in rising to move—

"That no measure dealing with the Employers' Liability for Injuries sustained by their Servants can be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the question which admits, as a ground of defence in any action or proceeding brought for the recovery of damages or for compensation in respect to bodily injury or loss of life, that the person by whose negligence the injury or loss of life is alleged to have been occasioned, was employed in a common employment with the person killed or injured,"

said, he had no intention to impede the progress of the Bill; but it was desirable that he should point out to the House certain things in connection with the subject of employers' liability that perhaps the House was not aware of or did not understand. The present law inflicted an injustice upon the workmen, and it was very desirable that some effective measure of redress should be considered and passed. In this country, and in every other country, the most dangerous form of law was Judge-made law, and for the reason that it was continually altering and changing, and in that state which Lord Cairns described as maturing. He feared, however, that it was maturing in the wrong direction, affecting as it did the liberties and rights of the people. He admitted that the case of Priestly v. Fowler, which was decided by a single Judge, not on appeal by the House of Lords, ruled the cases in England; but it had no power over the Scotch Courts. In Scotland the law was even broader than the Bill brought in by the Government, and that was seen from a case that occurred in Scotland many years ago. In that case two men were killed in consequence of the engineer who wound them up from the pit falling asleep in the middle of the operation. That case came before the Scotch Court, and was decided in favour of the wives and children of the two men. It was then removed to the House of Lords, where the decision was reversed on the law as in-terpretedin the case of Priestly v. Fowler, and the Judge whom the case originally came before said that might be the law of England, but he hoped and trusted he might never live to see it the law of Scotland. In another case, the colliery manager, who acted in every respect as the employer, was held to be the fellow-workman of the man who had been killed; and, therefore, the employer was not responsible. The argument had been used that if the doctrine of common employment were removed it Would be oppressing the employer, and that capitalists would take their money elsewhere, and thus damage the interests of the country. He did not believe that such would be the case, because the capitalists were wise enough not to take their capital away from the country where they could find the best use for it. Then it had been said that if the law were altered in the direction he had indicated, and the doctrine of common employment were taken away, that there would be an increase of litigation without number. But they were not without experience upon that matter, and a high authority had said that experience was their best teacher. It was recorded as the law of France a considerable time ago that employers could plead the doctrine of common liability for accidents to the workmen. A case happened in the year 1842 in France, where, in the highest Court, it was decided to the effect that it ought to be no bar to a workman to make a claim for compensation that the injury was done by a fellow-workman. What was the case? Litigation was scarcely known of since. In France, Italy, and Belgium no litigation took place, and in the case of Germany the laws had been modified from time to time, and the principle of the Bill introduced by him into the House of Commons this Session was being considered by the German Parliament, and the object of that Bill was to destroy the possibility of litigation, and to declare that it was no bar to the claim of a man that he was a common workman. He moved his Amendment in no spirit of hostility to the principle of the Bill introduced by the Government. That Bill went a considerable distance; but he wished that it could have gone further. In matters of that kind, he believed that a compromise was the best way out of the difficulty; therefore he accepted the principle of the Bill, in the hope that the Government would, from the expressions they had heard that day, take courage and go forward until the doctrine of common employment was erased from the Statute Book and the decisions of the Courts.

said, that, in seconding the Amendment, he had no desire to impede the progress of the Government measure. His object was rather to strengthen the hands of the Government, and, if possible, to enable them to give to the measure before the House substance and vitality, and an element of finality which, at present, it did not appear to him to possess. Its object was to settle a difficulty of a somewhat serious character between em- ployers and employed, in which it was believed that capital had an advantage over labour. The workmen said that they were in an exceptional position, because, while strangers were entitled to demand compensation for injury, workmen could not do so unless they charged masters with personal negligence; and this was a grievance from which they desired to be relieved. He found it suggested, in documents that had been circulated, that this was a sentimental, and not a substantial grievance; but he believed that it was a substantial one. He did not believe that workmen were treated with a want of kindness or liberality. That charge was not made against employers as a class. The other day, at a railway station, he saw an appeal to the public, on behalf of the widow and family of a guard who had lost his life in a laudable endeavour to save that of a passenger, and the Railway Company headed the appeal with a very handsome subscription. What the men said was that they did not allege any inhumanity or unkindness; but they desired that their position should be strictly defined, and that they should have, by law and right, that for which they were obliged to appeal to private benevolence and public sympathy. He had taken an impartial view of that subject, being neither associated with the capitalist, nor representing what might be called a working men's constituency. The origin of the dispute appeared to be extremely doubtful. The matter was first brought to a head about 1837, when the decision was given that common employment was a legal defence. The matter was then brought to the House of Lords from Scotland, and from that time the law had been established and acted upon. There had been circulated a pamphlet by Lord Justice Bramwell, who had discussed the matter at considerable length, and whose opinion was entitled to very great weight, not only because he was a distinguished Judge, but also because he was a worthy and kindly gentleman. He was, however, unable to arrive at the same conclusion as the learned Lord Justice. Of the rule of common employment he found no trace before 1837. No doubt the Judges acted upon what they rightly believed to be a tradition of the law which was handed down to them. He could well understand that in the primitive ages there was some such rule applicable to the small transactions of life, such as wood cutting, hut not in the same sense applicable to the present conditions of society. The origin of this rule was, to say the least, obscure; its parentage was doubtful; and there had been conflicting decisions which had been discussed from time to time. He was entitled to say that the law as laid down was uncertain, was difficult of application, and was exceptional in character. There was a rule of life and of sound common sense that a man was responsible, not only for his own acts, but for the acts of those persons whom, from the necessities of his position, he engaged to carry out acts it was impossible for him to perform himself. This rule was of no recent or obscure origin; it had existed as far back as the law could be traced on the subject. The rule which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) sought to set aside was an exception to this sound rule of law. It might be assumed that there was a general agreement that the law could not be allowed to remain in its present state. When a proposition of that kind was established, the only statesmanlike way to deal with the matter was to abolish the exceptional rule altogether, and to relegate the persons affected by it, as far as possible, to the position they occupied before the rule of law was laid down. It was said there was no necessity to abrogate the rule, because the object desired could be attained by contract. Theoretically that was an answer; but practically it was nothing of the kind. The workman did not stand upon the same footing as the employer. If the workman proposed to make the employer's liability a condition of service, the employer would say—"The law does not place that liability upon me, and why should I take it upon myself?" The result would be that the workman must accept work upon the terms of the employer, or else he must starve. If it were said that this was not quite so, because workmen combined and acted through their unions, he replied that that fact made it all the more desirable that they should legislate as soon as possible, and that their legislation should, as far as possible, be of a complete and final character. Everything that could be done ought to be done to prevent these questions becom- ing burning questions between combinations of employers and employed. It was said that a change of law would lead to litigation; but that would depend upon circumstances. If the relation of employers and employed were placed upon a reasonable footing, he saw no reason for such a result; and he believed both parties would endeavour to apply the law in a fair and temperate spirit. He could understand that if employers attempted to evade the law by special contracts or notices, and thus to deprive workmen of the advantages which the law was supposed to give them, there would be great dissatisfaction, and there might be serious litigation; but he hoped the law would be carried out in a fair spirit, and that there would not be any great amount of litigation. It would not be just or right simply to abrogate the law of common employment and to do nothing more. If the House had been called upon in 1837 to pass a measure in the sense advocated by the Amendment, no one would have had any cause to complain; but with the immunity of employers since that date there had grown up a kind of vested interest which would have to be compensated to some extent. Several schemes had been formulated to meet that difficulty. One proposal was that the liability should be limited to the sum of £200; and a further proposal was that a person injured should have his average earnings for six years—both of which propositions he objected to. With respect to the question of insurance, he doubted the propriety of an insurance mutually effected by the workmen and employer. He had given considerable attention to the matter; and he thought the desirable course to take, if a scheme of insurance were considered indispensable, would be to give the employer the opportunity of relieving himself from liability by effecting such an insurance on behalf of each workman as would insure to the workman payment of compensation in case of accident, and would afford to the employer a full and absolute defence. The insurance should be effected under Government guarantee, so that the payment should be absolutely secured. If the master chose to avail himself of the authorized mode of insurance, he should be entirely free from liability. The man injured would be certain of his compensation, and he might not have the same certainty in case of mutual insurance in companies. If the master did not choose to avail himself of the means of insurance authorized, his liability should be unlimited, and he should be bound to pay to his workmen such compensation as a tribunal might award.

who had an Amendment on the Paper to the following effect:—

"That while it is desirable workmen should be placed on the same footing in regard to compensation for accidents as the general public, equality should be sought rather by altering the general principle on which compensation for accidents is now awarded, than by merely abolishing or modifying the existing exceptions to it,"

said, that neither of the hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken had insisted at any length on the grounds which had influenced them in calling the attention of the House to the Amendment which they had advocated. The real ground which had influenced them he believed was this—that under the law, as it stood, and even as it would stand when modified by the Government, workmen were not placed on an equality with the general public, in the matter of compensation for accidents. So long as that inequality existed, this question would never be finally or satisfactorily concluded. So far, then, he entirely agreed with both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. But while he so far agreed with them he saw the greatest objection to the particular solution which they proposed, which was to leave the law as it was with regard to the outside public, but to produce the desired equality by modifying it with regard to workmen. Now, either the wages of workmen were de- termined with reference to accidents or without reference to them. If insurance against accidents was included in the present rate of wages, which he believed to be the fact, workmen, by the operation of this Bill, would be paid twice for the same risk. If compensation was not included in the wages of a workman, then practically this was a Bill for modifying the consequences which resulted from the free operation of contract between master and workman. How far were they prepared to carry such a principle? Many employments were exceptionally detrimental to the health and life of those engaged in them, not because they were liable to accidents, but because they inevitably produced disease. Did the wages of those workmen include insurance against those risks? The advocates of the present Bill (if they were consistent) must hold that they did not. They must also hold that the masters of such workmen ought to be compelled by law to insure the lives of their workmen in addition to paying them wages at the market rate. Was that a course which the House was prepared to enter on? The solution which he ventured to suggest, and which he had endeavoured to embody in the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, was to produce equality between the workman and the general public, not by placing the workmen in the position of the general public, which was the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), but by placing the public in the position now occupied by the workmen. He admitted that this would produce a very large change in the existing law. But was the existing law either just or reasonable? It compelled a man to pay for the infliction of injuries in which he neither directly nor indirectly had any hand. He might employ the best and most careful workmen, he might take the utmost pains to secure the very best machinery, he might leave no stone unturned to secure the lives of his workmen, and yet he had to pay damages for injuries for which he was in no sense responsible. Such a law could not be regarded as equitable; but it might be thought necessary or expedient. It might be supposed to be the only means of making employers of labour careful of the lives of the public. So regarded the present law belonged to the Criminal Code in regard to its objects, though to the Civil Code in its procedure; and was naturally enough, therefore, very clumsy in its operation. Among other instances of the absurdities to which it led was that damages were awarded not at all in proportion to the carelessness which produced the accident, or even to the amount of injury it caused, but were largely determined by the position of the persons who suffered by it. The Government should take into consideration the whole state of the law as it existed. Their present proposal combined many of the evils which existed under the present law, and many of the evils which would be introduced into it, if the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had his way. The Bill would unduly interfere between employer and employed, and would tend to promote litigation, while it would not secure that final solution of the question which the House had a right to expect.

The House is placed in an unfortunate position with regard to the present debate. During the debate on the second reading of the Bill complaint was made that we were not discussing the real Bill; and that complaint has, I think, proved to be well founded. In what position are we now? A Bill has been read a second time on the distinct understanding that, for purposes of discussion, the House should be in the same position as if the real Bill, and not the original Bill, was being debated. But how has that been carried out? Why, a real, practical discussion is prevented, for the Motion to go into Committee is met by an Amendment which, though not equivalent to the negative of the second reading, at any rate prevents the House from expressing its opinion upon the substantial question involved. The opponents of the Bill, who stood by on this promise, and let it be read a second time, object that the Bill goes too far; but the issue raised by the Amendment which will be put from the Chair is not whether the Bill goes too far, but whether it goes far enough, as the hon. Member for Stafford who moves it asserts that it does not. The result is that a proposition, to which the Government do not assent, and which the majority of the House repudiate, prevents any vote on any other of the Amendments on the Paper, several of which raise questions, and suggest modes of dealing with this legisla- tion, of the highest value. The second reading has been assented to, not because the House likes the Bill, for it does not; the feeling of the House is against it, and its true supporters are few and far between. It has been submitted to as a necessity that cannot be avoided. My idea is that so strong is the individual feeling against this Bill, that, if in this House we voted by ballot, the result would be very different to what it is. For my own part, however, I look the position in the face; and I accept the necessity for legislation as established and inevitable—and that being so, I disclaim any intention of talking this Bill out or frittering away its provisions, and I shall do what I can to make it work out as a settlement of this most serious question, but with due regard to all interests involved. When once this line of action is resolved upon, it becomes important to see how it can best be carried out; and I concur in the strong desire which exists on both sides of the House that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee; but that, we are told, the Forms of the House make impossible. I cannot but think it very unfortunate that such should be the position of a most important social measure; but as the Bill cannot be sent upstairs for full and calm consideration, there is all the more necessity that it should be fully discussed in the House. What, then, will be the practical effect of the measure upon the great industries of the country? The House now stands as arbiter between two great factions. On the one hand we have the capitalist, whose capital is the result of foresight, economy, courage, self-denial, and industry—of the exercise of all those qualities which made England what it is; on the other hand we have the working classes, whose share in our economical system is as important and necessary as that of the capitalist, and who have as much interest as we have in keeping up the great edifice of British prosperity. The capitalist is alarmed at this Bill. It is the fashion to sneer at the proverbial timidity of capital. Admit this timidity, but recognize it, and be careful not to drive capital out of the country. The working classes, or some sections of them, have taken this agitation up, and with them it has become a burning question; and on their part, as well as among employers, there is great and natural anxiety as to the course the House will adopt. With the working classes that anxiety is aggravated by the mistaken notion that the present law was directed against them as a class. I have always asserted that this is an utterly unfounded idea. No such notion is to be found in any legal conception or expression of the law, and does not exist in fact. The present law is, in fact, based upon this fundamental ground—that the rule of natural justice is that no man ought to be legally responsible for any misfortune resulting from an act for which he is not morally responsible. There are certain exceptions, and the question we have really to consider is whether those exceptions should be extended. I do not stop to consider whether the exceptions are new and the law old, or the law is old and altered by new exceptions. That discussion is now profitless, and will only secure more or less contradiction from some hon. and learned Members near me, whose opinions on the abstract question differ from my own. I recognize that difference of opinion; and, however strong my own views may be, I, in all sincerity, am ready to admit that they may have been warped by circumstances, or may be wrong. I feel that I am right; but I concede that there is a considerable amount of authority against me. And, therefore, I admit that something has to be done. The most logical solution of the problem is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford; but I fear that is the least practicable. Indeed, I suppose that my hon. Friend himself hardly imagines that the law can now be altered in the direction he indicates. He would make the moral and the legal responsibility coincide. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Stafford would make every employer liable for everything which happens to everybody in his employment or out of it. That is logical, too. Indeed, I am far from seeing how the interests which that hon. Member is understood to represent are to gain very much by this Bill. If a platelayer is killed on Monday by the negligence of a fellow-servant in authority, and gets compensation, a platelayer who is hurt on Tuesday, by the negligence of a fellow-servant not in authority, will not get much satisfaction out of the new law; and we may be having further proposals to meet his case, and to inclose employers in one comprehensive net of lia- bility. Is the object to insure safety? is the proposed law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford has asked, a police law? If by fining you intend to make employers more careful in selecting materials and superintendents, why do you stop at fining? Why do you not send them to prison for negligence on the part of agents, which, if brought home personally to themselves, would be criminal? But is such a Bill as this to be carried through at a Morning Sitting? I do not wish to stop the Bill. I will be party to no obstruction. What I ask is that adequate opportunity should be afforded to the House for fully discussing it. As the result of a bonâ fide discussion, I hope that the Bill may be made a fair and equitable settlement of a vitally important question—that it may prove, not the mere result of hustings promises, but the deliberate outcome of the wisdom of Parliament applied to one of the most difficult of social problems. There seems to be considerable diversity of opinion as to the object aimed at. Is its object to protect the lives of workmen? If I could think that such would be its effect in a single instance, I, for one, would withdraw from all opposition, and would hurry the Bill on; but I do not believe it will have any such effect. The House must remember that the interests that most dread the Bill—the mining interest, for example—are carried on—every single operation of every day's work is performed under the direct supervision of officers appointed for the purpose by the State. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the protection thus afforded is sufficient, or as much as is practicable. But it is said that, apart from its effect, this Bill raises a question of justice, and is to be supported on that ground. No one can have any other feeling in reference to a demand for justice on any question than one of sympathy. But on a matter like the one before the House, where the relations both of employers and of workmen are intimately concerned, questions of justice or injustice are not simple and easy, but of great difficulty and delicacy. Both sides claim justice, and both sides allege injustice; possibly the truth may lie between them. It, therefore, becomes important to consider whether that justice which is desiderated by both cannot be obtained by means of a fair compromise which would have the effect of allaying instead of aggravating the differences now existing between labour and capital, to the disadvantage of both. I cannot admit that there is any compromise in one side merely conceding half of what is asked. There must be something conceded on both sides, in order to bring about a bargain likely to be a permanent settlement of this difficult and delicate question. The only-course open, as far as I am able to see, is either to leave the existing law alone, or to amend it in such sort that the employés may be satisfied without terrifying the capitalists whose money is invested in the various industries in this country. This is without doubt a danger of this, and the best thing to be done is to reduce that danger to a minimum. After much deliberation, I have come to this conclusion—that if this new liability is to be put on employers it must be limited in amount, so that the employers may know the maximum they may have to provide in case of the worst accident, and, knowing it, may provide against it by insurance. I wish the House to understand that I am against compulsory insurance. Put it how you will, insurance to which anyone is compelled to contribute is only a tax in disguise; and I recognize the impossibility of such a tax. I only ask for facilities. I am bound to admit that in the Bill now before the House the Government has recognized the principle of limiting this new statutory liability, and I desire to thank them for this concession. But they propose to carry it out by confining the liability of employers to the amount of a limited number of years' earnings of the person injured; but I do not think that this means of carrying out that principle is a wise or satisfactory one. It seems to me that, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Eye has said, this proposal will be a perennial well of litigation. I can imagine no more tempting subject for unscrupulous lawyers than the inquiry into three years' probable earnings of any workman; and the House must not lose sight of this practical consideration—that every law-suit would be at the cost of the employer, who would necessarily have to pay costs when the plaintiff recovers, and who never receives any costs when the plaintiff fails, for the simple reason that no plaintiff, under this Bill, would have any means for paying costs. Now, the only hope of escape from this most serious practical difficulty will be found in fixing some maximum sum. In the Workmen's Trains Acts, the sum of £100 has been fixed, and that has worked well in practice. But take that, or any other just sum. What will, then, be the employers' position? He will, at any rate, know the worst; and it will then be for him to secure the means to discharge this new liability when it comes. He can only do it by insurance; and I suppose that the course he will take will be to ascertain the number of his employés, and multiplying that number by the extreme limit of the sum fixed, to induce as many persons in the same peril as himself as he can get to form some sort of combination by which they may cover their liabilities up to the amount of the maximum sum they would have to pay in case of the greatest imaginable disaster. For years the actuarial value of these risks will be doubtful; but they will eventually be discovered. Large premiums on such insurances will have to be paid, and the capitalized value of those premiums will represent the burden which this Government Bill is proposing to put on the struggling industries of this country; and that at a time when, according to my information, they are least able to bear any additional weight. Eventually, doubtless, this weight will fall upon the consumer; and, so far as home trade is concerned, will adjust itself. But the interim disturbance will be very serious; and I question whether, in competition with the foreigner, we shall ever cease to feel it. I also hope, Sir, that, in addition to fixing a definite maximum sum, the Government will admit clauses which will facilitate arrangements for insurance between employers and employed. What could be more simple than such a provision as this? Suppose you fix £100 as the limit under the Act, and then provide that if the master and workmen together agree to effect an insurance for any equivalent or greater sum, such insurance shall exclude the operation of the Act. No one would be hurt by such a provision, and it is obvious that it would tend to promote insurances, which mean providence and economy. But under the vague scheme of the Government, the employer would be unable to know the amount of his liability or danger, or to enter into any agreement with the employed for effecting an insurance which should free him from liability. If Her Majesty's Government will intimate that they have no objection to the principle of this proposal, and will consent that the Bill shall be sent to a Select Committee, which I can undertake, on the part of those interested, shall sit with a determination to forward rather than retard the passing of the measure, they will be remembered, not as having brought forward this Bill for political purposes or as a weak-kneed concession to agitation, but as having made a bonâ fide effort to arrive at an equitable and reasonable solution of one of the most difficult problems ever presented to Parliament. I do not think that they will be able to work out these complicated proposals on the floor of the House in Morning Sittings in July; but there may be some hope of doing it if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee. The late Government had this subject forced upon them, and they have seen how difficult it was to deal with; but it has by no means been forced upon this Government; they have rushed at it. I have heard it said that they had picked up the Bill somewhere about the platform of the Chester Railway Station. That, of course, is a piece of electioneering jocularity; and I have no doubt the Government have taken the matter up seriously and honestly. Still, whatever may have been the intentions of the Government, it is evident that they have not yet quite mastered the subject. But, while giving them credit for their good motives, I trust they will not force the Bill on without giving those who would be most affected by it an opportunity of being heard by a Select Committee of the House. I have thought it right to make these few observations, though I have not thought it right to divide the House; and, as the Notice Paper now stands, it will not be possible to do so on the Motion for a Select Committee.

observed, that three classes of objections had been raised to this measure by the hon. Members for Stafford, Hertford, and Coventry. Those hon. Members agreed that some legislation on this subject was necessary; but they took different views of what the principle of that legislation should be. The position of the Government was this. They found that this question had been before the House and the country for years; that a Select Committee had taken evidence bearing upon it in 1877; and the Government had done their best to embody in the Bill the principle which was the most consonant with public opinion. What were the objections raised to the measure? The hon, Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) held the view that the Bill did not go far enough, and that the defence of common employment ought to be abolished altogether, so that the employer would be liable for all injuries resulting to workmen from the negligence of other workmen in the same employ. He (the Attorney General) did not think the House was prepared to accept that view, for the total abolition of the defence of common employment would cast such a burden on the employer, and cause such a disarrangement in the rate of wages, that the proposal could not be regarded as practicable. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) took quite a different view. Instead of increasing the liability of the employer, he would diminish it, and would say that employers should not be liable at all, unless they had been themselves guilty of some misconduct. That was a suggestion which it was too late to consider, for the existing law carried the employers' liability beyond that point. More important matter was to be found in the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), who had spoken not only as a lawyer, but apparently with a knowledge of the subject which was not entirely theoretical. Now, his hon. and learned Friend admitted the necessity of some legislation. His propositions amounted to this—in the first place, they must alter the law; and, secondly, they must logically either let the law alone or accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Stafford. His hon. and learned Friend apparently did not desire to leave the law as it was. [Sir HENRY JACKSON: I would if I could.] Now he understood his hon. and learned Friend. But why should he desire that result? On account of the injustice of the law? If that were so, why was any alteration inevitable, and why should he admit that alteration really could not be avoided? Why had he not the courage of his opinions, and why did he not endeavour to convince the House of their justice? His hon. and learned Friend's position was untenable. He gathered that his hon. and learned Friend was disposed to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford, and to abolish the defence of common employment. But then in return he asked for concessions that would make the concessions granted in the Bill of no value. His hon. and learned Friend had wished to appoint a fixed sum as the maximum amount that could be recovered—a proposal that he, for his part, thought very unjust. Was it likely that an artizan earning 40s. a week would think himself well treated if he recovered no more than the amount awarded, perhaps, to a boy receiving 10s. or 12s.? The suggested maximum of £150 Was certainly not so just to all parties as the arrangement by which the maximum would vary in accordance with a varying scale of wages. His hon. and learned Friend's second suggestion was one that seemed to have satisfied him that the views of the hon. Member for Stafford were acceptable. His answer to the Bill had been contained in one word, "insurance;" and he seemed to wish that there should be no responsibility as long as the master contributed to the common insurance fund. Now, he believed that that idea of giving the master immunity in consequence of his part in an insurance scheme was a matter that could not be managed by legislation. No doubt it was desirable that the master and servant should enter into a contract, as they easily could do [Lord ELCHO: As yet], and make an agreement, the one to give compensation, and the other not to appeal to the liability created by the Bill; but he could not imagine how the law was to give any real effect to an insurance scheme. Were the subscriptions of the master and the workmen to be levied compulsorily, or in what other way? He thought that the question of insurance could be settled better by personal arrangement than by legislation; and he believed that even his hon. and learned Friend, if he attempted to draw clauses that would get rid of responsibility by a system of insurance, would find the extreme difficulty of effecting practical legislation on that subject. [Sir HENRY JACKSON: Make it their interest.] That was not a matter of legislation. The view of those in charge of the Bill was that insurance depended upon the combined action of employers and employed; and, though they were heartily in favour of it, they had not embodied it in their Bill. He did not think that there was any reason for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The question of insurance controlled by legislation had come into existence by virtue of the Bill being placed on the Table. ["Hear, hear!"and "No, no!"] At all events, the subject had not even been suggested before the Select Committee of 1877, or a change in the law would certainly have been proposed. [Sir HENRY JACKSON: They suggested no change in the law.] His hon. and learned Friend was on the Committee, and why was he prepared to do now what was not suggested then? Holding views on the subject such as he had described, he could not think that another Select Committee would be useful or necessary. If a Select Committee were appointed, the Bill would still have to come down to the House, where matters of detail would have to be discussed. There were practical men in the House who were well qualified to consider any alterations in the Bill which might be necessary. There was no desire on the part of the Government to press the measure without due consideration. On the contrary, there was every desire on their part to accept suggestions from practical men. His hon. and learned Friend had said that if the votes of hon. Members were to be taken by ballot the Bill would not pass. But why should not his hon. and learned Friend and every other Member vote according to their opinions? Did his hon. and learned Friend mean that he and other Members thought one thing and their constituents thought another? If his hon. and Friend mean that, he ought to have recollected that he was speaking in the presence of a great many employers of labour who had been returned by the men they employed. He believed the judgment of those hon. Members would be different from that of his hon. and learned Friend, and that they would sacrifice what they believed to be their own interest in order to do justice to those who were not present in the House. He did not believe that those hon. Members would vote for what they thought to be unjust as if it were just, or that if they were to vote by ballot they would vote differently from what they would do now. He trusted before the Session concluded that the Bill would receive the sanction of Parliament.

said, in order to facilitate the Bill going into Committee, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Amendment. ["No!"]

said, that where this Bill came from everyone knew. It was one of the praiseworthy, if not very successful, attempts of his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) to settle a very difficult question. He did not know whether he was one of those referred to by the hon. and learned Attorney General, who were returned by the men whom they employed; but he had come from a contested election, and he could state that not a word was said to him all the time about employers' liability. But if a question were put to him on the subject, he would say, as he did now, that, as no one could say that the present state of the law was satisfactory, he would be prepared to deal with it. In endeavouring to deal with the question, how-over, they were running a great risk. This Bill, if passed into law in its present state, would do a great deal more harm to the working classes of this country than it would do good. At present working men were very much protected by benevolent and insurance societies; but the moment this Bill was passed every man would think that the law was going to take care of him, and that he need not look out any longer for himself. In the trade with which he was connected there were 117,000 members of various mutual provident associations, to which the masters subscribed as well as the men. These 117,000 were very nearly, if not more than, a fourth of all the men employed above ground, and were nearly one - third of those employed under ground in the coalfields. The funds accumulated already amounted to £112,000, the widows supported by the fund were 720, the children 1,400, and the disabled class 19,000. There would always be a difficulty in working compulsory and voluntary funds side by side. No doubt insurance could be carried out voluntarily; but might it not be encouraged if it were recognized in an Act of Parliament? The unfortunate open- ing for litigation which would be made by the Bill in reference to disputed causes of accident would bring into the mining districts that greatest of pests, the low-bred attorney, who would promote differences between masters and men which did not now exist. In his district, happily, trade disputes were obviated by appeal to the Council of Conciliation; and he was jealous of opening the door in any way to that class of attorney that would produce conflict between capital and labour. The door would be closed against litigation by encouraging the principle of insurance; and if carried out properly it would do much, not only to help masters and men, but to relieve the ratepayers of the country. As the Bill stood, it would do harm to the working classes and to the ratepayers. While heartily assenting to the further progress of the Bill, he earnestly supported the views of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), though he would not go quite so far in opposition; but he believed it was essential to the success of the Bill that it should deal with the question of insurance.

said, he heard with regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General offered no concessions to the appeals that had been made. Practically, this Bill had not been read a second time, for this was another Bill substituted for that to which a second reading was given. It was a great improvement; but practically it was a new Bill. For one, he could not consent to abrogate altogether the doctrine of common employment. He regretted to hear it said that provisions relating to insurance were incompatible with the principle of the Bill, and must be made the subject of private arrangement. The Bill would give the workman the right to compensation, on which he would rely, and the workman who had been contributing would say that a new law had come into operation which ignored his former contribution and threw the liability on the master. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was acquainted with the doctrine of set-off, and had heard of paying damages by anticipation. Why not apply these doctrines to insurance, and let the employer set off what was provided by insurance? Under the Factories and Mines Acts penalties were imposed upon employers in cases of injury to workmen, and these penalties were recoverable by the workmen. By the Bill, as it stood, the workmen could recover these penalties as well as compensation. These were matters that could be dealt with only in a Select Committee; and he believed the reference of the Bill to such a Committee would facilitate its being passed. They might very well adopt the principle that the employer should be responsible for the agents he employed; but they could not make him responsible for those over whom he could not exercise direct control.

Sir, I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes. We have had speeches from several hon. Gentlemen; but with the exception of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), we have had none from practical men. I will confine my attention to one practical point. I am one of those who dislike this Bill. It is neither liked by employers nor employed. Here we have an Amendment by the hon. Member for Stafford, which declares that it will not be satisfactory to the employed. I do not dislike this Bill on account of the compensation with which it will saddle the employers. What I dislike is that it will induce litigation to a great extent, and that it will break down all those kindly relations which at present exist between employer and employed. I should, as an employer, much prefer the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Stafford. I have always declared myself in favour of some measure which will relieve those serious accidents to miners; and I believe that the measure brought in by the hon. Member for Stafford, although it would to some extent swell the contents of the cup, would take away that poisonous element which will destroy the good feeling between employer and workman. I do not know any man who endeavours to retain the respect of his neighbours who will remain in the profession of colliery management after the passing of the Bill. I think the great defect is that it is applying indiscriminately a general principle to all the trades and industries of the country. Now, Sir, these learned Gentlemen ought to have known that there are two classes of trades—those that are dangerous, and those that are not dangerous. When an accident happens, in some cases it is almost impossible to discover what is the cause. Look at the Coroners' inquests in reference to mining accidents, where evidence upon evidence is given, and yet no satisfactory result is arrived at. How much more difficult is it to foresee and prevent an accident? I say that there is no accident which happens but what leaves behind it some trace of human imperfection; de-pond upon it there will be a tendency on the part of the employed to bring actions against the employers in order to saddle the manager with negligence, and to obtain compensation. There ought to be a distinction drawn between those employments where the accident can be traced, such as building and other employment above ground, and those employments below ground, where it is almost impossible to ascertain the cause of the occurrence. I prefer the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford, because it is more consistent than the Bill of the Government. I also prefer it because it would remove further back the boundaries of litigation on accidents arising from neglect of follow-workmen, and will be much more to the point, because, under it, there would not arise the necessity of distinguishing between the negligence of one class of workmen and that of another; and, whatever may be the issue, I am sure it will fall considerably below the amount that would arise from more litigation. If general litigation takes place between employer and employed, the disarranging effect upon every trade will be very serious. I think, therefore, this Bill requires a great deal more serious consideration than it has had; and although these learned Gentlemen may give reliable opinion as regards the law, whenever they venture on practical matters they are mere children. I have read all the evidence given before the Committee in 1877, and it is most lucid and trustworthy. Lord Justice Bram-well, so long as he confined himself to the exposition of the law, was clear; but, so soon as he gave an opinion as to the practical effect of the proposed legislation, he sinks down below the rank of a practical witness. In order to show how very necessary it is that this question should be better considered, it is desirable to refer to what Lord Justice Bramwell says. He has given an opinion. He says that cases of negligence by fellow-workmen would be more numerous, and he says that the workmen would be in a better position than the employers for detecting negligence; and, therefore, the employers should not be made liable for injuries of that sort. The hon. Member for Stafford said to him—"Do you know anything of mines?" He said—"Very little."

"Then you do not know that the work of miners is denned by statute?—I cannot say. I believe there has been a good deal of statutory regulation, and miners have had their share of it."

The hon. Member for Stafford said that in mines where 300 or 500 persons were employed, they were required to remain in their own particular working place, but if they left it they were liable to imprisonment. He asked—

"How can it be said that these men have control over their fellow-men?—I cannot say it is so. I think you have alleged it is so.—No, I spoke generally of masters and servants, not particularly of miners. It would be great presumption of me to do so not knowing about miners."

This Bill is founded on the recommendation of that Report. It is on all fours with it. It is a Bill which I had in my hands 12 months ago. It is, in reality, the Bill of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey). We all considered it, and saw that it was really a dangerous Bill. However able the gentlemen may have been who drew up that Report, I say it is not what we should have expected it would be, but is an interference with many important industries, and however learned the drawers of the Report may be, they would probably feel puzzled to state in detail the difference between employment in a coal mine and employment in a cotton mill. We want further knowledge as to this Bill, and to have further discussion; and, depend upon it, that would not take a long time, but would be all the better for the Government, because the Bill would have received due attention before it was passed. I do not intend to offer any opposition to it. I think it is very desirable to have something done. It has been a long time agitated; but I do hope the Government will seriously consider the propriety of referring this Bill to a Select Committee again, in order to have the matter fully and fairly discussed, and especially to consider the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), with a view of seeing whether in these dangerous employments at least something in the nature of insurance will not be more desirable than the provisions which appear in this Bill as it now stands. I do not think that in this House, as far as I am able to ascertain, there is any employer who wishes to delay the passing of a measure this Session. All they want is a Bill that will not bring them into daily conflict with their workmen. I think it is most desirable, especially in regard to those dangerous employments, that there should be some other principle than that contained in the Bill. I shall not detain the House longer with any observations of mine. I could have spoken on other points; but as time is pressing, and there are probably others who would like to speak, I will only say further that whatever good arises out of this Bill, whether it arises in this House or "elsewhere," it will be to the credit of the hon. Member for Stafford; no one else ever suggested anything relating to a change in the law either to secure compensation or relief to workmen injured by accident during his employment until he did; but I do maintain that it is an error to suppose that this Bill will mitigate accidents when it is passed. I believe it will increase them, because it will drive from the profession of mining the competent persons who are now in it as managers. I can say from personal experience that I have never known a colliery manager who is not first of all anxious for the safety of his men. They are men of courage, men of intelligence, men who are educated for their profession, and who would be seriously interfered with if what is proposed in this Bill were brought about. They are often said to be careless, and it is often said that accidents might have been prevented by them; but these things are generally said by those who have never had experience in colliery management. There is another ground that will show conclusively that this will not lessen accidents. Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Stafford say that if this Bill passes and gives compensation it will induce greater care on the part of employers and managers. It has, on the other hand, been said, I know, by many, that if men had this compensation for accidents it will not make them less careful. That I endorse. I do not believe that any man will injure himself in order to obtain compensation; but surely if this is the case with regard to the men, you will allow it with regard to the managers. If the reception of compensation will not make a man less careful, upon what ground can we come to the conclusion that payment of that compensation will make managers more careful? The Government must, I think, take some other means of dealing with dangerous employment than that proposed in this Bill.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, that the alterations which had been made in the Bill were matters, not of principle, but of detail. That had been admitted over and over again in the course of the debate, and it was admitted also that the House were anxious that the question should be settled and that the Bill should pass. Taking these two facts together, he appealed to the House, in the name of common sense, to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair. In Committee the details of the Bill could be fully considered.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) that the present law was satisfactory. He was further of opinion that in bringing on the Bill the Government had but yielded to agitation.

in rising to call attention to recent reports of outrages committed by missionaries on native inhabitants in Africa and elsewhere; and to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to take measures to prohibit British subjects, not commissioned by Her, from assuming rights of criminal jurisdiction over the natives of uncivilized countries, and perpetrating upon them acts of war; and praying Her further to cause communications to be entered into with the other Great Powers with a view to the protection of uncivilized tribes from acts of violence at the hands of persons not commissioned by the Government to which they owe allegiance,"

said, that in bringing forward this Amendment he was actuated by no unfriendly spirit towards missionary enter-prize; his motive was, if possible, to remove from that enterprise and the proceedings of travellers a blot which threatened to impede the progress of Christianity among savage tribes, and the march of exploration and research. He intended to be as brief as possible, and to confine his observations to acts committed by missionaries and travellers which constituted crimes against the laws of this country, and which would subject the perpetrators to penalties if they were tried in this country. What made it more necessary to draw attention to the subject was the fact that the missionaries who had done these things did them apparently under the impression that they were doing no harm, and were acting in a manner which was for the advancement of justice and the benefit of missionary enterprise. Now the law upon the subject was very simple. It was laid down in the 24 & 25 Viet. c. 100,s. 9, that whenever a murder or manslaughter was committed in any part of the world, whether under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty or not, upon a person whether a subject of Her Majesty or not, the person committing that murder or manslaughter, or implicated as accessory in it, might be tried in this country under precisely the same laws as if the offence had been committed in this country. Reports had recently reached this country of extraordinary doings on the part of missionaries established at the Blan- tyre Mission, Central Africa; and they recently formed the subject of a paper by Mr. Andrew Chirnside,. a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. His statements had caused considerable excitement in the country. It was said he had been rather hard upon the missionaries; but he should found his arguments entirely upon the admissions of the missionaries themselves, and upon such admissions he should argue the necessity of some such Resolution as he should submit for the judgment of the House. Mr. Chirnside's statements were to the effect that the Blantyre missionaries had assumed a criminal jurisdiction over the people in whose midst they resided; that on a certain occasion two persons being suspected of murder, in Mr. Chirnside's opinion erroneously, the missionaries held upon them a sort of trial, and they were condemned to death; one, however, escaping, and the other being shot. He need not dwell upon the circumstances which characterized the execution according to Mr. Chirnside. The man was shot upon by a large firing party. This volley did not prove fatal. Another volley was fired which was equally ineffectual, upon which a Native Chief standing by, out of pure compassion, snatched a gun from the hands of a European and blew out the brains of the unfortunate man. These details were denied; but so long as the fact of the execution was admitted they were really beside the question. The second charge made by Mr. Chirnside was that a Native carrier, suspected of having stolen a chest of tea intrusted to his care, was tied to a tree and received 200 lashes with a very heavy whip, and that in consequence of this he died within a very few hours. Mr. Chirnside, in support of his allegations, brought home the whip with which the flogging was accomplished, and certainly it was a most formidable weapon, far exceeding in power and danger any of the numerous "cats" with a sight of which the House had been favoured during the flogging debates of last Session, and that instrument had been deposited with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Of course, he did not desire action to be taken upon such ex parte assertions; but subsequently a pamphlet had been published by a Mr. Andrew Riddell in defence of this Mission, and a Report had been made by the Committee of the Church of Scotland, to which the Blantyre missionaries were responsible, in which a number of admissions were made on behalf of the missionaries. Regarding the execution, that was admitted. According to the statements of the missionaries, contained in letters sent home to this country to the Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland, the facts of the case were these:—A woman was found murdered on the 26th December 1878, and shortly before that event a slave had taken refuge in the Mission. Two men, one of whom was her owner, were supposed to have wished to have revenge on some persons connected with the Mission for having afforded her shelter. According to the statements made in defence of the missionaries, it was supposed they had murdered the woman, and their trial was decided upon.

"Anxious deliberation was held, and authorities consulted as to the course to be followed, and there was a general concurrence in the conclusion expressed by Dr. Lawes, that wilful murder must be punished by death, and that this was in the circumstances unavoidable in accordance with Divine law."

The murderers were captured and tried before a jury composed of Natives, and presided over by a White man of the Mission, Dr. Macklin. That gentleman appeared to have presided over a sort of jury composed of the rest of the staff and the headmen of the Mission. "Then the people clamoured for their death;" but it seemed the missionaries shrank from any responsibility in this direction. However, after the men had been kept in the stocks for a fortnight, according to Mr. Riddell one of them escaped, and it was resolved to execute the other, and he was executed. Then, as to the charge of flogging, that was admitted too. The missionaries admitted that the man who was flogged had died; but not, according to the opinion of the surgeon, in consequence of the flogging, though they stated that in deference to the opinions of the Natives they abstained from making a post-mortem examination. After, however, the 200 lashes which had been administered, it was certainly no wonder that the man had died, and the fact of their having been administered went very far to present a solution of the cause of death. Mr. Chirnside had told them that these proceedings landed the missionaries in a little war; and that gentleman quoted extracts from a missionary journal concerning various skirmishes, in one of which, two men were killed, and in another of which more lives were lost—Mr. Chirnside said nine. In other reports it was admitted that some skirmishing had occurred, though it was denied that this originated in their attempted jurisdiction. When this matter was before the Committee on Missions, that body sent out a letter pointing out that they could not give their missionaries any criminal jurisdiction over the people among whom they resided, and that such acts were likely to involve them in very serious responsibility. Again, the matter had been debated before the General Assembly, and some speakers had denounced the acts mentioned as unjustifiable, while others had taken a different view. It was because of this that he thought it necessary to bring forward this Motion for; it was, above all things, necessary, to preserve our missionary enterprise abroad, that missionaries should be made aware exactly how far they could go, and not, as was said by one gentleman, allow them to perform their duty with a lash in one hand and a halter in the other. The only excuse urged for the missionaries was that their settlement was not merely a Mission, but a Mission Settlement, and that, according to the laws of the people among whom they resided, they had a sort of territorial jurisdiction; but the illogical nature of this plea was shown by the fact that while, on the one hand, they had assumed territorial jurisdiction, and power of life and death, on the other they had refused to exercise the duties of their territorial jurisdiction when it came to protecting poor savages from the vengeance of their barbarous Chiefs. He need say no more about that matter. But he now came to a question that was far more serious, and he referred to the New Britain Mission, the missionary being Mr. Brown. The Mission was situated in a group of islands not far from Sydney, and the Natives from a neighbouring island set upon four Native missionaries, killed, and ate them. That was followed by certain hostile demonstrations against the missionaries generally. A Chief had taken forcible possession of a missionary's wife, and the Chief who was supposed to have instigated the murder threatened to eat Mr. Brown, one of the leading missionaries, and Mr. Brown stated that several intimations to that effect had reached him. Mr. Brown, who was in one of the other islands, proceeded to New Britain, and found that some of the missionaries in the settlement were very anxious to avenge themselves, and they were preparing to go on an expedition for the punishment of the cannibals. He, however, thought that would not be desirable, and asked them to take his advice, and act according to his instructions. He was told that the reputed murderers had come to the Mission Station for the purpose of murdering those who were there, and he said—"The story we knew to be true, as some of the teachers saw them outside the place." He found that the teachers were planning an expedition that night; but he felt it would fail, and be attended with loss of life. So he begged them to trust the matter to him, and they did so. He held a council of war, gathered together as many Europeans as he could, and looked among the Natives for allies. One Chief, who was suspected of having murdered a Mr. Jackson, and eaten him, was sought as an ally by Mr. Brown. He spoke of the missionaries who were murdered as being under his protection, and Mr. Brown sought his aid in avenging the missionaries. Mr. Brown told him that he could not allow any cannibalism, as it was not our custom to eat men, and he stated that the Chief looked at him in a way that indicated surprise at their conduct and pity for their folly. He professed himself, however, willing to help Mr. Brown; but, owing to the restriction put on their warfare, they found the Chief was not much to be trusted. An expedition was, however, started, and hostilities ensued. In the first encounter which took place two men were killed, and Mr. Brown said that he subsequently found that these men belonged to a friendly tribe, and paid for them to the satisfaction of the Chief. After killing some 20 or 30 persons, some seemed to think they had had enough of revenge; but that was not the opinion of others. Subsequently, the Chief, who had held back, was induced to commence hostilities; and the expedition, which commenced on the 16th of April, went on to May. According to Mr. Brown's statement, many lives were lost, "probably between 50 and 80;" but he went on to say that the present and future good of thousands would far outbalance that. What he (Dr. Cameron) wished to call attention to was that in this expedition there was a number of men armed with rifles fighting against savages who had no weapons but slings; and a painful circumstance in the case was that several women were killed; although, said Mr. Brown, the Natives did not care about that, for they declared that the women were worse, both as cannibals and in exciting hostilities, than the men. What were Mr. Brown's reasons for taking the punishment of these cannibals into his own hands? The Pacific Islands were under the jurisdiction of Commissioners, and men-of-war were not unfrequently in those seas. Why did not Mr. Brown report the case to Sydney, and wait for the arrival of some man-of-war, in order that the punishment might be inflicted by proper authority? Mr. Brown said that he did not think that desirable, because he did not think the captain would interfere unless he had strict authority to that effect; and, secondly, he said that when men-of-war came upon the scene the most they would do would be to bombard the town. This matter was taken up by the Aborigines Protection Society. They appealed to the Colonial Minister, and a tribunal consisting of Sir Arthur Gordon and the Chief Justice of Fiji was directed to investigate the case. It appeared that the Admiralty had instructed Captain Purvis to proceed to New Britain to make inquiries; and he had drawn up a Report which reached Fiji when Sir Arthur Gordon was there. The Report exonerated Mr. Brown from blame, and declared that his responsibility was shared by the European residents. According, however, to his (Dr. Cameron's) reading of the Act of Parliament, all the persons connected with this transaction were guilty of murder or manslaughter. The trial of Mr. Brown was eventually fixed; but the clay before Sir Arthur Gordon called Mr. Brown to him and said he had read the statements prepared, and that the evidence would not have led him to institute or recommend a criminal prosecution. Sir Arthur Gordon added—

"I cannot but hope the evidence to be adduced to-morrow may free you from all imputations of criminality, and enable me to continue the investigation that has been interrupted."

He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would be able to give some explanation of the circumstances which induced one Judge to express an opinion like that without consulting his Colleagues. The result was that the Attorney General of Fiji refused to prosecute, and Mr. Brown was not tried at all. That, he thought, demanded the most careful and dispassionate judicial inquiry. Then, in a letter addressed to The Christian World by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), some two years ago, that Gentleman remarked that the The Christian World had done itself honour by protesting against the conduct of a missionary in New Guinea who shot the Natives because they would not receive the Gospel at his hands. There must have been some foundation for that, but he left his hon. Friend to give details; therefore, there were three cases in which missionaries had taken upon themselves the right of putting persons to death and commencing a war. Now he came to the second part of his Resolution, which related to similar acts, but not committed by British subjects. Mr. Stanley waged something like a war with some Native tribes in Africa. He did not object to the taking of life in self-defence; but all the instances he had introduced had been instances in which life had been taken, not in self-defence, but in exercise of quasi-judicial or quasi-sovereign functions, against the assumption of which he altogether protested. Mr. Stanley's description of the affair was that he was threatened by a tribe, and was compelled to kill some in self-defence. In fact, there were 14 of the Natives killed and wounded. He had no wish to challenge that; but what he did challenge was what occurred subsequently. Mr. Stanley managed to get clear away from the Natives; but he considered it necessary to go back and wage war upon them, so that it was no longer a question of self-defence. In the second encounter 42 were killed and over 100 were wounded, whilst only two of Mr. Stanley's men suffered from contusions from stones slung at them. Mr. Stanley had no right to do that, and if it were allowed they would be having other travellers waging war upon Native tribes. Lord Derby had been written to on the subject at the time, but had expressed himself unable to interfere, as Mr. Stanley was not a British subject. Therefore the necessity for the second portion of his Resolution. In conclusion, he thanked the House for its patient hearing, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

did not rise to offer any opposition to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), for he entirely concurred in the Amendment that had been proposed. The Resolution, however, was founded upon reports of outrages; and he wished to make a few remarks in reference to one of the Missions mentioned by the hon. Member. He would ask the House not to form a judgment in regard to the charges of cruelty and injustice that had been brought against the missionaries until those charges had been thoroughly inquired into. On an early day this Session, in reply to a Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs mentioned that the attention of his Department had been called to the report of cruelties and outrages in connection with the Blantyre Mission, and that an inquiry had been instituted by Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique. That inquiry was now going on, and he had further to say that the Church which sent out the Mission—the Church of Scotland—had instituted an investigation on her own behalf, in order that the truth of the matter might be ascertained. The Church of Scotland was sending out a special Commissioner to inquire into the whole circumstances of the Mission, and the charges that had been made against the missionaries. The Commissioner, he might mention, was the Rev. Dr. Rankin, of Muthill, a highly esteemed parish minister, a man of ability and good sense, who enjoyed the full confidence of his Church. He was accompanied by a layman, who went out at his own charges, who also had the confidence of his Church, and who had instructions to take up the Commission in the event of Dr. Rankin by any accident being prevented from finishing the work. These gentlemen would act in conjunction with Consul O'Neill, so that the House and the country had every assurance that there would be a thorough and impartial inquiry. The Motion, however, as his hon. Friend was careful to say, proceeded not upon the charges of Mr. Chirnside, as if these were established, but upon admissions made by the Church itself, or by its missionaries. Now, he granted that, without reference to charges of cruelty and injustice, there was enough to justify some such Motion as this. There was enough to justify some prohibition of private subjects of the Queen, whether missionaries or not, from assuming criminal jurisdiction in uncivilized countries. But, while the facts which were admitted justified this Amendment, he held that they were by no means so compromising as would be supposed from the speech of his hon. Friend, in which he thought the charges in Mr. Chirnside's pamphlet had, to some extent, been assumed to be true. He was unwilling to enter into particulars; but, as the House had heard of the execution which took place at Blantyre in the spring of last year as an act of very questionable justice, even if those who were responsible for it had a right to exercise jurisdiction, it was only right to say that there was another view to be taken of it, and until they had the result of the inquiry now in progress before them, it would be hardly fair of them to take the worst view of the matter. According to the accounts received by the Committee at home, the missionaries were thoroughly satisfied as to the sufficiency of the evidence against the two men, one of whom was executed. As to the execution itself, the Committee had the assurance of the missionaries that there was no cruelty in the mode of execution. Then, as to the flogging, the Committee were now making inquiry. Dr. Macklin had stated to the Committee that he saw the poor man who died, whose case had been referred to, and that blood had not been drawn, and there were only slight scratches on his back. Such was the doctor's testimony. Dr. Macklin also stated that during the time he was at Blantyre—some three years—there were only six cases of flogging, and only two of them were serious. He had been present on every occasion except the last, in which case he had only seen the man afterwards. He also stated that the instrument of punishment was light, except that used on the first occasion, in 1877, when the flogging had not been administered by any of the Blantyre missionaries. All these matters, however, were now under inquiry, and the House would do well to suspend its judgment until the inquiry was completed. The missionaries were wrong, however, in assuming jurisdiction at all; and when the Committee in the spring of last year received information that an execution had taken place, they at once recorded their sense of deepest distress that the missionaries had thought it necessary to take into their own hands the power of life and death. The Committee made further inquiries during last year, receiving what information they could from the missionaries; and the whole of their inquiries satisfied them that the missionaries had felt constrained to carry out the execution because of what was represented to them as to their jurisdiction in consequence of being in possession of the land, and having villages under their care. The Committee did not hesitate to state plainly to the missionaries that they could not recognize any such jurisdiction. Their words were—

"We beg to point out to you that, whatever may be the technical tenure by which we hold the land at Blantyre, we wish to regard our occupation of it only as a necessary instrument in our work of Christianizing the people."

Again—

"Your position must be understood as excluding the power and jurisdiction known as civil government. We have no right to give, and you have no right to receive from us, any jurisdiction whatever over the lives, persons, or property of the Natives who live round about you. We cannot make you civil magistrates over any portion of Africa, even though we may possess property therein."

These events happened in the beginning of last year. The Committee had never heard before of any floggings. After these events, peace and quietness reigned for some time. The collision with Natives to which his hon. Friend referred had no connection whatever with the execution in February. It was thus mentioned in a Special Report to last General Assembly—

"Towards the end of September came another misfortune. A neighbouring Chief waylaid our carriers, and stole their goods. On a demand for restitution, a hostile attack ensued, when our people were obliged to defend themselves by force, and one man was killed."

There did not seem to have been anything deserving the name of war with the Natives. He thought they must all sympathize with missionaries in uncivilized countries. They were subjected to difficulties and trials which people in comfort at home could little understand. They must sympathize with them, and be ready to take the most favourable view of what they did; but their sympathy must not blind them to the fact that to assume criminal jurisdiction was a wrong thing. No secret, therefore, must be made of their determination that no claim of this kind could be recognized. At the same time, we must remember that the missionaries had not themselves sought this jurisdiction; it had been pressed upon them by the Natives around them; their fault was in allowing themselves to be persuaded into taking it. But he would simply add that the missionaries were not the only parties to blame. He could not but think that the Mission Committee at home, of which he was himself a member, must take some share of the responsibility. If there was danger that the missionaries might be drawn into assuming jurisdiction, they ought to have been specially cautioned on the subject. It was easy for them to be wise after the event; but the Mission Committee must be prepared to take blame to themselves for not having anticipated such difficulties as had arisen.

said, that whatever they might think of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had put on the Paper, they must all admit that that subject was one which had been very properly brought before the House, and that it had been introduced in a speech of admirable tone and temper. The hon. Member had, however, made a mistake in his statement of the law, inasmuch as he appeared to assume that almost the only Act bearing on the question was 24 & 25 Vict. In truth, there were several other statutes, and we already-possessed considerable—he might say-ample—powers for dealing with British subjects out of the jurisdiction of civilized Powers. Besides this Act of 24 & 25 Vict., under which we could try any subject for murder and manslaughter when the offender could be brought to trial in the United Kingdom, there, were also Acts under which they could try an offender even if he had not been brought to trial in the United Kingdom. Even if he was caught in foreign parts, there was power of trial by commission to Colonial Courts under an Act of George III.; but the Act to which he would specially direct attention was the Act of 1878. Under the operation of the Jurisdiction Act of 1878 there was power to issue an Order in Council for the legal exercise of British jurisdiction over British subjects. This was a very unusual power, and it was one which up to the present time had not been exercised. The Act had only just come into force; but it was an Act which could be put into force, and might be exercised. Under that Act they could claim jurisdiction even over British subjects in parts of Central Africa which were not subject to any regular Government. Now, what were the special powers as regards Africa which affected the circumstances in this case? It was a fact not generally known that for criminal purposes the jurisdiction of the Cape Colony extended northwards vastly beyond the boundaries of the Colony itself up to 25 degrees of south latitude. But the Blantyre station was considerably to the north of that limit. But the Act of 1878 said that Her Majesty should have power and jurisdiction over her subjects who might for the time being be residing in, or resorting to, countries or places out of her Dominions. That power might almost be described as enormous; and the real question for them to consider was, not whether they possessed sufficient powers, but whether in a particular case they would run the risk of putting them in force. And when he spoke of legally raising and putting these powers in force, of course the House would understand exactly what he meant. He had been asked the other day by an hon. Member whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Consul General in the heart of Africa for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, and he replied that there was a very great danger in making appointments of that kind. If a Native Chief should carry off a British Consul, who could hardly be environed with a sufficient guard in the heart of Africa to resist the capture by a Chief who happened to be very powerful, they would be probably committed to a military expedition, which would involve great cost and great danger to the troops, in order to release our representative. Therefore, they must be very careful how they attempted to acquire jurisdiction in places where they could have no sufficient force. In the Pacific, where this country possessed, by naval means, far greater power than it could have in the heart of Africa, very large special powers had been given to the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Gordon, who was Governor of Fiji, and in many cases the High Commissioner had been able to exercise great influence in the direction which the hon. Member for Glasgow would desire. The hon. Member's Amendment began with a preamble referring to the reports of recent outrages alleged to have been committed by missionaries; but out of the three instances which his hon. Friend had laid before the House, one did not concern the missionaries at all. From reading the Notice of his Amendment, he had thought his hon. Friend was going to deal almost exclusively with the case of the Blantyre Mission. But his hon. Friend had gone on to speak of the New Britain case, and also of the case of Mr. Stanley, as to which there was no allusion whatever in the Motion. The Stanley case was one in which missionaries were not concerned, and had that case been adverted to specially by Resolution, great difficulty might have been experienced in defending the exercise of jurisdiction which there occurred. As he had already pointed out, however, that case did not come within the preamble of the present Resolution, and it was certainly not his intention to go into it, or attempt to offer any defence or justification of the circumstances concerned with it. As to the two cases in which missionaries were concerned, the Blantyre case came under the cognizance of the Foreign Office. The New Britain case did not. It had been dealt with by the Admiralty, and was under the Colonial Office. With regard to the Blantyre case, that seemed a bad case, so far as the circumstances were known; but he did not think it was necessary to go into this matter at length, because it was one which, as the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had shown to the House, was actually under investigation at the present time. The hon. Gentleman, in the very temperate observations which he had made on the matter, also admitted that the investigation was being conducted by those who were not strongly hostile to the missionaries. There was one point on which some of the defenders of the action of the missionaries differed from others, and that was as to the question of jurisdiction. He had heard a defence of the Blantyre Mission to the effect that the missionaries did not claim jurisdiction, that they had placed a Native Chief on the juries, and that they sheltered themselves by the Chief's jurisdiction. There was no desire on the part of the Foreign Office to be a party to any exercise of jurisdiction by Europeans in this indirect manner. But at first sight he was bound to say there did appear to be a case deserving in the highest degree of careful investigation, and the only reason why he declined to enter into details and deal with it was that the acts which had been committed were the subject of investigation at the present time. The foreign Mission, as the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen had told them, had sent out some gentlemen to inquire into the affair, and Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique had been instructed not only to assist them, but to proceed to the spot and join in the investigation. It would be an impartial investigation, and Her Majesty's Consul would endeavour to arrive at the truth. With regard to the New Britain case, he believed some sort of approval was given to the conduct of the missionaries by the late Board of Admiralty; so he supposed something was to be said for them. It did not come within the Department with which he was connected, and it was impossible for him to give the House any informal tion on that subject. The third case had nothing at all to do with missionaries; although he could not help coming to the conclusion that the case might on some future occasion usefully form the subject of a debate in the House. He did not, however, think the case should be debated now, because the friends of Mr. Stanley in that House would not have been really informed by the terms of the Notice of his hon. Friend that it was intended to bring the subject before the House that evening. The hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen stated that, on the whole, he concurred in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could not concur in the actual terms of the Amendment, though he wished it to be understood that he gave his entire support to the doctrines which had been enunciated, that being not only his own view individually, but the view of those who were responsible for the administration of the Foreign Office. It had been the desire of the Foreign Office not only to discourage, but, as far as possible, to actually prevent, the exercise of jurisdiction by British subjects over whom they had no control. The exercise of such a jurisdiction was not only calculated to lead to acts of which they disapproved, but to involve the country in serious complications; and such a thing must be discouraged, and, as far as possible, prevented by all who had to do with the direction of Colonial affairs. If the Resolution of his hon. Friend merely expressed the disapprobation—he might say the extreme disapprobation—with which Her Majesty's Government viewed the exercise of irregular jurisdiction by British subjects in uncivilized parts of the world, he should give his cordial assent to the Resolution. But the Resolution did more than that. In the second part of the Resolution, by which his hon. Friend expressed his wish that there should be a communication with other Great Powers with the view of protecting uncivilized tribes; but his hon. Friend had not brought forward a sufficient number of cases, or sufficiently strong cases, in which foreign Powers would be likely to interfere. Except Mr. Stanley, he knew of no foreigner who had been mentioned in this matter; and Mr. Stanley was not a subject of any of what were usually called the Great Powers, but of America. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no reason to think that the Great Powers of Europe would be likely to take up the matter unless such a case was brought forward as would show that serious complications were likely to arise. The great majority of travellers in uncivilized parts of the world, and something like the majority of missionaries, were British subjects; and that was a remarkable fact, as showing the enterprise and spirit of their countrymen; and the question was, therefore, one which peculiarly concerned this country, and in regard to which they were not likely to obtain much assistance from other States. As regarded British subjects, we possessed ample power. No man could desire stronger power than was given by the Acts which were passed a few years ago; and the question now was, when and how far those powers should be exercised by the Government. There might be great difficulties in certain cases as to putting those powers into force; but those powers were not asked for for nothing. They were not mere menaces—they were intended to be used on sufficient occasion and after careful investigation; and the Government were determined not only to discourage, but, when it could be safely done, to actually prevent, the irregular exercise of jurisdiction by British subjects in any portion of the world.

said, he could not conceive that they could have a stronger case for adopting the important Resolution now before the House than the proceedings of Mr. Stanley referred to by the hon. Member opposite. The Aborigines' Protection Society memorialized the Government on that subject when Lord Derby was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Derby, after very fully considering the subject, said it was impossible for him to take any direct action in the matter, inasmuch as Mr. Stanley, not being a British subject, he had no authority over him. He thought there could be no doubt that Lord Granville would have taken the same view of the matter. The course which the Foreign Office took showed the great necessity of the Resolution, because it showed the importance of there being some communication between the Great Powers of the world, and that they should act in concert in endeavouring to put an end to such atrocities as those alluded to in the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Mr. Stanley, it should be remembered, took upon himself to carry on this war by hoisting the British and the American flag. Lord Derby said Mr. Stanley had no authority to put up the British flag. It seemed that he felt it was necessary to enter into communication with the United States upon the subject. He thought that justified the Motion brought before the House by his hon. Friend. In conclusion, he thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow for bringing this subject forward, and he hoped a gain would result to the cause of humanity.

said, he would not have risen on the present occasion, after the able explanation of the law given by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had it not been for the appeals made to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The hon. Member was entirely correct in assuming that the Island of New Britain did fall within the jurisdiction to which he referred—namely, within the jurisdiction of the Commissionership of Sir Arthur Gordon. He believed that the creation of that High Commissionership resulted from precisely the same feeling which had dictated the Amendment which had been put upon the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. That High Commissionership was called into existence because there was a very strong feeling that British subjects could not be permitted to make use of their superior strength to commit wrong in the Pacific Islands. That being so, the attention of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies was called to this affair, and he directed Sir Arthur Gordon when he was in London to look into the matter; and he, of course, as soon as he returned, endeavoured to carry out his instructions as soon as possible, but he was prevented from doing so. Of course, Sir Arthur Gordon was dependent, to a great extent, upon the Admiralty; and he applied to the Commodore of the Australian station to give him a vessel to go to the Duke of York's Island, in order that he might investigate the matter. Unfortunately, however, at that time the Commodore of the station did not see his way to provide him with a vessel, which caused considerable delay. Meanwhile the whole question was in- quired into by Captain Purvis, acting under the Admiralty. It was no part of his (Mr. Grant Duff's) duty to defend the proceedings of Mr. Brown, but it was only fair to say that the report of Captain Purvis to the Admiralty after the inquiry instituted by him was very favourable to Mr. Brown's conduct. Captain Purvis came to the conclusion that the act of Mr. Brown was an act committed in legitimate self-defence. A document which had reached the Admiralty fully confirmed that view. It was the report of a German officer to the German Admiralty in relation to some other proceedings, and it was decidedly favourable to Mr. Brown. The contradictory opinions that had been expressed made it difficult to arrive at a correct view of the situation from a distance; but it would seem that in the opinions of impartial persons' on the spot, as well as in the opinion of our own Admiralty, there was a great deal more to be said for Mr. Brown than was to be said against him. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Brown came to Levuka and told Sir Arthur Gordon that he was ready and willing to submit his proceedings to a full investigation. Sir Arthur Gordon, while holding that it was impossible to inquire into such a matter at a distance from the place where the events occurred, would probably so far have gone into it as to have enabled Mr. Brown to state his case, if the Chief Judicial Commissioner, without any concert with Sir Arthur Gordon, had not directed the commencement of criminal proceedings against Mr. Brown. The continuance of the inquiry before Sir Arthur Gordon would have been manifestly improper; and he, therefore, informed Mr. Brown that, while proceedings before the Chief Judicial Commissioner were pending, he felt it necessary to adjourn the further prosecution of his own inquiry, adding that, whatever opinion he might entertain of the judiciousness of Mr. Brown's action, he felt bound to inform him that no evidence had been laid before him which appeared to render the prosecution of a criminal charge against Mr. Brown necessary. Sir Arthur Gordon also wrote a letter to the Chief Judicial Commissioner, in which he communicated to that officer an opinion similar to that which he had expressed to Mr. Brown. Partly in consequence of this letter, and partly, if not, as might be presumed, chiefly, because there was really no informant or prosecutor in the case, the charge against Mr. Brown was dismissed when it came on for hearing before Mr. Gorrie, and Mr. Brown immediately afterwards sailed on his return to Duke of York's Island. Most of the witnesses had since left the locality; and even if it were possible to do so, it did not appear that any useful purpose would be served by re-opening the inquiry.

said, the House owed the hon Member for Glasgow a debt of gratitude for raising this question. It had been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the Government were determined, as far as they could, to prevent missionaries or other persons from exercising illegitimate authority over the Natives with whom they might come in contact. He hoped the Government would make it understood that the matter was not to end by their merely making that statement, and expressing that opinion, but they would enforce what they had stated, Very serious difficulties had arisen because former Governments had not made it known that they were determined to enforce such a view. There was a tendency on the part of missionaries in foreign countries to interfere with the political and territorial affairs of the countries in which they were stationed; and he could not help thinking that if Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other Powers, could put an end to this state of things, they would do a large amount of good. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the work of missionaries in the making of con-verts would be helped forward by their not taking part in any political operations in the countries to which they were sent for very different purposes.

thought it necessary that where the Government gave any sanction or approval to the establishment of British subjects in any part of the world, and especially in uncivilized parts, there should be, if possible, some means of protecting and controlling them, and preventing them being guilty of actions which bring disgrace on their country.

wished to explain to the House that he had had some private conversation with Mr. Stanley with reference to his African Expedition, and that that gentleman had expressed his great disappointment that no one had come forward to defend him against the accusation brought against him. The fact was that Mr. Stanley had been in continued danger of his life while travelling down the river. The Natives had been very threatening in their attitude towards him, and the act of which complaint had been made was described by Mr. Stanley as a single event constituting his defence during his journey through the country. Had that gentleman not acted pluckily as he did, the probability was that he would never have returned from the heart of Africa to give an account of his Mission to discover the sources of the Congo. He did not believe Mr. Stanley would commit any wanton outrage.

said, that, after the satisfactory statement of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he would ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.

rose to call attention to the relations of Great Britain and of Russia with Afghanistan and Central Asia; and to move—

"That, in view of the great advance made by Russia since 1862 towards Afghanistan and British India, and of the desirability of preventing that Power from obtaining a foothold south of the great desert between the Caspian, the Hindoo Koosh, and the Oxus, which forms the natural boundary to a further advance southwards; and in view of the necessity of preserving the independence of the Turcoman tribes as a bulwark against the Russian armies, and of the importance of Afghanistan from a military, commercial, and political aspect as constituting the key of British India and as commanding all the great trade routes of Central Asia; and in view of the great expenditure and labour already incurred on several occasions in occupying Afghanistan, it is desirable for the safety of the British Empire in India and the security of the 250,000,000 of people inhabiting that Country, and for the highest interests of civilisation, that the British occupation of Afghanistan shall be maintained, but more especially that the great fortress of Kandahar shall be permanently garrisoned by British troops."