asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government have entered into agreements or have commenced negotiations for agreements with any of the European Powers, having for their object a concerted or separate display of force against the Government of Turkey for the purpose of inducing that Government to conform to the decisions of the Conference of Berlin as conveyed in the Collective Note; whether similar negotiations have been carried on by Her Majesty's Government for a similar purpose as regards the cession of territory to Montenegro; and, whether the Papers which are to be laid upon the Table will give any information as to the progress of those negotiations, or as to the contents of those agreements; if not, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to furnish the House with full information on these matters before the close of the present Session, and to make to the House a statement of their policy, in order that that policy may receive due consideration before the House separates for the Recess.

Papers will be laid on the Table, very shortly, containing the Collective Note, and the reply of the Porte thereto. The Six Powers are in constant communication as to the further steps to be taken by them together, and I cannot give information as to the nature of these communications at this moment. A Collective Note was presented to the Porte during the present week on the Montenegrin Frontier question, giving the Porte the alternative of two schemes for the settlement of that question. I have every reason to hope that such a settlement will be speedily reached, and it would not be right in me to discuss what measures might be taken by the Powers on the improbable hypothesis that the Porte will decline both alternatives. Her Majesty's Government will place information on these subjects in the possession of Parliament, either by statement or by the presentation of Papers, before Parliament rises.

Are negotiations still going on?

Yes.

I should also like to ask whether the Conference Papers will soon be presented to Parliament?

Sir, they were presented yesterday. Delay has been caused by the printing of the maps, which can only be printed at the rate of 200 a-day, and which were photozinco-graphed at Southampton. There will be 100 maps in the Vote Office in the course of the day; but copies cannot be distributed till Monday.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman another Question about foreign affairs? I wish to know whether there is any truth in the report in some of this morning's papers that Her Majesty's Government have withdrawn the request they made to the Greek Government in favour of inaction on the part of that Power, and whether, in consequence of that, an order for mobilizing the Greek Army has been issued?

It would be better that the hon. Gentleman should give Notice of a Question of this character.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the general anxiety on the subject of Indian Finances and the indefinite assertions which have been published of grave errors in the accounts, he will not reconsider his proposal to postpone the Financial Statement, and submit it to the House on some day during the ensuing week?

Sir, I cannot say more than I said yesterday on this subject; but I hope on Monday it will be possible to fix a day for the Indian Financial Statement.

said, that if Her Majesty's Government adhered to the Amendment they had proposed he should certainly support them; but before doing so, he would invite their attention to the whole scope of the clause, in order to consider whether it was necessary to guard and fence around, by any kind, of restriction, the right which the Bill assumed was to be given to the workmen. Let them consider for a moment with what view they were making these restrictions. The whole history of restriction of this description arose in this way. He believed the earliest of them had reference to the actions against Justices, officers of the Customs, and persons charged with the execution of a public duty. It sometimes arose that by some slip or error a Justice of the Peace or a Custom House officer did something which amounted, in point of law, to trespass; and then, in the then state of the law, any person could take advantage of the irregularity, and be able to bring an action and recover his costs. By a circuitous and cumbrous piece of legislation an Act of Parliament was passed requiring the plaintiff to give notice, in order that a tender might be made. One provision was that 2d. paid into Court should be a full answer to an action of that sort; but the whole object was to control that particular class of actions, and to require the plaintiff to forfeit costs if the trial really came off. The state of things with which they were dealing now was very different. They were making pro- visions for the ease of a workman who had suffered a real injury. If the workman had suffered no real injury, and the damage ultimately assessed should turn out to be so trifling and insignificant as to show that the action ought never to have been brought at all, then, in the present state of the law, there was a complete control over the costs. Therefore, that which gave rise to this state of things had passed away and gone by. It appeared, therefore, to him that the draftsman, in the present instance, had gone back to an old, cumbrous, and inconvenient form of legislation which was wholly unnecessary. There was, however, another view of the case. Let the Committee consider the effect of this provision upon a really honest sufferer. According to his experience, these notices of action were merely traps and pitfalls to the honest sufferers; whereas the dishonest sufferer would employ some pettifogger, who was just the man who would never fall into such a blunder. Very frequently the last thing which occurred to the man who had really suffered an injury was the notion of going to law, and, as a rule, he never went to law until he was compelled by dire necessity. Then, unless he gave notice of action within six weeks, or, according to the present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, three months, he would find himself too late. It seemed to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) that legislation of this kind would operate exactly in a wrong direction. A dishonest person bringing an action would never fall into such a pitfall; whereas the man who had really sustained an injury would be very likely to do so. The employer who would be responsible to make compensation was a man who, to a certain extent, would be cognizant of, and would have the means of ascertaining, by evidence, what had been the history of the person who had been injured. At the present moment, such a stringent provision was not applied in the outside world, even in the case where the relations of employer and employed did not exist. For instance, in the case where a man dismissed his coachman, he would have no opportunity of finding out any or what accidents that coachman might have caused, or the extent of injury inflicted by him in any particular case; but, at any time subsequently, a person injured could bring this action against the master of the coachman, although the coachman himself might have been dismissed a year or two before. In the case dealt with under the present Bill the employer must have much better means of information. He must, for instance, know whether such an act took place or not; because, in all probability, the injured person would not be the only individual in the master's employment. But it was in reference to a workman under such circumstances, and to him alone, that it was proposed to introduce this legislation. It certainly seemed to him that they were proposing to give, with one hand, a right to compensation, and that they were very much disposed to take it away with the other; and there was a possibility that the provision they proposed to make would give rise to the very litigation they were anxious, if possible, to prevent. Accidents of the kind that were dealt with in the Bill were just the class of accidents that persons interested in conducting legal proceedings should be perfectly alive to. There was a probability, when such an accident occurred, one of this class of practitioners would go to the injured man at once, and say—"Let me act for you, because if you have no one to look after your interests, and you do not serve your notice of action in time, you will be out of Court. You have no time for consideration in the case. You are suffering from an accident, and you must determine at once whether you will bring an action for compensation or not." It certainly appeared to him that the provision would foster litigation; and instead of leading to correspondence with the employer, and an equitable arrangement, would do great injury to the class of persons they were anxious to serve. He did not assume that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would accept every suggestion that was made to him; but if, after this suggestion, the right hon. Gentleman adhered to his Amendment he should certainly support it, on the ground that it would be a very considerable improvement of the clause as it stood.

said, he would state in a few words, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, why this clause was inserted. In the first place, he might say that the clause was taken, as it stood in the Bill, bodily from the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Mac- donald), who would certainly not be suspected of designing to introduce a clause adverse to the interests of the working classes. The Government had adopted it into the Bill because they thought it was a clause which, in its operation, would not bear unfairly upon the workmen, and which, at the same time, would only be just and reasonable to the employers. There were actions against employers which arose out of the negligence of one man towards another; and it was only fair to the employer that he should have notice given to him within a reasonably short time, so that he should be able to make a full inquiry while the matter was fresh, and there should be no surprise, as there might be if a case was to go on behind his back, and he was to have no notice of it until a considerable time had elapsed. He thought the Committee would feel that it was possible for the employer to be placed in a disadvantageous and unfair position, in which it would be impossible or difficult for him to ascertain the real facts. That was the object with which the clause was adopted. But the Government thought, on further consideration, that this requirement of notice of injury to be given within six weeks was too short a time to enable a man to ascertain the nature and extent of his injury; and, therefore, they thought it would be only fair to adopt the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and to substitute three months for six weeks. He did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to object to the extension of the period within which notice of action should be given. It was the limitation of period within which actions were to be brought under Lord Campbell's Act.

remarked, that there was also a practical difficulty which had not been touched by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Perhaps his right hon. Friend would be content to leave this clause out, if provision were made for giving a comparatively short notice of injury. An Amendment to that effect had already been placed on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), who proposed that notice of injury should be given within 14 days. It was important that notice of injury should be given as soon as possible, and it was desirable to give sufficient time, and no more than suffi- cient time, for a man to make up his mind whether he was injured or not. Such notice should be given within 14 or 20 days, and then leave the man to bring his action whenever he liked, the employer having thus been made aware of the claim. In the mining population, with which he was acquainted, there were numbers of young men who were necessarily of a migratory class. They worked for a week or a fortnight in one colliery, and then went for a fortnight to another, especially in such times as these when work was uncertain; and in the course of a few weeks one of these young men, with no family ties, would often be working in three or four places. Therefore, it seemed to be necessary that, before a man left the employment in which he had sustained an injury, he should, at the very least, be required to give notice of the injury. He could not conceive that there was anything wrong in this, or that it could be regarded in any way as a curtailment of the privileges of the workmen. Whenever a man thought himself to be hurt he should afford the employer an opportunity of investigating the case with the least possible delay. Two or three weeks would give the man an opportunity of sending notice, and his employer the opportunity of sending for the doctor, and of obtaining the best possible advice as to the nature of his injuries. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Hull. The time for bringing the action might be left almost unlimited; but the notice of injury should be short.

thought that notice of injury could not be given too quickly to the employer; but he should be very sorry to see the time for bringing an action limited to six weeks. The Amendment now proposed for extending the period to three months was, he thought, an alteration for the better. It must be borne in mind that when a notice of action was given it had a tendency to stop all negotiations for an amicable arrangement, and only stirred up ill-feeling. In the absence of a notice of action the injured man and his employer might often come to terms without the necessity of resorting to an action at all. For this reason, he thought it would be an advantage to extend the period named in the Bill for notice of action, particu- larly as there was always in these cases a desire on the part of the employer to negotiate and come to terms.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which had already been explained by his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). He was quite indifferent as to the time for bringing an action; but he certainly thought they ought to require that notice of injury should be given within 14 days. Hon. Members, in discussing the Bill, had principally in their minds the serious accidents which occurred in mines and upon railways. But in mines and on railways, when accidents occurred, they were generally of a very serious nature indeed, and in such cases the employers had ample notice of them; from common report, and from public sentiment, they were made acquainted with the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted. But in connection with other businesses a vast number of accidents occurred which were of a comparatively trivial nature. Men slightly injured a hand or maimed a leg by some article falling upon them; and it would be most unjust, when such injuries, involving compensation, were sustained, if they were not at once brought to the knowledge of the employer. If the Committee accepted his Amendment, or something to the same effect, he would be quite willing to extend the period for bringing the action.

thought it was very important that the time in which the notice of injury could be given should be limited to 14 days, so that all the circumstances of the accident could be taken into consideration.

remarked, that a man might have received such serious injury in an accident that within three months he could not take the proper steps to give notice of action; and why, therefore, should he be debarred from receiving compensation? There were accidents in mines and on railways in consequence of which men were laid up for months and totally unable to take the steps required by this clause. The Government, therefore, ought to seriously consider this matter, so that the persons very badly injured should not be debarred from compensation. Unless care were taken it would be only those trivially injured who would be able to receive compensation.

said, that it seemed to him that the proposal now made by the Government was, upon the whole, a reasonable one, for three months in which notice should be given was certainly a short enough period. Many hon. Members, who had made remarks upon the Amendment, had assumed that accidents did not occur which resulted in death or in any serious injury. In case of death it was necessary that time should be afforded for consideration as to who was to give notice of action. It might be some time before the relatives of the deceased workman could understand their position, and some time especially before they could understand who had the right to bring the action. It, therefore, appeared to him that three months was not too long a time in which to allow the notice of action to be given. There was, no doubt, a great deal of force in what the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had stated, because it was not quite clear that the clause was at all justifiable. Much could be said in favour of the clause, and equally good arguments might be advanced against it. In his opinion, the strongest argument in favour of the limitation was the danger lest a workman, when discharged, might be induced by someone or other to bring an action against his late employer without sufficient cause. To guard against such an event the limitation was justifiable.

thought, with several others, that the clause might very well be omitted; but in order not to appear to depart from the principle of the Bill, he would say that the proposal now made with regard to the notice of the injury was very reasonable in itself, although he thought that 14 days was too little time to allow in which the notice of injury could be given. They ought to have six weeks allowed, or, at the very least, a month. But, apart from that, he believed that in all well - regulated works—and there were large employers of labour in the House who would be able to correct him if he were wrong—it was the custom for the manager to report all the accidents to his employer, together with the circumstances surrounding the accidents. It would, however, be only fair that six weeks be allowed in which to give notice of the injury; because it might occur that a workman sustained some injury to his brain, and that he was totally incapacitated from giving legal notice for a considerable time. If a month even were allowed for the notice, and unlimited time given for the actual bringing of the action, a very reasonable concession would be made.

said, that although he felt the force of the observations of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), he was rather favourable to notices of action instead of notices of injury. Very great care would have to be taken in giving a notice of injury; otherwise, at the trial, it would be open to many technical objections. If the nature of the injury had to be stated, the plaintiff would often fail from not having stated it accurately; and, moreover, in many cases the full extent of the injury might not develop itself till after notice given. Anyone conversant with railway accidents must be aware of this. If notice of injury was to be given, it should simply be a notice that A B had been injured. When once an employer had a notice of action served upon him it would be his own fault if he did not make inquiries, if it were only to effect a compromise in the matter as soon as possible. The object of the clause was to give an employer full notice, at an early period, that a person had been injured, and that it was possible proceedings would be taken. Upon the whole, then, he rather inclined to the suggestion of serving notices of action, instead of notices of injuries, unless the notice of injury was in a very general form.

could not agree with the hon. Member (Sir Henry Holland) that notices of injury would be open to more technical objections than notices of action. He apprehended that nothing would be required but a statement in general terms of the injury. The time suggested—14 days—in which notice of injury should be given, appeared to him far too little. There were many accidents the effects of which a man might not feel for some days, and yet he would be justified in applying for compensation if it could be proved that the accident had been brought about by negligence on the part of the employer. He knew of cases in which injuries were not developed within 14 days, or even within six weeks; and, therefore, he thought that ample time ought to be afforded. He approved of the suggestion that notice should be given of the injury instead of the action.

agreed with the suggestion of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Holland), that it would be better to give notice of injury instead of notice of action. He thought it was due to the employer that he should have the earliest possible notice of the injury which might be the subject of claim; but it would be wrong to restrict the notice to the short time suggested by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). His hon. Friend seemed to have confined his attention to injuries sustained in accidents in mines in which the consequences were direct and palpable. But there were injuries sustained in railway accidents which did not develop themselves in 14 days, or even in six weeks. He, like his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood), was cognizant of such instances. He had known cases in which persons had received a shock in a railway accident. They had been a little shaken, and in two or three days they were, to all appearances, quite well; but in a few months the injuries received had developed and sometimes resulted in death. Having regard to such cases as those, he thought the time ought to be prolonged beyond 14 days. He trusted the Government would consent to the proposed alteration in respect to the notices, in which case six weeks would be a fair time, an unlimited time afterwards being given in which to bring the action.

said, that his reason for fixing upon 14 days was that in many large establishments the pay was fortnightly, and he thought it would not be unreasonable to provide that the notices should be given on pay day. The period ought not to be too extended, because men were constantly changing from one employment to another, and because the employer might be unable to get evidence after the lapse of a long time, and might not be able to form an opinion whether a compromise ought to be effected. He would be very happy to adopt any period which the Committee might think fit. For instance, he would be quite willing to accept a month, in lieu of 14 days.

said, it was perfectly easy to suggest cases of hard- ships in any event. It must be admitted that there were exceptional cases in which a workman receiving injuries would be debarred from compensation if the time in which he could give notice were too limited; but the Committee must recollect, also, that if they allowed too long an interval between the accident and the giving of the notice they might do an injustice to the master. Their object ought to be, in legislation, to do the least possible injustice to anybody, and he hoped the Government would consent to substitute "six weeks" for "14 days."

said, he had listened with great attention to the discussion which had just taken place; and he gathered that the feeling of the Committee, on the whole, was to prefer that notices of injury should be given instead of notices of action. He was willing, therefore, to defer to that feeling, and would propose that the first part of the clause should read—

"An action for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice that injury has been sustained is given within six weeks."

thought it extremely inconvenient to have kaleidoscopic legislation. They had an Amendment proposed last night, by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson), in such a way as to show that he wanted to force it through the Committee between 25 minutes past 11 o'clock and 29 minutes past. The right hon. Gentleman had now changed his mind, and he (Mr. Warton) objected to such sudden changes and alterations. Let them try to do one thing at a time, and then, perhaps, they might do it well. He understood that the Question before the Committee was the substitution of the words "three months" for "six weeks," and upon that point he was anxious to address hon. Gentlemen. This was one of the most important questions in the Bill; and, in the first place, he desired to say, with the utmost deference to the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), that he felt bound to dissent from something he had addressed to the Committee. If this were a Party question he would follow the hon. and learned Member implicitly; but it was not a Party question, and he must be allowed to say that he did not quite agree with the hon. and learned Member's history of the law with regard to the notices of action. The history was perfectly correct, so far as it went; but it did not come down quite late enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that notices of action were only given in the case of Custom House officers, magistrates, and others in a like position. But he (Mr. Warton) must direct the attention of the Committee to the late Larceny Act, by which notices of action were provided for not only in the case of masters and servants or employers and employés, as they were now denominated, but in the case of the public. If one man accused another of felony, the accused was entitled to a notice of action. The principle of notice of action was more extensive than had been laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question now under discussion was one of justice. All practical employers of labour, all those who knew what business really was—whether they be shipowners, mineowners, or anything else—knew perfectly well that it was desirable that, as soon as possible, an employer should have the means and opportunity of finding out what really had taken place; and therefore, in his opinion, three months was a very long time in which to allow the service of notice upon the master. In three months all traces of the accident might be removed; the witness might have left the locality; and thus the employer would be quite unable to make the necessary inquiries. It must not be assumed that in all cases an employer knew everything that had happened. A man might receive an injury to his foot, at first say nothing about it; but, eventually, make a claim for compensation. He regarded this as a very serious matter, and was inclined to think that a month would be a reasonable time to allow. As the Government preferred six weeks he would not attempt to oppose them; but he would say that the frequent changes made by the Government showed great weakness on their part. A month would be quite long enough to allow, and would be fair alike to employer and employed. He was afraid the Government had a sort of fear that they would not be keeping a kind of bargain with the workmen. Let them get rid of all class considera- tions and take a broad view of the matter. Let them take, for instance, two men who were not master and servant. Was it not fair that some notice should be given? Was it not fair that the' defendant in general should have some notice of the proceedings to be taken against him? He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), whose observations the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not seem to comprehend, that a notice of action was what should be given, as notices of injury would, unquestionably, involve great technical objections. The earlier the notice of action was given, the longer would be the time in which a compromise might be arrived at. In the interest of the employer, and in the interest of justice between man and man, it was not fair that the evidence should be kept back. It was not fair that an opportunity should not be given to the defendant to meet his case.

appealed to the Committee, if they wanted to make any progress, to come to some determination upon this question. He assured hon. Gentlemen that the Government had no desire to change or shift about; but the very obvious object of the discussion in the House was to ascertain the views of hon. Gentlemen. If the Government intended to blindly adhere to the Bill as originally drafted, they had better say that the Bill should be carried without discussion. He trusted the Committee would be spared observations such as they had heard from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the Government showed a desire to be convinced by argument. They had consented to the suggestion that there should be a notice given that an injury had been sustained, and they would avoid the difficulty of requiring that a technical description of the injury should be given. If they did that, and allowed six weeks in which the notice might be given, they would, he believed, best follow the sense of the Committee.

I think it is necessary that some remarks should be made by a practical man with regard to this matter. Accidents occurring in mines are sometimes of a very slight cha- racter; and if there is no notice whatever given to the employer of the injury, all traces of the accident may disappear, even within a fortnight. Now, there are some substantial differences between notice of action and notice of injury; and I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side (Sir Hardinge Giffard) that an injured person might be placed at a most serious disadvantage by having his notice of action limited to three, or even six, months. But the employer might also be placed at a serious disadvantage by having notice of injury suspended even for a fortnight. The Mines Regulation Act requires owners, agents, or managers, to give notice to the Inspector, within 24 hours, of any death or serious bodily injury occurring in their mines. I have ascertained that in North Staffordshire the notices of injury of a serious character are something like 10 non-fatal to one fatal accident; while the non-fatal accidents actually occurring are in the proportion of 60 to one. A great number of those injuries are very slight; and, therefore, an employer might have no knowledge whatever of such having taken place. A person receiving a slight injury might go away elsewhere, and might bring his action without the employer being able to take any efficient steps to defend himself. I think notice of injury might be given within 24 hours, as required by the Mines Regulation Act. At all events, I think a fortnight is long enough, if, indeed, not too long. I do hope the Government will certainly not extend the time for notice of injury beyond 14 days. If they do, I can quite see that difficulties will arise, and employers will be placed at a most serious disadvantage; because the person intrusted with supervision, who, it may be alleged, has, by his negligence, occasioned the injury, might have left the employment, and. even the neighbourhood, where the accident occurred.

had no objection to raise to the Government proposal, for it was fair and reasonable and proper that there should be a clause of this kind. It must be remembered that they were proposing a new liability altogether, the operation of which no one could foresee. They were bringing into play cases in which the presumption was that the number of accidents would be very large, and that the people to suffer by them would be of the migratory class. Looking at the thing from a practical point of view, the original proposal of the Government was a very fair and reasonable solution of the question. When the Government introduced their Bill, they all presumed that they would stand by their own propositions. Objections had been taken, and the Government had yielded. He would not quarrel with the decision with respect to the six weeks. Somebody must determine the point. The principle of the clause, however, was the limitation of the action, and the notice of the injury was, of course, included. He did not understand how the clause was going to run.

The words will be "notice that injury has been sustained," instead of "notice of such action."

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that these men to whom the accidents occurred very seldom had any money in hand, and when they were injured they applied to one of two parties—either to their employer when their wages were payable, or to some benevolent society to which they belonged. If there was a possibility of an action hanging over an employer, the benevolent society would naturally say—"We will give this man nothing, because in a short time he will have a right of action against someone. We should be merely wasting our money." In the interest, therefore, of the workman, it was necessary that he should be compelled—either he or his family—to give notice on the next pay-day as to the course it was intended to adopt. If the man's reason were affected, then came to his assistance one of the great principles of English equity, which gave relief to the afflicted by extending the time in matters of this kind, and which would be administered by the County Courts. But in nine cases out of 10 these actions would be for small amounts. He held in his hand a paper from a benevolent relief fund, showing what they had done. Last year, it appeared, they had relieved persons, the subjects of accidents, to the number of 12,000. In 9,000 cases they had paid 15s. each, or something like it. Surely, the Committee were not going to allow such trivial cases as these to hang over the owners of property for two or three months. The thing would be entirely forgotten if such a length of time were allowed, for employers and their managers had something else to do than occupy their minds with such small matters. The living and healthy had to be taken care of, as well as the injured, and owners of mines and other great works would have their time unnecessarily taken up if notice of an injury were put off, and if they were required to bear in remembrance the details of any slight accident for many weeks after it happened. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the original clause.

wished to know whether the Government intended that the notice of injury should be in writing, or should be given by word of mouth; because if it were to be given in writing, the words "in writing" should be inserted. He mentioned this now, because he wished it to be considered before the Amendment was put.

said, that as it was necessary that notice of injury should be given to the employer, machinery should be provided for that notice; and it was, therefore, proposed to bring up a short clause dealing with the matter at a later stage.

said, he proposed to omit the words "such action will be brought," in order to insert the words "injury has been sustained."

said, that in the Bill the limit of time within which an action might be brought was six months; but he proposed to alter it to 12 months. He would not take up the time of the Committee by saying more than that it was a very novel thing to introduce a limitation of action different from the ordinary limitation. He agreed with a great deal that had been said on the other side with regard to introducing a new limitation; but, in order to meet the thing half-way, it seemed to him it would be reasonable to let the workman have 12 months instead of six to bring his action.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause; but if the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was inclined to accept the principle of it, he would leave to him the terms in which it should be drawn. Under the 1st clause of the Bill the relatives of a workman who was killed in the course of his employment were entitled to compensation. By Lord Campbell's Act it was provided that if any person was killed through the negligence of another person, whether it was criminal negligence or otherwise, an action might be brought within 12 months by the executors of the deceased person. There could only be one action brought, and the compensation given, if any, was distributed amongst the rela- tives specified—the mother or father, the husband or wife, or children of the deceased person. The Act provided machinery by which this distribution was made, and the amount of compensation settled. And it provided that an action was to be brought within a limited time of the death of the person. Now, the present Bill gave a right to the relatives of the deceased workman to claim compensation; but it did not provide such machinery for obtaining that compensation as, in his opinion, was right and desirable, in the interest either of the persons claiming compensation or of those against whom the claim for compensation was made. The words he proposed to add to the clause were these—

"Provided always, That, where the injury results in death, any such action shall be brought in the name of the executor or administrator of the person deceased, and may be brought at any time within twelve calendar months after the death of such person, and such action shall be tried, and the compensation dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act ninth and tenth Victoria, chapter ninety-three, so far as the provisions are not inconsistent with this Act."

said, there was a very good reason why he could not accept the proposal, and it was this. The provisions of the Bill would apply equally to England and Scotland, and Lord Campbell's Act did not apply to Scotland. The spirit of the clause the Government were disposed to accept, because it certainly seemed reasonable that where an action was brought in respect of a man's death a sufficient amount of time should be given to the representatives to take out letters of administration. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, and allow these words to be added to the end of Clause 4:—"or, in case of death, within six months from the time of death," the difficulty would be met. They certainly considered six months a more reasonable time than 12.

said, he was willing to accept the suggestion. He thought, however, it would be desirable that some words should be added giving the County Court Judge, or on whomsoever the duty devolved, the power of distributing the compensation.

There is a limitation as to time.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bring in the words?

We have got the clause amended.

moved, in page 2, line 34, after "workman," to insert "or his personal representatives."

said, he was prepared virtually to agree to the Amendment; but if the words suggested were inserted, a consequential Amendment would have to be made in the 1st clause. He proposed to obtain the object the hon. and learned Member had in view by omitting the words "by a workman;" and the clause would then read—

"Every action for the recovery of compensation under this Act shall be brought in a county court, but may be removed into a superior court in like manner as an action commenced in a county court may by law be removed."

moved, in page 2, line 35, to leave out "shall," and insert "may."

hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. The object of the clause, as it stood, was that litigation should be as little costly as possible; and looking at this fact, and at the fact that these actions were only for small amounts of compensation, it would be well to avoid the costs of going into Superior Courts. Ample power to move the case into a Superior Court would be given in more important cases.

said, that before the matter was fully disposed of, he wished to submit a point which he thought of some importance. If the clause stood in its original form with a paragraph giving to workmen suing under it unlimited power of appeal in Scotland, it would be all very right; but while, in the first paragraph of the clause, there was full and unlimited power of appeal to the Court of Session in all cases, that by the Amendment would be 'limited and fettered in the case of Scotland. For the first time restrictions in the way of appeal in a great many cases would be introduced. He had an Amendment on the Paper to obviate this evil; and if he did not succeed in his attempt to get the subsequent sub-section, in regard to Scotland, omitted, the power of appeal would be limited and barred by the operation of the Amendments. The effect of the Amendment would be that in Scotland, where cases must be tried before the Sheriff's Court without a jury, a workman would be deprived of the power of having his case tried by a jury.

said, that if the hon. Member would look at Clause 5, he would find that there was some power of removal to the Court of Session in Scotland.

said, that was quite delusive, and he would afterwards attempt to show it would be unfair to the workman. It would not be effectual.

said, it was desirable to cheapen the legal proceedings under this Bill, and he had an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, although he did not think it would be of much use to move it. He thought some plan ought to be adopted whereby the expense of these cases would be very much diminished. His Amendment was as follows:—In page 2, line 35, after "court," to leave out to the end of Clause, and insert—

"Of the district where the injury was caused, and on the hearing of the said action no counsel or attorney shall he heard for either party, except by leave of the judge of the said court, obtained by notice in writing signed by the party requiring such counsel or attorney and delivered to the said judge, by post or otherwise, two clear days before the hearing of the said cause; and in no case shall more than one counsel where counsel is required, nor more than one attorney, without counsel, where an attorney is required, be heard on either side. Any workman, however, claiming compensation under this Act, in case he does not employ counsel or attorney, may be assisted at the hearing of the said action, upon giving such notice to the said judge as aforesaid, by any secretary or other officer of any one trades or miners' union or benefit society to which he belongs. In no case shall any costs for any matter under this Act be allowed to either party, and no proceeding under this Act shall be removed to any superior court."

said, he himself proposed, in line 36, after the word "court," to insert the words "on the application either of the plaintiff or the defendant;" and after the words "in like manner," to insert the words "on the same conditions." His object was to make it quite clear that either party might be able to move the case to a Superior Court.

With regard to the hon. Member's Amendment——

He did not move it.

I thought he had done so. You sometimes ask hon. Members to speak up, so that we may know what is going on. The Amendment of the hon. Member is most important, particularly the latter part of it. ["Order, order !"]

The Amendment has not been moved; it is withdrawn.

I rise to Order. I think this Amendment is a very important one, and I wish to ask you whether it is not in my power to move an Amendment similar to it? The fact is, if you take the Amendment of the Solicitor General it will put me out of court, because he deals with the clause a line further on. I shall be entirely out of court if I am not now allowed to move. I quite understood, from the hon. Member addressing you so long, that he was endeavouring to explain the Amendment on the Paper. I was not at all prepared for the hon. Member declining to press his Amendment after his remarks.

I am sorry the hon. Member did not hear the remarks, and did not know that the proposer of the Amendment declined to move it. Finding that the Amendment was not proposed, I called on the Solicitor General to move his. Therefore, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) is not in Order in bringing up this question.

May I ask, as a matter of Order, whether the Solicitor General's Amendment is already put from the Chair?

Yes.

then rose.

Order! There is no Question yet before the Committee.

I propose to move——

There is no Question.

I propose to move an Amendment to the 1st sub-section.

I propose, in the same clause, after the words "like manner," to insert "and upon the same conditions."

said, that in order to put the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) in Order, he would move the addition of the following Proviso to the 1st sub-section—

"Any workman, however, claiming compensation under this Act, in case he does not employ counsel or attorney, may he assisted at the hearing of the said action, upon giving such notice to the said judge as aforesaid, by any secretary or other officer of any one trades or miners' union or benefit society to which he belongs. In no case shall any costs for any matter under this Act he allowed to either party, and no proceeding under this Act shall he removed to any superior court."

said, he was afraid that actions of this kind were frequently brought expressly with a view to costs, the result being that the money went into the hands of the attorney instead of the plaintiff. He hoped, therefore, that the words just read would be adopted.

entirely sympathized with the object in view; but thought the Government had shown, by the clause they had inserted, that they had every desire to prevent litigation, and to keep the money, as far as possible, out of the attorneys' hands. This was one great reason why they had desired that these actions should be brought in the County Court in the first instance, and, as much as they possibly could, be kept there. They were not a great source of remuneration for the attorneys as compared with what they would be in the Superior Courts. Even if the cases were kept in the County Courts, there might be more costs than they would desire going into the lawyers' hands; but, at the same time, he thought it would not be right to give a right of action such as was proposed, and to allow the working man who brought it assistance that was not professional. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

said, he thought it might be left to the discretion of the Judge to allow what costs he considered proper.

thought it desirable that the workman should be allowed to employ an attorney if he wished to do so. He regarded the Amendment as a a very good one, and should give it his hearty support if it went to a division.

said, so far, the discussion had been almost wholly confined to the question of costs; but he understood that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had adopted the whole of the matter in the paragraph beginning with the words "any workman." There was, he thought, a good deal in that paragraph, because there might be many a poor workman who could not afford to employ a solicitor or counsel; and there was no reason why he should not avail himself of the assistance of some intelligent person, such as the secretary of the trades union to which he might belong. There certainly could be nothing that was at all objectionable in such a procedure. Consequently, he thought it would be desirable to adopt that part of the Amendment, and thus to allow the workman to have the assistance of some person better qualified than himself to act as his advocate.

strongly objected to a proposal which would introduce into these cases a class of persons who would be in no way under the control of the Court, who would not be amenable to the ordinary professional rules, and whose action would have a tendency to foster litigation, which they would conduct without any legal knowledge or any of the advantages of professional judgment or experience.

did not share in the objection taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General, because, in the case that had been put, the assistance needed by the suitor would be rendered by an officer of the trades union to which the plaintiff himself belonged. There was one part of the Amendment which the Attorney General seemed to have overlooked—namely, the proviso that in no case should costs be allowed. That being so, he should like to know how the officer of a trades union would be able to make a trade out of giving his assistance to those members of the society with, which, he was connected who had claims of this kind to put forward? It seemed to him that the Amendment was one which deserved the very serious consideration of the Government. He did not wish to press it on the acceptance of the Government at that moment if they wished to have further time to consider it. But he certainly did not see why a poor man claiming compensation for injury should be compelled to pay the cost of professional assistance where there was not the least necessity for it. If he did not want professional aid, why on earth should they not allow the officer of his trades union to act for him?

said, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) seemed to think that that part of the Amendment which would deprive the so-called advocate of costs, would prevent a trade being driven in that way. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have entirely forgotten that where a claim was made there was something to be recovered, and that it might be a part of the bargain that some portion of the damages should be given to the person acting as the plaintiff's advocate. He believed that the most pestilent class to be found anywhere were those persons who, though not lawyers themselves, haunted the Courts of Justice for the purpose of obtaining employment in the assumed character of professional advisers. They were under no professional responsibility, they had no professional etiquette; and the result was that they merely fostered litigation to such an extent, that it would be almost impossible to keep them down if an Amendment of this sort were to be passed for the purpose of giving them encouragement.

said, there were many thousands of workmen who did belong to trades unions at all, and who would, consequently, not be provided for by the Amendment.

thought the Amendment was based on the principal characteristic of Diana of the Ephesians. What had been said by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was entitled to great weight; but, at the same time, he did not see why, when workmen were members of a par- ticular trades union, they should not have the assistance of an experienced man belonging to the same society.

said, he was anxious to save the time of the Committee; and of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would consider whether a clause somewhat of the character of the Amendment could be brought up in Committee, he should be satisfied. He perceived plainly that the Amendment had been cut in two by misadventure, and the result was that it did not meet what he wished to see carried out.

was afraid he could not hold out any hope in the direction desired by the hon. Member. It was for the hon. Gentleman to take what course he deemed most fitting.

said, as the Amendment did not carry out his meaning he was willing to withdraw it, and would bring it up again on the Report.

was glad to hear that the Amendment was reserved for the Report. Having long held office as a County Court Judge, he was willing to bear his testimony to the extreme undesirability of opening those Courts to non-professional men. He had seen in the Marylebone County Court the mischief that resulted from such a system. The persons who set themselves up in the character of advocates, without any knowledge of the rules of evidence, and without having any of the qualifications of legal men, were of no real assistance to the litigants; and those who employed them were, in reality, their own enemies, and were more heavily mulcted in expenses than if they had been represented by barristers or attorneys.

thought they ought not to exclude the working man from the right of employing an assistant; but he would suggest that the opinion of the Judge should be obtained as to the necessity of such assistant.

said, he would move the omission of the sub-section, for the purpose of putting himself in Order, so that he might be able to put a question to Her Majesty's Government, or, rather, to the Attorney General. He had, yesterday, alluded to a case which recently occurred—namely, the Risca colliery explosion—in] which there had been a sacrifice of 120 lives. He had added that the compensation in that case, as it was not owing to the negligence of the men themselves, would amount to £28,000. He was speaking then on the authority of Mr. Minton, one of his constituents, who was well acquainted with these matters; but, unfortunately, he had committed a lapsus linguœ, for which he had to apologize. Mr. Minton informed him the damages in the case he had mentioned would only amount to £24,000, and not to £28,000. However, in any case of this sort, in which a large number of lives were sacrificed, now that the Committee had decided that three years' wages were to be paid by the owners of the mine in the case of insufficient proof that an employé had occasioned the accident, it was evident that the amount of compensation, or penalty, upon the owner would be very large. In that case, in addition to loss of property by the destruction of the workings in the mine, there would be a loss which, in all probability, would amount to something like £30,000. That would be equivalent to ruin in many cases. And what he wanted to know was whether, by the clause appointing assessors, the Court to be constituted under the Bill when it became an Act, or any Superior Court, in assessing the compensation which would be in the nature of damages, would have power to take the equity of the case into consideration, and so to proportion the mixed compensation and penalty as to meet the circumstances of the case? He hoped that he had made the Committee understand what he meant. Was it the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers that three years' wages to the representatives of miners who had lost their lives should, under all circumstances, where negligence had been proved, however slight, and the accident was attributable to the carelessness of the men themselves, be exacted from the owner of the mine, or was there to be an equitable power to reduce that amount on considering the whole circumstances of the case?

said, he should like to call the attention of the Attorney General to the form of the subsection. He gathered that it was the general opinion of the Committee that they should not add to the expense of trials of this description. If that were so, he could not understand what the object could be of appointing two assessors. They had already established the principle upon which compensation was to be assessed, not that three years' wages should be, of necessity, the compensation awarded, but that that should be the maximum. The duty of inquiring into the case and assessing the damages was thrown upon the County Court, and he could not conceive what object they could gain by having two assessors. If they had assessors at all they must add to the expense; and if there were two of them, each might take a different view; and, in that event, the person who would be called upon to decide in the end would really have to decide between the assessors themselves. Therefore, there was no object to be gained by appointing assessors at all.

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not altogether understood the effect of the principle of the compensation which had been adopted. That principle was, that three years' wages should form the maximum of the amount given under the order of the Judge and upon the finding of the jury. In answer to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Hardinge Giffard), he wished to point out that his hon. and learned Friend overlooked the position which the County Court now held in relation to assessors. By the Act of 1876, Section 5, in any action or proceeding in the County Court, the Judge could, if he thought fit, on an application being made to him, summon to his assistance men of skill and experience to act as assessors, and assist him in arriving at a decision. As, therefore, the power of appointing assessors already existed, it was thought better that this provision should be inserted in the Bill; because, by the following section, power was given to make special rules and regulations, in order to show the form of duties which these particular assessors would have to discharge. The Judge would have power to nominate some skilled person, or employer, or a workman representing the interests of the plaintiff, or an engineer, to give theoretical advice. As that power already existed under the general provisions of the Act of 1876, it was thought better to insert in the Bill a special power of appointing assessors, with special rules and regulations prescribing the particular duties of such assessors. Perhaps it would be well to limit the appointment of assessors to cases where there was no jury. They could not allow the opinion of any assessors to clash with the finding of fact by the jury. He would, at a subsequent stage, move an Amendment to that effect.

said, he was not aware that the power referred to already existed in the County Court; but he thought the Attorney General had not sufficiently understood the suggestion he had made. The power given to a County Court Judge, by the Act of 1876, was simply to appoint assessors; but the Attorney General had overlooked the point that the assessors were to be confined in their authority to a certain amount of compensation. It was not, therefore, any question that could arise as to the existence of the liability. There was nothing of that sort, and the assessors were not to be called upon to inform the mind of the County Court Judge upon technical matters with which he was not familiar. The power to appoint assessors was confined to the point he had already made. It would appear that when they had ascertained the principle on which the amount of compensation was to be assessed, then it would be competent for the Judge to call in two assessors to his assistance. He regarded that as a cumbrous form of procedure, that they should appoint two assessors.

Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire propose to withdraw his Amendment?

said, he did. He had only moved it for a distinct purpose, which had been gained. He wished, however, to be sure that he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman that three years' wages would be the maximum amount of compensation?

Yes, that is so.

And the Court, whether it was the County Court or the Superior Court, could exercise an equitable jurisdiction, according to the circumstances of each case, in reducing the amount of that compensation?

thought there was con- siderable force in the remarks which had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Hardinge Giffard), and he would, therefore, endeavour to make the clause more general in its terms.

moved, in page 2, line 38, after the words "county court," to insert the words "before the judge without a jury."

would protest against that Amendment, if it was the intention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to make it a compulsory order to a County Court Judge to depart from the ordinary way of trying an action, and positively compel him to try one without a jury.

No, no! That is an entire misapprehension.

thought he had gathered from the Attorney General that that was his object.

would explain that the object of the Amendment was to confine the appointment of assessors to cases which a Judge tried himself, without a jury being summoned. When there was a jury, it would be the duty of the jury to find the amount of compensation; and that duty was superseded by the assessors only in cases where a jury was not summoned.

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would prefix the words "when tried before a Judge?"

wished to call attention to the wording of the clause. As it now stood, it read—

"Upon the trial of any such action in a county court, one or more assessors may be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation."

said, the word "upon" was the usual legal term. In regard to trial, all these appointments would be subject to the usual legal rules.

said, that, last night, it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that the more this matter was looked at, the more it would be felt that, in the long run, the only practical and satisfactory solution was that the doctrine of common employment should be swept away altogether. He was very much inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that was the conclusion to which the attention of the Committee ought to be directed. But he was quite aware that it was too far to expect them to go at the present moment; and, therefore, it was his intention, by the Amendment he was about to propose, to bring back that doctrine of common employment to the principles of common sense. The doctrine of common employment had arisen simply by the dictum of the Judges. It had been laid down by the Judges as a mere technical rule of law, affording a plea in bar of any further proceedings. What he suggested by his Amendment was this—that that should no longer be the case; but that, whenever the defence of common employment was set up, the Judge should leave that as a question to be decided by a jury. In his own mind, he felt strongly convinced that this was the proper way to regard the matter; because the question whether two persons in a certain manufactory, or in a mine, were actually engaged in common employment was not a legal phrase to be used as a plea in bar, but a fact to be tried by men of experience and common sense, who would decide whether the injured man, and the man who occasioned the injury, were or were not, as a matter of fact, engaged in a common employment. It seemed to him that this was a mode of getting out of the difficulty set up by the judicial decisions. In adopting the doctrine of common employment, it was desirable that they should leave it to men of com- mon sense, upon a jury, as a matter of fact, to decide whether it was common employment. By that means they would get over the difficulty, without expressly and entirely abolishing the plea of common employment.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how his Amendment differs from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley), which was negatived?

, said, he did not understand that his Amendment at all affected the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol. It was a question of procedure in the County Court under the 2nd sub-section. He would explain, in a moment, how it did not affect the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol. That Amendment was equivalent to getting rid of common employment altogether. His (Mr. Hinde Palmer's) Amendment was that the question of common employment should be left to a jury to decide, and it struck him that that was an entirely different proposition. It might involve, to some extent, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman; but in itself it was a distinct proposition, entirely independent of the proposition formerly submitted to the Committee. He agreed that, under the doctrine of common employment, there was a difficulty involved which was met both in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol and in that which he was about to submit. If they said that two workmen, although employed in two totally different branches of the same work, were, therefore, to be treated as if they were engaged in a common employment; if they adopted that view, they were likely to do much injustice, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). In the case of miners there might be men working in separate localities, but still under physical circumstances and risks, which would render them engaged substantially in a common employment. The question, therefore, was one of mere fact, which any jury ought to be able to determine; and it was entirely beyond the province of the Judge to construct out of it a mere legal technicality, operating as a plea in bar to nearly every action for compensation. The decision in such a question of fact should be the province of the jury; and it should be prevented from being used in future as a mere technical bar to proceedings on the part of the injured persons. He admitted that the question was surrounded with difficulty, and he submitted the Amendment in the shape of a sub-section to the clause which was now under the consideration of the Committee.

said, the Chairman had asked a question of the hon. and learned Member—namely, how far the Amendment differed from that of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S.Morley), which had already been negatived by the Committee? At first, he (Mr. Dodson) himself was inclined to think that it was the same question; but as the hon. and learned Member proceeded to explain his Motion, he began to see the difference which the hon. and learned Member drew between them. It appeared to him that the difference was that the hon. Member for Bristol proposed virtually to abolish common employment. [Mr. S. MORLEY: No, no!] The hon. Member, at any rate, proposed to give it to a very limited extent. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln just went beyond that, and differed from it in a very curious particular, for it left the doctrine of common employment in this position—that it was to rest with the will and pleasure of the particular jury in each particular case whether the doctrine of common employment should or should not be pleaded. He did not think that he need occupy the time of the Committee in discussing that point, and he would say at once, on behalf of the Government, that he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.

thought it must be admitted that if it was not the same Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Bristol, at all events, it was first cousin to it. He asked the Committee to consider now, or at some future period, if it would not be practical to adopt something like the principle which was to be adopted with regard to railway servants. Railway servants were an important class, and they were very apt to make themselves powerful in great electoral centres. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) must himself be aware, there were important constituencies where both sides were very much affected by the representations of railway servants. In several matters of principle adopted in regard to railway servants, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment, that if they could not go the length of abolishing common employment altogether, the only thing they could arrive at, as a tolerable resting place, was that which the hon. and learned Member described as reducing common employment to what he called common sense. The hon. and learned Member suggested that it should be a matter of fact, and not a question of law, what was common employment; and that if certain men were working together, as a matter of fact, the doctrine of common employment should be applied to them; but if, as a matter of fact, they were not working together, then the doctrine of common employment should not be held. It seemed to him that that would determine the matter fairly. The original basis upon which the doctrine of common employment was founded he understood to be, that if half-a-dozen men were working together, and one of them opened his safety-lamp, it should be considered that the others, who permitted him to conduct himself in so reckless and careless a manner, were themselves contributory to the negligence. Now, it seemed to him that to confine the common employment doctrine to such cases was according to common sense; and as the Government had, to a certain extent, admitted the principle, it might be advisable to introduce it into the present Bill. If the Government did not consent to it now, he earnestly hoped that they would consider it before the Report was brought up, when the question of granting to other servants what was granted to railway servants was to be considered.

thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not put the right construction on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that what the Amendment proposed to do was to leave the question of law to the decision of the jury. Now, the Amendment did nothing of the kind. With all submission, he thought that all the Amendment left to a jury was the question of fact as to what was common employment; but it left it subject to the discretion of the Judge. The latter part of the Amendment declared the law, and altered it to one of fact on precisely the same lines as the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bristol the other day. He saw no difference between the two. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol met a class of cases which the hon. Member pointed out to the Committee, and which were not governed by any of the other provisions of the Bill. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had pointed out the particular case of a platelayer who happened to be run over by a train while engaged in laying down rails; and he thought the doctrine of common employment was carried to an absurd extent when it was said that both the engine-driver and the man who was laying down rails were engaged in a common object. He had pointed out the absurd lengths to which this doctrine was carried; and some of them, no doubt, the provisions of the 1st section did meet. Others they did not meet, and it was to meet these cases that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol was directed. It was also to meet this class of cases that the present Amendment was proposed, and it was also intended to meet another class of cases where men were engaged in different departments under the same employment. He wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to this—that the Amendment would be of no effect at all if it left the question of fact as to common employment to a jury without some special direction upon the subject, because the Judge would have to tell the jury what the law was now—namely, that persons engaged under the same em- ployer were persons in common employment. The section proposed to change this state of the law; and, if adopted, the Judge would be bound to tell the jury that the doctrine of common employment no longer applied in cases where the persons employed were engaged in different departments, although under the same employer. That was the object of the Amendment; and if the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to it, in conjunction with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he would see that he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was correct in his construction. And if that was the correct construction, there was no doubt that, as far as the operation of the law would go, it would be in the direction of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol.

said, they were in a fair way of having the whole discussion over again which they had already had upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol. Although he agreed with the hon. Member for Bristol and the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. Hinde Palmer), he felt it was perfectly impossible to give a vote until he knew what the clause was which the Government were going to propose, or assent to upon Report. He would, therefore, appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

quite perceived the force of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), and thought it would, perhaps, be the best course to see what the clause was which the Government proposed to bring up, and to see to what class of persons it would be applied. He reserved to himself the right of proposing to amend the Government clause in any way he thought proper. With the permission of the Committee he would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment for the present.

said, that he himself had placed on the Paper a clause to restrain the doctrine of common employment in reference to the case of railway servants. As the matter now stood, the hon. Member for Bristol had withdrawn his proposal, on the Government undertaking, on the Report, to bring up a clause adapting the Amendment to the case of railway servants.

thought it would be much more regular to nega- tive the Amendment than to allow it to be withdrawn. The first portion of the Amendment directed that the doctrine of common employment, as far as it was dealt with by the Bill, should be left to the decision of the jury, under the direction of the Judge. But the more important part of the Amendment was literally the same Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Bristol, which the Committee had already rejected by a large majority. He should, therefore, object to the Amendment being withdrawn. It was not convenient that the Committee should take further steps in that direction.

thought there should be a clear understanding as to the position in which they were. As he understood the matter, the Government were only now to consider whether or not they would on the Report bring up a clause relating to railway servants. ["No, no!"] Was he to understand that the Government intended to bring up such a clause? ["No, no !"] Then he would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that if such a clause was not proposed by the Government, or by the hon. Member for Bristol, he would himself bring up a clause on the Report.

moved, in page 3, line 12, to leave out "In Scotland," to end of paragraph, line 18. The subsection he proposed to omit introduced an entirely new code and a different mode of procedure in dealing with actions brought under this Act in Scotland from those observed in all other actions. It gave, in the first place, power to the Lord Ordinary to refuse the appeal altogether if he should think the case was not a proper one for the consideration of the Court of Session; and it was only if the Lord Ordinary did think the case a proper one in his discretion that a suit under the Act could be removed to the Superior Court. Even if he did agree to the appeal, he had right to clog it with restrictions as to the payment of expenses, finding caution, or such other terms as he or the division of the Court should think fit. He asked the Committee to look at the present state of the law of Scotland in regard to these matters. Down to 1868, when the Legislature dealt with the whole question of procedure in the Court of Session, including that of appeal from the Inferior Courts, it was required that security should be found before any appeal could be entertained. But, in 1868, the Legislature dealt with the whole subject of appeals to the Court of Session, and deliberately did away with the provision compelling security to be found; and now it was competent in every case of appeal from an Inferior Court to the Court of Session to bring the appeal without any restriction as to finding security in regard to the payment of expenses or otherwise. This did not rest altogether on his own authority. He should be sorry to ask the Committee to take it on that ground alone; but it rested on the very best authority—namely, that of the Scotch Bar in the Report of the Committee of the Faculty of Advocates, which he held in his hand. The proposals in the Bill as to workmen finding caution for the payment of expenses were characterized as retrograde in character, having now been abolished in all other cases. He had to ask the Committee, therefore, to consider if it was right that this provision should now be introduced, for the first time, in this particular class of cases, when the Bill was brought in not as any matter of grace or favour to the employed, but expressly as a matter of right and justice to them? It seemed that the advantages which the first part of the Bill gave to the workmen were being curtailed by one restrictive Amendment after another. The effect in Scotland would be peculiarly unfavourable. In the first place, it gave a restrictive power to the Court to refuse to look at an appeal at all; and if they did, they could refuse it unless security or caution was found; and the necessity of finding caution would debar many workmen from bringing a case to appeal at all. But, further, look at the effect of this sub-section on jury trial. In the County Courts of England either party might insist on trial by jury; but that was not the case in the Sheriff Courts in Scotland, and this sub-section went to deprive artizans of their option of trial by jury. He submitted, therefore, to the Committee that the view expressed by the Committee of the Faculty of Advocates in regard to the retrograde character of this legislation was fully borne out by the circumstances of the case. The Faculty of Advocates, besides this main objec- tion, stated that the wording of the clause was defective, and that the reference to the 74th section of the Act of 1868—the Act relating to the Court of Session—was inappropriate, because Clause 74 of that Act applied solely to the removal of one very special action—namely, one from the Sheriff's Court to the Court of Session in consequence of its affinity to, or, technically, its contingency with, another action already pending there. Therefore, they were of opinion that the reference was inappropriately introduced into the present clause. He confessed that no one reading the 74th section of the 1868 Act could see any application it had to the provisions of the present Bill. On the whole, he saw no reason why the cases which would arise under the Bill should be exceptionally dealt with, and unfavourably to working men; and he, therefore, hoped that the Committee would accept his Amendment and omit the sub-section. He thought that, if only for the sake of avoiding the risk of unnecessary litigation, it would be well to adopt his Amendment.

said, he could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend's observations had a good deal proceded upon a misapprehension of what the clause was intended to do. If they were to leave this out, so far from assisting the workmen, they would really be doing them an injustice. They would be telling them to go to the Sheriff's Court, and forbidding them to go into a Superior Court, however much the workmen desired to do so. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend had confounded two things—the power of appeal, and the power to remove the cause for trial from one Court to another. He constantly talked about the power of appeal not being limited by the necessity of giving security. That might be so, when this provision of the Bill left the power of appeal intact. It left a man power to go to the Court of Session by way of appeal, and from there to the House of Lords. The Bill did not, in any way, touch the power of appeal. It gave power in any action brought in the Sheriff's Court to remove it, if the Superior Court should' think fit, into the Court of Session. That was the object of the clause, and he believed it had been properly carried out. At all events, it had been drawn upon the advice of the learned Lord Advocate. The intention of the clause was to do to Scotland what they had done to England. The Government had applied to the Lord Advocate to give them the proper words to carry out that intention, and the clause was proposed with his sanction. He did not think that the slightest injustice was perpetrated by the clause, or that it required any alteration. At the same time, he would confer with the Lord Advocate on the subject before the Report.

said, that he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that there was a distinction between the County Court in England and the Sheriff's Court in Scotland, inasmuch as there was no option of trial by jury in the Sheriff's Court. If a man were deprived in England of the option of trial by jury, it was really a matter of serious importance.

said, that in withdrawing his Amendment, in deference to the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, he might state that he had proposed it on the distinct authority of the Faculty of Advocates that it was absolutely necessary to carry out the view he had mentioned. Notwithstanding what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend, he still entertained the view which he had expressed.

said, that the Amendment he had upon the Paper dealt with the question of the application of this Bill to coal mines. The Government had announced that they would allow the hon. Member for Bristol to bring in a clause dealing with railways, and he thought it would be only fair to deal with mines in the same way. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had stated that he could not see why some hon. Members wished to draw a distinction between the cases of mines and railways. He would, however, endeavour to show that there was a considerable distinction between them. What he wished to provide was, that a person having superintendence intrusted to him under the terms of the Bill should be one of the persons for whom the employer was responsible under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, and he thought that would be as much to the advantage of the workmen as to the employers. He apprehended that in the case of well-conducted coal mines there would be 8 per cent of the persons who would come under the definition of the persons having superintendence intrusted to them. That state of things had caused great alarm among coalowners in the North of England. The alarm of the coalowners was extended also to the workers in the mines, for they feared that the contribution of the employers to the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund—namely, about 20 per cent—would be withdrawn if the Bill were passed in its present form. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the coal trade was always a paying concern. He might say that for the last three years many coal-owners had made no profit at all; and if they had this unlimited liability thrown upon them, how could they hope for improvement? The only way left to them would be by reducing the wages of the workmen. He knew a case of two young men who had a capital of £9,000 or £10,000, and who were enabled to borrow as much money as they wished at the present time. But he apprehended that if this liability were thrown upon them there would not be the same facility for borrowing. He did not think, moreover, that with such liability they would be able to repay the money borrowed. If this Bill passed, many persons who owned land, and now worked the mines beneath it, would cease to retain the workings in their own hands. They would, in many cases, hand over the businesses to Coal Companies, and the coal trade would go into other hands. It seemed to him rather strange that a Government, in 1880, seemed disposed to take money from the pockets of the employers, and that a Government, in 1872, should pass a measure to protect the lives of workmen. In 1872 the Coal Mines Regulation Act was passed, and the Government threw the entire responsibility upon the coalowner, his agent, or manager. The Act provided that the owner, agent, or manager should not employ any person in such mines who had been guilty of an offence against the Act. That measure was passed to protect the lives of the workmen, and it treated the owner, or agent, or manager, as responsible; and the Secretary of State had also the appointment of the person in the coal-mining districts to have superintendence and to enforce certain regulations. But the Inspector was bound to point out any infraction of the rules to the owner, agent, or manager, and he was to make a Report to the Secretary of State. The manager appointed under the Act was to have the superintendence over the mine. A man was not to be qualified to be manager of a mine unless he had received a certificate under the Act. They had thus a man appointed by the Secretary of State to look after the mine, and they had managers examined in order to see that they understood their business. That precaution was taken to see that the mines were conducted in the best possible way, and with the greatest safety to the men engaged. If the present Bill was passed, he did not see how the Coal Mines Regulation Act would stand. A mine would be under two different sets of rules. The owner, agent, or manager, would be responsible, and the Secretary of State would, have the duty of appointing the Inspector of the mine; and those persons would be responsible for carrying out the regulations under the Act. But, under this Bill, there would be an entirely fresh responsibility thrown upon those persons who were not clothed with responsibility under the Mines Regulation Act. If the Government could make some limit as to the responsibility in the case of coal mines, it would do a great deal of good. He most earnestly appealed to the Government to make some Amendment to the Bill with regard to coal mines. They had consented to do so with regard to railways, and he thought the case was even stronger for making special regulations with regard to mines. In his opinion, the workman in the mine was much more of a co-operative of the employer than a servant. If the present Bill were passed, he believed that many of the smaller mines, and perhaps some of the larger ones, would be closed, for he did not see how owners could stand up against, or could bear, the responsibilities thrown upon them by the Bill. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to limit the responsibility of the employer in mining operations to the persons for whose acts he was made responsible by the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1872. He begged to move, in page 3, line 25, after "means," to leave out to end of subsection, and insert—

"In reference to a mine, the agent or certificated manager instrusted with the principal management of the mine."

said, that the hon. Member who had proposed this Amendment had made a very clear and interesting statement of his views as to what ought to be done. But he thought he must have been of a very sanguine nature when he called upon the Government to limit the responsibility of mineowners to one or two persons nominated in the Coal Mines Regulation Act. He did not interrupt the hon. Member in his speech, although he was not clear that he might not have done so; for his Amendment, proposing to put liability upon one or two particular persons, was one which, in various forms, was discussed previously in the course of the Bill. It was really the same proposition that had been made before, only in different words. The hon. Member had reminded the Committee that the Coal Mines Regulation Act provided for the security of life in mines. The Government were of opinion that there was no difficulty in carrying out this Act in conjunction with a former Act. They had inserted a provision in the Bill that where the rules were laid down by Parliament, subject to the approval of a Government Department, the employer was not to be held responsible for those rules. The hon. Member had said that the Government had agreed to entertain clauses dealing specially with the case of railway servants, and he asked them, for that reason, to accept a clause dealing specially with the case of mines. He would not undertake to say that the Government would accept any clause that was brought up with regard to railway servants. But, in deference to the expression of opinion in Committee, they had consented to consider any clause brought up by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) dealing with the case of railway servants, who, he had shown, were placed in a position of considerable hardship. It had been shown, in the case of railway servants, that the technical rule with regard to common employment, which was upheld in cases where men were engaged in totally separate duties, led to considerable hardship. That was a totally different question from the proposition submitted to the Committee. It was proposed to make the employer in mines only liable for the negligence of one or two persons in his employment. On the part of the Government he could not agree to entertain such a proposal. Amendment negatived.

said, that the Amendment he had to propose was of a somewhat similar character to two or three which had already been submitted to the Committee. Most of the hon. Members had formed some opinion upon this subject; but he wished to point out one or two principles upon which he thought they ought to proceed. He proposed that the clause should run in this way—

"The expression, 'person who has superintendence intrusted to him,' means a person whose duty is that of superintendence."

said, he could not accept the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eye, inasmuch as it would greatly increase the liability which this Bill imposed upon the employer. His hon. and learned Friend had put the case of a man, sometimes engaged in manual labour, and at other times acting as superintendent. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend, in his observations, had forgotten that such a state of things was met by sub-section 2 of the 1st clause, by which it was proposed that an employer should be liable for injuries sustained by—

"Reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has superintendence intrusted to him."

"By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer to whose orders or directions the workman at the time of the injury was bound to conform."

said, that his opinion was that the sub-section mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did not meet the case he had put; but, if the right hon, Gentleman thought it did, he would leave the matter in his hands, and beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that he would not take up the time of the Committee in discussing his Amendment at any length, because he did not think that there was the slightest chance of the Government consenting to his proposition. He wished, however, to express his opinion that it was desirable that a person who had superintendence should be a man who was not at any time engaged in manual labour. If the Government, however, took upon themselves the responsibility of insisting upon the retention of the words "or principal" in the Bill—if the Government chose to take upon themselves that responsibility—the result would rest with them. He begged to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "or principal."

said, he supposed this Amendment of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire must be read in conjunction with his other Amendment—namely, the insertion of the words "not ordinarily engaged in manual labour." He must oppose this alteration, on the ground that it would greatly restrict the liability, of the employer, and would, practically reduce it to a responsibility for persons whose sole duty was that of superintendence.

said, he should like to say a few words upon this Amendment. It was well known that in the case of railway servants a man could be a porter at one time and a station-master at another, and something else shortly afterwards. It seemed to him that the Bill carried the responsibility of the master very much further than it ought to do; for, in the case of a mine, it would make the mineowner responsible for a man who might be engaged for a few moments in settling the position of a piece of timber. As the Bill stood, he certainly concurred in the objection of the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, that the words in this clause went a great deal too far.

said, that the Amendment which he proposed to move was in reference to defective superintendence. The Committee would see, on looking at the Bill, that, in the first place, a superintendent was described as a person whose sole or principal duty was that of superintendence, and who was not ordinarily engaged in manual labour. It would be extremely difficult to know whether a man was, or was not, engaged in manual labour. Was it to be said that a points-man, or a signalman, was not engaged in manual labour? His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would agree with him that if a clause could be framed which would include in the Bill such a definition of a person engaged in manual labour as would prevent litigation, it would be a good thing. He did not wish to unnecessarily retard the progress of the Bill, and he would, therefore, occupy as short time as possible in moving this Amendment. He wished to say a few words with regard to the principle upon which the Amendment was founded. The doctrine of common employment was stated in the Report of the Committee on on Employers' Liability, to have been founded on the consideration that where several persons were employed in doing one common enterprise, one servant could give notice to the other of any defect whereby an accident might arise. That was stated in the Report as being the foundation of the doctrine of common employment. And, so far as it went, it was reason; but what had been complained of was that, by successive decisions, that doctrine had been carried to an extraordinary extent. The question was, whether they were to limit the extent to which the doctrine had been carried, or to preserve it at all? In his opinion, the whole doctrine of common employment was one that ought to be swept away. But if it were preserved, it ought to be reduced to its proper dimensions by the consideration of the principle upon which it was founded. That was what he attempted to do in his Amendment. He had attempted to leave the doctrine in this way. If an injury had been occasioned by the negligence of an individual who had the sole charge of one of the principal machines, like an engine, then inasmuch as the proper working of the engine depended upon the person engaged in working it, and he was subject to no interference by any of his follow-servants, he was exactly in the same position as an ordinary superintendent. A superintendent was a person who had control over the work that was being done; and, therefore, he submitted to the Committee that, by analogy, they should place every person in the position of superintendent, whose acts were entirely without control of the person injured. If that were not done, the Act would be so defective as to work in an extremely harsh and unjust manner. In the Amendment which he had drawn up he had endeavoured to follow the principle of the Bill, which was that of superintendence, and endeavoured, by analogy, to cover those which he thought would not now be met by the Bill, but which certainly ought to come within it upon principle. If the Bill were not extended to meet extremely harsh cases, which would, undoubtedly, arise, it could, not, he had pointed out, be a satisfactary settlement of the law. He thought they out to reduce the doctrine of common employment, at least to the dimensions of the principle upon which it was founded, and from which it ought never to have been extended. He thought that, in applying it by analogy to altering the superintendence so as to include those over whom the workman had no control, but who had the management of the machines through which the negligence took place, he was proceeding in accordance with the principles he had stated.

said, that that was an Amendment which he could not accept. The Committee would see that this would extend the liability of the employers very much more than was proposed by the Government in the Bill. In the Bill as it stood the Government proposed two liabilities. The first one was with regard to general superintendence, upon which, if any injury resulted, there would be general liability with respect to the whole work; and the second liability was that the employer was liable for the negligence of persons having particular authority over others in respect to injury sustained under that particular authority. If the Committee would look at the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, they would see that the proposal was to make the employer liable for injury resulting through the negligence of any person who should have superintendence or control in relation to the particular work or matter with respect to which he was alleged to have been negligent. The result was that the general superintendence in the Bill was converted into a particular superintendence under this Amendment. This particular superintendence was to be given to persons although engaged in manual labour. They would then make the employer liable for persons not under his control. That was not the scheme of the Government. In the Bill they endeavoured to limit the liability, first, to general superintendence; and, secondly, to particular superintendence. It might be that on the clause of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S.Morley) being brought up, the Government would be able to make a separate provision for costs where there were distinct works being carried on by persons in the same employ, and if they adopted any Amendment in that direction it was as far as they could go.

said, that the question raised by this Amendment was one in which workmen were vitally in- terested, and upon which they had taken consultation. Several Amendments had been proposed, all directed to meet the particular defect of the Bill aimed at by this Amendment. It seemed to him that the reply of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General did not meet the case which had been raised. It appeared to him that the clause defining the person who had superintendence intrusted to him, as a person whose sole or principal duty was that of superintendence, was incomplete, unless it was further stated that the superintendence was in relation to a particular work or matter with respect to which he was alleged to have been negligent. It might be that the Amendment of which he had given Notice to insert a little later in the Bill would meet the case. The question raised was of very great importance to the class interested, and he thought that they ought to go to a division upon the matter.

said, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), which stood next upon the Paper, was not an Amendment in the sense of being an alteration of the Bill, inasmuch as it merely provided that the words of the clause in the Act of 1875 should be substituted for the proposed reference to the Act. He desired to ask whether, assuming that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were not carried, and the words of the clause were ordered to stand part of the Bill, he (Mr. Inderwick) would be precluded from proposing his Amendment, which had reference to the same subject, and which, if carried, would substantially alter the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member, under certain circumstances, would be precluded from putting his Amendment; but I will put it in such a form that he will not be debarred.

said, that he had an Amendment upon the Paper which came before even that of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).

I called upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he did not respond.

remarked, that unless a subsequent Amendment had been proposed he apprehended he was still in Order. He desired to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out "ordinarily," and his reason for doing so was that he did not know what the word meant; he did not know what it meant as a legal phrase. It seemed that the retention of the word in the clause would only add another difficulty in construing the Act. "Ordinarily" might mean once a week, twice a week, or everyday. They knew what was meant by "engaged in manual labour;" but he submitted that "ordinarily" would assist no one in understanding the Bill, but would, in fact, only make a complication. The clause would be better without the word, for it would then run "engaged in manual labour, &c."

observed, that his hon. and learned Friend had stated that he did not see the force of the word "ordinarily." He would endeavour to point out what would be the effect if the word were omitted. The section would then read—

"A person who superintended, meaning a person whose sole or principal duty is to superintend, and who is not engaged in manual labour."

moved, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from "The" to "applies," inclusive, and insert—

"The expression 'workman' does not include a domestic or menial servant, but, save as aforesaid, means any person who, being a labourer, servant in husbandry, quarryman, artificer, handicraftsman, miner, or otherwise engaged in manual labour, whether under the age of twenty-one years or above that age, has entered into or worked under a contract with an employer, whether the contract be made before or after the passing of this Act, by express or implied oral, or in writing, and be a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour."

said, it was thought more convenient to give the definition now in the Bill rather by way of reference, for a simple reason which he did not think had occurred to the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory). The Act of 1875 referred to certain classes of persons, and there were two exceptions contained in that Act. The first one was with reference to domestic and menial servants; and the second, and more important exception, was that in reference to seamen. This Bill did not refer to seamen. There were so many Acts having special reference to seafaring men that the Government did not think it necessary to bring seamen within the scope of this Bill. They had, therefore, excepted domestic and menial servants and seamen, as was done in the Act of 1875, by a reference in a general way, instead of by a separate and distinct definition. If the Amendment were adopted, seamen would come under the Bill, and that had not hitherto been the intention of the Committee.

did not see why domestic servants, to whom they all owed so much of their comfort, should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. They provided for a person who superintended, and that would include their housekeeper or their butler. If the butler gave the footman an order, and in carrying it out he broke his shin, or if the kitchenmaid were scalded in carrying out the order of the cook, were they not to be compensated? He really would like to know why such a valuable part of the community as domestic servants was to be excluded from the operation of the Bill.

did not quite see how seamen would be included if his Amendment were adopted.

said, there was a clause in the Bill which expressly excluded seamen; and the present clause, as they had framed it, was limited to workmen in mines, on railways, in factories, and so forth.

did not catch from the Attorney General the reason why domestic servants were to be excluded. The question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry Jackson) was most legitimate, and the Government might, at all events, answer it.

thought it ought to be made clear to what persons the Bill was to apply; and, in his opinion, the Amend- ment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) would be a most valuable one in that direction.

repeated the question, why domestic servants should be excluded? why was a stigma of this kind to be placed upon thousands of the community? for it certainly was a stigma to say they were people who were not worthy of receiving compensation in case they received injury through the negligence of their employer. What was the special characteristic of the footman or chambermaid which disentitled them to compensation? He asked the Attorney General to inform them what logical reason there was for excluding any particular class from the operation of the Bill. The Government had always said that they would not be a party to exceptional legislation; but they had been so already in the concession they had made to the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) in respect to railway servants, and now they were going to exclude from the benefits of the Bill thousands of people who were as much entitled to compensation for injury as any others.

said, he had been asked why chambermaids should not receive compensation. That was a question which he had some difficulty in answering in the abstract. No Amendment had been moved, and no suggestion had heretofore been made, that domestic servants should come within the scope of the Bill. They had only up to this been dealing with the industrial classes, and they never had included domestic servants in legislation affecting workpeople. The risks they were seeking to protect the working classes against were great and dangerous risks, such as explosions in mines, in which men received lasting injury. They had not yet dealt with domestic life downstairs; that was not brought within the scope of the Bill. ["Why not?"] Why? because domestic servants were working under conditions where the risks they ran were not great, and because they were treated as members of the family they served. Persons who were a great deal engaged in a house were not placed in the danger in which a railway servant was placed; and, therefore, they had not been thought in a position to require the protection of this legislation. If, how- ever, it had been the wish of the Committee that the question should be considered, it should, have been mentioned on the second reading, or Notice should have been given of it.

observed, that whenever any hon. Member of the Committee desired to pass legislation which had reference to mines or railways, or any one object in particular, the Government said—"Oh, no ! we deal with all industries; our Bill includes farm servants and all workmen; it is not confined to railways and mines." And when they suggested that domestic servants should be included, the Government suddenly discovered that the object of the Bill was to relieve the working classes in what were commonly called dangerous employments. It was partly owing to the fact that domestic servants had no votes that their claims did not get that consideration which was given to the claims of workmen engaged in other pursuits. The Attorney General wondered why they had not discovered sooner that domestic servants were exempted from the Bill. He admitted that it displayed great ignorance on his part, and he was subject to blame. He assured the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government, however, that had he known of the exclusion before he would have given due Notice of the fact.

said, that in order to bring the matter to a point, he would take the liberty to move to leave out the word "means," in order to insert "includes domestic servants," &c.

The Question before the Committee is whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) shall be withdrawn.

said, he would move his Amendment as soon as that of his hon. Friend was disposed of.

said, that it was very proper that this question should be urged upon the Government. There were particular classes of servants in the country who, he supposed, would be excluded from the Bill. For instance, there was the case of a man who helped in the house, and garden, and stable. If he received injury while at work in the house he would not receive compensation; but what would be the effect if he received injury while at work in the garden or stable? The Attorney General seemed to think that the domestic servant ran no risk. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought the domestic servant ran very serious risks. Let them take, for instance, the case of an explosion of gas. An employer came home late at night, and when he did not, perhaps, altogether know what he was doing, he blew out the gas. An explosion might result, and the servant receive serious injury. Was he not to receive compensation in a case of that kind? Fires, too, constantly occurred from preventible causes, within the knowledge of the master, in which domestic servants were injured. Many domestic servants had families dependent upon them; and there was no rhyme or reason why, in case of injury through their employers' negligence, they should not receive compensation. ["Divide, divide!"]

said, that the Committee appeared to be extremely impatient; but he wished to point out to them that the welfare of domestic servants was an important matter. The Government evidently considered the subject beneath their notice. That was simply because domestic servants, generally speaking, had no votes. He had often observed that those classes of the community who were not electorally powerful had great difficulty in getting their wants listened to in the House of Commons. He could not see any reason for excluding domestic servants from the operation of the Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry Jackson) decided to go to a division he would certainly vote with him. There were many establishments, in which domestic servants were engaged, quite as large as manufactories. Take, for instance, the Charing Cross Hotel. Suppose a servant there was injured by a defect in the lift, caused by the negligence of the manager, it would be very hard that he could not obtain redress; while a man engaged in a factory or a mine could get compensation under similar circumstances. He was quite sure that if domestic servants possessed the same political power as other classes they would have their claims attended to. In this Liberal House of Commons they ought to consider the interests of the people, irrespective of such considerations.

It would be more in Order if the hon. Gentleman would move that the expression "workman" should include domestic or menial servants, because the object of the Amendment is to exclude such persons.

said, he was quite willing to move that Amendment.

said, that that would make the wording of the Amendment simply ridiculous; though he did not object that it was on that account inappropriate to the Bench where it had originated.

moved, in page 3, lines 30 and 31, to leave out all after "means," and insert—

"Any person other than a domestic or menial servant with regard to whom it would be competent for the employer, but for the provisions of this Act, to allege in his defence to any action for compensation that such person was engaged in a common employment with the person actually causing the injury in respect of which the action is brought."

moved, in page 3, line 31, after the word "applies," to insert "and domestic or menial servants," in order to give domestic servants the benefits of the Bill.

stated, for the convenience of the House, that it was proposed to place the Civil Service Estimates on the Paper for Monday. For the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), who had charge of the Vote for the British Museum, that Vote would be taken first. Then they would begin with Class I. of the Estimates and take them in order; but they would not take any of the Votes relating to Ireland.

asked whether the Government proposed to go on with what might remain unfinished of the Committee on the Employers' Liability Bill to-morrow?

understood that it would meet with the concurrence of the great majority of hon. Members that that course should be pursued; but that point could hardly be decided until the Order for the Bill was called on again to-night.