§ MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the expression "seaman" in Clause 6, Sub-section D, and in Clause 7, Sub-section 2, of the Employers' Liability Bill, is intended by the Government to include members of a crew of a fishing vessel, where such members are not part owners, but are joint adventurers with the owners, receiving no weekly wages, but being entirely dependent upon the risks of the adventure for their share of the profits; whether the expression "ship," in Clause 7, Sub-section 2, of the said Bill is intended by the Government to include sailing vessels engaged in the fishing trade, whore such vessels also carry oars; and whether he is prepared to accept Amendments to the said Bill, making it quite clear that the expressions "seaman" and "ships," respectively, are not so intended to apply?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.The term "seaman" in the Employers' Liability Bill is unqualified, but the language of Clause 1 would only be applicable to such seamen as are in the service of an employer, and not to seamen who are co-partners in a fishing adventure. The answer to the second paragraph is "Yes," and with regard to the third, so far as I can judge, no Amendment is necessary in this respect, but I can express no opinion until I have seen the words in which a proposed Amendment is embodied.