said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had stated that he believed it was necessary that that sub-section should be retained. The words of the sub-section would not, if retained, alter in any way the Common Law, because a workman who brought an action under those circumstances would not be able to recover compensation. But since the discussion of the previous day, he had had an opportunity of considering the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Dodson), and they had come to the conclusion that the sub-section had better be struck out. There appeared to be no necessity for declaring the fact in that clause, that if the workman were guilty of contributory negligence he could not recover. If he were guilty of personal negligence he would be exactly in the same position if the words were struck out. The difficulty had been that which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had stated—namely, that which would be likely to occur if those words remained. If the words were retained, the effect would probably be that a workman would be placed in a different position to that which he would occupy if they were struck out. The consequence would probably be, in fact, that the County Court Judges would consider that the Legislature had a particular object in retaining the words, in order that the position of the workman might be changed. The effect of that was that the Committee ought to be careful to put nothing in the Bill which would be likely to give rise to litigation. It had been said that it would be a fruitful source of litigation; and it would, he believed, probably be so. He thought, with his hon. and learned Friend, that there could be no action brought by any workman to recover, by way of compensation, so as to be successful, if he had contributed by his negligence to the injury. With regard to the decisions that had been come to on the subject, he would not trouble the Committee with them, nor with the different views that had been expressed in those decisions as to the defence on the ground of contributory negligence; their object was not to alter the present state of the law upon the subject. They wished to leave the Common Law alone; and if the words were inserted, it would only be for the purpose of declaring the Common Law, and not for the purpose of carrying it further. Therefore, it seemed to them, that as their object must be to prevent litigation as far as possible, and to give employers protection in cases of injury generally, they ought to prevent both strangers and servants from recovering in all cases where there had been contributory negligence. Those words, therefore, would have no effect on the existing law if they were inserted; and, inasmuch as their insertion might be misunderstood, the Government thought it was better to omit them, so as to avoid litigation as far as possible.

said, that he was placed in rather a painful position when the Law Officers of the Crown said, on their responsibility, that such and such would be the effect of the retention of those words; for he knew that unless he could persuade them he could not persuade the Committee, and the words would be struck out. He protested against those words being left out, and he must appeal to his hon. and learned Friends. If his hon. and learned Friend would read the Common Law as it stood, he was quite satisfied that he would see that that Bill would alter the Common Law on that subject, and create a statutory liability. That would be construed by the Courts as being, as it really was, an alteration of the Common Law. By that Bill they were interfering with and altering the Common Law. It was to the effect that an employer should be liable for the acts of certain persons mentioned in the Bill, for whom he was not liable at present. There was no connection between that and any particular law. The Judge found nothing of the same kind already in existence. He would read the 1st clause, if he might be allowed. There was a distinct enactment—

"Where after the passing of this Act, personal injury is caused to a workman, &c, &c."

Then a liability is to attach in the same way—

"As if the workman had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer, nor engaged in his work."

There was a statutory liability. They knew very well that, by the law at present, there was a certain defence to be found in the words under consideration—namely, that the man himself contributed to the injury which affected him. The Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) contained that clause, because he wished that that matter should be left perfectly clear. As he read the enactment, there was a distinct statutory liability; but he failed to see why that immunity should only be given where the accident was contributed to by the workman himself. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said that the words were inoperative. If so, they could do no harm. How could they? If they were inoperative, why leave them out? He contended that they were a safety and protection to the employer, and, therefore, ought to be left in. His hon. and learned Friend said, also, that if they were left in, they would be, probably, a fruitful source of litigation. But he contended that their absence would leave a loophole, because there should always be an expressio unius—the law should be within certain well-defined limits, and those limits would not be so well defined if this sub-section were omitted. Of course, it was no use to divide the Committee upon the question, or to trouble them about it, if he failed to persuade his hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers for the Crown; but he did protest against the omission of that sub-section, which, if it remained as it was, could not possibly do any harm.

said, he hoped the Government would strike out the sub-section, for it appeared to him that it might be liable to misconstruction if it remained in. He could not, of course, pretend to discuss law with the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson); but lie believed that what he quoted from the end of the 1st clause was distinctly against his own argument. It said there that a workman—

"Shall have the same right to compensation and remedies against the employer as if the workmen had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer, nor engaged in his work."

Therefore, he was placed in the condition of a stranger. But if a stranger contributed by his own negligence to injury, received from machinery or anything else, he fancied, and he said it with all deference to the hon. and learned Member, that he could not claim damages. Therefore, he was placed in that condition as regarded remedies. He trusted that the Government would strike out the sub-section for the reasons already given.

said, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), he thought they were all puzzled to know what the law was. He thought, also, that they had had rather too much law. It began last Monday night. They had then the heavy boom from the late Attorney General, followed by the sharp artillery from that side, and the small shot from below the Gangway, and it appeared to him there had been rather too much law about, especially as the speeches had been contradictory. He saw a good many Amendments were still to be disposed of, which came principally from the employers of labour, apparently; and he thought they ought to ask the Committee to deal with the proposals of the Bill calmly and deliberately, and not to interpose unnecessarily questions which might affect not only themselves but others outside their circle. A good deal had been said about mining. No doubt, that subject was beset with difficulties. When they heard the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) talking about the grave consequences which followed upon the distress in mining, he could not help thinking that he had failed to tell them something which should be told. Mine-owners had not always borne the brunt of those accidents; and even at the present they had gone about the country seeking help to pay the families of the sufferers by those accidents. He could speak, from his own experience, of having been instrumental in collecting and transmitting a large amount to South Wales to meet the calamities which had happened there, by which, he believed, mineowners had been greatly benefited. He thought, with regard to the discussion of the Bill, they ought to look more at public interests than at private.

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Committee is discussing the omission of a sub-section. The hon. Member's remarks seem to be general, and do not appear to refer to the Question before the Committee.

would simply say that he had intended to rise yesterday on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley). He would now observe that, with regard to the Question before the Committee, he hoped as few Amendments as possible would be pressed.

said, that no one had a greater respect for the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) than he had; but he really did not see the objection to the course taken by the Attorney General. He thought that the protection contained in the sub-section was sufficiently preserved in the previous clauses of the Bill; and the only advantage in retaining it would be that it would operate as a reminder to the County Court Judge. He really thought that, the County Court Judges of England, and Ireland being capable and intelligent men, the matter might be left to them.

said, he wished to call attention to one point. Lord Campbell's Act had extended the law to persons who, previously, in cases where damage was shown to have resulted partly from the negligence of a person, were not able to recover.

said, he should like to ask the Attorney General a question. He understood that that sub-section dealt with cases where the Common Law liability existed. If so, did not the Common Law liability also apply in the 1st clause, where any defect had been shown to exist in the machinery? He understood from the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) that if the Common Law liability extended in the one case, so would it in the other.

said, that Common Law liability existed in the case of an employer's negligence. The object of that Bill was to put workmen in the same position as strangers.

said, that he must express his great regret at the change of opinion which had taken place on the Government Bench. He thought that the course the Government was then taking was one that justified the previous attempt to refer the matter to a Select Committee. He did not vote for that, because he did not wish to oppose the Government; but this was a Bill supposed to have received the most careful attention of the Law Officers of the Crown. At their last meeting, the Law Officers opposed that Amendment entirely. The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown a change of front that day, for which no sufficient justification had been shown. The hon. and learned Gentleman said—and no doubt it was so—that he wished the Bill to be so drawn that it might prevent litigation. But he (Mr. Rylands) wanted the Bill so drawn, that if it was the fact that no workman could get any compensation for an injury where he had contributed to it by his own negligence, in the interest of the workman that ought to appear upon the Bill, and ought not to be concealed. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He did not know what hon. Gentlemen meant. There was the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) interrupting every hon. Gentleman by crying "Agreed." Was it intended that the Bill should be discussed or not? He would not dispute the law with the Attorney General; but he thought good reason had been shown why that clause should be retained, with a view of reminding County Court Judges in the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had suggested, and also with a view of reminding attorneys that workmen should not be led into litigation in consequence of something which had been concealed in the Bill, without any chance of getting compensation for injury. He would say again that he believed that when a Government, dealing with a Bill of that kind, changed so suddenly, it struck at the confidence which would otherwise be reposed in their judgment in carrying on the Business of the country.

said, it was very desirable that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) should have an opportunity of expressing his views on that subject to the Committee, and he was specially desirous to listen when he appeared in the capacity of champion of the working man. He was not very often lavish in his praises of the Government; but on that particular occasion he felt bound to say that they did not deserve those epithets of change of front, &c, which the hon. Member had employed. It was really a pure question of law. The Amendment was introduced by a lawyer—the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce)—on the last occasion when the Bill was under consideration. The Attorney General said that he did not consider the words superfluous, and asked the Committee to retain the words. Some other hon. and learned Members had expressed an opinion that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was right, and that the words were unnecessary. He supposed the Attorney General, in the interval which elapsed between the last Sitting and the present one, had had an opportunity of having a conference with his hon. and learned Colleague, and had at leisure come to the conclusion that the words were unnecessary, and, therefore, should be struck out. He really thought that hon. Members opposite showed very little confidence in the Government, if they could not confide in the Law Officers with regard to such a simple matter as that. He would advise the great Party opposite not to prolong the discussion, but take the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and allow the words, which lawyers said were not necessary, to be struck out.

said, he would not detain the Committee more than a minute. Enough time, he thought, had been spent already with regard to that matter of contributory negligence. He certainly had held that it might be of advantage to retain those words, for reasons which had already been suggested; but when he came to reflect upon the matter he came to see that the disadvantage would really be greater than the advantage, and for this reason—the sub-section was an incomplete account of the whole of the law of contributory negligence. Therefore, if they had stated part of the law, it would give rise to a discussion before the tribunals as to whether it was meant to alter the law; and, if so, to what extent, and so would lead to litigation. Therefore, although he thought that it might be advisable to keep it before the working man in that form, he felt, at the same time, that it must almost certainly give rise to controversy. Both as regarded employers and workmen, he believed it would do more harm than good, and only put difficulties in the way; and, therefore, he hoped, under the circumstances, that the Committee would consent to the words being omitted.

said, he only wished to state, in order to allay the apprehensions which seemed to exist in the minds of some of his hon. Friends, that he had not the slightest intention, in proposing to omit the sub-section, of making a difference as regarded the liability of employers. The Amendment was designed only to simplify the Bill and diminish posssible litigation.

asked, how subsection 1 would be affected by the Common Law liability?

said, that it would only be affected where there was personal negligence known to exist.

moved, in page 2, line 18, after "or" to leave out, "some person superior to himself," and insert, "to the person."

wished to point out that there was an important Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) on that sub-section.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would not press his Amendment. The truth was, that that immunity clause restricted, instead of increased, the liability of the employer. It freed from liability where the workman neglected to give information to any person. It was intended as a correlative, he believed, to the extended liability of sub-section 3 of Clause 1.

said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 2, line 19, after "employer," to leave out to end of clause. His reason for doing so was simply this. The right to compensation depended upon the performance of a simple, but important duty. The clause was, that where a workman knew of the defect or negligence which caused his injury, he was to make it his business to give information of that defect or negligence to his employer or some other superior. It was not necessary to do that personally. He might cause it to be given—as, for instance, when two or more men were working together, it would be sufficient if one of them gave the information. That was a duty which workmen could easily understand. It was very important to owners that the information given by the workmen should be of value to prevent an accident from occurring. That ought to be the first consideration. Nothing which had a tendency to prevent the master becoming aware of the facts ought to be left in the clause. He was of opinion that the words he proposed to omit would occasion great doubt and difficulty. As soon as a workman became aware of the fact that something was wrong, he ought immediately to give information, without stopping to consider whether he had a reasonable cause to believe that the master was already aware of it or not. The clause said "reasonable cause to believe;" but he did not know how any ordinary workman was to decide what was a reasonable cause, or what was not. That difficulty might operate against the workman himself, for he might suppose that the thing was apparent, or that the employer or superior was in possession of the information, or something else which he might deem a reasonable clause, but which might not be in reality such. If an accident happened, and the case came before the jury, their view of the case he deemed reasonable might be different, and he might be deprived of his right to compensation. He begged to move his Amendment for the reasons he had stated.

said, he was not disposed to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, and for the following reason. Those words were placed there with a view to improve the position of the workman, and if they took them away it would materially alter that. Of course, it was rather an invidious, and perhaps a difficult, task for one in the position of a workman to state to the employer that there was a defect in the machinery, or to point out that something was wrong; but it must become doubly so if it was known, or there was reasonable cause to believe, that the employer or superior was aware that it existed. It was for the sake of saving a workman from the obligation of giving information in a case where it was not requisite to do so that the words had been inserted. For those reasons, and in the interests of the workmen themselves, he must ask the Committee to retain the words.

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had refused to accept that Amendment. He represented a constituency in which there were many mines, and he believed many of that constituency were in favour of that Amendment. For his own part, he must say that if the responsibility were not taken off the workmen in a small matter like that he did not see how small mines were to be carried on at all. He had not interfered with the second reading of the Bill, although it was one of the most unpopular Bills in districts where metalliferous mines existed, and such a district he represented. There was, no doubt, a feeling that something ought to be done in the matter; and, therefore, he had agreed to let the second reading of the Bill take place without opposition, so far as he was concerned. But he did trust that when an Amendment of such practical utility as the present one was brought forward, especially when they mentioned that it had been introduced by a Gentleman who so well understood the matter, it would receive the consideration of the Government. That was one of the Amendments which had been looked into, and approved of, by the Association of Miners in his part of the country, and he hoped that it might be accepted, so as to make the Bill as little objectionable to them as possible.

said, he should be glad if that Amendment could be further considered by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, inasmuch as it had been received with favour, and there were reasons urged on behalf of it on both sides of the question. Prom the point of view of the workmen, it could, he thought, do no mischief if those words were rejected. There was nothing in the Amendment which defeated the object of the Bill; but it simply removed the complexity of the sub-section. Looking at the sub-section, they would see that the question to be decided, whether by a County Court Judge or a jury, was a complicated and difficult one. If the Committee would examine the words, they would see that that was so—

"If a workman knew of the defect or negligence which caused his injury, and failed within a reasonable time to give, or cause to he given, information thereof to the employer or some person superior to himself."

So far it was intelligible and simple, and an employer might reasonably say that if a workman knew of a defect that caused his injury, and did not go and tell him, that was negligence on his part, because he had no business to go on working under those circumstances. By not telling the employer he would relieve him from the responsibility, and take it upon himself by leaving the employer in the dark. But it was possible that, as against the employer, the workmen might say, as the clause stood—"I knew of that defect, or negligence on the part of that superior; but I said nothing about it, either to you or the person over me, waiting for a reasonable time to elapse, believing that you would become aware of the fact." That would, he believed, put a serious burden on the employer, and raise a very difficult question. Compassion had, no doubt, a very great deal to do with the result of an action. Juries would no doubt, often go against the employer, believing that the workmen had reasonable cause for compensation. His opinion was that if the workmen knew of the defect or negligence and did not take the trouble to tell the employer, or his representative, the employer should not be liable. For those reasons, he hoped that the words would be expunged from the sub-section, and particularly as they seemed to introduce needless complexity. He believed they might well be omitted.

said, he entirely agreed as to the importance of the first part of the sub-section; but he thought, also, that the second portion was almost equally important. Some such pro- vision was absolutely necessary. For instance, a workman saw a fellow-workman call the attention of the employer to a defect, or a group of workmen might see it. Was every one of those men to be debarred, unless they all went separately to tell the employer? They were aware that the master knew of it, for they had seen his attention called to it. If some such words were not used they could not recover against the employer. Surely, neither employers nor employed would desire such a state of things to exist as that. Therefore, they must have something to show that if they had grounds for supposing the employer knew of it, it would not be necessary to go and tell him. It was certainly absurd that the men should be compelled to go and tell the master over and over again, when they knew beforehand that he was already aware of it. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) said "No." But if those words were left out, then the men would be obliged to do so, or be debarred from recovering. That information was to be given within a reasonable time. That might mean six months, perhaps, or any other time. As soon as possible after the man knew of the defect, of course it would be his duty to communicate it. But if the man knew that the master was aware of it, still, according to his hon. and learned Friend opposite, if he did not communicate it, then just in the same way he was to be debarred. He could not suggest any other words which he believed would equally well meet the case, and therefore he trusted that they would be allowed to remain in the sub-section.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was, no doubt, actuated by a desire to benefit the working classes, when he suggested what he believed would be a simplification of the wording of the sub-section. But, by the clear exposition which they had just heard from the Solicitor General, the consequence of such a change was pointed out—that in every workshop everyone would have to give notice to the employer, when any defect in the machinery or negligence on the part of anyone was going on. Would that conduce to discipline and good order? A whole string of workpeople would be going up, giving formal notice of defects in machinery, or anything else, in order to bring themselves within the clause. That would be the effect, if the clause were passed in the form suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. He did not know whether better words than those of the subsection might not be proposed; but, at any rate, they should not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth unless they wished to create confusion in the factories and workshops of the country.

said, he fully understood the remarks which fell from the Solicitor General. Had it not been for them he should have supported the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth; but he thought the point one which might be further guarded by words on Report.

said, he quite appreciated the hypothetical case given by the Solicitor General; but, at the same time, he thought the sub-section would not do in its present form. If the Government would consider all that had been said, and vary the terms on Report, it might stop further discussion. The objection to the words pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Clarke) was quite a fair one. His notion was, that that clause might be amended by omitting the words suggested by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig), and for this reason—that the object of the Act might be evaded if a workman knew of a defect, but knew also that another had told the employer, because that was not giving, or causing to be given, information. It appeared to him that a workman on that hypothesis might be aware of those facts, and yet run a risk of losing the right to compensation in case of injury. That ought not to be the position of workmen by any means; and, therefore, he hoped that the Government would accede to the proposal he had made. He would not propose any alteration then; but the sub-section might be re-cast, by which they would get rid of the obvious impropriety of allowing a man to go on in such a way that, by a mere technicality, he should lose his right to compensation.

said, he had observed that the Solicitor General had not laid stress upon the words "within a reasonable time." It appeared to him that if a man knew of a defect, and brought it to the notice of an employer, and then an action were brought, if it were alleged that he had not given notice, he would have to show that he had done so within a reasonable time. He was inclined to lay more stress upon those words than the Solicitor General did. If the Government would be willing to alter the words at the end of the clause, as had been proposed, he would suggest something of this kind—

"Unless where such defect or negligence had been brought to the notice of the employer or such superior."

said, that when his hon. Friend had risen, he was about to state to the Committee that, having heard the criticism on the form of the words, he was ready to consider the matter on Report, with a view of meeting the views of hon. Members, while adhering to the substance of the sub-section.

said, that as the Government had consented to re-cast the sub-section, he did sincerely hope that they would not weaken the intention conveyed in the sentence proposed to be omitted by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig), which he considered was absolutely necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had not, lie apprehended, been recently employed in the modern mode of conducting large works. Under the present system of conducting business, the men were not allowed to meddle or tamper with the managers or foremen. The discipline was, in fact, as strict as it was in the Army or Navy. ["Oh, oh!"] He was giving them his own experience of work. The rules were very strict, and it was necessary that they should be so. He was not finding fault with that. If a workman pointed out every little defect, he would certainly not remain in that employ many days.

wished to point out to the hon. Member who had just spoken, a portion of a speech made by Mr. Brison at a meeting held in the North of England. Mr. Brison, no doubt, thoroughly represented the men, and was the Chairman of the Northumberland Miners' Association. He said, with reference to that matter—

"That if there was anything wrong in the pit which rendered any part dangerous, what was the result f The men working where the danger was, instead of simply complaining, called the attention of the colliers to the fact, and the matter was taken up by the whole of the men employed. Notice was given to the over-man, and, failing to make safe that part, they proceeded to the owner, and if they failed then to obtain redress they took the matter in their own hands, and stopped the pit."

There was no necessity, he thought, to encourage men to give notice of the danger. All they ought to be anxious to do should be to prevent that kind of evidence to which he believed lawyers so much objected—namely, hearsay evidence. If a man, knowing that a danger existed, refrained from giving notice because he had heard it said that somebody had complained to the employer, that ought not to be sufficient. They should make it absolutely clear that proper notice must be given to the owner of the existence of danger. There should be no ambiguity in that clause at all. His anxiety was, so far as possible, to make it perfectly clear, so that no question should arise on the point between masters and men. He feared that words so ambiguous as those employed might lead to that; and, therefore, he was very glad to hear of the undertaking of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) that, on Report, he would improve the wording of the sub-section. He hoped that discussion would then cease; and he hoped that such words would be inserted on Report as not to relieve a workman from the responsibility of communicating the information, unless he was perfectly certain that the master was aware of the defect.

said, that he had listened to the arguments of the Solicitor General, and he believed that it would be extremely unjust to the workman that those words should be left out. He would suggest to the Government that, perhaps, it would be wise to make use of words which were in the Merchant Shipping Act—namely, the words "without justifiable cause." He believed that would do justice to all parties. If the workman had justifiable cause for not mentioning the matter to the employer, then he ought to be able to recover. Suppose an employer told a man that if he made complaints of defects in machinery, he would dismiss him. It was useless, he believed, to leave such a matter as that entirely in the hands of the tribunals, and he believed that the words he had suggested, if inserted, would meet the case. In certain cases, then, a man would be relieved from the responsibility of communicating the information.

An hon. MEMBER said, that whatever the Chairman of the Northumberland Miners' Association might say, what had been quoted from his speech by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) did not apply all over the country. He himself had. had considerable experience of collieries in Wales, and he knew that the men dare not say if there was danger in the pit; they would be told that it was no business of theirs. He thought that the words at the end of the clause were absolutely necessary; and he, therefore, trusted that if any change was to be made in them, the Government would take care that the meaning be retained.

said, he should like to point out to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) that, as the clause now stood, it was necessary for a workman, when aware of a defect, to make the communication. It was only the- last portion of it about which the difficulty had arisen. He did not know, of course, what was the rule in all the mining districts; but it did appear to him that it would probably be the same almost everywhere as it was in Northumberland, and that notice would be given and repeated by the workmen, rather than run the risk of losing the compensation danger, the existence of which risk they were aware of. It was quite possible that there were extreme cases, where miners would be afraid to tell the employers; but all he could say was that, from his knowledge of Welsh miners, nothing was easier than for them to make representations to a superior, or to bring a matter of so important a nature to the knowledge of the master in many ways. On the other hand, there were numberless cases when it would be grossly unjust to assume that the employer was aware of every defect, and when, therefore, the responsibilty must rest on the workmen for the consequences, if they refused to communicate the facts to his knowledge. Further, it occurred to him that, although it was not desirable to omit the words alto- gether, it was necessary that the subsection should be re-cast.

said, that he begged to move to add the following sub-section at the end of the clause—

"(5.) As to mines. In any case where the workman in any mine at the time of the injury had become a member of or joined an assurance or provident society, duly certified under the Friendly Societies Acts, and established at or in connection with such mine, and in and by which society the workman was insured against personal injury, and provision made for his dependent relatives in case of a fatal accident, by the contributions of the employer and the workmen in proportions fixed by the code of rules of such society."

He would call the attention of the Committee to the effect of this sub-clause as regarded mines. It was generally admitted, he believed, in the House, as well as out of it, that mines required special legislation. This was so far the case at present, that mineowners and those engaged in the mine were under special liabilities which, so far as he was aware, was not the case with regard to any other industry. In addition to that, there were dangers which did not affect other employers. Some hon. Members had spoken upon this subject as if it were intended to make mineowners responsible for all accidents which might happen. No doubt, those Gentlemen might be well informed with regard to the risks of manufacturing industry; but they could not know the dangers and necessary precautions which were required in the case of mines. He was himself engaged in manufacturing operations, and, to a certain extent, had been so engaged for the last 24 years. He was a partner in works which employed upwards of 2,000 men; but, so far as the effect of this Act went, it would really make very little difference with regard to them. The same was the case with regard to many other industries; but with regard to mines, he would draw the attention of the Committee to this fact that, whatever the law now was, it was well known and had been known for the last 40 years. A well known case, to which reference had been made, had made employers fully aware of the liability which they were under to their workmen. With that full knowledge of the risks to be run, very large and expensive investments of capital had been made in mines. He might say that, perhaps, the produce of the mines of this country exceeded £16,000,000 a-year in value. In dealing with industries upon so extensive a scale, and which contributed so large a part to the nation's wealth, it was well to consider how far, and in what way, such an industry would be affected. There could be no doubt that the obligations imposed upon mineowners by this Act would very largely alter their liabilities. If there was negligence, the mineowner was liable to compensation to the men for each accident. Not only was he liable, at one sweep, to lose the whole of his property—and what he, perhaps, valued as largely, the men with whom he had been connected in working, and who, by a common fatality, met their deaths—but he was also to be liable for immense sums to the relatives of those persons. He thought it would be well if a means could be found of reconciling the interests of those engaged in mining and the employer; and if that could be done by this Act, all parties would cheerfully and readily acquiesce. He believed that there was one plan under which this Act could be made so workable, and would so provide that the employer and the employed should each be contented. If they wished to keep up that full and mutual assistance and reliance between the workpeople and their employers, they should endeavour to promote a system of mutual assurance which would prevent a feeling of irritation between employers and employed, and which would take away that endless litigation which everyone looked to with appalling interest in connection with this measure. By a system of assurance this could be carried out; and he wished the Act to provide that if such a system were carried out then, so far as that provided for compensation for the workman, the employer should be exempted from liability under the Act. He would ask the Government to consider how far the clause he had moved would carry that object into effect. He did not propose that this should be more than voluntary, or that it should be compulsory. He simply wished to provide that employers and employed, who wished to do so, might concur in a system of mutual assurance, by which they would not be subjected to the provisions of the Bill. One quar- ter of the whole number of miners in the country were now members of such societies as those provided for under this sub-section. If the Amendment were adopted, he thought that it would do away with a large amount of irritation, and that it would accomplish a great deal of good. No doubt, he should be told that the Bill did not prevent any such system of assurance. But he thought that it was necessary to provide in the Bill that, by concurring in such a system of mutual assurance, the employer should be exempted from liability. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that he should be glad to see a system of assurance carried out. But they feared that this Bill would only operate to prevent assurance, if carried in its present state. A man would say that, as this Act gave him compensation whenever an accident was the result of negligence, he would not join one of these societies, but would rather take his chance of obtaining compensation under the Act. At the present time, the miners had their own societies, which were under the control of their own leaders. If this Bill were passed, there would be an excuse to them for not joining these societies; and it was necessary to have some such Amendment as he had proposed to prevent that occurring.

said, he thought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. Member for the able speech in which he had brought forward this proposal. It had occurred to him that this was, perhaps, by no means a happy point in the Bill at which to raise the question of assurance. He made that observation, because, when he looked at the magnitude of this assurance question, he thought it would facilitate the discussion of the proposal if his hon. Friend would not raise a discussion then, but would wait until the proposal had been made for fixing the amount of maximum compensation. He hoped the Government would endorse the suggestion he had made, because they could not deny that this assurance question was one of vital importance. He believed that if the principle of assurance could be carried, three-fourths of the dread with which the Bill was now viewed would be removed. When the Committee came to discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), to fix the maximum sum for the workmen's compensation, they would be in a better position than they now were to discuss the question of assurance. It was first necessary, however, to arrive at a decision upon that head; and he should, therefore, suggest that the present Amendment should be withdrawn, until they could deal with the question of assurance as a whole.

said, that he wished to endorse the appeal of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson). He thought it would, be far better, and also for the sake of convenience, that the subject of assurance should be discussed on a substantive clause providing for it, rather than as an Amendment in the form of a sub-section to a clause. There was no desire, or intention, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to shrink from a full discussion upon this subject; but he felt that the course recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry was that which it would be more convenient to take.

said, that, after the appeal that had been made to him, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the two hon. Members who had last spoken had, with considerable fairness, stated that they represented the employers on this question. He did not think that any hon. Member had a larger number of miners among his constituents than he had. He wished it to be clearly understood that the question of assurance, so far as the mining operatives were concerned, would be strongly and strenuously resisted. He hoped the Government would not give way upon this subject. This clause, which was going to be withdrawn, would be, practically, a means of inflicting a penalty on every prudent miner who insured in a provident society. But if, in the interests of the mineowners and of the mine workers, the Government could see their way to some means of recognizing the Coal Mines Regulation Act, and exempting mineowners from liability where the provisions of that Act were fully carried out, he thought it would be doing justice to all concerned. He would tell the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), how- ever, that any attempt to deprive the men of their legitimate right of compensation, by any system of compulsory assurance, would meet with very strenuous opposition.

said, that the amount of compensation which might become due under this Bill was so enormous, that it could not be excluded from consideration in dealing with this subject. To take the case of the lamentable explosion at the Risca Colliery; if it could be proved there, that it happened through the negligence of any person employed in the mine, then, under the operation of this Bill, the owners would become liable for an enormous amount of compensation. He had been told by a competent authority that the amount for which the owners would have been liable in that case would not have been less than £28,000. This was an amount of penalty which was perfectly absurd; and if they meant to ensure compensation to any adequate amount to the miners, and to combine it with proper restraint of negligence, he, as a practical man, did not see how they could accomplish those objects without some system of assurance. He did not believe it would be practicable to inflict penalties of a perfectly exorbitant and ruinous nature upon persons who would have to suffer by the fault of those in their employ whom they had trusted. Therefore, he was strongly of opinion that, if the object of combining compensation for injuries with some restraint against negligence was to be carried out, it could not be done without some system of assurance.

said, that he was present at a meeting on Durham Race Course. Between 40,000 and 50,000 miners of Durham, on Saturday, unanimously endorsed the principles of that Bill, but, at the same time, unanimously declared their hostility to any clause which would put upon them a system of compulsory assurance. The effect of the clause which was now proposed would be that if a man assured at all he should have no benefit under the Act.

said, that he begged to move an Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), in page 2, at the end of the clause, to insert, as a new paragraph—

"Provided always, and except in the oases and to the extent in this Act expressly provided for, nothing in this Act shall affect any rule of law relating to negligence, or to common employment, or to risk incident to a contract or employment."

said, that he thought the Committee would not accept the Amendment, as it was quite unnecessary.

said, that he begged to move a new sub-section at the end of the clause. It was—

"Where the injury for which damage is claimed occurs through the drunkenness of such superior person, such superior person only shall be liable."

There was no doubt that even the most superior person might, at some time or other, get drunk. Many cases might happen in which, if this clause were inserted, a man would be liable to one servant through the negligence of another.

said, that he thought the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

said, that he thought it would be a very useful moral lesson against drunkenness.

said, that the next Amendment which he had to move, on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), was one to which he did not think there could be any objection. Clause 3 provided—

"The amount of compensation recoverable for personal injury to a workman under this Act shall not exceed such a sum as may be found equivalent to the estimated earnings, during the three years preceding the injury, of a person in the same grade employed during those years in the like employment and in the district in which the workman is employed at the time of the injury."

That was intended to include the case of compensation payable to the legal personal representative of the workman in case of death; but he did not think that that would be the true construction of the Bill. It would simplify this clause very much if the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were adopted, and the words "personal injury to a workman" were left out of the clause. It would then read "the amount of compensation recoverable under this Act in any action brought." He could quite understand that it might be said that the clause, as it stood, did not apply in the case of an injury resulting in death. He begged to move, in page 2, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "for personal injury to a workman."

said, that he had no objection to leave out those words.

said, that if this clause were not amended, he ventured to say that there would be hardly a case of action brought in which it would not be almost impossible, or, at all events, very difficult, to find out what a man had received for three years. With the object of preventing litigation, he ventured to propose his Amendment, which fixed the sum to be paid as compensation at a sum not exceeding £100. Another advantage of adopting his Amendment would be that it would place the employer in such a position that he could insure himself. He would know exactly what his liability would be, and he would have a chance, by insurance, of relieving himself from it. He begged to move—

In page 2, line 23, after "exceed," to leave out to the end of the clause, and to insert "the sum of one hundred pounds; but nothing in this Act shall be construed as implying that the compensation ought in any case to amount to that sum."—(Mr. Barnes.)

said, that he did most earnestly recommend the principle of this Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Committee. He did not mean to say that the figure named by the hon. Member should necessarily be adopted, although it seemed not unreasonable, and there was a great weight of authority in its favour. But he would rather increase the figure, if that would induce Her Majesty's Government to lend a more favourable ear to the proposal. The mining interest was most to be considered in this matter, and he would briefly state the ground on which the principle of fixing some maximum sum commended itself to his mind. When he saw the course the discussion had taken in the Committee, and how very few in number were the advocates of the claims of the employers in that House, he thought the Committee would indulge him for a short time while he endeavoured to state the principle on which the fixing of the maximum sum was to be recommended. By this Act the liability of the owners of dangerous property were to be enormously increased. Millions of capital had been invested for the benefit of the community in coal mining and other enterprises; that capital had been productive of good to every class of the community—amongst others, he would venture to say, to the working men themselves. That capital had been invested on the faith of the existing law, upon which all the relations of the employers and employed had, up to the present time, been constituted and established. Urged by what the Government had considered a public necessity, and what he himself deemed, after the experience of the debates in that Committee, to have been an urgent public demand, the Government had thought it necessary to impose upon the capitalists engaged in those industrial enterprises this additional weight. Employers must submit; but it would be necessary to look to the consequences. Those hon. Members who, representing what they called the working man's point of view in this question; although he repudiated the idea that any one particular Member of that House represented the working man more than another; and he maintained that it was their common duty to consider the interest—not of any one class, but of all classes—he would appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who asserted that they represented the interests of the working classes to consider what would be the consequences to capitalists of this Bill. By this Bill, instead of the liability attaching to the employer only by his neglect, he was made responsible for the neglect of men in his employment. That would be done in the most dangerous trades, down to a very humble grade. Therefore, the capitalist was put in this position—that an accident might happen for which he was in no way morally responsible which, under this legislation, might impose upon him, in addition to the loss of his capital, a liability which might mean absolute ruin. They had lately had the sad experience of the Risca disaster. Up to this moment it had not been determined—and it, probably, would never be determined—what was the exact cause of that calamity; but it might have been caused by the neglect of some person in authority a little higher in knowledge than the working man himself; and what would have been the consequence of that negligence under the provisions of this Bill? One hundred and twelve lives had been lost by that explosion. The feeling that such a loss had happened in an enterprise for the profit of any individual would almost be enough to break the heart of the man for whom these colliers were working; and he could imagine nothing more terrible or painful than the feeling of the employer of labour, when he realized that in his employment, and for his profit, such a terrible accident had occurred. If that man was responsible, through neglect, or parsimony, or recklessness, for that disaster, there was no punishment too heavy for him. His conviction was that there was no such thing as a preventible accident. He believed every preventible accident to be a crime. But it must also be recognized that some accidents were not preventible. He appealed to every man who knew anything of this particular industry—to scientific men, and to the knowledge of the Government from their official Reports—whether it was possible totally to prevent accidents in mines; or, as another illustration, accidents at sea? Were there not industries, the necessary and essential conditions of which involved a certain percentage of accidents? They might, by legislation, reduce that percentage to a minimum; and by the Mines Regulation Act they had subjected employers to a supervision which was considered adequate. If it were not adequate, then he would say, in God's name, make it more so, as soon as possible, by making every possible provision. But after all that had been done, after every provision that had been made, it still remained certain that there must be accidents. That was the true answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton, who said that when they were speaking of the consequences to the employers they should also remember the consequences to the widows and orphans. No man, with a heart in his breast, could think of anything but those widows when he heard of an accident. He would gladly see them provided for; and he hoped, out of the assurance clause which they would presently have to pass, efficient means of consoling those poor people in their terrible calamity would be provided. But why, when an accident was inevitable, was the burden to be thrown from one set of shoulders to another? What was the practical result? By the clause of his hon. Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), supposing this Risca explosion, for instance, were brought home to the owner, he would have to pay £100 for each man actually killed, or £11,200 in all. But they knew very well that there were many collieries which employed more than 112 men in each pit; and he did not think he was over-stepping the mark when he said that there were many collieries which employed in one shaft at one time nearly 1,000 men. Of course, if the accident did not happen from negligence, or from a breach of the statutory conditions, the employer was not liable. He never forgot that, and it was always present to his mind throughout the whole of his argument. But he maintained that there were many accidents in which the owner was just as innocent as if he had done nothing at all; yet, through the negligence of one of his servants, although there might not be the least moral liability, the workmen would still be able to recover damages from him, which would, practically, have almost the effect of ruining him. He was quite aware that the capitalist was not an object of consideration with the House. He had never heard him alluded to except with sneers or contemptuous pity. ["No, no!"] He had never heard anything said with regard to capitalists except observations as to their greediness, timidity, and the like; yet the House, notwithstanding those feelings, ought to be careful before it subjected them to legislation which might produce their entire ruin. Such a result would not benefit either the community or the working men. He knew he had troubled the Committee with a long exordium; but he felt so strongly on this point that he really was obliged to urge everything that could be said in favour of this pro- position, which, in his mind, was the key of the whole Bill. They had now got to this point—that the mineowner might any morning find himself, without his will and against his power, involved in a statutory liability exceeding the whole amount of his fortune. The Committee ought to do what it could to reduce those evil consequences, and the only way was to let the mineowner know what the maximum amount was for which he would have to provide in case of an accident. They could only do that by putting some maximum sum into this Bill beyond which the mineowner could not, under any circumstances, be called upon to pay. Let them name any sum they pleased—£100, or £150, or even £200—and the mineowner would then endeavour to meet his liability by means of assurance companies. But if there were no maximum, the owner would be left at the mercy of the present clause in the Bill. The principle of limitation was quite right, for the Government felt that this liability ought not to be unlimited. Their suggestion bore every mark of amiable consideration; but, at the same time, it was deficient in practicability of application. The clause provided that the amount paid to the workman was to be equivalent to his estimated earnings during the three years preceding the injury of a person in the same grade. What was the meaning of the word "grade?" And let them think of the County Court lawyers, and how they would rejoice over the interpretation of this clause. He said, without hesitation, that that clause carried the largest and widest amount of litigation that he ever saw in any Bill. They might, by accepting his Amendment, give the owner the means of ascertaining what amount of compensation he would be liable to at the worst. But this clause, as it at present stood, did nothing of that kind. The fluctuations in the rates of wages were tremendous. It was notorious that men in the mining districts who, three years ago, were earning £4 or £5 per week, were now scarcely able to earn 25s., let them be ever so industrious. Then there were the men who were out on strike, and the innumerable other contingencies which would have to be taken into consideration, complicating the matter so much that he would defy any man to construe that clause and to declare what the maximum amount should be. He did not dispute the principle that lay at the back of it. His own experience was that three years of a man's average earnings was, in principle, by no means an unfair scale to fix. He did not know that he could himself fix a better scale than three years' earnings; but he did think it would be better that they should state an amount on which those earnings should be valued. His hon. Friend had suggested £100 as the maximum. Now, he thought, taking one year with another, that £1 a-week would be a fair and just wage of the labouring classes for whom this Bill was intended. He would, however, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) to tell them exactly what the amount should be. If he said £100 was not enough, he would bow to his judgment, because he knew much better than he did what it should be; but he hoped his hon. Friend would help them to say what the limit should be. He did not care at all what the amount was, so that the employer did know, when the Bill passed, what was the possible worst that could befall him, and so be able to make himself safe against it. The Bill was not to come into effect until next January; and it might be that, in the interval, assurance companies would be established to protect owners from these risks. He hoped it might be so, for he knew no companies which at the present time could do that. But if there were no maximum amount put in the Bill, how could any owner sit down and calculate what would be his liability under the Bill, so as to fix a rate of premium at which these risks should be undertaken? Let the Government fix a sum that would be the worst, and then owners could provide against the evil by an adequate system of assurance. But if they left the Bill as it was drawn, he would defy any man to arrive at an adequate conclusion on the subject. Owners would, consequently, be put into terrible peril until they could find what the incidence of risk was. His hon. Friend (Mr. Craig) had brought out some very startling figures on this point; but he did not think, at present, he had established his figures as correct, and, until the truth of those figures was established, his observation remained that individual owners, no matter what the general average might be, were in a very unsatisfactory position. By inserting a fixed sum in the Bill, also, the temptation to litigation would be removed, and the Bill would be made as palatable to owners as it could possibly be made. He had heard it said that, by fixing a maximum, they invited people to claim compensation at that rate. Those interested would rather run the risk even of that than not have a maximum inserted in the Bill. That observation also would just as much apply to the maximum proposed by the Government as the fixed sum which he wished to have. The alteration he asked the Committee to make was quite consistent with the principle of the Bill. It was perfectly just to the working classes; it would be an advantage to owners; it would much facilitate the operation of the Bill; while it would go far towards removing the extreme anxiety and dread which many large interests undoubtedly did entertain in regard to the passing of this measure.

said, the hon. and learned Baronet who had just sat down had declared that capitalists regarded this Bill with great anxiety. He was himself a very large employer of labour, but he was not at all afraid of anything Parliament might do; and he wished to say that the hon. and learned Baronet was not quite accurate in declaring that nobody could assess the amount of responsibility which the Bill would plan upon employers. He was not quite sure that he could exactly assess the responsibility of employers, because, at the present time, he was not sure how far the Government meant to go in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley); but, if he did not know that, he could tell almost exactly what responsibility would be placed upon employers by this Bill. For the purpose, however, of his argument, he would take the utmost responsibility which Parliament, in its wisdom, or in the supremest moments of its folly, and with all the energy of youthful inexperience upon it, could impose on the employer. They had, in the Records of that House, and in the statistics of the Mining Associations of Northumberland, Durham, and Lancashire, so many statistics with regard to the accidents in coal mines, that they had very trustworthy data to go upon. If they were to take the whole number of accidents which had occurred in those mines during a given period, and were to assess the amount of compensation which, would be sufficient for each of those accidents, and then multiply them together, they would get the aggregate amount of compensation required, and also the average amount necessary. He assumed, also, that they could, by going into the statistics of other trades, arrive at what the liability would be under similar circumstances. He could speak for himself in regard to the cotton trade. He was himself very largely engaged in that trade, and was, probably, more dependent on the equable working of capital and labour than any other Member of that House; and he was prepared to say that the utmost liability which could be imposed upon an employer in the cotton trade would not exceed one-fifth of 1 per cent of the wages paid. That was even supposing an employer accepted liability for all accidents, whether they arose from carelessness of the sufferer or otherwise. If, however, the Government minimized, the responsibility in the way it proposed to do, he did not think the burden would be very hard to bear. It had been said by a number of speakers that, with regard to the coal trade, only one-fourth of the accidents which occurred would come under the scope of that Bill. But, for his part, he did not believe it would be anything like that proportion; for his opinion was that certainly much more than four-fifths of the accidents were due to the negligence of those injured. If, then, they divided the total responsibility by four, they would fairly get the full responsibility imposed on employers by the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig), in assuming the responsibility put on employers, estimated it at 6–10ths of 1d. per ton. He would rather prefer to take it as a percentage on the wages paid. He was himself connected with a colliery in which 2,400 men and 900 boys were employed; and he said, without hesitation, that a sum equal to 1¼ per cent of the wages paid, laid aside, and accumulated into a reserve fund, would amply compensate for any accident, whether it arose from the negligence of the employer, or his foreman, or from the carelessness of the employed, or from any other cause whatever. Dividing that into four parts, the measure of responsibility laid upon the employer by this Bill was less than 3–8ths of £1 per cent, or about 7s. 6d. If they took the iron trade, they would find that compensation for all accidents would not be more than 15s. per cent, and that only l–5th of those accidents came under this Bill, because 4–5ths of them were, so far as he could find, in no way within the scope of the measure. Surely l–5th of 15s. per cent on the wages paid was not a very large sum for the employers to bear. In the trade to which he belonged—the cotton trade—and in which he was very largely interested, they minimized their risk to an exceedingly small amount. He wished to assure the hon. and learned Member for Coventry, who thought this responsibility was something more than employers would be able to bear, that he was taking a very fearful view of the case. Hon. Members, he noticed, were smiling at his idea of averages; but smiles, nevertheless, would not destroy arguments based upon facts. He was sure, also, that if the utmost liability were imposed, that companies would spring up, as they had done in Germany and Switzerland, which would accept these liabilites at very small sums indeed; and the result would be that everyone employed in industrial occupations would secure himself from liability by assurance at so small a rate that none of the employers would object to it. This question of assurance, though it had been proposed by several hon. Members, had not received any support from the Government. He did not ask that it should, for he did not, in the least, believe in compulsory assurance; but, still, he thought, that if employers had power to insure the workmen, it would be better. He had been told that they had not at present that power. He did not know whether that was so or not; but he surely thought they should be able to protect themselves and their workmen from any accidents which might possibly happen after the passing of this Bill. The hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Craig) had defined assurance as a licence to commit murder. It was no more a licence to commit murder than a fire insurance was a licence to burn down their house.

Order, Order! It will be very difficult to discuss this Amendment, if we are also to discuss other large questions which are not connected with it.

begged pardon. He had understood that the whole question of assurance was to be discussed on this Amendment. But with regard to the suggestion that the compensation should be limited to £100, it seemed to him to be utterly inadequate. He was inclined to advocate that a certain limit should be put on the compensation given; because, if it was altogether unlimited, the liability would be so uncertain, and it would be very troublesome to fix the sum against which the employer could insure. He knew of a case in his own neighbourhood, in which two young men put their capital, amounting to £9,000 or £10,000, into a colliery, and they borrowed in addition to this. After being at work a short time, they had an explosion, which caused a number of deaths. If, under this Bill, they had had to compensate directly those who were killed through the negligence of any foreman, there could not be any possibility of raising the money which would be necessary, even on the security of the whole of their interests in the colliery. But if an amount were fixed, for which the employers would be liable, the colliery owner would be able to insure against it; and, by so doing, the workmen would be sure that in any case if an accident happened the compensation to which they were entitled would be forthcoming. It was, therefore, exceedingly desirable that this question of limit should be well ventilated and thoroughly understood. He did not, at the same time, understand that there was any claim, even from the working men themselves, for a system of compulsory assurance. Again, if there was no limit, how was the damage done to be assessed? If a young unmarried man with no family was killed, he assumed that the damage would be assessed at a small amount; while if it was a married man with a large family, another amount, comparatively large, would be awarded. If, for instance, a guard upon a railway was to be compensated in the same way as a passenger, the Committee must consider at length whether that guard was married or single, because that would make all the difference in the world. Supposing two guards were killed, both of the same age, one married and one single; would the compensation be assessed at different amounts, or the same amounts? He hoped the Govern- ment would accept a maximum limit of £200 or £250, because then an employer would be able to protect himself, and the poor employer could guarantee to his workmen the amount of compensation which was given by this Bill.

begged the Government not to accept this Amendment. No doubt, it would be exceedingly convenient for the capitalists if a money limit was put on their liability; but the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had said that they were not there to consider the defence of a class, or the special interests of certain men, but to do justice to the whole nation, without studying the special privileges of a few. That assertion answered and thoroughly disposed of the latter part of the hon. and learned Baronet's speech. For his part, he thought the logical course would be to omit the clause altogether; and he held in his hand a Petition from the Convention of the Royal and Parliamentary boroughs of Scotland, asking the House to do that; because, otherwise, the Bill would weaken the law of Scotland as it at present existed, and do the Scotch people great injustice and injury. Then, again, with regard to many limitations. It had always been the complaint of employers that certain classes of organized workmen demanded that labour should always be put at one rate of wages; but the charge was not true. Yet hon. Members, who started this Amendment, actually proposed to value all men at precisely one sum. ["No, no!"] Well, it was no use saying that, when the Amendment provided that no man should claim compensation beyond a certain sum. By that they did limit the value of every man to a certain sum. He had been asked if £1 a-week would not be a fair average of a workman's wages? It would be, perhaps, correct if they classed the whole of the working classes together—the crossing-sweeper with the highly-skilled mechanic, or the working artist. But the hon. and learned Baronet himself had strongly disclaimed against these general averages; and, for himself, he (Mr. Broadhurst) altogether repudiated being averaged with people who earned much lower wages. Was it common sense or justice to say that the labouring man, who was earning 10s. or 14s. a-week, should have compensation up to £150—and for him that was a pretty liberal proposition as an unskilled labourer, compared with what it would be for the artizan—and that the highly-skilled engineer or working artist, who earned £3 or £4 per week, should be also limited to £150 as the measure of his compensation? Such a proposition was altogether illogical and unjust. They did not limit the compensation to any other class of people except working men. If the principle was good, let the hon. and learned Baronet introduce a Bill to limit the amount of compensation that the travelling public could claim in railway accidents, and then bring the cases of working men under this Bill within the scope of that general law. What he objected to was special legislation for working men. He, and the class he represented, never asked for special favours in legislation, and they equally objected to special exclusion from just laws. He hoped the Government would not listen to this Amendment, although very interesting, and moderate, and well argued speeches had been made in its support. He was certain that now nothing further could be said in its favour—and that was not saying a great deal, if the Committee would permit him the liberty of making that observation—and, therefore, he hoped they would now take a division.

said, as an employer of men earning a low rate of wages, he was quite satisfied with a maximum of £100; but, at the same time, he thought the only fair way of fixing the limit was to compensate men according to the loss of time they were likely to suffer. He could not, for a moment, think it fair that labourers on his farm should have the same compensation as skilled artizans. Of course, if the £100 was accepted as a maximum, he would say nothing more; but, for his part, logically, he felt that the compensation should merely be based on the wages of the workmen. It was fairer to the employer, also, to put it on that basis, for the profit of the employer in all trades was in proportion to the wages he paid. ["No, no!"]"Well, he maintained it was so. Employers put down everything that they had to spend for materials; they added the cost of the labour, and then they put a percentage on the whole to represent their profits. Therefore, when higher wages were paid, the employer was in a better position to pay compensation than where the labourers merely received small amounts weekly. It might be thought, from the scantiness of the attendance on the Benches near him of those who were supposed to represent the agricultural interests, that this was not a question affecting the farmers very much; but, for his part, he was convinced that the liability of the farmers would far exceed that of the cotton trades, or the manufacturers who had spoken. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. K. Cross) had fixed the percentage on wages which it would cost him to insure, and he (Mr. Biddell) could only say he should be very happy to insure his liability, as a farmer, at half such amount. Besides, when this Bill was first brought forward, he thought he was only to be responsible for his overlookers; but he now found that he was not merely responsible for his men, but for his horses. It was very difficult to answer for a man, but it was far more difficult to answer for a horse; and, therefore, he hoped the compensation to be paid would be fairly limited.

said, he had not risen before, because he was anxious to hear what the views of different hon. Members were; but, after hearing the different speeches, he must say that the Government adhered to the clause as it stood in the Bill. He would remind the hon. and learned Baronet behind him, that when he spoke of the enormous weight which this Bill imposed upon capitalists, that it was nothing compared with the weight which the laws of Germany and France imposed upon them. He had, also, in his speech, lost sight of the fact, to a great extent, that the Bill only made the employer liable for the neglect of persons in authority; and as to inevitable accidents, he would not have to compensate his workmen for them. He was also very glad to hear that, in all probability, before this Bill came into operation, insurance companies would be established. He was glad, also, to hear the very interesting speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. J. K. Cross), and his testimony as to the amount of liability this Bill would impose. In adhering to the clause as it stood, he must confess that he did not quite follow the reasoning of the hon. Gentlemen who wished to have a fixed maximum of liability. If it was possible to insure against a fixed liability, why should not an employer who knew what his wages were insure against that? [Sir HENRY JACKSON: How can he tell what his wages will be?] He might remind the hon. and learned Baronet that the limit introduced in the Bill was for the past three years, and he would also beg him to remember that this particular clause was introduced into the Bill at the special request of the employers. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had said that he would prefer no clause at all. But it must be remembered that it was an advantage to the workman himself to have a maximum fixed; because it would lead to compromises in the case of accident, and so, to some extent, prevent litigation.

said, that they were then dealing with an injury that was supposed to have occurred, and providing a remedy. Not with standing what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry Jackson), he must say that he thought the principle of the Government was right, and that the liability should be measured or estimated as an individual liability, and not as a liability for a class. It was impossible to take it as a matter of average; but it must deal with specific cases. On that principle, he did not see how they could hesitate to accept the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had admitted that the principle of the three years' earnings of the man was a reasonable one, and he failed to see how, in that case, the hon. and learned Gentleman could object to the clause.

said, it appeared to him that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) was fallacious, inasmuch as he seemed to argue as if the Bill only referred to one class of labourers—namely, those in mines. He appeared to forget the wide scope of the Bill, that it not only affected mines, but railways, and, indeed, every class. Remembering that, he could not help thinking that the clause of the Government was one that would have an equitable effect. Three years was, he thought, a fair limit at which to assess the wages of the labourers of this country as a class. He would venture to press upon his hon. Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that, undoubtedly, the Government proposal was superior to that of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire. By voting for the Government, however, he was not committing himself to any principle of restriction. The restriction proposed was subject to two perfectly conclusive objections. First, that alluded to by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), that it would be exceptional legislation. It would create the very same kind of inequality as that which had given rise to the whole agitation in favour of a measure of that sort, and would perpetuate the injustice which they sought to destroy. Upon that ground, it seemed to him that there could be no exception to the limitation which would not be open to the gravest objection. Secondly, there was an objection to that clause, which he believed had not hitherto been noticed. It actually curtailed the existing rights of the workmen. At the present moment, for instance, if a workman was injured by a defect in the plant, resulting from the negligence of the employer, he was entitled to recover full compensation. There was no limitation to the right. As soon as that Bill passed, that right, at present perfectly complete, became subject to the limitation contained in that clause. Upon those two grounds—first, that the legislation was exceptional, and applied to workmen only; and, secondly, that it curtailed or deprived persons of rights now in existence, he thought the clause open to the gravest objection. Therefore, if a division were taken upon the Amendment, in voting with the Government he reserved to himself the fullest right hereafter of moving that the whole clause be struck out.

said, he should not have risen, but that he wished to point out that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) were, he believed, not correct. He thought it would be found that there was nothing whatever in the course of that Bill which took away from workmen any right which they then had by any existing law. If a workman suffered an injury in consequence of the personal negligence of the employer, he was entitled to compensation. If killed, his employer was not only criminally liable, but also civilly, for any amount that could be recovered. The 2nd clause of the Bill stated the oases in which the right to compensation did not accrue, and the 3rd clause merely stated that the sum awarded as compensation should not exceed a certain amount. He would venture to say that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was not right as regarded the curtailing of rights then in existence.

said, he fully agreed with what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, that that clause ought to be cut out. If they looked at the 1st clause, they would see that it said "that a workman should have the same right of compensation as if he were not a workman," &c. That was, as if he were one of the public. That very day the Government had cut out Sub-section 3 of Clause 2, on the ground that its meaning was already contained in the Common Law. Whilst he certainly should vote against the Amendment, he should reserve to himself the right to vote against the clause subsequently.

said, he wished to ask a question with reference to the law of insurance.

said, he should be glad to answer any question when they came to the question of assurance; but that was not the subject before them then.

said, he wished to move the next Amendment. He thought the Committee would see that the principle of it was the same as that of the Bill. The only difference was as to the mode of ascertaining the amount of compensation. It was to take the three years' earnings preceding the injury, as compared with the average earnings in the same neighbourhood of a man in the same position. His sole object in moving the Amendment was to avoid litigation as far as possible. By adopting the Amendment, the expensive inquiry which must take place in order to ascertain the possible maximum compensation would be avoided. In fact, what he had suggested was the only possible means of ascertaining the amount of compensation, where the man died. He was very glad, indeed, that the Government had resolved not to name a fixed sum. He thought that would be most unjust and unfair. Hon. Gentlemen who proposed £100, £150, or £200, did not take into consideration the different rates of wages that were received. In the trade with which he was more particularly connected, many men earned, on the average, £150. He most entirely objected to any such limitation being inserted. He wished also for it to be distinctly understood, that while he approved of the principle adopted by the Government of granting a certain number of years as the maximum amount of possible compensation—which was one of the most valuable principles the Bill contained, and for which he, for one, felt grateful to the Government—still, he did not think that they had adopted the proper amount as the maximum compensation. For his part, he would have fixed it higher than three years. But, notwithstanding that, he had adopted the words of the clause in his Amendment, and that was one reason why he pressed it on the attention of the Government.

said, that the difference between the clause of the Bill and the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Bolton) was entirely one of detail. The principle was the same; and if the Committee would allow their attention to be directed to the matter for a moment, they would see that it was almost necessary to maintain the clause of the Bill. The Government clause proposed that they should take an estimate of the labour of the three preceding years of the person employed. If the man were not in employ, then they were to take an estimate of the earnings of a person of the same grade employed during those years. It was necessary to use these general terms; for, otherwise, they would not be able to deal with cases where a man was not in employ for three years, or was out of work, or where, for instance, there were bad times at the end of three years and good times at the beginning. They could not deal with the matter, if they fixed the amount, for many considerations. Thus, it might be that there were two different grades of employment on account of the man being advanced, and then they would have to calculate both on the smaller and larger sum. For these reasons, it must be obvious that they must look at the question generally, and not fix a certain amount. His hon. Friend's Amendment really contained no material difference to that of the clause in the Bill. He suggested, that where the period of service had not extended to three years, "the rate should be that actually earned during the term of service immediately preceding the injury." But supposing wages were low at the time, or immediately before the injury was received, although not so previously, the rate would be calculated on a low basis, instead of an average one—they were bound to take an estimate for a more extended period. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had misapprehended the meaning of his Amendment. The rate was that actually earned during the term immediately preceding. It was in the last line but one; and supposing, for instance, that the man had been in the service 6, 12, or 18 months, the amount of compensation would be calculated upon that.

Yes; but suppose the man had only been in the employ six weeks?

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling seemed to forget that the man might be moving upward in rank during the first, second, or third year. In case he were moving backward, it would be just the same. The amount for compensation must be calculated upon the average rate for three years; then it would work exactly the same, whether the wages were rising or falling.

said, he did not like the expression "estimated earnings." He should like to substitute "average wage paid." He begged to move that Amendment,

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which was to increase the maximum amount of possible compensation. He wished to substitute "five years" for "three." In a recent case, where a passenger had been injured in connection with a railway accident, he had been awarded £13,000, based, he believed, on a calculation of five years' income. He had wished to oppose the clause altogether; but he had not done so, inasmuch as he had expected that a few concessions to employers would, perhaps, take away the exaggerated apprehensions of which they had had such evidence during the discussion on that Bill. But they had found that that was not so. Employers were still as hostile as ever to the Bill. If they were to have a limit, he thought as wide a margin as was fair and just should, at any rate, be allowed. He understood, from information he had received, that it was not at all an infrequent thing for the amount granted to be equal to five years' wages. On that account he begged to move his Amendment.

said, he should like to say just a word with reference to the question of having any limit at all. It had been said that it was new legislation to lay down a limit as to the amount to be recovered. That was not altogether accurate, for they had precedents in legislation laying down a limit under circumstances precisely similar to the present. He could not help thinking that it was perfectly legitimate, when dealing with a question of that sort, where they were introducing a new head of liability which did not exist before, to introduce with it a limit, if a reasonable one could be found. And if there were no limit, generally speaking, they could be by no means sure that it was not the most reasonable thing to introduce some limit. He would proceed to refer to the precedent precisely in point. In case of damage or loss by reason of the navigation of a vessel, where there was negligence on the part of the servant, the liability was limited to a certain extent; but where there was no such negligence, it was not limited. Therefore, the law already made the distinction between the liability of a person where there was negligence on his part, and that where the negligence was on the part of the servant. He quite agreed that that limitation applied to all persons; but he did not say that that precedent should be followed exactly in the present instance. It appeared that there was another reason in favour of a limit being fixed, and to that he would call the attention especially of his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). It was in the interest of both employer and employed that it should be so. The one thing above all others to prevent was litigation—they wanted, in fact, to take away, or diminish, the chances of litigation as much as possible. He believed that if a limit were given it would reduce the chances of litigation; because, so long as the liability was left absolutely unlimited, they knew, by experience, the promises held out to litigants by those who took up their cases. If the defendant offered a sum, they would say, "Leave the matter in our hands, we will get you an amount far exceeding what anyone will offer you." The result would be that it would conduce to litigation, and the only persons who would really benefit would be the lawyers. That was certainly what they wished to discourage in that Bill. Speaking, then, generally on the question of limit, he would say that it would reduce litigation, and be quite as much in the interests of the employed as of the employer. With reference to the particular limit, he would observe that it was always, in fixing a limit, extremely difficult to say what it should be. There was no absolute reason why it should be a particular number of years, any more than one more or less. He thought he should best explain that limit if he were to tell the Committee that it had been based on general experience. In cases where there been permanent injury received, juries usually awarded three years' wages. It was occasionally more and occasionally less; but that was the average. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had stated that £13,000 had been given in the case of a railway accident based on a calculation of five years. The sum awarded in that case was £16,000, and it was shown that the injured man had been in receipt of £5,000 a-year. That, therefore, only went to show that the basis of the calculation of the Government was the usual one. A great deal had been said on both sides; but he believed that the terms of the clause were as much in the interest of the employer as the employed. Of course, in a great number of cases they would not reach the limit, or anything like it; and those matters must be left open to be treated according to the nature of the accidents that occurred and the injuries that were received. In conclusion, he might say that he thought it was in the interests of both parties that a fair and reasonable limit should be fixed; and he hoped that he had been able to convince the Committee that the limit fixed in the clause was such an one, and one that had, in fact, been based on actual experience of decided cases.

said, that he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

said, that, generally speaking, much less would be given by juries than the amount fixed by the Bill—namely, the average earnings of the injured man for the previous three years.

said, that three years was fixed as the maximum in this case, because that was the compensation which juries generally gave in such cases.

said, that the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman made their case stronger than ever, and he would instance the case of the Irish Land Act. When, 10 years ago, the House was discussing the maximum amount of compensation to be given under that Bill, it seemed to be assumed by hon. Gentlemen that the maximum allowed by the Bill—seven years—would be given. The fact was, that Judges had given, on an average, only three, and two and three-quarter years' compensation. He hoped the Committee would not be alarmed by the idea that juries would give enormous compensation. What was it that the Amendment proposed? It proposed that if there were some exceptional cases, in which the merits and the justice of the case were so plain, that in a case where a jury would now give five years' compensation, this clause should not prevent its giving the additional two years' compensation. He thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Morpeth ought to be adopted; although he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General that there was a good deal to be said as to the introduction of some limit to the compensation. He would appeal to the Committee to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, for he believed that it would be found to work extremely well and to meet many exceptional cases.

said, that he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General that it was right that some limit should be fixed to the amount of compensation to be given. If no limit were fixed a great amount of litigation would take place. In 1870, he served on a Committee with reference to compensation for railway accidents. There were on that Committee several hon. Members of very considerable experience in that House, both on legal matters and with reference to railway accidents. That Committee was originated by railway interests with the object of having special tribunals appointed for the trial of railway cases; and it was very strongly contended that there should be some limit to the liability of the Companies. The Committee examined Lord Justice (then Mr. Baron) Bramwell, Mr. Baron Martin, Sir James Hannen, and other Judges, who were in the habit of trying these cases of compensation for railway accidents. Mr. Baron Bramwell, on being asked if he thought it desirable to have a limit, said that he did not think that the damages generally given were excessive; and, on the contrary, that he was much surprised at their moderation. Still, the Committee, in which the railway interest was well represented, came to a conclusion in favour of fixing some limit. They fixed upon the limit of £1,000 for first-class passengers; £500 for the second-class; and £300 for the third-class passengers. If the average rate of wages were taken, he thought it would be found that the limit of £300 was a very fair sum to fix as the amount of compensation to be paid to a third-class passenger. Judging from the class which formed third-class passengers, it seemed to him that £300 represented five years' earning more nearly than three. It should be remembered also that five years was only fixed as a maximum, and it did not follow that that maximum would be given in all cases. In the belief that £300 represented five years' earning of a working man at the average rate of wages, he should certainly support the Amendment if it went to a division.

said, that he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Morpeth. There were many cases in which the limit of three years for the earnings would not be fair compensation. If they took the class of apprentices, a young man of 20 might be receiving only 10s. or 12s. a-week; but in a short time he would probably be earning very much more. In such cases the limit of three years would not cover the average earnings of those men. If they took the case of the railway locomotive drivers they would see that a similar argument applied. Those men commenced by being cleaners. They were then drivers for a short time on a goods train, and then they were made drivers on a passenger train. He thought it necessary to increase the maximum of five years, in order to give those men a proper chance of obtaining compensation.

said, that they were by that Bill imposing a liability for injury to their servants, and the question was to what extent they should impose it. It had been said that three years' compensation was the general sum given by a jury in cases of accident. He thought it was upon the principle well known to all men of business that three years was about the average purchase of any business requiring skill. He supposed that three years was about the maximum rate of purchase of any business of that character. That being the principle upon which a jury arrived at its decision, he thought that it was a very fair limit for the Committee to fix as the maximum rate of compensation.

said, that he could not give a silent vote upon this question. He thought it quite right that some limit should be fixed of compensation. The more one looked into this matter, however, the more it would be found that the only practical solution of the question was the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. He did not, however, think that the country was yet ripe for that solution of the question. Still, he was sure that the question would never be satisfactorily settled on any other basis than that. He thought, however, that the question before them then was only the amount of compensation to be fixed, and that three years, as proposed by the Government, was the proper maximum.

said, that they were fixing the maximum rate of damages for injuries sustained by servants at three years' compensation, on the ground that strangers to the employers usually received three years, although it was perfectly true that they might receive a great deal more. He wished to know why that injustice was to be perpetrated? Was it reason or justice that the victim of a terrible injury sustained by the negligence of his fellow-servant should have his compensation limited to three years? He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Morpeth was very moderate, and he should certainly support it.

said, that he now wished to raise the question whether a limit of any kind, such as made in this clause, ought to be made. He thought it was not right to fix such a limit in this Bill, as it was new in principle, and it was not expedient to introduce a system which would affect the working classes, and none other. If the limitation was right, then there ought to be a limit fixed in the case of all accidents. Then there would be some reason for it; but it was not fair to begin only with one class. This clause limiting the amount of compensation would be unfair in relation to the workman, and he did not think it was altogether fair to the employer. It would be unfair to the employer, because the tendency would be to work up to the maximum amount. In many cases that would result very unfairly to the employer, and in others unfairly to the workman; and he thought it in every way better to leave each case to be judged on its own merits, either to be settled by arrangement or by a jury. For these reasons, he begged to move that the clause be omitted.

said, that he did not mean to repeat the observation which he made some time ago; but he should like to make some remarks upon the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman failed to show that there was any precedent in our legislation for applying a restriction to one particular class of persons, as was the case in the present Bill. It was true he produced a precedent for the limitation of compensation generally; but he gave none whatever in our legislation for applying restrictions to one class alone. He left the Government to judge how extremely unpopular a restriction would be, which would apply exclusively to workmen. As to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Eye (Mr. Inderwick) that the Bill did not take away the Common Law right to sue an employer for personal negligence, that was perfectly true; but the effect would be that one man who sued at Common Law would get full compensation, and another man who sued under the Act would only get partial compensation. Where the employer was not guilty of personal negligence there would be no such option to sue at Common Law, and the compensation would be limited by the terms of this Act. With respect to the practical working of this clause, so far as children were concerned, the compensation would be limited to three years' wages, although the injury might be one which would maim the child for life. In manufactories children were employed at almost nominal wages; and the compensation given by this Bill, if restricted to the average earnings for three years, would be utterly inadequate. A child, therefore, might receive a terrible injury, and only recover an almost nominal sum in respect of it. That was the practical difficulty which would occur if this Bill became law. When two or three cases had occurred in which young children maimed for life by dreadful accidents had been compensated in this inadequate manner, there would be such an outcry that some further alteration of the law would be absolutely necessary.

objected to the Amendment. He did not at all understand that the Bill was brought in as a matter of favour to working men, but as a matter of justice; and, therefore, the proposals in the Bill should be carried out not grudgingly, but fairly and generously. The clause before them, and those which immediately followed, were contrary to that principle. They had heard a good deal, during the course of the debate, of the evils of litigation. He was not afraid of them, because to prevent litigation was very often to shut the door of the legal tribunals against certain parties. Some of the clauses in this Bill would have very much that effect. While, therefore, he thoroughly approved of the general scope of the Bill, and gave it his warm support, on this particular point he should vote with the hon. Member.

said, the clause was quite at variance with the object of the Bill. The measure, at present, gave a right of action to persons who did not now possess that right; and it had been stated, over and over again, in the course of the discussion, that the object of the Bill was merely to extend to those persons the Common Law rights which others enjoyed. In doing that they should surely be consistent, and enable working men to enjoy exactly the same advantages as other persons. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had said, in the case of young persons the Bill would work a grievous hardship, because, by its present provisions, they would be entitled to next to no compensation at all. Then in the case of adults, too, he believed that much injustice would be done, and that if the clause were struck out altogether, and the whole matter was left to the Judge and jury to determine, they would decide on precisely the same grounds and proceed on the same lines as this Bill now did; while they would be able to do justice in particular cases when special circumstances arose. The jury would only seek to give compensation according to the position in life of the person claiming. They would consider his actual positive loss, and they would not seek to overburden the employer. He thought there was a good deal of groundless alarm felt on this point. Where juries gave excessive damages the Courts would cure the evil and remedy the injustice. This clause was against the whole principle of the Bill; and he should, therefore, feel bound to support the hon. Member.

said, hon. Members were anxious to put this clause in the Bill, because it would limit the amount of compensation; but he rather doubted whether that would be the principal result. In his opinion, the tendency would rather be to make the three years' earnings an ascertained valuation of the damage; and it would encourage litigation, because, instead of the amount of damage being left absolutely as a matter of speculation, his solicitor would always tell the injured workman that he was entitled to three years' wages, and he would have a very good excuse for holding out expectations that the man would get that. Another reason why this ought not to apply was, that it affected not only cases where a man had been disabled by injury, but where his legal personal representatives were suing after the man himself had been killed. In such cases he could quite conceive that three years' compensation would be a very inadequate provision. It would certainly be given, however, in every case under the Bill, because nobody would be able to say there was any reason for not giving that full amount. He voted against putting in five years instead of three, because he believed that would merely be to extend the measure of damages, and that the employers would always be called upon to pay. For the same reason, he should vote for this proposition to leave out the clause, because he believed that was the fairest way to treat the matter.

pointed out that if this clause passed the rates of the working men in Scotland, which had already been restricted by the Bill, would be still further limited. He should vote, therefore, with his hon. Friend.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) seemed to be of opinion that the Bill would promote litigation, because the solicitor would say to his client that he would be sure to get three years' compensation; but if there was no limit at all, then an unscrupulous solicitor would be able to hold out the most golden hopes to the workmen, and no one would be able to check any lure he might suggest. The working man, therefore, would be far more likely to go to law, if the amount he might obtain was absolutely unlimited, than if the solicitor was forced to tell him that he could not get more than three years' wages. He proposed, therefore, to vote with the Government.

said, he could not help acknowledging that some injustice would be done where children or young persons were injured whose wages were very small, because they would get scarcely anything; and he would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should undertake to insert some words on Report which would meet such cases.

said, he had a proposition to make to the Committee which he hoped would save time and enable them to pass this clause. There were two Amendments on the Paper, one in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Eye (Mr. Inderwick), and another in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), both proposing to extend the time within which the workman should give notice to his employer that he intended to ask compensation for his injuries. There would be some difficulty as to that. Machinery would have to be provided as to whom the notice should be given. The employer might be abroad. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government thought the limit in the clause—namely, that notice should be given within six weeks after the injury—was unduly short. There was an Amendment on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), proposing that notice should be given of an action within three months of the injury. They thought that was a fair term, and they were ready to accept that Amendment. If his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport and his hon, and learned Friend the Member for Eye would agree to that, the Amendments might be disposed of. He proposed to omit the words "six weeks" in order to insert the words "three months."

said, he thought the proposition was very fair, and, so far as he was concerned, he was ready to accept it.

said, he introduced his proposition because he thought it would prevent a certain amount of litigation. If the Government were ready to accept these "three months" he did not see why they should object to it.