begged to move the first Amendment which stood in his name. He would suggest that the commencement of the Act should be fixed for the 1st of January, 1881.

said that the Amendment appeared to be a reasonable one, and one that could not well be objected to. He might say that he thought the date suggested by the hon. Member was a proper one—namely, the 1st of January, 1881.

begged to move the next Amendment which was also in his name.

said, he did not think the Amendment was a material one; but he had a preference for the word "personal." It was a word better known in law than "bodily," and he would suggest to the hon. Member that there was no difference between them. If there were any difference he should be glad to hear it.

said, that the word "personal" might be better known in law, but it was not so among the general public.

said, he had risen while the Chairman was putting the Amendment. He claimed to be heard.

said, that he had put the Amendment, not being aware of the fact that the hon. and learned Member had risen.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Brid-port (Mr. Warton) rose before the Question had been put.

I did not hear the hon. and learned Member; but, perhaps, he will make his remarks, and I will put the Question again.

said, he thought it would be a good thing if the Chairman were not quite so sharp. He only wished to say that he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that the word "personal" was better known in law than "bodily." They had for a very long time been accustomed to the term "grievous bodily harm;" whereas the word "personal" was certainly, comparatively, a modern term.

said, he believed that it was desirable to preserve intact the privileges of workmen at present with regard to compensation for injury. It was, however, believed by some workmen that the present step taken on their behalf would have the effect of considerably restricting, and more particularly reducing, compensation, both as regarded the time within which compensation could be obtained and the amount to be received. No doubt, that was contrary to the intention of the Government and the declared object of the Bill. Those rights, which had been in Scotland the subject of legal decisions, were fully recognized at Common Law; and, in consequence of that, he had been requested by the Convention of Royal Burghs to move an Amendment. Unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was not present; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be able to see his way to accept it. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, he could not agree to the insertion. The law of Scotland in this respect was at present the same as the law of England. There were certain cases in which compensation was now recoverable—for instance, under the Coal Mines Regulation Act. The insertion of these words would, he believed, only create confusion, and he thought it would be unwise to introduce words guarding against those cases in which compensation was at present recoverable under the Coal Mines, the Factory, and other similar Acts. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment.

said, he did think that it was unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was not in the House, as he understood the matter which had been submitted by his hon. Friend (Sir David Wedderburn), from the Convention of Royal Burghs, better than right hon. Gentlemen then present. He would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that the matter might be submitted to the Lord Advocate, and brought up again on Report.

said, that, on that understanding, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill). Its object was to confine the right of action. The intention of the Bill was, of course, not to give working men a greater right of action than a third person already possessed.

said, that, by the acceptance of the Amendment, they would defeat the object they had in view. It was perfectly true that the object was to put a workman in the same position with regard to the employer as a stranger was at present. The law was, that the employer was not liable for latent defects in machinery. As the Bill stood, the workmen would be relieved; but, he thought, to insert the word "patent" would only create a difficulty in the case of the existing law. The Amendment clearly ought not to be accepted.

said, that it seemed to him that if the word "patent" were accepted, it would give rise to a good deal of difficulty in regard to the arrangement and limits of the Bill where there were defects in works and machinery that were patented. In fact, it would raise the question of patents generally. What was a patent in the case of one might not be so as regarded another person. Therefore, if the subsection 1 of the Bill was to stand, it would be better without the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill). He wished to draw attention to the enormous responsibility imposed on employers of labour if that Bill was passed in its present shape. Every employer of labour, no matter how careful he might be, was liable to his workmen for defects in machinery. He might employ the most skilful firm of boiler-makers, and everything might be apparently right, yet, nevertheless, on account of some flaw, an explosion might happen which might cost thousands and thousands of pounds to the employer of labour. Something might also be said with regard to the works themselves in which the business was carried on. It was the same with regard to steam engines and other machinery, and the employers might find themselves saddled with an expense that no one could calculate. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) said that as regarded the outside public—that was strangers—employers were not liable for latent defects in machinery. He (Sir John Holker) was not aware that employers were responsible for any defects in machinery in such cases. These was no responsibility except in certain peculiar circumstances. If, for instance, a stranger went among workmen, and he was not authorized or sent there, and an explosion occurred, or a break-down happened, by which he suffered injury, the employer would not be liable to him, although the injury might be occasioned by a defect which was not a latent one. On the whole, he thought it would be much better to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), and omit from that part of the Bill the 1st sub-section. At the present time, employers were liable to their workpeople for defects in machinery under a variety of circumstances. They were liable if they were under an obligation to correct certain machinery and they omitted to do so. They were liable, he presumed, to the workmen, if, under an obligation to exercise due care in regard to the machinery, they omitted to do so. Every person who made a machine unskilfully was liable, and it was reasonable that he should be so, for any defect existing. He did not desire to alter that or interfere with that liability in any way. If that sub-section were not omitted, the effect would be that employers, who were at present liable to a certain extent, would, in addition, be liable for any defect in the machinery which arose in consequence of the negligence of those in their employ who had superintendence of the machines. That sub-section would impose an alarming amount of responsibility on employers; and, for his part, he believed that it might be omitted without disadvantage.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to move that the sub-section be omitted?

No; I merely suggest that it should be omitted.

said, he did not wish to anticipate any discussion on the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker). He was afraid, however, that the Government could not with safety consent to the 1st sub-section being struck out. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Davey), he thought the word "patent" could not be inserted in the sub-section, inasmuch as it destroyed its whole object. He thought a reference to sub-section 1 of Clause 2, would show that the hon. and learned Member for Preston had not so carefully considered the provisions of the Bill as they deserved. It was not the intention of the Government to extend the area of liability of employers. Of course, it was extended by the Bill, in the sense of applying it to certain persons in the service of the employer who could not now recover compensation from him. As the 1st sub-section stood, there would, of course, be liability imposed on the employer of labour for injury caused to a workman by reason of any defect in the works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the business of the employer. Leaving those words as they stood, they, of course, included latent as well as patent defects. Now, the hon. Member for Christchurch wished to insert the word "patent," which, as the hon. and learned Member for Preston had pointed out, would render the subsection perfectly useless. If the hon. Member would turn to the 1st subsection of Clause 2, he would see that a workman would not be entitled under the Act to any right of compensation or remedy against the employer, so far as sub-section 1 of Section 1 was concerned—

"Unless the defect therein mentioned arose from the negligence of the employer, or of some person in the service of the employer, and intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the works, machinery, plant, or stock were in proper condition."

said, two months ago, owing to some unascertained cause, the boiler of a steam-engine burst on his farm. Both ends of the boiler were blown out, almost everything was shattered, and there was no means of getting at the cause of the explosion, which, if it had happened a few minutes later, must have resulted in the death of two or three persons. It appeared to him that, under the provisions of the Act, he (Mr. Biddell) might have been involved in damages to the extent of £600 on account of this simple accident.

said, as the hon. Member (Mr. Biddell) had stated his case, he would not have been liable, because it was not shown that the accident had arisen from the negligence of the employer. It was necessary, in order to bring the employer within the operation of the Bill, to show distinct negligence on his part or that of some person intrusted by him with the duty of supervision.

said, the majority of boilers burst from getting over-heated through want of water. This was very often the result of carelessness on the part of the man in charge.

said, no doubt the provisions of the 1st sub-section of Clause 2 did, in the main, remove his objections to the 1st sub-section of Clause 1. Still, he thought the latter remained open to some objections. The Bill provided that—

"Where, after the commencement of this Act personal injury is caused to a workman by reason of any defect in the works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the business of the employer,"

said, he apprehended that an employer was liable for an accident caused by his machinery to a stranger, unless it arose from a latent defect for which he was not responsible. Take the analogous case of a stranger passing along a road, and suppose that, in consequence of the negligence of the master of an agricultural steam-engine also passing along the road, or of the negligence of the person to whom it was intrusted, the passing stranger should be injured. The stranger would have his remedy in that case. The Bill extended the liability of the employer in the case of workmen in so far as it put the workman in the same position towards the employer as the stranger already occupied.

said, Sub-section 1 of Clause 1 provided that a workman was to have a remedy for injuries caused "by reason of any defects in the works, machinery, plant, or stock;" and Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 provided that the remedy was not to apply unless the defect mentioned in Clause 1, Sub-section 1, arose from—

"The negligence of the employer, or of some person in the service of the employer, and intrusted with the duty of seeing the works, machinery, plant, or stock were in proper condition."

said, there was an obligation on every employer to see that he had proper machinery; and if he had not inquired into the construction of cheap machinery, he would be liable for the consequences of its defects. That was the case as the law stood now, and the Bill extended the liability of employers for such negligence to workmen.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did not seem to have appreciated the difficulty with regard to the clause which had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker). Take the case of a boiler which burst through the negligence of the person in charge. The Bill said that the workman was to have only the same remedy against the owner of the boiler that he would have had if he had not been a workman, or was not employed at all, or had not been on the premises. He asked, whether a stranger intruding on works where he had no business to be would have any remedy at all for injuries sustained in consequence of the bursting of the boiler? Because, if a stranger had no remedy, neither would the workman have any.

said, in the case put by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) there would be no claim. The Bill did not apply to the cases of trespassers. But take the case of a man rightfully on the premises, say for the purpose of delivering a sack of coals, and suppose, by the negligence of the employer, the boiler burst and injured the man, he would have a claim against the employer. The Bill placed the workman in the same position as the other man.

said, the explanation given by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) did not appear on the face of the Bill. He thought it would be much more satisfactory if it were embodied in the wording of the clause.

said, the Amendment he had to propose would not carry the Bill beyond the limits intended by the Government. If it were accepted the clause would run thus—

"By reason of any defect in the ways, works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the business of the employer."

said, he was not at all sure that the word "ways" was necessary. He believed the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Eye (Mr. Inderwick) was provided for by the Bill; but for the sake of clearness, and as that was the intention of the Government, he would agree to the Amendment.

said, he would point out to the Committee that the ways of railways and mining companies were not always permanent.

said, he trusted that the Word would not be inserted, inasmuch as it would have the effect of weakening the clause. When once you began to schedule and specify causes of injury, you excluded other causes. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to insert "ways," why not put in stables and engine-houses? The proposed Amendment, he believed, would only make difficulties.

said, the Amendment would give rise to very serious complications, and he trusted it would not be agreed to by the Committee. The ways in mines were provided for by the clause.

said, he thought the insertion of the word "ways" was absolutely necessary; it could not be said that a "way" was the same thing as a work. The public idea of the latter was a series of erections in which something was carried on. But a way might be a permanent way, or a road to the works, and no one could say that it would come within the meaning of the words "works or plant." He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm in his intention to agree to the Amendment.

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down (Mr. Hopwood). He thought, with the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), that the word "ways" would be an unnecessary addition. It would be very difficult to specify what was a defective way. A way might be right to-day, but to-morrow, or any other day, quite the reverse. Ways in mines were always in a state of change; they were liable to fall; and should injury arise from any circumstance of that nature, it might be con -tended that it was owing to a defect in the way, whereas it might have arisen from some unforeseen circumstances. If the word were inserted, he thought it should be qualified in some sense or other.

said, he was at a loss to understand the objection taken to the Amendment by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig). The question had been raised as to whether the meaning of the word "work" included "ways." It appeared to him that the Amendment would remove a difficulty on that point; and, in order to make the section quite clear, he agreed to the insertion of the word "ways."

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to make the Bill as clear and as useful as possible. He could not understand how the word "stock" was, in any way, cognate with the words "works, machinery, or plant." He understood stock to be material manufactured or in a raw state. If that was the sense in which it was taken, he could not see why it was put in the clause at all; and, therefore, proposed that the word should be omitted. He knew of nothing that could make an employer liable for stock as a cause of damage to others. A man might have a quantity of old rags to be delivered to persons who would convert them into paper or shoddy. They would certainly be in stock, but should not, for that reason, come under the provisions of the Bill. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name,

said, the word "stock" would include that which was neither machinery nor plant. For instance, a stack of timber or bricks might fall and cause injury. Again, it would include a stock of explosive substances. Under the circumstances, he could not accept the Amendment.

said, he doubted whether the case put by the right hon. Gentleman would be due to defect in stock.

said, the word "stock" appeared to him to have no reference whatever to works, machinery, or plant. If the Government had any doubt as to the meaning of the term, perhaps it would be better that some explanation should be given. It could not be desirable to have an unmeaning word retained in the Bill.

said, the stock in trade of a builder consisted, amongst other things, of scaffold poles. The wording of the section was so dubious, that he thought the word "stock" had better be retained as affecting the class of stock to which he had referred.

said, he should like to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether the ill-stacking of a number of bricks or scaffold poles would be a defect in stock?

said, he would suggest, with all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that the difficulty arose from the poverty of the language employed in the Bill. The vocabulary was insufficient. The word "stock" was made to answer over and over again, and might apply to four or five different things.

said, those engaged in mercantile transactions would have no difficulty with regard to the meaning of the word "stock." The falling of a stack of bricks or timber would not be due to any defect in the materials themselves, but to the mismanagement of some person intrusted with the work of seeing them properly stacked. Now, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for his opinion as to the use of the word "stock" with regard to this particular point, and also as to how far he supported the view of the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not replied to that appeal. Unless some understanding was arrived at, he thought the word had better be struck out.

said, he thought the point was a very small matter; and if it was the opinion that the word should be omitted, he was willing to agree to its being struck out.

said, it was purely a legal question; and he would again appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for an expression of his opinion upon it.

said, there were cases in which the word would apply to dynamite or gun-cotton, for instance, which, being improperly made or subject to accident, might explode and cause injury. He thought the word should be retained.

said, he was satisfied that the word ought to be struck out, if it was intended to include bullocks and cart horses.

said, he would like to know under what head the rolling-stock of a railway would come? He did not think that was included in the word "plant," and it was, therefore, clear that the word "stock" was necessary.

said, if the word "stock" included agricultural stock, he did not think the Bill was of that dangerous character which the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seemed to suppose. He would like to remove the word to Section 2, which would limit the liability for any defect to the case in which the defect itself had been caused either by the negligence of the employer, or by the negligence of some person intrusted by him with the care and management of stock. The word so guarded, did not appear to him of the very alarming character which the speeches of hon. Members opposite might lead the Committee to suspect.

said, it would seem that most hon. and learned Member a liked every form of expression that had a doubt in it. His view of an Act of Parliament was, that everything it contained should be as plain as possible. He believed that what was intended was stock-in-trade, which, owing to its dangerous character, as in the case of carboys of acid, might injure workmen through the negligence of those who ought to have looked after it. The word "stock" was, therefore, better in than out of the Bill.

said, he would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board not to wrap himself up in gloomy silence, but to give the Committee distinct information as to what was in his mind concerning the meaning of the word "stock," whether it covered animate or inanimate stock. If it applied to the former, he should certainly ask the Committee to divide on the question

said, it was very difficult to say what was in the mind of the person who drew this Bill. His own impression was that the word "stock," as it stood in the sub-section, referred to the rolling stock of railway companies; and he could not see how it could apply to stock-in-trade. If hon. Members looked at the former part of the clause, they would see that no reference was made to defect in material, such as acids, bricks, or timber; the wording was simply "defect in stock," and that stock he believed was passenger carriages and the waggons used in the transit of materials. He would like to hear what was the opinion of the Government on this point. If it was intended to apply the word to stock-in-trade, it would open the way to endless litigation; on the other hand, if it did not include rolling stock, it ought to be made to do so.

said, the word was intended to apply to stock-in-trade, in which the rolling stock of a railway would be included.

said, it was almost impossible to conceive the word to include live stock. He would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whether it was intended that it should apply to live stock.

said, the Committee were discussing the question as to whether the word "stock" ought to be retained to apply to stock-in-trade and rolling stock; and, again, whether it ought to be retained to apply to live stock. In his view, these two questions should be discussed apart. The discussion which had taken place had shown that very great doubt existed on these questions. He submitted that the word "stock" should be retained to meet cases of injuries resulting from defects in trade stock, such as chemicals, which, by being improperly stored together, might produce dangerous explosions.

said, it was desirable that the Committee should understand from the Government whether they intended live stock or stock-in-trade. He understood this Bill was intended to apply to servants engaged in husbandry. If that were so, would a horse belonging to a farmer which might run over one of the farm labourers be stock-in-trade? He thought it would be somewhat dangerous to keep the word "stock" in the Bill, if it were intended to include both live and dead stock, and he considered it reasonable that the term should be defined in some way, although he was not prepared to say that the words "in trade" would have the desired effect.

said, there would be no objection to add the words "in trade," as rolling stock would be covered by the word "plant." He was not prepared to say whether the clause applied to injury done to a workman by live stock; but all these questions were governed by the fact that there must be negligence on the part of the employer, or some person intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the stock was in proper condition.

said, an animal might be defective by reason of viciousness. The stock of a farmer was universally known as his "live and dead stock;" but if it was not intended to include live animals in the definition of "stock," he would suggest that the word "dead" should be placed before the word.

said, he thought the word "stock" should be defined, rather than it should be left to be disputed by lawyers hereafter. Since the discussion began, the Committee had been told that it was to include stock-in-trade. Now, he recollected some years ago that the rays of the sun ignited, some lucifer matches in a grocer's shop, which set fire to some gunpowder and produced a serious explosion. It could not be said that this was owing to defect in stock, because the defect was in the window glass, which concentrated the rays of the sun. It was a most important thing to manufacturers and trades people that they should know the meaning of Acts of Parliament under which they were liable. He trusted the Committee would take the little trouble necessary for arriving at a definition of the word "stock" which, if it meant stock-in-trade in the sense he had referred to, would create great disturbance amongst traders.

said, a farmer might have a horse which he knew perfectly well had a disease of the foot, and was liable to come down at any moment. This horse, by coming to the ground, might cause injury to a workman riding home from plough or otherwise. He asked whether that would be a case in which the employer would be liable under the Bill, and must press the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for an answer upon that point? The replies of the Government had hitherto been unsatisfactory with regard to the meaning of the word "stock," and he would venture to suggest that the progress of the Bill would be facilitated by answers being given to reasonable questions.

said, that in the case put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) the employer would not be liable, as the disease of the foot would not be due to the negligence of the employer.

said, he would suppose that the employer had thrown down the horse and broken his knees; and that, on a subsequent occasion, in consequence of the horse having been thrown down by his carelessness, his servant was thrown, and broke his arm. Would the employer be liable under this Bill?

said, in the case put by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), if the employer knowingly sent the man out on a horse that was broken-kneed, he would be liable at Common Law, and not under the Bill. If the defect arose from the neglect of some person intrusted with the duty of seeing that the animal was in proper condition, in that case alone could there be any liability under the Bill.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had pointed out that the Bill applied to the negligence not only of the employer, but of persons employed by him. If, in the case just put, the accident resulted from the conduct of a person other than the employer, that would show to the Committee that stock-in-trade might come within the definition of the work "stock," and that evil consequences might arise from its being brought within that definition.

said, he had proposed to avoid the difficulty by inserting the words "in trade" after the word "stock." He asked the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) to consider whether that would produce the result he desired. Live animals were stock-in-trade, just as much as cotton or wool were stock-in-trade to persons manufacturing cotton or woollen goods.

said, he proposed the Amendment simply because the words "works, machinery, and plant" were definite; but he had been quite unable to make himself understand what was the meaning of the word "stock" as used in the Bill. The long discussion in Committee had testified to the difficulty with regard to the meaning of the term which existed in the minds of hon. Members. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had signified his willingness to insert the words "in trade," he thought it would be much safer to agree to the Amendment before the Committee.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Dodson) had been good enough to leave the definition of the meaning of the word "stock" to the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, both of whom, in speaking of it, had connected it with the word "negligence." But they must bear in mind that there was not a word about negligence in the sub-section of the Bill under consideration by the Committee. He was aware that the word occurred in the next sub-section.

said, he was of opinion that the meaning as at present given to the word "stock," did not sufficiently cover rolling stock. He hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would press that point to a division. He thought that "rolling stock" ought to be inserted after the words "plant or stock-in-trade." As that would make the whole thing perfectly clear, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would accept those words. The hon. and learned Gentleman said if his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) were convinced of the necessity of inserting those words, he would, undoubtedly, insert them; but his belief was that rolling stock came under the head of "machinery and plant." He (Mr. Price) trusted the Committee would now come to a conclusion on the subject. In answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon), he was aware that the 1st sub-section said nothing about negligence; but it was explained that Clause 2 controlled and governed this clause. With regard to the question of agricultural stock, in the first place, agricultural stock must be stock-in-trade; and they had agreed to the insertion of the words "in trade" after "stock." But he was inclined to the belief that a horse ridden every day to market would not be a part of the farmer's stock-in-trade. There was much less chance of injury arising from the negligence of an employer with respect to agricultural stock, and it was difficult to define where any injury from it could arise. Under the circumstances, he put it to the Committee whether it was worth while to make an exemption for the purpose of one trade?

begged to suggest that the words "rolling stock or stock-in-trade not being live stock," should be inserted in the clause. This would settle the whole question, and make the meaning of the sub-section perfectly clear.

said, nothing could be more inadvisable than to insert in an Act of Parliament words which had no fixed, definite meaning. He had looked, in vain, to those from whom he might naturally expect it, a definition of the word "stock." He could not see how "stock," as generally understood, could, by any possibility, be so defective as to cause injury to workpeople. If he could see anything like a meaning that an intelligent, practical man could assign to it, he would be in favour of retaining the word "stock." But, as it appeared to him, it would be nothing but a source of litigation. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) had said, "Do not leave it to the lawyers to decide what is 'stock,'" and he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) agreed with him. But had any other hon. Member given the meaning of the term? No definition whatever had been given. Again, how could there be defect in "stock-in-trade" within the meaning of the Act? One could understand defect in "machinery or plant." Everyone knew what "machinery" and "plant" meant; but when they talked about defining "stock," no definite idea could be associated with the word as it was proposed to employ it in the Bill. They had heard of bricks and timber being piled up in such a way as to cause injury by their fall; but that would be from no defect in the bricks or timber. It was due to a defect in the conduct of the person who stacked or piled them, which, therefore, constituted liability under this Bill. Then, again, with regard to the explosion of dynamite. That would not constitute a defect in the dynamite. It was the special property of dynamite to explode. He had not heard, during the whole of the long discussion that had taken place, a single illustration which would make the Committee understand the meaning of the word "stock." If the words "in trade" were inserted, it would only make the matter worse; and then, again, if only stock-in-trade was intended, it would carry the difficulty further. He said that there had been no case suggested in which stock-in-trade could be liable to produce injuries. Therefore, it seemed to him that to retain a word of which there could be no fixed, definite meaning would be extremely wrong, and a source of mischief rather than good; and he would suggest that, instead of extending the confusion by adding the words "in trade," the word "stock" should be omitted from the clause.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) seemed to think that no injury could arise from stock-in-trade being defective. He (Sir John Holker) thought it was perfectly clear that stock-in-trade might be defective in the sense contemplated by the Bill. A man might have a quantity of petroleum amongst his stock-in-trade, and if that were not properly treated injury would result. Injury might also be occasioned from an explosion of dynamite which, through the negligence of the manufacturer, had been made unnecessarily explosive; and, in both those cases, there might be injury caused by defective stock-in-trade.

said, that the remark applied to petroleum and other mineral oils. A man's stock-in-trade was what he kept for sale, and not what he had on his premises for use. The House of Commons could not be expected to contemplate all the events that might happen. It was enough for them to say that injury might arise from the defective character of the stock-in-trade. For instance, a man might deal in petroleum of a certain quality, which would be safe at a certain temperature but dangerous at another. If, by the negligence of his foreman or himself, petroleum of an inferior quality were bought which became explosive, and a servant went down with a light and an explosion took place, then that injury would result from the defective stock-in-trade. It had been said that horses on a farm were not stock-in-trade, because they were employed to work the farm, and were not for sale; but he wished to point out that they were part of the plant of a farmer, just as the horses at a colliery were part of the plant of the colliery. If a colliery owner had vicious horses, and injury happened to his servants through, those vicious horses, then that was such negligence of the employer as would make him liable under the provisions of the Bill.

said, that he hoped that the Government would adhere to their original intention by striking out the word "stock" from the Bill.

said, that, perhaps, he might be allowed to suggest a case of accident happening from defective live stock. According to the principle of the Bill, an owner of live stock ought to be made liable for injury caused by his stock. There might be a case of an agent of a farmer on a large scale buying a horse with a diseased fetlock. In that case, at Common Law, if an accident happened from the servant falling off the horse, the employer would not be liable. What it was desired to do by the Bill was to make the employer liable in such a case. That was exactly a parallel case to that of a man having a steam engine or boiler in use which was defective. He wished to see an employer made liable if his servants, by his direction, bought defective live stock or used defective machinery.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had stated that the owner of a vicious horse was liable for damage done by it at Common Law. If an employer sent his servant into market with a vicious horse, then he ought to be liable for any accident which might happen to that servant. He thought it very desirable that they should have this question perfectly clear in the Bill, and not leave the definition of what was meant by "stock" to be decided by lawyers. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General himself had shown the necessity of having it clear in the Bill, because he evidently did not understand what stock-in-trade meant in the language used by farmers. Anyone acquainted with farming matters must know that when a sale was announced to take place, the "live and dead stock" were advertised. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman could not be ignorant of that fact. If it were intended by the Government that live stock should be included, as he hoped it would be, then he thought the Government ought to accept the Amendment.

said, that he rose to suggest that the debate as to the word "stock" should now come to an end. He thought that if, after careful examination, the Government found that the words of the clause did not comprehend all that they desired, then they should bring up fresh words on Report. He thought that the best plan would be to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whit-well), and then that liberty should be given to any hon. Member to move a fresh Amendment upon Report.

said, that he felt convinced that if the servants of employers generally were going to have certain privileges given to them, then the servants of agriculturists ought to have the same. There were sufficient important questions to be settled between farmers and their servants, and he did not think that this one of making agricultural labourers an exception ought to be added to them. With respect to the illustration about horses, he thought that if a gentleman were to make his servant ride a horse which was not sound, he ought to be liable in the same way as the manufacturer who had defective machinery. He did not desire to see any exceptional legislation in favour of the farmers. If it were thought right to give the servants on railways and in manufactories certain rights, then, in his opinion, agricultural labourers ought to have the same. He did not consider that it would be doing the farmers any service; on the contrary, it would only be widening the differences between them and their servants, if exceptional legislation were passed with regard to the farming interest. If employers generally were laid under responsibility for injuries to their workpeople, then, in his opinion, there was no ground for refusing the benefit of that legislation to the agricultural labourer. Should the Government make any change in this matter, he hoped it would not be in the direction of exempting farmers from any responsibility.

said, that he agreed with the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease) that this discussion ought to come to an end shortly, and that they should reserve further observations until Report. It seemed to him that the Committee was now quite ready to settle the question by a divison. He would suggest that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) should be withdrawn, and that they should divide upon that of the hon. Member for Bolton. The latter Amendment plainly raised the point at issue. The question that the Committee would have to settle would be whether agricultural stock was, or was not, to be included in the Bill; whether live stock was, or was not, to be included in it. That was the question they had really to decide for the Government. Although they had not received the assistance they might have expected from the Government in the matter, still he thought the question was now ripe for the Committee to express its opinion by a division. He would suggest that they should go to a division upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton.

said, that he fully agreed that this discussion had now continued for a long time. Some considerable time before he stated that he did not attach very much importance to the word "stock;" but no sooner had he said that, than a discussion took place upon its meaning. In order to make the meaning of the word perfectly clear, the Government had agreed to put the words "in trade" after "stock." Now the hon. Member for Bolton wished to insert "or rolling stock." He had no objection to those words; but he really thought that they were sufficiently included under the term "machinery and plant."

said, he could not conceive any reason why a difference should be made between the farming class and other employers. If the word "stock" were taken from the Bill, there was nothing else upon which an action could be founded for injuries sustained by the action of vicious animals.

said, that he begged to move, in page 1, Subsection 1, after the word "or," in line 7, to insert the words "storage of." He thought that that Amendment was worth the consideration of the Committee. It seemed to him that the owner of stock ought to be held liable for injury incurred by his servants, by reason of his negligent storage; and that if he stored gunpowder or other dangerous goods in an improper manner, then he ought to be liable. For instance, a man might have a glandered horse, and he thought that, in the event of an accident happening to his servant through that horse, he ought to be held liable.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not stated whether the word "stock" was intended to refer to agricultural or live stock. If the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the terms of his own Bill, he hoped that he would accept the Amendment.

said, that, in his judgment, the word "stock" was infinitely too wide for the purposes of the Bill; he also considered that the word "stock-in-trade" would be open to some objection. The Bill was to protect persons employed, and he thought they ought to use some other words than "stock-in-trade," which were very wholesale words, and went far beyond the purposes of the Bill. He thought it would be better to use words such as "materials used in such employment, or for such employment." He did not absolutely suggest those words; but he ventured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill should insert some such Amendment.

said, that he did not know whether any observations were intended to be made by the Government upon that Amendment. He should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that in the last division a minority was supporting the proposal of the Government itself. He had been amazed himself, in supporting the Amendment, to find that he was voting against Her Majesty's Government. His hon. Friend behind him (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had now brought forward a proposal which exactly carried out what the right hon. Gentleman said was the meaning of the words of the Bill. He was asked the meaning of the words "stock-in-trade," and he described them in terms which were exactly satisfied by the Amendment. If, therefore, they were again to support a Government Bill, he was afraid that they would again find themselves in a minority. He was very anxious to support the Government upon the Bill; and he should like to know, if it went to a division, whether the Government would support the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, or whether they would throw him over and vote against his Bill?

said, that the Government never proposed the omission of the word "stock;" they said that if it were the wish of the Committee to leave it out, then they would have no objection. That was very different from proposing to omit the word. When it appeared that the Committee was in favour of retaining it, then the Government voted in favour of the retention of their own word. The Amendment now proposed the Government was not prepared to accept. He would only say this with regard to the explanation he gave some time ago, that the word "stock" was not limited in the smallest degree in the manner stated by the hon. Gentleman. The limit proposed by the Amendment would very much narrow the Bill. He would adhere to the proposition he made some time ago for adding, for the sake of clearness, after the word "stock," the further words "in trade."

said, that the Government were willing to adopt the words "stock-in-trade." He should suggest that the words "other than live stock" be also added.

said, that instances had been given of explosive substances like gunpowder being part of "stock-in-trade." The explosion of gunpowder might result from its defective manufacture; but it might also occur from its defective storage. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) whether the case of storage did not entirely meet the intention of the Government?

said, that, perhaps, the word "storage" would not be quite wide enough; he would rather suggest some such words as "placing, stacking, or storing."

said, that it would be well if the Government added the words "other than live stock."

said, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) could be made subsequently.

said, that it was not at all clear what the word "stock" meant. Sometimes, steam-engines were used for threshing corn, and in other cases farmers used horses. A steam-engine, or a horse, then became stock-in-trade. He thought the Committee ought to know whether stock-in-trade included live stock or not.

said, that he had already stated that stock-in-trade included every kind of stock, whether alive or dead.

said, that the question had been put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to what was meant by stock-in-trade, and he stated that it was what a farmer had to sell, and that the term did not apply to what a farmer was using for his daily work, and did not intend to sell. The definition now given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board entirely differed from that previously stated.

said, that, about an hour and a-half ago, the Government expressed its willingness to strike out the word "stock." It had then been suggested by many hon. Members on either side of the House that they should adhere to their original intentions. In his opinion, the only way out of the difficulty into which they had got was to adhere to the original intention of the Government to strike out the word "stock" altogether. As the Bill at present stood, it was simply a lawyer's Bill, and the result of it would be that it would subject employers to every kind of action. Moreover, the Bill would be entirely one sided; and if a man brought an action, the employer would have nothing to do but to pay damages and costs.

said, that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) was not discussing the Amendment which was before the Committee. The Amendment proposed was whether the words "in trade" should be added, and general observations upon the Bill were not admissible upon that Amendment.

said, that he was addressing himself to the word "stock." His contention was that the word was indefinite, and that it rendered every class of employer in this country liable to numberless actions. He, however, said that if employers were liable to these actions, and the word "stock" were left in the clause, then they would be subject to very one-sided actions. If, by any chance, the decisions of the Courts were against them, they would have to pay damages and costs to the plaintiffs; but if, on the other hand, the Court decided that there were no grounds for the action, then they would have to pay their own costs, without the slightest chance of recovering them from the plaintiffs. The consequence would be that every man who received the slightest injury would go to a solicitor, and get a letter written stating that if his employer did not pay him so much money he would bring an action. In many cases the employer would pay the money instead of going into Court. The question was whether the words introduced into the Bill extended the liability under which the employer was placed. In his opinion, the words of this clause were not clear; not a single hon. Member on either side of the House had ventured to say that they were clear; they were open to all sorts of interpretation, and there was nothing clear or intelligible in the Bill. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to do what he said he would an hour and a-half ago, and withdraw the words "stock-in-trade" altogether. If, on further consideration, he found it necessary to bring up an amended clause, or section of a clause, he was sure no one would object to its being done upon Report.

said, that he desired to point out that the words proposed to be added to the clause were more surplusage, inasmuch as the word "stock" was sufficiently explained by the words following:—"connected with the business of the employer." He did not think that a clearer definition could be given of stock, for it must mean stock-in-trade. He hoped that the Committee would not waste further time upon the matter.

said, that the expression "stock" was more comprehensive than stock-in-trade. The Government had expressed its willingness to add the words "in trade" after "stock," so that the effect of the legislation, as regarded the defects in stock, would be a little less opposed to the interests of the employer than before. It was his desire to limit the effect of legislation against the employer; and he therefore hoped that the Committee would add these words, because, in his opinion, they narrowed the liability of the employer by making the clause less comprehensive than it was before.

said, that they had only been anxious to elicit from the Government a statement of what was meant by these words. He wished to do service to the Government, which, perhaps, they did not appreciate; but still he de- sired to be of service to them. It was most desirable, in a Bill of this kind, that the Government should clearly and explicitly state what they meant by the words they wished to put in the Bill. He could not undertand exactly what it was that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board meant by the words "stock-in-trade." Clearly, he meant something very different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General intended. He should like to know whether the words were intended to be used according to the sense fixed upon them by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, or according to the meaning ascribed to them by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board? If the Committee were clearly informed upon that point, progress could be made. His noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had asked the question on this point once or twice, but had, as yet, obtained no answer.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had expressed a wish to do the Government service; but he was afraid that it was only lip service, of a very doubtful kind. When his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board proposed to omit the word "stock" from the Bill, he was met by the statement that the Committee did not wish to do so. Then, in deference to the wishes of the Committee, he had moved to insert, after "stock," the words "in trade." The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had alleged that he differed from his right hon. Friend as to the meaning of the word "stock." In his (the Attorney General's) opinion, the horse upon which the farmer rode to market would not be included in the words "stock-in-trade." He did not know whether a farmer's horse upon which he usually rode to market was more stock-in-trade than a licensed victualler's horse. There might be a case of a farmer dealing in horses besides cattle and sheep, and then they would be stock-in-trade; but he was distinctly of opinion that animals used for personal service would not be included under the definition of "stock-in-trade."

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had somewhat twitted the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to having given lip service to the Government; hut, however that might he, no one could deny that it was essential that, if the Bill was to be passed, the intentions of the farmers should be clearly and definitely expressed. He agreed that if that were not done, the Bill would be of service to no one except the lawyers; it would result, no doubt, in a very plentiful crop of actions, which would be a very great burden upon employers. With regard to the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he certainly did say that he attached no importance to the word "stock," and was perfectly willing that it should be struck out of the Bill. He had, however, since departed from that, and they had now to consider whether the word "stock," which a great many hon. Members thought highly objectionable, was rendered more or less objectionable by the insertion of the words "in trade." He should like to know who could define what was meant by "stock-in-trade?" The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had expressed an opinion that the horse used by a farmer for the purpose of riding to market was not his stock-in-trade; but he (the Attorney General) would like to know whether a horse used for the purpose of ploughing or for taking produce to market was stock-in-trade?

said, that he had only expressed an opinion that a horse used by a farmer for riding to market was not part of his stock-in-trade.

said, that he should like to have an expression of opinion from his hon. and learned Friend as to whether a horse used for ploughing or for taking goods to market came under that definition. At present, the Committee was left entirely in the dark as to the exact meaning of the words "stock-in-trade;" no one was able to say whether such animals were stock-in-trade or not. Suppose they had a description in a bill-of-sale given by a farmer to a creditor, which mentioned stock-in-trade, furniture, and other things. In that case, would the horse used for the purpose mentioned come under the definition of stock-in-trade? If the matter were left in its present uncertain state, the result would be that litigation would arise extremely prejudicial to the farmer, although profitable to the lawyers.

said, it was necessary that the matter should be properly understood. He had himself suggested, some few moments ago, the omission of the word "stock" altogether. Subsequently to that, it had been explained that materials of an explosive character, such, for instance, as dynamite or petroleum, might be included under the word "stock." Now, in order still further to define the word, it was proposed that it should be altered to "stock-in-trade." For his part, he considered that the words "in trade" were mere surplusage, and he should oppose their insertion. The only effect of the addition of the word would be to unduly limit the operation of the Bill.

said, he should propose to add, after the words "stock-in-trade." the words "other than live stock." It had been argued by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side, that the words as they stood would not include live stock; but he thought that they were quite comprehensive enough to do so, and to render employers liable for defects in animals which were very difficult of detection, even by experts. The subject was one not affecting farmers only, but livery stable keepers, cab proprietors, omnibus proprietors, carriers, and others, who would be made responsible for defects in their live stock of which they were not aware.

said, the Amendment seemed to him to be based on a misapprehension of the intention of the Bill. The measure did not in any way alter the liability for negligence. It merely extended the liability of the employer in cases of proved negligence to injuries consequent thereon to workmen. If ac- cidents arose in any way from the negligence of the employer, he would be liable as before. The Bill merely made him liable also for negligence of his superintendents.

said, these words ought to be inserted, for, otherwise, the effect of the Bill would be to enormously extend the liability of owners of all live stock. As he was a Member of the Select Committee to whom this question was referred, he could say that no such extension was ever contemplated by them; and, for his part, he did not believe that it had even been thought of by the Government until within the last 20 minutes. It seemed to him most unjust that a farmer should be made liable for defects in one of his horses, for instance, of whose existence he was not previously aware. A horse which had previously been quiet and manageable might suddenly one day, from some unknown cause, develop temper, and seriously injure a labourer on the farm. It would be a very serious thing if farmers were to be bound to compensate their labourers in every such case.

said, that in the case suggested by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) a farmer would not be made liable. The Bill did not increase the liability for negligence, and as employers were not now liable for what were called latent defects, they would not be liable in future. The Bill only made them liable for the proved negligence of their bailiffs or delegates.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, although, in order that there might be no misunderstanding, he should prefer for his part to leave out the words "stock-in-trade" altogether. He did not think any exception should be made in the Bill in favour of any particular class; while, on the other hand, they should be very careful in any legislation that they did not give rise to litigation, a result which he feared might ensue from the passage of this Bill.

said, the discussion which had taken place showed how necessary it was that every line of the Bill should be carefully scrutinized. If they wanted to prevent the great amount of litigation which he was afraid would result from the passage of this Bill in its present condition, they must be very careful indeed what Amendments they made. The speech first delivered by the President of the Local Government Board showed one of the dangers which they had to meet. He had then told them that "stock" did not include agricultural stock, and now they said that it did or might include agricultural stock. He did not believe that the Government, until a few minutes before, had even considered that question, or had intended to do so. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman had not intended that animal stock should be included in the Bill.

said, the question whether "plant and stock-in-trade" included live stock was one which affected many classes. It was not exclusively a farmers' question. There was a great difference between a defect in an animal and a defect in an implement or a piece of machinery. The defect in a piece of machinery could be detected by careful examination; but an animal which had always had a perfectly good character, and never given any trouble, might suddenly develope some defect, and, in consequence, do a man an injury. Again, a machine which contained a defect ought not to be used at all; but a horse which was lame might yet be very useful for certain purposes. He was afraid that the provisions in the Bill would completely prevent its being employed at all, and would make it necessary that it should be killed.

said, he had no particular desire to retain the words "stock" in the Bill; but he might point out to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that horses were included under the word "plant."["No, no!"]

strongly objected to the addition of these words. He pointed out that the Bill, as drawn, used terms which any lawyer would be able to construe, and terms which bore a particular meaning; but if this addition was made, there would be a danger of confusion, and therefore he would suggest that the Bill should be left as it was originally drafted.

said, he had heard with some astonishment the explanation just made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He did not wish to give a definite opinion himself on the meaning of those words; but he thought that the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had put upon the word "plant" was scarcely one which could be accepted. He did not see how, by any device, live stock could be regarded as part of a farmer's plant. Besides, the Bill itself showed that such kind of stock was not in the mind of the draftsman when he used the word "defective."

observed, that the interpretation which the President of the Board of Trade had suggested surely could not be accepted. "Stock" was a part of a man's machinery for carrying on his business; or, at any rate, that was the meaning of the word that was there employed in the Bill, and how could that be made in any way to apply to the case of farmers, many of whom kept a large number of horses merely for the purpose of breeding and selling?

said, what had already taken place in the course of the debate was amply sufficient to show that the Bill was one which ought to have been referred to a Select Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon the words "stock-in-trade," but would content himself with the phrase originally in the Bill. They ought not to have anything at all to do with horses or live stock in connection with this clause. As Chairman of the Veterinery College, he knew how extremely difficult it was to ascertain whether a horse was sound or not; and if the Committee went into the question, they would have to discuss the temper of the animals which might change in a very short time, and would find themselves embarked on a very long and difficult inquiry.

said, he must object to any proposal which would have the effect of narrowing the Bill. They certainly ought to extend protection to workmen and labourers who were improperly put in charge of vicious animals. Surely there was no desire on the part of the Committee to exclude the agricultural labourers from the benefit of the measure.

suggested that the objections which had been raised would be met if farmers were under no larger responsibility as regarded their servants than the rest of the public.

said he would only trespass on the attention of the Committee for a moment, in order to again explain that the Bill did not extend in any way the nature of the liability of the employer. As he had already said, all that it did was to put workmen in exactly the same position as other persons.

said, he extremely regretted that more rapid progress was not being made with the measure—[Ironical cheers]—that was so; but it was impossible to proceed rapidly with the consideration of a Bill which the Government themselves, though they had introduced it, did not understand. ["Oh, oh!"] He, and his hon. Friends were, therefore, determined to do all that lay in their power to make this and other Government measures as perfect specimens of legislation as possible. They need not hurry with the work of improving these Bills, because there was no particular pressure of time. They knew—they had been told often enough—that the House was to sit until November, and, that being so, they were under no pressure of time, and there was no reason why the Government should exhibit symptoms of impatience. He had just said that the Government did not understand their own Bill, and that remark had been questioned. But the proof of the fact was to be found in the reply which had just been given by the President of the Local Government Board, who was in charge of the Bill, and by the way in which he had acted in regard to this particular phrase, "stock." He had, first of all, proposed that the words should stand "machinery, plant, and stock." He had then accepted a suggestion that the word "stock" should be left out; and after that had been almost agreed to, he had changed his mind and declared that the words should be retained, because a Liberal Member had suggested that the word "stock" might include agricultural live stock, a construction which evidently had not been in the mind of the Government when they drew the Bill. But he was not content with that, for he had afterwards given to the Committee one of the most extraordinary definitions of the word "plant" that he had ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman had said that plant would include live animals on farms, which surely, was a most ridiculous construction. He proposed to support the Motion that those words should be inserted, because it was quite clear that a distinction must be made between live and dead stock; and for this reason chiefly, that it was in a man's power to exercise some control over the latter which it was not in his power to exercise over the former.

also supported the Amendment. It was quite clear that, in some manner, the distinction suggested should be made, and he would remind the Committee that the present was not the time to increase the burdens of farmers. If this Amendment were not accepted, and, by the interpretation of the Bill, it was found that farmers were liable for accidents through the temper or habits of their animals, they would be subjected to an entirely new liability, and one which it would be impossible for them to meet. No man, however well acquainted with horses, could be absolutely sure that they would not develop temper at some future time, although, when he bought them, they might seem to be thoroughly sound and trustworthy.

protested against wasting any time in that discussion. They had done their best to elicit information from the Government, and the only result had been to bring out the extraordinary definition with which the President of the Local Government Board had recently favoured them. That being so, he thought the best thing they could do would be to take a division at once.

said, that, even if these words were added, he doubted very much whether live animals would be included under the words "stock-in-trade." Those words were governed by the words which immediately preceded them, and, as the lawyers said, they were ejusdem generis. Stock-in-trade, therefore, would mean something in the nature of machinery and plant, but something which was not directly included under those two words. It seemed to him that stock-in-trade rather meant the goods in which the tradesman dealt.

said, he rose in order to carry out the view that had been just expressed. He proposed that the words "live stock" should be inserted in the sub-section. The terms of such a clause ought to be very clear; and, as it at present stood, there was considerable doubt about it. They had the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General (Sir Hardinge Giffard), whose opinion was not to be treated lightly, that it was very doubtful, to his mind, whether stock-in-trade included live stock. It was also very doubtful to him (Mr. Serjeant Simon). There ought not to be any such doubt with regard to the terms employed in an Act of Parliament. If it be the intention of the Government that the sub-section should include live stock, there could be no objection to admitting those words, so as to leave no doubt on the matter.

said, that the question was whether the present wording of the clause included live stock. He understood that the Judges had different ways of interpreting Acts of Parliament. When penal, they were interpreted strictly, so that the Committee ought to be much more careful in the case of the words in a penal Act than when the Act was not one of that class.

said, it was not a penal, but a remedial Act of Parliament. In answer to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), he would say that the Government could not accept the proposal he had made. They had objected to the exclusion of live stock, and they now objected to that term being inserted. The object of the Act had been forcibly put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), that by that Bill they did not intend to alter the nature of the liability in any way. That liability would, no doubt, be greater, with respect to persons such as servants, for whom, in some cases, the master was already liable where they were personally guilty of negligence; but by that Bill the liability of the master was extended to his responsible representatives. That Bill extended the liability in that way, but did not interfere with the existing law otherwise. Whatever was done in the ease of live stock before would be also done after the passing of that Bill, and whatever liability resulted before would also result in the same way then. He was unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

Does the hon. and learned Member wish to press his Amendment?

said, he believed he had only done his duty in bringing the matter forward; but he did not wish to press the Amendment.

said, he wished to move the next Amendment on the Paper—namely, to leave out "connected with," and insert "used in." The effect of the Amendment would be to make the meaning clearer. The words "connected with" were very wide and indefinite, and in the case of collieries, for instance, might apply to the stock or plant of a rail or tramway by which the cases were conveyed, although not in any way belonging to, or forming part of, the undertaking. The Amendment was quite within the scope of the Bill, and he therefore hoped that it might be accepted.

said, he preferred the words of the Bill as they stood to those proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He believed that the words already employed were the right ones; the others were, in fact, not so grammatical.

said, he should like to ask the Law Officers of the Crown to tell him what they meant by "machinery, plant, or stock-in-trade connected with the business." He would say, with all deference, that he really did not understand to what extent those words might go. He quite agreed that there might be some grammatical defect in the words proposed to be substituted. That, perhaps, was rather fine criticism; but he must say that he did not understand the phrase "stock-in-trade connected with the business." He, therefore, begged the Law Officers to explain it. He would venture to suggest this—that they should see their draftsman with regard to it, and explain that the present words appeared to be too vague. Then, on Report, they might bring up the sub-section in some different form. It might then run somewhat in this way—"by reason of any defect in the works connected with, or the machinery, plant, or stock-in-trade, used in the business of the employer." He was afraid that they had gone too far in the sub-section to go back and insert other words; but he would ask the Law Officers to furnish a satisfactory explanation, or let the matter stand over for the draftsman.

said, that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down was one that would save the time of the Committee. He had already stated that he did not wish to accept the words "used in" as a substitute for "connected with." If his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) and his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Sir Henry Jackson) would accept his assurance, he would confer with the draftsman and see whether any other words could be inserted which would render the meaning clearer.

said, he was quite satisfied with that assurance, and, therefore, begged to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that he had an Amendment to strike out the whole of the sub-section. It had been put down on the Paper as an Amendment in page 1, line 7. It was possible that that was the right place for it; but what he wished was to have the subsection discussed, and, then if he still objected to it, to move its rejection. He wished to ask, with reference not so much to that particular sub - section, as to several others which would require discussion, whether it was held to be the right course for a Member objecting to a clause in to to to move its rejection before they discussed it, or whether it was competent to move that afterwards? It was quite possible that some objections which appeared at first sight might disappear when the matter had been discussed, and perhaps satisfactory explanation given.

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Baronet appears on the Paper before the last Amendment moved in the sub-section. I called upon the hon. and learned Baronet when the sub-section was first reached, and if he had been here he could have moved its omission. The hon. and learned Baronet was not present then, and he will not be in Order in moving his Amendment now.

said, he wished to move the next Amendment on the Paper. His object in so doing was to limit the responsibility of masters to working hours; and, with the permission of the Committee, he would state an occurrence which came to his knowledge, by way of illustration. A number of workmen were employed in the upper storey of a warehouse, with a lift in it. The bell rung for dinner, and, to save themselves trouble, the men rushed in large numbers to the lift, which was only to be used for goods, and either persuaded or overpowered the man in charge who had "superintendence intrusted to him" to allow them to descend by it. At any rate, he seemed only to have made a feeble protest. An accident happened, and two men were killed and three or four injured. That accident was really due to the negligence of the person in charge of the lift; but it was not in working hours. It might be said that a distinction would be drawn in such a case as that, and that the owners might safely rely upon the jury. Now, he wished distinctly to assert that one of the difficulties which employers of labour would have under that Bill was that juries almost invariably were prejudiced against them. He himself was connected with two or three large concerns, and they scarcely ever dared to go into Court, because they were continually saddled with those claims. The juries nearly always took the side of the poor man, who had sustained, perhaps, a serious injury, whereby he was deprived of the means of earning his livelihood. He did think that, under that Bill, where their responsibility was to be so much increased, means ought to be taken to protect them in those cases which he had referred to. He believed that a reasonable limitation would be that of negligence during working hours. The case he had stated clearly illustrated the position; and that particular accident had, no doubt, occurred, from the recklessness of the men themselves. In such cases it was surely not intended to make the employer liable.

said, that his attention had been drawn to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). He thought there was a good deal of force in what he had said; but he did not altogether like the words he had proposed. They appeared to limit it to when any particular works were being carried on. He would suggest to the Committee, and the hon. Member, the adoption of a slight alteration in the Amendment. The object in view was the same as that of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who had also an Amendment to leave out in line 10,"who has," and insert "in the exercise of." No doubt, some alteration could be come to that would satisfy both the hon. Members and the Committee.

said, he was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He would rely upon the wording suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex.

said, that, from his point of view, he considered that it was of the utmost importance, as far as possible, to do away with the doctrine of common employment. It appeared to him that that was the only logical way of dealing with it. All the difficulties had arisen from the neglect of that principle, which was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the former Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe). That Gentleman had again and again laid it down that if they wished to deal logically and satisfactorily with any given question there must be no exceptional legislation. They must not attempt to legislate for a single class. He proposed, therefore, in connection with that clause, after the word "superintendence," to add "of men or plant."

said, he wished to point out to the Committee that unless some such Amendment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) were introduced, it would make the liability of the employer to his servants greater than that to strangers. It was clear that, by law, an employer was only liable to strangers for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the servants, when those servants were in the course of their employment. He would submit to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the employer ought not to be liable beyond that point.

said, that it seemed to him that the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) had not quite correctly stated the liability of employers. If they took the words of the section, under all circumstances, a workman could only obtain the same remedy against an employer as if he were not in the employ. Therefore, he could not obtain higher compensation than a stranger. In reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who had stated that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) seemed to be unnecessary, because if the employer were not liable to a stranger neither would he be liable to a servant. He would say that inasmuch as the Government had been so much admonished as to the necessity of making the Bill clear, they should be disposed to accede to the principle of the Amendment, although not to the exact wording. With reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), it appeared to him that that went too far. The employer must not be liable for every act of the superintendent; but only for negligence in regard to acts done in the course of business.

said, that the next Amendment, which he begged to move, would have the effect of making the Bill more definite.

said, that that Amendment was the first of a string of Amendments which the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) had placed upon the Paper. They all had the same object, and that might be taken as the test Amendment. That object was to carry out an alteration throughout the Bill. He would say at once that he could not accept any of them, as the effect would be to remove the responsibility of employers in cases where he believed it ought to rest upon those employers. They would so limit the Bill that it was impossible to accept them.

said, if he interpreted the object of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) rightly, it was to confine the effect of the clause to that person who had been called the vice-master, and who was intrusted with the whole of the master's authority. If that was his object, then he was bound to say that he did not think his hon. Friend behind him would have very much chance of getting the Committee to agree to the Amendment. For his own part, he thought that would be the right legislation. That was the step recommended by the Report of the Select Committee, for which he was to some extent responsible, and that Amendment was one which that Committee thought would fairly meet the whole case, made on behalf of working men in reference to the existing law. He wished that his hon. Friend had stated a little more fully to the Committee the scope and object he had in view when he moved that Amendment. He would say that, although he believed that his hon. Friend was urging forward a forlorn hope, had he pressed his Amendment to a division, he (Sir Henry Jackson) should have felt bound to divide with him, because the Government had given no satisfactory reasons for going beyond the case of the vice-master. The present situation of employers, with regard to their liability, had come from the position of railway servants. He believed that but for the very extreme length to which the logical arguments upon the phrase "common employment" had been pushed that agitation would never have taken place. The well-known case of Priestly v. Fowler, which hon. Members heard mentioned, no doubt, with dread, was the first case of the liability of employers that was ever dealt with. He would maintain that that was the first case, and that there was no record in the year books of any attempt before that, to make any master liable to a workman for negligence occasioned by the act of a fellow-workman. By that case the law was altered, and out of that decision arose the phrase "common employment." That phrase was, no doubt, a most apt one, and one that described the position before the mind of the Court when they decided that case of Priestly v. Fowler. As far as he remembered, it was a simple case. Two employés belonging to the same employer were together in a cart. One was killed, owing to the negligence of the other. The Court held that there was no just ground for complaint, inasmuch as there was no evidence to show who caused the injury. He did not wish to go more fully into the matter; but let them look deliberately at the important point that had been raised. The hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) represented one of the most important interests in the country; and he had brought forward in a distinct shape what he (Sir Henry Jackson) believed to be one of the most critical points that had been raised at that stage of the Bill. The phrase "common employment" had sprung from that decision, and as to any case other than within the scope and purview of that decision it was a very bad phrase. It expressed the idea that men working together in one employment had far better chance of avoiding danger than when employed in any other way. Therefore, it was thought not reasonable that they should have a right of action for injuries which, upon that hypothesis, they had as good a chance of avoiding as the master himself. The phrase then gradually became extended to cases to which the logical conception involved in it had no relation whatever. The present Bill was the offspring of that phrase, because Railway Companies very soon began to find that the term "common employment" gave them immunity from liability to which they were subject, and applied it to cases where it had no reasonable application. Then came another legal conception; the doctrine of implied contract. It was then said that every workman entering into dangerous employment contracted and subjected himself by implied, if not by actual, contract, to run the risks involved in that employment. He believed that to be a legal conception far safer than the other, but open to certain obvious objections. Between these two doctrines the conviction had grown up in the minds of workmen that they were suffering from grave and serious injustice, and out of that conviction had grown this legislation. Hon. Members, who invariably pleaded the cause of workmen, entirely declined to go into the real merits of the case, and test by argument whether the arguments on the other side were sound or not. He was in the unfortunate position that he could not invite the Committee to re-consider or negative the decision arrived at by the second reading of the Bill. The second reading determined that some change should be made in the law. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Barnes) had now raised the question as to how far that change was to go. How far down in the scale of agency was this new liability to be taken and enforced against the employer? He knew the conclusion was forgone, and was, therefore, reluctant to enforce the arguments against it. He would not shrink from dividing with his hon. Friend; but he wanted to call the attention of the Committee to the real scope and purport of the Amendment. The workman said—"You admit that a man superintending his own business is liable; I am serving not a small employer, but a large employer, and, because he never comes near his works, I am in a worse position than the servants of a small employer." If that was a further ground for introducing this Bill, the Amendment proposed would certainly meet the case. For his hon. Friend proposed that, whenever there was delegation of employment to persons who had to discharge towards workmen duties which the employer himself, if he were a small employer, would discharge, in regard to the action of such persons alone should the master be responsible. If his hon. Friend thought fit to divide the Committee he should go with him, as a protest against the length to which the Bill went in imposing liability on the employer for the acts of others. He did not think the Government appreciated the length and the minuteness to which the Act would go; and he thought by this Bill they were running great risk of doing more harm than good, and of defeating the object they had in view by paralyzing the exertions of capitalists and injuring the trade of the country. There could, however, be no objection to the limited extension of the existing law.

said, the question at issue was to what extent were employers to be liable for the acts of others. The difference between the words "any" and "the" as relating to this clause was most important. Now, he thought if the word "any" were allowed to remain in the Bill, there would be scarcely any limit to the persons for whom the employer was liable. He was aware of the modification which was introduced in Clause 6; but, at the same time, he thought that a larger number of persons would be included than the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was at all aware of. By a reference to the Mines Regulation Act, provided for the enactment of special rules in collieries, he found that under the rules in force in his part of the country an employer would be distinctly liable for the acts of 17 different classes of persons, so far as the operation of this sub-section went. He believed that was carrying the law much beyond anything which, perhaps, the Government themselves were prepared for. He thought that large employers of labour might and ought to be liable for the chief agents appointed by them; but it would be going much too far to carry the principle down to the men whom they were bound to appoint under the Mines Regulation Act. He should be in a position to show that the persons to be appointed under that Act were men who had a certain amount of superintendence intrusted to them, although they could not be men much removed beyond the condition of common workmen; and when it was considered how very little control a master could have over such men, he held it was going a long way to make him responsible for any accidental negligence on their part. That had never been suggested by the Select Committee which investigated this matter. They recommended that employers, who did not manage their own business, but delegated their authority to others, should be made responsible for their chief agents. He earnestly hoped the Committee would pause before accepting5this sub-section, which contained, perhaps, the most important point in the Bill.

On the Question, Sir, that you do report Progress it may be convenient that I should read a telegram I have received since the House met this morning:—

"From Viceroy of India, Simla, Aug. 3, 1880.

"Agent Quetta telegraphs under date 2nd inst., that tribesmen reported collecting between Chaman and Candahar, and that Ayoob is said to have marched to Mir Karez and to have detailed force for attack on Chaman. Some cavalry supposed to be moving in direction of Kakran for interception of supplies to Candahar. General Stewart has returned to Cabul from Camp Deh Haji. Chief Political has had several interviews with Ameer, with whom are principal Ghilzai chiefs and representatives of Maidan, Logar, Kohistan, and other districts."

said, that he did not rise for the purpose of making a speech. Some speeches were amusing, some were provoking, and some were fascinating; but he thought there were very few speeches which were persuading. He rose for the purpose of endeavouring, if possible, to persuade the Committee to adopt the. Amendment of his hon. Friend. The object of the Amendment was to limit the liability of employers. He would give an illustration of what he meant. Sir George Elliot, a gentleman very well known and thoroughly conversant with the management of coal mines in the North of England, and to whom their management was largely intrusted, became convinced, after a series of experiments, that the best material for drawing men and coals from the bottom of the pit to the surface was wire rope. Up to that time hempen ropes only had been used. But when Sir George proposed to introduce wire rope the men determined that they would not descend by it. Sir George Elliot thereupon had a wire rope put to one shaft and a hempen rope to another, and gave orders to all in his employment, forbidding them to descend by the shaft with the wire rope, from his knowledge of human nature well knowing what would happen. The colliers, who were going to work in the pit the morning after these orders were given, were accompanied by their viewer, who said—"Let us show master that we are not afraid to descend by the wire rope." Thereupon, with the consent of the viewer, they all descended by the wire rope, which bore them safely to the bottom. But supposing an accident had happened, and this Bill without the Amendment had been law, the owner of the colliery, notwithstanding the express order of his chief manager to the persons placed in authority, would have been liable to compensate all those men for any injuries sustained by them. He would appeal to the Committee as to whether that was right. The Bill provided that in the case of accidents happening by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer, who had superintendence intrusted to him, the employer should be liable. In the case he had mentioned, notwithstanding the express orders of the manager, a person "having superintendence" gave instructions to the men to descend by the wire rope. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) were adopted, and the word "the" were put in instead of "any," the owner would not be liable, because the men acted in opposition to the orders of the person "intrusted with superintendence." He would detain the Committee but a few minutes longer; and he would ask hon. Members if they knew at what period this extreme liability was being placed upon coal owners. He would undertake to say that the thousands of pounds invested in the coal trade had not, during the last three months, produced one farthing of profit, and to that depression in trade they were going to add a further liability. The men who were employed in the coal mines could not find employment in any other capacity; and if the liabilities of the employers were to be so much increased no doubt many of the mines would have to be closed. He knew that there were persons who professed to be the friends of the working men of England, who stated that they would be glad when the working classes were relieved from working in such places as coal mines. Those persons said that the miners ought to be encouraged to go to Canada or Australia, and obtain a better kind of employment. A short time ago he was asked to take some part in a meeting which was to be addressed by Mr. Joseph Arch, who, as was well known, was a zealous and earnest friend of the working classes. Mr. Arch ad- dressed the men; and, after directing their attention to the policy of the Government, told them that all their efforts ought to be directed to going out and settling in foreign countries. He (Mr. Thompson) followed him, and said that he thought they ought to look to the Government of England to make England the home of the English; and that it was their duty to legislate, not to drive away the English from England, but to make them happy and contented here. When he said that, cheer after cheer was given by the working men present; and, without egotism, he might say that he remained the hero of the evening, notwithstanding the presence of his friend, Mr. Arch. His belief was that they ought to be proud of the English people living in England, and they ought to do everything they could to encourage the development of their trade, and the development of their resources, in order to keep their people here, and that they should not endeavour to force them to emigrate to foreign lands and leave this country.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Thompson) had spoken of various kinds of eloquence, and expressed his intention of using the persuasive kind of argument. He (Mr. Rylands) must say, however, that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman had not persuaded him. While he sympathized with the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) in his belief that it was desirable that the operation of the Bill should not be too wide, yet he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). If it were really the intention of the Committee to limit the operation of the Bill to the case of negligence of a single individual, by saying that the person having superintendence of the works of the employer should be responsible as acting for the employer, he thought the operation of the Bill would, in that way, be very much too limited. In his opinion, it would limit the Bill to an extent which would practically render it almost inoperative. He was not prepared to take that course with regard to the Bill; and, therefore, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. When they had proceeded further with the Bill, they would have to consider how far its provisions would have to be limited; but, so far as the Amendment now under discussion was concerned, he thought it would narrow the Bill too much.

said, that he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the case of one class of employés, whose claims, he thought, received the sympathy of nearly every one—he alluded to railway servants. If that Amendment were to be carried, and the word "the" inserted in the place of "any," there would only be one person delegated with superintendence by the employer. In the case of railway servants that would be the traffic manager; and it would not be possible, therefore, in the case of railway servants, to bring their claims forward at all. If the Bill was to be at all adequate to meet the case of the railway servants that Amendment must be rejected. In the case of railway servants, the necessity of founding their claim for compensation upon damage inflicted in consequence of the negligence of the person who was the traffic superintendent would, practically, exclude railway servants from the operation of the Bill.

said, that, in his opinion, the speech of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), as well as the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Thompson), would have been more appropriate on the second reading of the Bill than on the Amendment now before the Committee. In the few observations which he wished to address to the Committee, he intended to confine himself to the effects of altering the subsection by making the employer only liable for the negligence of "the" person who had superintendance instead of "any" person who had superintendence. What would be the effect of that alteration? He would like any hon. Member to tell him who was the person to whom the clause would refer. It would be most difficult, in the case of a railway, to determine who was the person; at least, half-a-dozen persons might be alleged to be "the" person having superintendence. The consequence would be that no person would be able to tell, from the four corners of the Bill, who was the person intended by the clause. In the case of railways, it would probably be said that the traffic manager was the only person having superintendence, and that the Company was only liable for his negligence. It seemed to him that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) were adopted, so much would the scope of the Bill be narrowed that they would have to re-cast it entirely. It would be necessary to introduce a clause specifying the person intended as the person having superintendence, for whose negligence the employer would be liable. It seemed to him that having got so far with the Bill they ought not to adopt this Amendment, which he was bound to say he thought would unduly narrow the scope of the Bill. He should be prepared to adopt the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to abolish the defence of common employment; that would be both a simpler and a more logical thing than what was now proposed. They had now, however, to consider the Bill as it had been brought in by the Government, and they must endeavour to carry out the principle it involved in detail. He certainly hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted.

said, that he maintained that accidents in mines were a hundred times more frequent and more disastrous than accidents in any other employment. As the clause now stood, the liability of colliery owners for accidents in their mines would be most gigantic. He had mines extending four miles in one line, and it was necessary to appoint a number of persons to superintend those different workings. If they were to make the colliery owners responsible for every person superintending any part of the working, a most monstrous responsibility would be thrown upon the colliery proprietor. He hoped that the clause would not be allowed to pass in its present shape.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. H. Davey) had stated that this was a proposal which was well considered on the second reading of the Bill; but he (Sir John Holker) thought that was hardly accurate, for in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister introducing the Bill, he left it to be assumed that the only principle carried into effect by the Bill was that some alteration in the law was necessary. He said that something must be done, and he left it to the House to determine afterwards what alteration of the law was necessary. The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) seemed to him (Sir John Holker) to raise the most important questions that had yet been brought forward. There could be no doubt that the law on this subject did require some alteration. It had been very ably pointed out by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry that alteration was no doubt required; but when they came to the extent, and scope, and limit of that alteration they found that they were dealing with a question of vast difficulty. No doubt, it would be only just that he who did not conduct his own business himself, but deputed the management of it to another, constituted him his alter ego, should be held liable not only to the outside public, but to his own workmen for injuries caused through the negligence of the person deputed to manage his business. It was quite obvious, therefore, that great corporations, who could not manage their own business, being, as they were in truth, mere abstractions, ought to be liable for those who controlled and managed the different branches of their business. That was the alteration of the law which many hon. Members in that House had advocated, and that was the alteration in the law which the late Government thought ought to be made. In that opinion he fully concurred; but the great question was, should legislation go beyond that point. If it did go further, and they made such alterations as he had described, they would inflict most grievous injuries upon the industries of the country. That, at all events, was the view which was entertained by a considerable number of hon. Members in that House. On the other hand, it was said that they ought to make the laws equal as between, what he might call, the outside public and the workmen. It was said that they ought to place the workmen upon precisely the same footing as that occupied by strangers. That certainly was an intelligible proposition; but, in his opinion, if carried into effect, it would inflict most grievous wrong upon employers. They were not now seeking by that Bill to equalize the position of the workmen with that of the stranger. The truth was that the law that made an employer liable for all the negligent acts of his servants was, in itself, an essentially unjust law. He had not heard anyone raise that point, or attempt to defend the law which made any man liable to anybody for the negligent acts of his servants. Why should that be so? If a man used every effort in his power to select and secure good servants, why, in justice and common sense, should he be held liable to the extent of his whole fortune for injuries inflicted by the negligent acts of his servants? To take a familiar instance, a small shopkeeper, who had done his best to secure a good and careful servant, employed a person to drive his cart about the town; somebody in a good position was injured by the negligent act of that servant. Why, in the names of reason and common sense, was the shopkeeper to be liable to the extent of his fortune for a negligent act over which he had no control? He had done his best to secure a good servant, and no blame could be attached to him in respect of the negligent act of his servant. He was not morally responsible in the least; but he was made responsible, in law, to the extent of the last penny he possessed. Could any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House defend that proposition and say that was good law? And yet what was desired by one section of politicians was that the law should be made worse than it was by extending it and rendering greater the liability of the employer; he was to be made liable not only to the outside public, but to his servants. He believed the view which was entertained by those who adopted the theory that the servants of an employer should be placed in the same position as the outside public was a view founded altogether upon sentimentality, and had no foundation whatever in truth and good sense. But what was the view presented to the Committee by the Government? The Government had not adopted either theory; either theory was intelligible, but the Government introduced a sort of half measure. They proposed to make an exception, and that employers should not be liable for the acts of all their servants. The consequence was that where there was confusion before the Government made that confusion infinitely worse. The Bill was not to apply to domestic servants, nor to seamen, nor to a variety of other persons. But the truth of the matter was that when they came to consider that measure of the Government it was a measure introduced, not because the Government felt convinced that servants ought to be placed upon the same footing as the outside public, but because the Government, or Members of the Government, had made promises to their constituents, and they felt themselves bound to carry out those promises. The effect was that the Government, or the Members of the Government, were afraid of the opposition which they would receive from the working men of the country. They had consented to truckle to the working men of the country. They had brought forward the Bill, not because they thought it was a good Bill, and not because they thought it would do any good to the public, but because they thought it would be a sop to the working men who were clamouring for it. With regard to the Amendment under Notice he did not think that it was framed in the best terms. He thought another Amendment might be introduced which would more definitely lay down the limit beyond which the Bill was not to extend. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee at any greater length. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General seemed to intimate by his cheers that he (Sir John Holker) was in a great minority; but he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire, if he would take a division upon the question, because he thought that if the Amendment were carried out, it would show that the sense of the Committee was in the direction of limiting the Bill so as to make it a just Bill. He was thoroughly convinced that if not so limited the Bill would produce nothing but disaster to the industries of the country.

said, that he had heard, with great regret, the speech just delivered by his hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General (Sir John Holker). The Bill which the Government had now introduced related to a subject which the late Administration had, in two successive Parliaments, attempted, although unsuccessfully, to deal with. The Bills which they introduced on this subject were only carried to a certain stage, and then dropped. They had had an opportunity of solving this question, but had failed; they had left it to their successors absolutely unsolved, and the present Government were doing their best to deal with it, and, in doing so, assistance of the most useful description might have been given to them by his hon. and learned Friend. But, instead of getting from him criticism, which would have aided them in solving the question; instead of his having given them criticism, which, coming from one of his ability, would have been of a most useful character, and beneficial to the Government, to the House, and to the country generally, they had got nothing but mere Party abuse. If there ever was a Bill which ought to be met in a different spirit from that which had been adopted by his hon. and learned Friend it was this one. This was a matter in which they had a right to expect, even from their political opponents, assistance in settling this difficult question. Were he in the position of his hon. and learned Friend, he should certainly give him all the aid in his power, in endeavouring to settle a question involving difficulties like these. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the law which rendered a man liable for the negligent acts of his servants was an unjust law. That was a very wide question to discuss upon an Amendment of the sort under notice; but he (Sir Farrer Herschell) could not allow the challenge which had been thrown down to pass unnoticed. His hon. and learned Friend had challenged him, in particular, to say the law was otherwise than unjust. Whether that was so or not, it was the fact that it was the law in every civilized country in the world. Law drawn from such different sources, and having such a different origin, all contained that one doctrine, that a man was liable for the negligent acts of his servants; and he could not think that a law which had been arrived at by all civilized nations by different roads could be treated as obviously unjust. He entirely denied that the law was an unjust one. He was prepared to accept the challenge, and if the question had been raised when they were going into Committee upon the Bill he would have gone into it at length. Two Sessions ago, a Bill was introduced by the late Government, and, in introducing it, his hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it was utterly hopeless to attempt to alter the law with regard to that question. He said that it was so interwoven with the practice of our daily life that it would be hopeless to attempt to alter it at the present day. That was his argument upon his own Bill, and it did not lie in his hon. and learned Friend's mouth to depart from it with regard to a Bill upon the same subject, introduced by the present Government. Then it was alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill could only be made just by limiting it in the mode proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Was that the proposal of the late Government? They did not propose to limit the Bill in any such way; on the contrary, they made the liability far wider. But now the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to vote for an Amendment, which would limit the Bill far beyond what he proposed in his own Bill!to limit it to. He regretted very much to hear his hon. and learned Friend, and it had not hitherto been his habit to suggest that in introducing a Bill of this description the Government had done so, not from a desire to do justice between man and man, not to make the law fair and just, but for the purpose of truckling to somebody. He (Sir Farrer Herschell) was thoroughly convinced that the existing law was unfair and unjust; and so much was even admitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government now sought to make it fair and just; and they did not think that that could be done by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire, which proposed to limit the operation of the Bill. That Amendment limited the scope of the Bill, by making the employer liable only for the negligence of a single individual who had the superintendence. It was obvious that if they took the case of the small employer of labour, he was subjected to all the liabilities under which a large employer would be under the Bill. If the Amendment were adopted, the result would be this—a small employer, who might employ one superintendent, would be liable only for his act. But let him extend his works, and let him have several miles of mines, and several superintendents, and then his liability would be diminished in the same ratio that his business progressed. The consequence would be that the more profit a man made the less liability would he be subjected to. He did not conceal from himself that it would be extremely difficult to say for what superintendence the employer was to be liable. Any assistance in settling that question in a fair and proper way, in accordance with the principles of the Bill, the Government would be ready to accept from whatever quarter it might come. He could not help thinking that they had better deal at once with the Amendment now before the Committee.

said, that he should like to say a few words upon this subject for a five-fold reason; in the first place, he was an employer of labour; in the second, he was a railway director; thirdly, he was interested in a colliery; fourthly, he was a farmer; and, fifthly, he was a barrister. He was sorry that the Government did not see their way to granting the employers of labour this little alteration in the Bill. He would give a good reason why he said that. He had in his employment a foreman, and under that foreman were 14 or 15 over lookers. To take the case of a man who was employed under one of those over lookers; he was quite ready to be responsible for that over looker; but supposing a workman, on his way to the grindstone to grind his tools, was asked by one of the over lookers in whose department he was not employed to do work for him, that would not be doing his legitimate work. Supposing an accident happened while doing that work, he (Sir Andrew Fairbairn) maintained that as that man was not doing his legitimate work it was not fair to make the employer liable for what happened to him. For if that were the case the workman might say he had 14 or 15 over lookers as masters instead of one. He had the greatest wish to help the Government in carrying this Bill through; he had voted for the second reading of it. He was still in favour of the Bill; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of it would consider that there was something in [the arguments brought forward in favour of narrowing the Bill, and would put some limitations upon it. He trusted that the Government would allow the very small alteration now proposed to be made—namely, substituting the word "the" for "any."

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would not press his Amendment to a division. He fully concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Christehurch (Mr. Horace Davey) that, if the Amendment were adopted, it would make the Bill utterly unintelligible. It was perfcetly clear that if the Amendment were adopted, it would be altogether impossible to determine the actual individual for whose superintendence the employer was liable. It seemed to him the only way in which the Bill was really intelligible was as it now stood.

said, that the great difficulty they had in this clause was with regard to the meaning of the word "superintendence." He thought that the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would act wisely by withdrawing his Amendment, and confining his attention to introducing a definition for the term "superintendence" at the end of the Bill.

said, he was anxious to avoid the temper and angry feeling which characterized the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. What they had to do then was calmly to consider the effect of the proposed Amendment. He considered that if they inserted "the" in place of the word "any" in the clause, without any alteration in the subsequent part of the sub-section, there might be some objection to the Amendment. He thought, therefore, that after introducing "the" in place of "any" they should afterwards say "the person in the service of the employer who has superintendence over the work intrusted to him." The objection taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was that a small employer had one superintendent, and that a large employer had more, and he said that the large employer would have a much less liability than the small one. He did not suggest that the exact words he had mentioned should be inserted; but he thought that some such Amendment should be introduced which should identify the person for whom the employer was to be liable, with an actual superintendence over the workmen. It often happened that different superintendents had precisely ascertained bodies of workmen under them.

said, that he would suggest to the hon. Mem- ber for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that it was undesirable to press his Amendment to a division. The view put forward by the late Government was that the liability of the employer should be confined to the person who represented the master. That view, he believed, had found favour with a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If this Amendment were pressed to a division it would place those who took that view in a difficult position. It did not seem to him that the Amendment carried out that view. It would lead only to technicality and obscurity, where all ought to be plain. The object of the Amendment should be to confine the responsibility of the master to those cases where a person employed by him had superintendence. It was very difficult to know what the person alluded to by the Amendment meant. It seemed to him that it would be highly undesirable to leave the question in so uncertain a position, and he would suggest that the Amendment should be reserved to some other period of the Bill. When moved then, it would really raise the question which would place the proposition contended for by the late Government—namely, that the responsibility only attached in the case of persons really representing the master—properly before the Committee.

said, that he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

said, that he rose for the purpose of asking for a reply from the Government to a question which had been put to them. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had never yet told the Committee what class of people it was for whose acts the master was to be responsible. His hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor General (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had exactly stated the principle for which the late Government contended, and he hoped that they should have a declaration from the Government as to whether they accepted that principle or not. Take one or two of the leading classes of trade, such as builders or railways, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what class of persons in those trades he desired to make the masters responsible for? It would be very desirable to have a classification under the heads of the different trades—railways, mines, the building trade—showing exactly in those trades for whose acts the master was to be held responsible. He was sure that some classification of that sort would be absolutely essential before the Committee would be in a position to deal with this question.

said, that he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He hoped that before very long they should hear distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill who were the persons for whom the employers were to be responsible. He said the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would confine the liability of the employers to a narrow point. He thought, in all justice, there ought to be a limit to the liability. As it stood now, nothing could be broader than the words; the master was to be liable for the acts of any person whatsoever in his employ. Manymen had superintendence intrusted to them by the master who were little removed from the class of labourers; and he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to make an employer liable for the acts of that class of persons? If so, he thought he was laying a very unjust burden upon employers of labour. He thought that the Government had undertaken to deal with the question that struck at the most vital interests of the trade of the country. It was a question which ought to be dealt with in the most careful manner. He would appeal to the Government to tell the Committee distinctly for whom employers were to be liable, and for whom they were not to be liable. If the Government did not know the extent of the liability, then all he could say was that that Bill would extend it beyond anything they desired or contemplated. It was this attempt at legislation, without going fully and practically into the question, to which he had such an objection. He thought that these questions should have been more carefully considered. He doubted whether any one single Bill could deal with the vast interests of the employers of labour throughout this country. The cardinal defect and original sin of the Bill was that it made no discrimination between the interests of the different classes of employers of labour. He would appeal most earnestly to the Government to tell them now what class of persons were to be made liable.

said, he would like to know what would happen in cases where a superintendent was obliged to leave his post, and he put on someone else to perform his duties during his absence? Would the action of that substitution also make the employer liable for negligence? It was a very important point to be decided, because the man substituted might do the employer considerable injury.

said, he must again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill to tell the Committee, either now or at some future time, how far he was prepared to go in the scale of service, and for what classes of persons did he desire to make the masters responsible? Could he not state the classes in each case? In regard to mines, for instance, would he be content with superintendents, or would he go down to over lookers and under lookers? Then, again, in the ease of railways, would he be satisfied to stop at station-masters, or would he include guards and signalmen? These points must be cleared up if the Bill was to be satisfactory. If they were not, there would certainly be litigation, and the working classes would be disappointed to find that they had not got all that they expected. He did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer immediately; but would be quite satisfied if he would say, at some time in the future, who were to be superintendents in each class of case.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Dodson) would not suffer himself to be drawn into complying with any such impracticable suggestion. The question at issue was now fully before the Committee; and if any hon. Member was not satisfied with the Bill as it stood, it was quite open to him to propose any Amendment expressing his own opinion. It would, however, be reducing legislation to a perfect absurdity, if an hon. Member was expected to state who were responsible in relation to coal mines, and who were responsible in relation to shipbuilding yards, to ironworks, chemical works, and other industrial operations. Questions of that kind unfairly delayed the withdrawal of an Amendment which had been proposed some time ago; and in his (Mr. E. J. Reed's) opinion, the Bill was not receiving fair treatment from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They were, certainly, needlessly prolonging the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had now twice, within a few minutes, asked the President of the Local Government Board to give a definition which, for his (Mr. E. J. Reed's) part, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not attempt to do at all.

said, he must strongly object to the language that had been used by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken. He had been accused of delaying the progress of the Bill. He had no desire to do anything of the kind. He simply asked the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on this question, either now or at some future time. If he could not do it now, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be satisfied to receive it on Report, or whenever it was convenient to the right hon. Gentleman; but it could not be the fact that it was impossible to make this statement, because the Bill introduced by the late Government did deal with the matter, and give the very details which he now desired to receive from his right hon. Friend.

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would not give way. Just before the adjournment of the Sitting they were very nearly agreed on this question, and since they had met again they had very nearly settled it, when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) charged the Government with introducing this measure, not to settle the question, but to truckle to the constituencies. That was a charge which came from the Opposition, who had promised to give them, assistance in passing this difficult measure, and it came with ill grace from the author of the previous Bill, which, certainly, was far more ambiguous than the present measure, and which had the effect of rendering the employer liable not for one but for several superintendents. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said that these questions ought to be answered, and by pressing the Government to give an answer he certainly was de- laying the progress of the Bill. He had declared that without an answer the meaning of the Bill could not be ascertained. He (the Attorney General) replied that the meaning of the Bill was to be found within the measure itself, and must only be found there. If hon. Members were not satisfied that that could be done, their proper course was to indicate their opinion by giving Notice of an Amendment which should make the meaning of the Bill more clear. If that were done, they might make some progress, instead of having discussions of this kind. That attempt to cross-examine a Minister could be of no benefit; because, even if his right hon. Friend would state what he considered to be the meaning of certain words, that would have no effect at all when the Act came to be construed, because the Courts and the Judges would take the words of the Act and put their own interpretation on them, and would not accept the interpretation of his hon. Friend. That was, in fact, an attempt to put a responsibility on the President of the Local Government Board which was, in reality, no responsibility at all.

said, that discussions after an offer to withdraw an Amendment had been made certainly seemed to him to be of the nature of obstruction; but, according to his experience, when the Members of the two Front Benches began to indulge in mutual recrimination, there was very little chance of any Business being done afterwards. He would suggest that this matter should be dropped, and that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "who has," in order to insert the words "in the exercise of." His Amendment was only intended to make the meaning of the Bill more clear. Its effect would be to limit the employer's liability to accidents which occurred during the time that the employed were actually engaged in their work of superintendence.