§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second tlime."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ * SIR C PEARSON (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities)said, it was quite clear there was not sufficient time left for the discussion of the Bill that evening. It was a very important Bill, and yet not a word of explanation had been offered in regard to it. It was the successor of a Bill which was before the House last year, and yet in one important aspect it bore no resemblance whatever to that Bill either as it was introduced or as it left the Standing Committee on Law. As the Bill was introduced last year the Government thought it right that the Sheriff should conduct inquiries into fatal accidents without the aid of a jury. Some of the Members of the Standing Committee thought that there ought to be a jury, but this was opposed by the Government, and the Bill as it left the Committee contained no provision for jury trial. He did not desire it to be understood that he was altogether opposed to inquiries such as were here desired, but he said it was a matter for very grave consideration upon what lines this absolutely new departure in Scotch procedure 1082 should be laid down. The Bill was confined to cases of death by accident in the course of industrial employment. He had never yet understood why a public inquiry such as that proposed should be limited to cases of accident in which death had resulted. An accident might cause serious injury to 100 persons without producing any fatal result, and under this Bill no inquiry could be held. He did not see why the measure should be confined to industrial employments, and, on the other hand, he thought it might well be considered whether its scope was not very much too wide. There were many cases of fatal accidents which raised no question of public interest, and where an inquiry would be utterly unnecessary.
§ It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.