said that before he moved the Third Reading he had to propose one or two verbal Amendments which would have the effect of carrying out the verbal arrangement which by common consent the House entered into last Friday. It was clearly understood there were two periods to be fixed in the Bill, one the date after which no woman was to be allowed to represent herself as a midwife, and a later period, after which, if unregistered, she was not to be allowed to act as a midwife. The Amendments of which he had given notice would give effect to that arrangement.

I have satisfied myself that these are purely verbal Amendments which carry out the intention of the House. The difficulty arises from a date having been inserted in the wrong place, and without the Amendment the Clause would be nonsensical and ungrammatical.

I am in entire sympathy with the hon. Member for Horsham.

said he entirely accepted the verbal Amendment first carried, but he was bound to point out that the House was put to considerable difficulty by the fact that the Bill, although very much altered on the Report stage, had not been reprinted. They had not, therefore, before them the measure which they were asked to read a third time. He had not risen for the purpose of endeavouring to stop the Bill at all; had that been his object he might no doubt have carried it out the previous week. But he fully recognised that the Bill, although a peculiar one, ought to be allowed to go through. Still it was so exceptional in its character that he would not like it to be read a third time without carrying a word or two on it as he was one of those who had always opposed it. The Bill was one which was contrary to the whole course of legislation which had been carried on this question for many years past. Hitherto the object of Parliament had been, so far as possible, to strengthen the law against what he might call quacks and inferior practitioners. That had been the whole tendency of the Medical Acts. At the present time, under those Acts, no doctor might practice midwifery unless he was qualified, not only for midwifery, but also in medicine and surgery. But this Bill entirely reversed that policy, and instead of making the qualification more strict, it rendered it far more easy for a certain number of practitioners registered under the Bill to practice without possessing these qualifications. There were, of course, special reasons why that should be allowed. Although the law laid it down that those high and full qualifications were necessary for medical men, the fact remained that the great bulk of the poorer classes did not resort, in ordinary cases of labour, to the medical profession at all. They resorted to what were called midwives, and those midwives, being untrained, unregistered, and unregulated had undoubtedly been the cause of a vast amount of unnecessary suffering in the past; a great many deaths had resulted from their carelessness and want of education, and much preventable disease as well. The reason why the poorer classes did not avail themselves of the aid of doctors, and why they went to these ignorant people, was, of course, the high charge made by qualified practitioners. They could not afford to pay the doctor, and so they had resource to the unqualified woman whose charges were, of course, very much less. He might point out that, unless the Amendment which was put in the Bill last week had been accepted, the measure would have been perfectly useless, because it would still have enabled unqualified and untaught practitioners to continue their practice as before, and would have merely set up a separate class of trained practitioners, and, just as at the present time, the poorer people, for financial reasons, preferred the unqualified midwife to the doctor, so he had no doubt, if the Bill had passed without that Amendment, the result would have been that the registered midwife would have proved much more expensive than the unregistered; poor people would, in consequence, have resorted to the cheaper practitioner, and the evil would have gone on exactly as at present. He fully admitted that a very great improvement had been made by providing that after 1910 it should not be lawful for any woman habitually, or for gain, to practice midwifery unless registered. But he must point out that, up to that date the promoters would uudoubtedly fail very largely to meet the evils which the Bill was designed to combat, and he could not say he thought much good was likely to result. There had been very strong objections pressed against that new provision, and he had heard sinister rumours that attempts might be made to remove it from the Bill in another place. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, who represented the Home Office, had spoken strongly and indeed felt most strongly against it. He had told them that he could not support the Amendment. Now he had thought a good deal about his right hon. friend's speech; he had read it over three or four times, and he must say he failed to understand the right hon. Gentleman's objection. He had told them that the insertion of the words would not merely prevent unregistered women from nursing in midwifery cases, but that it would also prevent the unqualified woman from doing menial offices and assisting a friend during her period of labour; it would prevent her looking after the ordinary household duties which would naturally be performed by the woman herself were she able to do them. He could not see that that would follow from the Amendment, because it provided distinctly that the woman must habitually and for gain attend women in childbirth. What was clearly intended to be dealt with was the actual nursing of the woman during the course of labour, and not the performance of various menial functions. Of course, if there were any doubt as to the real meaning of the words they could be altered in another place, so as to make it clear that what was to be pro-vented was actual attendance in labour by an unregistered woman. Reference had been made to the case of the agricultural labourer, and a suggestion had been thrown out that his wife would not be able to afford to pay for a trained midwife at all. Then what was the good of the Bill at all? Its avowed object was to prevent untrained women from practising, and if they were still to allow such women to practise amongst the poorer classes the result would be that they would remove the benefit of the Bill altogether from those classes. It was most important, if such a Bill were to be passed, that it should apply to all classes, rich and poor alike, and no real good could result from it unless the words with which he was dealing—or similar ones—were left in the measure. There were one or two other points he would like to touch upon. He would have liked to have seen the Central Board made a stronger body. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool that the British Nurses Institution ought to be represented on it.

It is.

said that as the Bill had not been reprinted, and as the Amendments were gone through so hastily in the previous week, it was almost impossible for anyone to know exactly what was contained within it. He was glad to have the assurance of his hon. friend. But that did not entirely meet his views. He thought the local control ought to have been made stronger. He could only say, in conclusion, that he did not intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because he fully recognised that his hon. friend the Member for Horsham, who was in charge of it, had worked for a great many years in order to cope with a great evil. It was a Bill of a very peculiar nature and one which ought not to be oppressive in its action, and it was only because it dealt with a special set of circumstances that he, and other hon. Members who had acted with him, had withdrawn their opposition. He hoped, however, in due time they would revert to the proper principle of making the qualifications required in these matters more strict than at the present time.

said he rose to express views which were in opposition to those of his hon. friend who had just spoken. The hon. Gentleman spoke approvingly of the Amendment made in the Bill on the report stage, but, for his part, he feared that the Amendment to which special attention had been drawn was likely to cause great difficulty in many rural parts of the country. There were many outlying districts in the Highlands where it was impossible without great expense to secure the services of a trained midwife. That was a point which ought to be considered, and if the words which had been inserted in the Bill were to be maintained there he thought they ought to be modified in the direction of making it possible to put some charge upon the public rate so as to meet cases of hardship. There was only one other point to which he wished to allude. His hon. friend had elicited the fact that on the report stage the hon. Member for the Scotland Division for Liverpool secured the insertion of a provision securing representation on the Central Board to the British Nurses Association. He was very glad that the promoters assented to that change, and he would like to make a further appeal to them to also give representation on the Board to the Queen Victoria Jubilee Institute for Nurses. He had a letter in his hands from the Secretary of that Association in which she said that the institute was constantly training nurses and supervising their work all over the country, that, as a rule, they had between 400 and 500 midwives on their books, and that, consequently, it was only fitting they should be represented on the Central Board. He hoped his hon. friend would take steps to secure them such representation when the Bill was under consideration in another place.

said he gladly joined in the appeal which had been made by the last speaker. The Amendment accepted last week did provide in some measure for the representation of qualified nurses on the Central Board, but he strongly held that, in view of the exceptionally valuable work which the Queen's nurses were doing all over the country, it was only right and fitting that their institute should be represented on the Central Board. He knew it was too late to give legislative effect to that suggestion in that House, but he did appeal to his hon. friend the Member for Horsham to hold out to them some hope that the Bill would be amended in that direction elsewhere.

said there was no doubt that the medical profession throughout the country were by no means satisfied with the Bill, but, in view of the great interest displayed by the hon. Gentleman in charge of it, they had waived many of their objections in the hope that in the near future an amending Bill would be introduced which would meet their views. Now, in Ireland they had an almost perfect system for looking after poor women in the time of labour. They had well arranged dispensary districts with a doctor, in charge, and under him a midwife. The latter could not attend the patient on her own initiative. She had to get written authority from the doctor, and thus the latter was in close touch with the midwife and was called in in case of necessity. He had heard it said in the course of those debates that the process of parturition was easy and natural. But the fact was that, owing to our highly civilised condition, it had become almost unnatural in many instances. In many cases the administration of chloroform was necessary, and he did hold that poor people should have a right to call in medical men and to gel relief from their sufferings equally with the highest ladies in the land Was not the Government as represented by the Home Office in favour of the very necessary Amendment made in the Bill. He heard the Under Secretary say it would be a very terrible thing to deprive the poorer women of the help of the handy woman in time of trouble, as it was necessary to have somebody in the house to look after the children and do the dirty work. But had the right hon. Gentleman never heard of antiseptics—the very things which were used to guard people from dirt and filth. It was one thing to do the menial offices and these handy women could.

Who is to pay?

said the best plan would he to establish a proper system of dispensary districts in England, and then there would he no trouble on the score of payment. The cost could be placed on the taxpayers as in the case of Ireland. Like a good many other medical men he began his profession as a general practitioner, but he had long given up that branch of his work, and he could testify, not only to the dangers and frightful results of the work of these unqualified women, but also to the terrible lacerations and other injuries produced by carelessness of the grossest character. His time was greatly taken up in remedying the horrible deformities suffered by unfortunate people through the carelessness of these ignorant women. People in the country did not understand the great danger to which women were exposed in this matter, and a rich country like England might well follow the example set by Ireland in making provision for poor women. There were a great, many defects in the Bill, but there were also some very good things. The medical profession was not a very money-grubbing profession. The other day he was thinking of his own work. He supposed that in the course of the year he attended about 1,000 persons for fees, but the remaining 5,000 paid him nothing. No doubt, that was the experience of every other doctor, excepting, perhaps, those in the very highest positions, and they, of course, had not the time to do it. Wherever they saw suffering, misery, or trouble, they did all they could to alleviate it—for payment; they could get it, but without payment if necessary. He hoped that if the Hill passed through the other House the Government would not attempt to take out the penalising clause which, in his opinion, was absolutely necessary. There was not a doctor in the kingdoms who would not support that clause in the interests of the poor. There was not a clause in the Bill so absolutely necessary. It would prevent the practice of these unqualified women, and he trusted, therefore, that instead of opposing that Amendment in the Bill, any alteration that might be suggested would be in the direction of trying to make the measure of more use to the poor people of this country.

said he did not think the hon. Member had said a word too much on behalf of the medical profession. Everyone must recognise the enormously unselfish and devoted services gratuitously rendered by the members of that profession. Much of it, of course, might be said to be done for the sake of education and practice, but the vast bulk of it was done by men who came into contact by suffering and who, out of the charity and liberality of their hearts, came to the relief of the poor without any thought of pay or remuneration. They would all like the women of the country to get the best skill available, but how was that going to be arranged? Let them look the facts in the face. They found that a comparatively small proportion of the women of the country could claim the assistance of the medical profession. At present there was, no doubt, an enormous amount of mischief done by ignorance on the part of mid-wives, and the object of the Bill was to endeavour to improve the education of midwives. They must act gradually. He personally would have been delighted if it had been found possible to go further than was proposed in the Bill, and to insist upon higher qualifications for midwives. But he believed that any attempt to make too stringent demands with regard to qualifications would render the measure unworkable. They must be satisfied with advancing by steps, and they could only hope to be able to make further advances in the future. He believed that the step forward made by this Bill would effect a real improvement with regard to the qualifications of ordinary midwives up and down the country. The hon. Member for Tunbridge had suggested that the Bill was contrary to the general tenure of the law. He, on the other hand, would have said it was exactly in accordance with it, because hitherto the object of the law had been to secure the registration of those who were authorised and qualified, and to take every precaution that those who were neither authorised nor qualified should not pretend to be so. One could not stop them from practising altogether, one could not prevent people taking advice from whom they chose in regard to their health and paying for it, but one could make sure that a person in going to somebody who was not recognised by the faculty, was in a position to know that the person so visited was not entitled to claim to be that which he was not. His hon. friend had spoken of the Amendment which had been introduced to prevent unregistered women practising after the year 1910. He was exceedingly glad to see that Amendment put into the Bill; he heartily supported it, and he hoped that no effort would be made to remove it from the Bill in another place. The object of the Bill was to improve the status and education of midwives, and he conceived, that the wide interval of seven years between the Bill coming in force and the prohibition clause becoming operative would afford plenty of time for those women who were now practising midwifery to get more knowledge and experience, as well as higher qualifications, so as to make them fit to be placed on the roll by 1910. There were provisions already in the Bill enabling women practising at the present time to be put on the roll, on showing that they were already in practice and that they were already of good character, and he thought some provision might be added to give them a chance to go on practising after 1910 and to be put on the register on easier terms than those applicable to midwives starting afresh. The Bill had had careful and jealous scrutiny, and, as regarded the feeling of the medical profession at large, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for North Monaghan that that profession had been simply looking at it from the point of view of endeavouring to get what was best for the women of the country. In his opinion they had sometimes been somewhat impracticable in asking for too much at once; but still, he was sure that, on the whole, their objections and criticisms had been animated by the highest motives.

said the Bill was one in which he had taken a benevolent interest for some ten years or more, and he would like to say a word or two with reference to its present position. That position was somewhat different when, a week previously, they met to consider the measure and were faced with some seven pages of Amendments. Then apparently it had hardly any prospect of passing. But suddenly, and almost unexpectedly, they were all in harmony with reference to the measure, and it passed through most rapidly, with the assistance of hon. Members on his side of the House. That singular phenomenon was due to a complete change in the character of the Bill with reference to unqualified practice. That change and alteration would, he hoped, be retained in the Bill at all costs, in the course of its future progress. They did not, last week, receive any very explicit declaration from the Government of their adhesion to their now principle introduced in the Bill; on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department made a speech of considerable fervour defending the position of unqualified practitioners, especially in rural districts. With that he had the greatest sympathy, because be thought that any measure which deprived the somewhat remote localities, where perhaps medical men did not reside, of the assistance which these persons had hitherto been able to give to poor women in labour would be a serious injury to the poorer classes. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman's fears were exaggerated, and certainly as years went by the difficulty would be overcome, as suitable and deserving persons now practising midwifery would be able to got on the roll of midwives and thus be put in a position to carry on their calling without difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman waxed very indignant with reference to certain terms which had been used in regard to some of these women. But he quite misunderstood the sense in which the word "dirty" had been applied to them. It was in no sense used in the ordinary acceptation of the term. It was applied in its purely scientific sense. The right hon. Gentleman desired that these women should be allowed to be employed in the interests of the poor; and that they should be allowed to be engaged to keep the home cleanly. To that there was no objection. But what was contended was that they ought not to be allowed, from a scientific point of view, to be brought into contact with the patient; ignorant and untrained persons should not, in future, be allowed to perform one of the most delicate and responsible functions which woman could be called upon to perform for one of her sisters. Now, he wanted to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a pledge that, whatever changes might be made in the Bill in another place, the words "practising habitually and for gain after 1910" should not be interfered with. The so-called compromise of the previous week rested upon the insertion of those words and that date. The opponents of the Bill had given away a great deal by accepting so distant a date, but they had, at any rate, accepted a principle which they believed to be a useful and valuable one, and he would be sorry if anything were done to interfere with the carrying out of it. All that was wanted was, not to protect the medical profession, but to secure that at some date there should be security that the women employed in the performance of these functions were properly instructed for the discharge of duties so serious to those on whom they were performed. He believed the Bill would have to be more or less amended in the near future, and for the reason that the working of it was exceedingly complicated. He was not satisfied with the constitution of the Midwives Board, and he did not think that the relationship of the County Councils to the Bill was sufficiently defined. He feared that the Board would not work altogether without friction, and he would like to see the medical officer of health in every locality made more directly responsible for the supervision of these matters in his district, and put in a position to enforce proper and just demands. Very valuable work might be done by medical officers in this respect, and hence he would throw more responsibility upon them. The expenses under the Bill might be heavy, and that was a matter which the County Councils would have, to take into consideration. He believed, as he had said on previous occasions, that this Bill was only part of a much greater measure of legislation which was needed for this country, and he did not think it should have been left for a private Member to deal with this subject. But now the Home Office had assumed, to some extent, responsibility for the Bill, he hoped they would look after it carefully, and see that it was not altered on the points he had named. It only dealt with a comparatively small fraction of a great public question. There were probably in this country some 3,000 or 4,000 midwives whom the Bill would affect. But there were also some 80,000 nurses who required supervision and control, just as much as midwives, and it should be the duty of the Home Office to introduce a measure for the supervision of the whole of these women who practice delicate functions.

congratulated his hon. friend the Member for Horsham on the success which had attended his labours after so many years. Everyone in the House, he was sure, recognised that a Bill of that description was necessary, and was glad that it had fallen to the lot of the hon. Gentleman to pilot it through so successfully. But they must not allow their joy at his success to prevent them examining some of the provisions before it left that House. Everyone would admit that, in the interests of the country, some measure of that sort was required. But at the same time they were bound to take care that it did not cause any hardship which might be avoidable. They had heard several doctors speak in that House on the Bill, and it was curious to note how they differed, irrespective of politics. It must be borne in mind that it would not be a good thing to institute a class of people who would practically do away with doctors. He did not say that in the interests of doctors themselves because personally he did not think it would be possible to institute a class of midwives who would be sufficiently skilled to undertake the duties of their profession in all cases. No one would deny that, under certain circumstances, it was necessary to call in a doctor. But they must remember that many of the people who were attended by midwives were not in a position to pay the expense of calling in a doctor, and, at the same time, of employing a skilled midwife, in addition to somebody else to perform the ordinary duties of the house. There was, therefore, a good deal to be said for the objection raised by his right hon. friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department to the Amendment which was introduced on the report stage a week ago. The hon. Member for North Monaghan had stated that the medical profession were not satisfied with the Bill, and, in answer to an interjection made by the Under Secretary, he said that something ought to be done which was not provided for in the Bill. The hon. Member for Tunbridge had also expressed his inability to understand the objections of the Under Secretary to the new Clause. Now, as he took it, the words introduced in the Bill provided that no woman "shall attend." What was the meaning the word "attend?" They all knew that, in small villages, the wife of a labourer was often not in a position to pay some one to attend to the ordinary household duties, such as washing the children and cooking the meals, things which had to be done whatever happened. As he understood the Bill, the labourer's wife would be prevented from employing a woman of that sort unless she was absolutely limited to those duties. He presumed there would be nothing to prevent her having a woman as general servant to undertake the household duties, but how on earth could she afford to pay two or even three people? In the first place she would have to have a qualified midwife, secondly there would be the general servant, and finally, if it were a complicated case, the doctor might have to be called in. This was a very serious matter, and, while he quite recognised that a great evil had grown up under the present system, he thought they should be very careful not to create new evils. It was a question whether now that this Amendment had been introduced they would not be establishing a midwife ring. It had been suggested that the tendency of legislation was adverse to quacks practising. But as he understood it all the law provided was that a man should not call himself a doctor unless he was properly qualified. It did not prevent an unqualified man from practising. Before it was altered last week the Bill merely gave effect to the rules and regulations which applied to the medical profession, and he thought that the alteration which had been made went further than was necessary. He did not know whether the Under Secretary, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, was going to give any indication of the line which the Government might take in another place. At any rate he hoped he would not give the pledge asked for by the hon. Member, and that he would not bind the Government hard and fast to support the retention of the Amendment. While he thought there were serious objections to that Amendment, he must say that, on the whole, he held the Bill to be a very good Bill, and he would be glad to see it pass its Third Beading. In one of the speeches which had been made during the debates on the measure a suggestion had been thrown out that if the Bill became law illegal operations would be frequent. He did not believe there was any ground whatever for that suggestion, and he did not think the fears of it were justified. He would only say in conclusion that he hoped, before the Third Beading was agreed to, the right hon. Gentleman would indicate—the intentions of the Government as to dealing with it in another place.

congratulated his hon. friend for Horsham on the fact that the Bill was perfectly safe. He did not think the House was likely to divide against the Third Beading, and even if it did he would feel bound to vote for it. He need not, therefore, be alarmed if some debate were thought necessary at that stage. In the first place let him say that he entirely sympathised with the proposals made by one or two hon. Members, that the Jubilee Nurses should be granted representation on the Central Board. It was quite in accord with his views. The reason he insisted on the British Nursing Association having representation, was that he looked on this question as largely one of nursing, and in order to make the Bill effective, it was necessary to have the very best representation of nursing institutions. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Horsham would see his way to accepting the suggestion as to the Jubilee Nurses. The other day, having obtained what he considered to be reasonable terms, he was very anxious to see the Bill go through, and as a somewhat dangerous point was raised, he did not insist on some of the Amendments he had on the Paper. But he would strongly put it to his hon. friend that the governing body might be further improved. One of the points he would like to draw attention to was that the Board was to a large extent a London Board. No doubt London bodies had a very representative character in regard to other parts of the country, but still it was a London Board, and there was nothing in which the habits of different parts of the country varied more than on the question of midwifery. It was therefore desirable, if they could, to make some change in the governing body, so as to secure better provincial representation. As he read the Bill, the rules adopted by the Central Midwives Board for the regulation of examinations, etc., were subject to revision by the Priory Council, in consultation with the General Medical Council. But he would put it to the House that the rules were of such vital importance that they should also be subject to the supervision and control of Parliament, and might well be laid on the Table for a period of twenty, thirty, or forty days before finally passing into law, for then if it were found that the rules went in anything like a retrograde direction, and if they relaxed in any way the splendid training given in modern times to nurses, they could be subjected to sharp and severe criticism. With regard to the Amendment, which was the outcome of the compromise arrived at a week ago, he hoped that the Home Office would accept the verdict of the House of Commons. The matter had been very carefully considered, and he thought the concession made was a very fair approach to what they asked. He had been twitted with accepting in the House a proposal against which he voted in Committee, but he would remind hon. Members that he was making the best battle he could to get some form of compromise, and at any rate he secured that a fair breathing space was given to the women now practising as midwives. He was considerably impressed and touched by the speech of his right hon. friend last week. No doubt there was some difficulty in regard to working the Bill in country districts. People were poor, and midwifery was simply one of the many occupations by which women earned a livelihood. Let him put this strongly to the House. His hon. friend in charge of the Bill had begun a good work. He hoped he would continue it, and endeavour to assimilate the English to the Irish system. In Ireland they had an almost perfect system, every poor woman in labour was entitled to the assistance of the dispensary doctor without fee or reward. There was attached to every dispensary district in Ireland a thoroughly trained nurse. He insisted that nursing was at the very root of this matter. Midwifery was more a matter of nursing than anything else, and unless a woman got a training in absolute cleanliness in all matters connected with nursing—such as was given in hospitals, she was almost worse than useless at the bedside of a woman in labour. Not only was it true that they had nurses attached to every dispensary district in Ireland, but in some cases where the Boards of Guardians had been foolish enough not to appoint one, a sealed order had come down from the Local Government Board, directing them to do it, and in some cases appointing a nurse over their beads. He thought it a little discreditable to a rich country like England that it should not be willing to pay out of the rates what a poor country like Ireland was willing to pay. But this question could not stay where it was. They had only touched the fringe of the question in that Bill. He was entirely at issue with some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. As a matter of fact they bad around them innumerable instances where the happiness of homes and families had been darkened by bad treatment at the time of parturition.

I do not think I expressed any opinion to justify these remarks.

My hon. friend gave such an eloquent and picturesque description of the facilities for treatment that I think he rather forgot the natural inference. He was no doubt an excellent doctor, but he had not been in practice for some time, and he rather under-rated the magnitude of the cases where parturition was not perfectly natural. As a matter of fact, a small bit of dirt under the nail of a nurse might destroy the life of the child, or if it did not destroy it, it might poison the life of the child, and even of the mother—as it had done in millions of cases—for the rest of her days. One of his hon. friends near him had had tragic experience of that. Having knowledge of these evils, surely they had been perfectly justified in sternly and vigilantly watching every line of that Bill. With regard to the clause introduced into the Bill, he thought there was a good deal worthy of attention in the speech of the Under Secretary. That remark especially applied to the case of the village, and the policy he would like to see pursued would be the application of a system of gentle violence to those districts, so that by 1910 the difficulty which obtained today would no longer exist. He would like to bring pressure on these localities to imitate the example of Ireland. The Department had a period of eight years in which to cope with the difficult. He had himself been in a rather difficult position as regarded that Bill. He was asked by men of great eminence in the medical world to criticise some of its provisions, and to make certain suggestions. Some of those gentlemen had regarded him as a half-hearted advocate of these views, and he had already been subjected to some reproach because he had not taken advantage of the Parliamentary situation to try and postpone the passage of the Bill for another year. Well, he accepted quite cheerfully the charge of half-heartedness, for he was so conscious of the evils with which the Bill proposed to deal, that he was not prepared at any moment to prevent his hon. friend from taking that moderate step in advance towards meeting them. He insisted on his views as long as he could, and in his heart of hearts he never intended, if he could get anything like a fair compromise, to carry his opposition to the point of destroying his hon. friend's work for another year—work to which many earnest men and women had devoted years of strenuous labour.

said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had met the promoters throughout in a very reasonable and conciliatory way, and had never advanced his objections in a manner calculated to defeat the Bill. He entirely concurred with his expression of regret that in this matter England had not imitated the example of Ireland. It was to be regretted that they had not a medical officer attached to every County Council in England who could deal with this question. He rose mainly to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division—observations directed not against the principle of the Bill, or the effect it would have in the direction for which they had been striving, but complaining that it was such a poor contribution to the law on the subject. He thought that criticism a little severe on the Bill. He recognised that it was only a small contribution and would have been glad had that been a large one, but seeing that the measure was in the hands of a private Member and owed its success to the perseverance, industry and ability of the hon. Gentleman they ought to accept it with gratitude. It was, in fact, a substantial and distinct contribution towards the removal of evils which they would be glad to see diminished and, indeed, altogether removed. He did not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston had established any serious charge against the Bill when he spoke of its complexity. They might be sure it would work in the direction they all desired, and if in two or three years they found that in certain directions it required amendment, the experience gained in the interval would be of enormous value in improving it. He entirely endorsed the hope expressed by his hon. friend that the Government would do everything in their power to adhere to the compromise which had been arrived at. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division on Liverpool distinctly accepted the Amendment as a compromise. Personally he would have been glad if the delay had not been so long, but certainly some delay was indispensable, and it was necessary to take care that time should be given to women now practising to get themselves certified. Poor women in the country should not be deprived of that assistance which was absolutely indispensable to them, and which without some delay it would be impossible to secure for them. They therefore accepted gratefully and cheerfully the Amendment which had been placed in the Bill. It was certainly not asked for, and neither was it urged in the interests of the medical profession. It might incidentally—he did not know whether it would—operate to their advantage, but its aim and object was the protection of women desirous of obtaining competent and properly certified persons to attend them in the time of labour. He thought he was expressing the opinion of every Member of the House who had taken an interest in the Bill when he congratulated the hon. Member for Horsham on securing the passage into law of a useful Bill aiming in a direction which they had all been striving for for many years, and he hoped that the success which he had achieved in that instance would be an encouragement to him to pursue his efforts to remove the defects undoubtedly remaining in the law.

said he heartily congratulated his hon. friend on the conclusion of his long labours. It had been a great pleasure to him to associate himself with the hon. Gentleman's exertions, and he rejoiced that they had now reached a stage when the probability of the Bill becoming law in the near future amounted almost to a certainty. He felt great regret that many of his friends in the medical profession had not regarded the Bill with more favour, but he hoped that, in the course of the interval which would elapse before the measure became operative, their views would change, that they would feel some sympathy with it, and that their fears would be found to be without foundation. The Bill was, no doubt, greatly altered during its passage through the Report stage, and he was gratified to find his hon. friend in charge of it accepting Amendments which, upstairs, he had strenuously resisted. He rose for the sake of consistency to express his satisfaction at the delay which had been provided for in the application of what was practically the compulsory clause. He resisted that clause in Committee, because he felt perfectly sure that the adoption of it at that time would inflict great injustice and cause much hardship. But the delay until the year 1910 had entirely altered the whole situation, for it afforded ample time for the women now practising midwifery to comply with the new conditions. He hoped that they would do so, because he was perfectly sure that, unless they soon evinced an inclination to take warning from the passing of the enactment during the present session, there would be a resumption of activity, and pressure might be reluctantly brought to bear upon the House to initiate further legislation. He rejoiced that their labours might be regarded as complete, and he felt sure that the alteration to be made in the law would be approved in both town and country districts.

said the House would rejoice, and a much wider circle outside Parliament would be equally gratified, at the probable passing of this Bill into law, and he earnestly hoped that no impediment would be placed in its way in another place. During the past twelve years the Bill had gone through as many perils as Ulysses. It had been wrecked sometimes on one point and sometimes on another, but the difficulties in front of it had now practically disappeared, and they might hope that in a short time a Bill which would be productive of the greatest good to the community would have safely passed into law. He would like to incidentally mention that among the petitions presented to the House in favour of the measure had been seven coming from that class of the community which was most likely to be benefited by the change in the law. It must be some satisfaction to the House to know that the working classes had taken that opportunity of showing that they desired to secure properly qualified attendance in I cases of labour. He would like to add his meed of praise and congratulation to the hon. Member for Horsham, who had for so many years worked with untiring zeal on behalf of the Bill. The success which had attended his efforts must be a great encouragement to hon. Members in charge of other Bills to exercise the same energy and pertinacity.

An appeal has been made to the Government to take charge of this Bill in another place, but it must be evident to the House that the Government can give no such pledge, for the reason that, throughout, it has been perfectly understood that the Bill is absolutely a private Members' measure and not a Government one. I shall vote for this Bill for two reasons. First of all the Bill as it stood without this Amendment was a thoroughly good Bill and was a long step in the right direction. It prevented the word midwife being used by persons unqualified to perform this office. In the second place I feel that after the conciliatory and courteous manner in which the promoter of this Bill has piloted it through the Grand Committee and through this House it would be somewhat uncourteous to attempt to destroy his labours. I have been opposed to the Amendment that was introduced, because that Amendment as it stands will prevent any woman doctor in the future attending a ease of childbirth. That will be the effect of it.

Not at all. Women doctors practising in our large towns are all legally qualified.

But they would not be in a position under this Bill to attend childbirth.

Yes, they would. They would be in exactly the same position as any other qualified doctor.

Then I can only say I do not know what the words, "no woman shall attend a woman in child birth" mean. My hon. friend behind me said, "Why should not the rich and poor be treated alike." I wish they could be, but that is not-possible because the poor cannot afford to be treated in the same I would ask the House again to remember that we are contemplating legislation not for the rich but for the poor, or I should say the working classes; persons earning 10s. or 15s. a week. Those are the families most affected by this Bill. These present nurses in the country attend the woman in child birth at the average price of 7s. or 8s. a week, they not only attend the mother in child birth, but do all the work of the house as well. The work they do is not represented by the wages they receive, there is a neighbourly feeling it is impossible to pay for. This Amendment penalises any woman undertaking this duty. When an unqualified man attends these matters he is not penalised and there is no reason why these women should be. I was very glad to hear that the words "dirty, idle and ignorant" were applied scientifically by the hon. Member, but I do not think they should be applied at all to women who as a class are most respectable and honest people, and who, although they are not trained, have had long practice, and have become indispensable to the poor. My hon. friend says "after this matter has been fully discussed." It was fully discussed in the Committee, and this Clause was rejected by a majority of twenty-five to eight. Sir William Priestley publicly stated that he was against the penalising of this class. Putting off the operation of the Amendment for a few years is of little use, for the poor—of whom I am speaking—will not be much better off then than they are now. I quite agree with what was said by the hon. Member for North Monaghan, but he was speaking of and illustrating a system which in England does not exist.

said it worked very well in Ireland, and he saw no reason why it should not work well in England.

If the Bill had been left where it was when it was originally introduced, you would have had this class of trained midwives gradually created, and local charity and charitable societies would have supplied trained nurses for the working classes to take the place of the nurses who now attend them. But you now penalise this really necessary class before the system which is recommended to take its place is established. Why not let the Bill have grown by natural means gradually, instead of putting in this Amendment? I shall vote for this Bill. I have made my protest on behalf of a class of people who will be harshly and unjustly treated if this Amendment remains in the Bill. It is difficult for some of us who can afford to have servants and everything necessary to combat sickness, but we are dealing with a large percentage of population where everything in the household is done by one pair of hands, and it is a very hard case that that class is to be denied the only help that their poverty will allow them to have. Though I support the Third Reading, I heartily protest against this Amendment.

said a strong application had been made to the promoters of the Bill to strengthen the governing body by introducing one of the nurses of the Victoria Nursing Home as a member of the Committee. He had no objection whatever to that being done. He admitted that the Bill was by no means a perfect final and complete settlement of this extraordinarily important question, and it might be that it was but the beginning of that better state of things which they had been told prevailed in Ireland; a state of things which he hoped might prevail here. He was only too thankful that the necessity for legislation in this matter had been recognised by the unanimous decision of the House. He was not wedded in any shape or form to particular details or arrangement, if a beginning could only be made towards a better state of things He was certain that in thirty years, with experience, knowledge and information, legislation on this subject would stand on infinitely firmer ground than it could stand in this case, or at this time. The discussion this afternoon had been mainly upon the words inserted on the previous occasion, penalising unqualified practice, but the House must bear in mind that the insertion of those words was the result of a compromise suggested and assented to. He could only say that he could neither directly nor indirectly be a party to any attempt to upset that compromise, and he ought not to be approached on the subject, either privately or publicly, and he ought to abstain from giving any indication as on which side his preference lay. There were great and weighty arguments to be adduced on both sides. He was able to approach this matter from an impartial standpoint, because it had been his duty to argue the matter from both sides. It only remained for him to say that the Bill left him with great memories of generous kindness, sympathy, and help tendered and given by many valued friends known or unknown, and many useful criticisms and helpful suggestions by those opposed to the Bill, in which, if there was any animus, that animus was soon merged into respect, which respect was succeeded by goodwill.

said a great deal of argument had taken place between hon. Members who represented different views and had taken different attitudes upon this question about the compromise which had taken place, and it was obvious that this Bill would have had no opportunity of passing into law if that compromise had not been arrived at. But besides those Members who had taken sides, there was another section of the House who were not parties to the compromise, whose only desire it was to see a good Bill passed, and whose views he thought ought to be considered. Those who looked at this Bill from that point of view could not look at it without some anxiety. He was strongly in favour of the enactment of a Bill of this kind, and he hoped that care would be taken to ensure that while the measure should be made as efficacious as possible the poorer classes should be protected from injury.

said before the Bill passed its Third Reading he had one question to ask. He had listened to the interesting speech of the Under Secretary for the Home Department; but he had not quite gathered from the right hon. Gentleman whether he spoke on behalf of the Government or not. He thought the hon. Gentleman should explain what was the precise position of the Government with regard to this Bill—whether they proposed to make it a Government Bill or not.

said he thought he had been plain upon that point. What he said was that it was not a Government Bill; that it was a Bill that the Government regarded as being entirely in the possession of the House.

said that, as he understood it, the Government did not regard themselves as bound in any way by the compromise.

I thought that was made quite clear when the compromise' was arrived at. I myself would infinitely prefer the Bill without this Clause, but I would rather have this Bill as it now stands than no Bill at all.

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman, when the compromise was arrived at, had said in answer to a question that he would not oppose it.

I was speaking of the Bill.

said that, if the noble Lord would forgive him, he thought he had introduced an academic discussion on a subject which the House would prefer to deal with in a rather different manner. The noble Lord had said that the Second Reading of the Bill had been passed in a thin House after a brief discussion. He entirely disagreed with him; the House was not thin, nor was the discussion brief. What happened was that there was a consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill, and that therefore there was no necessity for a very long discussion. The House knew that the Bill was going to be sent to a grand Committee where it would be very carefully considered. He submitted to the House that this Clause was not a more paper enactment as the noble Lord had suggested. His contention was that an employer of labour would think very seriously before he dismissed any workman in his employment on frivolous grounds, or on the ground of incompetency when he was competent. He know of a case of one of the largest employers of labour in the country who I made it a condition of employment that every one of his workmen should join the Shop Club, and discontinue his membership of his friendly society. That was a concrete case, and unless the noble Lord said that employers were going to dismiss their employees on frivolous grounds this Bill was absolutely necessary. He sincerely trusted the House would reject the Amendment.

said he agreed with the last speaker when he stated that it was I perfectly true the Bill had been very well considered on the Second Reading.

Shortly.

Shortly, true, because the whole House was in favour of it, and nothing was said to prevent it having proper consideration before the Grand Committee. He was not a Member of the Grand Committee himself, but he understood that it had received very careful consideration in the Grand Committee, and the objections brought forward were considered in a very reasonable spirit, and Amendments accepted. The noble Lord had said that the Bill when passed into law might be evaded. That was perfectly true; any Act of Parliament might be evaded. But if it was found in practice that the wording of it had not been sufficiently carefully considered, that might be a very good reason for those interested in the matter to bring it before the House again and have the Act so amended as to prevent evasion. At all events if it did lead to some evasion it would stop a very considerable amount of what was called the oppressive use of Shop Clubs. If it did that in one case only, he thought the Bill was worth the consideration of the House. It showed the intention of Parliament whole in regard to the matter. Good as many of the Shop Clubs were they placed working men not in a position of slavery, but rendered their liberty of action much more difficult than before. It was well known that many employers would not use these clubs for that purpose, but it was also well known that there were employers who used them for the purpose of preventing their employees joining trade unions or obtaining improved conditions of labour; and it was against these employers that the Bill was directed. The noble Lord asked who could define "shall make it a condition of employment." That could easily be referred to a court of law, although it might be very well shown on the part of those representing working men whether it was or was not made on actual condition of employment. There was nothing in the Bill which would damnify bonâ fide Shop Clubs, but only those which prevented the working men from having full liberty of action. The noble Lord seemed to think that employers were fools, but that would mean that the working men were also fools.

said that what he had stated was that the Bill would be putting a penalty on employers who were fools, and making fools of the working classes.

said that if it put a penalty on employers who were fools it might brighten their intelligence; and he thought that the working classes were somewhat shrewder than the noble Lord seemed to think. At all events the Bill could do no possible harm, and if it required amendment to strengthen it in any way that could be done at a future date. He hoped that under the circumstances the noble Lord would not insist in his opposition to this Clause.

said that it was rather unfortunate that the remarks of the noble Lord, the Member for Greenwich, seemed to have been misunderstood. He was quite sure that the noble Lord was perfectly right when he said that no Act of Parliament which could be drawn could prevent an employer of labour dismissing a man for any object he might think fit. If Parliament said he could not dismiss an employee for this particular object, he could dismiss him without any reason at all, and therefore could achieve his purpose. He entirely agreed with the argument that the very fact of passing a law of this kind might have the effect of preventing some of the abuses attacked by the Bill, and therefore he would support it. He controverted the statement of the hon. Member for Poplar, that the Pill had received full consideration of the Grand Committee, and had emerged from it in a condition satisfactory to its original opponents.

said that what he had stated was, that he was not a Member of the Grand Committee, but that he understood that the Bill had been carefully considered there, and had not been hurriedly carried through.

said that as a matter of fact the Bill was a subject of a compromise in the Grand Committee. Sub-section (c) of Clause was the subject of very considerable controversy in Grand Committee, and after they had discussed the Bill three or four days, his hon. friend in charge of the Bill agreed in behalf of the promoters to drop subsection (c) on the understanding that the opponents dropped their opposition. They agreed to that suggestion, because I it brought the Bill within the scope of the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, appointed by Lord Ridley, of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham and the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies were Members. So far as he was concerned he would support the Bill without that sub-section, but not with it left in.

said that as he had taken a very great interest in Friendly Societies for many years, he would like to say a few words on this; matter, promising them with the statement that a good deal of pressure had been put upon him to support the Bill. One of the great objects he had had in fostering the institution of Friendly Societies was, that they should encourage employers to interest themselves in such societies. Many of the great railway companies and other corporations had established funds, making provisions for the old age of their workmen; and the objection he had to Clause 1 was, that it seemed to him to hamper and retard that movement. Of course no one would wish to lay down a rule that an employer should have the right to discharge an employee for not joining a society, the funds of which were not deposited on absolute security. The great Railway Friendly Societies had security for their funds even before the debenture holders, and these Companies had done their utmost to induce then-employees to join their societies, for the reason that it promoted harmony and encouraged employer and workman to work together. It did not look like as if sufficient attention had been given to the Bill in Grand Committee when sub-Section (c) of Clause 1 was to be withdrawn without a word. The working; men who had created these great Friendly Societies, which were the glory of the working classes of this country, although many of them required improvement, were perfectly able to look after themselves. What he was afraid of was that the tendency of this legislation was mischievous, and for the House to make it an offence for an employer to concern himself with these Friendly Societies was a great evil. The result would be that most employers would cease to have anything to do with Friendly Societies at all, and would leave their work people to act as they chose. He thought that would be a great misfortune, and that legislation should be so framed as to encourage employers and employees to work together. Although he believed that the Bill was meant well, he very much regretted that it had been brought in and should become law.

said he hoped that this Clause would not be rejected. He thought it rather late in the day, after the Bill had passed its Second Reading, and had gone through Grand Committee, to say that the principal clause in it should be omitted. Hon. Members who have served on Standing Committees know that, as a Bill progressed, some things took a different complexion, and the compromise arrived at to drop sub-section (c), arose out of circumstances which emerged after the clause had been passed.

said he spoke on behalf of a large body of people who wished to get the benefit of this Bill, viz., the co-operators. This was a Bill for the protection and encouragement of thrift. There had, of recent years, been an enormous extention of the avenues of thrift, and one of the most important of these was the institution of co-operative societies. In this country alone these societies had nearly a million and a half of members, with a share capital of £18,000,000, and a debenture capital of £7,000,000, or a total of £25,000,000, which represented the savings of these people. Now, these thrift societies ought to have some encouragement. He did not wish to discuss this question on pure academic grounds; but he had a concrete case to present to the House. In 1898 three men in a town in the north of England were discharged from their employment because they belonged to a co-operative society. It had been made a condition of their employment that they should not belong to a co-operative society, and when it was found that they continued members of the co-operative society they were dismissed. He begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.

said he was afraid the promoters of the Bill could not possibly accept the Amendment, which went outside the compromise arrived at in Grand Committee, although it might otherwise have great merit.

said he knew a great deal of interest was taken in this Amendment amongst a section of the working classes, and on the merits he could not imagine that there would be a difference of opinion as to adding it to the Bill. It seemed to him germane to the objects of the Bill. At the same time, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said, this Bill was the result of a compromise upstairs, and if the Amendment was persisted in it might possibly result in the loss of the Bill. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in pressing his Amendment, but he trusted, as representing a large constituency containing a great number of railway working men, that they would understand that the acceptance of the Amendment would imperil the Bill, and he was sure that they would prefer it as it stood rather than run the risk of losing all its benefits.

said he wished to speak on the same lines as the noble Lord who had just sat down. There were a great many points in the Bill of an exceedingly technical character, covering a great variety of practices and operations of a huge number of companies. A great deal of time and care had been given to it in Grand Committee, and the compromise was arrived at after the whole of the items in the Bill had been patiently gone through and considered. It had been his humble duty to call attention more than once to the value of these Committees, and if they in this House began to pull to pieces, or to vary materially the whole tendency of a Bill which had been thoroughly examined, inch by inch, by the Committee upstairs, they would take upon themselves a great responsibility. He was not without experience on this special subject, and he thought that the House would do well to take the verdict of the Committee on the Bill. Sir Robert Peel, a great authority on these matters, said that even if they saw in a Bill something of which they disapproved, they had better take the Committee's advice and follow it rather than put their own opinions into the Bill with the jeopardy of making a mistake, leaving the responsibility with the Committee.

said he would call the attention of the House to another, and what he thought, a more important objection to the Amendment; it was clearly outside the title of the Bill.

said he could not accept the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham that the House ought not to revise the decisions of the Committee upstairs. He would not however, regret the expression of the view of the hon. Baronet if he would apply it to a Bill just passed by the joint Committee of both Houses, viz., the London Water Bill, and accept that Bill as it came down to this House without substantial alteration or long debate.

I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, which proposes to omit Sub-section (c), of Clause 1. It is an Amendment which many of us feel to be necessary in the interests of a large number of shop clubs which exist from one end of the country to the other, which are managed by the work people themselves, and which have done a great deal in the cause of thrift, before many of the so-called friendly societies obtained their present proportions. While wishing friendly societies every progress, yet we feel that Sub-section (c) militates against the best interests of the working men, and the provision they themselves have established in cases of sickness and death. We believe that the existence and stability of these clubs depend on the support of the younger members as well as the older members, and many of them would be materially damaged by the passing of the Sub-section, which would result in a serious diminution of their membership. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich alluded to the impossibility of enforcing this Sub-section, and even the friendly societies themselves recognise the impossibility of enforcing such a claim. Further, the Committee which sat on this subject in 1899 reported very strongly in favour of the Bill, as it will stand without this Sub-section. There are many shop clubs, especially in the Midlands," some of world wide reputation—I have one in view which has a membership of between 3,000 and 4,000—and it is felt that this Sub-section would seriously interfere with their existence. I, therefore, unhesitatingly appeal to the House to support the Amendment.

On behalf of the promoters I accept the Amendment.

It appears to me that this Bill was rather hastily got through on its Second Reading. I acknowledge that this Sub-section would have a serious effect. I agree with my hon. friend that it would militate against the best interests of the working classes, and, if it were left in, would produce an immense amount of mischief to many of these clubs and thrift funds which are most beneficial to many workmen.

The Subsection which it now proposes to admit was in the original Bill and was passed by the Grand Committee, and there is no doubt that its omission will materially alter the Bill. I confess that unless I felt that if this Amendment were not accepted the Bill itself would be lost, I should be inclined to vote against it; but I think we should hear from a member of the Government whether they threatened that if the subsection were not withdrawn they would oppose the Bill.

There were no threats, but it was understood that the Bill would not go through unless this Sub-section were omitted.

Understood by whom?

I was a member of the Grand Committee, and the real truth is that this Sub-section was only carried by a majority of one. It is not, therefore, at all extraordinary that the promoters of the Bill should be quite willing to give it up rather than endanger the Bill in this House.

I am not criticising the action of the promoters of the Bill, but neither have the promoters any right to complain if hon. Members, before they agree to the Amendment, require information as to what they are really asked to give up. It is said that the Sub-section was only carried by a majority of one in the Grand Committee, but we know that a majority of one in a Grand Committee does not necessarily mean a majority of one in this House, because the attendance at a Grand Committee is sometimes uncertain and irregular. The object of the Sub-section is to meet the case of a workman who may be a member of a bonâ fide friendly society in a perfectly-solvent condition. He may enter the employment of some large company, and he may be told that as a condition of his employment he would have to join the society under the company's control, which, no doubt, would also be perfectly solvent. But he is then called upon to pay twice over. We may be told that such a company would have no security that a man was giving up his payments, but that should not be considered as a final argument against the retention of the Sub-section. I do not think that the promoters of the Bill will have any cause to complain if we ask for more information, and, if necessary, take a division.

As primarily responsible for the introduction of this measure, may I explain to the noble Lord what exactly caused me to assent to the Amendment. First of all, no one in the House or out of it is more anxious than I am to get the principle of this Bill established; and I have been working at it for seven years. The Bill contains much that is valuable, and we preferred to sacrifice some of the measure rather than lose the whole. I have very carefully examined the evidence given before the Grand Committee, and I find that all who opposed the Bill proceeded on one line, and one line only. That was that they were strongly of opinion that what the House ought to pass was the simple recommendation of the Committee of the Home Office. I came to the conclusion that if we obtained the Bill, even without this Sub-section, we should have proceeded a very long way indeed towards establishing the principle of the measure; and, under these circumstances, I would appeal to the noble Lord, who, I know, is actuated by the best motives, to enable us to do some good at all events, if we cannot do as much as we would wish.

I do not wish in any way to prevent the promoters of a Bill doing what they think best. The Bill is so important that even in its mutilated form it would be better than no Bill at all; but when we are compelled to take such a Subsection out of the Bill, it ought to be brought home to those who are responsible. I understand that in the Grand Committee the Under Secretary of State for the Home Office was the great opponent of this part of the Bill, yet he now sits silent, and I am rather surprised he has not given the House the reasons for the action of the Government. The Sub-section will be a great loss to the Bill, and I, for one, will vote for retaining it if a division is taken.

The Amendment I now desire to move is a drafting Amendment to provide that only compulsory clubs and not voluntary clubs shall be registered. I promised to insert words to secure that object.

The Amendment I desire to move is—

"To insert in Clause 2, line 1, after 'member' the words 'who has contributed for live years or more.' "

It is possible under the Bill as it stands, that a man may be employed for a fortnight, and then leave and take up other work of a more unhealthy nature. He might fall into ill-health, and in that ease the liability would, perhaps, be thrown on the first club, of which he was only a member for a fortnight, and its funds injured. It may be said that such a case would be met by the regulations to be approved by a Registrar General of Friendly Societies, but I thought it better to firing the matter before the House in order to have an expression of opinion upon it.

I hope my hon. friend will not press this Amendment. If my hon. friend will look at Clause 6 he will find that it governs the whole question. I will read it—

"In any case where a workman, by the conditions of his employment, is a member of a shop club, he shall, upon his dismissal from, or upon leaving his employment, have the option, subject to the rules of the club, of remaining a member or of having returned to him the amount of his share of the funds of the club to be ascertained by actuarial calculation."

These words govern the whole question of employment, and we think it far better to leave the men to frame their own rules. If the House thinks that the clause is not quite clear in that respect the promoters will he happy to accept words to make it clearer.

I think this Amendment deserves more consideration than it has received up to the present. The hon. Member refers the House to Clause 6, but we are now dealing with Clause 2, relating to the question as to the conditions on which the Registrar General of Friendly Societies is to register a club. I think the insertion of these words is necessary, and I agree with my hon. friend that cases of great difficulty may arise unless there is some provision as to the period in which a man is to be in some particular employment. A man may be in a particular employment in no way dangerous to health, for a fortnight or a month. He may then leave, and get employment in another class of work which is highly dangerous to health; still he would be entitled to continue a member of the society of which he had only been a member for a fortnight or a month. I think such a case would be very unfortunate and undesirable. Again, a man might go a great distance away from the place were he was employed for a short period, or he might even go abroad; but he would still be entitled to continue a member. I think that is not what is intended; and I feel sure it is necessary that this matter should be further considered, and that these words should be inserted.

There is a difference of opinion with reference to the difficulty which may arise in connection with this matter. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, pointed out that the funds of a society might be seriously injured, and the only thing we have to consider is how to prevent that. I think what fell from the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill was satisfactory. The rules of the Club would be drawn up by the workmen themselves, and they would, of course, be careful to provide a remedy against such cases as have been mentioned. Again, the Registrar General of Friendly Societies has great knowledge of all these matters, and this would be one of the particular points to which he would give special attention. Further, there is no particular virtue in five years; and I trust the hon. Member, after the explanation which has been given, will not press the Amendment.

As far as I can understand, the employer has to give a contribution to the club. Is it proposed then that after a member of the club leaves his employment he is to continue to receive a benefit from a fund subscribed to by his late employer? As far as I can understand, the club is not to be recognised unless it has had a substantial contribution from the employer; and, if what I have stated is the fact, I think it would be rather a hardship.

My hon. friend seems to have lost sight of the fact that this refers to compulsory shop clubs, I and cannot see any hardship in it at all.

After a man has left his employment?

Certainly; if a man belongs to a shop club for a number of years he may leave it at an age at which he may not be able to earn anything more.

The question of dealing with the case of a man leaving his employment and wishing to continue a member of a society was very carefully considered in Committee; but I am not altogether satisfied that we have secured the best mode of expressing what we intended in the clause as it stands. I quite agree that it is necessary that we should deal with the difficult cases which may arise as the result of this Bill.

I should like to move an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. friend, which I think will meet the case. I propose to add the words—

"Except in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6."

My object was only to make our intention quite clear, and I am ready to withdraw the Amendment.

The Amendment which I now move is really a drafting Amendment. The Grand Committee suggested that the words in the Bill did not carry out the object in view, and I therefore undertook to propose words which would secure that object.

I should like to ask what is meant by the word "continued." An employer may refuse to employ a man, but I do not understand how that refusal can be continued. An employer may say that he would not employ a man under certain conditions, but would he then continue to be fined because he continued not to employ the man? It seems to me that the employer would be bound to employ the man whenever he spoke to him. It is rather a peculiar penalty.

May I explain that it is the employer who keeps an illegal shop club that is to be fined. The object of the Amendment is that if he continues that illegal shop club after conviction he can continue to be fined.

Is it to be a continuing offence? An employer may desire to dismiss one of his men; but in certain circumstances he might be bound under a penalty of £5 a week to keep him in employment for the rest of his life.

I really hope the Home Secretary will take notice of this Amendment, ft is impossible after reading these clauses not to see that the proposed Amendment is open to the observations made upon it. It is only necessary to examine Clause 1 and Clause 2. Clause 1 makes it an offence for an employer to make it a condition of employment that a workman shall discontinue his membership of a friendly society; and Clause 2 makes it an offence for an employer to require a workman to join a shop club. The Amendment before the House provides for a penalty of £5, for the first offence, which may be that of refusing employment to a man who does not discontinue his membership of a friendly society. That is an offence complete in itself, but the Amendment provides that the person committing the offence is liable to a fine of £5 if the offence is continued after conviction, and to a further fine not exceeding £5 for each week during which the offence is continued. Therefore, if the employer continued in that state of mind, and refused to employ a workman who declined to discontinue his membership of the friendly society, he would be liable to a fine of £5 a week during the joint lives of himself and the workman. I do not think that that is the desire of the authors of the Bill. An undeserving workman may find himself in the happy position, apparently of his own motion—because the consent of no public authority is required to set the law in motion—of being able to penalise an employer who has refused him employment. It is not the intention of the Home Office that the Act should be open to this objection. If it would be possible that such cases could arise under the Act it would be monstrous, and they would have the effect of bringing it into odium.

It is not my business to make clear the meaning of the Amendment introduced by the Government, but perhaps I may inform the House what is probably meant by the Amendment. The offence contemplated is an offence under Section 2, Clause 2 to compel a man to join an unqualified club, but I think the Amendment would be better if the word "repeated" instead of "continued" were used.

I am a simple layman, but speaking, I hope, as a person of common sense, I think these words ought not to be inserted without further consideration. After the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth it is quite clear that we may get into some difficulty if these particular words are inserted, and I would suggest that we should pass the clause as it stands, and it can be amended in another place if necessary.

This Bill is not a Home Office Bill, and the only thing the Home Office has done has been at the request of the Grand Committee, to bring up words to meet the difficulty. I do not wish to press the matter.

As I was responsible for bringing up this clause, perhaps I may say that we had no intention that an employer should be fined fifty times for the one offence. The words of the clause, however, did not deal satisfactorily with the matter, and, therefore, it was left to the Home Office to bring up the words now suggested. If these words are not satisfactory it might be well for the Home Office to take the matter into further consideration.

It seems to me that the House is of one mind as to what should be done; and, also, that a construction has been placed on a particular word in the Amendment which was not intended. As, however, the Amendment indicates what the House desires, I will suggest that the words proposed should be inserted, and I will undertake that the matter shall be put right if necessary in another place.

We know the danger of a Bill going up in the House of Lords and coming back amended, and I am sure the Home Secretary does not wish to incur that. I would only ask him if further Amendment is necessary, he will give the Bill such opportunities as will ensure that it is passed into law.

I would suggest that the clause remains as it stands in the Bill, and that these ridiculous words should not be put in. The clause can be amended afterwards.

said that the words in Clause 4, as they stood prior to the last decision, were open to precisely the same objection as was raised to the words now proposed to be inserted.

Order, order ! Those words have now been struck out, and in is too late to argue upon them. The question is as to the words to be inserted.

said the offence proposed to be created was one which had not been known up to the present time, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in considering what words should be in- serted, would have due regard to those which had been omitted.

What will happen if there is a division and the "Noes" are declared to be in the majority?

In that case it will be necessary to insert some other words, in order to make sense.

asked whether, when the Speaker had reason to think that the numbers would he very small on one side or the other, recourse might be bad to the method of requiring those whom he believed to be in a minority to stand up and he counted.

That is not a point of order; we have passed from that now.

Then, may I ask how long the vagaries of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich are to go on?

Order, order ! The hon. Member has deliberately disregarded my ruling. The hon. Member rose to a point of order, knowing very well that he was not going to raise a point of order. That is not a proper way to act.

I rise to move the deletion of Clause 5 on page 2 of the Bill, and the reason I do so, is that I am at a loss to know why 500,000 men belonging to a particular class, many of whom are members of shop clubs, should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill; and may say that unless I get a satisfactory reason, I shall certainly press the Amendment to a division. In the Committee upstairs all classes of employers, I believe, were represented, including the railway companies, but so far as I am aware none of the railway workers (numbering, as L say, half a million) were in any way consulted as to their desires and wishes on this very important matter. Why railway men should he singled out and subjected to a different class of legislation to that which is to apply to all other working men, and why railway companies of ail employers should be exonerated from the stringent laws which apply to other classes of employers, I am unable to conceive. At any rate, the hardships which this Bill has been designed to cope with are as great amongst railway men as amongst any other class of workers in the country. It is quite possible that there exists in the minds of some Members of the House an idea that there prevails amongst the class for whom I speak a division of opinion on this important subject, for we have had during the last three days deputations of workmen employed on the North British Railway lobbying Members with a view of inducing them to do their best to secure the retention of this clause in the Bill as it is. There is one incident in connection with this matter of lobbying which I very much regret, and I may as well explain it for the benefit of the House. Four or five of the men connected with these deputations are members of my own organisation. Two of them have been on the Executive Committee of the organisation dictating the policy of the organised railway men of the country. One of them was on the Executive Committee during last year at the time the Great Eastern Railway Bill and the compulsory clause relating to their benefit society were before this House. Strange as it may seem this member of the Executive Committee was one of the number of men who framed and directed the policy of the organised railway men for the purpose of doing away with compulsion in connection with railway workers joining railway benefit societies on entering a company's employment. It is a very remarkable thing that directly these men got out of office in their society they devoted their time to lobbying Members in order to got them to do that which, whilst in office, they used every possible means in their power to prevent, actually framing the policy of the society against railway shop clubs. It seemed to me only fair that I should offer this explanation to the House as to the personality of, at least, some of the men who have been here lobbying on behalf of the railway company in this matter. I have always understood that the object of Parliament was to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of the community. That is the policy of this House, and I may be excused if I say that it has always been my own policy too. Well, there are, as I say, 500,000 men employed on our railways in all departments, and the majority of these are compelled by the conditions of their employment to become members of different clubs attached to the companies with which they are connected. The hardship to these men is equally great as that in connection with any service outside the railway service. It is for this reason that I want to know why it is proposed that there should be an exception made in the case of railway men. I have here a few typical instances of the hardships these men have to suffer. On the South Eastern Railway they have a Sick Benefit Fund. Men joining the service of the South Eastern Railway have 3d. per week deducted from their wages for the "sick fund." When sick, they are paid 10s. per week. I am not going into the question of the merits of this club. I am not going to say that some clubs may not be good whilst others are notoriously bad. My only point here today is to ask why railway companies should be allowed a special privilege in this matter, and why they should be able to require their workmen to join their society against their own will. The men are not asked to join, nor do they have a chance of declining to be members of the fund. The 3d. per week is deducted from their wages whether they like it or not. There are no rules for the guidance of the men—at any rate, none are given to the men. And when they leave the service of the company they receive nothing. There is a case arising out of this society which we are trying in the law courts. A man named Warman was in the company's service and in the sick fund for thirty-four years. He received comparatively little benefit, and when he left the company's service he asked to be allowed to retain his membership of the fund to which he had been compelled to contribute for so long. The House will observe that this man had been in the service of this company for thirty-four years, and it will be readily understood that he, on leaving, was too old to be admitted to membership of any other society outside the company's fund. But his request was refused. I do not know what the result will be, but we are carrying the case to the law courts. The London and North Western Railway Company also have a club, and I have a copy here of one of their rules—Rule 8—taken from the Rule-book. It says—

"Superannuation, Insurance, and Provident and Pension Societies have been established or authorised by the Company, which the servants are required to join in accordance with the regulations."

A man entering the London and North Western Company's Service, is compelled to join; and on resigning his position in the Company's service, he is compelled to sacrifice all he has paid to the fund, for he is not allowed to remain a member of it. Only when leaving through reduction of staff, can a man possibly get his premiums returned. I may be allowed to say that I know a little about the London and North Western Railway, and not to my knowledge has an instance occurred in which depression of trade has led to a reduction of staff. Instead of that, however, men are removed and degraded. A man may be removed to a distance from the place where he was stationed, possibly at a reduction of wages, and possibly at great inconvenience to himself. A man sometimes cannot see his way clear to leaving a particular centre, owing to the circumstances of his surroundings. He may be offered work at a new place at a reduced wage, and he may decline to go. If he declines to go, it is insubordination, and that comes under the head of misconduct, and he receives nothing from the Provident Fund when he leaves the Company's employ. We are constantly having cases brought before us, in which men are treated in this way on the London and North Western Railway. Rule 50 of the London and North Western Rules, relating to the Provident Fund, says—

"Members who have paid the premiums shown …. shall, upon leaving the service, from other causes than misconduct or voluntary resignation, before being entitled to a pension, receive back one half the pension portion of the premiums of 2d. and 1d. per week, according to class, which they have paid into the Fund, provided an application for the same be made by the member within a period of four months from the time of his leaving the service."

I would ask hon. Members to put it to themselves from what other circumstance a man can leave a company's service other than voluntary resignation or misconduct, and for each of these causes the railway company is entitled to retain his contributions. And now I will give an instance or two from the Great Western Railway Company. Rule 8 of the Great Western Rule-book sets forth—

"The following societies have been established or authorised by the company, which the servants are required to join in accordance with regulations:—(A) G.W.R. Superannuation Fund; (B) G.W.R. Guarantee Fund; (C) G.W.R. Provident Society; (D) G.W.R. Widow's and Orphan's Benevolent Fund; (E) G.W.R. Pension Fund; (F) G.W.R. Engine-men and Firemen's Mutual; Assurance, Sick, and Superannuation Society.

Note.—A. and B. refer to clerks and station-masters. C., D., and E. refer to uniform staff, and F. refers to Locomotive Department only.

With regard to the Provident Fund I find that Rule 5 of the Fund says—

"The said directors may require that any person may be admitted a member of this society who is entitled to admission under the Rules."

Rule 4 of the Pension Fund says—

"The directors may from time to time require not only those entitled to become members under Rule 3, but any other of their servants whom they may designate by name or class to become members of this fund."

Now, some of these societies inconsequence of the very small area from which they are able to obtain their members have got into a state of insolvency. There are, indeed, very few railway societies that are anything like solvent. [Cries of "Oh !"] Well, will hon. Members just wait a moment. I should like to have their opinion on the following. Mr. R. P. Hardy, actuary, reported on the 7th August, 1894, as follows. It is a very lengthy document, and I will not trouble the House with the whole of it, but he comes to this conclusion:—

"This very serious position of affairs, and the practical hopelessness of attempting to impose such a burden upon members of only limited means, leaves me no alternative but to advise the Committee of Management and the members that the Society is irretrievably insolvent, and that measures should, in the interests of all, and especially in those of the more recent entrants, be at once taken to bring about a dissolution of the Society, and its reconstruction upon a basis that will give the younger men a fair equivalent for their subscriptions, together with relief from the uncertain, but pending heavy levies for which they are liable under the rules."

And again, in a report as to the financial position of the society, as at the 31st December, 1897, Mr. Hardy said—

"The deficiency shown by the valuation was £ 202,073, and was due to circumstances well within the cognisance both of the Railway Company and the Management of the Society."

And, he says, further—

"In the last report I pointed out that the Society was irretrievably insolvent, and on the present occasion I can only most regretfully reiterate this view, and advise the Management that the position of the Society is so hopeless that they are doing serious injustice to young men in allowing them to join an association which is evidently beyond the unaided powers of the present members to restore."

Now, I think that the House will, at any rate, agree with me as to the seriousness of Mr. Hardy's reports of 7th August, 1894 and 31st December, 1897, but still the company is allowed, as a condition of employment, to require the men to become members of the society. There is a great hardship in this. I do not know if hon. Members realise what it is to live on small moans. A very large proportion of the working men of this country are thrifty and do belong to provident, sick and friendly societies, and the result of the attitude of such a railway company as this is that a man who wants to enter its service who may belong already to one or two societies is asked to join yet another. If the company whose service he seeks to enter has one of these friendly societies attached to it, they make it a condition of employment that he shall join it. They say, "Before we take you on you must become a member of this or that or the other society." The man cannot afford it. The wages paid in connection with railways are less than working men receive generally, and a man finds himself unable to pay from 5d. to 1s. 3d. per week in addition to what he is already paying to his own friendly societies. The result is that the man has to sacrifice many years of contributions which be has been paying into his friendly societies outside, or bear the loss which accrues, whatever it may be. He has to join the railway company's society. I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of these societies. My one point and I have only one point—is that railway directors should not, any more than any other employers, have the right or power to compel any man as a condition of employment to attach himself to any particular society. So far as the working men themselves are concerned, if pressure is put upon them to join a trades union it is resented very bitterly by the employers. If we use coercion to compel men to join trade unions, it is tyranny of the blackest and most outrageous kind. [Cheers.] I am bound to say to hon. Members who cheer that that they will not distinguish between the case of the workman and that of his employer. I hope hon. Members will be broad-minded enough to see that if it is tyrannical to compel one of their fellows to enter a society, it is equally tyrannical on the part of an employer to refuse to employ a man if he will not join his society. That is my argument—that this Bill should apply equally as much to railways and to railway workers as it does to any other employment and workmen in the country. I see no earthly reason why railway companies should have exceptional treatment; there is no excuse for it; there is no call for them to be exempted from legislation which is applicable to all other employers. I fail to see the slightest ground for making any distinction. I am not one who would wish to press hardly on railway companies or on anyone else, nor am I one of those who desire to give the railway companies any undue advantage over other employers. That which is applied to one class should be applied to the other without favour. I beg to move my Amendment.

I trust that the hon. Member for Derby will not take it amiss if I suggest to him, with great respect, that if he persists in this Amendment he will be jeopardising the passing of the Bill through the Report stage today. It will be fatal to raise a point such as the present, however important it may be in his own view. The hon. Member is, of course, perfectly within his right in making this protest on behalf of those whom he so ably represents in this House, and I make no complaint of that. But I myself have the right to speak here for a very important railway insurance society, whose views differ in toto on this matter from those of the hon. Member for Derby. The hon. Member has alluded to the presence of a deputation from that society here during the present week. Well, Sir, I do not think the House will for a moment object to men coming here as a deputation to make representations in defence of the interests of their class. Or, at any rate, if the House does object it will have to do so on many more occasions than the present. It will have to interfere with the action of individual voters, or groups of individuals or representatives of important corporations, who come here to influence by legitimate means the opinions of hon. Members who have to give their decisions on questions as they arise in this House. I do not say myself that sometimes this lobbying is not overdone; but we Members, as we grow older in this House, become ease-hardened in matters of this kind, and we take the liberty of weighing such action in scales of which we ourselves know the justice. But the particular point of the hon. Member for Derby is that benefit societies connected with railway companies should not be exempted from the provisions of this Bill. I believe the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse, who has so far so ably piloted the Bill through Committee and this House, has, from the first, been single-minded in his intention that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, should not apply to those societies belonging to or connected with railway companies, to which the companies themselves make substantial contributions. And it is noteworthy that so long ago as the year 1898, this question of Shop Clubs and compulsory membership first became agitated in this House, and a Departmental Committee was appointed by the late Home Secretary to inquire into it. Members of the Insurance Society of the North British Railway Company at that time entered a strong protest against any interference with the society for which they were entitled to speak. It is not by any means an afterthought, nor has the question been raised with the view of frustrating the passage of this Bill into law; and I can assure the House that, although I am not very particularly interested in the general question, as it was presented to the House on the Second Beading, I am content to accept the general desire of the House that the Bill should become law. It will certainly not be through any action of mine if the Bill is prevented from passing through this House this afternoon. The hon. Member opposite has brought forward the point under discussion as one upon which the employers are antagonistic to the interests of their men. I am bound to say, on behalf of those for whom I am entitled to speak, that this is not a directors' nor a shareholders' question at all. It is a men's question. We have had the strongest representations, on the part of the men, in favour of retaining Clause 5 in the Bill, and against hampering or in any way prejudicing the society of the company with which I am connected. The protest of the members of the society was couched in four sentences. It is so comprehensive that I think I may claim the indulgence of the House if I read it in this debate. Their fear was—

"That such legislation would he fatal to the interests of their society; that a great many members, who are looking forward to receive the benefit of the society's superannuation allowance, would be deprived of that allowance, and that they would be debarred from joining any other society on account of the age limit; that the superannuated members would be deprived of their allowances, which would be to them a great hardship; and that the members of the society did not wish the existing arrangements of the company to be interfered with."

Well, that is the position I take up on behalf of these men, and I believe that I do it with almost the unanimous acquiescence of the whole membership of the society. And further than that, I do hope that, apart for the moment from the merits of this particular question, whether railway societies should be included or not, the hon. Member will not press his Amendment upon the House, to the jeopardy of arriving at an amicable conclusion on the Bill before the rising of the House this afternoon.

I rise to make an appeal to my hon. friend the Member for Derby. I quite agree with many of the views he has, expressed, more especially those in regard to the results when the men leave the society, and leave the neighbourhood, for which reason I intended to press upon the Committee the consideration of those words I have put down, in regard to Clause 6, about getting for the men the full actuarial value, of their interests under this Bill. I desire to urge, in the interests of friendly societies, that my hon. friend will do a great service to this Bill by not insisting upon his Amendment at this period, for it might jeopardise the passing of this Bill. For the same reason I do not propose to move the Amendment I standing in my name, although I believe the exemption ought to be confined to I the great railway companies incorporated by Act of Parliament. I feel that while such action on my part might have the effect of improving the Bill it might, on the other hand, be fatal to the passing of the measure at the present moment. My hon. friend the Member for Derby not only has an interest in railway companies, but also in the great friendly societies, and I hope for this reason he will facilitate the passing of this Bill by withdrawing his Amendment, and so permit this Bill to confer a great benefit upon a large class of the community.

I am in a difficulty to know what to do, because there can be no particular reason why an exception should be made in favour of one particular class of workmen. I think this Bill is a mistake, and will not have that beneficial effect which we all desire, but having passed the Bill so far, if it is a good measure for the working classes I cannot understand why one particular class should be treated differently to another class. There is another large section of workers in the docks, and they will be included in the Bill, but why a large number of workmen employed in the docks should be included, and not the railway servants, I cannot understand. It seems to me that we are departing from the wise course which has hitherto prevailed of doing everything we can to encourage and facilitate the relations between employers and employed. If we are going to have this Bill passed I cannot see the logic of exempting one large section of the community, although I should be very sorry to see this clause taken out, because I believe great work has been done in this direction by the railway companies, and they are at present doing an immense deal for the benefit of the men, which I am sure we are all anxious to preserve. It seems to me absurd to pass a Bill framed as it is to do a certain work, and then make a very large and important section of the community exempt from it. If the Bill is a good measure for the working classes in the country it should be applied to all, and if it is not good for all I cannot see why it should pass.

Considering that I represent a large constituency which includes a large number of railway men, I do not think I should be doing my duty if I did not say a word upon this occasion. The two hon. Members who have preceded me in this debate have spoken for very large bodies of railway men and they have pointed out, and more especially my hon. friend the Member for South Islington, that we have to consider the undoubted wish and desire of this House to pass this Bill. But although I am willing to make the largest possible concession in this direction, I cannot see how anybody can complain of my hon. friend the Member for Derby, or of any other hon. Members representing large railway constituencies, if they insist upon placing upon record an emphatic protest against the omission of railway servants from benefits under this Bill. I shall tell the Committee in one sentence why I think we have an unanswerable case. If hon. Members will go back to the early history of this question they will find that the agitation upon which this Bill originated occurred very largely among railway men. I would remind the House that there are companies and companies. I know myself of that great company which my hon. friend the Member for St. Andrews Burghs mentioned at the conclusion of his observations, and I can certainly say that I know from my own experience that the relations between the Great Western Railway Company and its employees are almost of an ideal character, and if there is any such case as that indicated by my hon. friend the Member for Derby there must be some mistake, for I feel perfectly certain that the directors and shareholders of the Great Western Railway Company would not allow an old servant to be treated in that way. We cannot in this Committee trust to fixing our legislation upon the basis of the benevolence or goodwill of any particular company, and as my hon. friend the Member for South Islington has pointed out, this clause is not limited, as it might have been, to a schedule which might have consisted of some of the great incorporated railway companies. I feel that my hon. friend behind me the Member for Derby was fully justified in raising this protest, and it is for him to decide whether he will carry this question to a division, or for the salve of this Bill allow his proposal to be withdrawn.

Will my hon. friend the Member for Derby allow me to make an appeal to him, and to express to him my absolute sense of the justice of the course he has taken. I fully understand that had he not taken this course he would not have been doing his duty, and this is a question upon which many hon. Members of this House look to the hon. Member for Derby to guide us. I wish to point out that there is no one inside

I appeal to the hon. Member for Derby to accede to the suggestion to withdraw his Amendment, because if it were passed a large number of these men would not be able to join any other society. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

objected, remarking that the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee Stage were taken after twelve o'clock. There were Amendments now on the Report Stage.

I hope my hon. friend will not persist in his objection. For the first time within my memory, and I have been sixteen years in the House, there is a measure before the House upon which every Irish Member, north, south, east, and west, is absolutely agreed. The Government also are agreed that this is a necessary and urgent thing to be done, and in addition to that there are meetings being convened in every county in Ireland trying to put pressure on the Government to get this Bill through, owing to the scandals that have arisen. This is the last private Members' day of the session, and after this, if the Bill is not read a third time now, we shall be at the mercy after twelve o'clock of any Gentleman who rises and says "I object." The House has now the opportunity of giving assent to the general and unanimous feeling of the country, and it may never come again. I do not think the hon. Member is unfriendly to the Bill.

I rise to say a word in support of the appeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I think the position of the hon. Member for Peckham is a most unreasonable one. If it be true, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone says, that the hon. Member is really in favour of the Bill then his attitude is most extraordinary when he takes advantage of the forms of the House to prevent the Bill being read a third time. It is a Bill on which everybody is agreed, and I would ask the hon. Member to allow it to pass. All parties in Ireland, and as far as I know all parties in England and Scotland, are willing to allow it to be read a third time now.

withdrew his objection, remarking that he was not particularly in favour of the Bill. If anything he was rather against it, because it seemed to him that it endeavoured to create a monopoly amongst those people who already held licences in Ireland. It might be that that was a good thing for Ireland, but he did not think it would boa good thing for the United Kingdom generally. He understood that there were exceptional circumstances in Ireland which made it advisable to pass the measure.

said they had now reached the last clause in the Bill, and he should like to renew his protest against legislation of this kind being treated in relation to national divisions. He could not see why the Bill should not be extended to Ireland equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. He understood that hon. Members for Ireland were greatly opposed to it because Roman Catholic feeling was very much against, cremation. No one proposed that Roman Catholics should adopt cremation. Local authorities had the option to leave matters as they stood now. It amounted to this, if Roman Catholics preferred burial to cremation no one in Ireland was obliged to have cremation; but however much an individual might have expressed his wish to be cremated that course was not to be taken. He did not think it was a reasonable or a logical position. He should have thought that the proper course was to treat the whole of the United Kingdom as one in this matter. It was too much the custom to make Bills easy to pass through Parliament by adopting illogical distinctions. He had no desire to wreck the Bill, but by way of protest he would move that Clause 16 be left out.

said his hon. friend the Member for the Wisbech Division, who had left the House, asked him to move the Amendment standing in his name that—

"In line 15 of Clause 1, the word 'three' should be inserted in place of 'four.' "

Under the principal Act of 1878, the sum mentioned as necessary for the founding of a Bishopric was £3,500. This Bill proposed £4,000, and he thought they were entitled to ask the promoters of the Bill what was the necessity for the change.

asked what business the Government proposed to take on Monday, in the event of the discussion of the Schedule of the Finance Bill being got over at a comparatively early hour.

said that, if the Government were fortunate enough to get the Finance Bill through at an early hour on Monday afternoon, they would take the Police Reservists Bill and some other Departmental Bills. At the evening sitting the Licensing Bill would be taken.