HC Deb 02 March 1882 vol 266 cc2033-9

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Notice of boiler explosion to be sent to the Board of Trade).

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

, in moving, in page 2, line 6, after "is" to insert "wilfully and knowingly," said, that persons unacquainted with the terms of the Act might make an incorrect Return unintentionally. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would agree to the insertion of the words of his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, page 2, line 6, after "is," insert "wilfully and knowingly."—(Mr. T. C. Thompson.)

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not insist on this Amendment, because he believed experience had shown that the words proposed could not be wisely introduced. The form of notice would be set forth in the Schedule. It would be almost impossible to prove, in the ease of an incorrect Return being made, that this had been done wilfully and knowingly; and it had been found, in the case of other Acts of Parliament, that the insertion of the words proposed had had the effect of rendering them very nearly inoperative.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he regarded the insertion of the words as dangerous in Acts of this kind, and trusted they would not be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power for Board of Trade to direct inquiry as to boiler explosion).

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, that Coroners under the law of the land had power to institute inquiries in the cases contemplated by the Bill. They were assisted on such occasions by scientific persons; and, that being the case, he was at a loss to see the necessity of a double inquiry. Moreover, the Bill, as it stood, would lead to a large increase of expense. For these reasons he hoped the Committee would agree to the Amendment which he proposed.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after "fit," insert "unless an inquiry should have teen previously made or begun by the Coroner appointed by the district."—(Mr. T. C. Thompson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he could not agree to this Amendment, which it seemed to him would have the effect of nullifying the Act with reference to the most important inquiries to be held under it, in-asmuch as it would be impossible to hold the inquiry where death had followed from the explosion. The very object of the measure was that an inquiry should be held by a special and independent tribunal; and he could see no objection to holding that independently of the ordinary inquiry by the Coroner, which would embrace a number of collateral circumstances.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his objection to the proposed Amendment. It appeared to him that its effect would be to allow an inquiry to take place in the case of small accidents, where no one was killed; while in the case of accidents where great loss of life occurred the inquiry could not be held. The in- sertion of these words would therefore make the Act an absurdity; and he trusted the Committee would not allow them to be inserted.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, he felt it was of no use to press for the insertion of the words after the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken, although they had not attempted to answer the suggestion that there would be a double inquiry in many oases. The holding of a second inquiry could be of no use if the Coroner's investigation were sufficient, and its only practical effect would be the incurring of additional expense. He did not intend to press the matter against the sense of the House; but he believed that the clause as it stood would leave them in an anomalous and silly position.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, what was wanted was that the inquiry should be made by competent persons. It was quite true that the Coroner might, if he thought fit, ask someone to assist him to make the inquiry; but many Coroners did not do so. In his capacity of Home Secretary he had to institute inquiries of the kind independent of the Coroner, and after the Coroner's inquiry. There was great difficulty in such a case, because unless the inquiry was held at once there was great injury done to the person to whom the premises belonged, because he had to keep the premises just as the explosion had left them. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

, in moving, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "a" and insert "one or more," said, it was proposed that there should be in every case of boiler explosions an independent preliminary inquiry instituted by the Board of Trade, and that in special cases, in which it was thought necessary, there should be a still more formal investigation. It was only with preliminary investigation they were now dealing.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, leave out "a," and insert "one or more."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in page 2, line 10, after "engineer," to insert "or engineers," explaining that the Amendment was merely a consequential one.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after "engineer," insert "or engineers."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

proposed, page 2, line 12, after "explosion," to insert— And the persons so appointed shall have the powers conferred on the Court by sub-section 4 of this section.

The object, he said, was similar to that of the two Amendments immediately preceding.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 12, after "explosions," insert "and the persons so appointed shall have the powers conferred on the Court by sub-section 4 of this section."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WARTON

said, he did not want to be hypothetical; but he thought that as they had "one or more competent and independent engineer or engineers"—and that did not read very well—it ought to be now proposed that "the person or persons so appointed," &c. He would, however, pass that matter by, and merely suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there seemed to be an omission. There was no provision made for a Report in the case of the preliminary inquiry. Surely, in case of a preliminary inquiry, there should be some Report made to the person who had to carry on the formal inquiry. Unless something of the kind were done the preliminary inquiry would be worthless. It would be of great value to have a Report, just as in the case of an appeal in an ordinary law suit. They all knew how useful it was, when an appeal was being heard, to have before them a statement of the proceedings in the Court below.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was much obliged for the suggestion; but he did not think it would be necessary to have such a Report, because the persons appointed to hold the inquiry would really be officers of the Board of Trade. They would be absolutely and really responsible to the Board of Trade, which would make arrangements for a proper Report; and in special cases it was intended to print the Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, in the absence of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. CHARLES PALMER), Amendment made in page 2, line 18, after "made," by inserting "at or near the place of such explosion."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

proposed, in page 2, line 19, to leave out "three," and insert "not less than two." He explained that this and several subsequent Amendments had reference to the constitution of the Court in the case of formal investigations. What he proposed was that, instead of the Board of Trade being required to appoint three Commissioners, which would involve the Board in very considerable expense, they might, if they thought fit, appoint two, one of whom should be a practical engineer.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, leave out "three," and insert "not less than two."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 2, line 19, leave out "two of whom," and insert "appointed by the Board of Trade, of whom one at least;" page 2, line 20, before "competent," insert "a;" page 2, line 20, leave out "engineers," and insert "engineer;" page 2, line 21, leave out "the third," and insert "one."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in page 2 line 23, to leave out "engineering." The object of the alteration was to render it unnecessary for the Board of Trade to appoint an engineer as President of the Court.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, leave out "engineering."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Amendment made, in page 2, line 32, after "jurisdiction," by inserting "and shall, in addition, have the following powers."

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

proposed, in page 2, line 33, after "may," to insert "at reasonable times." He simply pro- posed the alteration as a protection to the parties concerned, and hoped the promoters of the Bill would have no objection.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, after "may," insert" at reasonable times."—(Mr. T. C. Thompson.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was sorry to have to oppose his hon. Friend again. The matter ought to be somewhat considered from the point of view of the Department that would practically have to do the work; and he was informed that the insertion of the words would seriously interfere with the usefulness of the Court. Probably the best time for making an inspection was immediately after an explosion. If the proposed words were inserted, the owner would be able to refuse the inspection; and, although after appeal or on further inquiries his objection might be overruled, it might be too late to make an inspection which would be of any avail. It was not at all probable that the Board of Trade would wish to overrule the reasonable objections of the owners of the property. He did not know that in any other Acts under which similar Courts of Inquiry were established any provision of this kind had been inserted or been found necessary.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. GIBSON

said, he would like to ask a question with regard to the last sub-section of the clause, because he did not understand how it would work. Subsection E provided that— Every person so summoned, not being the owner or user of the boiler, or in the service or employment of the owner or user, or in any way connected with the working or management of the boiler, shall be allowed such expenses as would be allowed to a witness attending on subpoena before a Court of Record; and in case of dispute as to the amount to be allowed, the same shall be referred by the Court to a Master of one of the Superior Courts, who, on request under the hands of the members of the Court, shall ascertain and certify the proper amount of such expenses. If the Court was to be treated as a Court of Record, who was to pay the witnesses? The witnesses might say—"We are not satisfied with the amount; our costs are so-and-so." The new clause to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman said— The Court may make such order as they think fit respecting the costs and expenses of the inquiry, and such order shall, on the application of any party entitled to the benefit of the same, be enforced by any Court of Summary Jurisdiction as if such costs and expenses were a penalty imposed by such Court. It was clearly indicated that there might be expenses to be paid; and if the Board of Trade were to pay them—and there was no one else under any circumstances to pay them—he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it should be so stated.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and promised to consider the point, and, if he found it necessary, propose the Amendment on Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Application to Scotland and Ireland).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. GIBSON

said, this clause enacted the machinery by which fines were to be recovered. There was, however, not a syllable as to how the fines were to be applied. A man might be fined £5, £10, or £20; but there was no provision, as there generally was in Irish Acts, as to how the money should be applied.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

promised to consider this matter also, and, if necessary, make an alteration on Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Forward to