Sir, in consequence of the necessary absence of many hon. Members, and the impossibility of obtaining an adequate discussion on the subject, I do not intend to proceed with the Resolution which stands in my name for Friday next in favour of closing public-houses on Sunday. At the same time, I beg to give Notice that if I have the honour of a seat in the new Parliament, I will, on the earliest opportunity, by Bill or by Motion, bring the subject forward.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If his attention has been called to the prevalence of sheep-rot, and the enormous losses occasioned thereby; and, if in view of the magnitude of the disaster, Her Majesty's Government will institute scientific inquiries into the matter?

Sir, the nature and causes of rot in sheep are so well understood, that it is not likely that any further scientific inquiry could add usefully to our present knowledge on the subject. The results of previous investigations will be found in Professor Simmond's Paper, reprinted this year, from the "Journal" of the Royal Agricultural Society, and in Professor Brown's Essay in the Bath Society's "Journal," 1861. Wet seasons, by favouring the development of the fluke, which produces liver rot, are the main causes of the disease, and there have been serious outbreaks of it after wet seasons—in 1735, 1747, 1766, 1792, 1809, 1817, 1824, 1830, 1853, 1860, and again in 1879. A dry, hot season, is the one thing necessary to arrest the ravages of the disease.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, if any alteration is made in the Returns issued for the assessment of property under the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act (but which are now in circulation), some modification should not be made in Questions 10, 11, and 13, so as to adapt them to the circumstances of the particular parish, it being not only useless but inconvenient to ratepayers to answer such questions in parishes where there is no Land Tax, where there has never been any Tithes, and where the amount of Sewers Rate varies from year to year, and can be easier ascertained by the rating authorities than by the ratepayers?

in reply, said, no alteration was intended to be made in the form of these Papers at present. The form must be general, and it would be impracticable to make separate forms for different parishes. No penalties would be incurred by leaving blank those particular questions not applicable to a person's case.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, To state the amount monthly paid for salaries and allowances to the officers employed on the Famine Commission, including the Secretariat and Establishment; also the amount paid to officers in India performing the duties of the Commissioners and Secretary?

Sir, the amount now being paid monthly for salaries and allowances to the officers employed on the Famine Commission in England is 10,777 rupees, besides a guinea a-week to a messenger. We do not accurately know the allowances paid in India to officers acting for the Commissioners who are in England; but they are given under the general rules of the Service, which prescribe that each officer so acting receives 20 per cent of the pay of the substantive appointment of the absentee. But as the absentee receives only two-thirds of his Indian salary while working for the Famine Commission in England, the saving so effected more than covers the allowances in India.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that in the course of the winter several persons have been drowned in attempting to land at Larnaca, and, whether the Government have taken or propose to take any steps for providing a safe landing-place there?

NO, Sir. No report of such an occurrence as that mentioned by the hon. Member has reached the Foreign Office, and no proposal to provide a new landing-place is before the Foreign Office.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he will make inquiries?

We have made inquiries. The fact of the hon. Member having asked the Question will draw the Commissioner's attention to the report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any fund out of which the widow of Ambrose Shelvey, the policeman who for so long a time did duty at the library door, and who had been nearly forty years in the police service, could obtain any pension or pecuniary gratuity; and, whether the widow would be entitled to any relief from the police fund, to which her husband had been compelled to contribute during the whole term of his service in the police force?

in reply, said, there was no Government fund out of which the widow of Ambrose Shelvey could obtain a pension; but she would be entitled to a sum of £38 out of the Police Fund, and if there were any children, they would have a claim on the orphanage belonging to the force.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is his intention to order an inquiry into the loss of the "Strelna," wrecked off the Vickerland, near Antwerp, on the 2nd of January 1880, and which is said to have had on board 1,100 tons of linseed, although she appears to be of only 664 tons burden; and, if the inquiry will be directed to ascertain whether the said linseed was in bulk or in bags, and, if in bulk, whether any and, if so, what amount of shifting boards were employed to prevent the shifting of the cargo?

Sir, the hon. Gentleman appears to have been incorrectly informed when he states that the Strelna was lost, as I am assured that she is at this moment in a dry dock at Antwerp. The accident which befell her seems to be very simply explained, and appears to have had nothing what' ever to do with her cargo. She was bound from Eiga for Antwerp, and completed her sea voyage in safety. On arrival off the river there was so much ice that it was unsafe for her to proceed up, and she put into Flushing Dock, where she remained for a fortnight, and on the navigation being resumed she left in charge of a Belgian official pilot, who appears to have run her ashore on the banks, which were not clearly discernible owing to the river having overflowed them. As far as our information goes, the accident appears to have been simply the result of an error on the part of the pilot, and to be in no way connected with the ship, or her cargo, or the conduct of her officers. In these circumstances, the Board of Trade would not be justified with their present information in ordering an inquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the ship "Harter," brought before the magistrates of Southport on a charge of overloading, and in which the magistrates inflicted a penalty of only five pounds; and, whether he will give instructions in future cases to press for a more adequate penalty, one which shall at least amount to the extra freight earned by the overloading complained of and proved?

Sir, I am informed by my legal advisers that this was not what is legally termed a case of "over-loading," an indictable offence which cannot be dealt with summarily, but a case of allowing "the ship to be so loaded as to submerge in salt water the centre of the disc," the penalty for which is one not exceeding £100. The crew had all been discharged before proceedings could be commenced, and the men, who left the vessel at New York, and upon whose complaint the Consul reported the facts, had not returned to the United Kingdom, so that the Board of Trade had only to rely upon the master's admissions, and could not press the case against him, as might have been done in other circumstances. It was, however, considered important to obtain a conviction, even with a nominal penalty. If it should be found hereafter that heavier penalties are needed to secure obedience to the law, I have no doubt that we shall press for a heavier penalty. But it must always be remembered that the amount of the penalty is in the discretion of the Court, and that pressing for a heavier penalty may in some cases lose a conviction. The management of these cases is one of discretion, and I can give no pledge whatever, except that I shall take such steps as I think most likely to secure that the law shall be obeyed, and that the intentions of Parliament shall be carried out.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If any more energetic and satisfactory steps have recently been taken by the Railway Companies to provide their trains with continuous brakes answering the requirements of the Board of Trade; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the policy indicated in August 1878, that further action must be taken in that respect to compel the adoption of measures for the protection of the travelling public?

Sir, I can hardly say that the steps taken by the Railway Companies as to continuous brakes have been as energetic and as satisfactory as I could wish, for up to the present time only 1,114 out of 4,833 engines, and 11,302 out of 40,651 carriages, &c., in use, have been fitted with continuous brakes. Of these, 288 engines and 2,441 carriages, or 6 per cent, were fitted during the year 1878. In 1879 the progress was not very great, though it is slightly in excess of 1878—that is to say, 352 engines and 2,912 carriages, or 7 per cent, were fitted during that year. I cannot hold that these figures show any very rapid action. It is fair, however, to observe that the constant improvements which are being made in continuous brakes explain to a certain degree the hesitation of the Companies in coming to a decision on this matter, and they also certainly show how inexpedient it would be that Parliament, unless absolutely compelled by the want of action on the part of the Companies, should lay down a rule as to the adoption of some particular form of brake.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has seen a statement of the abandonment of the S.S. "Hindoo" in mid-ocean, the crew of which numbered fifty men, who were providentially saved from drowning by a passing steamer; if he is aware that the said ship carried upwards of 20,000 bushels of wheat, 5,000 bushels of peas, and 57,811 bushels of maize (Indian corn); and, whether he can inform the House what portion of the above quantities of grain was in bulk, and what portion was in sacks or bags?

Sir, the Hindoo was abandoned on a voyage from New York, and the survivors have been taken to New York. I sent a telegram to the Consul General at New York some days ago to obtain and send homo full particulars, and also to send home the witnesses. I have already ordered an inquiry to be held in London, and until that inquiry has been held I am not in a position to give further information.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table, and issue to Members with the promised Report, the evidence given at the inquiries, respecting the proposed new regulations for lights for fishing vessels, held at Great Yarmouth, Grimsby, Hull, Brixham, and Penzance?

Sir, no evidence was taken down on the spot by the Commission that made inquiry as to the proposed new regulations for lights for fishing vessels. I am informed by the Commissioners that the most important evidence they had was in the form of conversation with the fishermen and a personal inspection of the boats and the lights. It is not in my power, therefore, to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, which otherwise I would have been glad to do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before concluding his negotiations with the London Water Companies, he obtained Reports and Estimates from competent engineers of the probable cost of extra works, if any, required to give an adequate constant supply of pure water on the transfer of the various undertakings; a similar estimate for works having the same object during the period covered by the proposed payments of deferred stock, and a Report and Estimate of the cost of establishing entirely new works adequate to afford such a supply over the area served by the existing Companies; and, if such Reports and Estimates have been obtained, whether he will lay them upon the Table?

Sir, of course, all these questions were matters which had to be very carefully considered; and if the Bill had gone into Committee, I should then have been prepared by evidence, before the Committee, to have shown actually what would have been the estimated cost and expenses of these matters. They are not in such a form as could be placed on the Table of the House, nor at the present moment do I think it would be conducive to the public interest that they should be laid upon the Table. But whenever the Bill gets into Committee, if it ever does get into Committee, I will take care that all these matters are laid before it.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he could not give any Return on the subject? He understood the day before that a Return would be given, although in a slightly altered form, and he had been expecting that Return from the Home Office.

If the hon. Baronet will allow me, I will communicate with him in reference to this matter before the close of the evening, and explain my views upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, In what position the new Water Bill (Metropolis) now stands; and, whether it would not be better to withdraw such Bill at once, seeing that there in not any chance of its being passed before the dissolution of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) a day or two ago, that the Bill would not appear upon the Paper again this Session. At present the public do not appear willing to pay the price at which alone the Companies are willing to sell, and therefore the matter will remain in abeyance. But I wish, with the permission of the House, to correct a few errors which appear to prevail as to what I said on two points in connection with the Water Bill. I am reported to have said that there would be a saving of £50,000 in the year 1880 from the consolidation of the staff and in engineering operations. What I believe I did say was that there would be a saving of £50,000 owing to the basis on which the income of the Companies in that year was calculated, and the abolition of directors' fees, besides the saving by consolidation of staff and in engineering operations, which is variously computed at from £75,000 to £100,000. Secondly, as to the impression which appears to prevail that the ratepayers will not be consulted, I do not understand how this impression could have got abroad. The whole object and end of the Bill was that the ratepayers should be brought into the same Committee-room as the Companies, and that they should have every opportunity of pressing their views on the Committee for rejecting the Bill if they thought it was not beneficial to them. Should the matter again come forward, the ratepayers may rest assured that they will be duly consulted, and have ample opportunity of making their views felt.

May I ask a Question also of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill, which, if more convenient, I will put down for Thursday? It is, Whether any steps could be taken before any legislation takes place with regard to the Water Companies to prevent any alteration in the relative position of those Companies and the public in the interval? I mean, for instance, precautions that the Water Companies should not again raise their rates upon the public before the next valuation, and then make that raising of the rates a further argument for an increased price when fresh negotiations were opened. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state anything now to the House, or whether he would on Thursday be able to make a statement as to whether it is possible by a short clause, or by any other means, to endeavour to maintain the status quo in regard to these Water Companies?

I cannot answer that Question to-day; but on Thursday I shall be able to do so.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, should the honourable Member for Chester fail to bring on his question as to the liability of railway employers to compensate workmen injured in common employment, he will give facilities for the discussion of the question of providing, under legislative sanction, insurance funds to meet all cases of injury and death by accidents, however caused, in the conduct of all our national industries alike?

Mr. Speaker, the Question rather surprises me, because I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) has his Notice down for to-night, and I presume if he can he will proceed with it. I think it would have been better to first ask him whether he had any intention to give up his Motion; but even if he did give up his Motion, I do not think I could give any facilities such as the hon. Member suggests. I shall have to be asking for facilities myself.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in reference to the recent death of a Captain in the 16th Lancers, he has directed an inquiry to be made into the sanitary state of the new Officers' Quarters in Preston Barracks, Brighton, as regards ventilation, drainage, and water supply; and, if so, with what result?

in reply, said, that inquiries had been made by the War Office, and the Report received from the medical officers was that the sanitary condition of the officers' quarters was very good; but that there were some slight defects which were being remedied.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government would make arrangements to supply great coats on loan to those Volunteers who are intending to take part in the march out to Brighton at Easter?

said, that before the Secretary of State for War answered that Question, perhaps he would allow him to put another on the same subject. Paragraph 419 of the Volunteer Regulations of 1878 provided that no Volunteer demonstration should take place at any place between the period of the issuing of a Writ for an election and the return of a Member to Parliament, and he wished to know what affect that regulation would have on the forthcoming Dissolution and the holding of the Review?

Sir, perhaps I had better answer the Question put by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) first. Under the existing Regulations, which are based on the recommendations of the Volunteer Committee, great coats are allowed without expense to Volunteers only while in camp and under canvass, and otherwise the issue of great coats, except on payment, is invariably refused. Volunteers can purchase the great coats on the same terms of payment as are charged in the case of other clothing. We have 15,000 of these great coats, which could be purchased by the Volunteers on the same conditions as their other clothes; but if great coats were to be called for and supplied on all occasions of marches out and reviews it would lead to a considerable expense, because new coats once issued for this purpose could only be issued again as part worn. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton), it will be my duty, in answer to that Question, to make a statement that causes me some regret. I am sorry to say that the Dis- solution of Parliament announced yesterday will very materially influence the question of the proposal to hold a Volunteer Review on Easter Monday next. Under the Volunteer Regulations that have been laid down, the Volunteer corps are not allowed to assemble for any purpose whatever between the period of the issue of a Writ and the termination of an election, at the place at which headquarters are situated; and it is possible that the proceedings connected with the election may be going on in some—very few—boroughsonEasterMonday. Moreover, if troops of the Regular Forces should take part in the Review, as was anticipated, the Volunteers would be liable to the Army Discipline Act, and would then come under the 18th of Viet., c. 2, which makes it illegal for them to assemble within two miles of any city or place on the days of nomination, election, or polling. There is the possible alternative, of course, of allowing the Volunteers to assemble without any of the Regular officers or troops—that is to say, under their own commanders; but this would seem very inadvisable. But there also arose the further question whether, if the Review were held, they would not run the risk of failure by Volunteers who were electors absenting themselves for the purpose of attending the elections in their own boroughs. On the whole, in view of the legal and other difficulties, I have come to the conclusion, though with great reluctance, that it would be desirable to postpone the Review. If, however, any general desire is expressed to hold the Review at Whitsuntide, the War Office authorities will, no doubt, be ready to grant the same facilities as we were prepared to have granted with regard to the intended Review at Easter.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course is proposed to be taken with respect to the Committees on Private Bills between this and the Dissolution? I believe that in in some cases the companies and the parties to those Bills have brought up witnesses at great expense; and it is desirable that some arrangement should be made by which quorums may be formed for the purpose of proceeding with the various measures. Otherwise there will be great difficulty in getting a quorum of Members to attend these Committees.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to put another one to him. As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given any Notice this evening in regard to Public Business, and I should, therefore, like to ask him, whether he intends to make any proposal to the House with reference to what he mentioned yesterday as to the intention of the Government to appropriate some further portion of the time of the House for urgent Government Business?

Sir, with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) I will state, in the first place, that it will be necessary to propose and pass certain Orders with regard to the suspension of Private Bills. I have in my hand the Orders which were passed on the 11th of April, 1859, when a Dissolution was imminent, and those Orders, with some modifications which will be necessary to suit the altered circumstances which have arisen since that time, will be proposed and submitted to the House in the course of a day or two. But these have reference to the resumption in the next Parliament of Private Bills which are suspended, and they do not touch the question to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention, as to what should be the proceedings of Committees at the present moment. I apprehend with regard to those, that the case of each Committee will probably differ from that of other Committees. In some cases it may be desirable to complete the inquiry which is pending; while in others it may be desirable to suspend, or not to commence, an inquiry. Probably the best way will be that each Committee should be dealt with upon the merits of the case as represented by the Chairman of the Committee. But I would call attention to a Resolution which was agreed to last Session. It is as follows:—

"That in case a Committee on any Private Bill or group of such Bills shall report their opinion to the House that any Bill or Bills not yet considered by them should not he entered upon, or that the consideration of any Bill partly considered should not be proceeded with, all further proceedings on such Bill or Bills shall be suspended during the present Session."

Some such Resolution as this will probably be proposed to the House. I will confer with the Chairman of Ways and Means and with the authorities of the House, and I will lose no time in making a Motion on what I know is a most important matter. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, I said last night that I proposed to make a Motion to-day for giving Government Orders precedence on certain days during the remainder of the Session. Of course, I am anxious to interfere as little as possible with the arrangements of the House generally, and, on looking carefully into the position of the different measures which are to be brought forward, I found that there was nothing for to-day of an urgent character. The step which will have to be taken with regard to the Ways and Means Bill is merely a formal one at the end of the evening, and there is no Government Business for to-morrow which could not be well disposed of at the end of Wednesday's Sitting. Therefore, I have had no occasion to ask for either Tuesday or Wednesday of this week. With regard to Friday, however, I think it will be necessary for us to ask the House to sit at 2 o'clock on that day, in order to make progress with our Business. Next week I shall ask for Tuesday and Wednesday. I will give Notice of that.

I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear up a difference of opinion which has arisen on a matter of some importance. I and other hon. Members understood the right hon. Gentleman to say yesterday that, not only would the House be dissolved on the 23rd instant, but that the Writs would be issued on that day. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to stating precisely when the Writs will issue?

Sir, the answer which I gave yesterday was that I had stated, some little time ago, that I thought the House would rise on the 23rd instant, and that, as advised, I did not see any reason to depart from that expectation. I still think it probable that the Dissolution will take place on the 23rd; but the day when it is contemplated that the Writs should issue is Wednesday, the 24th.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could afford an opportunity, before the Dissolution, for a discussion on the general situation in Afghanistan?

No, Sir.

Sir, I will venture to appeal to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who has in charge a Bill on the subject of vaccination, which stands first on the Orders of the Day for to-morrow, and which raises points of some complexity and difficulty. I would ask him, whether he thinks it expedient to proceed with the measure under existing circumstances? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the question of the advantages and disadvantages attendant on the use of animal lymph, which have been long engaging the attention of the Local Government Board, are receiving fresh illustration by experiments now going on.

I think it is perfectly evident that my Bill has no chance of becoming law this Session; and under the circumstances, I am afraid neither the House nor the country would care very much for any discussion which would take place, and which would lose much of its practical character, especially as I understand the Local Government Board is willing to test the proposals I have made. I will not inconvenience the House by going on with it.

said, he was prevented from being in his place yesterday when the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned a Motion which stood in his name. At the beginning of the Session he was given to understand that the House would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Afghan War. He had now received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a communication to the effect that, should he consider it necessary to bring forward the subject of the expenses of the Afghan War, the most convenient opportunity for raising that question would be on the Report of the Budget Resolutions. He wished to know when that Report would be taken; would it be at the Morning Sitting on Friday?

I think, probably, that would be the most convenient time.

in rising to call attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners on Railway Accidents, respecting Compensation to Railway Servants injured in the performance of their duty; and to move—

"That the exceptional character of the services performed and dangers incurred by Railway Servants in the discharge of their duty calls for the immediate and special attention of Her Majesty's Government; and that this House is of opinion that a change in the Law is required, by which, notwithstanding the legal doctrine of common employment, adequate compensation shall be secured to Railway Servants in all cases of injury to which they have not personally contributed."

said: In introducing the important Resolution which I venture to bring forward to-night, I am, I hope, fully sensible of the very great difficulty of the large question which may appear to be raised by it, as well as of the delicacy required in endeavouring to separate from that large question the particular matter to which I desire to direct the attention of this House. It is a subject which must be approached with great care, with very grave consideration, and, if I may venture to say so, with perfect temper; and although I do not find upon the Notice Paper evidence that this perfect command of temper is absolutely universal, I shall endeavour in such remarks as I have to make to address myself simply to the question of public interest, and to consider the matter as if no such thing existed on the face of the earth as either the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), or the Amendment of which he has given Notice. The special grounds which, as it appears to me, entitle this House and those who have studied the question to separate the case of the railway servants from the ordinary employés in other pursuits are briefly these—The first of them is, that the Railway Companies, whose liability is our present consideration, are virtually possessed of an enormous monopoly—the greatest monopoly which has ever existed in this country. Their possession of that monopoly is, I believe, entirely for the public advantage, and that is not a matter on which I desire to provoke any public controversy. I shall be one of the first to acknowledge that the way in which they have administered the great interests entrusted to their charge has been satisfactory, and that they have been actuated quite as much by public as by private motives in the performance of their obligations. But, in reality, the Railway Companies of this country are the possessors of a practical monopoly of the carrying trade, both in regard to passengers and goods, and that fact appears to me to place them in a perfectly different position from any other trader who does not fulfil the same conditions. When we come to examine the origin of this monopoly, we find that in every particular case it has been created by statute. The Railway Companies are the creatures of Parliament. The property which they possess, the powers which they exercise, the rights which they enjoy, the profits which they receive, are, all of them, created, regulated, and directed by the action of the Legislature. I do not know that there is any other commercial enterprize in this Empire which is at all to be compared with them in this respect, unless you take, perhaps, the case of some of the Gas and Tramway Companies. No doubt, there are other public companies which exercise similar rights under statute. No doubt, there are Water Companies and other bodies which enjoy the same powers; but it is not the universal rule that these Gas Companies or Water Companies are created by the action of Parliament. We are, all of us, familiar with Companies of that description, which are not in any way based upon Acts of Parliament; and although the rule may be that they come to Parliament for compulsory powers, which it is convenient for them to have, it cannot be said that the water enterprize or the gas enterprize of this country depends, as the railway enterprize does, wholly on the sanction and initiative of Parliament. Well, Sir, I think that having stated these two distinctive characteristics of the railway enterprize of this country, I shall have made out my case for regarding it from a somewhat different point of view from that of other employers of labour, whose trades have grown up with the growth of the nation, and have been practised from the earliest days, not merely of our history, but of all civilization. I think there is, however, a more important consideration still behind. If it were to be shown that any other body possessed the same mo- nopoly, and a monopoly created in the same manner, it would, I think, be exceedingly difficult for any such body—and I do not know of one that could put in the same claim—it would be exceedingly difficult for such a body to occupy the same position in regard to the public safety as that which is occupied by our Railway Companies. The Railway Companies are the custodians of a great deal of removable property. Her Majesty's subjects travel in every part of the Empire in enormous numbers by their means. They take, I should be the first to confess, extraordinary and most successful precautions to protect the lives and limbs of those of whom they have the care; but the fact is, I think, indisputable that they are more concerned in preserving the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects than any other industry that exists in the country. I shall be told, perhaps, that mines are much more frequently the cause of death and injury to the persons employed in them than railways; but, so far as mines are concerned, they affect only the persons employed. They do not affect the lives or the personal safety of persons who are not in actual employment in them. Therefore, the position which I wish to take up tonight is, that the change of the law I am desirous of recommending is not merely a matter of the interest and the advantage of the railway servants, but that it is, in a very large degree, a matter of public interest, and that public interest is very greatly concerned in the better and more effectual protection of the lives and limbs of the servants of the Railway Companies. It is very easy to regard this question either from the point of view of a railway director or a railway servant, and nothing can be more convenient than to take either of those views. But I do not ask the House to approach the matter from one point of view or the other. If I were merely endeavouring to make out a case—and I think a very strong case might be made out—from the point of view of the interests of the railway servants, I should not, at all events, satisfy myself. What I wish this House to see in the course of the discussion is that this is a matter not merely in the interests of the railway servants, but of the interest of the public, which is inseparable from the due protection and security of those who serve them on railways. Well, Sir, the particular Re- port to which I desire to draw attention is the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Railway Accidents, which was issued in the year 1877. And the recommendation to which I wish to draw attention is, that in which they point out that, in spite of the doctrine of common employment, a case to their satisfaction has been made out for granting compensation for injury to railway servants in such cases as those in which the injuries might be occasioned by persons exercising delegated authority. I ask for particular attention to the words "delegated anthority," because in those words lies the whole gist of the matter. The Commissioners, in 1877, made a general Report, and I am bound to say that one of the Commissioners, Mr. Harrison, who, I believe, was placed on the Commission as the special representative of the Railway Companies, and to whose entire fitness for the office the railway servants themselves bear full testimony—Mr. Harrison dissented from this part of the Report. The Commissioners were inclined to find in the condition of the railway servants a special ground of hardship in the doctrine of common employment, and they had put the matter, so far as that claim was concerned, on the ground of the remoteness of the connection between employer and employed. I think Mr. Harrison, in his Report, has shown that this is a ground which applies to all other important industries, and, in fact, to the service of all Companies. But there was another Report, a Report by Mr. Gait, who also was a Member of the Royal Commission, and who, having concurred in this particular recommendation to which I call attention, added a supplementary Report which covered all the ground, and in which occur these very remarkable words. He says—

"There is another point of view from which we may consider this subject—that of the public interest, apart from those of the railway servant. The interests of the Companies, no doubt, are, to a limited extent, identical with those of the public. It would not he to their interest to neglect the means of safety to such an extent as that the amount paid for compensation would exceed the sum necessary for the safe management of their traffic; hut, on the other hand, it is obviously their interest to avoid the heavy expense they would incur in making such changes conducive to safety in their management as have been recommended, where the cost of such changes would exceed the sum paid for compensation. The nearer the interests of the Companies can be approximated to those of the public, the management of the Companies will he proportionately better, and their liability to compensation as regards their servants must naturally have a tendency towards the attainment of that object. It may, no doubt, be said that compensation to servants, including the compensation to passengers in such cases as I have suggested, would fall very far short of the sum that would be required to effect the improvements recommended by the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade. That, no doubt, is the case; but still it would be a step in the right direction, and would, to some extent, lessen the divergence of interests now existing between the Companies and the public."

Now, Sir, I think it will be clear that the view which I have endeavoured, as well as I could, to put before the House is one very much better stated by Mr. Gait in his supplementary Report. He takes the ground that the public interest is closely identified with the improvement of the existing relations between the railway servants and their employers, and that these, therefore, possess a claim to consideration. Lord De La Warr has also published a separate Report. Since that time Lord De La Warr has been very active in making legislative proposals on this question. In the other House of Parliament Lord De La Warr has, on more than one occasion, propounded a Bill for dealing with all employés on the basis of the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners—namely, that of delegated authority. He introduced a Bill into the House of Lords last year. There is a Bill propounded by the same noble Lord before the House of Lords this year. There was a Bill before this House last year, brought in by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) which substantially affirmed the same principle, although it was expressed in slightly different language. I admit that the difficulty of the position has not been greatly reduced by the introduction of these two measures, and I will tell the House why. The Government, last year, introduced a Bill dealing with the general liability of employers. That Bill was introduced into this House. It was based, I believe, mainly upon the recommendations of a Committee of this House which sat in the previous year, although it does not embody the views of the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Mr. Lowe), who proposed, in his Report, a very much bolder, and, I think, a more satisfactory mode of dealing with the question than that which was adopted by the Committee. But the Government introduced their measure, and their measure was that a liability should rest upon public Companies or upon employers generally for the acts of any superintending official as distinguished from the acts of any persons possessing "delegated authority." People not acquainted with the subject may say they fail to grasp the full difference between the two positions; but I think it will be apparent to anybody as soon as the subject is explained. The object was to meet the case of all employments, and I am not prepared to say that the Government could have gone further in dealing with the case of many or most employments. It is exceedingly difficult to introduce any change into recognized law, and particularly in regard to a system which has come to be one of the conditions of our commercial enter-prize, and which must affect all the industries of the land. I do not blame the Government for having stopped short at enforcing the liability of employers at the point of a superintendent official when they came to deal with employés generally. On the other hand, I am disposed to think that Lord De La Warr and the hon. Member for Hastings were right as far as the railway interest was concerned, although I cannot fail to see the difficulty of applying their principle to all commercial undertakings generally. I think that while the principle of Lord De La Warr and the hon. Member for Hastings might be thoroughly applicable to the case of railway servants alone, embodying as it does, in a legitimate form, the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, I should not be prepared to say that it would be well for the commercial enterprize of the Kingdom at large if such a measure were made the basis of a general change of the law. Therefore, it is without any intentional disrespect to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), that I have been particularly anxious to bring the case of the railway servants specially before the House, because I think that if we take action upon the recommendations of the Railway Accidents Commission under the special circumstances to which I have adverted, it may be comparatively easy to deal with the question as regards the railway servants. In this instance, you would be supported by the recommendation of the Commissioners, while I admit that it would be a matter of extraordinary difficulty to proceed on the same lines in regard to the liability of employers generally. I have been pressed to postpone the consideration of this question until the general question of employers' liability could be considered, and therefore it is that I have been particularly anxious to avail myself of this opportunity of pointing out how far I think this particular interest is to be severed from other interests. Having indicated, then, what seems to me to be the confusion engendered by the rival projects, I would ask the House to consider for a moment the Memorials presented by the railway servants to the Royal Commission, upon which the Royal Commissioners proceeded to come to the conclusion which I have stated. There were two Memorials before the Royal Commissioners. The first was one presented by the inspectors, engine-drivers, firemen, guards, shunters, pointsmen, porters, and platelayers employed on British railways; and, among other things, it says—

"These Returns, which are by the Companies classed under the latter head, we contend are in many instances put down to erroneous causes."

Perhaps, before I come to this, I had better state that there are Returns, issued by the Board of Trade, which classify the deaths caused to railway servants as well as to passengers, according to the circumstances of each particular case, and state whether the persons injured or killed were in any way responsible for the accident. There is, however, a question between the employés, who have presented this Memorial, and the Railway Companies who employ them, as to how far the Returns presented by the Companies, returning as they do only a small portion of deaths and injuries as being occasioned by causes beyond the control of the persons killed or injured, are absolutely correct. I do not think there is any intention on the part of the railway servants to impute to the Railway Companies any desire to misrepresent the facts, or to give inaccurate Returns. But, in dealing with any question of this sort, it is quite clear that there may be differences of opinion as to the circumstances which led to a particular death; and it is not, I think, much to be wondered at that many cases should be put down by the Railway Companies as having been caused by their servants' default,?which the servants, on the other hand, think were caused by the default of the Companies. For instance, there are cases of death which have occurred among railway servants where the death did not occur until some time subsequent to the accident which occasioned it. If death takes place at once, a Coroner's jury sits, an inquest is held, a verdict is returned, and a man is reported to have been killed, either by his own fault or the fault of somebody else, as the case may be. But if the man is only injured, he may linger for months before he absolutely dies; but the death is due equally to the effects of the accident. Of such deaths no notice appears in these Returns. It is exceedingly probable, therefore, that without the smallest wish on the part of the Railway Companies to misrepresent the facts, there may be a considerable percentage of deaths and of injury which may have been caused by circumstances over which the parties most concerned had no control, although, in the eye of the Company, they were not occasioned by any fault on their part. I will now read an extract from the Memorial. The Memorialists say—

"These Returns, which are by the Companies classed under the latter head, we contend are in many instances put down to erroneous causes, and that in the majority of cases they are occasioned—1, by excessive hours of labour; 2, by the non-enforcement of certain of the Companies' rules ostensibly made for our protection; 3, by non-adaptation of the most approved appliances conducive to safety in the working of railways; 4, by the want of proper accommodations in working the traffic; 5, by the insufficient number of men employed."

Well, Sir, as I have said, there is a second Memorial. The second Memorial was presented from the railway servants generally. In that Memorial it is stated—

"By the Return of accidents to railway servants published by the Board of Trade, it is shown that 765 railway servants were killed and 3,618 were injured in the year 1875, and we venture to assert that of this number a very large proportion were so killed or injured from causes within the power of the Companies to prevent. Yet the sufferers have no legal claim for compensation, nor are the Railway Companies held responsible by the law for, or compelled to remove the causes of such accidents. We feel convinced that until a due responsibility for the safety of the servants be placed on the Railway Companies, by making' them liable for the loss occasioned to their servants by preventible accidents, there "will be little diminution in the number of railway servants yearly killed or injured. We, therefore, beg that the Commission will recommend to Parliament such an alteration in the law relating to the liability of employers for injuries to their servants as will make Railway Companies justly responsible to their servants."

I am very sorry, Sir, to be obliged to address the House at this length upon this question; but it is one of very great interest and of very great importance to the real welfare of the country. Therefore, I will venture to give the House two extracts—two only, and they are not very long ones—from the evidence of the railway servants who were examined before the Commissioners. The evidence of James Bridgeman is to be found at page 67 of the Royal Commission. Bridgeman was an engine-driver on the Rhymney line, and I give this extract in order to show what the railway servants say with respect to the danger to themselves occasioned by excessive labour. James Bridgeman, an engine-driver on the Rhymney line, said—

"I have been four years in the employment of the Company; on day duty a fair average of our ordinary hours of labour is from 13 to 17 or 18 hours, and at night 14 hours. The longest time I have worked in one week was 109 hours: that was in six days."

Almost as bad as the case of a Member of Parliament.

"I did no work on Sunday. That was not an exceptional case. In winter it is a continual thing, because there are so many delays, and we have such inclines to work from, snow, and other things, which block us up. We say to the boys who come to call us to go out on duty—'We shall not go out to-day,' and they say we must go out, and if we refuse we stand the chance of being discharged. I have worked on an average 17 hours a-day; my wife and my wife's sister have been one on each side of me, holding mo up and shaking me, and trying to get me to eat my supper, and perhaps I have not been two hours in bed. Sometimes I have been less than an hour in bed when the boy has come to call me up again. In the winter time it is dark when we start in the morning, and we have the same work to do as we have when we start in the summer at daylight, and the same miles to run. I have fallen to sleep when going along the road. We have sometimes to stand for 20 hours."

Well, Sir, I think this gives us a graphic picture of what may be understood by overwork, and I think it is not a difficult matter to understand now how danger may be incurred to the public generally when it is possible to call on a man to do that amount of work. The next case is, perhaps, even a more painful one; it is the case of Frederick Harcombe. Frederick Harcombe said—

"I am goods guard on the Taff Vale Hail way. I have to take on traffic at different sidings, and leave it at various places according to invoices. Our hours vary to a great extent; sometimes we have to work 20 hours at a stretch. I shall take the work of last week, which would be a favourable week as regards finishing work early. On Monday, the 23rd August, I was on duty at 3.25 in the morning and left off at 8.10 in the evening; Tuesday, 6.30 a.m. to 3.50 p.m.; Wednesday, 4.40 a.m. to 1.30 the following morning; Thursday, 12.30 p.m. to 2.15 a.m.; Friday, no work; Saturday 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. The last day's work was a bit easier than general. It has been sometimes 11 or 12 o'clock when I have arrived at the docks. I have a deal of active work at the stations and sidings; the shunting, coupling, and uncoupling at stations I do all myself, as the brakesman as a regular duty has to go back 800 yards to stop a following train. The week I have given is a fair sample of ordinary work; another might be a little heavier. In working these long hours, 16,18, or 20 hours, one has a difficulty in keeping awake, nor should I be able if I had not such responsible duties to perform. We have formed deputations on different occasions to our superiors to tell them our duties could be so arranged that our hours of work would be more regular day by day; I told Mr. Fisher that I had been at work excessively long hours, and that I required a rest. Our general proposition is that we ought not to work more than 10 or 12 hours a-day. On that single trip to Merthyr on Thursday I made 18 hours and some odd minutes. If it could be so arranged that we should only go a single trip a-day these long hours would be avoided. It is not fair to make us work 18 hours one day and 6 or 8 hours the next, nor getting rest for one day to work 20 hours the next. I could refer to cases when the work was much heavier than I have stated, I have worked from the time I went on duty till the time I went off, without a break, 23 hours and 40 minutes. The Company should have more men, and not overwork the men they have. I have seen many young men come and stop a few days and then go away as if they had enough of it. I do not think you can mention a line in the United Kingdom where there are more accidents to the men employed than on ours, especially in shunting, there being such a lot of work. There is a rule which prohibits us from getting on a train while it is in motion in shunting, but I have been told by our traffic superintendent that the rules are only a matter of form. There is a rule that if a servant meets with an accident through disobedience of the Company's rules he shall not be entitled to receive any support from the accident fund, but I never knew any objection raised where the accident happened through fly-shunting."

The particular reason why I call attention to this case is that Frederick Har- combe, who gave this evidence before the Royal Commission, was discharged by the Company in whose service he was; and, I believe, although he tried some other five Railway Companies, he found it impossible to obtain employment in his profession.

I rise to Order. Will the hon. Gentleman give his authority for making that last statement?

I can only say that it was so stated by one of the witnesses before the Royal Commission, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with my authority when I have an opportunity of referring to it. This may, perhaps, account for the fact that there were not a greater number of witnesses of this class examined before this particular Commission. But I do not wish even the hon. Member for Hythe to understand that I am condemning the Railway Companies for not fixing regular hours, as this witness thinks they should. Every man must be called on at times to work extra hours. But, at the same time, the public have a fair right to ask the Railway Companies to take special care not to work men, as far as they can help it, beyond the power of human endurance, and render them liable to occasional accidents, and cause death to the public or injury to themselves thereby. Of course, we know that a railway servant's life is one of very great danger, and must remain one of very great danger in spite of anything which we can do, from circumstances over which the Companies can have no control. Take the case of John Chiddy, which was brought before the House some years ago. John Chiddy was a platelayer on the Bristol and Exeter line, and while at his work he saw a piece of rock had fallen across the line and a train approaching. The train would inevitably have been upset, but he gallantly rushed to the spot, and succeeded in removing the obstruction and in saving the train, although in doing so he sacrificed his own life. No one can say that the occurrence was the fault of the Company, and I have no doubt that there are many cases in which railway servants have been prepared to make great exertions in the interests of their employers without any hope of compensation or reward. There is another case which I may mention, the case of a man well known in the city in which I have lived for a great part of my life. When I was a boy there was a serious accident at the Dee Bridge in Chester. One half of the bridge came down with the train in 1846 or 1847. The driver of the train escaped with one van. He flew along the line to the station about a mile off, having given information there, he reversed the engine and crossed the river on the other half of the broken bridge in order to give the alarm on the other side. Deeds of this nature are as heroic as anything that can occur in history. But no one will say that if this man had lost his life the Railway Company would have been in any sense responsible. We hear much of recklessness and carelessness on the part of railway servants by which they frequently lose their lives. But in many instances the disposition thus characterized is very nearly akin to the very noblest qualities which dignify human nature. I have now to ask the House to bear in mind the Reports of two previous important authorities who have considered this question. There was a Royal Commission appointed in 1865 to consider the question of Railway Accidents, and a Committee of this House sat in 1870 to consider the same question. Both inquiries contributed in an important degree to the information of the public, but both differed from the Royal Commission of 1877 in affirming the very important principle of a maximum of liability, which, in their opinion, ought to be incurred by the Railway Companies. It always appeared to me—I do not want to discuss the question at length—that Railway Companies are exceedingly hardly dealt with in the matter of unlimited damages under Lord Campbell's Act. I certainly cannot see the justice of the principle as it now operates. Take the case of two men called to the Bar. They might both be men of the highest character and the highest talent. Both are travelling in the same train. They might both be Members of this House going down into the country by the Great Western Railway to address their constituents at a General Election. One of these men might have devoted his great abilities to the service of mankind in particular as an advocate, the other might have devoted his abilities to the service of mankind in general as a pamphleteer or publicist. These two men travel in the same train and sit side by side in the same carriage. Both in the same calamity might be killed, and the Railway Company might have to pay to the representatives of the one who was earning a professional income of £10,000 a-year a sum of £100,000, while the representatives of the other man, although he was of equal ability, would not get a shilling. Again, in case one of these men happened to be a bachelor, the Railway Company might kill him without being called upon to pay anything in the shape of damages; whereas if the other man happened to be a married man, his family would recover whatever a jury might be pleased to assess. I mention this to show the great inequality and injustice of the law in imposing almost unlimited liability upon the Railway Companies so far as passengei'3 are concerned. Well Sir, the Royal Commission of 1865, and the Committee of 1870, recommended that there should be a maximum of liability for injury done or life lost in the case of passengers, and I find that the hon. Member for Hastings, in the Bill which he introduced last year, adopted that principle with regard to railway servants, fixing the limit at the sum of £200. There is another basis on which we are entitled to go, and that is the case of the workmen's trains. The law has sanctioned the principle of fixing in regard to workmen's trains a maximum of liability, and I think it is fixed in most cases at £100. The hon. Member for Hythe will correct me if I am stating the matter in any way inaccurately; but I think that the workmen's trains are run at a maximum liability of £100 in case of an accident. [Sir EDWARD WATKIN: On the Metropolitan.] So that the principle of a maximum liability has been affirmed by Parliament. There are three ways suggested for dealing with the question. There is the simplest and easiest, which is to leave it alone. The second is to adopt the principle laid down by the Royal Commission, and not merely to adopt the principle, but to put it in practice by the Bills of Lord De La Warr and the hon. Member for Hastings; but the danger of that is the danger inseparable from excessive litigation and the injury necessarily caused to the recognized principle of common employment in other industries, which must be produced if one particular class of public servants is entitled to go into a Court of Law to obtain redress when other classes of servants are not equally entitled. I quite see the difficulty in both the first and the second of these courses. But then there is a third mode, and that is the mode which the hon. Member for Hythe calls attention in the second and perhaps the more valuable part of his Amendment—and that is the mode of insuring. Now, there are a great many Railway Companies who, although hon. Members may not know it, are very much concerned in introducing into their Acts most excellent clauses for the establishment of a superannuation and accident fund. One of these clauses, which I have in my hand, says that the directors of the Company may, if they think fit, establish and maintain an accident and life insurance fund, payable by temporary or periodical allowance in a gross sum to such of the Company's servants and workmen as may be temporarily or permanently disabled by accident. I think we have here the germ of much useful legislation; but it does not in my opinion go far enough, and it is permissive. It does not say that the Company shall, but that the Company may establish this insurance fund for accidents resulting in injury or death. In establishing these funds, if they are to be in any sense successful they must be secured by the cordial co-operation of the men, and a great number of the men dislike the clause, because they are already insured in other ways. They do not desire to avail themselves of the benefit of such a clause, because it would interfere with the arrangements they have made for their own security and would involve them in a double not like these clauses, and the Companies payment. That being so, the men do cannot enforce them. They are valuable, however, as indicating a wish to go forward in a right direction. What I desire to put to the House on this occasion is this—it appears to me that the principle on which the Royal Commissioners would act and upon which the hon. Member for Hastings has proposed to act is a sound one. In the case of Companies so peculiarly constituted and possessing such peculiar privileges as Railway Companies, special legislation is not only permissible, but even desirable. I think that in view of the public safety, it is incumbent on Parliament to take such steps for the protection of railway servants as may give greater security to the travelling public. I certainly do think that, seeing the exceptional nature of the dangers they incur and the services they perform, railway servants possess a claim for the consideration of the Government and of this House such as cannot in an equal degree be advanced on behalf of any other class. That being so, I would ask this House, bearing in mind the fact that this system of insurance has already in many cases been adopted, bearing in mind the high authority which has sanctioned the principle of the maximum of liability, bearing in mind that that maximum liability is already the established rule in the case of passengers by workmen's trains where the particular sum to be paid is assessed not by a jury, but by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, bearing in mind all these facts, it seems to me that a case is fairly made out for establishing a system by which railway servants, in cases where they are not shown to have contributed to loss of life or injury to limb by their own act—or their representatives, in fatal cases—should be entitled to receive from the Company a certain sum to be fixed at a maximum by Parliament, and to be assessed in cases of injury by a competent arbitrator in such a way as is provided in the case of workmen's trains, and that in cases of injury they should he able to obtain this compensation from the Company where it has been established that they have not themselves conduced to their own injury. But that is not all. From the Returns presented by the Board of Trade, and submitted to the Royal Commissioners, I find that the number of railway servants killed in the six years preceding 1878 were, in 1872, 644 killed, and 1,398 injured; 1873, 773 killed, and 1,171 injured; 1875, 765 killed, and an appalling total of 3,618 injured; 1876, 673 killed, and 2,600 injured; and 1877, 642 killed, and 2,163 injured. I confess that that Return shows that during the last two years there was a considerable decrease both in death and injury, owing probably to the laudable efforts made by the Railway Companies to prevent accident, and the excellent result of the appointment of the Royal Commissioners. Well, Sir, if we take the case of the year 1875, which is the only year I have here where the amounts are broken up, I find that out of 765 persons who were killed, the Railway Companies returned themselves as responsible for only 39, the rest being attributed to causes within the control of the sufferers; and 3,618 injured, of whom they returned only 514 as having been injured from causes beyond the control of the persons injured. Although I venture to call in question the perfect accuracy of these figures, disclaiming at the same time any disposition to impute a desire on the part of the Railway Companies to give inaccurate Returns, I may at all events say that the figures of the Companies are good against themselves; and if they say that out of this enormous number of killed and injured there were only 39 for whom they could be held at all responsible where death resulted, and only 514 out of 3,618 cases of injury, then I think we may fairly arrive at what would be the net result, supposing such a system of enforced insurance existed as that which I venture to propose. Supposing you fix the maximum liability for the killing of a railway servant at £200, and suppose you take the number of cases in the course of a year at even a higher figure than that which is set forth in this Return—suppose you say 50 instead of 39, it would cost the Companies £10,000 a-year. Taking 500 as the average number of railway servants injured by causes beyond their own control and striking a rough balance, you may say they would recover half the amount of the maximum or £100 a-piece, which is, I take it, a good deal above what the actual amount would be—suppose that a liability of £100 was incurred in the case of each of the 500 servants, you would have an annual responsibility of £50,000 under that head. If you add that £50,000 to the £10,000 for which the Companies would be responsible on account of deaths, you will arrive at a total annual charge of £60,000, which would represent the direct liability of the Railway Companies in such cases. But I do not wish to stop here. I would stop here as far as the liability of the Railway Companies is concerned; but I do not desire to stop here as a means of encouraging thereby saving and care in the railway servants themselves, because I think if you made a system of this sort the centre of a group of clauses to be introduced into every Railway Bill, and if you said—"Where you kill or injure a man you shall pay a sum so fixed and ascertained," and if you surrounded the servants themselves with a legal machinery which would enable men to insure themselves against these railway accidents, by which they could provide against such a calamity as that which befel the poor man Chiddy, you would encourage the men in the greatest possible degree to take care of themselves. If you could establish such a system, by which, with-out an expensive source of proceeding, and without having recourse to hungry attorneys, you would provide a short and expeditious remedy in all cases of death and injury; if you use that as the centre of a system by which you encourage habits of thrift, economy, and providence, I think you would go a long way towards solving one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal. Such is the nature of my proposal. I venture to offer these suggestions in all humility to the House. There are Gentlemen here whose knowledge of railway matters must always greatly exceed my own, and there are Gentlemen here who have given this subject great attention, not only from the directors' point of view, but from that of public duty. They may differ from me in opinion, but I hope they will be satisfied that I have not brought forward this question in any spirit of hostility to any commercial interest or undertaking. I have brought it forward, because I believe that a great public duty should be discharged by this House before the House ceases to sit; and I do sincerely trust that whether or not the House will adopt the proposal I venture to submit to it on this occasion, it will, at least, form the basis of an adequate consideration of what I believe to be one of our greatest social wants, and which I am certain must in every part of the House demand our warmest sympathy. I beg, Sir, now to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper.

in moving, as an Amendment—

"That while it might, on the eve of a General Election, serve party purposes in some boroughs to single out Railway industry for exceptional legislation, such a course would be contrary to precedent and be unsupported by the facts relating to accidents attending mechanical and other industrial employments, and that the question of accidents arising in the conduct of all the industries of the Country, whether from personal carelessness, defective control, or other causes, and the consequent premature death of and injury to probably 100,000 persons annually, demands the grave attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the adoption by Parliament of some general and adequate system of insurance, to the funds for which both the capitalist and the workman should contribute in just proportions,"

said, he had listened with very great attention to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), and certainly did not perceive that he either proved or attempted to prove the foundation of the proposition of this Resolution—namely, the exceptional and peculiar dangers and difficulties attending the working of railways. But if the working of railways was so exceptional and so dangerous, or whether it was so or not, the hon. Gentleman said all this called for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. Now, if he remembered rightly, the Railway Accidents Commission reported in February, 1877. It was strange that the hon. Member's anxiety to deal with this which he called a great question should only have awakened itself in his breast on the eve of a General Election. He (Sir Edward Watkins) was not like the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. He was simply a member of the hard-working world. He was not a lawyer. The best years of his life, from the beginning of railways till now, had been spent in railway work. He thought if anyone would go among the bodies of railway working men he had to employ, it would be seen that he had neglected nothing which could in any way promote the good of the railway working man for whose sobriety, intelligence, and zeal, he had the highest respect. And with regard to injuries and death caused by the neglect of a man's fellow-servant in a common employment, he had never looked at the Act of Parliament, but merely considered what was just and right and had always given compensation to the injured man, or to his family. The Railway Commissioners recommended that a Company should be "liable for the negligence of those to whom it delegated its authority as a master," but they did not go further than that. They "did not propose that railway Companies should be responsible to their servants, for the negligence of those who were in fact, as well as in law, fellow servants." The Railway Accidents Commissioners also recommended that the time for bringing actions should be limited. The hon. Gentleman, however, went further, and answered his own argument by differing with their Report. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had endeavoured to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government whether they were in favour of a general system of insurance applied to all industries or not. He had failed to learn from the hon. Member for Chester whether he was in favour of such an insurance or not. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was of opinion that insurance in some cases inflicted very great difficulty, if not intolerable wrong. If he read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford right we ought never to insure our property, for if we did we should be tempted to burn the property down; we ought never to insure lives, because lives would then be taken upon the shortest possible notice; and we ought not to insure ships, for no doubt the tendency of rotten ships was to go to the bottom. The hon. Member for Chester had failed in endeavouring to show that railway shareholders should be specially singled out for the infliction of a new and exceptional liability. The hon. Member, if he knew anything of industrial works, must know there were far more dangerous employments than railway employment. Many also where the human system was attacked by noxious elements. But, having rather a weak case, he tried to buttress it up by saying that railways were enormous monopolies. What that proposition had to do with the question he (Sir Edward Watkin) could not comprehend. He knew very well that there were only two or three towns where there were not two or more competing railways. There was no railway which was not competed with by roads, canals, and tramways. These railways, said the hon. Member, were a special, the only special creation of Parliament. He began to think he was dreaming when the hon. Member said that. What were the canals, the great enterprizes of the last century, but the creation of Parliament? What were the great roads of the country, the tramways or the ordinary roads, but the creation of Parliament? In fact, every enterprize which demanded the compulsory expropriation of private rights and private property was of necessity the creation of Parliament. Coming back to the question of public safety, he found that in the course of the year 277 persons were killed by accident in the streets of London, being 10 times as many as the whole number of railway passengers who were killed on all the railways in the Kingdom by causes beyond their own control. What the hon. Member desired to do was to inflict a tax of £60,000 per annum upon railway proprietors for the support of the families of those railway employés who were killed through the negligence of their fellow-servants. He maintained that this matter of the deaths by accident of railway employés was merely the fringe of the real question, which should include all casualties and fatalities necessarily arising out of our vast industries. While the proposal of the hon. Member would not affect the cases of one in 100 who were killed in the course of their work in carrying on those industries, his own proposal would deal with them all. The railway proprietors of the Three Kingdoms employed directly and indirectly about 400,000 persons. With reference to the two cases quoted by the hon. Member which occurred on railways in South Wales, he should like to ask the hon. Member whether those were fair samples of the evidence given before the Commission? The memorials alluded to by the hon. Member, also, as he must have known, were presented by a small section of the railway employés only. It must be remembered that it was to the interest of the railway employer to treat his servants well. A railway could not stop. It must go on in all weather and in all circumstances. In other enterprizes a strike could endure; on our railways it could not be thought of; and he considered that our railway servants were not only among the best paid, but amongst the most kindly considered of the working classes. Turning to the larger subject, if the hon. Member would examine the Report of the Registrar General of Births and Deaths, he would find that of the 18,500 persons who met with violent deaths every year, only some 1,283 were killed in connection with railways in any way, whether as passengers, or as being employed in the workshops, or in any and every other way. It was no less strange than true that correcting the figures by population, this ghastly total presented the same volume year after year. Accident leading to '' violent death" seemed to be an all but constant quantity, an element, therefore, which must be taken into account always in calculating the hopes and chances of life. And it was probable that for one person who died by accident, 20 were, more or less injured. Thus the appalling figure of 400,000 would represent the annual accident liability of this great industrial country. Against these figures he would place the 6,445 persons who died from what the Registrar called "mechanical injuries" other than those received in connection with railways and mines; also the 2,789 who died from "chemical injuries; also the 5,708 who died from "asphyxia; and the 1,974 who died from "falls." They had heard a good deal with regard to the danger of railway travelling; but it was a remarkable circumstance that the deaths resulting from horse conveyance for the year amounted to 1,522, while 1,043 persons were killed by what the Registrar classed as "fractures," apart from death by fracture on railways and mines. Although 61 persons were killed by agricultural machinery, the hon. Member had not brought forward any proposal for the protection of such persons. The figures showed that railway travelling was the safest mode of conveyance, and that railway servants enjoyed a greater immunity from accidents than many other employés. He trusted that the House would be of opinion that he had established a fair case against the Motion of the hon. Member. The groundwork of his whole proposition had been disproved. It appeared to him that the great value of insurance was—first, that it made the risk run a definite risk; secondly, that it was perfectly fair; and, thirdly, that by its being universal, it would give satisfaction to all. A high authority—Lord Shand, an eminent Scotch Judge—had expressed an opinion on this subject which conclusively proved that the Employers' Liability Bill was nothing more nor less than an attempt, whether for political or humanitarian purposes, to deal with a very small part of a very great question. Lord Shand said that the great majority of accidents that occurred were what were popularly called unavoidable accidents, or accidents which were naturally incident to the employment, and which were often caused by the negligence of the unhappy sufferer, who was, however, not the less entitled to sympathy on that account. None of the legislative measures proposed, he said, would in the least degree meet this, which he believed to be the largest class of accidents. There appeared to be one remedy which, in Lord Shand's opinion, was the only one which could be resorted to, and that was a system of insurance to be contributed to by both employers and workmen to guard against the contingencies of perilous employments. These were words of wisdom, which he would recommend to the consideration of the House. But the House would not have forgotten the decisive letters which were given to the public through the Press, on the whole subject, by one of our greatest lawyers, the Lord Justice Bram-well. The hon. Member for Chester scarcely did justice to the great class of employers in this country. The Railway Companies as a rule—he admitted that there were exceptions—the great colliery owners as a rule, the great manufacturers of metals as a rule adopted a system of insurance, to which they and their employés contributed, to provide for times of sickness and for funerals and accidents; and one of the great ironworks, the "Staveley," had received and distributed, since 1867, a total sum for insurance amounting to no less than £59,918. It was unjust to the great employers of labour to say that they neglected the just rights, or the wants, and sufferings of their people, and if one single interest, and that a defenceless body, was selected on the eve of a General Election for attack, cause should be shown why it should be so treated. Did the Government sympathize with that attack? He wished the hon. Member for Chester would have treated them to the political economy of the question. He would, however, venture to remind the House of the difference between a definite and an indefinite risk. The one was insurable, and therefore entered into the cost and the price of the thing done or produced. Thus the consumer paid it. But the other was uninsurable, and therefore was a tax upon capital. True, the hon. Member for Chester proposed to limit the compensation in case of death to £200. He (Sir Edward Watkin) did not know whether that would either satisfy the hon. Member for Stafford, or the railway servants at Chester. Why should not Her Majesty's Government aid those who had tried their hand at aiding themselves, who by agreement with their employers had established those insurance funds for a day of distress? If they frankly accepted the principle of insurance as laid down in his Amendment, then he admitted they would have a very good thing to go to the country with. In no other way, in his opinion, could they deal adequately with the question. The hon. Member had hinted rather than said something about great monopolies and great corporations. He would, however, be surprised to hear that there was a railway employé for every shareholder, and that the ordinary dividend of the ordinary stockholder was little more than the average sum paid to principal mechanics and signalmen on railways. He believed that a system of insurance, such as he had spoken of, would willingly be joined in by railway employés, and he commended the system to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There was no greater question of the day to be solved. If they took it in hand they would, he believed, find the employers of labour ready to help them in establishing a just and wise system, which would redound to their credit and be a great national benefit. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), said, he did so, not because he believed the Railway Companies to be defenceless bodies, but because he believed this to be a very important branch of a very difficult subject, and one which ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. Whether the interesting plan sketched out by his hon. Friend was likely to commend itself to the House he could not say; but he thought it was one which offered a chance of showing the wisest way to go, and one which would be most acceptable to railway employés themselves. He had never heard that railway servants desired more than to be relieved from the disability of being unable to claim compensation for injury received in the course of the service. The law had been so strained of late years that it was now held that a railway servant was not only responsible for his own acts, but was unable to obtain compensation for any act of a fellow-servant, whereby he sustained injury, provided the act was the result of negligence and was not wilfully committed. That was the injustice which was complained of. The Courts of Scotland had never interpreted the law so strictly against the workmen as the Courts in England; but in the year 1856 the House of Lords ruled that the same principle applied to both countries. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) asked why were the railway servants singled out—why were they not to deal with the whole question? The hon. Member for Hythe was pained that nothing was to be done for agricultural labourers and others. As to the interest which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) looked after, it was doubtful whether the mining industry would exist at all if the doctrine of common employ- ment were abolished. Yet the abolition of the doctrine of common employment would throw upon the shareholders the whole consequences of the men's carelessness. He was far from saying that miners had no case; and he was not grudging them legislation on a just basis. But he wished to show that, in asking for too much, the miners ought not to be surprised if Parliament did not allow the claims of others, who did not ask for too much, to be prejudiced as a consequence of the action of the miners. He believed the railway servants would be perfectly content with the doctrine of Common employment, if it could be so narrowed as to exclude those whose actions they were unable to control, and the consequences of whoso actions it was out of their power to evade. He could not understand why a private employer should be liable to a servant, while the company went scot free. He could not understand on what principle of justice it was that, if a man worked for a private employer, and in carrying out his orders he met with an accident, he knew to whom he had to go for compensation; while on the other hand, if the same man worked for a Company and met with an accident he found his masters vanish, to re-appear in the humble garb of follow-workmen. This was a parody of justice, and he only wondered it had lasted so long. It was no answer to say that the Railway Companies subscribed to this fund and to that fund. No doubt, the railway directors were very generous, and, no doubt, there was wisdom in their generosity. But the law knew nothing of generosity. The law ought to see that when railway officials asked for only that which was just, they should receive it without delay.

said, it must be understood his sympathies were with the railway servants. He owed his position, to a great extent, to railway men, and he always took their part when he could. But, in legislating on this question, there would be danger of doing the railway servants injury. It was well known that some Railway Companies were very liberal; but if Companies had to pay compensation when they were found to be in fault, there would be so much litigation and expense that the Companies would not, in other cases, give so much compensation voluntarily as they did at present. A large number of men were injured and killed without it being either their own fault or that of the Company. Shunters slipped and were run over; platelayers stepped aside to avoid one train and were killed by another. If Companies were exposed to litigation in other cases, they would show less sympathy in these. It was hardly fair to quote the Taff Vale Company's line, as the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) had done. It was one of the best worked lines in the country; it had a smaller percentage of accidents than other lines in proportion to the amount of traffic, and. in 45 years it had never killed a passenger, until the unfortunate accident at Ponty-prid a few months ago. If men worked long hours, it was but occasionally and in exceptional circumstances. A storm kept ships out of port; a calm brought in a number of steamers which required coaling with expedition. Men who had been idle were called on to make a prolonged effort, and they were glad enough to do it to make up for lost time; but, as a rule, the men did not work more than 10 or 12 hours at a stretch. He should like something to be done, but it must be in a direction different from that proposed. As the Report of the Commissioners was three years old, it was rather extraordinary that the hon. Member for Chester had not found an earlier opportunity of calling attention to it. There were 19 accidents for which a Company was not to blame, for one in which it was; and it would be unfortunate if the securing of compensation in one case risked the loss or diminution of it in the 19.