said, he wished to direct attention to the changes of opinion which had occurred on this Bill during its progress through the House in Committee. There could be no doubt that there was a growing conviction that a great change had come over opinion on the subject of the doctrine of common employment, and that, if not this Session, during a near Session that doctrine must necessarily be abolished. When the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross) announced his opinion that the doctrine of common employment should be given up, and the late hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Hardinge Giffard) proposed to abandon at once a Bill with respect to Railway Companies, there could be no doubt that the doctrine was doomed. A law which made the master responsible for the negligence of his servants, notwithstanding that such negligence might have been committed against his orders, and even in defiance of his orders, could not be defended upon any abstract principles of justice or as a matter of expediency. Therefore, the Bill proposed to reduce the amount of compensation obtainable under it to a fixed amount; and, in doing so, it had practically made it a penalty for negligence instead of compensation for injury. Looking at the Bill as it stood, and seeing how far it fell short of what the House of Commons wished, he confessed he was drawn somewhat reluctantly to the conclusion that it would be better if the Bill were dropped altogether. ["No, no!"] He knew that many hon. Members would object to that course; but he wished to point out to them that the discussion, which had taken place would be by no means wasted, and he believed it would be better in the interests of legislation, better probably in the interests of employers and employed, if this Bill were withdrawn and a better and more mature Bill introduced next year.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had said that the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir E. Assheton Cross) declared in favour of the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. What the right hon. Grentleman said was this—the doctrine of common employment would some day be abolished; but he added that the country was not ripe for that at the present time. He (Mr. Dodson) said the same thing—the House of Commons was not ripe for that at the present time. As to the amount of compensation being limited by the Bill, it was limited in deference to what seemed to be the general feeling of the House. Shipowners were liable to compensation; but that compensation was limited, and nobody said it was not compensation because it was limited. As to the withdrawal of the Bill, because it was not perfect, few Bills could claim to be perfect. The Bill, for the first time, attempted to grapple with a very difficult subject. If they were to defer legislating until they could pass an Act which would deal perfectly with a subject, how many subjects would they have to leave untouched? In many matters legislation would have to be deferred till the Greek Kalends. The Bill in its present state, on the whole, very fairly gave effect to the great object at which the Government aimed at the beginning of this Session; and he thought it would be a great pity for the sake of those concerned, and for the credit of the House of Commons, if this Bill, to which so much time and labour had been devoted, were now to be abandoned. The Government could not for a moment entertain the idea of abandoning it; and he thought the House would support the Government in endeavouring to pass it, and that they would proceed to consider the Amendments without continuing a general dissertation upon the doctrine of common employment and the liability of employers.

said, he had to move a clause which was rendered necessary by an Amendment which he had accepted, and which had been introduced into the 4th clause the other day—namely, that a notice of the injury sustained should be given to the employer. He had stated that it would be necessary to provide machinery for that purpose; and the clause, the second reading of which he now begged to move, would accomplish that in a simple and intelligible manner. The clause was to the effect that notice in respect of any injury under that Acts hould give the name and address of the person injured, and should state in ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date at which it was sustained, and should be served on the employer, or, if there were more than one employer, on one of such employers; that the notice might be served by delivering it to or at the residence or place of business of the person on whom it was to be served; that it might also be served by post; and that, where the employer was a corporation, it might be delivered at or sent by post to the office of such corporation.

said, he was sorry that the Government had found it necessary to propose so extremely elaborate a clause for the serving of those notices. It had an extraordinary resemblance to a clause which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had proposed to add to the Hares and Rabbits Bill, but which bore so hard on the tenant that it had to be abandoned. The resemblance was so like, that it seemed as if the right hon. Gentleman had got hold of it, and thought he might as well make use of it. The more simple and informal the notice could be made the better. All that was necessary in the ends of justice was that the person who was to be charged should become aware of the fact of the injury within six weeks. The necessities of the case might be met by a provision in the Bill that an action for injury should not be brought unless the employer was previously made aware, either by notice or in any other way, of the fact that the injury had been sustained. An elaborate notice like that required by the clause would, in a great number of instances, result in a practical denial of justice.

hoped that the right Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not press the clause, which was far too complex and technical. The clause already in the Bill would be sufficient for the purpose in view. He considered the proposed one entirely unnecessary, and contended that excessively particular arrangements in matters of this kind became an incumbrance, and were very likely to defeat the poor man's claim.

said, he wished to point out that, as the notice might be served by an illiterate workman, there ought to be no difficulty in construing the clause. For himself, he did not understand the meaning of "ordinary language." He thought it was an unwise thing to call on the workman to state the cause of the injury, as he might find it exceedingly hard to do so. He moved to leave out the words "in ordinary language the cause of."

said, the object of the words was to prevent any objection, on the ground that the cause of the injury was not stated in technical language. In order to leave no doubt in the matter, his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill would move, later on, to add at the end of the clause words to the effect that the notice should not be deemed invalid by reason of any defect or inaccuracy, unless the Judge should be of opinion that such defect or inaccuracy prejudiced the action.

said, he was very anxious that simplicity of language and of machinery should be secured by this Bill, and he thought if his right hon. Friend who had charge of 'it would consider the matter, he would see that the words were unnecessary and unfortunate. If the words which the hon. and learned Attorney General had intimated were to be added to the clause were to be so added, they would greatly increase the complexity of the proceedings to be taken under the Bill. As it stood, the Bill required the workman to give notice of the injury; but to state the cause of the injury was a very different thing. If the words objected to by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) remained, the hearing of every single action would be preceded by a discussion as to whether the cause of the injury was stated correctly in ordinary language. And if the Judge came to the conclusion that it was not, there would then, if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General were carried out, follow a discussion—first, as to whether the employer was prejudiced by the inaccuracy; and, secondly, whether the inaccuracy was intentional. It was idle to say that a clause such as this could be made use of by an illiterate workman without the assistance of a professional man; and he, therefore, thought it would damage the Bill.

said, the words were very unnecessary, and he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. He thought it possible that "ordinary language" would sometimes be very "extraordinary" language. A discussion in the Courts on every occasion of an action as to what was the meaning of "ordinary language" would be extremely inconvenient, and it would be far better that the words should run "shall state the cause of the injury."

thought the clause, as it stood, was sufficient; but if an Amendment were to be made, he did not think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would attain the desired object.

said, that in order to protect the employer from sham claims, it was absolutely necessary that the notice should contain sufficient particulars to enable the employer to judge whether the complaint of the workman was well founded or not.

hoped the Government would adhere to the words of the clause they had proposed. The term, "in ordinary language," in his idea, was necessary and sufficient, and, above all, of some importance. It provided against a claim being upset because the cause of injury was not stated in formal and technical language. All that would be required would be a letter, stating, in simple terms, the cause of injury, from which the County Court Judge would readily ascertain if the case was a bona fide one.

hoped that the language of the clause would be retained. He thought it was in the interests of the workman that he should be allowed in his own way to state the cause of injury, without the necessity of resorting to technical language or jargon of any kind. It was the more necessary, as the period of notice had been extended from 14 days to six months. In so long a time a trifling accident might be forgotten, and by requiring the workman to describe what had happened justice was done to both parties.

said, that the words had been carefully selected. It was a lawyer's question. He thought the words were in the interest of the workman, and their omission would lead to all sorts of questions. The workman might be asked to state simply how an accident happened, and what was the cause of the injuries he might have sustained. In doing so some slight mistake might interfere with a substantial right, and the words proposed to be added were to meet such a case.

said, that when he proposed his Amendment he did not know of the words which the Government proposed to add. He would, therefore, ask to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.

challenged the Government to show that in what they proposed there were any words providing that the workman should state the nature of his injury; and it was important that that should be done.

objected to the clause as proposed, for the simple reason that it required the workman to state the cause of the injury, which might be obscure, and he might be unable to do it correctly, whilst it did not require him to state the nature of the injury, which he ought to be required to state, and could have no difficulty in, stating.

proposed to add the words "and nature of" to the word "cause."

could not accept the Amendment, the adoption of which, would place an additional obligation, upon the working man, which was not intended by the Bill, and which would have no corresponding advantage to the employer. The object of calling on the workman to give notice in his ordinary language was to afford the employer a sufficient indication of what caused the injury, in order that he might set about his own inquiries.

supported the Amend-mend, as he thought it would enable the employer to arrange with the workman the amount of compensation, without resort to law.

thought the Amendment altogether unnecessary, and calculated to embarrass the working man, and place an unfair difficulty in the way of his obtaining compensation.

expressed a hope that the Amendment would not be persevered with.

moved that the second paragraph be amended, so that, in serving the notice, the person injured "deliver the same to the person on whom it is to be served, or at his residence or place of busines."

said, a comma would make the paragraph perfectly clear.

undertook to have a comma supplied when the Bill was reprinted.

moved to amend the clause by adding the words—

"If the injured person or his representative can show that the employer knew of the injury apart from any notice, failure to serve a notice shall not be a bar to the recovery of compensation."

supported the Amendment, as it could not in any way prejudice the employer, and it might so happen that in the case of a widow and children notice might be neglected through ignorance, and, consequently, a great hardship would be inflicted.

hoped the Government would accede to the Amendment, as six weeks' notice was already too long a period.

thought the Amendment was scarcely relevant to the clause under discussion. It should be moved as a sub-section to Clause 4, as that clause dealt with the subject, whilst the present clause only dealt with the mode of serving the notice.

thought there was a great deal of force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney); and he suggested that, in the case of death, there should not be any obligation to give notice at all, as it would often be impossible where the next-of-kin were only children, and from want of estate there was difficulty in getting legal personal representatives to act.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed just then. It was obvious that there must always be, in the case of children, some representatives, in order to sue. However, he thought, with the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) it was clear that this was not the proper place to introduce the Amendment, which would come better as a subsection to the 4th clause. He thought there would be some difficulty in introducing it into the Bill; but he would give the matter his consideration.

said, in that case, he would, for the present, withdraw the Amendment, in order to bring it forward at a later stage.

moved to insert, after Clause 5, a new clause, which would have the effect of doing away with the doctrine of common employment in the case of actions brought against Railway Companies for damages by persons in their employment, his reason for so doing being the difficulty that arose from the large and widespread nature of the employment these people were engaged in; and, therefore, it seemed unjust that working men who, in the language of the Royal Commission, would be entitled to compensation, if the persons in fault were strangers, should be deprived of it because they were in the service of a person who was not a real living person, but a legal abstraction, whose works and branches extended over hundreds of miles. For the purpose of illustration, he might point out that it was said, in a recent accident, certain platelayers engaged in repairing the line had not taken sufficient precautions for the safety of the approaching train. In the present state of the Bill its provisions would touch that case, and that the railway servants killed in the accident would have no remedy under either the Bill or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol. The new clause was in the following words:—

(Provision regarding Railway Companies.)

"Provided always, That in any action brought under this Act against any Railway Company it shall he no defence that the person injured, and the person by whose negligence the injury was caused, are both engaged in a common employment."

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the first place, he thought the Amendment, as drawn, would not carry out the object the hon. and learned Mover of it had in view; because the action brought under the Act would be the action mentioned in the 1st section, in which the doctrine of common employment, to a certain extent, was abolished. The Amendment was a great step in the direction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), and the Government were not able to accept it, as they were not prepared to consent to the abolition of common employment altogether. The hon. and learned Member seemed to have overlooked the fact that Bail-way Companies did not confine themselves to a carrying trade, but also carried on large engineering and other trade works. The Government would go as far as the principle of the hon. Member for Bristol's (Mr. S. Morley's) clause, that common employment should not be a good defence when the persons were employed in different branches and departments. They could not legislate exceptionally for Railway Companies. As to the reason which his hon. and learned Friend had given for asking them to do so by way of experiment, he (the Attorney General) thought it very objectionable. Legislation should not be proceeded with by way of experiment, but only because it was just to the body for whom they were legislating. He did not consider that such an experiment should be tried on the Railway Companies as in corpora vili, and if they dealt with common employment it should be as a whole.

thought that it would be well to accept the clause as an experiment in the direction of the total abolition of the doctrine of common employment. He had come more and more round to the opinion that the doctrine of common employment must before long go altogether, and for that reason should support the Amendment, especially as it had the advantage of abolishing common employment in the trade in which it was supposed to be of greater force than in any other.

said, that he was coming to the conclusion that the doctrine of common employment should go altogether; but, at the same time, they could not expect it should be carried out in the present Bill. If they were to have common employment at all, there were two limitations that might be introduced, one was the doctrine of superintendence, and the other was the doctrine several times mentioned in the House—namely, the doctrine of common employment in those cases in which, as a matter of fact, the workmen were working together. In order to make the clause workable, the words "against any railway company" should be left out, and the words "unless, as a matter of fact, they were working together" should be added at the end. Supposing the Amendment were agreed to, then he should move the Amendment he had suggested.

, speaking as one of their Representatives, thought that Railway Companies alone should not be made an experiment; but that what was proposed with regard to them in the direction of abolishing common employment should be applied to all employments throughout the country. That question should be considered as it affected the whole range of undertakings in the Kingdom.

I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept this clause, nor yet that of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), when it comes to be moved, since they cannot see their way to do something more towards the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. There are two defects in the clause which has been moved. In the first place, I think it is not sufficiently extensive; and, in the next place, I think it is much too comprehensive. It ought to extend to all industries whatever, if it is adopted at all; and it ought not to comprehend every combination of circumstances or conditions of labour. I think, Sir, we have discussed this point at sufficient length, and have become pretty well acquainted with the subject; but it is the fact that throughout all the discussions we have been talking rather about the particular phrase than the thing itself. We have heard a great deal about common employment. We have heard some very learned speeches from both sides of the Table; but I have not yet heard anything like a distinct definition of what common employment is. It would have tended very much to a correct decision and understanding of the subject if these hon. and learned Gentlemen had brought the mind of the House in contact with the thing itself, rather than with the phrase, which, I am afraid, has been to very many of us a meaningless expression. Now, I find that there is in Kerr's edition of Black-stone's Commentaries a figure of speech which conveys very definitely the meaning of common employment. The passage is not a long one, and it is this. He says that—

"The workman cannot, as a rule, recover damages from Ms master on account of any mere nonfeasance on his part, nor for the negligence of a fellow-workman in the course of his employment, for he is, as it were, rowing in the same boat with them, and he is supposed, on entering the service, to agree to incur any danger attaching to his position."

"The principle involved was that one servant knew of the risk incurred, by working with the other; but that he could assure the House was not the condition under which the mass of the working classes performed their work, and was certainly not the case in mining except to a very limited extent. In mines, the men worked together in sets of three or four men, each of whom might properly be held to be in common employment."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxix. 1062.]

suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) should modify his clause so as to meet the objection that Railway Companies often carried on other operations besides running trains, and to make it apply only to accidents occurring on railways.

thought it would be most unwise for the House at that period of the Session to assent either to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) or to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley), which went in a direction that had never been contemplated by the Bill of the Government. They had not had time to consider that important question so carefully as would enable them to say that they ought to pick out one interest, and one only, in order to deal with the question. Therefore, he hoped the Government would not accept the clause. As the original proposal with reference to common employment had been disposed of, he did not think it would be advisable to bring on the subject again.

said, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) was altogether in accordance with the object of the Bill. The Government steadily refused to enter into the question of the abolition of the doctrine of common employment; but they proposed to make the master liable for the acts of his authorized agent in the exercise of superintendence. Points-men or engine drivers could not be called persons having control over other workmen; but they distinctly had charge of separate branches of work to which great and exceptional responsibility attached; therefore, railway servants deserved to be treated apart from those engaged in other industries. He considered it would be injudicious, perhaps hardly fair, for the House to extend the scope of the Bill without further consideration, and without notice to those whose interests were concerned. Alluding to the accident to the Scotch express, he remarked what a shock there would be to public feeling and opinion if they passed the Bill without any provision to meet that case; because that was a case where, through the negligence of platelayers, a whole train was smashed to atoms, and several persons killed, whilst many were injured. However, the Amendment was not in accordance with the purport of the Bill. He, therefore, was unable to support the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), although he agreed with much that had fallen from him; and he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his clause, and allow the clause of the hon. Member for Bristol to be considered.

said, he would vote with the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), unless the clause were limited to the case of injury arising in connection with the train on its journey, with the carrying as distinguished from the other work of the Railway Company.

said, it had been his duty for 23 years to report to the Board of Trade on railway accidents, and his warmest sympathies had always been with railway servants injured from these accidents. He could cite the case of railway servants injured on their own lines not able to obtain compensation, whilst railway servants injured on foreign lines had been able to obtain it. That, to his mind, was a strong fact in favour of the principle urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard). On the other hand, there would be disadvantages to the railway servants themselves in carrying out the views that he had advanced. He thought they would, if carried out, lead to litigation between railway servants and their employers, which was much to be deprecated. Such litigation would produce bad feeling, and what he should prefer to see was the system he had always advocated—that of an assurance fund, subscribed to in part by the railway servants and in part by the Railway Companies. That system was now becoming pretty general, and, in that way, every railway servant who sustained injury would be compensated, and the extension of the insurance system was, therefore, the best mode of meeting cases where railway servants were injured or killed.

moved the addition of the following Clause after Clause 5:—

(Common employment to be a question of fact for the jury.)

"In every case in which the employer shall allege in his defence to an action for compensation that the plaintiff was engaged in a common employment with the person by whom the injury was caused, the meaning of common employment shall not be limited to service under the same employer, and the judge shall not decide as matter of law what is or is not common employment or occupation, but shall submit the question of such common employment or occupation as a matter of fact to the jury, and, if the action is tried without a jury, the Judge shall decide such question as a matter of fact according to the special circumstances of each case."

hoped the House would not take up much time in discussing this clause, which simply meant that without the Judge explaining the law the whole case was to be left to the jury. The clause was an alternative measure, and in the interests of both employer and employed he hoped it would not be pressed, as he thought nothing more prejudicial could be introduced. Talk of the dangers of litigation, this clause was provocative of nothing but litigation, as every injured person would be induced to bring an action in the hope that in their case the jury might find it was not common employment, although they found it was yesterday.

then moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Provision in case of insurance.)

"Provided, That, where an employer shall have contributed one-third of the premium or subscription to any sufficient fund for providing against personal or bodily injury in favour of a workman against accident of every kind in the course of his employment, and such workman, or his personal representatives in case the injury results in death, shall have received or shall be entitled to receive out of such fund, or in respect of any penalty payable by such employer under any statute, a sum equal to the amount of compensation which he or they would be entitled to recover under this Act, such workman or his personal representatives shall not be entitled to issue any process for recovery of such compensation or to recover any costs of such action unless such action shall, in the opinion of the Judge, have been necessary to fix or ascertain the amount of compensation, and any sum which such workman or his representatives shall have received, or be entitled to receive, out of such fund, or in respect of any penalty as aforesaid, which shall be less than the amount of compensation which he or his representatives shall be entitled to under this Act shall be a set-off pro tanto against such compensation, and it shall be lawful for any employer and workman to mutually contract for the insurance of such workman against such personal or bodily injury, and for such employer to deduct the proportion of premium payable by the workman in respect of such insurance from his wages. And, further, to mutually agree upon the amount of compensation to be paid to the workman for such bodily injury or to his representatives should the injury result in death."

regretted that he had not been in the House when this question of insurance was brought on in Committee. There was no question more deserving of the careful consideration of the House than this one, even apart from the Bill under consideration. No employer would be able to carry on any business of a dangerous character without fully insuring himself against the operation of this Act. So far from this measure conducing to the safety of the workmen, inasmuch as the employer would be compelled to insure, he would, by getting rid of all pecuniary liability, naturally grow more careless as to the manner in which his business was carried on. In some cases an accident might be absolute ruin, and the result would be that capitalists would not engage in industries in which there was any danger; but if a system of insurance were adopted they would invest their capital freely, industry would be promoted, every accident of every kind would be provided for, and there would be an entire absence of litigation. It then became a question as to which of the two kinds of insurance should be agreed upon—insurance to provide for all accidents, or insurance against the liability of employers under this Bill. The employers had come forward and offered to contribute very largely towards a general insurance fund to cover all accidents, not only those for which they would be liable under the Bill, but for accidents of all kinds. The money they would pay would be just three times as much under the proposition they had made, as it would be under the liability imposed upon them by the Bill, as it was stated that only one-tenth of the accidents that occur would come within the scope of the Bill, owing to the negligence of an agent. That offer showed that the employers were anxious to deal generously with the workmen. He was not arguing against the general provisions of the Bill; but, in the interests of the workmen themselves, he advocated most strongly either the adoption of the noble Lord's clause, or some analogous clause. If the matter were once in the hands of public Insurance Companies, whose interest would be identical with the master, and adverse to the insured workman, it was certain that they would litigate every question, and the result would be that the workman would get less than if he trusted to the liberality of his employer. For a small annual sum an employer would be able to rid himself of all responsibility; and in some cases, no doubt, negligence on the part of employers would ensue. Therefore, there could be no argument with regard to increased safety to be caused by this Bill. The question was to provide for these terrible accidents that were constantly occurring, and he entreated the Government to take this opportunity of allowing provision to be made for those who were injured whilst at work, or for the relatives in the event of death. There was nothing objectionable in the clause, and an employer would not have the advantage of it unless he subscribed one-third of the fund. He hoped this opportunity of passing so beneficial a clause would not be missed, because, if it was, he was afraid it would never return again. He had heard no reason why the clause should not be adopted. A most influential deputation to the Prime Minister had unanimously expressed themselves in favour of the principle it embodied, and it was desired by all the great employers of labour throughout the country. It proposed an optional and not a compulsory system, and the result would be that all questions could be dealt with as they arose.

The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has stated his case so clearly and so fully, and it has been so elaborated by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), that there remains very little to be said by me or anyone else. I shall just refer, in the first place, to my estimate of the cost of compensation. At the commencement of the debate on the second reading, I stated that it would be about ¼d. per ton for compensation, as provided in the Bill. It might be ¾d. per ton to compensate for all accidents whatever. At the same time I stated that, without insurance, it would be almost impossible for any mineowner to maintain the position in which this Bill would place him. I stated that, having a perfect knowledge of the industry, having been a colliery manager for nearly a quarter of a century, and having never had an explosion, I should certainly not wish, without insurance, to occupy the position of manager for one day after the passing of this Bill. I thought then, as now, that insurance was the only real solution of the difficulty. All that has on my part occurred since has been consistent with that statement. I am quite certain that it is only under insurance conditions that the average stated by me can be attained. When the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) stated that he was willing to take one-half of the present value of his collieries, if this Bill passed, it was no exaggeration of the difficulties a mine owner will be placed in under the Bill. He must insure, and insure he certainly will, as the hon. Member for Glamorganshire has stated. He will never consent to occupy the uncertain position this Bill will place him in, of being responsible individually for any great accident which may occur at his colliery any day. My fear of this Bill has always been the litigation to which it would give rise. It was not a hasty expression of opinion that I gave. I have not only had very intimate acquaintance with the phenomena of mining; but I have had very extensive experience of mining litigation, and perhaps very few have had to encounter law suits of greater extent than I have had for the last 20 years. I have taken a leading part in many of the greatest mining law suits which have occupied the attention of the Law Courts of this country. I was in one suit which occupied eight years, and the expense of that litigation was measured not by thousands but by tens of thousands of pounds. There is scarcely a mining, question that can arise which is easy of solution. Before 12 months have passed under this Bill, we shall experience great difficulty in settling the questions that will arise between employers and their workmen. It will, no doubt, occasion much agitation, much bitterness of feeling, and will break down the arrangements for insurance now existing. The object I wish to bring about is mutual insurance; but I do not think it is easy to bring about mutual insurance under the Bill as it stands. The Bill gives a niggardly amount of compensation to workmen; but it declares that he can only receive his compensation by proving the negligence of the manager. Now, I can quite clearly see what will happen. As soon as this Bill is passed, it will be presented to the workmen as the fruit of unionism, which, no doubt, it is. It has been brought about by the operation of trades union agents. I have no fault to find with their having done so, I am quite sure their intention was to remove a serious evil, and I am sorry the Government have not appreciated the difficulties sufficiently to see that they ought to have given more compensation to the workmen, and should have connected it with less serious conditions than coupling it with the manager's negligence. As soon as this Bill is presented to the workmen, it will be shown that it can only be properly applied under union direction. They will ask every man to join, they will appoint a solicitor in every district, and they will say—"Let us watch and investigate every case as it arises." There is nothing improper in that. It is the natural outcome of the circumstances of the case. But what will happen? The employer will find himself in an awkward position. He will find his managerial arrangements all disturbed, his cost rising in consequence, and that insurance against all injuries will be necessary in order to meet this liability. Although this Bill gives a small amount of compensation to workmen directly, it may give a large amount, indeed the whole, indirectly. The employer will find the only way he can contract himself out of it is to insure himself entirely out of it. That will not be a just thing; that will not be a strictly fair arrangement; because there are a great number of accidents which arise from causes over which he has no control. Therefore, I think the only thing the right hon. Gentleman can do to amend the fault of the Bill is to accept the clause of the noble Lord. It will, at least, recognize the justice and value of insurance, and may probably lead to a mutual arrangement between the two parties, and thus solve the difficulty. I think it will tend in that direction, and that the House will thus get rid of the danger of compelling the employer to insure against all accidents whatever. If the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) goes to a division I shall, therefore, go with him.

said, he hoped the House was now ready to bring the discussion to the test of a division. He had heard the speech of the hon. Mem- ber for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) -with great satisfaction, because it was agreeable to bear the hon. Gentleman say, after all the gloomy prognostications of ruin to employers which had been indulged in, that only one-tenth of the accidents that might occur would come under this Bill, and that the masters would be able to insure themselves against loss for a very small sum. The first proposition made when the Bill was brought forward was, that there should be compulsory insurance. That, however, was dropped as the Bill went on, and certainly the Government could not have introduced in this Bill so complicated and novel a matter as that. As regards voluntary insurance, that question still remained, and he must say his mind was not affected by any argument that had been used. Why did they want to have that system? A policy of insurance could be effected at any moment. If it were just—and the House by reading the Bill a second time, and the Committee by passing it through Committee, had said so—that the employer should be held liable for the negligence of those to whom he deputed his authority, why were they to insert a clause to contradict that, by saying that he should be relieved of such liability by contributing one-third or one-half to a compensation fund to which the workman himself contributed the rest? Then they were told that unless they inserted an insurance of that kind policies of insurance would be discouraged. Well, there was no reason for anything of that kind. Let him remind the House that the employer had always been liable not to a limited extent, but to the full extent, for an injury caused by his own negligence. Why, then, was insurance to be checked or discouraged, or put an end to, because the liability of the employer was now to be extended to responsibility for those whom he intrusted with authority as an employer? They bad been told by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the workman was a reckless person, and that they would make him more reckless and less careful, if he knew that, should an accident happen, the employer would be obliged to give him compensation. But, in the first place, if an accident happened to the workman through any want of care on the part of the workman himself, the employer would not be liable. And again, if the knowledge on the part of the workman that he could recover compensation from the employers under the Bill had a tendency to make the workman reckless, insurance would have exactly the same effect. He saw nothing in the argument that had been adduced in favour of the insertion of the clause. He thought it had not been sufficiently considered by those who proposed it, and he hoped the House would now be allowed to divide.

believed that if the clause proposed by his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) were adopted the effect would be that the men would be more careful. Then men would look after the employers and the insurers would look after the men, the result being that there would be a security provided against neglect and improvidence. The Bill had been intended, no doubt, to insure care; but it would insure, on the contrary, neglect. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) understood the interest or the affairs of mining.

supported the proposition of the noble Lord. The discussion on the Bill had brought out the principle on which it was founded, and that principle was this—"A workman has suffered; who can we make responsible? The employer is rich; we should make him responsible." The Bill was nothing more nor less than that. It reminded him of a suit by a tailor against one of his debtors. The debtor pleaded he had no means. The tailor said, "He has got a rich aunt," whereupon the Judge said, "I make an order upon the aunt." There were many cases where the accidents did not result any more from the negligence of the employer than from the negligence of the injured; but the employer being rich, they were to make him responsible. He held, on the contrary, that the object of the Bill ought to be to limit as far as possible accidents by making all persons careful, and in order to make them careful the responsibility should be placed as far as possible upon all. On that ground be supported the clause.

moved a verbal Amendment, in line 8, after "with," to insert the words "or use any."

said, he had to move to leave out the words in line 11, "whilst in the exercise of the," and to insert the words "who have."

moved, in page 1, line 22, after the word "behalf," to insert the words—

"(5.) By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has the charge or control of any signal, points, locomotive engine, or train upon a railway."

"By reason of the neglect of any person in the service of the employer engaged in a branch or department of such service separate or distinct from that in which the workman was engaged."

presumed, from the speech of the hon. Member opposite, that he had now brought forward an Amendment which the Government would allow him to introduce into the Bill. He gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech that the Amendment now upon the Paper was concocted between the hon. Member and the Government; and, therefore, he hoped that on that occasion he should not witness the spectacle of the hon. Member running out of the House and abstaining from voting for an Amendment which he had himself pressed upon the House. He presumed this was a real earnest Amendment, and not a mere sham; but was one which was to be proposed, and which the Government was going to allow to be introduced. He took leave to express his great disappointment at the very small concession made. Of course, he had never expected the Government to concede the abolition of the doctrine of common employment; and, therefore, though he voted for the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), he was not surprised at the Government opposing that clause, for if it were carried it would have been thoroughly inconsistent with the proposition of their Bill. There was no objection of that kind to this clause, because those who wished to retain the doctrine of common employment should take care to put a stop to so very unjust and unfair an application of it as took place with regard to large Railway Companies. The great popular objection to the doctrine of common employment arose from the startling results which every day took place in the ease of Railway Companies. At that very moment, when they were now discussing this Amendment, there were before the country remarkable cases. One was the accident which occurred to the Scotch express, and in which the only persons killed were three railway servants; and, although it might turn out—and would probably turn out—that this accident was caused by the neglect of the foreman of the platelayers, neither by the Bill of the Government nor by the Amendment now proposed would the three railway servants killed in this accident receive any compensation whatever. He presumed a foreman of platelayers was not engaged in superintendence of manual labour, and he was not among the favoured few who were included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol. Here they had a startling example. Here were people who lost their lives through the neglect of a servant not connected with them, whom they had never seen or heard of; and because he was the servant of the same Railway Company they were debarred from obtaining any compensation whatever. Now, that was just the kind of case that caused all the agitation against the doctrine of common employment; and if the Government desired this Bill to stand, even for a year or two, they would take care to put a stop to such flagrant instances of injustice and unfairness. He thought it would have been far wiser if they had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), or the real Amendment of the hon. Member himself, which he supposed was his idea of what was the fairest way of dealing with people engaged in the superintendence of work, distinct from one another, who could not be considered in common employment. He must express his regret at the very meagre concession made; and he hoped it was not too late for them now, without doing away with the doctrine of common employment, to greatly improve the character of the Bill.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was right in supposing that the Govern- ment would accept this Amendment. They had considered it, and thought it was consistent with the spirit of the Bill, and that they could accept it without going further into the doctrine of common employment. Therefore, they immediately accepted it, and considered it a valuable addition to the Bill. He would not detain the House discussing it, for it had been well explained; but he wished to call the attention of the hon and learned Gentleman to a misapprehension under which he laboured as to the Bill, and as to what its operation would be in regard to the accident which recently took place. The platelayer, in that case, would be a person intrusted with the duty of seeing that the permanent ways were in a proper condition.

wished to offer a few remarks in reference to the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) thought it a small concession; but he himself thought the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) was better able to judge what was a large concession or not. He thought the hon. and learned Member was rather peremptory in his definition of the law of the Bill, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with him that the accident at Berwick would not be fully met by the powers of the Bill. Railway servants had a special claim to that concession; and it might be some satisfaction to the House to know that the Amendment was acceptable to railway servants, and would satisfy their just demands. As to what had come from below the Gangway, it should be remembered that the late Government did nothing for railway servants.

said, he supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) on several occasions.

observed, that he was speaking of the late Government. For six years they did nothing to help railway servants, although they now heard of extraordinary zeal on their behalf among supporters of the late Government. The railway interest had behaved with great forbearance and consideration. It was supposed, as there were many Railway Directors in the House, that strong opposition would have been given to various clauses of the Bill; but it was very gratifying to find that the railway interest had shown discrimination and discretion, and would be satisfied with a Bill like this, which would meet all just demands.

remarked that the hon. Member who had just sat down had said that nothing was done by the late Government to satisfy the just demands of the working man. [Mr. MACLIVER: Railway servants.] He reproached Members below the Gangway for their new-born zeal. He must remind the hon. Member that Members below the Gangway were not Members of the late Government. If the late Government had been constituted from them the just claims of the railway servants would, no doubt, have been met. With regard to the Amendment which had been accepted by the Government, he did not think anything could show the extreme absurdity of the Government position more than the grounds they had taken up with regard to that Amendment. If he could only remember the speech which the Attorney General made in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), he should be able to make a most effective speech. He said there was an extreme impropriety in de bating exceptional legislation on behalf of railways. He entirely agreed with that; but what was the Government now doing? Did the legislation accepted by the body of hon. Members opposite exceptionally apply to railways only, or were they prepared to extend it to all trades and industries in the country? It was perfectly obvious that the Amendment was an innovation, to a certain extent, of the doctrine of common employment, and yet it had been stated that it would not affect it. The Government had been inconsistent, and had shown no sufficient justification for bringing that matter forward. It had been stated that pointsmen and signalmen on a railway were truly in the spirit, if not in the letter, people in a position of trust as regarded the employer, and ought not to be excluded, as they did not come under the doctrine of common employment. Why not leave the decision of that question to the Judges? He saw the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General laugh. He did not think, probably, that that was a proper question to be left to the Judges; but he (Mr. Balfour) thought that he would hardly deny that questions of similar import were not often so left. Let them take the case of mining. He thought there could be no doubt that in that case exact parallels might be found for the purposes of that Bill to the relation existing between signalmen and engine-drivers, who were killed, perhaps, by a fellow signalman or engine-driver. He would take the case of men employed in mines, who were technically known as firemen. They were not in any way superior as regarded education or anything else. They were ordinary miners, and were not selected for superiority in any way, and yet they had placed in their charge the dealing with certain matters which, if mismanaged, a serious accident might happen, and a great loss of life ensue. There was no corresponding point between those men and ordinary miners; they were, in fact, as distinct as signalmen from engine-drivers, and yet the ordinary miner was entirely at the mercy of the fireman. What was the view of the Government as regarded those firemen? Suppose that, through carelessness, an accident occurred, did the Government regard that fireman as a person in trust or not? If they did think they were persons in trust, why were they not already in the Bill? And if the question was left to the Judges, why not leave the matter alone? He should be glad to know from the Government why they had selected railways, and railways only, out of all the industries of the country, in which certain employés were to be distinguished by statute; and, in case of carelessness, their employers were to be liable? There were many other industries which were precisely in parallel circumstances, and yet they were not to be singled out by statute in that way. He was bound to say that he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he was no longer Member for Chester. He never had suspected him of bringing in a Bill in order to please railway servants, but it might have been considered so; and he was, therefore, glad that things had so turned out that not the slightest suspicion could attach to him on that score: because, as the Bill would stand when the Amendment was accepted, it would appear that the grievances of railway servants and others were not worth, by comparison, any consideration whatever.

said, he would reply to the hon. Member as briefly as he possibly could. The hon. Member had said that, in accepting that Amendment, while objecting to that of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Hardinge Giffard), they were utterly inconsistent. He would not admit that to be the case, and he believed he could show the House that that was not so. In the case of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, they might have had exactly the same act of negligence done by two people in exactly the same position; and in the one case the employer would have been liable because the injured man was a railway servant, and in the other he would not be so, because the man was in another employment. For instance, if a person engaged in rivetting at the engine works of a railway injured another workman, the Railway Company would be liable, because they were a Railway Company; while, if the same thing happened in an engine factory not connected with the railway, the employer would not be liable because it was not a railway service. But the Amendment then on the Paper dealt with all, whether the employer were a Railway Company or a private individual, and whether the person were in charge of the engine or a signalman, or a pointsman. It dealt, in fact, with a particular act of a particular individual in an employ of the kind mentioned. He thought the House would see that there was a radical distinction, because it was an extremely inconsistent thing that an employer should be liable in one case and not in another, which was exactly parallel. His hon. Friend said that the Government knew nothing about mining. It was possible that they knew as much about it as the hon. Member. He had himself some knowledge of the subject; and, at any rate, he would back himself in a competitive examination against his hon. Friend. With regard to the specific case put by him, he should say that where such a distinct case existed he could not see how there could be any doubt as to the application of that measure. His hon. Friend had described a person, he believed correctly, who was charged with the duty of seeing that a portion of the works was in proper condition. He had discussed that matter with both mine-owners and miners, and they agreed that that was a case where liability would at- tach. The hon. Member said they had left that ease out of the Bill, and that they had not protected the miner, although they had protected the railway servant. He begged to say that they had just as much protected the miner, although by a different provision in the Bill. He believed that his hon. Friend had overlooked the immense importance, as regarded the working men of this country, of the 1st sub-section of the 1st clause of the Bill. He would not dwell upon it; but he believed that both employers of labour and workmen themselves were fully conscious how important that clause was. But while they felt that a great deal was done by that clause, they also felt that, as regarded railway servants, they had not been adequately provided for; for although that Bill dealt with masters and workmen, it did not affect railway servants in many cases where other classes would be benefited by it. He saw that his hon. and learned Friend opposite agreed with that. They had, therefore, dealt exceptionally with railway servants, so as to put those who were sometimes engaged in very dangerous work in as favourable a position as others. He would not admit that they were put in a better position than workmen generally, because they did not get the same benefit from many other parts of the Bill that others did. Of course, he did not mean to say that they could profess to deal with the matter exactly, for to attempt to put everybody on the same footing was an impossibility. When once they adopted the doctrine of common employment, and agreed not to abolish it altogether, it was impossible to give absolute equality. They must look at the general class of cases in existence, for which they wished to provide security where it was not already provided. He believed that when they looked at the clause, coupled with the provision proposed, it would be found to give substantial relief, and that those employed on railways would have been in a less favourable position than others if some such provision had not been inserted. It was in that view that that Amendment had been accepted. The Government did not pretend that the Bill was a perfect one.[Derisive cheers from some Members of the Opposition.] Hon. Gentlemen might, of course, pick holes in it; but he would say that in case hon. Gentlemen had introduced a Bill he would, no doubt, be able to do the same. It was a matter of the utmost difficulty to be able to hold the balance as nearly as they could between the different persons likely to be affected by such a measure.

said, he must confess that he was rather surprised at the construction put by the Solicitor General on the Amendment. He was certainly under the impression that the meaning of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) was that the Amendment should apply to such industries as railways, and Railway Companies only; but he gathered from what fell from the Solicitor General that the Government deliberately accepted that Amendment, assuming that the word "railways" referred simply to the physical constructions, and not only to a public company carrying on business and transmitting passengers and goods for hire. If so, that was certainly the most extraordinary Bill one could well conceive of. An ordinary employer, not being a Railway Company, simply because he happened to have a construction called a railway upon his works—and he would undertake to say that the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had half a dozen railways under his private control, and there was hardly a single mineowner who had not one such railway at least—was to be made liable in a different sense as regarded that part of his works. His opinion was that the hon. Member for Bristol meant that the Amendment should apply to what was popularly known as a railway; but the Government seemed to be about to extend the meaning to all physical constructions of the kind. If that was so, he would say that it was entirely inadequate and perfectly illusory as regarded what was intended to be done apparently by the hon. Member for Bristol. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had been desirous of giving what assistance he could to the Government in conducting that Bill through the House, and he could not congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) for endeavouring to make a Party matter of it. Considering the admitted difficulty of the subject, he thought they might have been allowed to discuss a question of that sort without reference to what this or that Party had done. Some minds were incapable of doing more than re- proaching their adversaries on all possible occasions. He did not wish to dogmatize; but he could not concur with the construction his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) placed upon the Amendment with reference to a supposed illustration in the case of an accident that happened recently. He gathered from the Solicitor General and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that a platelayer would be included in that Bill. He submitted to the House that that was not correct, and for these obvious reasons. In the first place, it was not within the scope of the Amendment. A platelayer was not a person in control of "signals, points, locomotive engines, or trains." That disposed of the Amendment, and he would then turn to the Bill. The Bill itself confined the remedy to the case where there was a defect in the works, &c, or negligence on the part of a person who had superintendence intrusted to him. Then came a Proviso upon which he presumed the question turned. Under sub-section 1, of Clause 2, it said—

"Unless the defect therein mentioned arose from the negligence of the employer, or of some person entrusted with the duty of seeing that the work, &c., were in proper condition."

said, he sympathized with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and also with a good deal that fell from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour). It did seem to him a matter for regret that, seeing that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) ought to have carried his Amendment, if pressed, it had not been so pressed. He did think that when the Government conceded so much of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol, the position had become a difficult one, and the situation involved, in regard to that matter. The Solicitor General, he believed, had gone as near special pleading as possible. So far as he could gather, a railway, whether private or public, was to be in a totally different position from any other employ. That being so, the Government had left the position and abandoned the principle they at one time advocated. He believed, however, that they would not arrive at a settlement of the question for any length of time until that principle was conceded in a wider degree. In that view he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, a great deal of which he would confess was stolen from that of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who, of course, had a greater knowledge of the matter. It appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke went far in the direction that he wished; but it did not make the matter so clear as he could desire, and he, therefore, had framed an alternative Amendment. The hon. Member had great experience of the working classes of this country, and he was glad to find that he was inclined to accept his (Sir George Campbell's) Amendment. That being so, he had more confidence in bringing the Amendment forward, and he believed that it would be acceptable to the House. He proposed to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol, by leaving out all the words after "employer" and inserting "engaged in any work other than that in which the person injured was engaged." That would also give effect to what had been urged by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig). He had said that he thought it necessary to define what common employment was. After the speech he had heard from that hon. Member, he believed that his Amendment would be acceptable to the hon. Member for North Staffordshire. He was willing to rely upon the hon. Members for Stoke and North Staffordshire, and those of the Fourth Party opposite. He begged, therefore, to submit his Amendment to the House.

said, he would suggest as a solution of the difficulty referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that after "control of" the words, "the permanent way or," should be inserted.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a statement, which had been, to a certain extent, corroborated by the Solicitor General, upon which it was extremely important that the House should be enlightened before they proceeded to a division. He always observed that when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General thought they had a bad case he put up the Solicitor General to defend it, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was extremely reluctant to interfere himself. He would not dispute the statement of law made by the President of the Local Government Board; but he must say he had a little distrust of his legal statements, after the extraordinary opinion they had heard from him that "plant" included "agricultural live stock." He should be extremely glad, therefore, to have the opinion of the Attorney General as to the position of platelayers under this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had said that a curious illustration of the application of the measure was the case of the accident which had happened near Berwick, where it was supposed that the accident had occurred in consequence of the negligence of a platelayer, and that compensation could not be recovered because the foreman of platelayers, although intrusted with superintendence, was engaged in manual labour. The right hon. Gentleman informed the House that that foreman was intrusted with the duty of seeing that the way was in proper condition, and therefore came under the Bill. He was bound to say that he did not think that the Solicitor General had corroborated that altogether. For his own part, he should have thought that a platelayer was a person deputed by the inspector of the permanent way to repair the line, and that it was not his duty to see that the line was in proper condition, nor was he responsible for it. Taking into account that the person whose duty it was to see that the way was in proper condition was probably the inspector of the permanent way, and not the person who laid down the line, and also that the foreman of platelayers was a man who, although with superintendence intrusted to him, was ordinarily engaged in manual labour, he should like an expression of opinion upon the point from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The Solicitor General took exception to the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) that the fireman in a mine was not in an analogous position to the miner as the signalman on a railway towards an engine-driver. The Solicitor General spoke on that subject, and infused a little heat into his remarks. But he would not refer to that; he would ask the opinion of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig), and he should be glad if that hon. Member would inform the House whether his hon. Friend was not exact in saying that the fireman in a mine was in the same position towards a miner as a signalman on a railway was to the engine-driver or guard? Each had to do a certain mechanical duty. Neither had to see whether the machinery was in order. He hoped they would have the opinion of the Attorney General before they came to a division, and also the opinion of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire.

said, he ought to feel very highly complimented by the speech of the noble Lord, and, as a matter of courtesy, he would endeavour to reply to it. He quite agreed with the statement of the Solicitor General. It appeared to him quite clear that the facts were as he stated. With reference to the accident, the Railway Company would be clearly liable. The noble Lord did not seem to understand that, under the Bill, the Company would be liable. Of course, the Company must allot to someone the duty of seeing that the permanent way was in a proper condition. If they did not send anyone to examine the line they would be liable for neglect in not having intrusted the task to someone. If they chose to give the duty to a platelayer, even though he was engaged in manual labour, they would be liable, as his noble Friend had suggested, under Clause 1. He understood his noble Friend to contend that the platelayer, being engaged in manual labour, was not intrusted with superintendence. But the liability arose under sub-section 1, Clause 2, where the words were—

"Unless the defect therein mentioned arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied owing to the negligence of the employer, or of some person in the service of the employer, and entrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, machinery," &c.

said, it was perfectly true that during the dinner hour his hon. Friend did a little Parliamentary poaching, which he supposed was somewhat excusable after the recent exciting debate on the Game Question. But his object was not to dispute about who should do the work. All ought to do their best to see that good work was done, and the object of the Amendment was to confer the same advantage upon all trades as it was proposed to confer upon railway servants especially. There was no denying the fact, and he thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General, in his remarks a few moments ago, did not attempt to deny that the clause of the hon. Member for Bristol would confer advantages upon railway servants which it would not give to other trades. Now, what reason was there why one especial class of labour should be selected for especial favours? The only reason that could possibly occur to the mind of the House was that hon. Members were more acquainted, and came oftener in contact, with railway servants than with men engaged in mining operations, in engineering works, or in other trades. The clause which had been agreed to would have precisely the same effect on all other trades, and could be supported by exactly the same arguments. There was the same necessity to protect the mason, hewing the stone at the bottom of the building, against the carelessness of the builder and joiner, or the plumber who was putting on the roof at the top, as there was to protect a guard against the carelessness of a signalman, or an engine-driver against the neglect of a guard. He hoped the illustration he had given would show that that applied all round. If that was so, why should they, at the end of this Bill, especially mark out for consideration one class of workmen from all other classes? What would be the result if the House carried it? Why, the very moment it was carried they would have all the other trades of the country up in arms demanding the same justice should be done to them. He would venture to put in a word for a class which had been especially silent during the debates on this subject—that was, the railway proprietors. There was no necessity for a workman in his position to endeavour to protect the interests of railway proprietors; but let them remember all classes when they were passing legislation in that House. Was it fair, or just, to the railway proprietors that they should have especial fines and penalties levied against them that were not levied against other employers? Only yesterday he was speaking to the hon. Member for East Retford (Mr. Mappin), who was largely interested and experienced in railway works, and who assured him that the Railway Companies had not offered any great opposition to the Bill; but the hon. Member said—"If you commence to single us out for especial penalties then we must offer opposition to the Bill." He did not care what liabilities were placed upon them, so long as all other classes had the same liabilities placed upon them. He thought the argument was perfectly logical; and he did not think if he had put his case to the House but that the House would have agreed with him, and have listened to his argument. If, then, they passed that clause of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, which he sincerely hoped they would, he trusted that the House would follow it up by also passing the Amendment which his hon. Friend had submitted to be added to that clause. He apologized for speaking at such length; but he did hope they would listen to his appeal, and would be reasonable, as the House always was reasonable. He had no hesitation in saying that he felt they would almost unanimously agree to this Amendment.

feared the Government had opened a new flood-gate which they would not be able to close. There was one important question which was not covered, and which must rise if this clause passed. Were coal proprietors to be liable for the negligence of engine-men who had charge of the winding gear in coal pits? 500,000 men were lowered into and raised from coal pits each day. That was a far larger number than was affected by the clause of his hon. Friend. If an engine-man wound 12 men over the top of the pit—a thing which, unfortunately, occurred occasionally—he did not suppose under that Bill the employers would be liable; but if the Government passed this clause he was sure the miners would not be satisfied unless they were protected from the danger of being over wound or lowered too quickly. Then, consider the railways which were underground. Sometimes the coal had to be wound a mile along the pit with one man in charge of it. There was a signal when the train got up the road to stop it. Very often the man was killed by being dragged along when the train got off the road in that way. Were employers to be liable for that under this Bill? He was certain those people had a better claim than the engine-driver when he was killed in consequence of the pointsman turning the points the wrong way. But the engine-driver was paid very high wages—two guineas a-week—while the man on the train underground was not paid more than 18s. He wanted to know how the Government were going to stop a demand for damages in this case if they once passed this Bill? Unless they destroyed the doctrine of common employment—and, of course, they could not consent to that—where were the Government going to draw the line? He put that question to gain information. He was told by very knowing people that the coalowners would be liable for the over-winding of the engine-driver. He could not see how the matter rested as the Bill now stood. As far as the platelayer connected with the recent accident was concerned he was liable, because every Railway Company had a foreman every 50 or 60 miles to give orders as to what was to be done. Therefore, as the Bill now stood, the Railway Company was responsible.

said, they were travelling very wide of the mark, and ought to confine themselves to the particular question before the House. That question was simply whether they were to have common employment or not; and whether at this time of the night, at 20 minutes past 1 o'clock, in a thin House, with no Notice whatever, the whole doctrine of common employment was to be affected in this Bill by a side wind. This was such a large and grave question that it ought to be discussed in a full House, when they were not exhausted by a long Session, and when they could carefully and fully consider it with a proper number of Members present, and after due Notice. The Government had accepted—and, he thought, rightly accepted—the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. That dealt distinctly with certain classes of railway work. It did not lay the Railway Companies open to the full doctrine of common employment, but confined their liability to certain especial cases. That was as plainly defined as the liability of other employers in other parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) put the case of a foreman. If the hon. Gentleman would take the rules of any colliery he would see that the foreman's duties were so distinctly laid down that there could be no question that the employer was liable under the clause in this Bill. There was a very great doubt as to whether signalmen or locomotive drivers were liable under the general terms of this Act. Therefore, the Government, in order to place Railway Companies in exactly the same position as other employers, had, he thought, wisely adopted the limited clause of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. It was now proposed to leave out those words which placed Railway Companies on all fours with other employers, and to import other words which would make all employers liable, and really destroy the doctrine of common employment altogether. He did submit that was not a thing to be supported or admitted under these circumstances; and he trusted more time would not be wasted on that point, but that they would go to a division, and confine the Bill to the point suggested.

said, he was not going to detain the House for a minute; but he wished to point out, in a very few words, what was the point before them. His hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) had moved the insertion of certain words. They had accepted the extension of the Bill, confined to persons in charge of those particular things; and the reason they accepted that was, because they were under circumstances as to which complaints had arisen; and although these were persons who might not be actually in the control of the coal mine, yet other persons who were in authority in such a particular operation of work had placed upon them so grave a responsibility that they thought an employer might be held fairly responsible for them. Upon that an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) which read thus—

"By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer engaged in any work other than that in which the person injured was engaged."

did not think they were in a position to come to a decision on this matter. The Government were prepared to accept a certain modification as to railways; but he was sure it would not give satisfaction to the railway men, because, while it included some, others, who equally might cause injury, were left out. They had permanent way men who were included in the other part of the Bill. There were those also in charge of level crossings. Everybody would admit that accidents might occur from gates being left open through the carelessness of the men in charge. They were not included in any part of the Bill. He did not see why they should be left out when others were included. He thought that, as the Amendment proposed was not carefully considered, he was justified in moving the adjournment of the debate.

Will any hon. Member second that Motion? The Motion, not being seconded, cannot be put.

I merely rise to give the explanation which was required by the noble Lord when he spoke with reference to firemen. I was not in the House when the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) made his speech; but I understand that it was stated, in reply to him, that the firemen had charge of the machinery, plant, and stock. Now, the firemen really have nothing whatever to do with machinery, or the maintenance of any plant whatever. The fireman's duty is to inspect the face of the working places in the mines; to see that they are free from gas; then to fire the shots when required, and to keep the air up to the face by fixing the brattice, or temporary division; and it is a question, in my mind, as to whether the employer would be liable for their negligence under the Bill, because their duty is of the nature partly of manual labour, and partly of supervision of working places. Now, with regard to this Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol, in speaking of it this morning I advised the Government not to accept it. I saw quite clearly that if they did so they would involve themselves in a sea of trouble; and unless they go the whole length, as proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I think they would do better to refuse to accept the Amendment at all. They have already invaded the doctrine of common employment to an almost indefinite extent; and they have been called upon, 10 days ago, by the late Attorney General, to specify those classes of workmen for whom the employer would be liable. This the Attorney General refused to do, and I thought he was wise in that refusal. It is much better to fix a sound general principle to apply to a varied state of things than to attempt to specify a set of cases which might be a specification of almost indefinite length. But they have now specified them with regard to railways. They have accepted words to this effect—that the employer is to be liable for pointsmen and signalmen, and so on, engaged upon a railway. Now, the question arises, what are you to designate a railway? I was engaged in a law suit, four years ago, and the question arose as to what a railway was; whether a space of ground left by deed for a waggon-way could be said to be left for a railway, and that question is not settled yet. Now we have railways underground, as was very properly pointed out by the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. D. Davies); we have scores of railways underground, and we have a great many boys employed upon these railways as pointsmen and signal attendants. In every colliery where 500 men are employed, there are about 50 boys to look after the points and signals and various workings in connection with the railways. Are we to be responsible for each one of those boys who acts as pointsman? If this Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol is adopted at all, I say you had far better at once adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. That, at least, is intelligible enough, and it is just to the workmen, which the Bill, as it stands, is not. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy goes to a division I shall certainly vote for that Amendment.

said, he did not quite understand the Forms of the House, and should, therefore, like to ask a question on a point of Order. The Government had brought forward that Amendment, to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had moved an Amendment. He wished also to move an Amendment, and he should like to ask if he could do so. [Cries of "No!"] He asked the Speaker, and not the House. He begged to ask the Speaker whether he should be out of Order in so doing? His Amendment would, he believed, assist the Government by getting rid of two Amendments. The subsection would then run—

"By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of a railway company, such negligence being on the part of a signalman on the railway of such company."

The Question before the House is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). When that is disposed of, it will be competent for the hon. and learned Member to move his.

asked if the Question ought not to be "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment?"

The words down to the word "employer" stand part of the Amendment. The manner in which the Question is proposed is, therefore, correct. I have already informed the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that his Amendment cannot be put.

said, that the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Montague Guest) had also an Amendment.

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wareham will follow the present one.

begged to move his Amendment.

asked whether his Amendment did not come next?

As the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke appears to raise the same question as that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) it cannot be put.

said, he wished to move that the words "of the permanent way or" be inserted after "control." It appeared to him that they would meet an objection that had been raised; and although it would not cover all the parts of a railway, still it went towards making the Bill clear and the clause more intelligible.

said, he hoped the House would adhere to the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley).

asked whether they were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, assisted by his legal advisers, had decided that a foreman of a gang of platelayers was the same thing as an inspector of the permanent way, and that the person referred to in sub-section 1 of Clause 2 was not an inspector, but a foreman? He had consulted three legal gentlemen of considerable eminence, and they had agreed that his view was correct. He, therefore, concluded that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong.

said, that it had already been explained that such a person was intrusted with the duty of seeing that the way was in proper condition, and, therefore, the master would be liable.

said, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman misconstrued the words, seeing that "the permanent way was in proper condition." That, to his mind, did not refer to a person putting plates on a line, but to the person inspecting and superintending that work.

said, that the proper way for the Government to deal with that matter was to accept the words of the hon. Member. He must say that, to his mind, it was not at all clear that a man working upon a railway would be included. It was all very well if an Inspector had to see that the way was in proper condition and neglected to do so, that the employer should be held liable; but he did not think that that should apply in the case of an ordinary-platelayer. He thought that the doubt which existed in regard to the matter would be removed if the words of the hon. Member were accepted.

said, that whether they were right or wrong, the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Wareham could not make it at all better. The words "charge or control of" surely included any person whose duty it was to see that the way was in proper condition. An ordinary platelayer was a man engaged in laying the railway.

said, they had reference to the man known as the "ganger."

said, that a foreman of a gang was a person whose duty it was to see that the gang properly performed their work. He could not see how there could be any doubt that that person's duty was defined as a "person whose duty it was to see that the way was in proper condition." He could not understand why that question had been raised. The Bill made the Railway Company liable for not only Inspectors of the permanent way, but every person whose duty it was to see that the way was in proper condition.

said, he did not rise to continue the legal argument, but to say a few words in the interest of reason and common sense. That Bill was passed with the avowed object of stopping litigation. There they had a particular part of the Bill on which the Attorney General and Solicitor General expressed an opinion, and the late Solicitor General, the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), expressed another. Hereafter, if one consulted the hon. and learned Member for Launceston he would give one opinion; if one consulted the Law Officers of the Crown they would give another. He ventured to state, on his experience as a lawyer, that, in circumstances like those, litigation was certain to ensue. They had an opportunity then of making the Bill clear. Would it not be better to do so, than to send it out in its present form?

said, that any person who wished to make himself disagreeable might make suggestions of the kind they had just heard by the score on any such Bill. He believed that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) did not pledge himself to the view ascribed to him. He might be wrong in that; but he thought he only threw out a passing doubt.

said, he certainly did entertain a different opinion from hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite.

said, that it might be that the Amendment, as it stood, was rather ambiguous. He could not however, suggest any better way of expressing what it was intended to convey, and he believed the Solicitor General was perfectly right as to the law on the point.

said, that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had gone so far as to imply that the Amendment was not very clear. The fact was, that the Government had brought in a Bill dealing with a subject which that House was ready and willing to deal with, and when Amendments were brought forward, however hastily, they were accepted. They had been there something like two hours considering whether the Amendment would hold water or not. There was great difference of opinion upon the point; and he did think it desirable that some means should be devised, if possible, in order to avoid litigation. He, therefore, hoped that before the Amendment was agreed to they would fully consider what effect it was likely to have.

wished to asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would object to leave out the word "locomotive?" Speeches were made early in the evening showing that on many railways the engines were not locomotive. It was quite possible that accidents might occur in the conduct of a fixed engine. He would move the Amendment for the purpose of raising the point.

There is another Amendment before that.

moved to insert the words "level crossing" before the word "signal." He did not think it would be possible to take any word that would include all cases of men employed on railways. In trying to meet all they would, as an hon. Member opposite had said, open a flood gate.

said, if there was a level crossing where there were gates across the line, he imagined that the signalman must signal the line clear.

said, he was speaking of the country. He was not sure that he understood the case the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put.

remarked, that accidents happened very often through men neglecting to close the gates when trains were due. Men in charge of the gates were drawn away to talk to somebody; they did not see to the gates; a train came along, the engine-driver was killed, or wounded, and all this did not come under the Bill, for the gatekeeper was not a signalman.

understood that such a case as that would be met by the Bill. It would be a case of a person who was bound to see the way was in a proper condition. It was impossible to discuss every case.

asked whether they were to understand definitely from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the case of a gate man on a railway was provided for in this Bill? He should also like to know on what ground they could say that a signal man was not included in the clause? If a gatekeeper was included, a signal man must be included.

said, in the case of a gate that was an obstacle to the way being in good order, and sub-section 1 of Section 2 met it, because the person in charge of a gate-house should always see that the way was in good order.

said, the gatekeeper was, as a matter of fact, in charge of a signal—["No, no!"]—he trusted hon. Gentlemen would kindly listen. Every gate had a signal upon it, which in day time was an ordinary signal, and at night was a lamp, which marked the line closed.

I move now to omit the word "locomotive," for the reason I gave just now.

appealed to the House, if it was their intention that the Bill should pass, whether it was worth while to keep on moving to insert one word after another, or to omit one word after another? He knew he had no right to complain of hon. Members who thought they could improve the Amendment by adding to it or taking from it; but he did appeal to the body of the House whether, if they were to make progress with the Bill, there must not come a time when they must decide on accepting the words of the hon. Member for Bristol "Aye" or "No?" The words of the hon. Member were on the Paper. Those Amendments were now being introduced to their notice without being on the Paper. The hon. Member's words were put on the Paper after very careful consideration, and not for the purpose of exhausting all cases of accidents or of common employment, but with the view of meeting the very flagrant cases which had given rise to the greatest amount of complaint—namely, where men were in control of some kind of machinery or engine, which placed in their hand a greater responsibility than if they had control of men. The hon. and learned Member now proposed to omit the word "locomotive," so as to include engines stationary or locomotive. He took this distinction. A locomotive engine was intended to meet the case of an engine-driver who had charge of a locomotive engine, and going from a distant station by neglect run over and killed, or injured, a man employed on the line who lived miles from the place where he started. Would the employment of that man be held to be common employment, and that the Railway Company ought to be held liable for the neglect? If they took the case of a stationary engine, and the men had been working together on the same spot, they came to a different thing. They would then come to a class of cases where men were working together, and might talk the matter over. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that the House would adhere to the words of the Amendment.

said, at that hour of the morning he should he extremely sorry to divide on his Amendment. He wished, however, to make the lines of the Bill conform to what he believed was the fact. The Bill did not intend to give compensation to workmen.

I have an Amendment before that, which is little more than a verbal correction, in line 24, to leave out the words "or in Scotland."

, resuming, said, the Bill, as supported by the Government and passed through Committee, did not give the injured workmen compensation for an injury, but gave him an allowance. It included a penalty, but did not provide that the penalty should be an exact equivalent to the injury that might be done. That might appear to be a mere verbal criticism. He thought that the substitution of the word "penalty" for the word "compensation" involved a very important idea. He believed that it was most desirable that the idea should be popularized that the law did not affect to give an equivalent to injuries received. As the Bill was altered, the employer was a limited contributary, and he wished to make the language of the Bill accord with the fact throughout its clauses.

said, notwithstanding what his hon. Friend had said, he could not understand this Amendment, which really was a verbal one, and nothing else. Whether what the workman was to recover was called penalty, or compensation, did not matter. He understood his hon. Friend objected because the Act did not give full compensation. He himself apprehended that in 99 cases out of 100 the full amount would be recovered; but it was not because, in the 100th case, the workman would not recover the amount that it was, therefore, a false description to call that which he received compensation. He trusted the House would not commence to alter phraseology, in order to carry out a vague idea.

begged leave to move that the House do now adjourn.

Will any hon. Member second that Motion?

seconded the Motion.

respectfully appealed to the House, after they had occupied so much time and attention on this Bill, and had got through nearly all the important points of it, whether they had not better continue, instead of delaying the completion of the Bill, and hindering its going to the other House?

wished to point out that he did not think the request was a very unreasonable one. ["Oh!"] If the House wished to pass the Bill they would not do it by indulging in those remarks. It was no trouble to them to walk through the Lobby a dozen times if they wished to do so. He would point out that they had been sitting 12 hours. They had not yet passed Clause 1, and there were a great many more Amendments to go through. He did not wish to press it; but he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in moving the adjournment of the House. Perhaps, after the expression of opinion, the hon. and learned. Member would think it better to withdraw the Motion.

said, that, whether it was withdrawn or not, it must be palpable that the House was anxious to finish the Bill. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!"] If, as the noble Lord said, they were prepared to walk through the Lobby five or six times—[Cries of 'Agreed, agreed!"] he quite hoped the Government would adjourn to 12 o'clock that day to finish—[Cries of "Agreed, agreed !"]

The Question is that this House do now adjourn.

moved an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham). He did not know whether the Government would admit it. He would not press it if the Government refused to accept it.

said, it appeared to him, with all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hardinge Giffard), that the introduction of those words would place additional difficulty in the way of the workmen, and would rather raise a difficulty than remove one. For that reason, he preferred not to make the alteration.

said, he had discussed those words with the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham), and he was of opinion that the word "knew" would be very hard to prove. If he wanted compensation for damage, the workman would take care this was not known. Men at work were very liable to conceal defects from their employers. If it were proved that the men must have known there were defects when an accident happened the words ought to be inserted.

said, the Amendment he had on the Paper was one to meet the wishes which had been expressed very generally when the Bill was in Committee. It was thought that the words at the end of the clause, "having no reasonable cause to believe," were not quite satisfactory; and it was suggested after the discussion, and it appeared to be generally accepted, that it would be better to substitute the words "unless he was aware," suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease). He, therefore, proposed that those words be left out, and that the words "unless he was aware" be inserted.

hoped the Government would concede the clause he now proposed, which was designed to restrict the liability of persons engaged in mining. The 2nd section of Clause 1 defined the persons for whom the employers were to be liable. It was a very clear definition, and one which ordinary persons could understand, and was sufficient for all purposes. But sub-section 3 had a much wider range, and was, practically, in mining cases framed so as to include nearly all workmen. It came very near to doing away with the doctrine of common employment, which, it had been agreed, was not the intention of the Government. If this subsection 3 was agreed to, it would be going very near to doing away with that doctrine, for its definition extended, or might extend, to any workman at some time or other. He was not speaking of general trades, for of those he had no knowledge; but in the particular business of mining, in which he was interested, nearly every person, from the manager down to the lowest person in the mine, had, at some time or other, power to give orders and directions. He took the case of a man in charge of a waggon, driving it and sitting on the shafts as he was ordered not to do, who ordered a fellow-workman to get out of the way, and who, in doing so, slipped, and was injured. Was that a fair case for which employers should be liable? He hoped the House would see that carelessness in framing the exceptions to this Bill might introduce principles which it was agreed they should exclude. He was not speaking of great employers of labour, like the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), or the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease). [An hon. MEMBER: Move.] He really thought the House must listen. He was very sorry to have to trouble them; but these matters were of very great importance to a large body of small employers of labour, whose interests would be put in jeopardy, and who might be ruined by any careless legislation in this matter; and, besides, he believed the interest of thousands of workpeople would be affected by this Bill. All this danger could be averted if the Government would concede the clause he proposed. The first part of the clause might be objected to as giving too much power to employés; but that was remedied by the requirement that the list should be signed by the Inspector of Mines in the case of mines, and by the Inspector of Factories in all other cases. He did not think that any more efficient check could be provided, for the Inspectors, of necessity, acted in the interest of the workmen; and if this clause was conceded, and the employers were compelled to hang up the notice in a public place, both they and their workmen would know exactly the persons for whose misconduct the one was liable and the other could recover. He hoped the Government would concede the clause, that employers might be able to carry on the great works in which they were engaged, and that in consequence of such works being closed—which might, and, he believed, would, happen if in these exceptional times of bad trade very heavy risks were incurred—large bodies of workmen might be turned adrift.

said, that that was a clause which they really could not possibly accept. The effect of it was that an employer would be authorized to put up a list of those for whom he was to be liable, and, as it would rest with him, the list would most probably be a very short one. That would defeat the object they had in view. Then, again, an employer, no matter in what business, was to have recourse to the Inspector of Mines or Factories, who would have, in most cases, nothing whatever to do with the business of the employer—for instance, if he were a builder, or in any such trade. He did not think that that Amendment ought to detain the House.

said, his object in putting his Amendment on the Paper was to attempt to remedy what he thought would be universally admitted to be a great blot in the Bill—namely, that a child working in a factory, if injured, was to get compensation based on the three years' previous wages of the child. That was very little indeed. That he believed to be altogether inadequate to the injury received. He thought it would be admitted that a child who sustained the loss of a hand or leg received a greater injury than a grown man in the same circumstances, inasmuch as he had more life before him than the other. He believed the general opinion to be that the calculation on three years' wages was wholly inadequate in this case. He, therefore, proposed that the child should receive compensation limited not to three years of its own wages, but of those of a person of full age working in the like employment to that child. The difficulty lay in regard to the use of the words "of the same grade." A person of full age was evidently not of the "same grade;" and he, therefore, proposed to strike those words out. He submitted the proposal to the Government, and he hoped they would be able to see their way to accept it.

said, he quite admitted that there was considerable force in the observations and arguments of his hon. Friend; but, still, he believed the words of the Bill should remain as they were. The fact of the child being able to receive compensation, as provided already by the Bill, put it in a better position than that previously occupied. There were, no doubt, many hard cases of injury—nothing could really compensate for the loss of a leg or a hand—but, at the same time, they ought not to cast too heavy a burden on the employer; and it should be remembered that the employer was receiving but a slight advantage from the services of the child. He thought that the House would agree to retain the words of the clause.

said, that was really an extremely important Amendment, and ought to have proper discussion. He was quite sure, however, that that was impossible at that hour. There was a determination to complete the Bill that night, and all the Amendments on the Paper could not be discussed adequately for certain. He wished to raise a feeble voice of protest against important matters, such as that affecting the interests of those who could not protect themselves, being slurred over without further discussion in that House at 3 o'clock in the morning.

said, he had already drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to the fact that it did not provide for cases in which a workman was killed. In consequence of a suggestion made by him, the Bill was amended, providing for an action within six months of the time of death. At that time the right hon. Gentleman said he would see that provisions were inserted in the Bill, if necessary, in order that employers, against whom an action was brought, should be put in the same favourable position as they would be if the action were brought against them under Lord Campbell's Act. Without fully discussing that matter, he would say that the employer was only liable to have one action brought against him; and that in case damages were awarded by a jury, they would, at the same time, declare in what shares the amount should be distributed. For those reasons, he had drawn up the Amendment which stood in his name. He had spoken to the Solicitor General on the subject, who thought the Amendment just made in the 1st section would have the effect of putting employers in the position desired. He could not quite agree with the Solicitor General; and he should be glad if the House would accept his Amendment, in order that there might be a certainty with regard to the position of the employer, and that the doubts which existed might be removed. He begged to move his Amendment.

said, he believed it would be impossible to accept his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, inasmuch as the present Bill was to apply to Scotland as well as to England. The Proviso, which it was proposed to add to the end of the clause, was wholly inadequate to meet the case of Scotland. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would see clearly the difficulty in regard to that matter. There was nothing new in that Bill. It only said that in certain cases people, hitherto debarred from bringing an action, should have the same right as people upon whom that bar did not apply, as regarded the procedure in the Courts under the Judicature Acts. His hon. and learned Friend said that, in certain cases, reference should be made to Lord Campbell's Act. But, inasmuch as that only referred to England, the cases of Scotland and Ireland were entirely left out of the question.

said, he had merely done what he believed to be his duty in bringing that matter forward; and he should, therefore, not ask the House to divide upon the question. The responsibility, of course, rested on the Law Officers of the Crown.

Does the hon. and learned Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

NO, Sir.

said, he had an Amendment to move, which arose out of an Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Labouchere), but did not go so far as that Amendment. Clause 4 required that notice of an action should be brought within six weeks. He proposed to add to that clause a Proviso, meeting the cases where notice could not well be given. Children, for instance, left in a comparatively destitute state, say, from the death of the father by an accident, were not in a position to give notice, perhaps, at the time, and the legal personal representative had very often not the means of taking out letters of administration, or of immediately communicating with the employer. He trusted that the Government would accept the Amendment.

said, he believed they might safely accept those words.

begged to move the next Amendment.

moved the next Amendment.

said, he could not help thinking that the framers of the Bill had made a mis- take in the expression "workman," in page 3, line 30, and in using the clumsy phrase of referring to another Act in order to understand what that one meant. He supposed the Government did not intend to exclude a railway guard; and he would, undoubtedly, be excluded by reference to that Act only. He would remind the House of the definition of the expression "workman." It did not include a domestic or a servant, but a labourer ordinarily engaged in manual labour. Now, it was manifest that railway guards, clerks in the office, &c, were not included in the meaning of the statute, and that certainly was not the intention of the Government. He, therefore, believed that the Government would accept the Amendment which he was proposing, otherwise there would, undoubtedly, be a great disappointment.

said, he apprehended that the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that, by a mere technicality, railway servants should be excluded. He should be quite willing to accept the Amendment.

moved to leave out "a" after "means."

said, he was quite sure that he should only be consulting the wishes of the House by abstaining from any lengthened observations in support of his Amendment; but the subject was one of such considerable magnitude that he must be allowed to say a few words. He had not advocated that farmers should be excepted in the Bill from the consequences of defects in their machinery; but they knew that in the case of live animals, to hold them responsible for their defects, was a totally different thing. There were defects in temper and habits connected with them which was not the case with other stock. In such cases of accidents it would be very difficult to prove how far a workman or labourer had contributed, by his own negligence, to any accident from which he might suffer. He believed it would often be most difficult to prove the case, when the man had contributed to the accident, in cases where live animals were concerned. Let them take one instance, which was a common practice at a farm—namely, turning out horses to water. On returning he would suppose that a horse, blind of one eye, ran against a ladder on which a man was thatching a stack, and killed or injured him. It would be a curious question for ingenious lawyers to determine, whether or not that accident was caused by a defect in the animal itself, or carelessness on the part of the employer. On that account, he hoped the Government would be able to accede to his proposal. Such a meaning as that against which his proposal was directed was never intended to be included in the Bill; and, in fact, it would be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had offered, during the debate upon the second reading, to take the word "stock" out of the Bill. For his own part, he had great misgiving with regard to its retention; but he must, without troubling the House with further observations, leave the matter in its hands. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.