laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords]; Entre Rios Railways Bill [Lords]; Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].

reported from the Committee on Group No. 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a recent action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the explosion of gas in a telephone inspection chamber fixed in the footway in Regent Street; and, seeing that both Judge and jury expressed the opinion that, in the interests of public safety, the accumulation of gas in these telephone inspection chambers should be prevented by a system of ventilation, will he state whether he proposes to adopt the suggestion. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My attention was called to the case, and it has been carefully considered. I fear that ventilation of the inspection chambers is not practicable, as I do not think the local authorities would consent to my fixing ventilating pillars in the footways, and the owners of private houses would not allow me to carry pipes up the walls. Ventilating covers could not be adopted, because they would not keep the cables free from mud and water. I am proposing to lay down certain precautions to be taken by my staff when opening manholes in which the presence of gas is suspected; but it is right to say that, so far as the facts are known to me, no precautions taken by my employees would have prevented the recent explosions in Regent Street.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state what is the number of learners employed in the Post Office service in Ireland at the present time, giving length of service and rate of wages; also corresponding particulars in connection with England and Wales. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The numbers on or about the 14th March were: Ireland—Male, 260; Female, 145. England and Wales—Male, 1,481; Female, 702. Scotland—Male, 232: Female, 146. The usual rate of wages is 6s. a week for males, and 5s. for females. The rates for learners with more than two years service have just been increased. The average length of service is under two years.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Bill for the establishment of authorities to deal with the question of the unemployed will set up a central authority with power to undertake, either alone or in conjunction with subordinate authorities, public works of national importance like the improvement of the navigation of great estuaries, in cases where the resources of local authorities are too limited to enable them to undertake the work. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am afraid that I could not undertake to give beforehand any information as to the contents of the Bill which the Government propose to introduce dealing with the question of the unemployed.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause inquiries to be made through His Majesty's Consul-General in New York as to the cause of the delay in the distribution of the estate of the late Thomas Flynn, a native of Ireland, who died in Warwick, near Providence, Rhode Island, in February, 1902. (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Consul-General will be requested to report.

To ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the disturbances at Auchterarder, Perthshire, on Sundays the 19th and 26th instant, when members of the Free Church congregation were stoned and assaulted when leaving their place of worship; and whether he will order an inquiry into the matter, with a view to affording protection in future to the worshippers. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The disturbances referred to were brought to my knowledge. I caused inquiry to be made, and put myself in communication with the sheriff on the subject. Steps have already been taken to put a stop to the conduct referred to; these steps were largely effective on the 26th instant; and I am communicating further with the local authorities, and believe all cause of complaint will now be removed.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give any in formation as to the prospects of the discharging of employees from the Boy a Dockyards; and whether he can give an assurance that every effort will be mad to avoid hardship and inconvenience. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It will be necessary to reduce the personnel of the dockyards during the coming financial year, but the dismissals will be carried out as gradually as possible, and it is hoped they will not at any time exceed twenty-five in a week at Portsmouth. Every care has been taken to effect the reductions with the least possible amount of hardship, and the notices recently given at Portsmouth were issued under a misapprehension by the Admiral-Superintendent there.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the opinions of Irish local bodies as to the treatment by the Department of Agriculture of the Catholic gentlemen in the veterinary branch, and of the fact that the Vice-President's inquiry into the case took cognisance only of the views of the higher officials and did not admit evidence from the Catholic gentlemen concerned, he will consider the advisability of granting a full inquiry into the whole matter. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I beg to refer to the Answer given to the hon. Member's Question on the 6th instant.† No further inquiry is called for or necessary.

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the sums expended out of loans, apart from the Annual Estimates, since 1895, on military defensive works in the United Kingdom; and what sums are allocated for similar works in the future. (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) The total expenditure on defence works at Home (inclusive of the Channel

† (4) Debates, exlii., 420.

Islands) under the Imperial Defence and Military Works Loans since April 1st, 1895, has amounted to about £1,600,000. The balance remaining for expenditure is estimated at £477,000, inclusive of amounts required for works in progress.

said that this was a short Bill of which he had the honour to move the Second Reading to-day. It really standardised and provided for certain practices largely adopted by masters and men throughout England; but not adopted in Scotland by any means universally. These provisions were really Amendments to the Act of 1887, and provided for the appointment of a deputy check-weigher, for certain machinery regarding his appointment and removal; to provide shelter from the weather for the check-weigher and his deputy, to extend the system of check-weighing to men who worked under contract where there was a contractor standing between the employer and the men; and in some other small details to amend the Act of 1887. The position of check-weigher appears in the fear 1860, when there was a Regulation of Coal Mines Act passed by the then Home Secretary, Sir George Lewis, under the Government of Mr. Palmerston, of which Mr. Gladstone was a member. This Act recognised the duty of the check-weigher, but it did not define whether coal should always be taken by measure, by gauge, or by weight, and it permitted it to be treated either by weight, by measure, or by gauge. This caused a great deal of complaint, and in 1866–67 the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to consider the grievances of the men. The men complained that in the greater part of England there was a rough-and-ready method of judging by tub, and payment by the tub was prevalent. Those tubs varied in size, and with the development of machinery, the deepening of shafts, the enlarging of premises and tram lines, the tubs tended to increase in size, and were not the same size in one colliery as in another. Although he did not suggest that this was intentionally fraudulent, yet it had the effect of depriving the men of their due; and they had good ground for complaint. The owners at that time objected to the weighing system, preferring the measure system, because they said that the small coal brought up filled the interstices of the tub, and the measure really gave the net result of the large coal of the tub, whereas by the weighing system they would have to take the small as well as the large coal. The Committee at that time declined to recommend payment by weight. The matter drifted on until 1872, when the Coal Mines Act was passed, and at that date they finally abandoned the use of the measure and provided that it should be taken by weight only, allowing, of course, the right to the men to check the weight, so that the masters paid them. Earl Morley, speaking in the House of Lords, defended the claim of making the weight the standard on the ground that coal is sold by weight and not by measure, and that the men were entitled to be paid by weight inasmuch as it was the same principle on which the masters received payment on the article itself. Now it was quite evident that it was impossible to pay for the coal actually drawn unless they provided some sort of method for determining the weight of foreign substances brought up accidentally or through carelessness with the coal which could not, and ought not, to be treated as net coal on which payment should be made to the men for getting it. Therefore the Act of 1877 provided that deductions should be made from coal for dross and foreign substances brought up with the coal. This very much increased the duties of those who were appointed to check-weigh, for it introduced a new element into it, at all events a very important one. He had not only to protect the interests of the men in the matter of weight, but also to protect them against the employer, or representative of the employer; to see that the proper amount was deducted for the rubbish sent up with the coal, partly through accident—that was recognized—but more or less from inattention on the part of some of the men to their duties. On the other hand, such a practice was liable to abuse, and practically the check-weigher became for the time being the representative of the men in all matters of dispute, and these disputes extended beyond the mere question of weight or deduction. Practically the importance of the check-weigher was due to the fact that the check-weigher settled with the representatives of the collieries innumerable complaints, adjusted matters on the spot, and prevented them being referred to the representatives at large, either to the Federation of Mineowners or to the Federation of Miners. They did at first hand some of the work of the union in a commonsense and rule-of-thumb way. Therefore he would ask the House to attribute to the check-weigher more importance than that of a mere man who was placed at the pit head to see that the proper amount of coal was weighed, and that the men were paid on the amount brought to the pit bank. Other complaints had been made that there was a difficulty under the Act of 1887 in determining the amount of small coal, although that difficulty was largely got over through an instruction being given by the employer and the men not to send the small to bank; and a large amount of small coal that came out of the pit was treated not under the head of "small," but treated as a case of improperly filling the tubs or trams. Now for a long time past there had been no difficulty in adjusting these delicate matters between the employers and men, and in a large number of collieries throughout the length and breadth of these islands matters went on from year's end to year's end unchallenged. In some cases there were arrangements made for taking an average. This agreement system had been growing and was generally satisfactory. If any further changes were desired from the Act of 1887 they had better be settled by masters and men out of the House. To introduce them into this Act would be to bring in matters highly controversial. Those who promoted this Bill had adopted advice from himself and others, unloading the Bill of anything which could be called controversial, and rendering the Bill so simple as almost to excite a smile amongst Members of this House. He trusted it would be recognised upon the other side that moderation and consideration had been shown, and that the Bill would not be endangered in its passage through Committee by attempting to put into it something which might bear a relationship to it, but which could not be settled by common consent, as the clauses in this Bill certainly could. There were comments made by his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife in 1896, in regard to a different Bill then before the House. But in 1896 the question of deduction was in a state of chaos, and he was at liberty to say that the late Home Secretary would not have made the same comment to-day as he made then. He would have been there, if he had not had an engagement out of town, to support this Bill, and he hoped that it would pass disembarrassed of other amendments. Now, there were nearly 3,000 check-weighers employed in different parts of England and Scotland. These men were representing hundreds of thousands of others at work. They were picked men who had to represent their fellows, whom they had to trust in matters of weight and deduction; they were men who had secured by their conduct and character the confidence of their fellows; and therefore, in asking for some consideration in the matter of a deputy, in the matter of shelter, the details of their appointment, the standardising of the position both of the weigher himself and of his deputy, they were asking consideration for a class of men who were the representatives of the body of the miners of the United Kingdom. Of course they might find here and there cases in which weighers had been unreasonable or had interfered, or gone beyond their duties, but the law protected the employer, and provided, in the case of interference of the men beyond the duties of weighing, that there should be an opportunity of going before a summary Court of Jurisdiction, and obtaining the removal of the weigher. But the weigher was not a man who was simply selected by agreement or contract; he formed part of the law of the land in relation to coal mines, and therefore his rights should be guarded by this House quite as carefully as should be the rights of property. He formed part of the Acts of Parliament relating to coalmining. If there were cases in which complaint had been made of the supervision of the weigher being too minute, there were also cases on the other side in which employers had acted unreasonably, and, broadly speaking, those who knew the trade were quite aware, taking the body of men and the body of employers, that there was fairly good agreement between the two sides; and bad cases, which were very exceptional, were quite as much to be found in the ranks of the employers as they were to be found in the ranks of the men. The demand for a deputy was simply that when, through illness, the weigher himself could not perform his duties, or when he was called away, perhaps on business belonging to his Miners' Association—for, remember, these men were distinguished by their ability to represent others by reason of their appointment, and that, therefore, they naturally had other duties, to perform beyond the routine duties of the check-weigher—when there was reasonable cause for their leaving their duties they were to have the right in that case of putting on a deputy. It was far better that the deputy's position should be legalised, for he then had the opportunity of learning his duties and feeling that he was recognised, that he was a responsible man, and he was more likely to perform those duties in a satisfactory manner. Most collieries at the present time allowed so reasonable an arrangement, but that had been objected to in some cases, and any employer who thoroughly disliked the whole system and regarded it as a source of espionage could object, of course, and would embarrass the men by asking that if by any accident the check-weigher could not perform his duties, no one should do his duties for him. Now, that was not in the interests of the employer, because the men would naturally be suspicious of deductions made or questions of weight going on behind their backs in the absence of their representatives, and for the sake of peace, and in order to maintain confidence on both sides, if it were right to have the check-weigher, surely it was right to have a deputy. Why, even in the duties of the House it was necessary to have a deputy for the Chair, and for the Chairman of Committees. Then there was a clause in the Bill providing for the method of appointment. The original Act of 1887 stated that if a man were appointed check-weigher by ballot there was a legal recovery for the wages of the check-weigher; that was to say, the wages paid by the employer were to be stopped out of the money paid by the miners—the wages became recoverable by law. But in the case where there was no ballot, such legal recovery would not stand, although the men as a whole had, by the statute of 1887, the right to appoint a weigher; that was to say, if all the men came together and agreed unanimously, or agreed by a majority on a man, that man would be the check-weigher; or if they sent a communication to the employer that would give them, under Clause 13 of the original Act, he believed, the right to appoint a check-weigher, but it would not give the check-weigher the right to recover his wages. He quite admitted that the drafting of this particular clause, the second section of the first clause, was a little intricate, but really all that was intended was this; that if the original power vested in the whole of the employees were not exercised and a ballot taken, there should be a meeting held, and the result of that ballot should be certified by the chairman of that meeting; that the chairman of the meeting should certify either in the first place that the ballot had been taken and the result of the ballot was so-and-so, or, failing a ballot, should give the names of all those, presumably a majority, who had voted for a particular man, and make a communication giving the names to the employer. This was to provide the machinery for giving the employer a definite statement as to the man was who was to be the representative of the men as check-weigher. As a matter of fact, largely, he believed the ballot system was obtaining in England. He thought that the other method was quite exceptional, and he would hardly suppose that anyone would desire to appoint a check-weigher except through the means of the ballot, a very effectual and easy way of ascertaining the will of the men and which also provided satisfactory means for the payment of the weigher himself. The fourth section of the first clause provided shelter from the weather for the man who had to use a book and refer to papers, and who had to remain at the pit-head for the greater part of the day, and possibly to move about at times to follow the tram or the tub, and then return to his little office and make his notes. That seamed so obviously reasonable that one could hardly imagine that it was not the case throughout England. As far as England was concerned, it was practically the case. As far as Scotland was concerned, for some reason which he did not know and could not understand, except it were the general case of the "saxpence," some of the Scotch collieries did not do that. He had been furnished, but would not read it, with a list, for he did not want to pillory anyone, but he was told that there were dozens of collieries in Lanarkshire that did not provide protection for the check-weigher, and that, in one particular case that came before the Courts, the employer, feeling great disgust at having to comply with the law at all, took down the accommodation that did exist and left the weigher to the mercy of the weather. Now, that certainly would not be the wish of anyone with feelings of humanity, and also looked like a petty method to endeavour to evade the provisions of the Act. Therefore, this clause simply provided that space, area for two persons, a desk and table, and so on, should be provided for the check-weigher. Further down in Sub-section 3 of Clause 2, it provided that the check-weigher might recover expenses properly incurred by him in carrying out his work, which expenses were trivial, practically a matter of stationery. It had been thought desirable to put them into the Act, but he felt it was so trivial that it would be hardly challenged. There was a further clause, to give the workmen the right to remove the weigher and to arrange the method by which that removal would take place. That was simply to give those who elected the check-weigher by ballot the right to use that method to remove him. Surely if the check-weigher lost the confidence of the men it was only fair that, as he was their representative and not acting for himself, they should have the right properly and legally to remove him. This was not intended in any way to prejudice the rights of the masters to remove, and if it were thought that the word "remove" left any doubt in the matter he was quite prepared in Committee to agree to the insertion of words to show that this removal on the part of the men should not in any way prejudice the general right of the master in case of complaint sustained of interference or misconduct on the part of the check-weigher. The only other thing, which he believed was not of very great interest to employers, but of which this House might require some sort of explanation, referred to the dealing with cases in which the collieries were worked, or partly worked, under contract. Now, he was informed that the contract system, the system of letting out to a contractor or more than one contractor the working of the colliery, so as to secure the employers from direct dealing with the men who removed the coal, was a system that now and again had been adopted, more particularly by employers who did not care to come against the union officials; but he was glad to say, because he would have thought an ordinary employer would have wished to control directly the labour in his pit and would not have wished to delegate that control to an intermediary, that very largely that system was being discontinued in England. It existed in some parts of Staffordshire and some other parts of England. It was very little known in Yorkshire and did not appear to be on the increase. But he must say that where it was introduced for the first time it was largely aimed at the union. It was practically intended to remove the men from contact with their union and place them under the control of a contractor, who, by dividing them in groups, could obtain a control over them which the employer would not have if union men were employed in the bulk. He did not say that as a moral ground for forbidding the system. The employers ought to have the right, if they pleased, if it were to their interest to do so, to adopt the contact system, but inasmuch as even where the men were paid a day wage the representative of the men ought to be the check-weigher in matters of deductions, and as the deductions were perhaps almost as important, if not more important, than the check weighing there was great reason for still maintaining this system of check-weighers even in collieries where part or even the whole was worked under the contract system. Moreover, a great deal of the work which was done under contract by day work need not be so done. A good deal of it was done, he was told, on returns of weight, and the men who worked under the contract system had no protection at all unless there should be some one who represented them above-stairs at the pit-head, in the daylight, and who could see what was fair between masters and men. Of course, it might be said that the contractor himself might do that, and that he had an interest in not paying a man for getting less coal than the coal actually got. But as between the contractor and the men who worked it was right and fair surely that someone should represent these men who worked under the contractor and who had no means otherwise of checking the contractors who, for the purposes of management, were their masters quite as much as if the contractors were the owners of the colliery. On the other hand, the protection of the check-weigher was extended to the contractor as well, although the appointment of a check-weigher by the contractors was a very poor substitute for an appointment by the whole of the men. What they asked was simply this, that the system of a check-weigher should be encouraged and not discouraged; and while they did not ask for any interference by legislation in a matter of contracts, leaving that to work its own cure and take its own course, they did ask that the men working under contract, under whatever system, should be permitted to elect a check-weigher, and a contractor, though he might have different methods of working, part by weight and part by time, should be called upon, as he was now, to contribute to the wages of the check-weigher. That might appear at first blush as if it required an explanation, but he thought if they looked into it, if his explanation were at all clear, they would see it was not asking an unreasonable thing. That almost exhausted the clauses of the Act. He hoped that the House would realise that a great deal had been done to simplify this Bill, and that, if there was not much interest shown in it, its reasonableness must not be gauged and measured, he would not say weighed, by the state of the House at the present time. Really the Bill was so little controversial, and so much had been done outside to accelerate its passage through the House before the Second Reading, that little remained, he hoped, to debate. And he ventured therefore to commend it to the judgment and consideration of the House. He begged to move the Second Reading.

pointed out that every time this proposal had come before the House the right of the collier to have his coal check-weighed was recognised. What they claimed to-day was to improve these facilities, by allowing the appointment of a sub-check-weigher. Since the House had admitted that right it was essentially necessary, in order to protect the continuity of the weighing to the collier, that someone should be appointed at very little notice indeed to take the place of the regular check-weigher. The check-weigher had not only to take an accurate account of the weight of the work done by the collier who employed him, but he had every week end to give to the collier the amount of the coal he had weighed for him. In the best conducted places the weight was taken by the employer from the check-weigher on daily sheets. At the close of the day the weigher handed over his sheet to the head clerk of the company at the office. If the check-weigher should happen to be away for one day in the week there was no chance for the collier to have the full weight of what he produced during the week. How reasonable therefore was the request that a sub-check-weigher should be appointed to protect the collier. It was so reasonable that he did not think the House would regard it as a frivolous demand, but one that was absolutely necessary. Then facilities were wanted to enable the weigher to take the weight. According to the law the collier had a right to test the weigh- ing-machine, but it was nonsense to talk of using a weighing-machine without proper weights. To the credit of the South Wales colliery employers he must say they did not trifle with things that were necessary to give the check-weigher proper facilities. He did not want to brag about them, but if what was done in this respect in South Wales was done in other parts of the country there would be no necessity for this Bill. Then the places where these accounts were taken ought to be a little more healthy. They should be water-tight, ice-tight, and wind-tight, and all kinds of tights. He made all these proposals to protect the collier who was in danger of his life every moment of the day—men this country were so much indebted to, and who were doing so much for the comfort of all classes of the community. As far as sub-contracting was concerned he would like to do away with the system—he referred to those contractors who employed a number of men to hew coal for them at so much per ton, while getting so much per ton more themselves. They had taken from the Bill everything they thought was contentious, and they hoped it would be carried without a division. He was sure that the Government would see that its object was to bring up the indifferent employer, the unsympathetic employer, he did not want to say the bad employer, they knew what he meant—to the standard of the really good employer, who did all these things voluntarily. Three-fourths of the employers were doing what was asked for and in fact the proposals of the Bill were so right and just in principle to the men that he hoped no one would stop its progress to the Statute-book.

said he desired to acknowledge the very moderate manner in which the Bill had been put before the House by both the mover and seconder. They had taken great care to place before the House very clearly what they desired, and the Bill had his most cordial assent. He was very glad indeed to hear from the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley that what was asked for in the Bill was already supplied by the majority of the mineowners at the pit mouth. Surely it was a most proper thing that a deputy should be appointed. They knew very well that this weighing of coal had to be very carefully done, and it was a work of great responsibility. Therefore, if the check-weigher was ill it was only proper that the deputy should take his place. With regard to the clauses as to the election of the check-weigher, it was admitted that there might be some improvement necessary there. He, personally, could not say what improvement there ought to be, but, generally speaking, he felt sure that the promoters of this Bill had done their best to improve the machinery and to suggest such things as might be better than the mode at present in vogue. With regard to the shelter, that was surely an absolutely proper thing. It was of great importance that at the top of the pits, where the weather was more felt, there should, at any rate, be some proper and suitable shelter. The man had to do his work standing still; his limbs were not in active use at the time, and his circulation was, therefore, not as good as that of the man working with the spade. Therefore, every reasonable facility that possibly could be given ought to be given, and, if it was not given, it was quite correct the law should step in and see that some suitable arrangements were made. There was one thing, however, which he might suggest to the promoters of the Bill, and to which he hoped they would give their attention. It was admitted that the promoters had listened to what had been pointed out to them outside; they had been very reasonable and had taken a great deal of care to see that the Bill as it came before the House was a Bill that should receive the approval of the House. The suggestion he desired to make was that the present was a fit and proper time to legalise a great number of things that were practically done now, but which might or might not be against the law. He referred entirely to the contents of the boxes that came up for weighing. So far the Legislature had tried to define what could and what could not be weighed. It was admitted by the mover that a great many practices in vogue were possibly somewhat outside the law, or might be inside, but they were practical arrangements made between the employer and employed and they worked very well. There had been attempts to deal with this by two Governments. In 1895 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife did put into a Bill certain provisions to deal with this question of dirt, stones, and what was not coal. Coal ought to be paid for, and whatever coal came up was paid for at a certain rate, and the check-weigher saw that it was paid for; but there was a great deal of foreign substance that came up besides. If the workman was a bad workman there was more than if he was a good workman. That was the subject at present of a number of agreements, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife made some pertinent remarks on the point in 1896. He said that enactments should be passed to deal with this question. The Bill of 1896, brought in by the Unionist Government, contained a number of provisions to deal with this question of the dirt, and to legalise agreements made between employers and employees; those agreements had to have the sanction of the men and then they would become law. There were a number of provisions in the Bill of 1896 that had to do with the safety of the men, and the general feeling on both sides of the House was that it was in the interests of the portion of the Bill dealing with the safety of the men that the part affecting this question should be left out. The mover to-day admitted that at some future time this matter must be taken in hand and dealt with. There had been two occasions—one in 1895 under a Liberal Administration, and one in 1895 under a Unionist Administration—when there was not time and when the exigencies of the case were such that the question could not be dealt with, and he suggested that now was a good time to take the matter up. He did not think there would be any trouble in the promoters of the Bill and the Home Office arranging a thoroughly good list of provisions which should cover this matter altogether. If they did that they would get an Act of Parliament that was really worth passing and which would deal with the whole question. The promoters of the Bill knew exactly what he meant, and, if they agreed, they would no doubt meet the matter in Committee. Having made these remarks, he desired to say, as regarded the general principles of the Bill, and as regarded what had been said, that he agreed, and, at any rate, would support the Second Reading.

said that, as representing a Division of Lanarkshire in which this question was one of considerable interest, he desired to express his hearty sympathy with the proposals of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Scarborough had said, the matter was so simple that it was surprising that a Bill was necessary at all. As to the "black mark" which had been given against the employers of Lanarkshire, he had always had the feeling that on the whole they took a liberal interest in the men and did everything they could to further their comfort. He was glad to recognise on both sides a desire to do what was fair and just between man and man. That being the object and intention of the Bill he hoped the Second Reading would be carried with the full approval of the House.

congratulated the House on the tone and temper which had characterised the debate. The present was one of the occasions on which it was felt in all quarters of the House that the interests of employer and employed were identical, and the more that conviction operated on the minds of those who were interested in the question, the better it would be for the people concerned and for the country at large. No words of praise could go beyond the occasion in regard to these check-weighmen. They were employed under circumstances of considerable difficulty to perform operations of great delicacy, which required firmness and constancy in their execution, and he felt that they were entitled to the further protection proposed by this Bill. He fully sympathised with the desire to raise the laggard employer to the level of the better employer. The Bill was an illustration of development or evolution; it arose naturally and almost necessarily from the improved conditions of society. In spite of the language of pessimists, he believed that this country was advancing from one stage to another, and that when improvement took place in one class it pervaded all classes. The details of the Bill would be better dealt with by those chiefly interested, but he did not wish the opportunity to pass without expressing his full sympathy with the general scope of the measure, and the hope that as Amendments were made in the interests of the workmen, the opportunity would be taken to make Amendments of a corresponding character in the interests of the employers. Such an opportunity might never recur. Through the fortune of the ballot the Bill had been introduced at a very early period of the session, and he hoped advantage would be taken of the opportunity so to enlarge the scope of the Bill as to remove all remaining difficulties, and thus complete this section of the statute law in regard to this important question.

was glad to notice that the Bill had been received with general approval, but he felt some little uneasiness with regard to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that there should be introduced certain Amendments to remedy what he considered to be an inconvenient state of things with regard to the present law or the custom obtaining as to deductions.

said that if certain additions were made to the Bill to sanction practices now in operation in many places—which were desired both by the promoters of the Bill and by the employers—he did not think the progress of the Bill would be in any way hindered. There would be no contention on the part of the Home Office, and no desire to obstruct the Bill.

said that what the hon. and gallant Member had stated was merely what he himself had stated a month ago. All he could say—and he was speaking in no hostile spirit—was that he appreciated the friendly spirit in which this measure had been received by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He desired to point out, however, that there was no more controversial topic than that involved in the question of deductions, and there could be no more effective means of stopping the progress of this Bill than the introduction of such Amendments as had been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Newton in Committee, and he hoped that he and his friends had no intention of loading the measure with Amendments of that character. At present the relations of employers and employed were of the happiest description, and, speaking as one who had an intimate knowledge of those relations, he was glad to say that that state of things generally obtained, and it was very rarely that friction arose upon deductions. He believed that the law as it stood at present was quite adequate to meet the requirements both of the workers and their employers in regard to deductions. It was not necessary that they should be arithmetically ascertained, but employers and employed might say, "We will strike an average with or without the agency of a check-weigher so that we may arrive at what is to be a fair deduction, having regard to the particular seam or the quarter of the seam from which the coals are brought." With regard to minerals contracted to be gotten there was no difficulty arising in respect of deductions other than those contracted for. But another question arose where the employer sought to have a deduction made in respect of small coal. He admitted that was a difficulty, but it arose only where the relations between employers and workmen were not as happy as they might be. This was exactly what the Legislature provided for in the Act of 1872; namely, that the workmen should be paid according to the weight of the mineral contracted to be gotten, and this small coal was so held by the Court of Appeal as minerals contracted to be gotten. With regard to any question as to the scale of pay, that was a matter which depended upon the wage contract made, and it might be a less scale for a certain class of coal, such as soft coal in contradistinction to the hard coal. He knew that a difficulty arose, but he thought it was more imaginary than real, and it arose chiefly from the want of good relations between employers and workmen. He thought this was really a necessary Bill, and he had had much experience of the great necessity of having a better system in regard to the collection and payment of wages. He knew that hon. Members opposite took a kindly interest in measures of this kind, and he hoped they would not load it with Amendments of the character suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. He also trusted that the hon. Member representing the Government would give the House some assurance that he would afford facilities for passing this measure, which had been conceded on all sides to be of a non-contentious character.

said he desired to express his general concurrence with the objects of this measure. He could hardly imagine a state of things in which a check-weigher was not allowed to have proper shelter. From the character of the check-weigher's duties he thought proper accommodation should be afforded him. They were entitled to the same kind of accommodation as the weigher. Check-weighing was not easy work at all; it was onerous and responsible work, in which a man had to be very alert. He did not see why any employer should object to the appointment of a deputy. His experience had rather been a peculiar one. He became interested with some others in a colliery some years ago. When they found that no check-weighers were employed at the colliery they thought that was not a satisfactory state of things and that the workmen ought to have protection. They put some pressure to get them to adopt check-weighers. This Bill was intended to facilitate the working of check-weighing. It had been said there was the possibility of the introduction of a clause to deal with the vexed question of deductions. That was a much more difficult question than the hon. Member seemed to think. It has been stated by the mover of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had modified the views which he formerly expressed in the House. He thought that a little more information as to what the right hon. Gentleman's views now were would be desirable.

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife gave him authority for stating it had been unwise to attach a controversial question of this kind to the present Bill; accepted his statement that there had probably been a change in the practice, and that he would not express himself now so strongly as he did them.

said that the Member for East Fife had used some very strong language on the previous occasion derived from his experience as Home Secretary. His words were—

"The state of the law on that subject at the present time was nothing short of scandalous."

and again—

"He did not believe that there was any mine-owner in this country who knew at the present moment whether the system of deduction observed in his mines was legal or illegal and whether he was not carrying on a system which might never have been agreed to between masters and men, exposing himself to daily penalties."

said the relationship between employer and workman had totally changed since the time of that speech. There were boards of conciliation now instead of strikes.

said that did not affect the desirability of having a clause legalising and doing away with any suggestion of illegality in the actual procedure which was necessary to carry out the weighing of the material contracted to be gotten.

asked if the hon. Member had in his mind the section of the Coal Mines Regulations Act which indicated the manner in which deductions might be made.

said that he had not in his mind the question of the separation of small coal, and it did not arise in the part of the country with which he was acquainted. He did not wish to weight this Bill with anything of a controversial character. He suggested that an effort should be made to arrive at a solution of the difficulty by the framing of a clause which would meet with the approval of both sides, and which would tend to peace in future. He further suggested that this effort might be made by means of a conference between the two sides, because it was desirable that they should approach the question with the view of settling it in such a way as would enable the parties concerned to deal in a peaceful way with any difficulties that might arise. He would remind hon. Members that when the Act of 1887 was passing through the House conferences were held between those interested, at some of which he had the honour to preside. The result was that they arrived at a solution of many points which had given rise to difficulty, and they succeeded in a harmonious way in materially improving the Bill. He hoped that in the present instance a clause might be proposed which would have the effect of settling a difficult question without anything like friction. What they all ought to desire was that the most just and perfect system should be employed which human ingenuity could devise.

said he desired to say a few words on behalf of the ironstone miners. Although this Bill was an Amendment of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, and they were not engaged in coal mines, they would be affected, by it for their work was regulated by the Coal Mines Act and not by the Metalliferous Mines Act. The largest body of ironstone miners in the country worked in the Cleveland district, which he represented in that House, and he supported the measure, the provisions of which would be warmly welcomed by his constituents. He regretted that it had not been found possible to extend the advantages relating to check-weighers to quarries. A considerable number of quarrymen were anxious to have an opportunity of appointing check-weighmen, but, unfortunately, by the title of this Act, which related only to miners under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, it would be impossible to move an Amendment to include quarries. Sooner or later quarries should be included, as the case of quarrymen stood on precisely the same footing as that of miners. He re-echoed the hope expressed by a previous speaker that the Government would give facilities for the Third Reading in order that the views of all parties might be carried out.

said there had been the most friendly and harmonious discussion on this measure that he had listened to for a long time. He thought it was very largely due to the extremely clear statement made by the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member had taken those steps which were always advisable, of informing hon. Members and those interested in the Bill outside the House, of explaining beforehand what was really intended by the provisions of the Bill. The measure was extremely moderate and reasonable, and very sensible indeed. It was one of those smallish measures which were suggested by the practical experience of those who were engaged in the coal-mining industry. Both masters and men had seen the advantages derived from the employment of check-weighers, and they saw from their daily experience how the present position might be strengthened and improved. A check-weigher was really no more immune from the accidents of life than anybody else. He might have an attack of influenza or be killed, and the duties he was appointed to perform lapsed because there was no one to look after the interests of the men, and, indeed, he believed, the interests of the employers as well, which he was put there to safeguard. He would suggest to the House, therefore, that they should give permission that a check-weigher should have a deputy who could perform the duties when he was for some unavoidable cause absent. That was a reasonable proposal, and he did not think there would be the slightest objection to it in any quarter. A further proposal for the convenience of the check-weigher was that he should have shelter from the weather. He was really not aware that there was a pit in any part of the country where the man was denied reasonable shelter. It would seem unreasonable that in the climate of Scotland the check-weigher should be confined to the use of an umbrella and mackintosh to keep his papers dry. One of the proposals of this measure was that suitable water-tight shelters should be supplied for the men. They did not want anything very elaborate, but merely a shelter in which they could have a desk for writing and where the conditions would enable them to carry on their work in comfort. A further proposal in the Bill related to the appointment of check-weighers. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 provided that formal notification should be given to the employer that a certain man had been appointed check-weigher at a duly convened meeting. This was merely to enable the employer to know who really was the check-weigher instead of having to search about for the man in a case where some legal point arose. That was a very desirable object. Here, he thought, some further provision might be taken to secure that all those who were entitled to elect the check-weigher should have due notification that such an election was going to take place. Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 provided that where a check-weigher was appointed by a majority ascertained by ballot and paid according to the mineral gotten, the check-weigher so appointed should be deemed to be appointed on behalf of all the persons employed in the mine who were entitled to appoint him. There were two ways at present of appointing a check-weigher. If he was elected by a majority he could then only recover his expenses from those who appointed him. The object of this clause was that where he was appointed by a majority by ballot he should be held as representing the whole of the miners employed in the pit, so that he could recover his wages from all the miners. He understood that there was no intention to interfere with the law as it stood. It was merely to clear up a point where the check-weigher was appointed by a majority and not by ballot.

I believe that the Act of 1887 provides that only in the case of appointment by ballot shall there be recovery of wages. I do not propose to alter that.

said that under Section 14 of the 1887 Act there was ample power for recovering wages. He could not himself see why these elections did not always take place by ballot in view of the power given by that section. Subsection 5 of Clause 1 of the Bill was in the following terms—

"When a check-weigher is appointed by a majority ascertained by ballot of the persons employed in the mine, and paid according to the mineral gotten, he shall not be removed except by a majority ascertained by ballot of the persons so employed and paid at the time of removal."

He was glad to know from hon. Members that this was not in any way intended to prejudice or interfere with the duties which employers had at present to discharge under certain Acts. Clause 2 of the Bill introduced a novel principle, and that was that those who were paid according to the weight of minerals gotten were to contribute to the wages of the check-weigher. There might be certain cases where the men were working on day wages for a contractor who himself was paid by the coal gotten out of the pit. These men were entitled to appoint a check weigher. He did not see anything unreasonable in that proposal. It appeared to him that all those directly or indirectly paid by the amount of mineral gotten were more or less interested in the appointment of the check-weigher, whose duties were not only to see that the minerals were correctly weighed but also to deal with the deductions for stones, dirt, and other material which came up with the coal. It was to the interest of those who were indirectly paid through a contractor that there should be a check-weigher, and under these circumstances he did not think it was an unfair or unreasonable proposal that they should contribute something towards his pay. He now came to the point which was raised by the hon. Member opposite and by his hon. friend on his side as to the adding of a clause to this Bill to legalise the present arrangements that had been come to between masters and men in regard to deductions in respect of dirt, stones, and other improper filling in the coal buckets. Such an Amendment would have to be moved in Committee, and if that would wreck this little Bill he should regard it as a great misfortune. At the same time he thought there was reason in what had been said on this point. His hon. friend was not the only Member of the House who had tried to find a remedy for the present difficulty. This was not so simple a question as some of his hon. friends made out. They said, and it was true, that at present the law enabled them to deduct the amount of dirt and stones which came up to the surface. But both masters and men had found out that that was not the whole difficulty. The dirt and the stones which were quite unnecessarily dragged up to the surface were often put into the trucks through carelessness on the part of the workmen, and that was a considerable loss to the employers. Therefore, any arrangement which would work satisfactorily must make something more in the way of allowance besides dirt and stone.

That is done by statute now.

said he did not venture to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a question of law; but there was the Nethersole judgment to the effect that the amount of coal gotten must be true weight; and for that purpose the amount gotten must be held to include dirt and stones; but that the amount of deductions for dirt and stones and improper filling might be made in any agreed way between masters and employees, provided such deductions did not exceed the actual quantity of dirt and stones so raised to the surface. But there were no means of making a penalty attach to the careless workman.

You can discharge him.

said that under the present statute there was a case heard very recently in which it was decided that it was not necessary that the dirt and stones should be weighed; but that employer and employed could arrive at an estimate of the amount and make an allowance for the dirt and stones without actually weighing them.

said that it really came to this—that employers and employed wanted to have some fair arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire endeavoured to insert what he considered to be such a fair arrangement in a Bill introduced in 1895. That was to the effect that masters and men were to be permitted to contract freely for such deductions as they chose in respect of dirt, stones, or small coal, provided that the deductions were reasonable, and to render all deductions otherwise illegal whether they were so or not. What was fair and reasonable struck him in the same light as the right hon. Member for East Fife-shire; but obviously that was not a question to be discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, but in Committee. He ventured to throw out the suggestion that in the interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, those interested might frame a clause that would meet the views of both parties. If that could be done it would be very useful. He had said all that was necessary at this stage. The Bill met with no hostility from the Government, and, for his part, he hoped there would be no division; and he would give his support to the Second Reading.

moved that the Bill be sent to the Grand Committee on Trade.

said he had always been jealous about sending Bills of this kind to the Grand Committee on Trade, but he believed that this was a case where the services of a Grand Committee would be eminently useful. He hoped that the work of the Committee would soon be accomplished and that a satisfactory result would be arrived at.

said that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill he believed he would have support largely from both sides of the House. The Bill was to remedy a great injustice done by recent Acts in not allowing women to sit on county councils or borough councils. This Bill was practically of one clause. It said—

"It shall be lawful for women to be elected and to act as councillors and aldermen of county and borough councils, and metropolitan borough councils in the same manner and on the same conditions as men."

Objection had been taken to the Bill on the ground that it would only be a stepping-stone for ladies being asked to sit in this House. But he would point out that the duties of this House and of those councils to which the Bill applied, were to a great extent very different. The duties of this House were mainly legislative; the duties of the councils were mainly, almost entirely, administrative. In proposing this measure they were not taking a leap in the dark. Women had already sat and worked most usefully on public bodies. On boards of guardians they were brought into contact with the poor and with children; and it had been admitted that their co-operation with men on these bodies had been highly advantageous. They also sat on district councils, the working of which did not very much differ in character from the work of the county councils or the metropolitan borough councils. Then it must be remembered that on school boards women had done most useful work. He believed that in Scotland one of the most effective workers on any school board was a lady who was now the chairman of the Edinburgh School Board. Unfortunately school boards were now abolished in England, and their powers were transferred to the county councils; and women were practically disfranchised from sitting on these bodies, and some of the best workers on the school boards were now excluded from taking any part in educational work. That, in itself, was a powerful argument for placing women on the county councils and on the borough councils. He would call attention to the fact that Lady Sandhurst, who had been directly elected to the London County Council had to submit to an action at law as to the legality of her election thereto, and that a judicial decision went against her. If it had not been for that case, although there might have been a doubt as to the legal right of ladies to sit on these councils, ladies would have been elected in many cases. The London County Council showed their appreciation of the value of the presence of ladies on these bodies by making Miss Cons an alderman. He was speaking in the presence of many members of the London County Council, who could testify more effectively than he could as to the excellent work which women had done in the proceedings of that council. That work was largely done through committees and subcommittees, and he believed that women had been selected as members of no fewer than sixteen committees and sub-committees of that body. That spoke very eloquently for the wisdom of placing women on county councils, and enabling them to co-operate with men in the work of those councils. At present men had to visit lunatic asylums. He, himself, had visited the female side of these institutions and the conclusion he had come to was, after that experience, that no man should be allowed to go there. It was a work eminently fitted for women. Then there was the case of providing homes for babies. Only women were fitted for such work. Again, they all knew that in visiting industrial homes for boys and girls, a woman's sympathetic voice and touch was most powerful. The same work had to be done in the borough councils as in the county councils. He knew that some husbands objected to sit by the side of their own wives at these councils, although they did not object to sit beside another councillor's wife. That, however, was a selfish view. The other night the Lord Chief Justice drew attention to Miss Mary Bateman, who had edited the first volume of Borough Customs and said she had shown "She knew more of the law of the period dealt with than nine-tenths of the lawyers who would read the book. She had thoroughly entered into the spirit of those old customs." If that were true, would not such a lady put new life into the work of the councils of to-day? As regarded the metropolitan borough councils, he was on extremely safe ground, because a Bill entitling women to election passed its Second Reading in 1900 by a large majority. The chief reason why he now asked the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill was that, as long as women were not allowed to serve on borough councils and county councils an artificial restraint was placed upon constituencies in the selection of their representatives. We could not be said to govern ourselves with the full strength of the intelligence we had at our command while women were prevented from serving on such councils. There should be free import of ideas and no protection. No doubt the home was woman's sphere, but not the only one. The nation was a cluster of homes, and women ought to be invited to take an active part in managing and regulating the homes of the nation. He asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

said he desired to express his entire sympathy with the Bill the Second Reading of which had been moved in such an able speech as that which had just been delivered. He had had some knowledge of the co-operation of women in the province of education. Women were members of the Commission on Secondary Education that reported some years ago, and women were at this moment members of the consultative committee of the Board of Education and of many other educational committees. So far as his experience went, he could add his testimony to the abundant testimony that was forthcoming from all who had had similar experience that the assistance of women in the discussion of educational questions was of the greatest possible value. In matters relating to public health, the employment of children, the prevention of cruelty to children, industrial schools, and many other matters, the intervention of women in local government was obviously of the greatest value. They brought to these departments of local government a knowledge and insight into the conditions affecting women and girls which men could not possibly contribute. The great progress made in the higher education of women was a fact that should not be lost sight of. There were probably few localities in the country where it would be difficult to find women well qualified in every respect to take their part in the duties for which it was proposed to make them eligible. He sympathised with the view of the hon. Member for Northampton that by failing to enlist women in these departments of local government, and in the discussion of questions bearing so directly on the health and well-being of the community, we were losing a force of the most valuable kind—a force which could not be supplied in any other way. He earnestly hoped that the House would consent to the Second Reading of the Bill.

in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that the proposals contained in the measure rested much more on sentiment than on good sense or practical principles. He did not deny that women could usefully occupy places on education committees and some other administrative bodies, but that was not a reason for exposing them to the disagreeable circumstances connected with contested elections for borough or county councils. There were methods at present by which women could be enabled to discharge duties for which they were particularly fitted in connection with administrative bodies, but the general work of a borough council or a county council did not come within the proper sphere of a woman's activity. Men, he submitted, were quite competent to deal with such questions as levying rates and other public matters. No doubt those who opposed the Bill in that House would be in a small minority; but he claimed that outside the House they represented a large body of opinion, and the feeling against the proposals now submitted were largely shared by the women of this country. Many women still clung to the old-fashioned notion of what was a woman's work, and would not care to take up duties which properly belonged to men. He was surprised that the promoters of the Bill had not recommended that women should be allowed to become Members of the House of Commons, as it was quite easy to suggest that there were many legislative matters in which their advice would be useful. He had always supported the plan of having a certain number of women factory inspectors, who were capable of performing a very valuable work, but he dissented from the view that in order to give women an opportunity of rendering useful service to the community they must be put in the same position as men on public bodies.

seconded the rejection of the Bill. The question was not, he said, a new one, and many hon. Members would recollect the discussions they had in 1899, when the London borough councils were formed, and the point was raised whether women should be allowed to be members or not. One of the arguments against their inclusion was that from the year 1894 down to the passing of the London Government Act of 1899, although women were eligible for election on vestry boards, only thirteen succeeded in getting the suffrages of the electors out of the fourteen or fifteen hundred seats that had to be filled. Again, it was pointed out that when the Bill which enabled women to sit on vestries came before the House, no mention was made of the fact that it contained any such proviso, and it was carried without the question being debated. In 1899, however, there were four different divisions in the House on the question, with the result that while women were given the right to sit on councils they were debarred from acting as mayor or alderman, and eventually, when the Bill came back from another place, even the right to sit as councillors was taken away from them. In 1900 another Bill, solely relating to London, was introduced to the House and was rejected by a very large majority, and in the course of the debates on it, it was pointed out that it would be very unfair that London boroughs should be singled out for special treatment in this matter, and that it would be better to deal with it from the point of view of the country as a whole. They now had before them a proposal to put ladies on county councils and corporations throughout the country. That, certainly, was a more fair and straightforward method of dealing with the question. In the Memorandum attached to the Bill it was said that the object was to enable the electors to place directly-elected women on the education authorities. They knew very well that women, by the abolition of the school boards, were not enabled to seek the suffrages of the electors. But he would ask: had the education committees of the country been thereby in any way deprived of the most valuable co-operation of ladies? Was it not provided in the Education Bill that a very large proportion, of the managers should be ladies? He, for one, fully appreciated the value of their co-operation on educational bodies, and that, he was glad to say, had been secured, and it was a very good thing also to secure their services in such matters as the management of female lunatic asylums, the employment of children, supervision of midwives and baby farms, and the prevention of cruelty to children. But matters of this nature—important though they were—did not constitute the duties carried out by municipal corporations. In London, on the Metropolitan Asylums Board, women were nominated for these duties, but he could not himself say that they were more qualified than men for such work as the laying of sewers. They were not better financiers, they were not more capable of framing by-laws, neither were they better able to deal with valuation matters; all this work was far more efficiently done by men. No doubt, in matters affecting the dietary of children, women were pre-eminently qualified, and for that reason one welcomed their co-operation in the administration of the Poor Law. But it was important to bear in mind that now-a-days, in all county and borough council elections, the element of politics was introduced, and one of the great objections he had to placing ladies on these public bodies was that it would involve them in the turmoil of political life.

How about the Primrose League?

continuing, said women were not, under the Bill, to be allowed to aspire to the office of mayor. He thought that was hardly logical. He was told it was because women could not act as justices of the peace, but if ladies were to be eligible as members of county and borough councils, why should they be excluded from the highest positions? On the previous evening there was a debate before the Hardwicke Society on the question of ladies being concerned in the administration of justice, and the question was asked: Why were not women eligible to sit on juries as well as men? Why should not there be mixed juries? It was interesting to know that the celebrated authoress, Mrs. Craigie—John Oliver Hobbes—said "she did not believe in women becoming entangled in legal machinery, because they were by nature unfair, and their natures did not contain the first elements of justice. Where, she asked, would men go for sympathy if women were impartial? When justice was represented as a woman she was blind-folded because she could not be trusted, as Americans said, to see straight." The Second Reading of this Bill was moved by the junior Member for Northampton; he was sorry the senior Member for that town was not present, for he was a stalwart on this Question, and he believed he would have endorsed the view that the great majority of women did not wish to meddle with politics. They were quite ready to allow the management of municipal affairs to be carried on by men. It was, after all, only a few who were ambitious, for if there had been a general desire on the part of women to take part in the work of these councils larger numbers would have been councillors when they had the opportunity. Surely it was not wise to upset a whole general system for the sake of a very few. But the greatest objection of all to this proposal was that it was only the thin end of the wedge. It would not stop at this point, but they would have renewed agitation for the Parliamentary suffrage and eventually a claim for seats in the House. He opposed the Bill because he was averse to giving the Parliamentary suffrage to women, for he held that if they had votes it would be impossible to deny them the right to sit in the House. In all the great democratic Continental countries women were refused the Parliamentary suffrage, and he did not think that even the strongest advocate of the Bill would favour their admission to the House of Commons. He was glad to see a representative of the Local Government Board present (the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk). It was not often that the Members who sat on the Treasury Bench honoured them on Friday afternoon. He hoped for guidance from that bench. It was not so much this Bill as the fact that it represented the beginning of the end. He objected to it in the interests of the vast majority of the women of this country. He did not believe that they desired it in the least. It was only brought in for the benefit of the few, and he would very much regret if, in consequence of the noisy clamour of those few, a Bill of that nature should be passed throwing on the sex positions and duties for which the great majority had no desire.

regretted that the Bill did not apply to either Scotland or Ireland. He was anxious to see it extended to his country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston—the champion of lost causes in that House——

And of winning ones too.

said the hon. Member spoke as if the Bill would force women to become members of municipal bodies. There was no compulsion at all in the matter. It was a mere question of giving them a legal right to exercise powers which, when they had undertaken them, they had exercised well. In Scot- land they were not always anxious to have extended to them Acts passed for England. They never wanted, for instance, either the English Licensing Bill or the English Education Bill, because they had better Acts of their own. The Scottish Education Bill now before the House would, as in the past, still render women eligible to be elected on education boards. He could assure the House that feeling in Scotland, however, was in favour of the extension of the provisions of this Bill to that country. The Irish Members could, of course, speak for themselves. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras had alluded to the fact that in Germany and France the women had not these rights. That might be so, but then they did not need to go to those countries for lessons as to the policy they should pursue. Let them turn to their own self-governing Colonies. What did they see there? In New Zealand women had the privilege which he hoped they would soon possess in this country—of voting for Parliamentary representatives—and had exercised that right in a way that had kept a good strong Liberal Government in power. It was idle to talk about the thin end of the wedge. Those who knew and appreciated the good sense of the majority of women wished to give them the same rights and privileges that they themselves enjoyed, and for that reason he heartily supported the Second Reading of the Bill.

said it had apparently escaped notice that Scotland and Ireland had been dropped out of this Bill. Was it because Scotchmen and Irishmen were much more impressionable, and could not be trusted to sit alongside the other sex? He thought that was a distinct slur on the male sex both of Scotland and Ireland, and it was a suggestion that they were not to be trusted in the same way as Englishmen. Did the promoters, by omitting Scotland and Ireland, hope to gain votes from Scotch and Irish Members?

said he was one of those who believed that each nation should look after its own affairs, and he had, therefore, confined the action of the Bill to England and Wales. But if it were desired that the Bill should apply to Scotland or Ireland he should welcome an Amendment in Committee to that effect.

Are we to understand that the great majority of the Scotch and Irish Members have no wish for this Bill? Has the hon. Member received representations to that effect?

I have received no such representations at all. But if any are made those two countries can be included in the Bill.

Then why was the clause referring to Scotland and Ireland struck out of the Bill?

I have been trying to give the reason.

feared that the cause not the reason had been given. He had always been opposed to the Parliamentary vote being given to ladies, because he believed the logical conclusion was that they must obtain seats in that House. Everybody knew that the influence of women and their higher knowledge and skill were of very great importance in dealing with social questions. After all, it was the life of the home which was the foundation of the greater social life of the nation. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras had told them it was a very good thing for women to take part in particular portions but not in the general work of borough councils, but how was the line to be drawn in these? A distinct and absolute line could be drawn between representation in that House, where the affairs of the nation and the Empire were dealt with, and such service on councils as was proposed. He thought that if they went on opposing proposals that women should take part in social life it could be fairly urged against them that they were not seeking the good of the community, but were acting in prejudice against the other sex who, after all, in matters affecting their children and their social life could do infinitely better than men. He thought it would be a great mistake if they did not trust them.

considered that the speeches of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill were exceedingly illogical and inconclusive. It seemed to him that the Bill was a measure of very tardy justice, not only to women but to the whole system of the domestic government of this country. This matter was first prominently brought before the public mind in the London County Council elections of 1888, when two or three women were elected as aldermen and councillors. They worked on the Council for a considerable number of months, and, with perhaps one solitary exception, their male colleagues agreed that the work they did was absolutely invaluable if not indispensable. But by a decision of the Courts of Law they were disabled from continuing to sit, and since then the House had been constantly moved to remove the disability. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras had referred in terms which seemed to be particularly inapplicable just now—having regard to the part of London which he represented—to the unsuitability of women to discharge certain business functions connected with county and borough councils. He had the privilege of residing in the Parliamentary Borough of Holborn, which adjoined the hon. Member's own constituency.

I did not say they could not discharge them. I simply said they were not better fitted than men to discharge them. I hope the hon. Member will not misinterpret what I said.

said they had had some startling revelations in Holborn recently, which showed how thoroughly incompetent men had proved themselves to be for the discharge of ordinary business duties. He was himself one of the unfortunate ratepayers who would probably lose thousands of pounds because of the proved incompetency of a borough council to properly look after some of their officials. Matters could not have been worse had women had seats on the council. The hon. and gallant Member had also objected to women being involved in the turmoil of political life, but he for one would far rather see women take their place in political and municipal life in a straightforward manner, by the exercise of the franchise and as was proposed in this Bill, than working as they did in many of the constituencies on behalf of the Primrose League. They had no objection to women being made eligible for the office of mayor, and if the Bill disqualified them—he did not think it did—the defect could be remedied in Committee. Then they had had an extraordinary quotation from Mrs. Craigie, a distinguished writer of fiction, who had shown that she could also speak fiction, and that very glibly and effectively. He was not going to take his views of public political life, public morality, or other subjects from Mrs. Craigie or any other novelist. When Mrs. Craigie told them that women were not meant to govern he would refer her to the most prominent and conspicuous member of her sex in the last century, Queen Victoria, who exercised a potent influence on the affairs of this Empire, and indeed of the whole Christian race. Further it was complained that the Bill would upset the general system for the sake of the few. But it would not do anything of the kind. It would simply enable duly qualified women to be nominated for seats on these councils in the same way as men; it would not involve the slightest change in administration, practice, or procedure. As to the antiquated and grossly immoral thin-end-of-the-wedge argument he could not too strongly condemn it. He remembered hearing, when a boy, orations by Mr. John Bright and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in that city; and one sentence used by the Member for West Birmingham in 1885 impressed itself Very forcibly on his memory. It ran—"it is never wrong to do right." If the measure proposed by this Bill was right, it could not be wrong to carry it now. It was always right to do right, and the question of expediency should not be allowed to enter into these calculations at all. The speech of the hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of the Bill answered itself. It spoke of the proper sphere of woman's work, but the hon. Baronet did not explain what that sphere was. He told them that women could be co-opted on education committees of county councils, and that the system of co-option was preferable to direct election, but he would like to point out in answer to that that the principle of co-option was mischievous because the co-opted member had not the same authority or responsibility to the ratepayers as the directly-elected representative. Women had done excellent work on boards of guardians, school boards, and the London vestries, and it seemed to him that the Bill opened up to women a sphere of usefulness for which they were peculiarly fitted. Reference had already been made to the services they might render in connection with housing, the inspection of women's lodging-houses, the female side of lunatic asylums, and the employment of children. The electors ought to have the fullest possible choice in the matter of their representatives on the bodies which had to deal with these questions, and they should be at liberty to choose women if they wished to do so. In all assemblies, municipal or Parliamentary, legislative or administrative, unrepresented interests were apt to go to the wall, and in the interests of men, women, and children he strenuously supported this Bill.

said that when visiting large lunatic asylums as a member of the lunacy committee of his county council he had often regretted that the inspection could not be shared by lady visitors who could understand the circumstances and needs of the female inmates so much better than men. He believed that in many departments of local government an infusion of the woman element would be very valuable, and therefore he should certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill, and hope to see it extended to Scotland. Reference had been made to New Zealand. He had visited New Zealand since women were invested with the franchise, but his opinion of the result did not coincide with that which had been expressed, and he very much doubted whether the change had been altogether beneficial. If all married ladies as well as married men were entrusted with the franchise it might lead to awkward contentions, or tend to double the influence of married men. He was opposed to the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women, but as regarded their admission to local governing bodies and departments he thought it would be a great advantage, and therefore he supported this Bill.

said he stood in a position which was probably a little exceptional among those who supported the Bill because he was an opponent of the principle of women's suffrage. That had always been his attitude, it was still so, and he would not be advocating the Second Reading of the measure before the House if he thought it would prove even a step in the direction of women's suffage. He did not, however, think that was the case. The question involved seemed to him to be a totally different one, and he did not think any opponent of women's suffrage should be influenced by his views in regard to that question in the direction of opposing the Bill before the House. He thought, indeed, opponents of women's suffrage ought, if anything, rather to be influenced the other way, for those to whom it would seem to be a great and perilous change to give women the tight of voting at Parliamentary elections were, perhaps, all the more bound to do their utmost to see that women should be provided with such other spheres of influence as could be opened to them for devoting themselves in some measure to the service of the country by helping other women and children. He defended the Bill on the grounds of expediency. The question was a practical one, and the chief point at issue was as to whether women would be useful to the community if they were admitted to the boards mentioned in the Bill. It was, moreover, the right of the electors of the country to have the largest possible field of choice in those to whom they had to entrust the care of their municipal and county interests, and it was not fair to exclude any person willing to serve the community except on a strong proved case that it would for some reason be undesirable to accept such proffered services. Such onus probandi lay, surely, with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Preston had not even attempted to show that women would not be desirable members of these councils. On the other hand, there had been a good deal of practical evidence given which tended to show that women had done their special work on similar bodies very well. They had been specially valuable members of school boards, and one of his reasons for regretting the Education Act of 1902 was that it prevented women taking the same part as before in working the educational machinery of the country. Their services had, in some measure, been retained by making them co-opted members of education committees, but that was not the same thing, since they had not now the same authority they possessed when they sat as elected representatives of the ratepayers. Women could do a vast amount of good work in matters affecting the housing and general well-being of the poor, and, as had several times been said in the course of the debate, in looking after the women and children in our lunatic asylums. There were, indeed, many kinds of such work in which, with the genius for detail which specially belonged to them, and their unwearied perseverance in making themselves masters of all that was to be known, women could make themselves very useful indeed—sometimes more useful than men engaged in similar work could be. The borough councils were not doing all the work they ought to do in that direction, and they would do it more efficiently if they had women among their members. At first he had some hesitation about supporting the Bill, because the borough councils had to some extent adopted a political character. But the possible risks in that direction were not sufficient to counterbalance the advantages which he saw in putting women upon the borough councils. When he looked at the whole field of educational and social reform he felt quite sure that the balance of argument was strongly in favour of the Bill. The sphere of action of women in all kinds of philanthropic and social work was increasing every day and was becoming more and more valuable to the community; and therefore he could not feel any doubt that the House would render a great service to the community, and not in any way injure the position of women, if they gave a Second Reading to this Bill.

associated himself with a great deal that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. He should support the Second Reading of the Bill, but he should do so as an opponent of female suffrage, and also with the hope, to which he should endeavour to give effect in Committee, that women would not be allowed to become members of county councils. He desired to restore to women a privilege they had already enjoyed, and which they had justified themselves in possessing. This was especially the case in London, where recent legislation had deprived them of the privilege they had previously possessed. Experience had shown that women had done excellent work in local and municipal government for which they deserved encouragement, and that encouragement could best be given by restoring to them the privilege they had accidentally lost. He could bear personal testimony to the excellent manner in which women had worked on local bodies, having worked side by side with them on the Metropolitan Asylums Board, on a board of guardians, and on education committees, on all of which bodies they did excellent work, and he had been struck by the fact that they always took a sensible view of affairs and applied themselves to that part of public work for which they were suited, without attempting to push themselves into work for which they were not suited. That was a compliment which could not always be paid to the other sex. But he might be asked why, if these were his views, he stopped short at the county councils. The reason was that on the county council they got into something approaching a political atmosphere, and with all his respect for women and their work, a political woman, whether Liberal or Conservative, was not a woman who commended herself to his personal judgment. He was not a member of the Primrose League. It might be said that that reflected no credit upon him, inasmuch as the efforts of that league would be somewhat out of place in the University of Oxford; but, at any rate, he had no desire to see the political woman multiplied. It was not right to sneer at the thin-end-of- the-wedge argument if the thick end of the wedge represented something that was objectionable. But here experience had shown that women did excellent work on municipal bodies in connection with women, children, the destitute, and sanitation; but the same women did not take part in politics. They were not the same class. The woman who did good social and philanthropic work was not, as a rule, the woman who desired to take part in politics. If that was so, the "wedge" disappeared, and consequently there was no thick end, and the alleged thin end could do no harm. On the merits of the question he did not doubt the House would be doing right in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

pointed out that some of the strongest testimony that had been given as to the value of women's work on local bodies had been in connection with work under the control of the county councils, and, therefore, the statement of the last speaker that he was not prepared to go so far as to give women the right to sit on those bodies was a matter of surprise to most supporters of the Bill. One of the most painful duties connected with membership of a lunacy committee was that of visiting the wards containing women and children, and if ever men felt their helplessness it was then. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the excellent work women did in connection with the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and yet he would not allow them an opportunity of doing similar work for the asylums in the country which were under the county or county borough councils. There were a number of committees connected with borough council work on which women could do good work. First of all, there was the education committee, of which at present they could become members only by co-option, a method which did not invest them with the influence or authority they would possess if elected directly by the ratepayers. Moreover, they were debarred from following their work through to the finish in the education authority itself, as they were not permitted to be members of that authority. The baths and washhouses department was also one in which there were splendid opportunities for the exercise of that knowledge which women alone possessed. He hoped the Bill would pass its Second Reading by a large majority and become law before the end of the present session.

reminded the House that on the three bodies to which the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division had referred women were already able to serve. By co-option they could be, and as a matter of fact, had to be, appointed on the education committees. With regard to baths and washhouses it was perfectly competent for ladies to be elected to act as visitors. The inspection of workhouses was never left to the lady members of boards of guardians, but lady visitors were appointed who were specially qualified for the work. As to the Asylums Board, his right. hon. friend had stated what excellent colleagues they made on the body.

pointed out that that applied only to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and not to the asylum committees of the county councils.

said that many of the supporters of the Bill were very lukewarm in their sup port, and his right hon. friend especially had hedged his approval with many qualifications. This Bill enabled women to be elected upon county and borough councils, and the metropolitan borough councils. He rather gathered that the chief argument in favour of this proposal was due to the fact that in former years ladies were able to sit upon the London vestries, and that they had lost ground to that extent. That was hardly the case, because it was a fact that ladies obtained that privilege by accident. When the Act was passed it was never intended that ladies should sit on the vestries, but, according to the wording of the Act, the Law Courts decided that ladies could become members of vestries. He would not say that women were incapable of discharging the duties with which the Bill proposed to entrust them; but he did say there would be no advantage in enabling them to become members of these various bodies, and this, he was quite sure, was the view held by the majority of women in these islands. He felt very strongly upon this question, and he considered that it was his duty to oppose it to the best of his ability. He thought that would be the view taken by the Government. By throwing those positions open to women they did not get the best of their class to come forward. His right hon. friend had stated his objection to the political lady, and in his opinion it was only the political lady who was likely to come forward under this Bill. The elections for county and borough councils had now become as much a political affair as any other election, and therefore they could not I avoid bringing in the political ladies. The ladies who would be most likely to confine themselves to the special duties which came within their province hardly ever came forward. Ladies were useful on boards of guardians, but boards of guardians were not political bodies, although they were semi-political. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said the onus probandi rested with those who thought that women were not fitted for this work, but all he could say was that the change proposed was one for which there was no warrant, and from which no advantage would be gained. He never supported any change unless he felt sure that it was going to produce good, and he hoped no hon. Member would support any change unless they thought it was likely to do good.

said that his argument was that the electors of this country ought to have the widest possible choice, and it lay upon those who desired to limit that choice and the freedom of the electors in this respect to show why women should be excluded.

said that argument appeared to him to amount to the contention that everybody ought to be eligible unless they could be shown incompetent for the post.

Not quite that.

said that was practically what it amounted to. [An HON. MEMBER: Ladies sat upon the school boards.] Yes, they did, and many of them were now serving on the education committees, and what was more, the Act stated that a certain number of ladies must be placed upon those committees. A very considerable number of ladies were now acting as managers of schools under the Education Act. Women were too apt to go into enormous detail, and they could not carry on municipal business unless people confined themselves more to general principles. Women were more inclined than men to devote themselves to small petty details than to general principles. He doubted the statement that this Bill excluded a woman from being elected as mayor. There might be some difficulty as to whether a lady mayor could be a justice of the peace, but it appeared to him that, on the whole, the Bill was so worded that the position of mayor was one which could be occupied by a lady. The change proposed in this Bill was not one which would be for the benefit of the country, and he was convinced that it was not desired by anything approaching a majority of women of this country.

said that on behalf of a considerable number of women in his constituency, who he hoped in years to come would become constituents in reality and not only in name, he wished to give very hearty support to this Bill. The arguments in favour of this Bill seemed to him to be strong and unanswerable, while those against were both sophisticated and feeble. He regarded this debate more as an "affair of outposts" in the general campaign for extending the Parliamentary suffrage to women. To-day the demand was a very modest one indeed. It was simply that women should be declared capable of sitting on county and borough councils, upon which it was argued tint there was a large amount of work which they could perform a great deal better than men. There were special reasons why this Bill should be received with favour on the Ministerial side of the House, because the Conservative Party was pre-eminently the Party which recognised the qualifications of women to take part, not only in the details, but in the serious business of life. The Primrose League had been spoken of. That gigantic organisation, which was founded for the purpose of upholding religion, the Estates of the Realm, and the Imperial ascendancy of the British Empire—that great league, charged with the furtherance of these great objects, was largely comprised of women. Over that organisation the Prime Minister himself presided, and with him acted not only a male executive, but also a female executive, known as the Ladies' Grand Council, which doubtless assisted him in furthering the interests of that great mission which this league was founded to promote. This circumstance in itself conceded the principle on this side of the House that women were qualified to take part in the work of executive government, and the Prime Minister agreed with that principle. He was sorry to see that afternoon that hon. Members were going back upon their chief, and upon the Ladies' Grand Council, by declaring by their opposition to this Bill that the same women who were fit to sit upon a council charged with the furtherance of such great Imperial and national responsibilities were not qualified to take any part in the comparatively trivial business of the local councils of the counties and towns. But there were other councils besides the Ladies' Grand Council which claimed to take some part in shaping the destinies of their country. There were numerous women's trades councils representing hundreds of thousands of working women, who were bread winners, and who were pressing forward to take some part in the selection of those who made the laws which regulated the conditions under which they laboured, and under the security of which the bread of themselves and their families was won. He hoped the House would recognise the strength and sincerity of this movement by not resisting that instalment of its accomplishment which passing the Second Reading that day would provide.

mentioned that during the first year of its existence the London County Council had the great advantage of the presence of three most able women as members. Owing to a decision of the Judges the Council were deprived of their assistance, and year after year ever since the County Council had sent petitions to the House asking that the law should be so amended that they could again enjoy the advantages of such services. He had known women connected with school board work who considered it a great privilege to appeal to the electors and get fresh inspiration from them. It was true that such women had been co-opted and placed upon the education committee by the London County Council. Speaking on behalf of that body he desired to inform the House that they considered this amended plan of co-optation as a degradation and an inconvenience, and he asked that those women should have restored to them those rights and privileges which they formerly enjoyed. He was sorry that the hon. Member for St. Pancras had spoken so slightingly of the services of women on the old London vestries. For a great many years they rendered really valuable services to London as members of those bodies. With regard to the work of women on the old London vestries the Prime Minister once said—

"It does seem hard that when women have been engaged in a particular work, and have carried out that work in a satisfactory manner, the House should take the occasion of a great reform to restrict their sphere of usefulness."

He could not put it more forcibly than that. He ventured to urge the acceptance of the Bill on the ground of purity of administration. Corruption was creeping into some of our public bodies, and the presence of women on those bodies would check the increase of that corruption. Lord Salisbury, speaking in the House of Lords on this subject, declared that—

"In the presence of women on these councils you have a security against indolence and against selfish administration which you will not have if they are removed."

They sadly needed the services of good and able women on some of their public bodies, the administration of which would be strengthened and purified by their presence.

said he felt a special obligation to say a few words in support of this Bill, because he had always thought that one great, though unavoidable, blemish in the Education Act of 1902 was that it deprived the country of the advantage of women on the governing body in education. It was quite true that the best that could be done was done by making it compulsory upon the new education authorities to place women on the education committees, but he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Aberdeen that that was not a complete substitute for their former powers on school boards. He could not speak too highly of the work done in the education of the people by women. In the training and development of infants and very young children the experience and authority of women was absolutely invaluable. The House was probably not aware of the silly and stupid things which were done day after day in multitudes of our infants' schools because those schools, although they had a mistress at the head of them, were practically managed by male inspectors, who knew nothing about infants and went into the schools with the preconceived notion that they were only diminutive men or diminutive women. He had the most earnest desire to see women made eligible for election to borough and county councils, because those bodies now administered the Education Acts, and he knew of no real reason why they should be excluded from those bodies. It seemed to him that all their past experience was against any attempt to restrict the choice of the electors in this respect. Besides the experience he had had with school authorities, he had had considerable experience in and out of boards of guardians, and he did not think men were so well qualified to do a great deal of the work which was done by boards of guardians as women were. Happily they were still on boards of guardians, but there was a proposal in the air to vest the powers of these boards in the municipal authorities as had been done in the case of education. If that was done it was all the more important that women should be made eligible for municipal councils. His right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University desired to exclude women from county councils because these bodies were partly political. If they were they ought not to be. He hoped that in the growing intelligence of the age and nation politics would be as much banished from county councils as they were from boards of guardians and from the best municipal authorities. It was bad enough that this House should be political. They had experience of the discredit that was cast upon the House of Commons because of its political character. He should have the greatest possible pleasure in voting in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. The question of women's franchise seemed to him to have nothing to do with the question dealt with in this measure. During his political life, ever since John Stuart Mill moved his famous Amendment to the Representation of the People Act of 1866, he had steadily voted in favour of the enfranchisement of women. But that question had nothing to do with this Bill. The whole question was whether the electors were or were not to be curtailed in their choice of representatives.

said he desired to associate himself with what had been said by his right hon. friend with regard to the question of the Parliamentary franchise for women. This Bill had nothing to do with that. As a Member for a Scotch constituency he regretted that Scotland was not included in the scope of the Bill, and he thought if the Bill went to a Committee an Amendment should be moved to include that country. His right hon. friend had not referred to a matter in which they had both been much concerned, viz., the question of the employment of children in various capacities outside of school hours, and more especially to street selling. He could not imagine any subject on which the views of women would be more useful and helpful to the local authorities. In the particular matter of education it seemed perfectly absurd to say that women were not useful in guiding the education of the young, and especially of young girls. There were also such questions as public lodging-houses, industrial schools, the regulations relating to midwives, sanitation and public health, with respect to which the advice and co-operation of women were not only useful and helpful, but even essential. This little Bill would do only a tardy act of justice to women by conferring on them the position of which they were robbed by the present Government, when by the London Government Act they were barred from giving those services to the State which they were so eminently qualified to give. The hon. Member for Hackney seemed to have had an extraordinary experience of women. The hon. Member went so far as to say that there was no warrant for what the Bill proposed, and that no advantage would be reaped from it. It was a self-evident proposition that women had conferred immense advantage by their counsel on those boards of which they had been members.

said his hon. and gallant friend the Member for South St. Pancras had asked for the guidance of the Government in this matter. Were there to be no questions upon which the Government were to be allowed to have an open mind? The question of the capacity of women to administer public affairs divided men into hostile camps almost as much as the question of religion; and if women had to wait for their enfranchisement until a Government were agreed upon it he was afraid they would have to wait a very long time. He was not to be taken as speaking for the Government. This was a question upon which nothing was to be done in this Parliament by this Government. Indeed he might go so far as to say that this was a question upon which nothing was ever to be done in any Parliament by any Government. But he himself had always been in favour of women being admitted as freely as possible to administrative bodies. He might have risen in the House at least twenty times to express those views, but Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of his privilege, and knowing he was then a bachelor, had not called upon him to speak. He had no reason to change those views from his experience of the last three years. In this matter he might be called a "whole-hogger." He was in favour of giving the Parliamentary franchise to women, although he doubted whether the House of Commons was a place in which they ought to be allowed to sit. There was a county council in this country which had always tried to be a legislative assembly. It had to work through the machinery of this House at present, but, as a rule, county councils were not legislative assemblies. But while he thought that women might properly be excluded from the making of laws, they might, upon local bodies, be very safely entrusted with the administration of those laws. He should like to say a word about the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument on this question which was always brought up, and which had again appeared to-day. What was the danger of the wedge? It was said that if it was inserted in the way proposed now, it might be driven home in ways which would change the conditions in the whole sphere of society. The progress of the wedge had been remarkably slow. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire to the fact that women were not on municipal councils, but he would remind him that it was not this House which excluded them. The House of Lords laid that down.

May I remind the hon. Member that the Government tellers were put on when the Motion was put to agree with the Lords' Amendment?

said the hon. Member was technically correct, but in spirit he was incorrect. The question was whether they should agree with the Lords' Amendment, or whether at the end of the session they should drop that big and important Bill. The Leader of the House decided that it was better not to fight with the other branch of the Legislature on this particular point in the Bill. In order to get the Bill through at once the objection to the Lords' Amendment was waived, and that was practically why the Government Whips were put on to tell in favour of it. He wished to deal with the strange position which was created by women being allowed, as they were allowed, to sit on urban district councils, and not on borough councils. He did not feel that he could define the distinction between the administrative conditions of urban and borough councils. It did not consist in the importance of the districts over which they ruled. Willesden for example, with a population of over 114,000, had an urban district council, while Hendon, with 1,100 inhabitants, was a borough. There were many instances throughout the country of urban councils to which women might be elected, and of borough councils to which they could not be elected, though in the urban districts the population might be greater and the powers exercised practically the same. He knew of no sufficient distinction between the two which gave women the right to sit on the one and not on the other. There were many duties in both administrative bodies upon which women's influence and knowledge could be most usefully employed. In the question of housing, women as guardians had done useful work for the pauper class; why should they not be allowed to give equally good service to the class above? A woman was far more likely to know whether the kitchen and scullery arrangements were of a convenient kind. Under the Factory Acts women were appointed as inspectors, and it was recognised that they were well qualified to discharge the duties. He was sure no one would wish to go back on that policy. Surely the matters to which they gave their attention could be well regulated by women in council. To enforcing the food and Drugs Act women would give much activity, for women were the caterers for working-class households and suffered most from the adulteration of food. He thought if women could sit on the borough councils some of the councils would be keener to take samples of food with the view to the prosecution of the offenders. By-laws which affected social habits came peculiarly within the province of women. Recently a council applied for sanction to a by-law requiring all dust-bins to be placed on the kerb at seven in the morning, a by-law that certainly no woman would support. Why, if women were so useful as guardians in relation to infirmaries, should they not assist in the administration of hospitals and asylums? There were 8,000 female lunatics in our asylums, yet no woman could as a matter of right sit on the committees to look after the affairs of those asylums. Regulations in regard to the employment of and prevention of cruelty to children were especially fitted for the consideration of women. Many of the duties devolving on local authorities were such as a wise councillor would consult his wife, mother, or grandmother upon; and where municipal interference was forced upon homes women had a right to be heard. When it was urged that women could have no knowledge of roads and bridges, be replied, What did the average county councillor know of the subject? He acquired his knowledge as he went on; and a woman was not less apt than a man to acquire information from her surroundings. Women had stronger reasons than men for desiring that the high roads should be properly constructed. When he was a member of a highways committee he learned that what caused most of the mud was that too much use was made of certain filling-in material. He fancied that if women were on county councils there would not be so much of this unnecessary filling-in material used. In the regulation of traffic who could better judge than women of the corners where motors at high speed would be dangerous to women and children pedestrians? There was no question of draging women into political conflicts; they were there already. They exercised considerable influence in politics, and he did not doubt that many Members in the House owed their seats to that influence. Would opponents go so far as to allow women to sit as aldermen, avoiding the horrors of a contested election? In municipal matters women had politics thrust upon them, they had votes, and after all, there was nothing to prevent a man or woman retiring from political life. There was no compulsion in this Bill. The great beauty of public life was that they did not require to go into it unless they liked. It should be noticed that Irishmen had shown their gallantry by electing women to local bodies where-ever it was possible to do so.

We would have them in this House if we could.

said they wanted on these local bodies all the earnest, public-spirited, leisured people they could find, for the work was growing as year by year new duties were cast upon them. It was a pity the barrier of sex should shut out a large resource, and he should vote for the Bill.

said his hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board had for once departed from that sound common-sense which always distinguished him. He had advocated this Bill on the ground that gallantry came into it. That might be one of the reasons for which he himself objected to it. If his hon. friend happened to sit on a borough council with a charming lady would he contradict her if he thought she was in error? He did not think gallantry came into the question at all. It was a question of the merits and the demerits of women, and of the practicability of putting them on certain public bodies. As a rule the majority of women did not desire to be put on these bodies. They could exercise their usefulness in many other directions. There was no doubt that they did exercise a very great influence on elections, but they exercised it in a totally different manner to what they would do if put on administrative or legislative bodies. An hon. Member had said that unless the electors wanted them they would not be elected. Every Member of this House knew perfectly well that a great many of the electors would not take any trouble to vote either at a county council or a borough council election, and consequently the true feeling of the electors was not really ascertained. No doubt a certain number of women would come forward, and no doubt a great number of people would not take the trouble to go to the poll. The hon. Member for Leicester said that the business transacted by the borough councils and the county councils was of a very trivial nature. He disagreed with the hon. Member altogether. He considered that it was of a most important character. During the last thirty years the municipal debt of the country had risen from somewhere about £90,000,000 to over £400,000,000. Were women economically likely to reduce that expenditure? His experience of women—[Laughter]—he might not be so fortunate as his hon. Friends—[Laughter]—but he had a certain experience with women, and he believed that, as a rule, they were not economical. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He believed further, that such was their temperament, their kind-heartedness, and sentimentality, that if they considered a certain thing was right—he did not deny that it might be right they would say, "Never mind what it costs, it is a good thing, and let us have it." Therefore, he did not think it would be at all advisable to put women on borough councils and county councils, as they would encourage the already extravagant habits of those particular bodies. They had heard from the right hon. Member for Cambridge University a long and excellent speech in which he recommended the adoption of the Bill on the ground that women had done good service on educational bodies. Nobody denied that; but he did not see that they would be deprived of the opportunities of doing such service if this Bill did not pass. They might be able to superintend schools, even if they did not sit on borough councils or county councils. His right hon. friend discoursed largely on various matters at which the ladies were good—inspecting kitchen ranges, and seeing whether the food was bad. But he would ask his right hon. friend whether a woman as an inspector would not have much more power in regard to such matters in bringing them to the notice of county councils and borough councils than if she were a member of such bodies. The hon. Member for Hackney had made some allusion as to what would happen if this Bill passed and women became aldermen or mayors. He did not attach much importance to that. The hon. Gentleman was very much upset by the idea that if the borough councils or county councils ordered that the refuse of households should be put on the pavement at seven o'clock in the morning, the women on the councils would vote that the order should not be passed. Now, he thought that that was a very strong argument for not putting women on these bodies. Hon. Members who had supported this Bill had admitted that they were in favour of the Parliamentary franchise being given to women and of women sitting in this House. That was really at the bottom of the whole of this agitation. One hon. Member had said that this Bill was only a step in a certain direction, and his argument was that if they once admitted women to the county and borough councils they would have to go further and admit them as members of the Legislature. He thought it would be an extremely evil day for the country when that was done. He did not wish to decry for a moment the good work which women did, or were capable of doing, in the management of the different affairs of life; but he had not heard a single argument to show that women were in any kind of way better than men. The hon. Member for Devonport had argued that there was some practical reason for passing this Bill, because a few years ago three women had sat on the London County Council. No doubt these were very exceptional women, of very great ability, but that was a very shallow argument to put forward in favour of giving every woman in the country an opportunity of sitting on borough and district councils. He hoped the House would not accept the Bill, especially on a Friday, when very few Members were present. He was sorry that so few Members had thought it worth their while to come forward to oppose the Bill by their voice and vote; and the only conclusion he could come to was that on Friday afternoon the majority of Members regarded such Bills as this as the expression of a pious opinion which was not likely to come into force. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General present in the House, and he did not think that on such an important Bill as this the House should be deprived of the opinion of the Law

said that he had invariably voted against any Bill proposing to give female suffrage; but, he should vote for this Bill because he believed it would afford women an opportunity of serving on local bodies which might be regarded as training schools and thereby proving their fitness, if they had any, for occupying posts in public life. Having explained the reason why he could not give a silent vote he would not delay the division.

moved that the House do now adjourn. Vote 1 of the Army Estimates would be proceeded with on Monday as the first order.