To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can say on how many days during the last three years the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, or either, have been closed to the public for a part or whole of a day owing to the prevalence of fog or darkness; and whether, seeing the inconvenience caused to sightseers by such closing without notice, he can hold out any hopes that either gallery will have the same provision for artificial lighting extended to it as has been sanctioned in the Wallace Museum. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The two branches of the National Gallery were closed in consequence of fog during the last three years as follows:—

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what was the amount of the building grant made to the voluntary school of Broughton Gifford, Wiltshire, in the year 1870. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) A grant of £90 13s. 4d. was made to Broughton Gifford National School on June 3rd, 1853, and a further grant of £105 2s. 6d. towards the cost of enlargement of school and classroom and a residence was made on May 24th, 1872. The Board have no record of any building grant in 1870.

To ask the Postmaster-General, when a packet of printed papers for abroad has been weighed at a post office, and the stamps required duly affixed, it is afterwards discovered the official has made a mistake in the weight or postage rate, whether the sender, the official, or the addressee is responsible for that error; and what system exists by which it is known where such packets have been officially weighed. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The person primarily responsible for the correct prepayment of postage on a packet of printed papers for a place abroad is the sender. Postmasters are not bound to weigh such packets for the public; but they are at liberty to do so if the ordinary duties of the office be not thereby impeded. In the vast majority of cases of insufficient prepayment there are no means of knowing at the time when the insufficient prepayment is discovered who is the sender of the packet or whether he has been misinformed as to the postage by an officer of the Post Office; and the universal practice throughout the world is to collect double the deficiency from the addressee; but if it is found, as it occasionally is, that an officer of the Post Office has weighed the packet and misinformed the sender as to the postage, steps are taken for refunding to the addressee the overcharge arising from that circumstance.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether the four instalments of tithe due to be paid in the months of August, September, October, and November in the thirty villages of the vilayet of Monastir have been punctually and fully paid; and whether it is proposed to introduce into other parts of Macedonia the system experimentally carried out in these thirty villages. (Answered by Earl Percy.) We have no detailed information as to the payment of the four instalments mentioned, but at the collection of the first instalment not only was this single instalment paid without delay by every locality, but several districts even paid the amount for the whole year at once on their own initiative. The experiments made were intended to serve as a basis for the earliest possible extension of the reform on a larger scale.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Memorandum or Report subsequent to that of May 11th, 1904, relating to the reorganisation of the Macedonian gendarmerie has since that date been issued by General de Giorgis. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The communications which have passed between General de Giorgis and the Adjoints are or a confidential character, and no general Report on the reorganisation has been issued since the date mentioned by the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the average period of reaching each rank in the Medical, Paymasters, and Engineer branches of the Royal Navy has been assimilated to that of the Executive branch; and, if so, whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the relative rank of Marine officers now serving when they are embarked. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there have been any exceptional circumstances, to justify the granting of an inquiry into the necessity for an official maternity nurse in Ballyhaunis dispensary district; whether he will state on what portion of the evidence Sir Acheson M'Cullagh based his recommendation to have a sealed Order issued in connection with the matter; and whether he will order that a copy of the evidence given at the inquiry be sent to Mr. Michael Delaney, the senior guardian for the district. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Representations were made to the Local Government Board by ratepayers urging the necessity for the appointment of a midwife in this district. The guardians failed to take any action in the matter, and the Board thereupon directed a local inquiry to be held in order to ascertain the facts. The Board's decision was based not upon the inspector's report, but upon the sworn evidence adduced at the inquiry. A copy of the evidence has already been supplied to the board of guardians.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the bulk of the evidence given at the recent inquiry in the Claremorris union regarding the necessity for appointing a maternity nurse for the Ballyhaunis dispensary district was against such an appointment being made, and that Ballyhaunis district has residing within it two medical doctors and two maternity nurses; and if so, whether, in view of the fact that the appointment of such a nurse is in opposition to the public opinion of the district, he will have the necessary instructions given to have the sealed Order immediately withdrawn. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The evidence of individual guardians was opposed to the appointment; but it is to be borne in mind that as a body they had persistently declined to make such an appointment. On the other hand, the expert testimony of the medical officer of the district was strongly in favour of the employment of a trained midwife. There is but one medical officer resident in the district whose duty it is to attend on medical relief tickets, and but one midwife, whose services are not, however, available for the sick poor free of charge. My right hon. friend stated on February 23rd† that it is not proposed to withdraw the sealed Order.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Catholic clergy and laity of Larkhill, Collooney, county Sligo, have recently

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 1081.

pointed out to the Commissioners of National Education the want of facilities for the education of Catholic children in that district; and whether, seeing that, although the Catholics form 75 per cent. of the population, the local national school is under Protestant management, what action, if any, will be taken in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The percentage of Catholic children on the rolls of the school at Larkhill, which is under Protestant management, is thirty-eight. There are two other schools, about two miles distant, both under Catholic management. The inspector has reported that the proposed additional school-house at Larkhill, for aid towards which the Commissioners have received an application from the Reverend E. H. Connington, P.P., is quite unsuitable and unfitted for school purposes.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state with regard to the evicted tenants reinstated by the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903: total number of evicted tenants reinstated up to December 31st, 1904; name of each tenant; name of estate from which he had been evicted; area, former rent, and valuation of farm; county and townland where farm is situated; whether tenant was reinstated in farm from which he had been evicted or provided with new farm; full particulars in either case of the terms under which the tenant was reinstated, showing amount of annuity; and whether reinstatement was carried out in connection with or independently of sale of estate from which tenant had been evicted. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Commissioners are preparing an interim Report of their proceedings in respect of the period to December 31st, 1904, in accordance with the form prescribed under Section 23 (14) of the Act. This Report will contain very full particulars as to the operations under the Act, including the reinstatement of evicted tenants, but it will not contain information of the detailed character indicated by the hon. Member. Pending the publication of the Report the Government is not prepared to impose on the Commissioners the preparation of supplemental Returns.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the proportion of guns to sabres and bayonets when the new order for artillery is completed; and what will be the relative proportions in the British, French, and German armies. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The proportion of field guns to sabres and bayonets in the British Field Army will be 1 to 220. In France the proportion is 1 to 346. In Germany the present proportion is 1 to 180, but it is not possible to say what the proportion will be when the German army is provided with the new quick-firing gun.

in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that for some years past the two great Parties of the State through their respective Governments had laid down the policy, and carried it out by their legislation, of guarding workmen engaged in various employments as far as possible from injury, and of enabling those workers, if injured through the negligence of their employers, to obtain compensation. The present Bill strictly followed these non-Party lines, and therefore he hoped to receive the support of both sides of the House. Respective Governments, by the Factories Act of 1895, by the Employers Liability Act of 1880, and by the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, had, he thought, fully borne out his opening statement. The negligence that this Bill desired to guard workmen against, however, was not quite that of the Employers' Liability Act, because instead of trying to guard the workman against the negligence of his employer, it endeavoured to guard him against the negligence of a third person, who was, in truth, the employer of his employer. The liability of any Shipowner in this country, or of any employer, was not increased by this Bill. The Bill simply sought to make effective the existing law, and to enable a workman to secure reasonable compensation when personally injured by the negligence of persons who were theoretically liable, but who in practice escaped with impunity. Hitherto all attempts to deal with this matter had been hindered by difficulties with regard to international law, and he would say at once that the last thing he desired to do was to embitter the relations which now existed between other countries and ourselves. Therefore the promoters of this measure had been obliged to bring in a Bill which should cover shipowners of all nationalities, but they had no desire whatever to harass in any vexatious manner British owners of ships. They would be most happy to accept any form of words that could be suggested which would place it beyond the bounds of possibility that British shipowners should be vexatiously harassed. On that point he would only ask that whatever those words might be they should not conflict with international law or international policy. Further than that, they would be willing to accept any drafting Amendments which the Law Officers of the Crown or any other Gentlemen learned in the law might suggest as improvements in the drafting of the Bill. He thought with that promise, as far as he was personally concerned, he might appeal to all sections of the House to agree to the main principle of the measure. He asked the House to consider how the law at present stood. The Factory Act of 1895 placed for the first time every dock, wharf, quay, and warehouse under factory inspectors as far as related to loading and unloading and all machinery and plant used. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 gave rights of obtaining compensation to all men injured while working in what the law considered to be a factory, and the House of Lords by its decision had now made it perfectly plain that a vessel in dock was a factory for the purposes of both the Factory Act of 1895 and the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897. The result was that men engaged in the work he had described were protected under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but the difficulty was that when foreign ships were being loaded or unloaded or repaired, though the workman was protected in theory, in practice he had no protection at all, because there was no way of enforcing claims against the shipowner if he was not resident in this country. This statement was fully confirmed by the evidence given before the "Foreign Ships (Application of Statutory Requirements) Committee" by Mr. Arthur Norman Hill, the secretary of the Liverpool Steam Shipowners' Association. Two cases which had been heard in our Law Courts showed perfectly plainly the position of the law at the present time. The first case, that of "Whitewood v. Andorsen Becker it & Co.," was argued before the Lord Chief Justice on November 13th, 1894. The plaintiff, a stevedore, was engaged in the discharge of a German vessel, and, through the admitted neglect of a member of the crew in removing a guy rope to an unsafe position, received injuries which would prevent him from ever resuming his occupation; but he was non-suited on the ground that the defendants, who were the agents of the shipowners, were not responsible, and the shipowners could not be sued as they were not domiciled or ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction. The second case was that of "Shea v. Drolenvaux," in which a stevedore's labourer was engaged to work at loading a ship in the Port of London. Whilst so working on board the ship he was injured through accident. He accordingly claimed compensation under the Act against the agents. The County Court Judge dismissed his claim on the grounds that although the ship might be a, factory for the purposes of the Act, and although the persons in possession of the ship might be undertakers within the meaning of the Act, still the agents were not liable to pay compensation, for they never had possession of the ship or any control of it, the foreign crew retaining possession during all the time of loading. On appeal the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the County Court Judge, holding that it was clear that the agents were not undertakers within the meaning of the Act. But what was the treatment which our British ships received when unloaded by foreign work? That was made perfectly plain by the case of the steamship "Lochness" of Dundee. The steamship "Lochness" was delivering a cargo of coal at Flensburg in January, 1896, and during the operation the hatches were removed and replaced by the labourers employed. Through some defect in the fitting of a hatch a workman was precipitated into the hold, sustaining injuries from which death resulted. Both the ship and the master were duly arrested and only liberated on satisfactory bail being given. Civil proceedings were instituted against the shipowner, the claim being ultimately compromised, but notwithstanding the fact that the relatives of the deceased were pecuniarily recompensed, the authorities took proceedings under the Criminal Code against the master of the vessel for negligence. Thus there was a very grave and gross inequality between the law relating to foreign workmen in loading British ships and that relating to British workmen unloading foreign ships, and if for no other reason than that it was surely time for the House to deal in a drastic manner with that gross inequality. This constituted what were known as cases in personam, and in such cases there was no redress for a workman injured by negligence. It was a curious thing that where a foreign ship collided with an English ship in entering a port, the owner of the British vessel could seize the foreign vessel and by means of having seized it obtain redress for the damage done. Surely if redress of damage or injury to a ship could be secured, how much more necessary was it that they should enable compensation to be secured for damages which unfitted the person injured for pursuing his occupation and often resulted in his death? What the promoters of this Bill ventured to suggest to the House was the passage of what was practically a one clause Bill, proposing to alter the machinery of the law in such a way that actions in personam should be carried out in precisely the same manner as actions in rem—that was to say, that action could be taken in a Court of summary jurisdiction, after which the ship could be seized by bailiffs, or bailiffs' officers sent on board, a notice nailed to the mast, and the bailiffs' officer placed by the mast, with the result that in a very short space of time bail or security would be forthcoming for the damage sustained, and the ship would be immediately released on satisfactory security being obtained. He might point out that where a barge unloading a foreign ship in port was sunk by the negligence of the foreign captain or his crew, the barge-owner could obtain damages and compensation for the loss of his barge, but for the unfortunate man on the barge, if he were drowned or seriously injured, no damages or compensation whatever could be obtained. That also was a serious defect in the law which he hoped before many sessions were past this House would have remedied. The promoters did not think that the delay caused, if their proposal were adopted, would in any case be severe or vexatious. It had not been found in practice to be so in actions in rem. Nor did they think that British shipowners would be in any way unduly harassed by the changes they proposed in the law. This was not a new idea. It was simply an attempt to make operative a law which really existed and should be put into practice. He did not think it necessary to say anything further with regard to Clauses 2, 3, or 4. He had endeavoured to state as plainly as a layman could what he thought were the great defects in the law; the only thing he desired was that the House should approve the principle of the Bill he was laying before them. He had to the best of his ability placed before the House a measure conceived in a non-Party spirit, with the object of extending further protection to some of the humblest of their fellow-subjects, and, relying upon the spirit which always animated the House, he confidently asked for their help and support in passing the Bill. He begged to move.

as having been a member of the Committee on the Application of Statutory Requirements to Foreign Ships, and also as having introduced a similar Bill on a previous occasion, desired to support the proposal embodied in the present measure. He thought it remedied a great existing mischief and introduced an important amendment of the law. He would make one qualification, however, namely, that there should be no vexatious provisions which would affect the proper interests of British shipowners, and this was common ground. The mischief aimed at arose from the non-residence of the foreign shipowner and the impossibility in that case of asserting rights which existed, which had been infringed, but which infringement could not possibly be pecuniarily redressed. Though there might have been actual negligence on the part of the agents and servants of the foreign shipowner, though there might have been loss of life or injury to limb, and though a verdict might even have been obtained, yet owing to the possible removal of the ship, in consequence of the absence of the owner, and the impossibility of detention of his ship, the judgment became illusory, the unfortunate litigant was saddled with costs in addition to the pecuniary injury which he had sustained, and a great reproach was brought upon the state of the law. That reproach was intensified by another consideration, and that was the apparent privilege given to property when injured as compared with injury to life or person. If an injury was done to any property on board a ship, or to the ship itself, or to cargo, there was redress, but where injury occurred to life or to person, there was practically and eventually no remedy. He knew of no foreign country where a similar state of the law existed, and in Scotland the law was different and just to the employee. Shipowners should remember that in this case they themselves were the victims of some injustice, because British shipowners had to pay for those injuries, while foreign ships were practically exempt from them. Foreign shipowners thus practically gained a differential benefit as bonus, for they were enabled to trade under a distinct advantage in competition with English shipowners. Consequently this provision applied for the redress of an evil to British shipowners just as in other cases. This Bill removed an injustice, a differential injustice, to the British shipowner by submitting his competitors to the same just liabilities as he himself was subjected to. He might say that as one who had an interest in shipping he believed this was an Act for the redress of a distinct injustice to shipowners themselves. Under Admiralty law, a ship being movable, the first step to take was to arrest the ship. This was the very foundation of the law because security was obtained by possession of the ship, or by the bail upon which the ship was released. But the precedent which he would cite in favour of this Bill was that of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts of 1868 and 1869. This was rather an instance of the statutory power of arrest where the vessel was likely to be moved. Under these Acts there was a distinct repetition of the very mischief they were speaking of. Those Acts distinctly recognised in the case of the British shipowner the principle in this Bill as being one which ought to be applied to foreign shipowners as well. The provision in the County Courts Acts of 1868 and 1869 was that where either the Judge or the registrar of a County Court with jurisdiction in Admiralty was satisfied that the ship was likely to be removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court before satisfaction of the injury which had been sustained, he might order—and it was a simple everyday occurrence—that arrest should take place. The arrest took place immediately the claim was put in, and thus security was given for compensation to the injured. He should like to inform the House of the extent of the mischief against which this Bill was directed. Before the Committee which heard evidence upon this subject, it was stated that during the last eight years in the Port of London alone there had been eight cases of loss of life in respect of which no compensation could be obtained. There were fifty serious cases of injury in the Port of London during that period, and if they applied that average to Hull and Liverpool and the rest of the ports they would at once see what an immense amount of unredressed injustice, suffering, and loss existed, which certainly ought to be removed. They were dealing with a distinct evil of very great magnitude, and it was a very great injustice. He was aware that one objection that might be entertained was in regard to treaties. He was aware that upon this question they were under treaty obligations, and that those treaties must be observed. It was perhaps not quite so important that they should have this power of arrest where the owner was accessible and liable, and where the injury could be readily inquired into. The County Courts having jurisdiction in Admiralty were numerous, and that jurisdiction could be given to any County Court in a particular district by an Order in Council. There were probably some eight or ten Courts possessing Admiralty jurisdiction. Under the County Courts Acts if the vessel was likely to be removed not from England but from any particular County Court district the arrest might take place, and it would be a vexatious course to take to declare that a shipowner in the port of London or Hull, who desired his ship to proceed to Cardiff or Liverpool, should be subject to arrest when the owner, who was responsible, was resident within the jurisdiction of the Court. This was a question of freeing ships from arrest in Great Britain, because under the County Courts Acts if they removed from one Court to another they would be liable to arrest, which would undoubtedly be a great hardship. He thought it was admitted that upon this question there was a real mischief touching a poor class of people, which ought, without delay, to be redressed.

said a very few words would suffice from him after what had been already said on this Bill to elucidate the position of shipowners in this matter. They all sympathised with the objects and the principle of this measure; from the point of view of placing foreign ships upon the same basis and subject to the same regulations in our ports as British ships this Bill had their hearty sympathy. The only reservation that a British shipowner made or could make in regard to this Bill had already been indicated in the admirable speeches which had been made by the promoters of this measure. The British shipowner was already subjected to far too many harassing regulations. They did not want any more of those regulations, and this Bill, excellent as was its intention in the drafting, evidently placed the British shipowner in a worse position than he was to-day; it rendered his vessel liable to summary arrest in cases of personal injury, notwithstanding the fact that, being domiciled within the United Kingdom, redress was open to the person injured by the ordinary process of law. Of course this might not happen, but, to take an extreme case, it might possibly be that a vessel of very great value, on the point of sailing, and just finishing her loading, might be summarily arrested for a personal injury of a comparatively trifling character, notwithstanding the fact that the owner was perfectly willing to give redress by the ordinary process of law. That would mean delay, and delay to business men meant expense; and in the case of a vessel of very great value it might mean the loss of one tide or two tides, and very vexatious and needless consequent damage. They wanted to see a provision inserted in the Bill that would remove the risk of such vexatious proceedings. He understood that some question arose in regard to the treatment of foreign shipowners, but he should have thought that they need not be so extremely careful in regard to their susceptibilities when placing foreign shipowners in a position of equality in our ports with British shipowners. Whatever might be our opinions upon a general policy, there was no reason why the foreigner should be placed in a favoured position in British ports as against the British shipowner. He wished that the Law Officers of the Crown would carefully consider this matter and, speaking from a British shipowner's points of view, he hoped they would have some assurance from the Government that words would inserted in the Bill which would protect the British shipowner from the risk of needless and vexatious interference. With that reservation from the point of view of British shipping, they heartily approved of the objects of the Bill, and he congratulated the introducer of the measure upon the admirable speech in which he upheld its provisions. From his point of view he had every sympathy with those who were injured in their employment, and he desired to obtain for them that equal justice which the laws of this country intended that they should have. He would say, in conclusion, that he hoped this matter would receive the careful consideration which it deserved in Committee, and that care would be taken, in passing a measure of this kind, that all indirect effects of a prejudicial character that might arise would be carefully safeguarded, so that in doing what was a common act of justice they might not produce indirect effects which might mean inequality. While in this Bill they were proceeding to redress one inequality, they should take care to bring before the attention of the Government any other inequality which might arise indirectly in cons quence of the passing of the measure. The Select Committee which considered the question last year had not been reappointed, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would not delay its reappointment, so that the shipping interest might have the satisfaction of knowing that, in giving the Bill a sympathetic reception, it would also receive from the Government and from the House further assistance in placing foreign shipping in our ports, in regard to the general statutory regulations, upon fair and equal terms in competing with British shipping.

said that after the sympathetic speech by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and the clear speech of the mover, it must be apparent that, so far as a question of principle was involved, the subject need not be discussed much longer. The hon. Member who had just sat down frankly stated, on behalf of British shipowners, that they did not desire treatment more favourable than that which was accorded to foreign shipowners.

I rather put it the other way. What we desire is that foreigners should not receive more favourable treatment than British shipowners.

said he was going to say that the existing law was more favourable to foreigners than to British shipowners. He had had the advantage of a conversation with officials of the Government in regard to the matter, and he found that it was practically impossible, without doing damage to our own commerce, to make any difference as regards our laws between foreign shipowners and British shipowners. He felt that the House would be unanimous on that point, and that with regard to the class of cases contemplated by this Bill, and other cases, the law should be equal, and the procedure should be equal in regard to British shipowners and foreign shipowners. This Bill dealt undoubtedly with one of the most difficult topics that could be touched upon by legislation if they adopted the principle to which he had just referred. He wished to point out that the liability of shipowners was not increased in any regard by this Bill. No new duty was imposed upon the shipowner, foreign or British, by the Bill now before the House. The only thing that the Bill was designed to accomplish was to give to a workman coming within the first clause of the measure that opportunity as against a foreign shipowner which he had against a British shipowner to recover damages if a, case could be made out in a Court of law. He had received numerous communications from his own constituency, or, he should say more correctly, from ports in his constitutency—Port Talbot, Swansea, and Neath—that in many cases men who had been injured under circumstances which gave them actions at common law against shipowners had found that in the case of foreign shipowners that remedy was quite inoperative, because there was nobody at Port Talbot, Swansea, and Neath who could be sued, who had any authority from the foreign shipowner to accept service either of a summons issued by the High Court of Justice or by the local Court that had jurisdiction in the matter. Perhaps the House would permit him to give the kind of case that was in his mind. Supposing that a foreign ship was in the South Dock at Swansea, and that some slight damage had occurred during the voyage which did not necessitate going into dry dock, but necessitated painting and repairs that could be done by proper apparatus in the dock while the ship was loading or unloading, what happened in practice was this. The shipbroker or agent of the foreign ship went to some person engaged in that kind of employment in the port of Swansea and made a contract with him. The contractor had then to employ, all the men, and supposing that proper apparatus had been fitted up, and that owing to the negligence of the master, or the crew, or someone on board the vessel, a servant of the contractor received injury in some way, at common law an action would lie against the shipowner. They were generally agreed upon that. But there was a case where there was no recourse to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, or the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. That was a case of a man having the right to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary Courts for compensation. But supposing the ship were a foreign ship and the injured workman or his friends, or solicitor, or agent, went to the County Court and obtained a summons the question arose against whom and upon whom could that summons be served. It could not be served on the shipbroker because the shipbroker had no authority from the owner of the foreign vessel to accpte service. It was no good serving on the master, because he was not the agent for the foreign shipowner to accept process, and the result was that, though according to the theory of the law the injured man in that case had a right to damages if he could prove negligence, his right to damages against the shipowners in practice was a right which was worth nothing at all, and the only thing he could do, and this he could only do theoretically, was to go to the foreign port and bring an action in a foreign Court against the shipowner in that port, or wherever he could find him. That seemed to him to be clearly a grievance and something that clearly ought to be remedied. If this Bill were passed he thought the Attorney-General would agree with him that that case would be remedied, because, if passed, the case of the workman injured under the circumstances he had mentioned would be precisely similar to that which was created in a collision case. Supposing a foreign ship entered the port of Swansea and collided negligently with another ship, however small—it might be simply a pleasure rowing boat—but if the foreign ship negligently ran it down and damaged it, the owner could go in a few minutes to the County Court office in Swansea, and however great the ship might be that did the damage, and however small his ship might be, he could ask for a summons under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Court and avail himself of it within an hour. When the bailiff was on that ship he could serve the summons on the master if he found him, and if he could not find the master he nailed the summons to the mast, and there was not only an actual summons calling upon the defendant to appear on a certain day, but there was an order arresting that ship which put it under such circumstances that it could not get its papers from the Custom House. If it be the case that where there was simply damage to a ship they could arrest a foreign ship, why on earth when a man lost his life or was injured should they not have an equal remedy—the remedy that would be effected by this Bill when passed. He was quite ready to admit that this was one of the most difficult class of cases to deal with. There might be need for great consideration in the drafting of the clauses, and whether they looked at the matter from the point of view of the shipowner, the point of view of their Government, or the point of view of the workman, there might be need to amend the Bill in the Standing Committee on Law, or whichever Committee it might be sent to. That, he thought, they were all agreed about. His hon. friend referred to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, and he thought, according to his recollection, he laid it down with regard to the law that the House of Lords' decisions had been much broader in this respect than the decisions of the Court of Appeal. As he understood the matter the latest decision laid it down that a ship in a dock was a factory within the meaning of the Act. Well, that was of course very satisfactory from the docker's point of view, but the question how far the claim a docker might have against a foreign shipowner came within the purview of that decision might be a very nice one indeed, and he thought, of course, that before the Bill passed that ought to be made perfectly clear. However, this was not the occasion for dealing with minute and difficult points of law. He thought his hon. friend opposite and himself had made the point of principle clear, and he trusted that the Bill might be allowed to proceed to a Second Reading without a division. He was sure he could say on behalf of those with whom he was acting—the labour leaders in his own constituency—that they would be perfectly ready to accept any reasonable alterations which the great learning and great ability of the Attorney-General and his friends might suggest.

I think, if I may be allowed to do so, I ought to congratulate my hon. and learned friend on the very clear and temperate statement he has made. I may say on behalf of the Government that we understand there is a real grievance that requires to be dealt with, and for that reason the Government will accept the Second Reading. At the same time I think it right to say that we desire to reserve absolute freedom of action in regard to the details of the measure. I think there are some points in the Bill as drafted which must be dealt with when the Bill goes into Committee. At this stage I shall not go into the details, but there are one or two points which I think it is only right that I should call the attention of the House to by way of showing the terms on which the Government are able to accept the Second Reading of the Bill. I infer from what has been said that it never was intended that this Bill should apply to the case of some injury occurring to a foreigner on a foreign ship, either in a port of his own country or on the high seas. That never could have been intended, and yet as the Bill is drafted there would be a danger of its being contended that it would apply to such case, and that it would extend beyond British ports even to the case of passengers upon foreign ships. Of course what the framers of the Bill had in view is the kind of case which my hon. friend has just alluded to. It would hardly do to let the Bill apply to anything happening even in British territorial waters, because of course territorial waters are the highway of nations, and it would not do to apply the Bill to a ship merely passing through British territorial waters, and not at all in a British port. Then what has been said shows that the framers of the Bill had in view the case of owners of vessels who are not resident or carrying on business in this country. If an owner of a vessel has a business established here then he can, be sued in our Courts and I infer from what was said in the course of the debate which has taken place that it is the intention of those interested in the Bill to introduce words for the purpose of meeting this point. What I desire to say about that is that the selection of words for that purpose would require the most careful consideration. It would be necessary to see what the Foreign Office have to say, and to see that no ground is given by the Bill which would enable foreign countries to say that we were interfering with the freedom of trade, or that their rights were in any way infringed. The only other observation I have to make is this. To my mind the one great danger in framing any measure of this sort is the possibility of abuse. There may be a claim which is of a vexatious or frivolous character brought against a foreign ship while in a British port, we will say, and just at the time when she is ready to sail a process of arrestment is put into effect. Members of the House cannot fail to realise that, however unfounded the claim might be, it might be that, rather than lose a tide while the process was pending, the claim would be paid. I mention that point because I think those interested in the Bill will recognise that it is absolutely essential that precautions be taken to prevent a measure which is intended to remedy an admitted grievance from being perverted to what might afford legitimate complaint on the part of owners of foreign ships.

said that his experience as a shipowner was pretty considerable both as to home and foreign ships, and especially as regarded the Scandanavian shipping industry. He was really afraid that any legislation which might appear invidious to foreign shipowners might react unsatisfactorily against British shipowners. He had to make a suggestion, namely, that at line 17 of the first clause the following addition should be made: "Unless the representatives of such injured persons shall receive a satisfactory guarantee from the agents of such shipowners to pay all reasonable claims." That, it appeared to him, would meet the case of all the vessels coaling into our ports, foreign or otherwise. These had agents, more or less responsible. He sympathised with the object of the Bill, and he was sure that if any injured workman in almost any port in this country were to make out a claim, and receive a guarantee from the agent of the ship for the payment of any damages for injuries caused on board that ship, that would be all that could be required by those who wished to defend the interests of workmen on board foreign ships, but who had not hitherto been able to enforce their claims for injury. He hoped the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Bill would consider the suggestion which he had made, and, if so, he believed it would do everything which the workmen of this country desired.

said he would like to say one or two words in support of the Bill, and to congratulate his hon. friend on the very clear manner in which he had put it before the House. There was one point, however, not alluded to by the hon. Gentleman and his seconder, which it might interest the House to know. He believed that the provisions of this Bill were very similar to the provisions of the law already in force in Scotland at the present time, and that the power sought to be granted by the Bill to the English Courts was actually in existence in the Scotch Courts. By Scotch law a ship could be detained where injury had been caused to workmen on board a ship in port. He would like to ask the right hon. Attorney-General whether that was so, for, if so, it was very interesting and important as showing that there could be no danger in passing the Bill now under discussion. The whole object of the measure was to preserve to English working men in our ports the power to enforce the right that was theirs already. Something might be said as to the danger to foreign shipowners of having their ships detained on frivolous charges by British parties, but surely the mere right to a claim for damages against a responsible agent would not prevent a ship pursuing its voyage. It would be against the interests of the foreign owner, if he had a representative in this country; and, as a matter of fact, the latter would not allow the ship to be detained. Then, the risk which English shipowners might be supposed to run from the terms of this Bill of their ships being detained was not really substantial. For if they had got offices or a partner or representative in any port in this country proceedings could be taken against them; and it would not be necessary to detain the vessel. There seemed to be unanimity in regard to the necessity and justice of the Bill; and as his friend who spoke a short time ago said, the intention was merely to reduce the differences which existed between English and foreign shipowners, and to remove these and other inequalities. It was surely putting a premium on English ships being transferred to foreign flags when penalties were put on British ships in foreign ports which were not exacted on foreign ships in English ports. He gave his hearty support to the Bill.

said he took considerable interest in this Bill, because he believed that there was a larger amount of loading and unloading of ships in his constituency than in the constituency of any other Member. He thought the hon. Member who introduced the Bill was to be congratulated on the able speech with which he presented it. There appeared, from the expressions that had fallen from all quarters of the House and from every interest entitled to speak in behalf of shipping, to be unanimity in favour of the object which the supporters of the measure had in view. As his hon. friend recognised, every Bill introduced by a private Member, especially in connection with a very difficult question such as this was, was open to amendment in Committee; and so far as regarded the points raised by the right hon. Attorney-General, those who had to do with the fortunes of the Bill desired that the security asked for by the right hon. Gentleman should be provided for. The Attorney-General said that the Bill was so framed as to cover the case of passengers. He did not take it so. The scope of the Bill was only meant to cover the case of those directly engaged in loading or unloading ships, or in subsidiary trades connected therewith, and not to extend to passengers or foreign sailors. There was another point over which there had, he believed, been much discussion and difficulty. It was the question of the position of the British shipowner. Hs was sure that his hon. friend who introduced the Bill, and his supporters, had no intention to worry or carry out vexatious legislation against British shipowners. In his opinion the British shipowners ought to be the first to welcome this Bill, because at the present moment they were in an invidious position as regarded compensation for injuries to workmen on board ship in port compared with that of foreign shipowners. If their ships were in a foreign port they might be proceeded against for injuries to workmen; but if foreign ships were in British ports, the foreign ship-owners could not be proceeded against—at least, the judgment could not be enforced. He did not think there was any difference of opinion between staunch free-traders and extreme tariff-reformers that where there was inequality in our own Courts as between British and foreign shipowners we ought to get rid of the inequalities and grievances which bore upon the former. This was a case in which the British shipowner was prejudiced by the position which he held. The hon. Member for Hull seemed to be afraid that something was not provided for in the Bill to meet the objections made by him that I ships might be attached under vexatious circumstances, leading to loss of cargo and loss of a voyage. That was not the intention of the Bill, and it would not have that effect; although he believed that the suggestion made by his hon. friend behind him was valuable—namely, that where there was in this country an agent, or someone peculiarly responsible for the pecuniary position of the shipowner, there they could have a legal attachment applied to him or to his office rather than to the ship itself. The whole object of the Bill was that where compensation was due for injury that compensation should be paid. They knew that under present circumstances, while a working man practically had a right to compensation, and had even got a verdict for compensation for injury against a shipowner, if he was unable to attach the money directly or indirectly against the shipowner his verdict was of practically no use to him. So long as there was someone who would be absolutely responsible in regard to compensation to the man who had obtained the verdict, there was no reason why the ship itself should be attached. In regard to the foreign shipowner who had no agent in this country, it was a scandalous thing, that in the case of an accident, compensation for which was actually got by a verdict of the English Courts, the shipowner escaped when the ship sailed, and the injured workman had no legal remedy against that ship-owner or his ship except by going to a foreign port and suing there. Of course that was absolutely ludicrous. He was sure that every point raised in the discussion, including those brought forward by the right hon. Attorney-General, would be willingly considered by his hon. friend who introduced the Bill, and that there would be no difficulty in coining to an agreement thereupon. There was one other point raised by the right hon. Attorney-General to which he wished to refer for a moment—namely, in regard to another class of workman equally directly employed in loading and unloading ships; he referred to lighter-men. He hoped that that was a point which would be considered when the Bill came into Committee, for he should say that the wording of the Bill as it at present stood did not entirely cover their case. In conclusion, he thought his hon. friend was to be congratulated that in regard to this question they were all at one; and that the only desire of Members on both sides of the House was that this legislation should be carried out with equal justice to the men and to the ship-owners.

said he desired to make a few observations on the Bill, and before doing so wished to associate himself with the mover and the other Members who had supported the principle of the Bill. Although he might make one or two criticisms on the Bill they would in no way detract from his desire to see it passed. He fully agreed that the present position as regarded foreign owners was most unsaisfactory. A person who might have suffered personal damage had no claim against the foreign owner because he was not within jurisdiction and could not be sued personally, and also because according to the existing state of the law a foreign ship could not be attached as security for a claim. Consequently, while the British shipowner had to pay the foreign shipowner could sail away without any responsibility. This was a double injustice. It was an injustice as regarded the sufferer, and also an injustice as regarded the British owner. The matter derived additional importance from the fact that the House of Lords had declared a vessel in dock to be a factory; so that all the workmen on board and also the crew came under the Factory Acts. The regulations laid down by those Acts applied to them, and a person damaged could recover under the Workmen's Compensation Act for any injury he might sustain. There was, however, one point which as a representative of a shipping constituency he had to dwell on. That was, that the Bill did not entirely carry out the intention of the promoters when they sad that they had no desire to inflict any additional penalty or disadvantage on British shipowners. As his hon. friend the Member for East Toxteth pointed out, an additional penalty would be inflicted on British shipowners because under the existing law the shipowner was liable for loss of life or personal injury, but his ship could not be attached. There was no necessity, because he was on the spot and could be proceeded against. The reason for attaching a foreign ship was that the foreign shipowner could not be got at; and, therefore, if they had to enforce their claim they must get at the ship. In addition to the personal responsibility of the British owner they were inflicting an additional burden on him by attaching his ship. That might be very disadvantageous in this way. They might have a ship just on the point of sailing, and some person might be injured and the ship might be arrested to secure that claim. A very short detention was quite sufficient to inflict substantial disadvantage on the shipowner. Take an ordinary cargo carrying steamer earning £100 a day. It was only sufficient to detain her one tide in order to inflict a penalty of £50 on the owner. They might be doing that for a very small claim, and it might be resorted to for the purpose of extorting an unjust settlement of the claim from the owner. That being the case, he hoped some words would be inserted to limit the Bill to foreign ships. He suggested some such words as these: "These provisions shall not apply where the owner is domiciled in the United Kingdom." That might cover to a certain extent the case of a foreign shipowner who had an establishment in the United Kingdom and could be personally sued. In that case there was no reason for attaching the ship. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that as long as the owner, whether British or foreign, had a substantial representative in the United Kingdom there was no occasion to attach the ship. They ought not to inflict the disadvantage of attaching a ship, whether British or foreign, unless there was no other means of obtaining justice. He would venture to refer to the remarks of the Attorney-General and to say that, as far as his judgment went, this Bill was very loosely drawn and left many important points entirely open. He did not wish to refer to matters which were the proper subjects for Committee, but the Bill was so drawn that it was not limited to British ports, although the intention undoubtedly was that it should apply to British ports only. There was, however, no limitation. An action might be brought for an injury sustained on the high seas. Another important point, it appeared to him, was that under the Bill no recovery could be made in respect of damage under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He supposed it was intended that there should be a remedy under that Act. The Bill was, however, entirely confined to negligence, but they all knew that under the Act it was not necessary to show negligence on the part of the employer. It was only necessary to show that the injury was sustained without negligence on the part of the workman. Then, again, was not the Bill rather unduly restricted in respect to the persons it was sought to protect? It seemed to be confined to persons in or upon or about the vessel that did the damage. But suppose damage was caused by those in charge of a foreign ship to persons on the quay—there might be an explosion, a rope might give way or a chain break, and something might fall on persons on the quay—no remedy would be obtainable in those cases. Supposing one vessel collided with another within the limits of the port, or collided with a launch receiving cargo and that men were drowned, why should there not be a remedy? Therefore, it appeared to him that the Bill would require very full and complete consideration in Committee. He thought it should be restricted to foreign shipowners, and it seemed to him that the provision which it was most essential should be extended was that which provided a more complete remedy against foreign shipowners for claims for damage, loss of life, or personal injury, however they might occur, within the limits of the port. Subject to those considerations, and particularly to the exclusion of British shipowners from any additional disability or burden, he should be prepared to give this Bill his hearty support.

said that one noted with sincere pleasure the practical unity there was in the House on this particular measure. He regarded this Bill as being a simple, necessary, and just amendment of the existing law. It would place the British lighterman, stevedore, and dock labourer engaged on a foreign ship in an English port in the same position as a foreign workman engaged on a British ship in a foreign port. It also established a co-equality of treatment as between the British shipowner and the foreign shipowner, and in that way it made for righteousness. The last speech and preceding speeches indicated that this Bill might be extended in various directions so as to include other classes of workmen. He welcomed that from one of the representatives of a great shipping centre. He only wished to add a word of approval of this particular measure. He thanked the Attorney-General for his sympathetic reception of it, he hoped it would be passed, and that it would remove any suggestion of vexatious arrest which was not wanted in the interests of the workmen. He hoped, while safeguarding all necessary interests, they should be able to agree on this small measure, and that reparation which was not now possible would be possible for the some three or four fatal cases, and forty or fifty cases of personal injuries which occurred annually. They were all agreed on this Bill. He only hoped that there would be other Bills also on which there would be practical unanimity.

said that if a clause were introduced into the Bill to protect shipowners against frivolous actions, shipowners would look upon the measure as the first instalment—the very first—that they had received from the House of Commons to place foreign shipowners under the same disadvantages as British shipowners were under at present in British ports. After the speech of the Attorney-General he had no doubt that the Bill could be so licked into shape in Committee as to be welcomed by every one in that House and in the country. Of course they were all desirous to do justice to their workmen. He did not think that any difficulty could arise in regard to international arrangements. When accidents occurred on British ships in foreign ports the authorities there not only proceeded against the British shipowners and made them pay for such accidents, but they made them criminally liable. He recollected a case in which a man was injured on a British ship at Hamburg and the captain of that ship was actually imprisoned. It was only fair and just that when we were treated in that way in foreign ports the foreigner should be similarly treated in our ports. Of course he agreed that foreign owners should be protected from frivolous arrest, and where the foreign shipowners had agents in this country such agents could be made liable and the vessels allowed to proceed. It might be a great penalty to a shipowner to have his ship arrested at the last moment, especially in the case of large vessels which could only proceed to sea at certain tides, and whose arrest might therefore cause the loss of a fortnight or ten days. All these matters would be inquired into in Committee, and he had not the slightest doubt that this Bill, when returned by the Committee to that House, would be in a form to do much good, and would be accepted unanimously.

thought that as the Bill was drawn, a ship on which an accident had occurred might very well escape before an action could be commenced. He suggested to the Attorney-General that the precedent afforded by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, Section 688, might be followed, and that any person aggrieved, that was to say, the injured workman or his representatives, might apply to the port authorities to arrest the ship even though an action had not been commenced. It was possible, though he thought not probable, that the ship might sail before process was issued. He thought also that provision should be made that if adequate security were given the ship should not be arrested at all. There was no such provision in the Bill.

congratulated the hon. Member on having brought in this Bill. It was necessary if any person had a claim against any other person for damage that he should have facilities of enforcing it. At present it appeared that while the law gave him a right, it did not give him the power of enforcing it. This Bill, however, did not, as he thought, carry out the intentions of either the hon. mover or those who supported him. So far as he could see the object was to give facilities in port, but the Bill did not say anything about ports, and it might apply not only to vessels in foreign ports but also on the high seas. He quite agreed that it might be difficult to draw such a Bill as would be compatible with international law He hoped that nothing in this Bill would interfere with the free exchange of goods in the port of London, which was the great exchange of the world.

said he had intended to offer some remarks in support of the Bill, but after the way it had been received it was not necessary. All the objects, which had been raised were capable of being dealt with in Committee now that the Bill was accepted by both sides of the House.

said he was very glad that the Government had seen their way to accept this Bill. He had been connected with the shipping interest for the last twelve years; and when he was first returned as a Member to that House he had in 1895 the honour to introduce a Bill with the same object as that sought by the present measure. At the request of the Government he withdrew his Bill on the ground that as then drafted it, by only throwing liability on the foreign shipowner, might place a difficulty in the way of the Foreign office in connection with negotiation, with foreign countries. That was a matter which should still be borne in mind. He had heard suggestions made that this should be made to apply only to the foreign shipowner, and he desired to warn the House that if that was done it might endanger the prospects of the Bill. He was glad, however, to think the Government had been able to accept the principle of the Bill.

said he agreed with the principles of the Bill, but in listening to the debate he felt there were two things he should like to say. In the first place he was glad to find that steps were being taken to put foreign ships on the same footing as British ships; but he should like to say that in all arrangements with foreigners we generally came off second best. They had it from the speech of the Attorney-General that he foresaw a great difficulty in this matter, and he should like to tell the President of the Board of Trade that there were laws applying to foreign and British affairs, absolutely equal so far as the law itself went, but when it came to be applied the Briton was amenable to the law and the foreigner escaped. His right hon. friend knew perfectly well that in the matter of the hall-marking of gold and silver, foreign watches ought to be marked as well as British watches, but they were not The foreign watch was not gold or silver, but the British watch was bound to be, and the foreigner came in with impunity and undersold the British article. He only recalled that as an instance. He was rather alarmed when he heard the words of the Attorney-General. When the hon. and learned Gentleman got up he said it would require the most careful treatment, and he also mentioned that the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office would have to look into this matter very carefully. It was always the case that we could deal with the inhabitants of this country, but we were very much afraid of giving the same treatment to those of other countries. There was this danger in connection with this Bill, and he thought it was only right that on the Second Reading someone should call attention to these things. The British shipowner, he understood, was liable now under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the foreigner was not. This Bill was to bring the foreign owner as much as possible under the same law as the British shipowner, but when the Bill was passed we should only be able to make him liable if we could prove negligence, and he would probably escape in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Therefore, the Bill wanted very careful treatment. He would suggest one thing more, and that was that we should not hamper the British shipowner. If the British shipowner could be proceeded against under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there was no need to hamper him in another way. He cordially supported the Bill.

said this Bill had been discussed on previous occasions by the House of Commons, and the assent of Parliament was given to it by a very large majority of Members four years ago. He therefore did not think it necessary to trespass on their time at any undue length by stating the objects of the Bill and giving reasons to prove the necessity for it. The object of the Bill was clearly set out in the one operative clause of the measure. It was to ensure that where damage was done by sparks emitted from railway engines to crops, plantations, and hedges, compensation should be paid by the owners of the engine. That would bring under the common law the railway companies, and it would deprive them of the privileged position they now occupied. The principle underlying this measure was that where loss had been suffered, and where there was no contributory negligence or default on the part of the owner of the property damaged, compensation should be paid by the party who had done the damage. That principle had been accepted by the House of Commons in many Acts of Parliament, and he ventured to suggest that it was one which the House should enforce wherever possible. He would like to say a few words as to the circumstances which called for the introduction of the Act. He would desire to recall to the recollection of the House the fact that when four years ago a similar Bill was introduced it was stated that in response to a circular sent out by the Central Chamber of Agriculture answers were received showing that no fewer than seventy-five cases of fire had occurred during the previous twelve months. That state of things had been going on ever since, and the evil, so far from diminishing, had tended to increase, because for the purposes of the economical working of the railways there had been a tendency to make use of more powerful engines with more powerful blast in order to draw heavier loads. He thought that every Member of the House who had travelled much by train in the summer and autumn must have had much experience of burnt and blackened crops in fields adjoining the railways, and he was sure that Members who represented agricultural constituencies had had many instances of such fires brought to their knowledge, and had had many recommendations in favour of a Bill of this kind. The railway companies themselves were evidently well aware of the danger run by inflammmable aterial stored in places adjoining railway lines, and as proof of that he might cite the case of the Great Western Railway Company, who at a spot between Slough and London had put up a notice warning engine drivers to shut off steam because they were approaching a point where large numbers of railway sleepers were stored. Further, than that he would like to point out what was the practice of the insurance companies in regard to insuring crops or plantations adjoining railway lines. It was the almost universal practice to exclude from policies of insurance crops and plantations within a certain limit of the railways, and where such insurances were accepted special and increased rates were charged, varying according to the circumstances of the case. It was clear there was considerable damage and loss sustained by fires originating from sparks emitted by railway engines. There was an old-established axiom in the English law that where there was injury there should be a right of remedy. Now he had shown that the injuiry actually existed, and his argument was that at the present time there was no adequate right of remedy. They would be told by opponents of the Bill that anyone who had had his crop or plantations burnt by fires originating from railway engines had a right of remedy and could obtain compensation. But he would ask the House to consider what that right was. In the first place he would point out that it was of so little value that it could practically never be enforced, and anyone who realised of what that right consisted would not wonder that more advantage was not taken of it. The right was to bring an action against the railway company and to claim compensation, but it was not possible to get that compensation unless the claimant could show that the railway company had either worked its engine which did the damage negligently or had failed to use the best methods in the construction of the engine. Did the House realise what that meant? It meant that the farmer who had had his crops burnt by a spark emitted from a railway engine had in the first place to identify the engine from which the sparks came, and in the present state of our railway traffic, which was daily increasing and which on the main trunk lines involved the passing of nine or ten trains per hour every twenty-four hours, that was a matter of enormous difficulty. But even when he had identified the engine he had to be prepared with expert evidence to show that it had not been fitted with the latest improvements. He had to show that the railway company had not done everything possible in the construction of their engine to obviate the possibility of danger. The House no doubt had some experience as to what expert evidence involved. They knew what great expense it entailed and how conflicting it was in its character, and it was rather too much to ask anyone who had suffered damage or injury of this kind to not only identify the engine but to produce expert evidence of the character to which he had referred. The amount of damage suffered in individual cases was not perhaps very large, possibly a sum of £50 would cover it in most cases, and it was not to be wondered at that the farmer often preferred to cut the loss rather than run this risk of engaging in expensive litigation with the possibility of having to pay the costs on both sides. That was the great difficulty of the position in which the farmer stood in this matter, and he had had a letter from a farmers' club in Lancashire showing that in scores of cases which had occurred in a particular district since 1901 claims had been made against railway companies, and only in those cases in which it had been shown that the fire had originated in old dead grass on the railway companies' premises had payment been made, while in those cases where the sparks had alighted direct on the corn liability had been denied by the railway company and compensation had been refused. That was no doubt due to the enormous difficulty under which the farmer lay, of proving from what engine the spark came and whether that engine was negligently constructed or not. He ventured to suggest that that was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and as long as the present system of law continued, as long as the railway companies occupied their privileged position, so long would this grievance continue. It was because they desired to place railway companies in this matter under the common law of the land with regard to liability for damage which they had done that the Bill had been brought in that afternoon. He did not believe that the provisions of the measure would impose any intolerable strain or burden on the railway companies. He was informed that in the United States of America, in Canada, and in many Continental countries the law was as it was proposed to make it in this Bill. He had never heard of this law having imposed any great burden on the railway companies in those countries, and he did not believe that it would impose any heavy burden upon the railway companies in the country. It was because he believed that the Bill would provide a means for redressing a genuine grievance, seriously felt by the agriculturists of this country, that he asked the favourable consideration of the House to the measure, the Second Reading of which he now begged to move.

said that as he was the representative of an agricultural constituency, naturally many of his constituents were interested in the measure before the House. This Bill seemed to him to be based upon the principle of acknowledged justice to those who suffered loss from preventable causes, and those who were responsible should be compelled to pay for the damage they had provoked. He remembered that almost the first session he sat in the House of Commons this Bill was discussed, and although it was opposed by those interested in railways it was carried by a very large majority. Since that time the Government, who professed to be the friends of the farming interest, had taken no steps to meet the expressed opinion of the House by introducing a Bill dealing with the question. He wished to press upon the Minister for Agriculture the necessity for taking some steps in regard' to this matter. The great railway companies were anxious to make record journeys, and this created a danger not only from sparks but from live coals, and this danger had been considerably increased in consequence of the great speed at which the trains were now running. One argument used against this Bill was that when the land was sold to the railway companies they had to pay an extra price for it because of contingencies such as those which were dealt with in this measure. To him that seemed to be a very poor argument, and one which had no force as applied to the agriculturists pure and simple. The farmer was not, as a rule, the owner of the land, and therefore he did not get anything for contingencies such as these. It was quite true that farmers profited by railways running through their districts, but there was no part of their business procedure which contemplated such a liability as was brought by the incidents to which this Bill referred. The Bill was a very simple one consisting of one clause, which was based upon a principle of justice. How far the cause of these fires was preventable he would leave to those who had a more scientific turn of mind, but unfortunately the great railway companies were not eager to make changes which incurred expense unless those changes produced some economic advantage. Unless railway companies could be made to suffer in consequence of the damage they caused by their negligence, they were not likely to take those preventive measures which he believed it was within their power to take. Therefore, he thought the principle of this Bill was one which would be affirmed by a very large majority. He could not imagine what arguments could be brought against it, except that if the principle of the Bill was carried further then it might become a dangerous principle. It seemed to him that one very simple way of preventing the cause of this kind of damage would be to have inspectors of engines who would pay particular attention to appliances which might be adopted for the prevention of the sparks and cinders flying about which were the cause of the damage. It might be argued that the agricultural industry could protect itself under the present law if they could prove ascertained known damage from a known cause, and that the law as it stood was sufficient to give them redress. He did not, however, think that the farmers ought to be put to the expense and risk of lawsuits in matters of this kind for causes which it was admitted by common consent could be prevented if due care was taken. He supported the Bill because he felt that if the House of Commons laid down the principle that compensation should be given for damage ascertained, the railway companies would very quickly find means of arresting this evil, and that was all that agriculturists desired. That would save unpleasant litigation and a great deal of damage. He thought this measure was so simple that it needed very few arguments to commend it to the House, and he hoped that the Minister for Agriculture would see his way either to bring in another measure or else accelerate the passing of this Bill.

in a maiden speech, said he might be permitted at the outset to congratulate the proposer of this Bill on the admirable way he had brought it forward. It would appear that while at common law a railway company would be liable for any damage resulting from the sparks of an engine, on the principle that if a man brought a dangerous thing on to his land he was liable if it did damage, yet, by virtue of the fact that railway companies obtained their land by special Act, they were not liable if all reasonable precautions were taken. That seemed to be borne out by the case of "Vaughan versus the Taff Vale Railway Company" in 1860, when Mr. Vaughan, who was the owner of a plantation adjoining the land of the railway, had his plantation fired by a spark from an engine and considerable damage resulted. He brought an action. The company did not dispute the cause of the fire, but maintained they were not responsible, as they were authorised to use the engines and had adopted every precaution that science could invent to prevent injury. The result of this would seem to be that if a man made a private railway on his own land, and a spark from one of the engines caused a fire on his neighbour's land adjoining, he would be liable, yet a public railway, in the case of a fire under similar circumstances, would escape all liability. The public railway acquired compulsorily the land over which it carried its line, and was not liable for any damage done to the land at the side of the line, yet in the case of the private railway the owner would be liable. Yet it was possible to conceive that a private railway might be as useful and beneficial as a public railway would be. He did not think any hon. Members would dispute that a considerable amount of damage did result from fires caused by engine sparks. The hon. Member who proposed this Bill had told them how, in one year, there were seventy-five fires caused by engine sparks. Also during the debate on this subject on March 6th, 1901, the Member for Truro stated he had had several fires caused in this way, one of which destroyed nearly a hundred acres of trees. That seemed to him a very serious state of affairs. It might very often happen that an arable farm lying adjacent to a railway might be fired, and if it happened in the months of July or August the fire would have very serious consequences. The whole of the product of the farm for that year might be destroyed from this cause. He was well aware that those who opposed the Bill might urge against it that a railway conferred great benefits on a district, and that they paid the largest portion of the rates of the parish, and that in a great many ways it conferred benefits on a district. But he did not think that this was always borne out by facts. It seemed to him that in the South at any rate, the tendency of the railways was to cater for the seaside towns and develop them, rather than to assist the agricultural industry by conveying produce cheaply and expeditiously. In some cross-country lines the companies conferred upon the inhabitants the minimum of usefulness that they expected from them. Railways were rather adapted for escaping from the hurry and bustle of ordinary life than anything else. He thought that agriculturists in this matter merely wished for a simple Bill by which they could escape from the legal technicalities which surrounded any action that might be taken for compensation for damage from a fire by engine sparks. He apologised in concluding for intruding in the debate, more especially as he thought no other hon. Member of the present House had had the temerity to address the House before attaining the age of twenty-two years.

congratulated the hon. Member for the Horsham Division upon the excellent manner in which he had delivered his maiden speech, and expressed the wish that the hon. Member might make many more speeches in the House after he had attained the age of twenty-two. He welcomed in the House the presence of one whose speech and age gave promise of very useful service in debate. In moving the rejection of the Bill, he put the case from the point of view of the railway companies. That compensation should be paid by the person causing damage was an excellent maxim, but surely it would be unjust to require double payment from railway companies. The companies, when acquiring their land, paid under condition that the price should cover any injury that might arise, short of that caused by negligence, from the use of the land as a means of public transport. He had been informed by solicitors for railway companies that in the conveyance of the land there was a clause which said that the price paid for the land covered all possible damage or injury to the adjoining land. It was a well-known fact that at one time the State was so anxious to induce people to make railways that they granted to railway companies this privilege, but they attached certain onerous conditions. They limited the profits, imposed restrictions as to the manner in which both goods and passengers should be carried, and made onerous conditions for securing the safety of the public. As Mr. Justice Darling laid down in a recent action brought against the London and South-Western Railway Company, the Legislature gave the companies their powers in the full knowledge of the risks from sparks in the use of engines. On the faith of the conditions imposed, 1,200 millions of money had been invested in railways, and the average rate of interest was 3½ per cent. It was quite a mistake to suppose that railway companies were so rich that this claim might fairly be made on the shareholders. On every side attacks were made upon them, and their Bills in the House were continually met by blocking Motions. Between the damage done by a railway engine and a traction engine there was no analogy, because the owner of the latter used the public highway, to the cost of which he did not contribute. The railway companies had bought the land, and had paid an additional price for the privilege of using it in this way, and it did seem a little hard now to come down to the House, after such enormous sums had been invested in railways, and say that railway companies were to give up what they had paid for already, and that they were to compensate people for privileges which they had bought and paid for. The Bill was loosely drawn, it placed no limit of distance, nothing was said as to whether crops were to be growing or not, and there was no safeguard against a claim arising out of the destruction of a bad crop with dishonest motive. ["Oh, oh!"] Such things were possible. People were not always actuated by the same motives as hon. Members of that House. Had they never heard of incendiarism? Why on earth such a thing could not happen in regard to a bad crop he could not understand. How far were the sparks to be allowed to fly? It was a fact that no spark ever fell more than forty yards, and if this Bill was proceeded with it would be necessary that some limit should be placed upon the distance the spark fell, and the fires must occur within a certain distance from the railway. Supposing that a fire took place, who was to prove the value of the crop? Nobody but the farmer himself could speak as to the value of the crop, which might be a good or a bad one. The hon. Gentleman opposite did not concern himself with the question whether the principle might be extended in other directions, but in this House as legislators they should consider what they were doing, and think whether, in passing a particular Bill, they should not be extending a principle. If railway companies were to be responsible for damage done by sparks, why not for that done by cart horses that ran away as the result of fright from a passing train? It was something that arose from the use of the engine for railway purposes, and if the companies were to be liable in the one case he did not see why they should not be liable in the other. Then there was the case of timber yards and houses—in fact, they could multiply all these matters adinfinitum. He supposed that the hon. Gentlemen who were so anxious that the railway companies should pay damages would not object to an amendment of the Bill which would enable the companies to charge higher fares to enable them to pay something which was not contemplated when the present fares were arranged. His hon. friend had said that in America and other countries some law of the sort proposed was in existence now. Assuming that his hon. friend was correct in what he stated, the conditions of railway companies in America were quite different from those in this country. In America the majority of railway companies had land given to them for nothing, or, if they had to pay, it was a comparatively small amount. They were not compelled to put up fences, and the cattle had to look out for themselves; there were practically no Board of Trade regulations as here, and the whole circumstances were absolutely different. The railway companies here had been compelled not only to compensate the owners of land, but to do everything they could to prevent damage. It was not quite fair, therefore, to use the argument that something that was done in America should be done here. In putting the case from the point of view of the railway companies he had endeavoured to be moderate and to put the facts clearly before the House. He hoped the House would pause before passing a Bill which, however acceptable on grounds of sentiment, was, from the point of view of business and the agreement entered into between the railway companies and the State, unjust.

in seconding the rejection of the Bill, said he was not a director of any railway company, and that he approached the subject entirely from the point of view of what was equitable. He objected as a rule to class legislation, and here they were asked to legislate for a small and not a needy class, and in their interests to offer up on the altar a much larger and, in his opinion, much more needy class. As the hon. Member for Peckham had pointed out, farmers and landowners had received very great consideration, and it could be shown that they derived very great benefits from the railways which passed through their properties. When railway companies were attacked in the Courts of law it was very well known that there was a disposition on the part of juries to decide against the companies, and it was surprising that the House of Commons was almost always on the same side as the juries. It was made a cause of lamentation at every half-yearly meeting of railway shareholders that the law of the land fined and penalised them in various ways. The argument was often heard in that House that taxation should always be accompanied by representation. Nowhere had that principle been so much violated as in the case of railway companies. Although they contributed heavily to the rates they had no representation on the rating boards, and now, forsooth, it was attempted to penalise them for something for which admittedly there was no redress. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said it was to punish railway companies for what he called "preventable accidents." The expression "preventable" did not occur in the Bill at all. It might be very advantageous to landowners and farmers, who were already a very much favoured class, that railway companies should be made liable in the way proposed by the Bill, but he did not see on what principle of equity railway companies should be punished for accidents arising from causes which were not preventable. Nobody contended that the railway companies had not had recourse to every invention and every protection known to science, and now they were to be punished because science was not sufficiently far advanced to give them any arrangement which would prevent, in certain circumstances, locomotives drawing heavy trains from giving out a few sparks. He did not think it was quite established that farmers had often suffered in the way stated. They had very rarely suffered serious damage, but if this Bill were passed it would not be very long till cases were got up. The railway companies had been doing, and would continue to do all in their power, in their own interest, to protect the properties which they traversed. On grounds of equity and justice he would vote against the Bill.

said that when a Bill similar to this was brought forward four years ago, the President of the Board of Trade offered some remarks in opposition to it; but since that time it had been decided that, as the Bill was really brought forward on behalf of agriculturists, the Department which he represented in the House should take charge of the matter and give their views upon it. His hon. friend who had just spoken had said that he did not think there was a great deal of interest taken in the question among the farmers of the country; but he could assure him, on the other hand, that if there was one question more than any other on which the Department had received strong resolutions it was this question. During the last eight or nine years resolutions had been sent up from the Central Chamber of Agriculture and from almost every chamber of agriculture and farmers' club of importance in the country, all expressing the opinion that farmers should not be liable to the risk of this loss, which was due to no fault of their own and against which no precaution on their part could possibly be taken. Another class greatly concerned in the question were those interested in the afforestation of the country. This subject of the afforestation of lands was very much to the front just now; but he thought there was small inducement to owners of land to embark upon such enterprises if they felt that in the future all the money they had spent on planting was liable to be thrown away through fire caused by a spark from a locomotive. He would remind the House that one of the recommendations of the Forestry Commission was this—

"We recommend that the Government be urged to secure the early enactment of a Bill to protect owners of woods against loss by fire caused by sparks from locomotives."

He thought that recommendation ought to carry great weight in this House. Of course he was only speaking for the Department. In regard to legal questions the Attorney-General would reply. While it was fully admitted that agriculturists all over the country ought to be protected from fire, it was practically impossible for the ordinary farmer to prove negligence against the railway company, and, because it was impossible for him to do so he got heavily mulcted in expenses which he was not able to bear. But, while careful to do justice to one class, he hoped that the House was fair enough to consider whether they might not be doing an injustice to another class. He was sure that the Department did not wish to do anything which might be looked upon as in any way a breach of faith towards the railway companies. The companies were liable for damages for negligence, if it were proved, but proof was almost impossible. If, however, the onus of proof that there had been no negligence were thrown on the railway company that caused the fire, and that company could prove that it was supplied with the best appliances, no charge of breach of faith could be brought against the Bill. At the present time the public expected the railway companies to carry them at a tremendous rate throughout the country by express trains, and that was where the danger arose of damage by fire arising from sparks. Some of the railway companies had adopted appliances to prevent this danger. He knew in particular of one company which adopted a new appliance some years ago which stopped the sparks from being driven out of the funnel, and he believed that since that time there had hardly been a single case of fire over the whole system. Another company which ran fast express trains used liquid fuel for these trains, and that company had also been practically without complaints. What these companies could do every company could do. It would be to the advantage both of the railway companies and of the whole agricultural population in the districts through which their lines passed if this question could be settled on a friendly basis, and if there were no need for the Bill at all. His hon. friend the Member for Peckham said that if they once started this principle other things might be brought in, and he instanced the case of horses and carts. That illustration was not on all fours with the question of growing crops. A horse was, or ought to be, in charge of somebody who had to look after it, and it was rather absurd to say that that could be put in the same catagory with growing crops which could not be guarded, and through which the railway company's trains were compelled to go. The hon. Member also referred to buildings, warehouses, and timber yards. He did not think that was the same either. These timber yards and houses had been placed near the railway for the purpose of getting easy transit for goods. As regarded the Bill the Government would leave it to the House of Commons, as they had done in the past; but if it went to the Grand Committee they would reserve to themselves an absolute right to criticise any detail which they thought should be amended.

said that those hon. Members who in years past had complained of this grievance had every reason to be satisfied with the speech of the hon. Gentleman, because it showed that their contention that substantial damage had been done was true. The hon. Baronet who presented the case for the railway companies did so extremely well. The supporters of the Bill had no bias against the railway companies. They were all equally interested in the success of the railway companies. He thought that in most cases they had paid more for their land than they ought to have done. What they wished was to obviate preventable damage, and he should rather urge the Board of Agriculture to consider whether they could not appoint a small expert Committee which would investigate as to the means for preventing fire. There was the line pursued by this Bill, namely, to put the liability on the railway companies; and there was the line of trying to find whether for heavy trains certain inventions and smoke stacks would avoid fire. The sphere over which those sparks, or rather hot coals, spread themselves was much wider than was supposed by the hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of the Bill. He had known a hot coal from a locomotive set fire to a plantation 130 yards from the railway. He should like to see legislation for the prevention of the planting of trees where they would run great risks by reason of their being so near a railway. But to say that there should be no crops or trees within 130 yards of a railway would mean a great waste of land. In Germany the onus was on the railway company in respect of fire arrangements, and every kind of precaution was taken against fire. In Sweden, where some of the best smoke stacks were in use for preventing fire, there was practically no fire at all. In America and Canada there were very heavy trains and engines. At Washington he had a conversation with the French Ambassador to the United States, who told him that he had travelled through Canada two years before, and that it appeared to him as if he were passing through "the valley of the shadow of death," because the whole forest on each side of the railway track was burned. This had led to the promulgation of regulations in Canada, the observance of which had produced a satisfactory state of matters; and fires were now almost unknown there. The same happened in Germany, where fires were common last year on account of the unusually dry season. He thought that an expert inquiry would be useful us showing what precautions were within practical reach to prevent fires at a very moderate expense. He did not believe in taking precautions which would impose a heavy fine on railway companies, or he would be less euthusiastic in support of the Bill.

said that hitherto when a farmer brought an action against a railway company for damages on account of his crops being burned it had been necessary to prove negligence on the part of the railway company, either by the faulty construction of their engines or by some negligent act of their servants, whether engine drivers or stokers. What he wanted to know was whether the effect of the words in the Bill would be to relieve the farmers from that obligation, and to put on the railway company the obligation to pay for the damage by fire whether their negligence was proved or not.

said he was very glad to hear the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Leith. No one wished that the beautiful tracts of woodland in many parts of the country should be destroyed; and the interests of agriculture ought also to be received with respect in this House. Four years ago, when this question was last under discussion, he had argued that what was wanted was not so much an alteration in substantive law, but in the procedure by which the law was enforced. He had then first made the proposition that the justice of the case would be met by reversing the onus of proof; but that proposition was not in this Bill, and it could not be put into the Bill except by eviscerating the whole of the principal clause. The Bill, he thought, was pregnant with danger to the railway companies, whom it would practically make insurers. What he meant by that was, that it would make the railway companies liable for the damage caused by fires, however much care they had taken to prevent them. The proper remedy would be an enactment that when fire had been caused by a locomotive in fields adjoining the railway, it should lie upon the railway companies to prove that they had not been guilty of negligence. The hon. Member for Leith had made the proposition that the matter should be referred to an expert Committee to devise proper precautions. That was all very well for the present time; but any appliances which that expert Committee might recommend for the prevention of fires might soon be out of date. Failure to come up to the standards of the day in regard to appliances would probably be considered sufficient proof of negligence. As to the persons for whose benefit a change in the law was to be made, there were large farmers and small farmers; large railway companies and small railway companies. He had seen model conveyances of land to railway companies which provided that pecuniary compensation was to be made for all kinds of injury to the land, and that land was bought and sold subject to those conditions. Were the railway companies to be placed in the same position as the owner of a reservoir, who was subject to pay compensation for all damage caused by the bursting of that reservoir, or as a man who kept a lion or a tiger in an insufficiently protected, cage? If railway companies were to be made insurers against all kinds of damage because they put in motion a dangerous agency, there were owners of other vehicles and dangerous agencies whose profits were not limited by statute, who were not subject to statutory prohibitions and regulations, and to whom the same treatment ought surely to be applied. The representatives of the railway companies might have to take a division against this Bill, but it was not because they did not think the question capable of a rational and acceptable solution.

said that if he supported the Second Reading of this Bill it was not because he had any special prejudice against railway companies. Although at the present time there was a nominal remedy to farmers whose crops were destroyed it was not a practical remedy, because they had to go through legal processes which sometimes cost fifty or a hundred times more than the damage caused by fires from locomotives. He was not much impressed by the main argument of the hon. Member for Peckham on what he called the fraud question. If an appropriate remedy was given by legal process for damage, there was always a liabilty of fraudulent claims being made; but if that were to be taken into account it would prevent all reforms being made. As to the framework of the Bill there could be no doubt that, as it stood, the railway companies were made universal insurers, no matter whether they used the best possible means to prevent fire or not. He was not prepared to say that some basis of insurance was not the best form of remedy, but he thought it was going rather far to say that, whether railway companies had adopted the best possible system or not, they should be made in all conditions liable. The position was rather a simple one, and it came very much to this—who ought to bear the risk of the insurance, the railway company, the owner of the land, or the tenant? Of course, a prudent man who had crops along a railway line or near it could always insure for a very small premium. It was true that when the land was taken by the railway company in the first instance, the company bought from the owner of the land a statutory immunity from injuries of this kind. Sufficient compensation had been given, on the whole, to the owner of the land to endow him with a fund which, if used for insurance, would provide against those dangerous risks. It would, therefore, be a hardship on the railway company to provide an insurance fund twice over. Of course that was not the universal case. It might be that a railway company ran its line near a property, none of which had been taken over by the company, and the owner of that property did not receive compensation at present for any damage caused by fire from the locomotives. The best possible remedy, he thought, would be that suggested by the hon. Member for Leith, and that was to prevent the damage being done. He had no doubt that, with a little more scientific application, most of the damage might be prevented. Meanwhile, he thought they could introduce a practical remedy within the four corners of the Bill. To throw the onus of proof of negligence on the owner or the small farmer made the remedy ridiculous. The onus ought to be on the railway company to show that they had carried out every scientific precaution against fire. That would solve the matter, looking both to the interests of the shareholders in the railway companies and of the owners and farmers of the land adjoining the railway lines. He should certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and he hoped, when it came to be considered in detail in Committee, a fair adjustment on the lines he had suggested might be found.

said he thought that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a very valuable speech, but he did not see why it had led him to a different conclusion from that of the hon. Member for Sheffield. If the spirit which animated the House was the point of view of the hon. Member for Stretford, the railway companies would not, in his opinion, have very much to complain of. But what he objected to in the Bill, as it stood, was the introduction of what he believed to be an inexpedient and unjust principle, viz., that railway companies should be rendered liable for damage or inconvenience which could not be avoided by any precautions taken by them. If the House sanctioned that principle they would sanction a principle of very wide and far-reaching application, and which would undoubtedly work great injustice to railway companies. The objection of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Peckham, to the Bill was to its principle. There might be cases where very great hardship fell on a tenant farmer, but it could be said that the owner of the land had got from the railway company a fund out of which insurance could be paid, and that the farmer ought to have taken that into account in renting the land and the owner in letting it. If the Bill passed the Second Reading, he understood it would only do so on the understanding that clauses would be introduced in Committee to preserve the principle from unjust application. He hoped the House would deal fairly with the railway companies in this matter. The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Board of Agriculture said he had received very many resolutions from agricultural associations in favour of this Bill, which would place new burdens on the railway companies. He was sure far more representations had been received in favour of the reduction of railway rates, but they could not have it both ways. If they were to have lower rates the House must not insist in passing measures which would cast more working expenses on the railway companies. He should like to associate himself with the congratulations which had been offered to the noble Lord the Member for Horsham on having established a record, and on having given them all the very pleasant experience of such a speech before he had reached the age of twenty-two. He hoped the noble Lord would not think he was detracting from the encomium he had passed when he suggested that his Lordship must divide the honours with a distinguished Member of the House in a previous generation, Mr. Pitt. The noble Lord complained that railway trains travelled slowly, and that the companies gave a bad service; while the hon. Baronet, the Member for Peckham, suggested that one result of the passage of this Bill would be that the railway companies would give instructions to their engine-drivers to shut off steam when passing crops. Again, he would say, they could not have it both ways. The House should be very careful how it sanctioned Bills of this kind, which would lay upon the railway companies new burdens, and increase their working expenses, thereby decreasing their power to give greater facilities to traders.

said he wished to express his approbation of the attitude which the Government had taken up in regard to this Bill. The supporters of the Bill believed that it was not just that they should lose crops, destroyed by fire from locomotives, without the means of securing compensation. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had alluded to the large amount of capital invested in railways on which a limited return was paid in the shape of dividends. He would point out that a vastly greater amount of capital was invested in agriculture, which received a much less percentage of return than that sunk in railways. This was not a question which ought to be settled on the principle of charity but on the principle of justice. Where negligence was proved on the part of a railway company compensation was obtainable now; but in ninety-nine cases out of 100 it was impossible to prove negligence on the part of the company even when negligence existed. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Berwick had warned the House that the Bill introduced a dangerous principle, but the railway company ought to have the same responsibility to the farmer that the farmer had to his workmen.

said that the hon. Gentleman had misrepresented what he said. He only referred to the proposal to make railway companies liable where there was no negligence.

said that compensation to workmen was based on the very principle which the right hon. Baronet objected to being applied to railway companies. The responsibility was very properly placed on the farmer in case of injury to any of his workmen; and he, therefore, thought the farmer was entitled to the same protection against the railway company as he himself extended to his workmen. There seemed to be a fear in the minds of hon. Members that to make it simple to obtain compensation for damage would make farmers less careful in protecting their crops. In reply to that he said that the amount of compensation which would be paid to a farmer for the damage, even if the Bill were passed, would still entail on him great inconvenience from the loss of his fodder, which he would require for his cattle during the winter. If the Bill passed—and he hoped it would—it would not encourage negligence on the part of the farmer, because it would still be to his interest to protect his crops as far as possible. He fully recognised, the justice of this measure. Four years ago a Bill somewhat similar in form passed its Second Reading by a great majority, and farmers were looking anxiously to this House for a simple measure of justice.

said he did not deny that there was a great deal of difficulty in the matter. This case was more difficult than one where it was clear that there was no moral liability on one side or the other. At the same time it must be admitted that the agricultural community had made out a case of grievance; and it was out of their power to take precautions to protect themselves. Therefore, there was a prima facie case for the intervention of the Legislature. The law had not been altered since 1860. It was then settled on the express ground that the Legislature had given the railway companies statutory powers; and that, therefore, the provisions of the ordinary law did not apply. But a great deal had happened since 1860. In the first place the people who had been compensated when the railways were built had now forgotten all about it; and it was not regarded as a matter of much significance. The present position of the law was that the farmer was at liberty to bring an action against the railway company, and if he could prove negligence on the part of the company he was entitled to damages. The plaintiff had, however, to prove that the company had not constructed its engine in the right way, or that the engine was running in such a manner that sparks were likely to fly, and had to enter into a great many technical details on which he would be met by expert evidence on the part of the company; and which the company would be better able to supply. Therefore, he did not see how it was possible to regard the law relating to negligence as an adequate protection. Even where a company was negligent, the cost of proving it was so great as to be impracticable. One of the greatest difficulties of the law of England was its extreme costliness. It had been shown by experience that where ever an employer was exposed to responsibility as a result of negligence, it gave him the strongest inducement to take precautions. The reason why the railway companies had not taken adequate precautions was because they had relied on the ineffectiveness of the present law. He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Berwick that the railway companies were being attacked from too many sides at present; and if he thought that the principle of this Bill were capable of indefinite extension against the railway companies he should not be able to support it. Standing by itself, the railway companies need not feel any alarm. But this would happen if the Bill were passed. The companies would have a much stronger motive for taking care than they had at present; and it was highly probable—experience showed it—that they would take more care to prevent fragments of lighted coal being thrown out on each side of the line than they did at present. There was reason to think that the companies did not take all the precautions they might take. When they had to choose between two persons, one of whom had got to suffer, was it not reasonable that they should throw the burden on the person who could take the better precautions. There were comparatively few precautions which a farmer could take, except not stocking his harvest too near the railway line and not planting trees alongside it. What was wanted was to prevent the mischief occurring. That was more important than providing a remedy. It was, however, on the railway company rather than on the farmer that the obligation of showing that no negligence had occurred should be placed. A suggestion had been thrown out by the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallamshire Division that the Bill should be altered into one merely shifting the onus of proof. It appeared to him that it would be quite possible to introduce such an alteration; but it would not prove to be an adequate remedy. It would still lead to litigation. The railway company would prove that they had not been guilty of negligence; and the plaintiff would still be obliged to furnish evidence to rebut that contention. Subject to what the House might hear from the Attorney-General, whose opinion would carry great weight, he should support the Second Reading.

said he cordially agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, when he referred to the interest with which the House had listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the Horsham Division. The speech of his noble friend was not, however, a record, as Pitt delivered his famous speech in the House when he was two mouths younger. He hoped the House would give a Second Reading to the Bill. He was not impressed with the argument that alarming consequences would follow if the principle were admitted. This was a very special case. A grievance undoubtedly existed. At present, in a large number of cases, the remedy for damage from sparks was prohibitive. No doubt, as the Bill stood, the railway company would be liable even in the absence of negligence; but in asking the House to read the Bill a second time he did not exclude the consideration of such points in Committee. Grievances that railway companies might suffer, according to the argument of his hon. friend the Member for Peckham, might be removed by the adoption of some such proposal as was recommended by the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division; but upon those matters the position of the Government must be absolutely free in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Aberdeen, stated that increased efficacy as regarded remedy would lead to the adoption of increased precautions. No doubt, as necessity was the mother of invention, increased liability would lead to the adoption of further precautions by experts. Of couse it was fair to argue that owners, other than agricultural, had equal claims to compensation; but it was especially the damage caused to crops that gave rise to the demand for legislation. The drafting of the Bill would require close examination, and reserving for himself a free hand in respect to details he hoped the Bill would receive a Second Reading.

said that if the suggestion of hon. Gentlemen interested in railway matters were accepted, it would be useless to proceed with the measure. Merely to shift the burden of proof would be no remedy for the grievance of which agriculturists complained. It was an illusory proposal; and he would suggest to hon. Gentlemen interested in railway matters that the remedy proposed by the Bill was effective and that the person who did the damage should pay for it. The proposal, if accepted, would take the vitals out of the Bill.

said that as the Government had an open mind in the matter and were not prepared to accept the Bill as it stood, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. He did not accept the principle of the Bill; but he hoped, judging by the general tone of the debate, that an amicable arrangement would be arrived at in Committee.

said he would move in Committee to include heather, game, and plantations in the property in respect of which compensation could be claimed.

said that railway companies were usually the right parties to be fleeced. He himself had made many demands on them; but this was a different matter. While people continually clamoured for high speed and excess of comfort on railways, and special engines had to be constructed to meet that demand, there must be sparks somewhere. He hoped some arrangement might be devised by which sparks would be prevented. There was nothing in the Bill which would prevent a company from having to pay compensation for damages to a field of corn which was set on fire at midnight, perhaps by someone else. There ought to be some proof that the damage was caused by sparks from an engine. This should be seen to in the interests of the men who worked the engines, because if a company had to pay compensation for damage to a field they would no doubt penalise the men who were in charge of the engine. The Bill required careful attention in order to properly protect all parties.

said he would suggest that it would be well to consider in Committee the possibility of creating an insurance in which the owners of property and the railway company could take equal shares. This could be done on lines similar to the insurance, effected after the passage of the Employers' Liability Bill.

said he was considered to be rather hostile to the agricultural interest; but he objected to the doctrine propounded in the House and developed during the debate by the Attorney-General, that some priority of consideration should be given to agriculture over other kinds of property. He contended that the man who possessed buildings or any other kind of tenement was as much entitled to compensation as the owner of a field.

formally seconded.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said he introduced it officially at the instance of the Municipal Corporations' Association, as its President, and of the London Chamber of Commerce, by which it had been drawn, and that it was intended to remedy an injustice in regard to the local franchise. At present the municipal franchise was based upon the occupancy and rating of a building either joint or several irrespective of value, and there had been in recent years a very great change in the conduct of businesses. Businesses were now largely passing from the hands of individuals to the hands of mercantile and trading companies, but those companies could not exercise the municipal franchise and had no voice in the management of local affairs, although they often carried on the largest businesses, had the greatest risk and responsibility, and contributed greatly to local taxation. That was an indefensible position, and these large trading corporations ought to have some voice in local affairs in order that they might protect their own interests and advance the interests of the community. If an individual occupied property he had one vote, and if a private firm occupied property each of the members had a vote, irrespective of the value of the property, provided that he was rated. The proposal of the Bill was simply that where there was taxation there should be representation, and that a trading company in these circumstance should have one vote to be exercised by a responsible officer. The absolute exclusion of mercantile and trading companies from the local affairs of the district in which they traded and had considerable interests was injurious to the community, and on that ground that portion of the Bill was recommended by its promoters to the House. The only other point to which he would draw attention was the extension of the radius in which a person must reside to qualify as a councillor. Under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 the councillor was compelled to reside within fifteen miles of the district which he served, but new means of locomotion had revolutionised the radius of residence, and it was now suggested that the limit should be extended. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.

was sorry he could not allow the Bill to pass without some discussion. No doubt it was a very simple measure. Its object was to give corporations in a local district a right to vote, which they did not possess at the present time. It did appear at the first glance as if some hardship existed in that respect, but he need not remind the House that in their individual capacity shareholders were able to bring local pressure to bear on the local governing authorities. The first objection he had to the Bill was that it proposed to enfranchise property as against the individual. The whole tendency of modern political thought was to give power to the individual rather than to the corporation, because the component parts of the corporation already exercised such power in an individual capacity. In that respect this Bill was, then, a retrograde measure, and he could not give it his support. He would like to point out what possibilities it opened up for all kinds of manœuvring with regard to elections. If it were passed he would undertake to carry any election in any part of the country providing he cared to spend enough money on it. He would immediately form a corporation. He had only to pay £10. In one particular district he might register 500 corporations, and by that means secure enough power to control the whole municipal machinery. This proposal amounted practically to handing over the power of local control to persons with the largest wealth, and under these circumstances he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said the general idea of the Bill was one to which he did not offer any profound objection, but the measure did contain some very objectionable features. It would give a vote to corporations in respect of any premises they might have in their possession, and consequently under its provisions the Aerated Bread Company, with its fifty or sixty shops in a single district, would be entitled to as many votes and have them under its own control.

May I point out that as in the case of the individual only one vote could be recorded. At any rate that is my intention, and if the Bill does not secure that I will consent to any alteration in that direction.

said the Bill clearly did not provide that, but if the modification were accepted it would of course remove his objection to the Bill as far as that point was concerned. He agreed with the last speaker that the tendency should be to give the voting power to individuals and personalities rather than to corporations which could not exercise to the full the higher functions and duties of citizenship. It should not be the property which voted, it should be the man. It should not be the railway company, or the telephone company, who chose the men to carry on the business of the community, it should be the inhabitants of the district in whom the power should be vested.

looked on the Bill as quite an innovation, and thought it was a rather late hour in the day to spring it upon the House. The point to be considered was not merely the effect the measure would have upon municipal elections. There was a great principle at stake—were corporations qualified to vote? The voting was by ballot; how could a corporation vote by ballot?

An officer is to be appointed under the seal of the company to record the vote.

said an officer was to be appointed to record the vote, but what security had they that he would vote as directed by the corporation. It was contrary to all ideas of voting that anybody should give somebody else the power of voting for them. That was a principle quite new to law, and he objected to its being passed in this way. As a rule corporations were, or ought to be, represented by their individual members. In towns where large corporations were situated many people interested in them also resided, and were able to exercise enormous influence, and he did not think there was the least necessity for anybody to be anxious lest these rich corporations should be short of influence or power at election times. The tendency to-day was for those great aggregations of wealth to get too much power, and there was no need to give them more. The Bill introduced a now and injurious principle in our electoral system, and on that ground he should vote against it.

thought the grievance of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill was imaginary rather than real. Every member of corporations such as the measure referred to already had a vote, and therefore could not claim to be unrepresented. Now he resided in a borough (Holborn) where a large proportion of the councillors lived outside the borough area. But they were all tradesmen carrying on business within the area, and they represented on the council their business interests rather than the interests of those who actually lived and slept in the constituency. They, he submitted, had a very considerable grievance, because such men did not know what the real requirements of the inhabitants were as regards health and sanitation. This Bill was a piece of retrograde legislation. The legislation of this country for the last seventy years had been in an opposite direction to that embodied in the Bill; it had been in the direction of reducing the property qualification, of minimising the influence of property as opposed to personal representation of individual citizens. This Bill would enormously increase the qualification of property, and would give undue influence to brewery, railway, and bread companies. He strongly objected to this plurality of voting, and he also looked on the proposal of the Bill as entirely contrary to the spirit of the ballot, for unless the nominee of the corporation could vote openly there would be no guarantee as to his voting as directed, and if he voted as a nominee the value of the ballot would be impaired. So a system would arise which from many points of view would work mischief throughout the United Kingdom.

was surprised that so far-seeing a politician as the hon. Member for South Islington should have brought in a measure of that kind at an hour when it was impossible to subject it to that searching examination which such an innovation demanded. He objected to the Bill very strongly, and was astonished that so advanced a municipal reformer should have lent his weight to it. He could conceive that the Bill, if passed into law, would lead to gerrymandering all over the country and would produce great injustice to the community. He would take but one illustration. When the London County Council wanted to take over forty-eight miles of tramways on the other side of London parties were so evenly divided that the municipalisation of the lines was lost by one vote only. In fact many important questions were determined by a narrow majority, and if they were to give the Aerated Bread Company, Salmon and Gluckstein, the British Tea-Table Company, the Licensed Victuallers' Company (which had tied houses in nearly every constituency), and similar companies this voting power they would simply be handing over the municipal destinies of some of the London boroughs into the hands of impersonal wealth, which, in deciding public questions, would not consider the public weal in the first place. If there was to be an alteration in the franchise it ought to be effected by a public Bill, and in circumstances when the question could be satisfactorily gone into by representative men on both sides of the House. In America they saw the danger arising from great trusts; they saw how they dominated the life of a community. They did not wish that state of affairs extended to this country. Already wealth, in the matter of representation, had a commanding and dominating influence in our elections; the constitution of the House itself afforded proof of it.

said he would be quite satisfied to defer to the feeling of the House on the Bill and would withdraw the Motion for the Second Reading.

said he thought that when the hon. Member was seized with the iniquity of his proposal he would adopt that course.

May I ask what are the proposals of the Government with reference to the Navy Estimates next week? Am I to understand that the Government will be content to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Monday, and to resume consideration of the Estimates in Committee at some later date?

And may I ask what will be the business at the morning sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday? Also what it is proposed to do on Thursday?

The business on Monday will be to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates. The Secretary to the Admiralty will make his usual statement at the commencement of business. If he is fortunate enough to get the Speaker out of the Chair on Monday, Vote I. will be taken in Committee on Thursday. On Tuesday and Wednesday, as at present arranged, the main business will be the Supplementary Estimates already presented to the House.