; but the vessels built in Glasgow to which I have referred pay no dues except once, and are three times the tonnage of the average vessel trading to that port. In this respect the Bill would result in unfairness in the case of Glasgow, one of the largest ports in the country, just as it might be said that it would create unfairness in the case of Cork and other small ports. I do not see how this is to be avoided. The terms were agreed on by the Committee which considered the Bill, and the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division told us that they could not arrive at any better compromise. If this Amendment is accepted, it will give to Cork dockowners an exemption from the terms settled by the Committee as reasonable and fair to all dockowners. Glasgow, Belfast, and other ports might claim exemption on similar grounds.

I think the pro-motors of the Bill might very well accept the Amendment. We know very well that this Bill has been brought forward in the interests and for the benefit of the shipowners. It confers many advantages on them, and I think that they ought to accept what everyone must consider to be a very reasonable Amendment on behalf of the port of Cork. It is admitted that there is no logical reason or principle for the standard of liability which the Bill sets up as the maximum, but it has been pointed out that the liability in the case of Cork will be rather different from the liability in the case of large ports such as Liverpool or Glasgow. They have large vessels, but in Cork the liners make a merely incidental call to take up passengers and mails, without practically using the harbour in any way whatever. So far as the interests of Liverpool, Glasgow, and Leith are concerned it cannot make the smallest difference whether this Amendment is passed or not. It does not affect any harbour in Scotland or England one iota, and they will get the full benefit of the Amendment which has been adopted. What is now asked is that vessels which merely call to take in passengers and mails should not be taken into consideration when estimating the maximum liability. The promoters object to this, but do they wish that the port of Cork should be liable for a sum equal to the value of an Atlantic liner? Notoriously the harbour of Cork is used for local purposes, and yet it is now proposed to establish a law whereby the largest vessel calling at that port should be the measure of its maximum liability. Suppose a vessel of 1,000 tons were injured in Cork harbour, the liability of the authorities would not be £8,000, but would be an amount equal to eight times the tonnage of the largest vessel which had called at Cork during the preceding five years. Such a disparity is obviously absurd. It is admitted that there is no reason or principle in such a measure of liability. It is merely a fictitious standard, and I cannot see why the promoters, having got everything they wanted, should higgle about this Amendment, which really does not concern them.

We object to this Amendment on principle, as well as because of the results that would follow from it. We see no reason whatever to discriminate between a vessel carrying passengers and mails and any other trading vessel, and we see no reason why a port should repudiate its responsibility in regard to such a vessel. The case of the "Oceanic" has been alluded to. Suppose that the "Oceanic" was damaged or sunk in Cork harbour, the value of the vessel and cargo would probably amount to about a million, and under the existing law the harbour authorities would be liable to that extent. By this clause it is proposed to reduce the liability in such a case from £1,000,000 to £8 per ton on 17,000 tons, or £136,000. The hon. and learned Member wants something more than that. He wants the liability of the port to be limited to £8 per ton on the largest vessel trading to Cork in the ordinary way, the tonnage of which might be 2,000 tons, and this would reduce the maximum liability of the port in respect; of the "Oceanic" to £16,000. That is a proposition which seems to me to be quite out of the question, and cer- tainly one which the shipowners will not accept. I venture to think if it were inserted in the Bill it would work in an exceedingly detrimental manner.

I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. This is a shipowners' Bill, and the port and dock authorities have as far as possible endeavoured to meet them. The exception proposed with regard to Cork is to my mind perfectly natural, and I hold that Cork is entitled to exceptional treatment. I trust the promoters of this Bill will not put us to the trouble of dividing the House, and I hope they will meet us in that spirit of compromise which enabled the Bill to pass through the Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Irish Members looked upon the calling of the Atlantic steamers at Queenstown as a nuisance. That is not so; quite the contrary is the fact, and I repudiate that statement, because we have done everything we could by railway-facilities and in other ways to give the Atlantic liners every convenience. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that his speech was against his own Amendment? His Amendment was to-exempt from the provisions of this Bill vessels which had been fitted out or ballasted.

The hon. Member in, moving his Amendment expressly stated that he would not move those words, and I accordingly omitted them in putting; the question.

I did not notice that, Mr. Speaker; but even then the hon. Member has removed from the Amendment exceptions which he himself thought desirable.

May I repeat what I have already said— namely, that I was desired by the hon. Member for Linlithgow to move the Amendment without these words.

No doubt the hon. Member has probably been squeezed by the shipowners, but we now know what his mind was. He desired not merely shelter, but also ballast and repair. The shipowners have driven him out of that position, and we now have it that ships coming in for ballast or repair are not to be excepted. I respecfully submit that the shipowners of the country are not to come here on a Wednesday afternoon and put a pistol to our heads and say, "You must take this Bill as we present it; we will give no concessions, and have no regard to local ports, no matter how injuriously this Bill will affect them." We have made enormous concessions to the shipowners, and they might take up some position of compromise. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Linlith-gow is now limited to the pure question of a ship having been "within" the area, the provisions as to shelter, ballast, and repair being struck out. But when a ship calls and drops a bag of maize, the liability of the port is raised from the normal £10,000 to a million, and the shipowners say "We will make no further concessions; we are shipowners, and you are only the port authority." This is a port authority with a very small revenue, and already with enormous liabilities. It conducts its operations unselfishly, having nothing to gain from any one of them. The shipowners, who are making millions of money, say to the port authority, "You must undertake this enormous liability, because our ships drop a few bags of maize occasionally." Is that a proper position to take up? It has been admitted in this House from the very start that this Bill cannot be defended on grounds of abstract logic, and all we ask is that this port, which is poor compared with Liverpool or Glasgow, should not be burdened with this tremendous liability because these ships call once a week on the way to or from New York and drop a few bags of maize, or take up a few emigrant passengers. I would hope that, the Bill having got to this point, the Government will see their way to recommend to the hon. Gentleman behind them to facilitate the passing of the Bill by accepting this proposal. I am driven to the view of the hon. Member for Dundee, who stated very fairly that the case of the Scotch and Irish ports is exceptional, and that these ports should be exempted from this provision of the Bill. I do not believe myself that if the Bill passes into law the Scotch and Irish ports will gain much; but I can quite see that the small ports will be landed in greater responsibility than is their due. The principle of collaboration supposed to be contained in the Bill between merchant shippers and the ports has not been fairly carried out in the measure. The President of the Board of Trade should be asked what is his position in this matter, but unfortunately the Solicitor General is the only representative of the Government present. I can quite feel that the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University must, as Solicitor General for England, look at this question, affecting the country in which he was born and bred, from an English point of view. His breast must be torn by conflicting emotions in regard to the case of England and that of Ireland. Officially, I will not say financially, he is bound to protect the shipping interests; and it appeal's to me, as there is no other gentleman connected with the Government on the Treasury Bench, that the right hon. Gentleman would be relieved to a certain extent if he had the assistance of the President of the Board of Trade in a matter of this kind. I will not move the adjournment of the debate, but I think we have arrived at a position of affairs when his presence is most desirable. If the Solicitor General for England takes up the position that we have right on our side, we would not need the assistance of a higher authority; but if he is precluded from expressing an opinion favourable to our views, we are entitled to the presence of other members of the Cabinet. For the moment, I suggest that this is a case when the matter should be considered at a future date. At any rate we would like to know the opinion of the Government upon it.

Although I do not altogether agree with all that the hon. and learned Member for Cork has said about shipowners, I admit he has some grounds for his Amendment, and I should like to appeal to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill not to press his opposition to the particular grievance in regard to this matter. The port of Cork is situated very differently from other ports, and if the Amendment proposed were accepted, I think it would apply to that port alone. It has been said that it would apply to South-hampton; but I do not think so, for there the ships take in cargo. I should be sorry that the Bill should be talked out if this Amendment were not accepted. I think I express the opinion of the general body of the shipowners and dock-owners of this country, that they are desirous of having this Bill, which gives them advantages they do not at present possess. It appears to me that the great objectors to the Amendment are the owners of the large Atlantic liners running to and from Liverpool; but even if the Amendment were accepted they would receive many advantages if the Bill passed. I therefore appeal to the hon. Member who has charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment, but if it is pressed to a division I shall vote for it.

As one of the Members connected with shipping, although my name is not on the Bill, I rise to suggest to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, in charge of the Bill, that this additional Amendment should be accepted. The Bill, although not altogether logical, is a compromise which has been arranged between the harbour authorities and the shipowners, and will ease the mind of the shipowners, because, although it may not be known to many Members of the House, accidents have occurred in the Manchester Ship Canal, for instance, and elsewhere, and have caused very serious loss to the shipowners. I think that hon. Members below the gangway have treated the Bill, on the whole, very fairly. Personally, I think the Amendment is reasonable, and I cordially support it.

If I may venture to tender advice to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, I think he would be well advised to accept the Amendment. It appears to me that there is real substantial ground for the exemption of Cork, because the limitation of liability of dock-owners is fixed in respect of the duty to provide accommodation in the docks. But this is a question not of the vessels going into dock, but of the vessels lying out in the stream. The reason for imposing liability here is much less, because the harbour authority does not give dock accommodation for these large vessels, which only come into the harbour to drop mails and a few bags of maize. There are other considerations which would make it obvious why the hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment.

If the hon. Member merely means that the Amendment applies only to Cork, which is an intermediate stage, and not a port of destination, the question is very much narrower than appears at first sight. Although the Government take no part in the Bill, so far as I am personally concerned, I would vote for the Amendment as a proper one, if it goes to a division.

I have put down an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Sub-section 3. I must ask the House to allow me to read Sub-section 3—

"Subsection 3 of the said Section 503 shall apply to this section as if the words 'owners of every sea-going ship or share thereof,' included a harbour authority and a conservancy authority, and the owner of a canal or of a dock."

Now, the sub-section of the Act of 1894, which is to be applied to this sub-section, is in these words—

"The owner of every sea-going ship or share therein shall be liable in respect of every such loss of life, personal injury, loss of or damage to vessels, goods, merchandise, or things as aforesaid arising on distinct occasions to the same extent as if no other loss, injury, or damage had arisen."

Now, I ask any hon. Gentleman who has heard me whether he knows in the least the effect of these words? It seems to me that this is one of the most vicious cases of draughtsmanship by reference. We all know what abuses have arisen from this draughtsmanship. Some of us who have been behind the scenes know the history of it. The real reason is that it was a device resorted to by the Treasury draughtsman in order to get behind the intelligence of the House of Commons because of organised obstruction. But we have ceased to know what organised obstruction is in this House, and whatever ground the Treasury draughtsman may have had for adopting this course, I deny that it is available to the draughtsman of a private Bill. I do not know whether this sub-section was originated in the Standing Committee or not. I have pointed out that this new subsection, in itself obscure, contains almost as many words as the original sub-section to which it refers. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, if he wishes to include this subsection in his measure, to write out in plain English what it is that it means. Let him tell us what he means to legislate about, and let us know what we are doing. He takes in an extremely difficult subsection from an Act not before the House and applies it as if the words "owner of a ship" included the "owner of a dock." I do not presume to say what the result of this sub-section would be, and I believe it would require a great deal of study to say what it would be. I do submit that this is not a proper, or even a decent way of legislating on this important matter. The hon. Member must know what is the effect intended by these words, and my appeal is that he should withdraw them now and formulate a sentence just as if the sub-section in the old Act did not exist at all. He can do it now, or do it at some later stage of the Bill, as the Bill could easily be recommitted. I have another objection suggested to me by a harbour authority which is apprehensive that this Sub-section 3 imposes on harbour authorities a liability which by the present law does not exist. It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion on the matter, but having regard to the Amendment which has just been passed I think the point ceases to have any importance, and I am not disposed to insist on it. But on the other point, that we ought to have the intention of the Legislature put in plain terms, the hon. Gentleman should give us the direct result which he wishes to produce. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

This Amendment is one of a very technical character, and proposes to leave out Sub-section 3. I quite agree with what my hon. and learned friend says, that the original subsection is very difficult to apply to the case of both a ship and a dock. I think it is quite plain that the object was to enact that a dock company should not be allowed to limit its liability in the case of two accidents occurring from the same cause, as if it were all one accident. I would suggest to my hon. friend who is in charge of the Bill that as regards a dock that question could seldom or ever arise, for it could never be argued that it would be a continuing wrong on the part of the dock-owner. I would suggest to him whether, in his discretion, it would not be better to accept the Amendment.

The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Law. The object of the subsection was to put the position of the dock-owners and shipowners on the same footing. I do not myself see the difficulty of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but, having regard to the views of the right hon. the Solicitor General, I am quite willing, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, to withdraw the subsection.

I beg to move, as a separate clause at the end of Sub-section 6:—

"Provided that nothing in this section shall impose any liability in respect of any such loss or damage on any such owners or authority in any case where no such liability would have existed if this Act had not passed."

said it was rather a strong thing, when a Bill had been read a second time and referred to a Standing Committee, to ask the House, when the Bill came back, to again consider it. But there were reasons why in the case of the present Bill such a course should be taken. He took that course because the Bill, in his opinion, had never been properly considered by the House. It came on most unexpectedly on a Friday afternoon, upon the Government business having suddenly come to an end, and was therefore debated inadequately in a very thin House; there was a very small division, and then it was sent to the Standing Committee. A Standing Committee was an excellent institution when a Government Bill could not be got through in a reasonable time, but in the case of a private Bill it was most unsatisfactory, except to the promoters. By a little careful whipping on the part of private Members it was always possible to get a private Bill through a Standing Committee with a very inadequate discussion. This Bill, having been inadequately discussed on Second Reading, had been rushed through the Standing Committee, and had now come back to the House; and it was only proper that the House should now consider whether or not it should be allowed to go through without further consideration. It was a most important measure. It was contrary to the tendency of legislation in these matters. The whole tendency of legislation had been in favour of greater medical and scientific methods, and substituting the medical practitioner for the quack. The present Bill was for the purpose of setting up a class of people as being people partially qualified to act in these matters, and he ventured to think that fatal results would follow if it were passed into law. The law as it at present stood provided that the only person who could practise midwifery was a qualified practitioner, qualified in medicine, surgery, and midwifery, and it was now proposed to legalise a class of persons who did not possess these qualifications. If it were a case of natural labour, a knowledge of midwifery would be sufficient; but as in almost every case abnormal symptoms developed it was absolutely necessary that a person should be present who was qualified in all the three subjects. He recognised the excellent object which the promoters of the Bill had in view. There was a very large amount of preventable mortality—something like 10,000 deaths per annum—the whole of which might be prevented if proper care were taken. That was a terrible state of things to contemplate, and one which certainly ought to be stopped if possible; but the Bill before the House would not stop it, for the reason that poor people would be induced to employ these partially qualified persons much more frequently than was now the case. For all these reasons a Bill of this kind ought to be very carefully considered. The House ought to see that it contained such checks and safeguards that great abuses might not occur. But when this Bill was examined it was found to be so badly drafted that the whole of a Wednesday afternoon would not give sufficient time to amend it by the insertion of those checks and safeguards. There should be, in the first place, full local control, and, in the second, where these persons did anything contrary to their certificate they should immediately be brought to book and fined. There were no such safeguards in the Bill. Under Clause 8 there was a certain control. The county council is to be the board of control in its own area. They may delegate their power to the district council, who may, in their turn, delegate it to a local committee. But the power of the local committee would only extend so far as to send a report to a body called the Midwifery Board, and that Board, when it had made up its mind, would have power only to suspend the midwife and nothing more. The result of this Bill would be that all cases of abnormal labour could be attended simply by a midwife, when it was absolutely necessary that a doctor should be present. There was no control whatever, and, naturally, irregularities would result. Did the promoters really mean that mid-wives were to undertake cases of abnormal labour or not? The Bill at the present time was extraordinarily vague upon that point, and under it the midwives could undertake all cases, whether abnormal or not. He ventured to ask the House whether it was worth while to proceed further with the measure at the present time. He did not speak on behalf of the medical profession, although possibly that suggestion might be made, but at the same time he thought it was hard that the opposition of the medical profession, which was almost unanimous, should be said to be an interested opposition. He begged to move that the Bill be considered this day three months.

hoped that the Bill might be allowed to proceed on the ground that it was a measure of great importance affecting public health. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggested that all women in labour should be placed under the care of medical men. This would do away with the midwife, who had existed from remote ages, and would exist till the world's end. It had been said that a large section of the medical profession objected to the registration of midwives, but on. the other hand a large section approved. The Medical Council approved generally of the Bill before the House, and had accepted its general principles. They had made suggestions from time to time, the influence of which was to be seen in the Bill. He would not say the Bill was all that he could wish, but it was a step in the right direction, and he hoped it would be allowed to proceed.

said he entirely sympathised with the hon. and gallant Member for Stratford-on-Avon who supported the rejection of the Bill. A great many, too many, Bills were sent to Standing Committees. Owing to his position on the Committee of Selection he was debarred from assisting at those Committees, and not only himself, but many other hon. Gentlemen were unable to take part in measures in which they were interested, because they were sent upstairs. They ought to be discussed in the House itself. He did not associate himself with the objection to the registration of mid-wives; doctors were registered, and all it was proposed to do was to put an inferior class of practitioner on the same scale as to registration as the higher branch of the medical profession. He did not agree that the Bill had been insufficiently discussed. It had been discussed before the Standing Committee, and if it had not been discussed at greater length upon this occasion it was through the pure accident of the position it held on the Paper. A large number of doctors opposed it, but an equally large number were in favour of it, and the one balanced the other. Two-thirds of the poor women were attended when in labour by their own sex, and there was a very strong feeling against what was called men-midwives. But these women who attended were usually stupid, old, and unqualified to perform these duties, and were not uncommonly both dirty and ignorant. They ought to be trained and registered. Puerperal fever could be eradicated entirely by cleanliness and proper care and precaution, and if these women were qualified it would disappear. He hoped when the Bill came up again a good measure would be the result, but at the same time he supported the principle of it.

considered the measure one of considerable importance, and for that very reason he wished it to be postponed. It was one for which he believed he was himself to a certain extent responsible, for the reason that some years ago he had been struck by the horrors which had been referred to, and had moved the Medical Council in the matter. He was not prepared, however, to vote for a Bill that would abrogate the Medical Acts of 1857 and 1886 by creating a new class of practitioner, which was unnecessary in the interests of the public. What was required was that in child-birth women should have properly educated nurses to look after them, whose knowledge was sufficient to enable them to judge when the local practitioner was necessary. In that position these women would do an infinite amount of good, but if they were put upon a register they would be put in a position to become independent practitioners. He did not think that any law would attempt to prevent a woman giving aid to another in her time of tribulation and danger. What was required in the interests of public health and in the interest of the mass of the people was that they should have properly qualified women to attend as monthly nurses or midwives. The Bill under consideration did not do that, and provided no security for it, and in his opinion the House ought to give it further and longer consideration. Fourteen Amendments had been put down on the very morning of the day it came on for consideration, and there were a score of Amendments which would necessitate considerable discussion. He did not know whether the Government were prepared to back the Bill in its present form —he believed not; and, for the reason that it had not been properly considered, he thought the House ought to support the Amendment before the House. It was in his opinion too large a question to be initiated by a private Member, and he hoped in another session the Government would take the matter up and bring in such a Bill as could be passed into law.

agreed in wishing that this matter should be dealt with by the Government of the day—

I would ask whether the Government has anything to communicate as to events in China.

We have received two brief telegrams, each confirming the information received from unofficial sources that Tientsin has been relieved. The first comes from the consul at Tientsin, dated 23rd June, viâ Chefoo, 27th June, and is as follows—

"British column, under Major Morris, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, and Naval Brigade, under Commander Cradock, arrived at noon, 550 men strong; 1,500 Russians are reported to be at Tientsin railway station; 150 Americans and 50 Italians have also arrived."

The second telegram left Ta-ku, 25th June, 3 p.m., viâ Chefoo, 27th June, and is from the Rear Admiral—

"Commander Cradock, commanding British contingent Tientsin relief, reports Tientsin communicated with and reinforced 23rd June. Commander-in-Chief reported ten miles from Tientsin, hampered by sick and wounded, and engaged with enemy."

That is the extent of our official information; but the House will recollect that the unofficial telegrams to the same effect, which were correct in other respects, stated that the force had moved north in order to communicate with the Commander-in-Chief.