§ MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's)asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause inquiry to be made whether the following statement is substantially correct, viz.: That 36,000 employés of The London and North Western Railway Company met in London not many days ago to consider their position with regard to the proposed Amendment to the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and unanimously resolved to petition Parliament to have their case specially considered, as they are better protected by their present Insurance Society than they would be under the Act; that their agreement to contract out of the Act was an entirely voluntary arrangement between themselves and the Company, and has resulted far more beneficially for the employés than if they had not done so, the compensation paid in respect of claims for accidents being relatively far greater, and moreover such compensation having been frequently paid for accidents in respect to which they would have been unable to claim under the Act; that the said employés look with apprehension on any measure that would deprive them of the right to contract themselves out of the Act where the Company contributes to the funds of their Insurance Society, as any such legislation would throw on the men burdens of a much larger contribution than at present paid by them, without any corresponding benefit; whether 1497 he will make inquiry by whose authority the aforesaid meeting was convened, and whether any but employés were present; whether the suggestion that the employés have signed a document, to the effect that they are satisfied with the Act as it now stands, only under compulsion is in the slightest degree compatible with the foregoing statement; and, what steps the Board of Trade intend to take in order to ascertain and give full effect to the true and unbiassed wishes of the aforesaid employés and others in a like position?
§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA) (Sheffield, Brightside)I have been informed by the London and North-Western Railway Company that the statement contained in the hon. Member's Question is correct, and that the meeting referred to was convened by the workmen. It would appear that the suggestion that the workmen signed a document under compulsion to the effect that they are satisfied with the Act as it now stands is not compatible with the foregoing statement. As I understand that the Bill in question will be referred to a Select Committee, before which the delegates of the workmen will be able to express their own views, I do not think it is desirable that I should take any further steps in the matter.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)said, that the Question had reference to one which he placed on the Paper on Friday. After he had asked that Question a deputation from the men employed by the London and North-Western Railway Company waited upon him, and explained that the document referred to in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman had been signed with the greatest possible willingness and without pressure by all the men who belonged to the Insurance Society. It was clear, therefore, that in the first instance he had been misinformed, and he wished to state so to the House.