CONSIDERATION. [SEVENTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 16 November 1893 vol 18 cc1039-89

As amended by the Standing Committee, further considered.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that when the Debate was adjourned on the previous night he was moving to leave out Section 1 of Clause 7 (Definitions)— by which "workman" was defined as including every person who had entered into or worked under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer in the United Kingdom, or on board a British ship, whether the contract was express or implied, or was verbal or in writing—and to insert— The expression 'workman' means any person engaged in manual labour or handicraft whose remuneration or wages is or are paid or payable at intervals of not more than six weeks. The definition given in the Act of 1875, and continued in that of 1880, was adopted in the original draft of the present Bill, and the fact that it was struck out of the measure in its progress through the Grand Committee showed that the matter required further consideration. The only definition of "workman" now left in the Bill, in Clause 7, was "every man who enters into or works under a contract of service. "He considered this definition was much too wide, for it would include persons above the status of workmen, as generally understood, and for whom the Bill was not intended. He had suggested a definition of his own, but he did not pretend it was the best that could be framed, and he would gladly accept any amendment of it so long as the Government accepted the principle. What he desired was to secure that the benefits of the Bill were given to those who were entitled to receive them, and not to those who were not intended to come within the purview of the Bill. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, at all events, some definition was needed in order to restrict the Act to those for whom it was really intended.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (1), of Clause 7, and insert—"(1) The expression 'workman' means any person engaged in manual labour or handicraft whose remuneration or wages is or are paid or payable at intervals of not more than six weeks.—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

Question proposed, That the words '(1) The expression "workman" includes every person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer in the United Kingdom 'stand part of the Bill.

MR. ASQUITH

said, the Government could not accept this Amendment, which would have the effect of very largely cutting down the scope of the Bill. The class of domestic servants would be excluded by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as would also be the class of railway clerks and clerks engaged at the docks to superintend the loading and unloading of ships. These were not in a technical sense persons engaged in manual labour, and yet they took part as supervisors in the operations of the men who shunted trucks or unloaded goods, and who were practically exposed to very nearly the same kind of risks as the men over whom they were put. It would be very unfair if such persons did not receive legal protection. The term "manual labour" had given rise to considerable discussion in the Courts, and the state of the law even now, after many decisions had been pronounced on the subject, was by no means clear. He thought it would be an unhappy thing to perpetuate an ambiguous and legal expression in an Act of this kind, which the Government desired to make as clear as possible. The proposal to exclude from the Bill all persons whose wages were paid at intervals of not more than six weeks would exclude a very large proportion, and probably almost the whole of the agricultural labourers in Scotland. It was the practice in Scotland to pay the ploughmen at intervals of six months. He could not believe that the hon. Gentleman desired that this class of men should be excluded; but the fact that they would be showed the nature of introducing limiting powers of this kind, which might have an effect far beyond that contemplated by those who proposed them. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that some men receiving large salaries would come within the terms of the Government definition. He (Mr. Asquith) agreed that they would. They would, however, be very few in number, and would not, as a rule, be exposed to the risks which the Rill contemplated. The number of them was so small that he did not think the House need take them into consideration. On the other hand, the narrowing of the definition of "workman" would exclude people whom everyone desired to place under the provisions of the Bill.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, N.)

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson Bowles) would not press an Amendment which was inconsistent with the whole scope and object of the Bill. The hon. Member objected to the words "contract of service" as being too wide and too vague, but these words had been largely construed under the Employers' and Workmen's Acts of 1875, first as not including contractors, and secondly as including all forms of workmen by the piece and the like. If the Amendment of his, hon. Friend (which was really not a definition) were adopted it would be only necessary in order to escape the provisions of the Act altogether to make wages payable at longer periods than at present, and to sub the men—that is, pay them on account.

Question Put, and agreed to.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan) moved, in line 16, after "British ship, "to insert "as defined in 'The Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act, 1854' and Acts amending the same. "He explained that it was merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 16, after the words "British ship,' to insert the words "as defined in 'The Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act, 1854." and Acts amending the same."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

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

MR. ASQUITH

When the hon. Baronet first put down his Amendment, I thought it was one which the Government might very properly accept as a matter of drafting, and I should be still of that opinion if it were not that we had come to the conclusion to accept the Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Cayzer), namely, to leave out "sea-going vessel not propelled by oars "and insert" every description of vessel or boat." By adopting the hon. Baronet's Amendment we should compel ourselves to exclude from the scope of the Act boats which are propelled by oars. I am satisfied that a considerable number of avoidable accidents due to negligence do occur in such boats, and that it would be inexpedient to exclude them from the Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On the Motion of Mr. DARLING (Deptford), the following Amendment was made—Leave to omit the word "verbal, "in line 17, and insert the word "oral.

MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft) moved, after "writing, "in line 17, to insert— but shall not be deemed to include members of a crew of a fishing vessel where such members, though not part-owners, 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.

He explained that the object of the Amendment was to make it perfectly clear that those engaged in the fishing industry round our coast, and who were practically co-partners with the owners of the boats, as they agreed to share the risks and profits of the adventure, although they had no interest in the boat itself, should not be included within the provisions of the Act. His own constituents were very largely interested in the question, as there were a large number of Lowestoft boats in which the sailors participated in the profits of the voyages, while in the case of the line-fishing industry the general principle was that the owners took 2–11ths of the profits whilst 9–11ths were divided amongst the officers and crew. In the event of any liability arising under this Act, it would he manifestly unfair and a breach of all the understood principles of partnership that some of the partners should he indemnified in respect of risk which had been run by the whole of the partners. It might he said that the Amendment was not required because men engaged on these conditions would not be employés. The Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), in reply to a question which he (Mr. Foster put to him on the 11th of May last, said it was not the intention of the Government that men who were entailed in a joint adventure of this kind should be included in the provisions of the Bill. Unless some Amendment of the kind were adopted, the subject would certainly not be free from doubt. These fishermen were in one sense employés, but in a practical sense co-partners. It was quite comprehensible that lawyers might be found to differ as to whether they were employés coming within the meaning of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 17, after the word "writing, "to insert the words "but shall not be deemed to include; members of a crew of a fishing vessel where such members, though not part owners, 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."—(Mr. Harry Foster.)

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

MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

did not think that there would be the slightest use in introducing the proposed Amendment, because the definition of "workman" was a person who was under a contract of service or apprenticeship. The men whose case had been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harry S. Foster) were joint adven- turers, and were not, therefore, in any sense under a contract for service. To add these additional words would be merely to encumber the Bill.

* SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)

supported the Amendment, and pressed the Government specifically to exclude fishermen from the provisions of the Bill. He had had representations made to him by the Moray Firth Fisheries Association, representing many thousands of fishermen from the Moray Firth and the East Coast, to the effect that great anxiety was felt on the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Essex held that these men were not included, but if they did not enjoy the same legal training as was at the disposal of the House, they were better acquainted with local facts and customs, and he knew there was very great difference of opinion as to whether the Bill would not lead to very inconvenient litigation if a, specific declaration were not introduced into it. The conditions under which the fishermen conducted their industry varied very much, and he thought it would puzzle anyone to say whether some of the contracts entered into were contracts of partnership or of joint adventure or of service. In some instances boats went in the early summer from the Moray Firth to the Western Islands to conduct the herring fishery. When they reached the Western Islands they took aboard extra hands, who for perhaps six weeks joined the adventure. He thought there was some risk of these adventurers being regarded as under a contract of service, although as a matter of fact they all underwent exactly the same risk. The man who acted as skipper was chosen for his special skill, and it would be very hard if under this Bill he came under obligations to all the men in the boat where there was no negligence on his part. He would suggest to the Mover of the Amendment that he should substitute the word "proceeds" for the word "risks" in the last line but one.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

thought there might be considerable difficulty and danger in accepting the Amendment. Under the Bill as it stood the workman who was injured would have to prove that he was under a contract of service. The cases that had been cited were clearly without the scope of the Bill, but there were a number of cases in which independent gentlemen supplied boats and tackle for fishing purposes, and a skipper took charge of it and worked it largely in his own interest. Possibly no wages were paid to the fishermen, and they were paid largely in kind, but the same thing might be said, to some extent, of workmen who were engaged under a system of profit-sharing. Many profit-sharers were not paid weekly wages, and he was afraid that if the Amendment were accepted it would be very fruitful of litigation.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

said, the case presented by the Scottish fishermen was a very peculiar one. He might describe it as the converse of the case of the principal contractors. The principal contractor was in substance the employer, although in form he was not the employer. In the present case the skipper appeared to be the employer, but the relation between capital and labour, which was the basis of the Bill, did not really exist. He hoped the House would receive some assurance, not merely from the English Law Officers, but from the Scotch Law Officers also on the subject, as he did not think the Amendment as worded could be safely accepted, because it turned on the point of the men receiving no weekly wages. There might be cases in which their food was provided as an equivalent for wages; a small sum was paid in the form of a weekly allowance either as wages or as an advance upon the proceeds of the voyage. But in substance the cases that occurred in Scotland were really cases of joint adventure.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, there were a very large number of cases in which the Irish fishermen with very small capital procured fishing boats and fishing tackle by borrowing money, and in some cases by obtaining the assistance of the Government under recent legislation. In such cases the owner of the boat was not in such a position that he could carry on his industry if he bad placed upon him the risks cast on employers by the Bill. He understood that the Home Secretary did not mean to include in the Bill fishermen who carried on their industry in the way described. The question was whether they were likely to be included in the definition of "workmen." If the owner of a boat procured a crew and said to them, "If you will undertake for six weeks to help me to work my boat, I will give you a third of the profits, and will undertake to supply all necessary tackle, "would the Home Secretary argue that this was not a contract for service? If so, how would he draw a distinction between such a case in which an owner said, "In lieu of maintenance I will give you a small sum weekly, out of which you can procure the necessaries of life. "If this was a debatable matter, why should not the intention of the Government be placed on the face of the Bill? In matters of this kind Parliament ought not to leave men in the position of fishermen to go to lawyers to construe the sections of an Act of Parliament for them. The phraseology used in the Bill ought to be of such a character that people who were not lawyers could see at once what the House meant.

MR. BEITH (Inverness, &c.)

said, unless the Government could assure the House that there was no contract for service in the cases which had been described, he thought some Amendment like that proposed ought to be inserted.

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,) Hackney, S.

We have considered this matter, and have no doubt that as the Amendment stands it does set forth a case of partnership. If it is not a case of partnership, it ought to be brought under the provisions of the Bill. In deference to the doubts which have been expressed, the Government will be willing to accept the Amendments with alterations, which would make it run as follows:— But shall not be deemed to include members of a crew of a fishing vessel, where such members, though not part owners, are joint adventurers with the owners, receiving no wages, but only a share of the profits. I think that would meet all the fears that have been expressed. I will, therefore, propose in the first place to leave out the word "weekly."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out, the word "weekly."—(Sir C. Russell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'weekly' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY (Buteshire)

said, he was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman was inclined to go so far, but he did not think the suggestion he had made would quite set at rest the doubts stated by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). It would, perhaps, be more satisfactory if the Amendment were made to end with the words "joint adventurers with the owners. "It might be very difficult in certain cases to say whether there was or was not a contract of service superadded to contracts of joint ownership, but the really substantial view of the case was that it was a case in which a set of poor men joined together, and put one in the position of employer de jure, though not de facto.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,) Clackmannan, &c.

said, they seemed to be all agreed as to the object to be attained, and the only question was as to the language to be adopted. He quite appreciated what had been said In' his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. G. Murray), but he bad a little misgiving about stopping the clause at the point suggested by him, and thought it might be safer to leave it as suggested by his hon. Friend the Attorney General. Perhaps, however, it would be bettor to use the phrase "a share of the proceeds" instead of a "share in the profits."

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said, it was perfectly natural that the Attorney General should wish to meet the views of the House, but the Bill seemed to be clear enough as it was, and it would, in his opinion, be better to insert no Amendment at all at this point. The intention seemed to be to protect owners of vessels. If such owners entered into a contract of service, surely they ought to be liable for acts of negligence. If there were no state of service the fishermen could not, of course, recover. He thought it was clear that in the cases mentioned there were no contracts of service, and such being the case, it was not necessary to insert any Amendment.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he foresaw that unless some Amendment of the kind were introduced into the Bill, the lawyers would have a lively time of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down evidently had no experience of fishermen or of their ways of conducting their business. It seemed to him (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that even if there were no contract of service in the cases which had been raised there was a contract of adventure involving service. What happened in the East Coast fishing trade was this: A man who had saved perhaps £100, generally a fisherman himself, got someone to lend him another £100 or so, and he then got a fishing boat with a lien on it. He then engaged a crew for a particular adventure. They went to the Doggerbank and remained there for some time fishing. Undoubtedly the crew were under conditions of service to him, because should they refuse to carry out their duties he could have them up before a Magistrate. If these men were brought under the provisions of the Bill the result would be to put an end to a most excellent industry, and one that ought to be encouraged. He thought the use of the word "wages" would give the lawyers a fine time, because the fishermen usually received their food from the captain. It was perfectly true that at the end of the adventure, if they had not made any profits, they were charged by the skipper for their maintenance. It would be a very serious national mischief to interfere with our fishing industry, and the fishing industry certainly would be interfered with if fishermen were prevented from taking these risks. On the whole, he thought it would be better if the Amendment ended with the word "owners."

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said, there were distinct cases to be dealt with in the North of Scotland. In the case of the white fishing all the crew of the fishing of boats were as a rule joint adventurers. Sometimes these men went to the herring fishery, and then they took on board lads who were paid partly in wages and partly by receiving an interest in the profits. It appeared to him that the Amendment suggested by the Attorney General would cover the first case, whilst the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire (Mr. Graham Murray) would cover the second.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

did not think the matter could be dealt with as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury suggested. The view of Members on the Opposition side of the House, he assumed, would be that if there was a collection of ordinary working men together who shared profits, and were content with that in place of wages, they ought to be outside the Bill. Unless there was bonâ fide service it was not sought to make one man, who might be in a slightly better position than the others, incur all the risk. It was a common practice in the South of England to work fishing boats by shares, although in some cases the master or captain guaranteed a minimum figure—as low as 5s. a week—to the crew. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him that such an arrangement ought not to be regarded as a contract of service. He thought that such partnerships should be altogether excluded from the Bill. There were also cases on land where five or six men joined together and took excavations by the yard, or sinking by the foot, and agreed to divide the amount received. Even in these cases it was not infrequent for the poorer man to receive a fixed remuneration. There was a real point, to he met here, and he should be glad if the Home Secretary could devise some method of meeting it.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

said, he submitted with great confidence that the state of things disclosed by the Amendment was a real contract of service. Let them take the simplest case, that of the owner of a fishing boat. The owner wanted half-a-dozen men to work his boat; but instead of going to them and saying, "I will pay you 15s. a week wages for becoming the crew of my boat, "he went and said, "If you work for me for six weeks I will at the end of that time pay you so much money. "Now, with great respect, he maintained that that was a contract of service quite as much as if the bargain were originally made for a definite amount. He did not think any lawyer would contend that it was any portion of the essence of a contract of service that the reward of service should be fixed at a definite payment. They might have a contract of service which would be equal to such a contract, though the wages the working man got was a variable amount, depending on the success or non-success of the enterprise in which he was engaged. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) said, that if it was a contract of service the person entering into it was already within the Bill. So he was. And the right hon. Gentleman added that the person so entering ought to be excluded on the grounds of public policy. He (Mr. Healy) confessed that he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought there were good grounds of public policy why a seaman or fisherman engaged under the circumstances detailed in the Amendment should be excluded from the general scope of the Bill. The Bill as it was drawn absolutely put an end to the doctrine of common employment. The hon. Member who brought forward the Amendment said that the doctrine of common employment ought not to be put an end to in this particular case. He (Mr. Healy) agreed with that. But, at the same time, they ought to understand what they wore doing, and if they accepted the Amendment they should be willing to admit that they were insisting on an exception to the general contents of the Bill, and cutting it down so far as it related to this particular case. Then the only question before the House was, should they take the Amendment as proposed to be amended by the Attorney General, or should they stop the Amendment at the word "owner"? It appeared to him that if they merely amended the Amendment as proposed by the Attorney General they would include in the Bill a class of case which was substantially the same as that which they desired to exclude. There were two classes of cases. They might have one class of case, such as that disclosed in the Amendment, where there were no wages, and nothing in the shape of wages paid, and where the fisherman, got no weekly payment on account, and nothing to keep him while the contract was being discharged. But they might have another class of case, where the shipowner said—"I will give you a fixed share of the profit at the end of the enterprise, and in the meanwhile I will supply you with food during the period of the contract." It appeared to him (Mr. Healy) that these two cases, though differing in form, were substantially the same in substance, and that both should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. He, therefore, agreed with the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Graham Murray) in limiting the Amendment as proposed.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)

could not see a reason for making a distinction between the owner of a fishing boat and other small employers of labour. The only logical outcome, so far as he could see of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who had fishermen in their constituencies, was that the Bill should not apply to small employers of labour, but only to large employers. In these cases there was either a contract of service or there was not. The question depended on the facts of each individual case, and he thought the Courts would be competent to deal with those facts. He deprecated making distinctions between these industries.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, there might be a contract of service, say for two years, to be paid for in kind or in money. That was a contract of service simpliciter. They might have a contract of partnership which had nothing to do with a contract of service. But there was a third class of contract under which a great many of the cases which had been referred to appeared to him to fall—namely, a contract of service which involved a partnership or co-ad venture-ship. In the case of those fishermen hon. Members desired them to be outside the Bill, even though a contract of service was involved, and if the House assented to that wish there would be no difficulty in framing words to effect the object. He said this because there seemed to be a misapprehension amongst hon. Members. They appeared to hold that there must either be a contract of service pure and simple or a partnership pure and simple.

MR. ASQUITH

said, that after listening to the discussion, which had been an interesting and instructive one, he had come to the conclusion that there might be cases in connection with this particular industry as to which a doubt might arise under the language of the Bill. He should not be faithful to the pledge he had given to hon. Gentlemen opposite months ago if he did not do his host to provide for that case. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated the legal position as clearly and accurately as possible. In the case of these fishing adventures they had the semblance of a contract of service which would be held to come within the definition of employer and workman in the Bill. But, on the other hand, in substance, whatever it might be in form, it was a contract not of service, but of joint adventure. What they wanted to prevent if they could was the Courts, so to speak, taking advantage of the fact that the thing had the outward and visible signs of a contract of service, and bringing within the scope of the Bill that which was not within it. The question was, what was the best form of words to meet the case? After careful consideration the Government had come to the conclusion that they might safely ask the House to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bute, and take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lowestoft down to the words "joint adventures with the owners," and leave out the rest of the clause.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the words "from the owners" to the end of the proposed Amendment.—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, That the words 'but shall not be deemed to include members of a crew of a fishing vessel where such members, though not part owners, are joint adventurers with the owners' be there inserted.

MR. BODKIN (Roscommon, N.)

said, there was one difficulty which he would like to suggest which did not seem to be present to the minds of hon. Members who had spoken. It appeared to him, if the Amendment was adopted, it not merely permitted, but encouraged, contracting out of the Act so far as fishermen were concerned. This would apply generally, but he referred particularly to the case of Ireland, where the fisherman got, and desired to get, not his share of the spoil, but wages simpliciter. If the Amendment were adopted, see what would happen. The owner immediately had a motive for compelling the fisherman to abandon the simple contract which he preferred and to join in a contract of joint adventure. Therefore, it appeared to him (Mr. Bodkin) that, un less the Home Secretary saw some way to limit the Amendment in regard to that matter, the Amendment would have the direct effect of encouraging owners to compel the fishermen to receive a weekly or monthly wage and to become joint adventurers. Fishermen dependent on a living wage were not in a position to become speculators in regard to the success or non-success of the fishing. He would suggest to the Home Secretary that some means should be devised whereby, in the case of fishermen alone, who deserved protection as much as any other class of workers, encouragement should not be given to employers to get them to contract out of the Act.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

was at a loss to understand by what principle the Government were actuated in accepting this Amendment. As the Member for the Partick Division had said, it meant nothing more nor less than that the small owners of fishing boats were to be exempted from the liability to which any other employer would be subjected, if the bargain between other employers and their employés were precisely of the same character. In this case the owner of the fishing boat was the dominating factor in the whole matter. No one could serve on board a boat unless the owner consented. The men might be paid by agreement by a proportion of what was gained, but they were there by the permission of the owner, and the relation between the owner and them, whether entered into directly or through the mediary of another person, was the relation of service. If, therefore, they wished to put upon the owner the same obligation of providing a seaworthy boat and a competent person for skipper, they must impose upon the owner the same liability in this case as they imposed upon an employer in any other. The astonishing fact was that hon. Members who were strong in their support of this Bill, because they appeared to represent constituencies in which there were small owners, wished these small owners to be exempted from the liability imposed upon all other owners, and wished to make this great inroad into the principle of the Bill. If the Amendment now proposed were accepted, then the persons would come in as joint adventurers who were really servants, and thus the employers would escape from liability. The fact that though there were certain fishermen who were paid out of the proceeds of the gain made by the vessel was perfectly consistent with the position of service. The obligation was surely with the Government to explain why they were going to make this exception from the provisions of the Bill, an exception which appeared to be founded on no other principle than that these were persons of small means; but whatever their means were they would still have the capacity of controlling the condition of the boats and the captain they sent to sea, and would be responsible for any negligence to provide a proper captain or a proper boat and crew. He was quite at a loss to see any reason for the acceptance of this Amendment.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, N.)

said, the objections which had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman were, he thought, met by the terms of the Amendment. If it were said that there were exceptions to be made in this business, the exception was based upon the great fact that the fishing industry was built upon a system of joint adventure, and they were, therefore, providing for that which underlay the whole of the fishing industry of this country. He would point out that the difficulty of this question really arose from the complexity of that industry. Not only did the men take shares in an adventure, but the shipowners also took shares with the men, so that it was a joint adventure from beginning to end, qua owners and qua employés. Part of the difficulty arose from the fact that there were two relations which were very difficult to provide for in one clause; the two relations being, first, as to the ship and the ownership of the ship, and the navigation of the ship. No doubt the members of the crew had a relationship of service to the owners. That, he thought, was unquestioned, and to that extent there was no distinction between the case of a fishing vessel and the case of an ordinary ship. For instance, for defects of equipment and neglectful navigation and the like the ship ought to be liable. But there was a part of the matter which was distinctly a joint adventure throughout—namely, the participation by the owner of the ship, by the master, and by the men, in the proceeds of the fishing. Therefore, he wished the House to understand, as having himself some knowledge of this business, that there were two distinct relations, as between the crew on the one hand and the owners on the other. In one case he thought, there being a contract of service, if there were defects of equipment and navigation, the owners should be held responsible. On the other hand, if accidents arose in the promotion of a common object, that being a joint adventure, it would be manifestly unfair that those who had undertaken a certain risk should participate in all the advantages and should decline any responsibility. He ventured to say that as the Amendment was framed it met this case. It said— But shall not be deemed to include members of a crew of a fishing vessel when such members are joint adventurers. When that clause came to be dealt with qua that point, they would not be joint adventurers as to the ship, her equipment and navigation. But when it became a question of participation in the proceeds of the voyage, then the other rule would apply, and the owners would be excluded, and properly so, from liability. He thought that under all the circumstances, which were very difficult and complex, those points had been met, and he should, therefore, support the Government.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, he thought the Amendment required some further consideration, and in the main he was in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. The Amendment concerned a large portion of poor men in Ireland as well as in other parts, and it was for that reason that he felt bound to intervene. The House should not forget the observation of the hon. Member for Roscommon, who pointed out that the necessary and immediate effect of the adoption of this Amendment would be that employers or master adventurers, or whatever the House might be pleased to call them, would immediately use their influence to compel men to adopt the system of joint adventures, which would relieve the master adventurer of all liability—rather than the original contract of service. He was not competent to discuss the legal question which had been raised, whether the case described in the Amendment was a contract of service or a joint adventure. He looked rather to the sub- stance, and thought that most Members of the House would be inclined to consider the matter not from the point of view of legal technicality, but from the point of view of the substance at stake. These fishermen, in regard to income, were very much in the same position as other workmen in the country. As a rule, their receipts from the profits of their industry were not at all greater than those of other workmen. Therefore their were no better off in cases of injury, and disaster, and death, and those dependent upon them would not be better able to bear the loss of their relatives. They were entitled, in his opinion, to the same attention from the House as any other class of men obtained. What was the position of the employer or the master adventurer? Whether he paid the men wholly or partly according to the profits of the adventure, he took as large a proportion of the profits year after year as if he employed the men under the ordinary contract of service and at the ordinary rate of wages of labour. He contended, therefore, that the men were in a position requiring protection, and the employer, in his judgment, as a general rule, was as well able to stand the liability imposed by this Bill as was any other employer. The proposal in the Amendment was, that these men should not have the right I of action against the employer for liability in respect of any accident or disaster caused by the act of any person in the same employment. Who was the other person of whom they were all thinking? He imagined it was the skipper, who was appointed by the employer or owner without consulting the men, as that appointment was in the solo discretion of the employer. The skipper having been appointed, he then collected the crew, so, therefore, directly the competence of the captain, and indirectly the competence of the crew, were dealt with by the owner. If the boat were wrecked, or a disaster caused by the neglect or incompetence of the skipper who was appointed by the owner, then, he would ask, why should these men, whose lives were dependent upon the competence of the skipper, be denied the same protection given to every other workman? He thought it was clear that they would do a great injustice to a large body of workmen who were as ill able to bear injustice as any other class if they were to deprive the employer of responsibility for liability, and he would suggest, therefore, to the Home Secretary that the question was not closed, and that the observations which had been made by hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Bodmin, were deserving of serious consideration.

SIR J. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

said, the great object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to enable every industry to be carried oil with the greatest care; and if there was one industry which more than another was risky and required the material necessary to carry it on to be of the very best quality that could be devised, it was the fishing industry. He thought that if Parliament were to exempt the owners of fishing vessels from the same liability that all other employers were subject to, they would be inflicting a very great injury upon a large number of fishermen. If the Amendment were adopted, he believed it would lead to contracting out of the Act. All our fishing was not carried on by small fishing boats. There were a large number of trawlers which employed seven, eight, and sometimes as many as ten, men. By this Amendment these trawlers would come under the designation of fishing vessels, and, by giving each man on board these vessels a small interest in the take, the owners would be able practically to exempt themselves from any liability whatever. It would not be such a hardship as some hon. Members thought, even to those small fishermen, if they were left within the Act. It was a simple matter for them to insure themselves against any risk. He failed to see why small employers in fishing villages could not, by a small insurance, cover the risks they had to run under the Bill. He was, for the reasons he had stated, opposed to the Amendment.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeek)

said, he had listened carefully to the course of the Debate. He had not been able to follow it as a lawyer, but he had attended to it very closely as a layman, and he had heard nothing which would lead him to change his opinion or to alter the advice he had respectfully tendered to the Home Secretary—that in accepting an Amendment of this character the Government would inevitably land themselves in a great difficulty. He was interested in this ques- tion from the workman's point of view, and he wanted to know what would be the effect on workmen engaged in the trawling service if this Amendment wore accepted? They had, to a considerable extent, by means of Labour Organisations and the expression of public opinion, reduced the practice of joint ownership and joint adventureship in the trawling industry. They had been hoping to still further reduce it, because it was attended with great hardship and injustice at times to workmen. He agreed with those hon. Members who said that if this Amendment were accepted the effect of it would be to lead, in numerous instances, to an evasion of the Act, and to evasion particularly of the principle which prohibited contracting out. What would be the position, say, of a workman engaged in the trawling service? The owner of the vessel was quite capable of making a calculation, based on past years' services, as to the amount of profit he was to get out of the trade, and to fix a. rate of percentage of the proceeds which would enable him to take a fair or average share, such as he had been getting for the past three or four years, and then to hand over the vessel to a skipper and a number of workmen, who would receive no wages, but would be interested in a proportion of the profits. He ventured to submit to the Home Secretary that in such a case the principle of not contracting out of the Act would be successfully evaded by such a procedure as that, and he very much feared that that would be the effect if the Government accepted this Amendment and incorporated it in the Bill.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

suggested, as a solution of the difficulty, that they should make all the joint adventurers in a vessel—including both the owners and crew—liable to compensate any person who was injured by an accident.

MR. HARTLEY (Islington, N.)

desired to know why this exemption should be limited to fishermen? There were many small employers of labour in his constituency who would be glad if some arrangement could be made by which contracting out would be allowed. There could be no possible logic, however, in departing from the general principle of the Bill in favour of one particular industry. He agreed there should be ex- ceptions made, but if it were made in this particular industry he claimed that all small contractors in other parts of the Kingdom should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. It was a common thing for a man to take a small job and work at it himself along with two or three mates on the profit-sharing system. Such a system was attended with excellent results, and should be encouraged, but he was afraid that the Bill as it stood would tend rather to discourage it. He, therefore, urged that if au exception was to be made in favour of the fishing industry it should also be extended to other industries which were very much on the same lines.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

, as the Representative of au important fishing community, must express his regret that the Member for the Wansbeck Division had thought fit to declare himself so strongly against the system of profit-sharing. He thought it would be generally admitted there was no less objectionable avenue through which men could, in the course of time, convert themselves into masters and capitalists than in the fishing industry by the profit-sharing system. He hoped this profit-sharing system would be found a means of averting some of these unfortunate labour controversies which were so pressing at the present time, but he trusted this was not the reason why the system was condemned. He noticed that the profit-sharing and sliding-scale systems were very generally condemned by those who appeared, unfortunately, to impress their opinions upon a considerable section of the working classes. As to this system, as applying to the fishing trade, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been twitted with having adopted in respect of the fishing trade a system which he had declined to adopt in other trades of importance in this country. It was not his part to undertake any defence of the Government, although the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps somewhat hardly treated in being subjected to criticism of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his readiness to accept this Amendment, which would be a great boon to the class to which it was offered, and he hoped, before this measure became law, any inconsistency which this provision might apparently have on the face of it towards other provisions might be removed.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)

observed that a certain number of the Western Highlanders who were engaged in joint fishing operations were occasionally employed in the herring fishing for a few weeks at a time, and were in the position of paid servants. Under the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bute these Western Highlanders would not be entitled to the advantages of this Act.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

Yes they would. They would not then be joint adventurers.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said, if that were so, then there could be no objection to the acceptance of the Amendment.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

hoped the Government would consider, before they accepted the Amendment in the present form, and see whether it did not require qualification. He thought the speech of the right hon. Member for Thanet, if anything else had been wanted, tended to show that Amendments of this description might be used for escaping the liability imposed by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman accused the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of being against profit-sharing. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his data for such an accusation. He did not think that the Home Secretary had any intention of exempting every person from the scope of the Bill who adopted any such system. He supposed the right hon. Member for Thanet must, be aware there were many large firms throughout the country that were trying the principle of profit-sharing, which might be good or otherwise, but who must come within the purview of this Bill, and who were responsible for any accidents that might happen to their workmen. He would earnestly ask the Government, before they accepted any Amendment of this kind, to see that it was most carefully guarded in its terms, for otherwise employers might be enabled to escape responsibility under the Bill.

* MR. MATTHEWS (Birmingham, E.)

had listened with great interest to this Debate, which had brought out very clearly that there were very serious difficulties in either accepting or rejecting the Amendment. If he thought the Amendment would enable small owners to get out of the Bill he and his hon. Friends should vote against it. It would be most unfair that merely because a man happened to be a small employer of labour those who worked under him should be exposed to risks, and that the employer should be relieved from liability from which the large employers of labour were not exempt. But he did not understand that to be the object of the Amendment or of the Government. He understood that the object of the Amendment and of the Government was to deal with the case of partnership in which persons were associated as joint workers in any adventure. In that view he agreed. There was a distinction between the case of one man employing 11 others and of 12 men agreeing to work together with a common object. Having no fishermen in his constituency, he was able to point out that it was an indefensible position to take up to confine the exemption to that class. Joint adventures were not unknown on land, and in Staffordshire among miners they used to be by no means uncommon. He was told that in Ireland it was no unusual thing for men to enter upon a joint adventure in respect of the produce of a field; in wheat, for instance, which was got in in common by a set of men who were practically partners. If the idea of the Government was that they did not mean the word "workman" to apply to one of a set of common adventurers, surely that principle ought not to be confined merely to the case that happened to have been brought before the House. He suggested that the logical outcome of the Debate was that the word "workman" ought to be modified in the clause so as to include cases in which there was a contract of service with the employer, but not to cover cases of joint adventure. That would carry out the view of the Government.

* MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said, he had been listening very carefully to this Debate, and, so far as he could gather, Members representing fishing constituencies had been listening to the voices of boat-owners rather than of their crews. Their contention seemed to be that the crews were to be deprived of the protection which was afforded to other workmen because fishermen were paid on the profit-sharing system. He considered this Amendment would be to the benefit of boat-owners and not of fishermen. His own constituency sent a great many agricultural labourers to the fishing, and he did not see why these men, who served in the herring boats, and who were employed almost entirely on the profit-sharing system, should be excluded from the protection supposed to be conferred on workmen's lives and limbs by this Bill. The fishermen desired and ought to be put on an equality with the other classes of workmen. It would be his duty to vote against exempting any classes of workmen from the benefit of the Act.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, this Amendment would be attended with rather startling results. As had been pointed out already, it would apply to the case of trawlers. It would also apply to whalers, and to sealing schooners in the North Pacific. In these cases the men were generally joint adventurers. Was it in the contention of the Government that deep-sea whalers, from some astonishing reason, should be exempt from the operations of this Act while any other ship which went to the Arctic or Antarctic seas for other purposes was not so to escape? Would it be in the power of the owner of a fishing vessel of any sort to say to a man, "You shall not enter into this fishing vessel except on the terms of coming in as a joint adventurer, so as to contract yourself out of the Act." He should like to know what would that be except introducing the power of contracting out in regard to this one particular industry? He and his friends were entirely in favour of the power of contracting out of the Act in all industries alike; but that was not the view of the Government. He altogether objected, by a side wind, to the power for the employers, great or small, in one particular industry, to contract out of the effects of the Act without necessarily any greater benefit to the workmen at all than they would receive in the normal course of affairs at the ordinary rate of wages. The Amendment, if adopted, would be likely to be a great mischief in the fishing industry.

MR. J. BURNS (Battersea)

said, there was one thing which seemed to have been forgotten, which was that fishing was already a very dangerous trade, and more dangerous, in his opinion, than it ought to be. Hon. Members also seemed to have forgotten the social motive underlying this particular Bill, and they seemed to forget the common object, and the humanitarian principle which ought to guide them in every line and word of the Bill. He would go further, and say that even if it were possible for co-adventurers or any men in the whaling or fishing industry to arrange, by any form, to undergo risks for temporary personal profit, but which, if unsuccessful, imposed upon the community a great cost in the maintenance of their dependents when the risk and adventure had been unsuccessful, that they ought not to consider these men even if their interests at the moment seemed to deserve consideration. The object of the Bill was the prevention of accidents, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Government, because if it were the prevention of accidents in the fishing industry would be entirely lost sight of. He would point out that these co-partnerships only applied to the catching of fish and not to the vessel or tackle, and if this Amendment were passed it would mean inefficient tackle and equipment of the vessel and increased risk.

MR. HUNTER

observed that what had been stated by several previous speakers in opposing the Amendment was entirely contrary to his experience, and he now supported the Amendment at the unanimous instance of the fishermen of his constituency. In this Debate many hon. Members had spoken of fishermen as "workmen." There was not a fisherman in Aberdeen who would not repudiate the word. A fisherman was not a workman; he was a fisherman, and the relation of employer and employed did not exist in regard to the class of persons at whom the Amendment was directed. In many cases, undoubtedly, there were contracts of service, as in the case of trawlers. Amongst trawlers certainly there existed the relations of employer and employed, and as trawling was carried on at the present time the servants in trawling vessels would come under the Bill. But he had also in his mind a totally distinct class where two or three men joined together in an adven- ture, and no human being with the slightest respect to language could contend that the relation between employer and employed was interfered with by the Bill.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

denied that those who supported this Amendment were speaking in the interests of the shipowners, and declared that the fishermen themselves were desirous of being allowed to continue this profit-sharing system—this adventureship. In Suffolk there were a great many men who, during a great part of the year, laboured on the land and then went for a short time to sea. What was it drew them to the sea? The gambling chance of making a good catch and coming home with a hatful of money. They who were supporting this proposal were doing so not in the interest of the employer, but in the interest of fishermen. Moreover, in the case they had in view, it was very difficult to say who the owner was. The skipper of the craft, as a rule, was a man who himself was just above the fisherman class who, having saved a little money, and borrowed a little more, bought a vessel, and got three or four men who went to see with him on the sharing principle. That was the only way in which they could get men for this industry, and if the men were not allowed to enjoy this freedom, which they desired, the industry would be seriously injured, if not put an end to.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 130.—(Division List, No. 317.)

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

proposed the following Amendment, which he explained was to give full effect to the sub-contracting clause:— In Clause 7, page 3, line 19, after the word "unincorporate," to insert the words "and also any person against whom a right of action is given to a workman by this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick) moved, in page 3, line 20, after "employer," insert "so far as they benefit by their succession to him." He said the clause, as it stood, rendered the representatives of deceased persons liable, and he thought it was reasonable such persons should only be held to be so in so far as they might benefit by the succession. He begged accordingly to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 20, after the word "employer," to insert the words "so far as they benefit by their succession to him."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,) Clackmannan, &c.

said, the words proposed were not necessary, and the Government could not accept them.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he would not move the Amendment standing next on the Paper, which was in his name, and which proposed to leave out Section 3 of Clause 7.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Cayzer), in whose name it stood, he begged to move the next Amendment, which was as follows:— In page 3, line 21, to leave out the words "seagoing vessel not propelled by oars," and insert the words "every description of vessel or boat.

MR. ASQUITH

said, the Government accepted this Amendment, because it extended the scope of the Bill. He thought the words "vessel or boat" should suffice. The words "every description of" were unnecessary.

Question, "That the words 'vessel or boat,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. HARRY FOSTER

said, the next Amendment standing in his name read as follows:— Clause 7, page 3, line 22, after "oars," insert "but does not include sailing vessels engaged in the fishing trade. He said, this Amendment would go a great deal further than that which had been discussed; but be knew it would be unacceptable to the Government. He was bound to say that many of the arguments that had been used upon the recent Amendment might be adduced in support of this one also. The fishing industry was carried on by a system of joint adventure, as they knew; but he was not going to urge reasons, as he quite realised that a large majority of the House had refused to exempt any specia class, and, after the concession made by the Government this afternoon, it would be unhandsome of him to go further in argument for the purposes of this Amendment. He did not, therefore, propose to move the Amendment.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the following Amendment stood in his name:—— Clause 7, page 3, line 26, after "his death," add—"(5) The expression 'reasonable time' means such time not exceeding twenty-four hours as the Judge at the trial shall consider reasonable. He did not, however, propose to move it.

SIR F. H. EVANS (Southampton)

said, he had tin; following Amendment on the Paper:— Clause 7, page 3, line 26, at end, add—"Any action for compensation under this Act for an injury sustained by any workman employed on board a British ship in the course of his employment shall not be maintainable against the employer unless notice that injury has been sustained is given to the employers within three months, or is lodged within one month of arrival of workman claiming compensation at any Foreign port or place where a British Consul or Vice Consul is resident with such Consul or Vice Consul. He had put down this Amendment to meet the views of certain shipowners; but he found that he could not have solution of the question except one which would place the sailor in a more unfortunate position. In these circumstances, he would not move the Amendment.

MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper proposing, in Clause 8, page 8, line 29, to leave out "A" in order to insert "(1)." The hon. Member was understood to say he would not move the Amendment.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, before the Home Secretary moved the next Amendment on the Paper, which stood in his name, he would wish to pro pose an Amendment of which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity. The only place the "Registrar" was mentioned was in Section 6, and in that section that was a very good provision with regard to the recovery of compensation for children, and securing such compensation in a way which would prevent its being squandered. What he wished to point out now was, as the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary were aware, that there were no legal "infants" in Scotland, and that they should insert the words "or pupil." This would meet a difficulty. He begged to move accordingly.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, the Government accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ASQUITH, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 3, line 30, at end, insert "and the expression 'Registrar' shall mean Sheriff's clerk."

MR. PARKER SMITH moved— In page 3, line 32, atend, insert,—"Any action by a workman or his representatives against the workman's employer for injury caused to the workman by reason of the negligence of the employer or of any person in the service of the employer, whether brought under this Act or not, shall be brought in the Sheriff Court.

He was sorry the Amendment moved the other day relating to actions being brought to the County Court in England, and, corollary, in Scotland, was not accepted by the House; but he was now moving one which related to Scotland alone. He thought it would be found that there was a much stronger case here than in the case of England. It would be found that there was no divergence of Scotch opinion upon this matter. The feeling prevailed on both sides—among employers and employed—that these actions should be tried in the Sheriff Court. He had received that morning, for instance, a circular from the Scotch Miners' Defence and Mutual Insurance Association, which was very strongly in favour of this proposal. The great objection to jury trial was that it was so expensive, and it was generally desired that all claims of the kind should, therefore, be brought to the cheaper Court, and that they should only go to the other Courts on special cause shown. The Scotch Federation of Miners agreed with that view; and, as he had said, it was the opinion generally held in Scotland. The Sheriff Court was a much stronger Court than the County Court in England; it had larger questions brought before it than the English County Court, and the expenses were less. Yet they had had a very great abuse in Scotland, as many cases which should have been tried in the Sheriff Court were taken to the Quarter Sessions, not for the benefit of the plaintiffs or defendants, but simply for the benefit of speculative attorneys. According to a Return obtained last year, in four years, out of 711 cases in the County Courts in England, only 27 were taken up to the higher Court. In Scotland, however, out of 676 cases, 180 were taken to the Quarter Sessions. In Glasgow alone, they had 115 out of 521 taken up. He regarded that as a system of blackmailing. There was a class of solicitor disposed to advise an action, even though the expense might run to £100, on the strength of the idea that the employer would pay £50 rather than face the situation in Court. That was an abuse of the law. No one would be found to say a word in favour of it. He hoped the Government would accept this Amendment, for it seemed to him that the clause as it stood was seriously at fault in not dealing with this abuse. They were rather opening a wide door by saying that action might, not should, be taken in the Sheriff Court, leaving the right to take action in the higher Court. He had letters from Labour Societies in Scotland, and he had also pamphlets which had been written on this subject, but he did not think it should be necessary to quote the opinions of these gentlemen, because he did not think it would be denied that it was a fact these opinions prevailed. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 32, at end, insert,—"Any action by a workman or his representatives against the workman's employer for injury caused to the workman by reason of the negligence of the employer or of any person in the service of the employer, whether brought under this Act or not, shall be brought in the Sheriff Court."—(Mr. Parker Smith)

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

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment, and he rose to say so because he thought a good many of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parker Smith) were based upon misconception of what had happened. At first, one would suppose that there should be no difference in the treatment of Scotland and England in this matter, and it was certainly the case that, as the Bill stood, actions in the Supreme Court were not entirely excluded in England. He thought it lay with those who had litigation going to the Supreme Court to show cause for its exclusion. There might be actions in which matters of opinion would arise which it would be desirable to have decided by the Supreme Court. The hon. Member dealt with grievances without exactly understanding what those grievances were. There could be no doubt that during the last few years there had been a great anomaly and grievance in connection with these actions. They had their origin in this—that there was a provision in an Act of 1825 which had escaped attention when the last Act was passing through Parliament, and the result was to make it possible in each and every case to go to the Quarter Sessions if the litigant wished for a jury, and they were to remember that at that time it was not possible to have a jury in the Sheriff Courts. So that it was in the power of the litigants to ask for an adjournment or transfer of a case to the Quarter Sessions. That was an abuse, and it was found that speculative actions were taken. But they were going to put an end to that abuse by subsequent provisions in this Bill, and it would be no longer possible to take these actions from the Sheriff Court to the Quarter Sessions without consulting that tribunal, and there would not be the same incentive, because jury trial at the Sheriff Courts would be a recognised fact. He would ask the hon. Member to recollect that already there was provision in the law which prevented actions at Quarter Sessions if the action was for an inconsiderable amount. It was impossible to escape that provision of the Common Law. But in dealing with this they ought not to deal with it by excluding all actions in the Supreme Court; they should deal with that in the same way as the hon. Member himself proposed in an Amendment which he bad on the Paper, providing that whore the amount was small, say £25, then the Judge might decide whether the action should have been brought in the Sheriff Court, and to give effect to that finding in matter of expenses. That was the proper way of dealing with any form of abuse. That was the position. He wished to enter his humble protest against one remark of the hon. Member. He said, in comparing the Sheriff Court and the English County Court, that the Sheriff Court was stronger than the other. He took leave to deny that. The hon. Member then went on to say that the Sheriff Court had larger experience in dealing with matters of this kind. In that he went too far. And he added that the expenses were less in the Superior Courts in England than in Scotland. He (Mr. Murray) humbly protested against that. It was evident the hon. Member had been misled by the pamphlet which he held in his hand. From his (Mr. Murray's) experience, he had no hesitation in saying generally that the costs of litigation in the Supreme Courts of Scotland was less than in England, for, without going into the delicate question of counsels' fees, there were not so many delays—cases were fixed for a certain day and disposed of, instead of having, as in England, a system of waiting from day to day with its attendant expense of witnesses. Besides, there were certain cases in which the right of jurisdiction arose, and it would be a great advantage to have the power of going before the Supreme Court in order to find jurisdiction, which it would not always be possible to do in the Sheriff Court. His point was that the grievance and abuse were met by the clauses following this one, and it was not necessary to resort to heroic remedies to exclude from the Supreme Court when the matter could be dealt with by a Judge on the question of expenses.

MR. HARRY SMITH

said, the Amendment was one which he hoped would meet with acceptance. The hon. Member for Buteshire thought it might be inconvenient if the actions involved enormous sums, and that it might be desirable to have in such cases the higher scale of the Quarter Sessions; but that was met by the provisions in the Bill at page 5, Sub-section 3, where it was provided that if a man's claim exceeded £300, it would be lawful for the Sheriff to order the cause to be removed to the Quarter Sessions. Therefore, there was no danger of a cause being brought into the Sheriff Court if it was one that ought to be tried in the Quarter Sessions Court. Both hon. Gentlemen who had spoken would agree that the Sheriffs were men who were not likely to overlook the considerations that would be brought before them. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

said, he joined in the appeal that had been made to the Government, for the adoption of this Amendment, and he did so with all the more reason because the whole of this clause was introduced by him in the Committee, and this was the only point in which any change was made. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Bute that the Amendment provided a heroic remedy. It had been the law of the land for England and Scotland for three years in connection with the County and Sheriff Courts. The alteration now was in reference to allowing the actions to go to the Quarter Sessions. There might be reasons in England, but there was no reason in Scotland. The Sheriff Court was one of unlimited jurisdiction, and it was perfectly competent to deal with the questions that might be raised. It had criminal jurisdiction, and dealt with jury cases every day—cases affecting accidents and other matters coming under this Bill. There was no doubt, unless his information was very erroneous, that employers and employed in Scotland were unanimous upon this question. He had not heard a whisper of complaint against the proposal contained in the Amendment, but he had heard complaint from both sides with regard to cases going to Quarter Sessions. Both sides were anxious that the trials should be confined to the Sheriff Court. There were means of taking any cases of the kind indicated by the Member for Bute to Quarter Sessions if that should be found necessary. If the Government adhered to the Bill as it now stood they would only continue to impose a great, and a very unjust, inconvenience on the people of the country.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, that the Government proposed to accept this Amendment, and after what had been said he need only deal shortly with one or two points. It was true that in Grand Committee procedure clauses for Scotland were amended so as to be similar to those for England—that was to say, giving an option or choice to the pursuer of the Court in which the action should be tried. But since that time there had been clear and unequivocal evidence of a concurrent desire on the part both of employers and employed in Scotland that they should he limited as regards the initiation of such suits to the Sheriff Court. It might be asked: Why should the workmen desire such a restriction upon themselves and their representatives? The answer which had been forthcoming would commend itself to all Scottish Members. It was that, while, apparently, the option would be left to the workman or his representatives, it would actually be exercised for them by others. In other words, where a workman had received an injury, then, according to the information he (the Lord Advocate) had received, it was a very common thing that, within a few hours of the accident having been announced in the newspapers, lawyers of a certain class went to the man's house and offered their services, or perhaps it would be more correct to say, asked to be allowed to take up his case. Those who represented the workmen told them that sometimes these people did not have the interest of the injured man at heart, and did not consider where the ease might be most cheaply and expeditiously tried, and that really the option on selection was not exercised by the workmen but by these legal advisers, not in the workmen's interest, but in their own. He might add, however, that there might be claims for very large sums occasionally made, and there might be cases of great difficulty that it would be more appropriate to try in the Supreme Court. When cases of that kind arose, they were amply provided for by subsequent clauses, which specified how they might be removed to the Supreme Court upon special cause shown. As to the qualifications and powers of the English County Courts as compared with those of the Sheriff Courts, he was in a position to say that the latter were very competent tribunals, and that they had a larger jurisdiction in money claims than the English County Courts; and, furthermore, as they had had for a very longtime trial by jury in criminal cases in the Sheriff Courts, although not in civil cases, the Sheriffs were not unaccustomed to deal with juries. Almost the only remaining objection which had been taken was of a more technical nature. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Graham Murray) said it would sometimes be easier to found jurisdiction in the Supreme Court by methods known in Scotland than to found it in the Sheriff Courts. He (the Lord Advocate) did not share the opinion that that would be so. In fact, in cases of this class, the employer and the workman would be in the same jurisdiction generally; but if difficulty did arise there was provision for founding jurisdiction in the Sheriff Court as well as in the Supreme Court.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked if they were to understand that, even if the amount claimed was above £300, the hearing could not be transferred? That was to say, that the mere amount would not be a ground for transferring to the Supreme Court.

* MR.J. B. BALFOUR

said, that what the right hon. Gentleman stated was quite correct. But there was an Amendment which the Government proposed to accept which would place recourse to the Scottish Supreme Court in precisely the same position as recourse to the English Supreme Court. He did not say that the Sheriff, exercising discretionary powers, would wholly disregard the question of amount as well as of any difficulty involved in the case; but when they had to deal with causes between employer and workman, he did not think the amounts would usually be very large, and certainly not larger than the amounts the Sheriffs were constantly dealing with in other cases. Perhaps he might read the Amendment— When the amount claimed exceeds £800, it should be lawful for the Court of Session to remove it. It would not be imperative. It would be "lawful," and no doubt cause would require to be shown. If the Court of Session said there was no difficulty, no complexity about the case, then they would not consider that the mere amount claimed would be a reason for transferring it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that it might be out of Order to pursue more closely a discussion on an Amendment not yet reached, and he would say nothing more except to observe that when the Lord Advocate told them that under the existing system of Sheriff Courts in Scotland claims of any amount might be tried, that that was true. But it was also true that there could be an appeal to the Court of Session. Under this Act, however, after trial before a jury, there would be no appeal. Therefore there was no analogy between the two.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Might I supplement my statement upon cause "shown"?

* MR. SPEAKER

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has already spoken more than once.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that what had just happened showed one of the inconveniences of dealing with this Bill on the Report stage. He would simply say that the Bill made a distinction between England and Scotland founded upon two grounds, as stated by the Lord Advocate, both of which were rather disparaging to their part of the country. One was that Scottish lawyers were so much more effective sharks than even the English ones, that they successfully preyed on the unfortunate Scottish workmen in a manner which their English brethren never ventured to emulate. The other was, that the Scottish workman was so much weaker than his English brother that he fell an inevitable and easy prey to the machinations of these legal gentlemen. If it was the case that it was for these reasons principally they required to extend special protection to the Scottish workman, lest he should lose the benefit of the Act by the amount recovered going into the pockets of his legal advisers, he scarcely thought it would be desirable to vote against the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, he wished to move an Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. Friend (Sir C. Pearson) to give power to the Sheriff to have a jury for the trial of claims of £40 and upwards instead of £50 and upwards, as proposed by the clause. This was the first of a series of Amendments suggested by the Sheriffs of Scotland after consultation.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 8, page 3, line 34, to leave out the word "fifty," and insert the word "forty."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 3, line 37, to leave out from the word "after," In the word "lodge," in line 38, and insert the words "the record has been closed."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, the next Amendment was one securing greater promptitude in the disposal of cases in the Sheriff Courts.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 3, line 43, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "determine," in page 4, line 1.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HARRY SMITH (Falkirk, &c.)

said, he wished to move an Amendment the object of which was to make it plain that it should not be in the power of the Sheriff to deny the workman the privilege of trial by jury. He contended that it was for the parties and not for the Judge to determine the tribunal which should decide the amount of damages to be given. It seemed to him also that there should be no appeal with regard to the amount of damages awarded. If they allowed the Sheriff to say that he would not be guided by the verdict of the jury, but would determine the amount for himself, they would inevitably create, first, an appeal from the Sheriff Substitute to the Sheriff Principal, and next an appeal to the Court of Session.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 4, line 1, to leave out from the word "determine," to the word "whether," in line 6.—(Mr. Harry Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. There was no reason why the procedure in these cases should be made different from the procedure in every Court in Scotland. The practice in the Court of Session was this: There were certain cases known as appropriate to be tried by jury, and damages for personal injury was undoubtedly one. Therefore such litigants could claim as a right, to begin with, that these causes should be tried by a jury, and this Bill followed that so far. But it had always been in the power of a Judge, if he thought that for a special reason it was inappropriate to have the case tried by a jury, to say that it should be tried by a Judge. But there would be special reasons. If it were a case where electrical science and machinery were concerned, no more hope- less tribunal than an ordinary jury could be selected. In other cases, the subject might have become so much public property through the newspapers that it would be difficult to get an unprejudiced set of men to try them.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute had submitted an argument which, although very plausible, was really quite fallacious. He said if they gave an absolute right in the case they would be departing from the existing rule in jury trials in the Court of Session. The real difference was that the Court of Session was one Court, and followed one uniform practice, whereas the Sheriff Courts were extremely numerous, and it was in the highest degree probable that they would have Sheriffs in one district of the country who would always allow a jury trial, while Sheriffs in other districts would practically never allow jury trials. There was no appeal in the Bill. Therefore the evil would be practically irremediable. He did not agree that there were many, if any, cases under the Employers' Liability Act that were likely to be unsuitable for jury trials; and he thought a jury was just as likely to come to a right decision as many a Judge sitting by himself.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

accepted the Amendment on behalf of the Government. There was a great deal of force in what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire that, unless the Amendment were adopted, there would be a great variation in the practice in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland. If there was practically a right to demand a jury trial on the part of workmen, it would be unfortunate if there was a liability to have that right taken away.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY moved to omit from line 6 of Clause 8 the word "whether," in order to insert "that," and also to omit the words "or without." The object of the Amendment was to take away from the Sheriff the power of trying cases without issue. They had had for a long time in the Court of Session the power of disposing of issue, but they very rarely availed of it. Personally, he had been in one trial only in which that course had been taken, and he was sure the experience of the Lord Advocate was somewhat similar. Every one who had experience of juries would agree that it was very important that there should be an issue, in order that the jury might have before them the precise point at issue.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 6, to leave out the word "whether," and insert the word "that."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, the Government had given the Amendment their consideration, and they hardly thought there was sufficient reason for restricting the Sheriff to trial by issues. Very many of these cases, so far as statement was concerned, would be extremely short and simple, and, by dispensing with issues, where this was considered practicable, they would save a stage and a considerable amount of expense. The Government, therefore, proposed to leave the matter to the discretion of the Sheriff.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARKER SMITH moved, in Clause 8, page 4, line 16, to leave out "eight" in order to insert "five," his object being to reduce the number of the jury from 12 to 7. As the clause stood, it provided that the jury should consist of eight common and four special jurors. His proposal was to reduce the number to five common and two special jurors, making seven altogether. This proposal had been put forward by various bodies, and in particular by the Glasgow Faculty of Procurators in the very careful Report they had made on the Bill. The House had already decided that five jurors was a proper number for England, and he thought they could hardly refuse to reduce the number from 12 to 7 in the case of Scotland. His proposal would reduce the expense, because while in England five jurors only got 5s. amongst them, in Scotland the 12 jurors got 5s. each, so that there would be £3 for jurors in each case, an expense which the case would not always bear. In introducing the system of juries in civil cases in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, he thought they might very well imitate the system of smaller juries, which had been found successful in the English County Courts.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 8, page 4, line 16, to leave out the word "eight," and insert the word "five."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Bill."

MR. D. CRAWFORD

said he had received a very strong protest from working men against the reduction of the number of the jury. They thought that, in questions such as theirs they would get a better jury if the number was 12 than if it was a smaller number. He felt unable in their name to assent to the Amendment.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. He did not see, though the hon. Member for Lanarkshire might have received one or two representations against the reduction of the jury, that that put him in a position to judge of the opinion of workmen throughout Scotland on the subject. The system of a small jury had worked well in the English County Courts, and he did not see why it should not also work well in Scotland. The Amendment had the support of the Sheriff-Principals of Scotland. When they had imposed these grave liabilities upon employers, surely the least they could do was to take the best steps in their power to insure that the tribunal should give justice between the pursuer and defender. He thought it would be a great deal better to have a few men on the jury who would really give their best attention to the case, than to have a large jury, who very often left the case to the practical determination of one or two of their number. There was also the argument in favour of reducing the burden of attendance; and, further, there was the question of the capacity and intelligence of juries. He did not wish to say anything offensive about England, but he thought he was entitled, as a Scotchman, to say that although they might get an acute intelligence in the Metropolitan area, certainly the small tradesmen and small farmers, who were the staple element of juries in Scotland, were harderheaded fellows than the same class were likely to be in England. [Laughter and cries of "No, no!] That was a matter of opinion, for which he was sure he would find a certain amount of support. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] What they wanted was a tribunal of men who were to do justice between man and man, and not a sort of public meeting to whom they might make a speech.

MR. HUNTER

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. There was nothing sacred in the number of 12. There were two classes of men in Scotland who would rejoice if that Amendment was accepted—namely, the Sheriff Clerks, who were responsible for securing the attendance of jurors, and the litigants, who would be saved expense.

MR. ASQUTTH

said that, in the triple character of an Englishman, a Scotch Representative, and the Minister in charge of this Bill, he should feel great embarrassment if he thought it necessary to follow the hon. Gentleman into his comparison between the relative merits of English and Scotch juries. He had promised to keep an open mind on the subject of the Amendment as regarded Scotland; and, having listened to the discussion, he had come distinctly to the conclusion that the smaller number was the more suitable. He, therefore, accepted the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY moved in Clause 8, page 4, line 24, to leave out "five" and insert "ten." In the Bill as it stood the jury got 5s. and expenses, which had to be paid by the agent of the losing side. He thought it would be more effective to stick to the old practice—that was, to pay 10s. and let the jurors find their own expenses.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 23, to leave out the word "five" and insert the word "ten."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, the Government intended to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lanark, which stood lower down on the Paper, to amend Sub-section G of Clause 8 by leaving out the words— And travelling expenses to be paid in the same manner as the remuneration of jurors in civil cases in the Court of Session, and inserting the words— Such remuneration shall be paid in Court immediately on the delivery of the verdict by the losing party's agent, who shall be personally responsible therefor.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I beg to move the omission of all the words from "them," in line 24, to the end of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, to leave out all the words after "them," to the end of the sub-section.—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the subsection," put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. D. CRAWFORD, the following Amendment was made:— Page 4, line 24, leave out from "expenses," to end of sub-section, and insert "Such remuneration shall be paid in Court immediately on the delivery of the verdict by the losing party's agent, who shall be personally responsible therefor.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

I now propose to move the omission of Subsection (h), and to substitute for it other sub-sections which appear among the Amendments on the Paper. The object is simply to introduce certain clauses of the Court of Session Act, so as to provide a Code for the Sheriff Court. (They have been drawn up in consultation with the Sheriffs.)

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (h) Clause 8, in order to insert the words— (h.) It shall be competent to apply for a new trial within 10 days from the date of the verdict, and the application shall be made by minute lodged with the Sheriff Clerk, stating shortly the ground or grounds on which a new trial is sought; When the case has been tried by the Sheriff Substitute the application for a new trial may be addressed either to the Sheriff Principal (whose decision may be appealed within 10 days to the Court of Session as if it were an interlocutor disposing of the merits, but, if not so appealed, shall be final) or to either division of the Court of Session; and when the case has been tried by the Sheriff Principal the application shall be addressed to either division of the Court of Session; On receiving an application for a new trial addressed to either division of the Court of Session the Sheriff Clerk shall forthwith transmit the process to such division in the manner in which processes are in use to be transmitted in ordinary appeals against judgments disposing of the merits; It shall not be competent to except to the charge of the presiding Sheriff, but any question of law arising upon the evidence may be stated and argued under an application for a new trial; and when such application is made the Sheriff who presided at the trial shall be bound, with as little delay as possible, to hand to the Sheriff Clerk a note of the direction or directions in law which he gave to the jury, and such note shall form part of the process; A verdict may be set aside on any ground on which it is competent to set aside a verdict in the Court of Session according to the existing law and practice; provided that a new trial shall not be granted on the ground of erroneous or defective direction, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or of irregularity in the procedure at the trial, if in the opinion of the Court no substantial wrong or miscarriage has been thereby occasioned; and when a new trial is ordered by the Court of Session it may be ordered to proceed either in that Court or in the Sheriff Court; (i.) Where the parties consent, the evidence at a jury trial in the Sheriff Court may be taken down by a shorthand writer, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Sheriff Court, and the extended notes of the shorthand writer, as certified by him, may be substituted for the Sheriff's notes of evidence for all purposes."—(Mr. Graham Murray)

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

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Subject to some slight alterations, of which my hon. Friend is aware, I will accept the sub-sections, but those standing in the name of the hon. Member for North East Lanark will, I think, better meet the case.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

I will withdraw my proposal in favour of that of the hon. Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

I beg to move— Clause 8, page 4, line 27, leave out Subsection (h), and insert,—"(h.) It shall be competent to apply for a new trial within 10 days from the date of the verdict, and the application shall be made by minute lodged with the Sheriff Clerk, stating shortly the ground or grounds on which a new trial is sought; When the case has been tried by the Sheriff Substitute, the application for a new trial may be addressed either to the Sheriff Principal (whose decision shall be final) or to either division of the Court of Session; and when the case has been tried by the Sheriff Principal the application shall be addressed to either division of the Court of Session; On receiving an application for a new trial addressed to either division of the Court of Session the Sheriff Clerk shall forthwith transmit the process to such division in the manner in which processes are in use to be transmitted in ordinary appeals against judgments disposing of the merits; It shall not be competent to except to the charge of the presiding Sheriff, but any question of law arising upon the evidence may be stated and argued under an application for a new trial; and when such application is made the Sheriff who presided at the trial shall be bound, with as little delay as possible, to hand to the Sheriff Clerk a note of the direction or directions in law which he gave to the jury, and such note shall form part of the process; A verdict may be set aside on any ground on which it is competent to set aside a verdict in the Court of Session according to the existing law and practice; provided that a new trial shall not be granted on the ground of erroneous or defective direction, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or of irregularity in the procedure at the trial, if in the opinion of the Court no substantial wrong or miscarriage has been thereby occasioned; and when a new trial is ordered by the Court of Session it may be ordered to proceed cither in that Court or in the Sheriff Court; (i) Where the parties consent, the evidence at a jury trial in the Sheriff Court may betaken down by a shorthand writer, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Sheriff Court, and the extended notes of the shorthand writer, as certified by him, may be substituted for the Sheriff's notes of evidence for all purposes."—(Mr. D. Crawford)

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

Further Amendments proposed— In line 6, leave out from "principal," to "or," in line 9. In line 15, after "merits," insert,—"Provided always, that when the application is made to the Sheriff Principal it shall be competent to the respondent in such application to intimate that he insists upon such application being disposed of by the Court of Session; and, upon such intimation being made, the process shall be transmitted as aforesaid, together with the said application, which shall then be disposed of by the Court of Session."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

* MR. SPEAKER

This sub-section cannot now be amended; it has been adopted in its entirety.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

Then I move the words as a new sub-section.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sub-section added to the Bill.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, he had to move the addition of Sub-section (j), which stood on the Paper. When a case came before the Committee on a preliminary point, which, however, represented the whole merits of the action, it was desirable to allow the Judge the power to dispose of the whole action in the Superior Court.

Amendment proposed, that the following sub-section be added to the clause:— (j.) In any action of the nature specified in Sub-section (a), where the sum concluded for exceeds twenty-five pounds, the Sheriff Sub- stitute, or the Sheriff, if the cause has been appealed to him, may, on the motion of either party, grant leave to appeal his judgment disposing of any preliminary plea to the Court of Session, and such Court shall thereon hear parties, and may, if they see fit, remit the case to the Sheriff Court with or without amendment of the record, or may retain the case for trial in the Court of Session, or may dispose of it otherwise as may be just. Such motion for leave to appeal shall be made in writing within seven days from the date of the judgment against which appeal is sought and may be disposed of without further hearing."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, he wished next to add Sub-section (k). The object of this was to discourage speculative actions. An agent would be more careful if he knew that under certain circumstances he would be deprived of costs.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment to insert the words— (k.) Where the pursuer in an action tried by jury in a Sheriff Court has obtained a verdict for a sum not exceeding twelve pounds, he shall not be entitled to recover or obtain from the defender any expenses in respect of such verdict."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

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

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, that he sympathised with the general object of the Amendment, but thought the penalty would be too severe upon a perfectly bonâ fide plaintiff who, from special circumstances, might have obtained a small award.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

said, that in accordance with his undertaking he had to move the following Amendments:— Clause 8, page 5, line 1, Sub-section (3), leave out (a) and (b), and insert,—"Where the amount claimed exceeds three hundred pounds, it shall be lawful for the Court of Session to order the removal into that Court of any action commenced in the Sheriff Court for compensation to a workman or his representatives for personal injury to the workman by reason of the negligence of his employer or any person in his service, it the Court of Session shall deem it desirable that the action shall be tried in that Court, and upon such terms as to payment of costs, giving security or otherwise, as the Court of Session shall think fit to impose. In line 17, after "cases," insert "which have been.

Amendments agreed to.

MR. PARKER SMITH

, said the Amendment he had to propose had very much the same object as one submitted by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Graham Murray), but was not to the same objections. What he desired to secure was, that when the pursuer obtained a verdict or decree in the Court of Session for less than £25 he should not be entitled to recover from the defender any expenses, unless the Judge certified that the action was one fit to be tried in the Court of Session. It might very well happen that cases would be taken to the Court of Session when they should not be, and he thought that under his proposal very little hardship would be inflicted on plaintiffs, as the Judges and Sheriffs would probably agree with Sheriffs where the case ought to be tried, and it might often be decided that the case was one suitable for the Court of Session, whatever the ultimate result might be. The proposal was simply a precautionary measure against eases being taken unnecessarily to the Court of Session.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 8, page 5, line 18, at end, insert "(d) Where in an action by a workman or his representatives against an employer for negligence the pursuer obtains a verdict or decree in the Court of Session for an amount less than twenty-five pounds, he shall not be entitled to recover from the defender any expenses in respect of such verdict or degree, unless the Judge before whom the action is tried shall certify on the interlocutor sheet that the action was in his opinion fit to be tried in the Court of Session."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, that although the Amendment was not open to the same objection as the one proposed by the hon. Member for Buteshire he felt that it was a little too drastic, and he thought the object would be met by adding after "Verdict or decree" the words— In excess of the expenses which he would have been entitled to, if the case had been tried in the Sheriff Court.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To insert after the words "verdict or decree," the words "in excess of the expenses which he would have been entitled to if the case had been tried in the Sheriff Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, the following Amendment was made:—

Clause 8, page 5, leave out Sub-section (d.)

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

then moved the omission of Clause 10. His object was, he said, to save existing contracts and to prevent them being abrogated. The present proposal for the determination of these contracts was most unsatisfactory; it seemed as if they were all to he taken to the Tower, and have their heads summarily cut off. In many cases the workmen would have an end put to their contracts on only a week's notice. He did think that was too summary a procedure, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would modify the severity of the clause. He would gladly withdraw his proposal in favour of any modification.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 10.—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

* MR. TOMLINSON

asked the attention of the House to the actual facts. The Bill as it now stood was to come into operation throughout the United Kingdom on the 1st January next. Undoubtedly the men in Lancashire were very desirous to continue their existing organisations, but the contracts would he terminated at the end of the first week of the year, and in the case of a fatal accident unfortunately occurring the widow and children of the deceased would lose the allowances they were entitled to under the rules of their Society. Surely it would be better to continue the contracts until something satisfactory could be substituted for them. Of course, where negligence was proved there would he a right of compensation, but in cases where there was either contributory negligence or no negligence at all, the workman would lose the benefit of the employer's contribution. Such cases, they had been told, represented 75 per cent. of the total number of accidents, and it was upon these that this provision would fall with great, severity and harshness, Knowing as he did how these funds were valued by the workmen, he did ask the Home Secretary to make some concession, and to leave it optional with the men to continue these funds a reasonable time until some other provision for accidents could be arranged.

MR. ASQUITH

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken laboured under a very considerable misapprehension as to the effect of this section. What did it mean when they said that a contract was to cease at a time specified for the purposes of this Act? To understand that, it was necessary to revert to the second section, which provided that a contract whereby a workman had no right to compensation for personal injury caused by the negligence of his employer should not constitute a defence to an action. The only result was to make existing contracts no longer a legal defence against a person who was suing for damages for negligence. The hon. Member could not have read this section.

MR. TOMLINSON

You have not read these contracts.

MR. ASQUITH

said, he had read some of them, although perhaps not the special one seen by the hon. Member. It was clear that if contracting-out was not to be allowed, provision must be made for voiding existing contracts, and surely, in the interval which must elapse before the clause could become operative, some arrangements could be made by the men The House must remember that there had been no modified prohibition of contracting out, and he ventured to assert that the words selected were the only ones by which effect could probably be given to legislation of this kind.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, there was a very broad distinction between the Bill of the late Government and the Bill of the present Government. Some of those arrangements between master and man provided for 20 per cent. of the accidents due to carelessness, and 80 per cent. of the accidents that were not due to carelessness. Those 80 per cent., as provided for under those arrangements, would suddenly be brought to an end, and what his hon. Friend asked for in his Amendment was that the workmen who would undoubtedly be deprived of these privileges in six weeks, as the Bill stood, should have a somewhat longer period—not for dealing with accidents, for which they would get compensation under the Bill, but for the large number of accidents for which they would not get compensation under the Bill. As had been pointed out, these arrangements would come to an end all round after the Bill had passed; the masters would withdraw their subscriptions to the general fund, and there would remain 80 per cent. of accidents which would not be provided for by voluntary arrangements or otherwise. His hon. Friend thought that would be a hardship on the men if they did not get time to devise a new machinery for providing for the cases, and he was inclined to agree with him; but as the Home Secretary did not see the force of the Amendment, which had nothing to do with the masters, and was solely constructed in the interests of the men, and as it was now impossible to frame a new scheme, considering the lateness of the Session and the condition of the House, he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

said, he had had something to do with these contracts from the very beginning—from the commencement of 1881—and he did not at all agree with the nattering estimate given of them by hon. Members opposite. It was only the other day that he had read a resolution passed by a Miners' Conference, in which about 300,000 workers had been represented, condemning these very agreements, and that Conference was held in Manchester, the very centre of the Lancashire coalfields. These agreements had been described as mutual arrangements. He understood a mutual arrangement to mean a mutual understanding between the two parties who made the arrangement. But if these documents were produced—and if he had known the Debate was coming on he would have brought down several of them—it would be seen that they were not arrangements between the employer and the employed, because they had been forced upon the workmen. [Mr. TOMLINSON: No, no.] He would venture to repeat that the arrange- ment had been forced upon the workmen after a strike which had lasted for so many weeks. He knew this, because he had been engaged in trying to persuade the men to stand out, and because two men who had been sent down by the National Organisation reported that the men were compelled to accept these conditions. It had also been said that if the clause were allowed to remain in the Bill unamended it would lead to the termination of these agreements and that the relief funds would die out. He was a member of a permanent Belief Fund 100,000 strong, and had been on the Managing Committee for 20 years. There had been no contracting out of the Act under that fund. The owners paid voluntary subscriptions towards it, but it was maintained solely for the benefit of the workmen by the workmen's contributions. The hon. Member was wrong when he said that it was the wish of the workmen that those arrangements should be maintained. [Mr. TOMLINSON: I am certain of it.] If the Member for the Ince Division were present—he was detained outside by matters connected with the coal strike—he would have shown that the miners were adverse to the maintenance of these funds, and were rather in favour of placing them in a voluntary position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

rose to move— In page 6, line 2, after "this Act," add "except in regard to any proceedings then pending there under, which proceedings shall be in no way affected or prejudiced by this Act. If the Home Secretary told him that an action begun under the old Employers' Liability Act, would not be affected by the present Bill when it came into operation, he would not press the Amendment.

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

MR. ASQUITH

said, that under the Interpretation Act of 1889, whenever one Act repealed another Act, all legal proceedings instituted under the repealed Act should continue after the repealing Act, unless there was an intention to the opposite expressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 465.]