said, that he thought this Amendment required but little consideration. The effect, if these words were inserted, would be to make the employer only responsible for those persons who had general powers of superintendence, and would make Sub-section 3 substantially the same as Sub-section 2. The case would not be met of any person having particular superintendence intrusted to him. He could not agree to the Amendment.

said, that he thought that the Government was quite right in objecting to the insertion of this Amendment. He did not see the wisdom of limiting the Bill in the manner proposed. It seemed to him that the Amendment was inconsistent with the object of the Bill.

said, that in the absence of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) he would move the Amendment which stood in his name. He believed it would meet with the general consent of the Committee, and he had agreed to accept it. It would come in at the end of Sub-section 3, and would render that more explicit by enacting that the injury must be caused by the negligence of any person in the service of the employer, by whose orders or directions the workman at the time of the injury was bound to conform, and did conform, and such injury resulted from his having so conformed.

said, that as the clause was originally drawn it made the employer liable for the injury caused by reason of negligence of any person in the service of the employer to whose directions the workman was bound to conform. He presumed that, as now amended, the sub-section would limit it to cases in which injury had been caused solely in consequence of obedience of those orders. He did not see any objection to that being done, and it seemed to him to be in accordance with the principles of the Bill.

said, he stated, last night, that that was the intention.

said, that this Amendment was of so great importance that it was absolutely necessary to so frame it as to make it quite clear. If it remained as it was it might lead to serious difficulty in the case of some employments. He did not think that the Government had quite recognized the fact that in large iron works certain departments were placed under the management of sub-contractors, who employed the men who did the work under them. These men, called the foremen of the particular departments, were really employers; they were sub-employers, and received from the ironmaster a sum varying according to the amount of work they produced, and out of that they paid wages to the people in their employ. It seemed to him that the effect of this sub-section, as amended, would be that the man who was, practically, an employer, and who might by his action lead to accidents to the men in his employ, either through his own negligence or through the negligence of the men employed by him, was entirely free from responsibility. This sub-employer, who had really been guilty of negligence, would not be liable to an action on the part of people in his employ; but the unfortunate owner of the iron works was liable for the actions which really ought to be brought against the sub-employer. He thought there ought to be some qualifying words, throwing upon the party having the absolute direction of the men a certain amount of responsibility. He must say that he should have been glad to see some qualification introduced to meet those cases where a sub-employer actually paid wages to workmen who were under his control, and that he should be made personally responsible. It was perfectly certain that, as the Bill stood, such a sub-contractor would incur no responsibility.

said, that the law stood in this way in the case put by the hon. Member. The sub-contractor entered into contracts with the workmen on his own behalf; and, under those circumstances, the master would be exempt from responsibility. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied that in such a case there would be no liability on the higher employer, but the middle man would be liable. Of course, lie was liable to the same extent provided for by the Bill. Under those circumstances, he hoped that there would be no objection to this Amendment, which somewhat limited the liability of the employer, being inserted. He was quite sure that the employer would not be liable, where the work was done by a sub-contractor.

said, that he feared the result of the Amendment would be very seriously to limit the responsibility of the employer, and to give rise to costly and doubtful litigation. This sub-section would apply in those cases where Sub-section 2 was inapplicable. By Sub-section 2 the employer was made responsible for the negligence of any person who had superintendence intrusted to him; and by this sub-section the case would be covered of any person who was temporarily intrusted with the superintendence, and also the ease of the person to whose orders the workman was bound to conform. Then the Amendment proposed that it should be necessary to show, in the two latter classes of cases, that the injury happened to the workman in consequence of his conforming to those directions. All the four sub-sections of this clause involved considerable difficulty. It seemed to him that there had been an unfairness about this provision, because in the case of a temporary over-looker not giving specific directions to a workman, or in the case of his not doing a certain act in the way pointed out to him, such workman was to lose his right to compensation. He thought that it would be most unfair to call upon the workman injured to show, in an action at law, that he had received specific instructions from a person authorized to give them, that he had conformed to them, and, further, that the injury was the direct consequence of his having conformed to such instructions. He thought that a person having temporary charge, and being temporarily intrusted with superintendence, should be treated in the same way as a person having general superintendence, and that the employer should be liable for his negligence, without throwing upon the workman the proof of this difficult point.

said, that he did not attach much importance to this Amendment. The liability of the em- ployer, under the sub-section as it stood, was for injury to workmen by reason of the negligence of the person in the service of the employer, to whose orders the workman at the time of the injury was bound to conform, and did so conform. What could be the meaning of that, except that by so conforming the injury arose? That seemed to him to be the obvious meaning of the sub-section as it now stood. He did not, therefore, see how the difficulty of proof would be increased, as his hon. and learned Friend thought it would be, by the adoption of the Amendment.

said, that he fully agreed with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). He thought they ought to provide, so far as possible, against unnecessary litigation arising from this Bill. In order to prevent litigation arising, the Bill ought to be made as clear and simple as possible. It seemed to him that, under the sub-section as it now stood, a clear issue arose for the decision of a Court. Then there might be conflicting decisions given upon the meaning of the sub-section, which would introduce further difficulty. That would interfere with the object which the Government wished to attain—that the decision of one case should govern a great many others. It might be very difficult to show that the injury to a workman resulted from his having conformed to the orders given to him. If the Amendment were adopted, the issue raised for the decision of the Court would be somewhat complicated and confused, and he thought it would be well if the Government reconsidered the matter before adopting it.

said, that he trusted that they would not be kept long discussing the Amendment now before the Committee. It seemed to him that no new question was raised for the opinion or consideration of the Court by the proposed Amendment. If the injury were caused by reason of the negligence of the person to whose directions the injured man was bound to conform, then it must have been that his injury resulted from his having so conformed.

said, that there was a new fact raised by the Amendment which the plaintiff would have to prove. He would have to prove that, having acted in accordance with the orders given him, the accident was the direct consequence of his obedience to those directions. Supposing a manager of gunpowder mills sent a boy of tender age to a dangerous machine, and the boy, conforming to the order, went to the machine and an explosion took place which injured the lad, as the Bill stood he would have a right to compensation against the employer; but according to the Amendment he would have no right to compensation unless he could prove that he was working the machine in accordance with the orders received, and that his doing so caused the accident. It seemed to him that sending a mere lad to a dangerous machine to work it was sufficient to give a ground for compensation against the employer, although it might very well have happened that the accident was not directly occasioned by the lad working the machine in accordance with the directions he received. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) in thinking that it would be a hardship on a workman to have to prove the fresh fact raised by the Amendment.

said, that the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not one which could occur in practice, and was entirely due to the fertility of his own imagination.

said, that the case which he had mentioned was one which, within his own knowledge, had actually occurred.

said, that he did not see what good could be obtained by accepting the Amendment. Every person, whose evidence might be absolutely necessary to prove this new fact, might be killed by the accident.

said, that the intention of the Government in introducing this clause was to deal with the case of the person having temporary authority. They did not want to place a person of minor authority in the place of a person having general superintendence; they wished to guard against that evil. The master was not to be liable for injuries sustained whilst the workmen were not conforming to the orders given them. They wished to make that perfectly clear. He did not think that the Amendment was abso- lutely necessary; but he thought that it would make the sub-section clearer. He believed that the Amendment would make it clear that the workman, in order to obtain compensation, must prove negligence on the part of someone to whose orders he was bound to conform, and to which he had conformed as a matter of fact. If the accident arose in the act of conforming, then there was liability on the part of the master; otherwise not.

said, that he had to move, in page 1, line 17, after "employer," to insert "who has superintendence intrusted to him."

said, he should like to know whether the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished to move the omission of the whole of the sub-section? If so, he must do it then.

said, that the question which he wished to bring forward was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said, that it appeared to him that the person who gave instructions contrary to the bye-laws of the employer was a person for whom the employer ought not to be responsible. The latter portion of the clause would include those minor persons referred to by Clause 3, to whose instructions the workman was bound to conform. The Amendment which he proposed applied solely to those persons mentioned in Clause 6, and limited the employer's liability to persons whose sole, or principal, duty was that of superintendence, and who were not ordinarily engaged in manual labour.

said, that he could not agree to the insertion of those words. He thought that if the hon. Member would look carefully at the sub-section he would see that it was unnecessary. The intention of sub-section 4 was to make the employers responsible for improper or defective bye-laws; and if injury resulted by persons obeying a defective bye-law, there was no reason why the employer should not be held responsible where the orders given were those of the person who had superintendence intrusted to him, or where they were the orders of any other person. Perhaps it would save the time of the Committee if he referred to another point. An Amendment had been placed upon the Paper, which evidently aimed at relieving employers from responsibility in cases where the defective bye-law was framed under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, or an Order in Council. He proposed, when the proper time arrived, to introduce an Amendment to deal with that particular case. He thought it would come in more properly at Clause 2, where it was provided that the master should not be responsible for injury derived from bye-laws, unless it could be shown that the bye-laws were improper or defective. He proposed to introduce another sub-section to the effect that if a rule or bye-law had been approved of or accepted by the Board of Trade, or any other Department of the Government, it should not be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an improper rule or bye-law. He thought that that provision would meet the circumstances of the case.

said, he should like to know whether the master would be responsible, under certain circumstances, in the iron manufacture? If the iron was not run out from the furnace with sufficient care, perhaps, before the sand was dry, an explosion would ensue. He should like to know whether, under those circumstances, the employer would be responsible to the men engaged in that operation?

said, that in such a case the employer would not be liable.

said, that the subsection which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had intimated his intention to move, would go some way towards meeting their objections. In the case of mines their rules were drawn up, and approved of, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. He did not intend to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

said, that he begged to propose an Amendment that he thought would simplify the Bill, without making any alteration in its substance. He proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "obedience to," to leave out "particular" and insert "improper or defective." As the Bill was at present drawn, it would give rise to a great quantity of litigation. It was extremely difficult to construe, even for a trained lawyer, and it must occasion great difficulty to workmen and employers, and even to the County Court Judges who would have to deal with it. He thought they would be rendering good service by making the Bill as simple as possible. That would be effected, he thought, in a great measure, by abolishing the exceptions in the subsections of Clause 2. If Clauses 1 and 2 were read together, the reader's mind was liable to become very confused; it was really difficult to know what was intended to be the rule, and what the exception. Under those circumstances, he had put upon the Paper a series of Amendments, the adoption of which would not produce any substantial alteration in the liability of the employer, but would simplify the Bill, by getting rid of the first three sub-sections of Clause 2. If in the 4th sub-section of Clause 1, they were, after "obedience to," to leave out "the," and insert "any improper or defective," and in line 19, after "obedience to," to leave out "particular" and insert "improper or defective," he thought that the same result would be arrived at as if they retained the 2nd sub-section of Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had just then observed that the only case where the liability of the employer would arise under sub-section 4 of Clause 1, would be where the bye-laws were improper or defective. He (Mr. Bryce) thought that the better way to show that would be to adopt the Amendment which he proposed. He would read sub-section 4 of Clause 1, as it would stand in case his Amendments were adopted, and sub-section 4 of Clause 2 were subsequently omitted—

"By reason of the act or omission of any person in the service of the employer done or made in obedience to any improper or defective rules or bye-laws of the employer, or in obedience to any improper or defective instructions given by any person delegated with the authority of the employer in that behalf;"

and would express the hope that the Government would accept an Amendment which, while simple, was calculated to improve and render more intelligible this perplexing Bill.

said, he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member. He was not going to enter into an argument as to whether they might re-cast the Bill in a better shape or not; hut they had drafted the Bill for better or for worse. In one clause it stated the liability upon the master, and in another clause it stated the exceptions by which the master was relieved of his responsibility. The proposal now made was to alter the substance of the Bill—to recast and re-draft it. He would ask the hon. Member, and he would ask the Committee, how the Government, having already difficulties enough to contend with, could hope to succeed in passing the Bill, if, in addition to the contentious matter already involved, they were to undertake to re-cast and re-draft it? If they did, he should certainly despair of passing the Bill altogether. He was sure that it was unnecessary to adopt that course; and he must distinctly warn the hon. Member that if they were to attempt to re-cast or re-draft the Bill, it would be all but impossible to pass it through.

said, he was not going to follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, because it seemed impossible to make him see the good sense of this Amendment. He quite agreed with all that had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). With the object of assisting him he begged to move an Amendment upon his Amendment. The word "defective" had been used too much in the Bill, and he proposed to substitute for it some words which seemed to him to be better. He should suggest that, instead of "defective," they should say "any unreasonable or illegal" rules or bye-laws. Those words, which applied to rules or bye-laws, were well known to every Judge in the Kingdom.

asked if the hon. and learned Member intended to move those words if the Committee determined to leave out the word "the?"

said, that he rose to protest against the offensive remarks of the hon. and learned Member. It was really distressing to hon. Members to hear remarks levelled against Ministers which were certainly not only rude but were, probably, very much worse than rude.

said, that with reference to the last remark of the hon. Member for Cardiff, the expression which he had used was not rude; it was simply the spirit of despair. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to see the great assistance to the Bill which the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would be.

said, that he must ask the hon. Member for Cardiff not to be too hasty in making accusations against hon. Members. He wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport that he was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board refuse to accept the Amendment. He thought if the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets wished to simplify the construction of the Bill, he had taken a course which would not do so.

said, that he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment. Perhaps the Bill was capable of very considerable improvement; but when the Bill was laid upon the Table of the House it was read a second time pro formâ, and then re-committed for the purpose of being altered by the Government. They now had the Bill as prepared by the Government; and he thought, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the Committee would do well to retain the Bill in its present shape. With reference to the remarks upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he believed that every Member of the Committee had been strongly impressed with his extreme courtesy and the great ability displayed by him in dealing with this question.

said, that, of course, it would be idle for him to persist in his Amendment, since the Government had refused to accept it. He differed, however, from the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Bill was better as it was. Still, he did not wish to put his judgment against that of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore he should withdraw his Amendment.

said, that he should not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "any," and insert "the." He begged, however, to move, in line 19, page 1, after "person," to leave out to the end of the sub-section, and to insert instead thereof "in the service of the employer who has superintendence in trusted to him."

said, that the Committee would see that the liability thrown upon the employer by the second part of this sub-section was in respect of instructions given by any person delegated with the authority of the employer in that behalf. The hon. Member proposed that the instructions should be given by a person who had superintendence intrusted to him. He thought that the words used in the sub-section were much more ample, and would avoid the difficulty which would be raised if instructions were sent, and not given, by a person having superintendence.

said, that he could not understand why the Government refused to accept this Amendment. As the clause stood, it was left to the jury to decide whether a person was delegated or not with the authority of the employer, and the extent to which he was delegated; whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member made it explicit that the instructions must be given by some person having superintendence.

said, that he had given Notice of an Amendment in page 1, line 20, after "behalf," to insert—

"Unless such person has given instructions contrary to the special orders written or printed and put up by the employer."

He should propose that Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

said, that he had to propose an Amendment in page 1, line 20, after the word "behalf," to insert the following sub-section:—

"Or, by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer engaged in a branch or department of such service separate and distinct from that in which the workman was engaged."

His object was to secure an enlargement, or modification, of the doctrine of common employment. The defence of common employment rested upon the presumption that the workmen employed together should watch each other; but where workmen were engaged in distinct departments this was found to be simply impossible. The Scotch Courts had long held that it was most unreasonable to deny a remedy for injury occasioned by the act of a servant not immediately connected with the person injured. Their law was now assimilated to that of this country. But there was a case in which Lord Ardmillan had put the case so clearly that, with the permission of the Committee, he would read a few extracts from his Judgment. The case was that of "Macfarlane v. The Caledonian Railway Company." Lord Ardmillan said—

"The pursuer states that he was in the employment of the Railway Company as a labourer; but he avers that shortly before the accident of which he complains he was employed as a watchman to watch the effect of trains passing over a spot where the railway was merely supported by uprights, the ground under it having been excavated for the formation of a bridge under which another railway was to be carried. The pursuer was engaged in this duty while it was dark early in the morning when the accident happened. He had a watch box at a little distance from the place where the ground was excavated; but he states that he could not see the effect of a train passing that place without coming close beside it with his lantern. This is what he states he did in compliance with the orders he received to watch the effects of that train passing, and he says he was standing at the only place where he could have watched the effect of that train. Just when he was so employed a down train came by and knocked him down and injured him. The pursuer avers that he did not know that a down train was then due, and that he had received no information as to when the trains were to arrive; and he further alleges that the defendants' inspector who employed him to watch had told him that no train would arrive after 12 o'clock at night. In such a case the defenders may have defences founded upon the nature of the pursuer's employment, and the duty in which he was engaged, as exempting them from responsibility; but the Lord Ordinary does not think it can be held in a question of relevancy, and that without any investigation he declares that the pursuer, though employed to perform the special office of watching from a particular spot of the line the effect of a train passing, was not entitled to rely that the defenders' arrangements were such as to make it possible for him to perform that duty without being run down by another train. It does not appear to the Lord Ordinary that the relative responsibility of the parties can be properly judged of until the whole facts shall be ascertained."

He had never been able to understand why, if two passengers were travelling by a railway train together and were killed, the family of the one who was not employed by the Railway Company should be entitled to compensation, whereas if the other passenger happened to be an engine driver, or other servant of the Company, his family could obtain no compensation whatever. There were comparatively few small establishments in the country in which a master himself worked, and where his servant, if injured through his negligence, would have a right of compensation. They had now, all over England, establishments containing a population almost as large as the Government Departments; and it did appear to him that the time had now come when there should be, at all events, some relaxation in the law of common employment.

said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol were carried, he should move an Amendment exempting mineowners from the provisions of the Bill. They were exposed by the measure to a gigantic responsibility.

said, that an Amendment very similar to this was introduced by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig) with the object of applying it to mines only, and it was negatived without a division. In the case of an explosion in a mine, if the same law were applied to mineowners as to other employers a very great liability would be thrown upon them. He did not think that it was possible that such could be the intention of the Government.

said, that he was sure that the Government was desirous to make this Bill as complete as possible, and they could only do so by giving careful attention to the suggestions of practical men. If the Bill passed in its present rough state, he feared that the effect upon certain industries would be very detrimental. But if employers, and especially mineowners, would do their best to get rid of this evil doctrine of common employment, or, at all events, to reduce it to its proper limits, they would occupy a much more dignified position two years hence. The late Government had done much to bring about a change of public opinion with regard to the doctrine of common employment; for, two years ago, few, if any, would admit the necessity of any such alteration of the law as this Bill proposed. And if it passed into law, a still greater change in that opinion would speedily be effected by its operation, and the litigation which would arise would ripen opinion for abolishing that doctrine so far as it related to those workmen who had no oversight or control of each other. At present, however, he did not think that public opinion was ripe for so modifying the doctrine. If there was one employment more than another in which a demand for the modification of the doctrine of common employment was strongest it was in the case of miners, for there a man was at the mercy of his fellow-workmen, over whom he could exercise no control whatever. If it were right to make an employer responsible for any man intrusted with supervision, he could not see that it was just and reasonable to exclude from their liability those men over whose engagement and dismissal, and over whose conduct, a fellow-workman had no real control.

said, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Bristol raised a question which had been the subject of agitation for some years, and had culminated in the Bill now brought in by the Government. The Scotch case cited by the hon. Member, and in which Lord Ardmillan had given judgment, had actually arisen also in the English Courts. There was a well known case in which a platelayer was run down by a railway train; but it was held that his representatives were not entitled to recover, because he and the engine-driver were engaged in a common work. What was the common work of a man working on the railway and of an engine-driver? The man working on the railway was held to be engaged in a common work with the man running the engine, because the object of both was to secure the passage of the railway train. Anything more monstrous in its injustice than such reasoning it was impossible to conceive. He was sure that that never was, and never could have been, the original intention of the defence of common employment. Take another ease. A man was engaged, in painting a shed, and another in removing an engine; in doing so he ran the engine into the shed, and the man painting the shed was knocked down and injured. It had been held that he was not entitled to recover, because he and the engine-driver were engaged in a common employment. What community of employment could there be between the man who was removing an engine from one place to another, and the man who was engaged in painting the shed? Such were the subleties to which the defence of common employment had given rise. In a Judgment of the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the case of "Morgan v. The Vale of Neath Railway Company," his Lordship said—

"I concur with the rest of the Court in discharging the rule in this case; but I am desirous it should he understood that I do so wholly out of deference to the authority of Hutchinson v. the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company,' and 'Waller v. the South Eastern Railway Company.' But for the decisions in those cases, I should have been disposed to think that a workman employed to do carpenters' work for a Railway Company, and the servants of the Company engaged in the conduct of the traffic of the Railway, though in the service of a common employer, were not fellow labourers engaged in a common work, under a common employment, so as to exempt the master from liability for injury arising to one servant from the negligence of the other. The Court of Exchequer having, however, held, in the first case, that the servant of a Railway Company, travelling on their business in one of their trains, was a fellow servant of those who had charge of the train; and, in the second, that the ganger of platelayers, whose business it was to keep the permanent way in repair, and the guard of the train, were fellow labourers, so as to exempt the Company from liability in respect of the injury sustained by one servant through the negligence of the other, it seems to me that the present case comes within the principle of those decisions; and, consequently, that we have no alternative but to discharge this rule, leaving the plaintiff to have recourse to the Court of Appeal, if it is thought desirable that the principle involved in the decisions should be further considered."

One of the cases referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Morley) was that of a clerk sent on board a ship belonging to the firm by which he was employed, and there meeting with an accident through the negligence of some of the crew. It had been held in such a case that the man was not entitled to recover compensation for injuries, because of the community of employment between himself and the crew of the vessel. It was difficult to see the community of employment between a clerk in an office on shore and the crew of a ship; and it was because of the monstrous extremity to which the doctrine of common employment had been pushed that the necessity for bringing forward this Bill had arisen. The question was, whether the Amendment of the hon. Member would meet the cases he had suggested? He entertained considerable doubt that it would. In the 2nd section of the Bill the employer was made liable for injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of any person in his service who had superintendence intrusted to him. Such, for instance, as a man working in a shed who sustained injuries in consequence of the carelessness of those shunting the engine, might be included; but he did not think it would be, because those driving the engine had no superintending power in the sense intended by the sub-section. They were ordinary working men, and they had no superintendence at all. They were simply told to move the engine, and it was by their negligence and want of skill in moving the engine that the accident occurred. That was a case which would not be included in sub-section 2; nor would it be under sub-section 3, nor under sub-section 4, which simply provided for accidents caused in obedience to defective rules and regulations. He thought, that in order to meet the present defective state of the law in the particular case he had instanced, a separate sub-section should be introduced.

said, that his Amendment was intended as a new subsection.

said, that then the word "or" at the beginning of the Amendment ought to be struck out. He supposed that his hon. Friend meant the new sub-section to apply to any workmen whatever, engaged in a branch or department separate and distinct from that in which the workman injured was engaged, whether or not the person guilty of the negligence had superintendence. If that were not so, the man painting the shed would have no right to compensation, as the engine-driver would be a person not having superintendence. He supported the Amendment, because he believed it would remedy a glaring defect in the law.

said, after considerable reflection, and after studying, to the best of Ms ability, the mass of literature with which the House had been flooded since this question had come before it, he had arrived at the conclusion that the doctrine of common employment was disastrous in its effects alike to employer and employed, and so monstrously unjust from the anomalies which arose under it, that it was productive of unmitigated evil. This Amendment substantially raised the same question as that which was discussed at a late hour on the previous evening, when the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig) made a most interesting speech, which hardly received the attention it deserved. He was, therefore, very glad that the hon. Member for Bristol had again raised this point. He wished to ask the Government whether they did not desire, as everybody else desired, to arrive at some final settlement of this question? Whether they had any hope that this Bill, in its present shape, could be a final settlement of the question? Supposing the measure passed in its present form, as soon as its limited character had been ascertained by a few actions having been tried, and a few accidents having taken place, the workmen would find that they had not got what they thought they would have got, and that discovery would be followed by a fresh agitation conducted with all the energy and enter-prize which had marked the present one. It must be remembered, also, that the prospect of new legislation, or the apprehension of new legislation, worked a most damaging and disastrous effect on the trade and employments affected. Now, if the Government would eliminate from their measure this doctrine of common employment, they would, in all probability, arrive at a final settlement of the matter. The present state of things was analogous, in some respects, to what the country experienced at the time of the Reform Bill of 1866. The question then was whether they should have a £5, a £6, or a £7 franchise; and as long as there was any doubt or dispute as to which figure should qualify for the franchise, it was perfectly evident that there would be no rest from the Reform agitation. The matter was only finally settled by at once going to the bottom of the scale. In the same way, if the Government would cut out this doctrine of common employment altogether, and make employers liable for all accidents of every kind which might occur, they would arrive at a solid basis on which their legislation might finally rest. They would increase, it was true, the liability of the employer; but they might make it more easy for him to provide against it. That might seem rather paradoxical; but, as a matter of fact, he believed that an unlimited liability would be less damaging to an employer than a limited liability, because he could provide against the former easily; whereas it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the incidence of the latter. What was the use of taking up so much time in considering this Bill, sitting late into the autumn, and detaining everybody from the various occupations which devolved upon them at that season, if they were not to make a settlement in this matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) get up in his place, knowing, as he did, the views of large bodies of employés, and say that he believed this Bill would be a final settlement? He should be very much surprised to hear that. It was evident there were a very large number of accidents for which the Bill would not provide at all. No person killed in the Risca explosion, for instance, would receive 1d. compensation under this Bill by the owners. They had been told by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig), after explaining his very careful calculations, that a rate of not more than 6–10ths of 1d. per ton on minerals would provide all compensation for accidents in mines. That rate would hardly be felt by owners, while, at the same time, it would provide them with ample insurance. This Amendment went a long way towards destroying the doctrine of common employment. If this doctrine were wholly abolished, insurance must be general and combined; and when once that was obtained, it would not matter what the extent of the accident was, the liability of the employer would be comparatively trifling. Another great advantage would be that it would discourage litigation. Under this Bill it would always be a question that must be settled by a jury, whether an accident arose from negligence of a workman or not; whereas, if they made the employer liable generally, no litiga- tion could arise if an accident happened, for the workmen would at once receive compensation, the employer, by means of combined insurance, having no temptation to resort to law. Under the present Bill, however, he doubted whether there would be any extension of the present system of insurance, for owners would prefer to take their chance before a County Court Judge, afterwards, perhaps, appealing to a higher Court, rather than of insuring themselves against a liability which might come upon them; and, therefore, the result would be that litigation would be unlimited. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was really anxious to confer a great benefit upon the country, while, at the same time, he ended a long and vexing agitation, he certainly ought to be prepared to take this step, and to do what was now generally acknowledged to be absolutely necessary in order to settle this subject.

said, the noble Lord asked him to say whether he considered the Bill would make a settlement of this question. His reply was that it was a very dangerous thing to admit of any such thing as finality in legislation; therefore, he would not commit himself to any proposition of that kind. This Amendment had been argued by many hon. Members as though it would sweep away altogether the doctrine of common employment, and make an end of it. But it did not do that at all. The complaints against that doctrine, as it was interpreted to the Judges, were that that interpretation was gradually sweeping away the distinctions which the old decisions took into consideration between the different grades of the servants employed, while it also swept away the distinction between servants in large employments engaged in such different branches of the service that, practically, there was no unity between them. It was to this last point that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was directed. He cordially and entirely sympathized with his object, and in his speech in introducing the Bill he adverted to that absence of distinction made by the recent decision of the Judges between these very different branches of employment as one of the subjects of complaint that had arisen. The Bill, however, which he had introduced was known to the House before he proposed it, because it was introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey), and by the hon. Member for Bristol himself. That Bill extended the liability of employers, and limited the doctrine of common employment, so far as the absence of distinction between services of different grades was concerned. It did not deal with the second branches of the subject—the absence of distinction between servants of the same masters engaged in different branches of work. That was the Bill he introduced to the House, which was read a second time, which was committed pro formâ, and then had Amendments introduced into it to make its intention clear and more definite. None of the clauses of the Bill, either in its original or in its amended shape, went beyond the limitation of the doctrine of common employment so as to make the employer responsible for the neglect of those to whom he committed superintendence. That being so, although he felt great sympathy for the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he could not consent to accept it. He felt bound by what had taken place before, by the fact that the House had consented to read this Bill a second time, and by the declarations which he had made, and other Members of the Government had made, in asking the House to read it a second time. He admitted that there was some difficulty in the law as at present interpreted by the Judges, and he sympathized with the object of the hon. Member; but he could not consent to accept his Amendment. He must admit that the Bill did not embody all that hon. Members desired; but, at the same time, he would ask them to consider whether, if they passed this Amendment, they would facilitate the passage of the Bill?

said, he hoped the hesitating answer of the Treasury Bench was not the final answer of the Government on this subject. He did not quite understand how it was that a Member who expressed sympathy with the Amendment, and seemed to admit the reasonable character of the suggestion, should found his opposition to it upon the ground that at the second reading of the Bill it was not accepted, and was not part of the proposition made to the House, or upon the ground that the House was now in Committee, and that this was a very serious change. He admitted that the change was a serious one. But the history of the Bill was peculiar. Although he was not a Member of the House at the time of the second reading, he believed it was a fact that the Bill was read in blank a second time, and that important questions were postponed for consideration in Committee, and the House was told, in explanation of that course, that it was in Committee that the Government would be prepared to make its propositions. Certain propositions were now made, and as the Committee was not pledged to any limitation of the Bill by what took place on the second reading, an opportunity now offered for remedying that which was certainly a grave mischief, and one which the working men of the country were anxious should be corrected. Surely it would be a pity to lose an opportunity of discussing this matter in a Committee which he believed was sincerely anxious to pass this Bill in some useful form during the present Session, and to leave the crying grievance of common employment unremedied. They all of them knew that there really was a great feeling among working men on this matter. It was idle to talk of this as a Bill to remedy grievances connected with employers' liability, if this grievance was to be left unremedied, so that the relatives of the engine-driver, who had been so constantly mentioned, would get no compensation when he had been killed through the negligence of a person with whom he had nothing to do. That man had to work upon a certain part of a railway, over which his engine travelled, going from a place 150 miles off, where the accident happened, and going to a place 150 miles further on. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would consider this matter, and endeavour to deal with it. There were clearly two things which it was most important to get into this Bill. The first was that its principles should be so simply stated that they should not lead to divergent judgments in the Courts of Law; and the second was that there should be a substantial concession. In regard to this Bill, he believed that employers in the House were making a great mistake in over-estimating the liability that would be thrown upon them by accepting even the suggestion that the whole doctrine of common employment should be done away with. For his part, he should like to see that whole doctrine swept away, for, in its present form, it was merely a judicial fiction. But, accepting the decision of the Treasury Bench upon that point, it had been rightly pointed out by the President of the Local Government Board himself, that this Amendment was not open to the objection that it was a proposal to abolish common employment. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, as accurately and forcibly as it could possibly be done, that the effect of this Amendment was only to limit the doctrine of common employment, so as to prevent its operating in certain cases to which it had been applied in recent years. It was perfectly clear that this Amendment was a point to which the hopes of those who were interested in this Bill were mainly directed; and he, therefore, hoped that they would hear some further and more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman.

said, if his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had been present, he could not but have been gratified to find that the Committee was beginning to take his views as to the doctrine of common employment. He was not at all disposed to question the motives of those who had so suddenly become converted to that view; but he was inclined to suspect that some hon. Members were now anxious to support this alteration, because, if made, it would render that Bill impossible, so far as the present Session was concerned. He had all along been inclined to give a general support to the Bill now before the House; but, at the same time, he did wish that the President of the Local Government Board, in declining to accept this Amendment, had held out some hope that something would be done to remove the present invidious and unjust distinction which prevented workmen from having even a chance of compensation in cases where the common sense of everybody would admit that they ought to have it. So strongly did he feel upon this point that he would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol, although it seemed to him to go too far, if it was pressed to a division. He thought, also, that that Amendment ought to be pressed to a division if they received no better assurance from the Government as to what they would do than they had at present. He did not wish to trespass on the time of the Committee, because he felt he could better assist the passage of this Bill by sitting silent than by speech; but, at the same time, he wished to say a few words in answer to the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). That hon. Member had put a hypothetical case, suggesting that if the late calamity at Risca had resulted from a miner striking a match and lighting his pipe, that it would be unjust to make the owner liable for damages. He was not now going to argue whether that would be just or not, although he felt a good deal could be said for making the employer liable even in that case. It was surely just as fair that the employer should be liable for such lax discipline as that which allowed men to go into dangerous mines with matches as that the workmen, generally, who had committed no fault should suffer injury without the chance of recovering compensation. At the same time, what he wanted to say was that he thought it was not in the best taste at the time when the corpses of these poor men were not yet out of the mine, to put a hypothetical case which, in all his experience of miners and mining—which was a very long one, and in connection with very large bodies of men—he never knew to happen. A man might open his lamp, or strike a match, for the purpose of lighting his pipe; but he never knew the least sign to be found of that in any mine with which he had been connected. He felt sure that the whole body of workmen would stigmatize very severely the con-duct of any man who was guilty of such outrageous and reckless conduct.

said, he was very sorry to hear the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, which he hoped would not be filed, for all the anomalous decisions quoted and used as an argument for the abolition of common employment were all cases which would be met by the introduction of this Amendment. In fact, if it were put in in place of the four preceding sub-sections, more would be done to arrive at a permanent decision with regard to this matter than would be arrived at by carrying the Bill in its present form. He was entirely in favour of abolishing the doctrine of common employment; but that was not the proposal which they now had to consider. It had been suggested that if this Amendment was carried mines should be exempted from this operation. But an hon. Member had tried to make the Committee infer that if an accident happened an owner would be liable for any person killed or injured. He did not take that to be the meaning of the clause at all, and his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), he was sure, did not intend that to be the meaning of it. Even if it would do anything of the sort it could be so amended as to prevent the possibility of it. The class of cases which it appeared to him to meet was a very different one. There had been no more frequent cause of litigation among the various classes of accidents than that of over-winding in pits. Miners coming up from a pit, through the negligence or carelessness of the engineer, had been over-wound, precipitated to the bottom, and killed; and it must be familiar to every legal Gentleman in the House that a decision in the House of Lords had carried forward the doctrine of common employment to such cases. But those were the very cases which this clause would meet; and if any class of cases showed the necessity for an amendment of the law, he would point to this particular class. Not long ago there was an accident in Paris of exactly that kind by which a lift in an hotel was run too high, and a number of persons were killed. Immediately after that Mr. Lowthian Bell wrote to The Times explaining that no accident of that kind ever should occur, because an apparatus might be designed to prevent it. In all his pits, he said, he had safety-catches, and thereby no accident could possibly occur. It was written, half-a-dozen days after the publication of that letter, that a cage in another pit was over-wound and six men were killed. By such accidents some persons must suffer loss; and in the interests of public policy that loss should surely rather fall on the owner than that the family of the injured workmen should be compelled to bear it. The application of this Amendment was nothing like so wide as an attempt had been made to make it. It was a fair proposal, intended to remedy all the anomalies that occurred in the existing law, and it would do a great deal to make this Bill something like a permanent settlement of the question, which it would not otherwise be.

hoped the Government would not accept this proposal. He ventured to say than no one was more disinterested that he was in his support of the Bill. He was chairman, and therefore, of course, a substantial shareholder, in one of the largest coal and iron companies in South Staffordshire. A noble relative of his, who was by far his most influential constituent, was one of the largest owners of mine property in the Kingdom, and many other of his constituents were also large mineowners. He had had considerable pressure brought to bear upon him; but he had endeavoured to look at this Bill independently of private interest or personal propositions; and, as it stood at present, it was a moderate and reasonable settlement of a very difficult question—one that if not got rid of now would be sure to come back to them. For that reason he had given a loyal and hearty support to the measure. At the same time, he was bound to say, if this Amendment was carried, not only he himself, but some other Members would be compelled to consider their position. In many accidents in mines it would be impossible to say who were at fault—masters or workmen—for often those accidents were merely the result of the great natural forces with which in mines they had to deal. But the result of such accidents would be that employers would be sued for damages, and, even if successful, would have to pay their own costs. The Amendment contained a principle which, if it was inserted in the Bill at all, ought not to be extended to mining operations; and, therefore, he hoped that it would not be carried.

said, unless the real difficulty and hardships at present imposed on the workmen were met, the Bill would fail in its main purpose. The cases cited by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) pointed very clearly to the grievance which the workmen were suffering from, owing to the extent to which the doctrine of common employment had been carried. Unless, therefore, the Government could give them an assurance that some words would be introduced which would practically meet those grievances, he should be compelled to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hastings) had just said that in many mining operations it was difficult to say how the accident was caused, and that in such cases it would be hard to make the employer liable. The simple answer to that was, that in such cases no action would lie. Before any damages could be recovered the plaintiff would have to prove neglicence of the kind mentioned in this Bill, or he could not recover; while if he did prove it, the employer certainly ought to be liable.

said, he also wished to join in the appeal which had been made to the Government. They were not now dealing with the whole doctrine of common employment; if they were he should not support the Amendment, because, though he objected to allowing common employment to be a defence, he conceived that question to have been already decided. They were dealing, on the contrary, with one particular part of the doctrine which was, more than anything else, the cause of the agitation which the Bill was intended to allay. The doctrine that common employment should constitute a defence, was originally laid down in cases where a small number of workmen were employed together in one place at the same kind of work, and the idea was that they were, more or less, mutually helping one another, and therefore there was some reason for making the common employment a defence in such cases. The case before them at the present moment was not, however, at all a case of that nature. Nor was it contemplated, when the first steps were taken in the direction of establishing this doctrine, to make the law what it had now become. That law was admitted to be opposed to the law of Scotland; and it was a very great surprise to Scotch employers, and indeed to many English employers, when the decisions were given which put the law on its present footing. If this Amendment were not accepted cases of very gross injustice would be left unremedied, and they might be sure that the agitation would not subside. The Government must surely wish that this question should not be raised again next year, and the year after, and so on; for what was the use of passing a Bill at all if, as the result of it, they were to have a fresh agitation in full force immediately afterwards? He must warn the right hon. Gentleman that, if some subsection such as this were not accepted, the agitation would merely gain fresh fuel instead of subsiding. He did not at all mean to say that the Amendment was a complete and final settlement of the question, for it might be that some distinction ought to be introduced with regard to mines, and some other alterations might be necessary; but he did submit that it was monstrous that cases like those cited by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) should be left unremedied. While such a case as that of a railway clerk or manager, injured while travelling on his own line of railway, and therefore not able to obtain compensation, remained undealt with by the Bill, its proposals could not be accepted. He should, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his proper course, if he felt a doubt about the Amendment, would be to give some assurance that this question should be considered on the Report, and further dealt with by some clause which should commend itself to the Legal Advisers of the Government, who had to deal with this question. If that assurance were not given, not only would the hon. Member for Bristol divide the Committee, but he would certainly have considerable support from both sides of the House. Speaking on behalf of a large constituency, he might say that he knew there was no question which excited more interest than this did among workmen, and he was sure his experience would be borne out by many of those who had experience of the last Election. This was not a got-up agitation at all. It was a question on which the working men felt very seriously, and on which they would not cease to agitate until substantial justice was done them. When the hon. Member below him said that if this Amendment were accepted he and his Friends would have to re-consider their decision to support the Bill, he might also say that some other hon. Members would also feel it necessary to re-consider their course towards the Bill, if it were not accepted. As the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had said, the employers were making a great mistake in the way in which they were dealing with this Bill. They would make an even greater mistake, if they prevented the Bill from being carried in a fairly satisfactory form in which it might satisfy the sentiment of justice in the minds of the working classes. If that were not done, they would have an excitement and discontent which would continue until the whole doctrine of common employment was got rid of. It had been said that lawyers could not give a useful opinion on this question, because they were not engaged in trade; but, as a matter of fact, they had to deal constantly with cases, sometimes on behalf of a plaintiff, and sometimes on behalf of a defendant, so that they were able to see both sides. They were not interested, either as employers or as workmen, and they were, therefore, in a good position to form an impartial judgment. The fact that a large majority of lawyers, both inside the House and out of it, were in favour of the Amendment which had been moved, was a strong evidence of its value; and he ventured, therefore, to appeal to the Government to give them, before the Bill left the House, something which would substantially attain the object which the Amendment sought.

said, he felt that the Amendment was a vital part of the Bill, and it was for that reason that he rose to support it. He wished the Committee to remember that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had sympathized with the Amendment, and had recognized its fairness. Now, the object of all legislation should be to still agitation; and he did not think the Government could do a more imprudent thing than to pass a half measure in this way, and to leave untouched the other half, which they themselves admitted was fairly asked for. An hon. Member opposite, who described himself as having a large interest in mines, said this Bill was a moderate and reasonable settlement of the question. He denied that it was. The hon. Member also said that it would be accepted as a moderate and reasonable settlement by the country, and he denied that statement also. The hon. Member then used a term which was a very unfair argument, as he thought, to be applied to the Committee, by saying that he and some of his Friends would not support the Government if the Amendment was persevered in. The fact was, that this was an objection against legislation for the poor man coming from capitalists and men of property. Yet the ground was cut from under their feet by the fact that it had been established, beyond doubt, that the employers had a power of protecting themselves from a liability to accidents at a cost which only amounted to six-tenths of a penny per ton. While the extension of this liability would work in favour of the poor man, when it was made capitalists would observe a very rigid discipline in their mines, and would make a more searching examination of the men, the materials, and the appliances which they employed in those large undertakings. It would impose no hardships upon those great mine-owners, because they had a practical monopoly of the business, and the extra charge to which they were put would have finally to come out of the pocket of the consumer. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment. His sole objection to it was that it was not mentioned on the second reading; but he would appeal to the Committee whether the Amendment was not a fair extension of the principle of the Bill, and not by any means a large extension of it? It was very desirable that the Government, with so many large measures in view, should dispose of this agitation—for some years to come, at any rate—and he must warn them that if they passed the Bill in its present form, it would only be the precursor of an agitation ten times more powerful.

said, that he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. He could not say that he was opposed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley); on the contrary, he thought that what he proposed would be a proper state of the law. But he opposed it for this reason—that he considered it fatal, or destructive to the Bill. In the first place, it was perfectly obvious that if the Amendment were carried it would so much widen the scope of the Bill—and there was such a number of Amendments upon that Amendment, from the point of view of employers and capitalists—that it would have the effect of postponing the Bill to another year. Secondly, he thought that question was such a wide one that it was really a second reading question, and not one for the Committee. They had heard a speech from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) which ought to have been given on the second read- ing. If the noble Lord had been the Leader of a Party above the Gangway, instead of below it, it might have had some weight in the discussion; but, coming from whence it did, it was not likely to promote legislation. It was not correct in the noble Lord to describe the Bill as a blank Bill; for though the Bill was not in its present form on the second reading, yet they had had a second reading debate on the Bill in its present form on the Motion for going into Committee. There were two grievances which had been felt. One was, that where a person in a superior position had given orders to another and an injury resulted the employer was not liable for the employé who stood in his place; and, secondly, where there was an immense extension of employments, such as was the case with the large Limited Companies and Railway Companies, there were, practically, different employers coalesced into one, yet the workmen employed in separate branches were treated as in one common employment. The Government, in this Bill, had dealt only with the grievance of suffering an injury from some person in a superior position to the person injured, to whose directions that person was bound to conform. But they had not dealt with the grievance arising from a multitude of separate employments gathered into one one under a Board of Directors. The Amendment was one that went very near the abolition of the doctrine of common employment; and he would urge it upon the hon. Member not to press it to a division, considering that there were 12 pages of Amendments down, especially, also, considering the fact that, if successful, it would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. On that account he thought that, to a certain extent, they were in honour bound not to impede the measure; and he hoped the Government would stand firm when they came to the later Amendments on the question of insurance, which had been put on the Paper by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. If the Government did stand firm to their Bill, and resisted the pressure from the other side, they were bound not to put pressure on that side, which would only add fuel to the opposition to the measure. He was aware that it was a popular thing to vote on the popular side; and as he represented a populous constituency, he ought, per- haps, to vote for the Amendment. But, at the same time, he thought that it was his duty to the Government to assist them in passing the Bill as it at present stood. Therefore, he did hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) would not press his Amendment to a division.

said, that it appeared to him that the hon. Member who had just spoken had accused his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) with having made a speech that should more properly have come from the Front Opposition Bench. He should say that the speech of the hon. Member was more like that of a Member of the Government than of an independent Member; because, what was his argument? His sole argument, as he understood it, was that the Bill ought to be passed, whether it was a good or bad one; and if that Amendment were carried, the Bill would fall through for the Session; and that it was so much more important that some Bill should be passed than a good, one that it was their duty to support the Government. An hon. Member had spoken of the Bill proposed by the Government as being a moderate and reasonable one, and in settlement of the question. That the Bill was a moderate one he would not deny; but that it was reasonable, or a settlement of the question, he did most emphatically deny. It was by no means a settlement of the question. The Government, in bringing it in, were influenced by two motives, two principles of action, that could not be reconciled. They wished, at the same time, to bring in a Bill that would satisfy both the employers of labour and the workmen of this country. They had, no doubt, failed with regard to employers; and nobody, he believed, who understood the position of the workmen in regard to the matter, could say but that they had failed also with them. When the Bill was discussed on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, he had ventured to point out that no Bill could be final or satisfactory that would leave the workman in a different position from the public. So long as that difference existed there would always be a grievance. He had ventured to suggest a method by which that inequality between the workmen and the public might be done away with. That suggestion did not meet with favour from any part of the House. He was described as a visionary philosopher, and it was said that the suggestion—theoretically excellent though it might be—could not be carried out in practice. He thought the discussion they had just had must have convinced the Government that the line they had adopted was not likely to prove successful. The logical solution of the question had been proposed, not by them, but by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), whom he did not see then in his place. He thought they must have seen by the discussion that had arisen on that Amendment, and by the opinions that had been expressed in every part of the House by Gentlemen of all shades of political opinion, that if they insisted in carrying the Bill in its present shape they would not do that which they intended to do—namely, allay the agitation that now existed in the country with regard to the matter. He had not sufficient practical experience of the manufacturing industries, such as mining, to know how they could be affected by that Bill, or how much damage would be done by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol. But this he did say—that the Bill could not possibly be good for the manufacturing interests of this country to allow such an alteration in the relative position of employer and workman to take place. If they altered the law at all, and changed it from the condition in which it had stood for the last 30 or 40 years, let them, at all events, alter it in such a manner that no further alteration might be demanded of the influential classes of the community. He could not help thinking that, from the course the Government had pursued, they had the greatest objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol; but, believing, as he did, that it was a step towards the settlement of the question, if he proceeded to a division he should support him.

said, that, unfortunately, his duties upstairs had prevented his being present at the early part of the discussion. The speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was one of those speeches which they were so apt to have from the Conservative side—namely, that the House was in a difficulty as to the logical solution of the matter. That that which had been suggested by the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), who had proposed to do away with the doctrine of common employment, was one logical solution, and that the other logical solution was to leave things as they were.

said, that the other logical solution he had referred to was of an entirely different character from that.

said, that what had been suggested by the hon. Member was, practically, of no service. The suggestions on the subject in that House had been practical, and irrespective of any logical solution. The Government had endeavoured, in that Bill, to deal practically with the question; and he had never hesitated to say that it would do more harm than good to the working classes, as it would lead them to believe in a compensation which, were common employment done away with, they would not receive as the decisions on contributive negligence came into effect. That Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol would make that clause run as follows:—

"Where, after the passing of this Act, personal injury is caused to a workman, by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer, engaged in a branch or department of such service, separate and distinct from that in which the workman is engaged, he shall have the same right of compensation, &c."

No one could read that Amendment without seeing that it took up, as nearly as possible, the whole ground occupied by the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). He agreed, therefore, with what fell from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), that the Government could not go on with the Bill if they accepted that Amendment, as it involved the repeal of the law of common employment. Therefore, the question was not before them then, whether that Bill was satisfactory to the working classes of the country or not. The Government ran the risk of satisfying them; and, if they did not, they would, perhaps, give further consideration, at another time, to the matter. But the question was then, were they going to pass a measure during the period of the present Session that remained or not? It seemed to him that the Amendment was somewhat vague as regarded the departments to which it referred. If they took the case of a coal mine, which often consisted of three or four seams, were the men to be considered working in separate departments in each seam or not? Then, if they took the coal at the different stages of the works, passing through crushing machines to the coke ovens, how were those different stages to be treated? That clause was, in fact, replete with difficulties, and would entail the greatest difficulties in being carried out. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had stated that the working classes were in favour of that Bill. On the contrary, many were absolutely opposed to it. The President of the Northumberland Miners' Institute said—

"They did not want their big brother in London to look after them. If anything was wrong in the pit they called the attention of the overman to it. If he did not put it right they called the attention of the master to it; and, if he did not put it right, they walked out of the blessed pit and left it. They looked upon that Bill as likely to do more harm than good."

For his own part, as an employer, he did not care twopence for the Bill. It would cost him little or nothing. The only difference would be that, if he chose to do so, he could deduct what he was obliged to pay from that which was paid voluntarily. In that case the amount due on the legal responsibility laid down by the Government was less than that paid voluntarily. He was bound to say that the Amendment reproduced the whole of the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford, and went into the whole doctrine of common employment. If he understood the views of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to be represented by what had fallen from one of their Leaders, it was that, however unsuccessfully they might attempt to hamper the Bill there, if it passed that House they knew where it would be stopped. He hoped the hon. Member for Bristol would not press his Amendment to a division, because he felt certain that if it were carried it would have the effect of annihilating the Bill.

said, that he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was not in his place at that time. He regretted, also, that other Members of the late Government were not present. It was all very well for them to abdicate their functions, and leave them in the hands of the Fourth Party on ordinary occasions; but, in a matter of such extreme importance and delicacy as that one, he would venture to say that the Committee was entitled to have the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary in those difficult deliberations. He did not know, of course, what steps would be taken by the Members of the late Government. He could not believe that they would allow a matter of that serious importance to be turned into a Party question. He had great respect for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but he thought they were not to be congratulated on the course they were then taking. They seemed to be desirous of putting the Government to some little embarrassment by supporting the Amendment. He wished to say that he did not look upon that as a Party question, or as a question for employers or workmen only. He had a strong impression that both employers and workmen had common interests with respect to it. He entirely repudiated the statement made by one hon. Member, that the Bill was brought in in consequence of the agitation that had taken place. It had been introduced because employers saw that the present state of the law was of an unsatisfactory character. There could be no doubt whatever that employers were alive to a sense of injustice, in consequence of the doctrine of common employment, as maintained by the Courts of Law. He would venture to say that, so far as he knew—and he had spoken to those connected with business, and who, therefore, were competent to form an opinion—it was desired to alter the law, and that where, in consequence of any negligence on the part of the employer, or of persons intrusted with superintendence of works, any injury arose to the persons employed, employers were, as a rule, quite willing to be responsible. That was a perfectly clear principle, and a principle of justice; and one that, he Believed, no employer would refuse to accept. The only real difficulty had arisen out of the application of the doctrine of common employment. There had been hard cases of men who had suffered injury, and had had reasonable claims upon Railway Companies for compensation. But the difficulty they were then placed in was this—they had to deal with a variety of employments carried on under entirely different conditions of labour. The railway system was now a great branch of employment. Of course, a generation or two ago it was not in existence at all. They knew that very great injustice had been done in the case of employé who had been killed or injured; and, in order to meet such cases, a special Bill might be brought in having relation to railway employés. He was not disposed to have the legislation under that Bill contracted in any manner; but, in connection with railways, he thought it would be better to have a special Act dealing with that particular matter. It would be much better than having a general Act, such as that with which they were then dealing. He was quite sure that with regard to mines they were entirely in a different category; but he was very much disposed to think that the wisest course would be to deal with those great employments which existed under exceptional circumstances by exceptional legislation. As regarded the general mass of employments, there would not be the slightest difficulty, and such cases might be easily dealt with. But when they came to mines the circumstances were quite different. His hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had said that it should be the duty of employers, or their agents, to take care that the men going down in the mine did not violate the regulations by taking lucifer matches or tobacco with them. Would his hon. Friend have every man stripped before he went down? An accident might, no doubt, take place in a mine owing to the recklessness or carelessness of a man who went down and took lights with him entirely in opposition to the express regulations of the employers. He had heard a great deal said about litigation. That Bill, if it adopted the more general view of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), would, no doubt, avoid litigation. Supposing, for instance, that a great explosion took place in any particular district, he took it, as a matter of course, that under the Amendment of the hon. Member the employer would have to pay compensation for the injury caused, whatever might have been the reason of it, or however much individual persons might be liable for it. Therefore, it would prevent litigation, because the employer would have no defence. He would put it to the Committee, was it reasonable that owners of mines, who had taken every step in their power to prevent that recklessness on the part of the persons employed, should still be held liable? Was it reasonable, if a man went down into the mine, struck a match at a moment when there was a flow of gas and an explosion occurred, which cost the lives of a great number of workmen, was it reasonable or just that the owner, who had done everything in his power to prevent such a catastrophe, should be held responsible? Let him remind hon. Gentlemen that when an explosion took place, and a great destruction of property occurred, the owner of the mine was already exposed to enormous loss. His hon. Friend and partner, the Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles), whom, he was sorry to see, was not in his place then—because if he had been he would not have thought it necessary to speak as he had done—commenced life as a worker in mines. He had risen gradually, step by step, and had always regarded every point in the interest of the working man, with whom he deeply sympathized. He was at that time a man of property, and sat upon those Benches, and was an excellent Representative of labourers in mines. He knew that he wished to promote the interests of those he employed; and he had said that he believed it would not be to their welfare that the extraordinary views of the hon. Member for Bristol should be acted upon. Before he (Mr. Rylands) was connected with his hon. Friend in business he had an accident in his mine. There was an explosion; the result of it was a loss to him of some £100,000. It was one of those accidents which were unavoidable, and was probably occasioned by some carelessness, or recklessness, on the part of some person employed, and yet it was proposed then, in such a case, to make the owner liable for an immense amount beyond the enormous loss which already fell upon him. They all knew that it was to the interests of colliery owners that accidents should be as infrequent as possible; and if they could do anything by legislation to make owners or managers more careful in every way, so as to save the lives of those employed, that would be, undoubtedly, a good work. But it must be obvious that if a mineowner or manager did not take those steps to save life, and any accident occurred, he would be guilty really of a crime. It was said, with reference to the proposal of his hon. Friend, that it would tend to preserve life. He doubted that; they saw that, by the Bill as it stood, owners of mines would be liable for all persons in authority, and would have to bear the loss if anything occurred to cause injury. He thought that some limit ought to be put to the liability, so that the owner should not be answerable for the recklessness of all in his employ. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had quoted from a speech of Mr. Brison, the President of the Northumberland Miners' Association. Hon Members must have observed that he alluded to the gratifying circumstances that in the Northumberland district there were very few accidents. He believed that that district was freer from accidents than any other in the Kingdom. He had often remarked that freedom from accidents in that district, and he had only wished that the other mining districts were in the same condition. But what did they find in the statement of the President of that Association? He had given, he believed, a correct reason for that freedom from accident. He had pointed out that the miners of Northumberland took active part in insisting upon any matters being rectified which appeared in any degree to render the mine dangerous. Mr. Brison said he was sure that went a long way to protect them from danger. They wanted that kind of thing all over the country. They wanted employers, agents, and employés to work together, with a view of preventing accidents, as far as possible. He believed that that Bill, so far as it went, was a move in the right direction, and that it would do justice in cases in which justice up to the present had not been done. It was, no doubt, important to alter the law, so as to prevent injustice being done; and, therefore, he was prepared to support it. But when hon. Gentlemen talked about final legislation, he must say that he did not think the Bill would attain that object; whilst to carry it further in the direction suggested by the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) would do a great injustice to employers of labour, and would not promote the interests of the workmen themselves.

said, that it had been stated by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly) that the object of all legislation was to still agitation. In his (Mr. Hermon's) opinion, the object of all legislation should be to do what was right and just. He was quite sure that it only required a little moral courage to deal with this matter in a way which should be right and just. They had spent a considerable time in discussing the Bill, and he should be sorry that anything should happen that would necessitate its abandonment. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) had introduced a subject which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, on the second reading of the Bill, distinctly said he was not prepared to introduce into the measure. As regarded the doctrine of common employment, if made the subject of a separate clause he should be prepared to discuss it, and perhaps give it a favourable vote. But he thought that the introduction of the subject by the present Amendment was unwise, and that if the Amendment were persisted in there would be great risks of the Bill not being carried through at all. He did not wish that the Amendment now under discussion should not be considered. But he would recommend to the hon. Member for Bristol that he should now withdraw it, and bring it up as a new clause upon the Report. He was quite sure that the Government would then give every facility for the question being fully and fairly discussed. The Bill would have to go through various changes in Committee; and the Government, when they had the Bill in its amended shape, would be enabled to come to a deliberate decision as to whether or not they should adopt the principle of the Amendment. He was not prepared to say that he should vote against the principle of the Amendment; but he thought they had now made such progress in the Bill that it would be advisable not to imperil it by pressing the Amendment. Hon. Members must consider that while they were willing to give every facility to the consideration of the protection which was needed by the workman, that the position of the employer also required very careful consideration. He was in a position to speak upon this subject, for he had had the management of large works in which he had become acquainted with all the risks to which employers would become liable. So far as his information went, he believed that whenever accidents now happened in works the first question that the employer asked was whether anybody was hurt? It had never been the custom of the employer to ask, in the first instance, what was the damage? There had been a sympathy between employers and employed which, to a certain extent, had done more good than many Acts of Parliament. He thought that this Amendment required very careful consideration on the part of the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman declined to adopt it at that time, he would ask the hon. Member for Bristol to bring it up upon Report, in the shape of a new clause. They would then have time to see how it would affect the general scope of the measure before the House.

said, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would now excuse those who, six weeks ago, were of opinion that this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. His conviction that it would be the best course to adopt at that time was now fully confirmed by the discussion they had had in Committee. If that course had been adopted the Bill would before this have assumed a much improved shape, and might have become a substantial, and perhaps a final, piece of beneficial legislation. There could be no question that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol opened up an entirely new phase of the question. There was no denying that, and he did not think the hon. Member himself would deny that his Amendment broadly went in for the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, or at least to so great an extent as to amount to that. If the Amendment were adopted, how much of the doctrine of common employment would remain? No one could have listened to the speeches that had been made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), and other lawyers, without feeling that great injustice and hardship occurred in a great many cases, especially in relation to the case of railway servants. He himself had entertained that feeling upon the second reading of the Bill. The difficulty was that they were attempting, in a short and perfunctory manner, to deal with every class of employers in one Bill. The question of railway servants was of a wholly different character from that of mining employés. There was no special legislation with respect to railways; but there was very special legislation with regard to mines. The Mines Regulation Act consisted of 76 separate clauses, and it imposed upon mineowners very special and exceptional obligations. Those having mines were under a liability to be committed to prison with hard labour for three months for a breach of the regulations of the Act. Nor did it stop there, for there were special rules framed under the Act which defined, in the most minute manner, the duties of everyone in the mine, and laid down the most detailed regulations for the conduct of every man in his separate capacity. There was no legislation of that kind with respect to railways; nor was there any legislation of a similar character with regard to building operations. There was legislation, to a certain extent, with respect to the protection of children in factories; but there were many industries in this country where the lives of the workmen were not protected by any special legislation. At the same time, the Bill endeavoured, in a short and perfunctory manner, to deal with the question of employers' liability throughout the country, no matter in what occupation the workmen might be engaged. It would be quite possible, although he was not prepared to say it was right, to legislate for the needs of railway servants. He thought a case of very extreme hardship might be made out in their favour. But to attempt by this Bill to deal with their case, and with that of other industries, including the mines, which were under very special regulations, and the owners of which were under very special liabilities, was not, in his opinion, the right course. They were running a risk of inflicting grave injustice, and were likely to do very great injury to one of the most important industries of this country. The noble Lord had spoken of ½d. and ¾d. a-ton being a matter of small importance; but he could assure the noble Lord that although it was a small figure per ton, yet, when multiplied by 140,000,000, that charge became a very serious one indeed. It must also be borne in mind that, with regard to mines, the effect of this legislation would be to throw the whole responsibility for accidents in many cases entirely upon one man. In imposing liability of that character, it was really neither more nor less than imposing a risk of absolute ruin upon some persons. He did not desire to exaggerate this matter; but when it was proposed to throw so enormous a responsibility upon mineowners, it should be clearly understood what would be the effect of it. With regard to railways, it was quite possible to introduce a special Bill to deal with them. They were all carried on for the general good of the community, and might fairly be dealt with. But when they were imposing this liability on mineowners, it should be remembered that the whole of the prosperity of the country depended upon the mining interest. Where would the industries of the country be without the motive power of speed? The whole of the great manufactories of the country would fall to the ground; and, therefore, it seemed to him that the most important industry of the country was that of mining. If the Bill were to throw this enormous responsibility on the owners of mines, no one would be able to work a mine without running very grievous risks. When only l-13th part of gas became mixed with ordinary air in a mine, that air was as explosive as gunpowder. He took very great interest in this matter; and he knew that, to a certain extent, gas was continually exuding from all the pores of the coal, and was becoming mixed with the common air. There was thus a very great danger of explosion always at hand; and to throw the entire responsibility for that upon the mineowners would be a most serious matter. A man would be exposed to absolute ruin from the occurrence of one such explosion. He knew nothing with regard to the Risca Colliery; but everything appeared to have been done that was possible to insure safety in that mine. But, notwithstanding all precautions, a most dreadful accident happened. No expense whatever seemed to have been spared in rendering the arrangements as perfect as possible. But, notwithstanding, a grievous accident had happened there, and an enormous loss, consequent upon it, had been thrown upon the coal owners. If this Bill were passed as proposed, the liability thrown upon the mineowners would be enormously increased, as they would not only have to bear the whole loss from destruction in the mine, but would be liable to pay compensation were they made liable in the way proposed. He could hardly suppose that their property could be carried on in such a way as to enable them to stand up against the grievous risks which they would incur. In dealing with the case of mines, he thought, therefore, it was clear that the House was dealing with a different question to that involved in other industries. He hoped that the Committee would not be led away by a consideration of the injustice which the present law inflicted upon railway servants, and upon servants engaged in special undertakings, to adopt a principle which would entail most grievous injustice upon other industries. He had only heard one allegation with regard to mines in support of this Amendment; and, therefore, he trusted it would not be accepted, but that the right hon. Gentleman would resist it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might as well have at once accepted the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) as to accept this Amendment.

said, that he did not know whether the hon. Member who had just sat down was endeavouring to perform the process of talking out the Bill; but he had certainly wasted time by giving them a little lecture on the effects of mixed gas and air, which he thought were well known to every hon. Member of that House. Hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, who took part in the discussion of the Bill, did so under difficult circumstances when accused by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) of trying to run the Government into a difficulty. Nor did the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) seem to understand the action they were taking upon this Amendment, because he said they were animated by a desire to make political capital out of the matter. Hon. Gentlemen upon the other side of the House were so extremely charitable, and so extremely liberal, in their views of the motives of hon. Members upon this side. But, notwithstanding what had been said by hon. Members on the other side, they should certainly continue to render their assistance to Her Majesty's Government in the passing of this Bill. Her Majesty's Government was not likely to be run into difficulties by Members on that side of the House, but rather by wealthy capitalists on their own side, whose liberality, so conspicuous in their election addresses and speeches, did not seem to influence their conduct when a question affecting the interests of capital was under consideration. They had an instance of that in the case of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who was perfectly ready to throw railways overboard. He said, in effect—"You may make what regulations you like about the railways, but spare, oh spare, the mines." That was the burden of his speech; and if the Government allowed itself to be misled in this matter by their own political supporters, they were much more likely to be run into difficulty than they would be by any speeches that came from that side of the House. He should not be surprised if the Government regarded anything he said on this clause with some amount of suspicion, not because he was a Conservative, but because he had before in that House expressed his opinion that nothing would solve the difficulties of this question but the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. Because he had expressed an opinion of that kind, he had no doubt that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would receive any suggestions of his with extreme caution and mistrust. But he had endeavoured, in assisting the Government in passing the clauses of the Bill, to put himself into the position of a person who was not willing to abolish the doctrine of common employment, and to make the Bill as equitable as it could be made. So long as that doctrine continued, the Bill now under their consideration, if not a final settlement of this question, might, at all events, allay agitation for some time to come. It was because he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) would greatly improve the Bill, without abolishing the doctrine of common employment, that he most earnestly commended it to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He would commend it to their consideration, because those who had introduced the Amendment had cited instances of accidents happening which, had given rise to much public agitation. Without going the length of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly), and saying that the chief object of legislation was to pacify agitation—a mistaken view which, considering the history of the present Session, he did not think extraordinary—without going that length, he thought it fair that consideration should be given to the effect that this legislation would have upon the just demands of those interested. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol, if adopted, would be to put an end to those unhappy cases in which a man was killed, or injured, by the negligence of his fellow-servants, with whom he had no more to do than the man in the moon, but in which he was precluded from obtaining compensation, because the man was, technically, his fellow-servant. He remembered a case in which a gatekeeper upon a railway exerted himself to save a horse and cart crossing the line from being run over by a train. The cart contained some women and children, and through the heroism of the gatekeeper the women and children escaped; but he himself was killed. The unhappy wife and children of that gatekeeper were unable to obtain compensation on account of his death, because it was said to have been caused by the negligence of his fellow-servant—namely, the engine driver. This Amendment was one which would meet such a case as that; and he would, if the capitalists of the House would allow him, put the matter before them for their consideration. Would it not be better for them to join the Government in making this Bill one which would secure a substantial settlement of this question, which would allay agitation, and settle the question for some years, and give the Government the credit, which he did not grudge them, of having passed a substantial measure?

said, no one could doubt that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol had raised a very serious and important question for the determination of the Committee. He would ask the Committee to allow him to point out the position in which the Government were placed in relation to it. They had to consider whether the law required any amendment at all; and, if it did, whether the defence of common employment should be abolished, and the employer be made liable for the negligence of one servant towards another. It was the view of the Government that a middle course should be taken. They were of opinion that an important change in the relations of capital and labour would be more safely carried out if it were gradual in its nature. When that view was presented to the House he understood that the advocates of the abolition of the defence of common employment were satisfied with the course that the Government had taken. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), who had charge of the Bill which entirely abolished that defence, expressed himself satisfied with the measure of the Government. Now they were met by an Amendment which went far in advance of the Government Bill, in the direction of that of the hon. Member for Stafford. When they looked to the words of the Amendment, it would be found that there were dangers attaching to them which would require the greatest consideration. Last night they were told that this Bill was almost revolutionary in its effects. The hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) charged the Government with having truckled to their constituents; and that morning the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had expressed the view that they had not gone far enough. The Government had listened to views from other quarters of the House, and more especially to those put forward by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) in favour of some further limitation of the doctrine of common employment. He would ask the Committee to consider whether the Government could safely take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol? The Amendment would affect not only railway servants, in whom the hon. Member was specially interested, but also the other industries, great and small, of the country. He looked upon the Amendment as likely to be very fruitful in litigation. If it would be right to accept the Amendment, it would be right to accept the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford. The Amendment proposed to make employers liable for the negligence of all servants engaged in a distinct branch of employment. It was very usual for a man to employ, say, a plumber, to do one portion of the work, and a carpenter another. Many instances might occur in which separate and distinct classes of workmen were engaged on the same work. It was really the community of work which constituted the doctrine of common employment, although the branches of trade might be separate and distinct. But the Amendment proposed to abolish the defence of common employment with respect to all distinct branches of trade. If this proposal were right, then the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford ought to have been adopted. This Bill had been introduced to settle, at least for a time, this question; and if the Committee should decide upon adopting this Amendment, the Government would do its best to carry the pleasure of the Committee into effect. At the same time, it would be necessary for the Committee to consider what safeguards were necessary in the matter. He was aware that a very special case was made out with respect to injuries resulting to railway servants, and the Government considered that theirs was a case which demanded careful consideration. He would suggest to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment at that time, but to bring it up in a form which would better carry out his object upon Report. If he introduced a special clause dealing with the case of railway servants, the Government would feel disposed to give it every consideration.

said, that he was anxious to stand right with the Committee; and he would, therefore, state the motives which had induced him to propose his Amendment. His object was not to set aside the doctrine of common employment altogether, but only to prevent its being made a bar to the recovery of compensation in all cases. It was at least reasonable that those who knew something of the needs and difficulties of the working man should be allowed to say a word on his behalf. He would go further, and express the opinion that if the Amendment, or anything tantamount to it, were not inserted in the Bill it would be regarded by the working man as a protest upon any Bill in his favour. His object was not to set aside the doctrine of common employment, but to meet the case well put by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and to prevent the effect of the doctrine of common employment being made a bar to claims for compensation in all cases. He did not mean that employers should be liable for injury received by one servant at the hands of another servant in all cases. He believed that the Bill was an exceedingly valuable one; and he should be sorry if, by carrying this Amendment, he should at all interfere with the passing of the Bill. Of course, he was in the hands of the Committee with regard to the Amendment; but he thought it would be worthy of consideration whether they could not secure a clause which would give them some substantial part of what they asked without pressing this Amendment. He would, therefore, be willing to accept the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and should leave the question to be considered on Report. If they could not get their whole demand, they would, at all events, make great progress in getting rid, to a considerable extent, of the evils of the principle of common employment. He was extremely anxious to be guided by the opinion of the Committee, and he would accept the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend in good faith, and would leave the matter to be dealt with upon Report.

said, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to make a few observations with reference to it. He hoped that the hon. Member for Bristol would not allow his kindly good nature and confidence to blind him to the great danger there was in leaving his Amendment to be dealt with in the way suggested. He had come down, at very serious inconvenience that day, for the purpose of supporting his hon. Friend's Amendment. It was an Amendment which went into the distinction between various branches of what was usually called common employment. It seemed to him that there was a very wide distinction between the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) and this Amendment, inasmuch as this Amendment simply drew distinctions between various branches of employment which were, in reality, distinct. He believed, however, that if the Government would, in good faith, afford his hon. Friend an opportunity, between this and the Report, of bringing in a clause, and would support him in doing so, great good would be accomplished, and a provision would be made acceptable to the workpeople of the United Kingdom. Some charges had been made against hon. Members of truckling to their constituents. To his knowledge, he had not more than 10 railway servants amongst his constituents. Therefore, he had no motive in this matter, except his own sense of right and duty.

said, that he had heard hon. Members represent, over and over again, that the acceptance of the principle of making employers liable for the negligence of one servant to another would entail absolute ruin to mineowners. He thought that when so much was said about the rights of property, that something should be said on the other hand with regard to human life. There was absolute ruin to the wives and families of the 250 miners instantaneously destroyed by the horrible explosion the other day. There was often life-lasting ruin to the miner, and misery to his family, when an accident permanently disabled him. Those who pleaded so strongly for the rights of property should remember that something ought also to be said for the rights of life.

said, that as he had taken great interest in this subject, he was very anxious, before the hon. Member for Bristol withdrew his Amendment, that there should be a distinct understanding come to that this question should be raised at a later stage of the Bill. It was not the object of his own Amendment to abolish the doctrine of common employment, but to modify the application of that doctrine to the justice of individual cases. As he understood it, the doctrine of common employment, up to this time, had been made the subject of technical legal ruling, to the great injury of the working classes. What was required was that there should be some modification of that doctrine, that the working classes might obtain justice whenever injuries occurred. From the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) he thought that the mining interest was in a different position from any other with which the Bill would deal. It was obvious that they ran a risk of physical circumstances, which did not apply to the cases of other employments, where mere acts of negligence might produce those injuries. He thought, therefore, that the mining interest had a special case of its own, and that it might be better to have future legislation with regard to that interest in some separate measure. It struck him that, having regard to the special circumstances of the mining interest, it might be well not to take them out of this Bill, but to put some qualification in the clause which might exempt, or in some degree mitigate, its effect upon the mining interest of the country. He thought that that was quite capable of being accomplished; but before his hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment—for which, if he went to a division, he should certainly vote—he thought they ought to have some guarantee that when the Re-port was brought up the Government would assist his hon. Friend in framing such a clause as would meet the exigencies of the working classes with reference to the doctrine of common employment, if it could be done without injuriously affecting the mining interest of the country.

said, that he would rely upon the assurance of the Government that this matter should be dealt with upon Report. He trusted that the Government would then make some proposal which would be reasonably satisfactory. He should, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the Government had laid down, as a distinct principle, that they would not interfere with the law of common employment. If that were so, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol went a very long way in that direction. The great question for the Committee to consider was this—if this question was to be raised upon Report, he would call the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol to the fact that this question was one that ought to have been raised upon the second reading of the Bill, in order that the House might have had the whole question before it? If it were again raised upon Report, they would have the whole matter discussed over again. The question for the Government to decide now was, would they, or would they not, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol? That was a point upon which they ought to speak out boldly, if they wished to pass the Bill. They ought to do what they believed to be right, if they wished to carry the Bill through; and if they did not wish to pass the Bill they should not have introduced it. He mentioned this in the interests of the Bill, for he thought that such serious interests were at stake with reference to this measure that it ought to be passed. But if they went in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member for Bristol, they were going to take a course dangerously near that suggested by the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). According to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stafford, the railway interest was one thing, and the mining interest was another. But that was no reason why they should alter this Bill so as to deal differently with one of those interests. He thought it was a question for the consideration of the Government whether it was wise to pass a law out of which so many persons would be certain to contract themselves. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to state distinctly whether he meant to go in the direction proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol.

said, that he desired to thank his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for the manly and straightforward way in which he had dealt with this proposition. He recognized, as everybody must recognize, the great pressure which had been brought to bear upon the Government in favour of this special legislation with regard to railways. He alluded to the pressure which had been brought to bear from that side of the House, and not from the small Party opposite, whom he might call the Tory Radical Party. What he understood was that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General intended to stand by the Bill; but if the hon. Member for Bristol, by-and-bye, brought up a clause dealing with the case of railway servants, then the Government would favourably consider it. That, of course, left the Government open to refuse it; but to say that the Government would consider it was going a very long way on behalf of the Government towards saying that they would favourably consider it. Unless the Government had promised to consider it, as he understood, the hon. Member for Bristol would not have withdrawn his Amendment. But, on the other hand, it was not quite clear that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol did not comprehend the mining interest of the country The mining interest certainly had most need to be alarmed. He understood that the Government did not intend to go any further in the direction of imposing this new statutory liability upon the mineowners, in respect of accidents resulting from the negligence of their workmen. Whatever might be said in the case of railways, the mineowners based their case upon this—that the operations of mining were subject to much greater risks and accidents than that of any other industry, and that already they were dealt with by special legislation. A mineowner could not sink a shaft, or do numerous other works, except under Government control. Why was that? Because the operations in which he was engaged were so very dangerous that the law interfered to see how it was to be carried out. That was the difference between the dangerous and non-dangerous trades. Mines were, therefore, an industry carried on under the direct supervision of the law. It was a question whether additional compensation should be given for mining accidents, or whether more stringent regulations should be made. His hon. and learned Friend said that their object was to provide for the maintenance of the wives and children of the injured. But that was by no means the object of the miners themselves. A Memorial to the Prime Minister on the subject stated—

"That money compensation was not the motive of the workmen in seeking to press forward the measure, but increased safety in following their many hazardous enterprizes."

They had now arrived at a point when the Government must really make up their minds. These discussions were necessarily thrust upon them by a measure of this kind, which was a compromise Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was called upon to steer between the advocates of two different views, and it was almost inevitable that they should constantly have these discussions advancing respective views, discussions which might fairly be called second reading discussions. But it was important to refer to those reasons, because he wished to ask whether it would not be well to consider them, in view of the future progress of this measure? And he confessed that for the Bill to fail at last would be a national calamity, considering the loss of time and the excitement which it had occasioned to everybody, and the great demand there was for some legislation. Would not the Government be more likely to produce a satisfactory Bill if, at this stage, they would say that they were willing to entertain this proposal? To do that would allay a great deal of uneasiness, while it would enable them to deal with these questions in a separate manner, as had been suggested.

said, although he had been listening carefully for some time he had not gathered whether the Government agreed to the proposition of the hon. Member for Bristol or not. That proposal was a specific one, and he understood the hon. Member was prepared to withdraw it, upon the understanding that facilities would be given to him to bring forward a similar Amendment, applicable alone to railway servants, on the Report. He did hope that they would immediately have some statement from the Government as to what course they would take.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Bristol would not be hasty in withdrawing the Amendment, for the reason that there would be no advantage in doing so, as the question would certainly be discussed again upon the Report. They had had a considerable discussion, the whole matter had been talked over, and to postpone it would only mean the recurrence of a very considerable debate on the same matter. They had gained something, no doubt, by the debate, because they had registered the acceptance by the Government of the principle of the Amendment, so far as railway servants were concerned. He wished to follow up that point, as it seemed to be suggested that there was one special industry—the mining industry—which, from particular reasons, deserved to be specially considered. But if that were so, why not leave out mines from this proposition? Although, for his part, he did not understand why, if the principle of the Amendment was right in regard to railway servants, it was not right in regard to other servants. He was sure none of them would like, simply because there were a great many railway servants in the country, to pass a law in regard to them which they would not be prepared to extend to other persons in the same condition of employment. He would really ask the Attorney General whether he was not prepared to go further, and to accept the general principle of this Amendment, giving opportunities hereafter to those who might be interested in the matter to endeavour to graft upon the clause an exception with regard to mines?

said, he was not going to prolong the debate, and he only rose to answer the appeals made to him, and to repeat once more what was the position of the Government with regard to this Amendment. He had said that he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol; but, at the same time, he fully sympathized with it. The Attorney General, speaking for the Government, had after that said that he could not accept the Amendment; but that if the hon. Member would prepare, and bring up on Report, a clause adapting his Amendment to the case of railway servants, the Government would favourably consider it.

said, he did hope the hon. Member would not withdraw his Amendment. It was perfectly clear that it must be either right or wrong. If it was right, it should apply to all trades; and, therefore, the suggestion of the Government, that they should apply it to railway servants only, was not reasonable.

said, the object of his Amendment was merely to promote that which a noble Lord opposite, a short time ago, had said would be inevitable if common employment were abolished—namely, the provision of a general system of insurance. He, therefore, wished to propose that the employer should only be responsible where no insurance fund existed, by inserting, in page 1, line 21, after the word "workman," the words—

"In any workshop or place as to which no mutual insurance fund as authorized by this Act, or by any special Act, is established."

The Committee must have observed that many of the speeches in support of this Bill had not been delivered by employers but by lawyers, who, no doubt, saw with satisfaction the prospect arising under it of a very great deal of business. They had heard several Communistic doctrines broached during this debate, and his experience had always shown him that ideas of that kind generally came from younger sons of Peers. They had heard a good deal of discussion of what ought fairly to have been described as the hobgoblin argument. There was a talk about a joiner's shop invaded by an engine; but he challenged hon. Gentlemen to show 10 cases in the 10 past years. The Committee seemed to have forgotten altogether the consideration of the justice of certain positions. Did they say it was just that "A" should be liable to "B" because "C" had done something which "A" did not wish him to do? It might be that the law was bad; but were they, by altering it, going to make it worse or better? It seemed to him that the Bill only increased the injustice, instead of diminishing and correcting it. It was an instance of exceptional legislation which ought never to take place, involving every kind of injustice. He humbly submitted that the lines of the Bill were not good. They had had many speeches from distinguished lawyers, who had given very decided opinions; but, if he was permitted, he should like to read a line or two from a lawyer, whose standing and reputation were equal to that of the hon. and learned Members who had spoken (Mr. Serjeant Simon and Mr. E. Clarke)—he meant Sir Samuel Martin. He wrote to Lord Bramwell, after reading his argument—which, in his opinion, had never been answered in that House—

"I quite agree with you. I could never agree with Baron Platt that if a man was hurt somebody should pay him, and somebody must be liable. If I were to alter the law I would make the master liable to the servant in no case where the master is not to blame."

And he added that the litigation under the present Bill would be frightful. Then they were told that there was a great popular outcry for this legislation. He denied that. He was himself in a position to show that the bulk of the sensible working classes were already connected with insurance funds; and they did not wish to substitute a harassing system of litigation for the quiet, regular, and fair compensations between master and man which at present had done so much for them. No doubt, a large number of Members had got into Parliament who had given pledges to support this legislation. At the same time, their speeches all merely repeated a similar argument. But what was it they wanted to do? After many years, and a large experience of the results of insurance, they had brought the great bulk of the large employers of labour to consent to that system; but this Bill would entirely overthrow all that, and bring up a new source of liability. It would also affect others besides manufacturing industries; because it was well known that more people were killed in attending to agricultural industries than all the railways in the United Kingdom. His proposition, therefore, was that they should only allow this Bill to come into operation where the employer and the men had not made some provision for meeting the case of accidents. He did hope the Government would be ready to consider some reasonable scheme of insurance, and that would show whether the front Bench had really anything like a serious intention to deal with the whole case of accidents arising from the carelessness of one person or another, or from inevitable causes. They were told that this Bill would promote insurance. But he wanted to know how the throwing a penal measure at the heads of employers would do that, or induce them to take more pains? How, also, was it possible, if, under this Bill, they established an indefinite risk, which might be £5 in one case and £5,000 in another, for them to insure the employers against that risk? As a consequence, the employer would be forced to bear the risk himself, because it was absolutely uninsurable. It might be said that his clause was clumsy and indefinite; but it would, at any rate, have the object of testing the opinion of the Government on this question, and ascertain whether they were inclined to deal with it in a fair and straightforward manner, not in a piecemeal fashion, but with the whole.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member into his general statement, but would merely point out that on his proposition they could not discuss the question of insurance, because the insurance clauses were not yet reached. It would only be unnecessarily occupying the time of the Committee now to raise a question which must come up later on.

said, he had been requested to move an Amendment limiting the persons for whose benefit actions could be maintained to those named in 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93. That statute provided that the legal personal representatives should not maintain an action except for the benefit of a husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather or stepmother, son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, stepson or stepdaughter. He was not sure, however, whether the attention of the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) had been drawn to the wording of the clause in the Bill, as it was provided that the legal personal representative of the workman should only have the same right as if the workman was not in the service of the employer. He (Sir Henry Holland) was disposed to think, therefore, that the words of the clause already covered the provision which it was desired to insert; and if this was the view of the Legal Officers of the Government he would not move the Amendment.

said, he had no doubt that the clause, as it at present stood, covered the proposal which his hon. Friend desired to make; but, still, he should have no possible objection to the words being inserted, so far as the Act affected England. His objection, however, was that the Bill also affected Scotland; and if this Proviso were introduced, it might have the result of, in some way, changing the Scotch law.

said, after that expression of opinion, he would not press the Amendment.

wished to ask a question. A difficulty had been raised as to whe- ther the words "when engaged in his work" were not necessary in this clause. It was suggested by the late Attorney General (Sir John Holker) that if they were not inserted the workman might be in the position of a trespasser who had no right to be there, and, therefore, might not be entitled to any compensation at all.

said, they were not intended to have that interpretation; but he would consider the matter before the Report. At present, they seemed to him quite unnecessary; and if they were objectionable he would propose on the Report that they should be struck out.

begged the Solicitor General to consider the words "personal representative" in that clause. He knew that at present the opinion of the Solicitor General was the other way; but, still, he would ask him again to consider what the effect of these words would be. He maintained that if the personal representative brought an action and recovered compensation, that the compensation would be part of the deceased's personal estate, and would be liable to his debts; whereas that should not be so, because the damages recovered were intended as a solatium to individuals. He knew that the intention was to make these personal representatives occupy the same position as they did under Lord Campbell's Act; but the clause, in his opinion, was scarcely clear at present, and the damages might be said to be assets.

said, he would consider the matter; but he did not think the words would have that effect, for the reason that Lord Campbell's Act only enabled the administrator, or executor, to sue for the express benefit of certain named persons.

thought this reading of the clause would rather complicate proceedings. If they referred to that Act at all they would have a difficulty as to how far it was to extend. At present, they had simply this provision—that, so far as regarded persons interested in these cases, common employment should make no difference, and that would leave them in just the same position as they were now.

rose to Order. His Amendment had never been put. He had announced that he would withdraw it, and, therefore, this was absolutely unnecessary argument.

I understood the hon. and learned Member to be speaking on the words of the clause itself.

thought that the Solicitor General was preparing to give way unnecessarily. The more he considered it the more he was certain the present words were the best.

said, the Amendment he had to move was to leave out sub-section 1. If the Committee would look at Clause 1, they would see that in it there were four specified cases in which workmen were put, in regard to their employers, in precisely the same position as a third party. That Clause 1 did not give any separate and independent rights to workmen; it only gave them the rights that a third party, a stranger, now had. Now, in this 2nd clause, they had certain exceptions to these four cases, and those exceptions deprived workmen in four sets of cases of the compensation which Clause 1 had entitled them to. The first of those four sets of cases was contained in the subsection to which he now desired to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Did they conceive that this 1st sub-section of Clause 2 would place a workman in any different position towards his employer from that which a third party or a stranger would stand in? It might be that he had imperfectly understood the clause, and he therefore desired to ask the Government how they understood it. It either put the workman in a different position towards his employer from that of a stranger or it did not. If it put him in a different position from a stranger or third party, he should be glad to have some reason given him for its doing so. He did not see why a workman should be in a worse position than a stranger as regarded defects in the machinery, plant, and stock-in-trade. If, on the other hand, this sub-section did not alter the law, as laid down in sub-section 1 of Clause 1, and left the workman in the same position as a stranger, then what was the use of it? It was said that it was put in in order to explain the clause, and to make the thing more plain to the reader; but he would remind the Government, and especially the Law Officers, of the difficulties which were constantly arising in the administration of justice from Acts purporting to declare the Common Law. The action of the Courts had given them a number of reported cases, with fine distinctions drawn between them; but persons who understood the technicalities of law knew how to work the law out of these cases. Then somebody passed a fresh Act of Parliament, which did not use exactly the same expressions as had been used by the Courts, but which was intended to clear up the matter, and the result was merely a new crop of cases and any number of appeals, in order to determine how far the statute changed the previous law, or whether or not any change was really made. He submitted, therefore, that they would merely increase litigation if they introduced this sub-section, and that the proper course would be to omit it altogether. This was not merely a question of drafting. He knew that the Government did not desire any advice on the drafting of their Bill, although the difficulties which had arisen were not, as it seemed to him, due to any fault on the part of the draftsman, but merely to the character of the scheme adopted by the Government, who were trying to steer a middle course between two opposite views. There really was, as he thought, a substantial question involved here; and he should like to ask whether the sub-section was intended to put the workman in a different position or not from that of a stranger?

hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend that there was no indisposition on the part of the Government to receive advice even on questions of drafting; but he thought he would see that it was not worth while to take up time in discussing questions of mere drafting in the limited period that still remained at their disposal. He had no doubt that this sub-section did, to some extent, limit sub-section 1. In other parts of the Bill they had not thought it desirable to go the extreme length of abolishing the rule as to common employment. The law at present was that the employer was bound to take reasonable care, to have proper machinery, and to keep it in a proper state; but he could get rid of that liability, and discharge himself of it, if he engaged somebody else to do that work. The law held that the person so engaged was a fellow-servant, and in that way the law had allowed the employer to get rid of his Common Law liability. The Government, desiring to meet that difficulty, had provided that the employer should not thus get rid of his liability, but should be liable not only if he himself did not take due care, but if the person to whom he intrusted that duty failed to discharge his trust. Therefore, if the defect arose from the neglect of some person in the service of the employer intrusted by him with the duty of preventing it, the employer was liable. On the other hand, they might have two men engaged on a boiler, for instance, and one might take out a rivet, and, consequently, some mischief might happen to the other. The Government had determined not to go the whole length of making the employer liable in that case. The Bill merely made the employer liable for his own want of care, or for that of those to whom he had intrusted the duty, and it was to carry out that view that this sub-section had been introduced. Of course, if an employer looked after the matter himself the law cast upon him the liability. If, next, he did not put anybody in his place, it still cast upon him the liability; and if he put somebody in his place he would not be discharged of his liability under this Act if that substituted person was guilty of negligence. That being so, his hon. and learned Friend would see why this sub-section was put in, and exactly how it carried out the view of the Government.

said, he considered this sub-section was absolutely necessary to qualify the wording of Clause 1. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!"] If that was so, it was unnecessary to continue the discussion.

said, that, after the explanation of the Solicitor General, he would not press his Amendment, al- though he continued to think that no sufficient reason had been shown for putting the workman in any different position, under sub-section 1 of Clause 1, from the position of a stranger. As respects the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken, if that hon. and learned Gentleman would read with attention the last part of Clause 1, he would see that his criticism was erroneous, and that there was good ground for the Amendment which he (Mr. Bryce) had proposed.

said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was disposed to accept the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 2, line 5, after "arose," insert "or had not been discovered or remedied owing to." He, therefore, begged to move it.

said, he wished to move the next Amendment—namely, in page 2, line 8, before "works," insert "ways." Inasmuch as the Committee had already agreed to insert the word "ways," in sub-section 1, they must also, he presumed, accept it there.

begged to move that the words "in trade" be inserted after "stock," in the same line.

said, that he had an Amendment, to insert, in page 2, line 9, after "condition"—

"Or unless the defect might have been discovered by reasonable care or skill by or on behalf of the employer."

But, inasmuch as the defect in the clause had already been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and that hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested an Amendment, which had been agreed to, he should not move the one which stood in his name.

said, the addition which he proposed to make to that sub-section was a matter of great importance. Unfortunately, by some mistake, his proposition had been divided into two parts; and, consequently, the words, as they stood, appeared to have no meaning. The mistake seemed to have arisen owing to the fact that some words had been introduced between the first and second parts of his Amendment. But his intention was to move the whole as one addition to the sub-section. The remaining portion would be found in page 406 of the Amendments that day. His object in moving the Amendment was as follows:—By that Bill employers were made liable for the negligence of men who were very little removed from the position of ordinary workmen. If he were asked the grounds upon which employers might justly, in any degree, be made liable for men of that class, the only answer he could find was that they had appointed those men themselves, and that the employers had no voice in the appointment, or continuance in office, of those men. He could well conceive that workmen might say such and such subordinate officers had been appointed. They had no voice in his appointment, and could not protest against his continuance in office, or take steps for his removal. "Our lives are in danger by that man being appointed to such a post as that." He could quite understand that that feeling might exist, and he knew that such a feeling had been in the minds of workmen for many years. That principle had been suggested by workmen in former days, at the time when the Mines Regulation Act was passed. They had always sought to have some voice in the appointment of subordinate officers in mines. So long as the present system continued, so long, then, might be some justice in employers being liable for the negligence which ensued. Now, his object was to permit an employer to post up, in the ordinary way in which notices were posted, a notice stating the name of the man whom he proposed to appoint to any particular subordinate office, and then his Amendment provided that if 10 men should wish to give notice to the employer that they disapproved of the appointment of such a man, then he thought any reasonable employer would hear all these men had to say in regard to the capacity and character of the man whom it was proposed to appoint. He had little doubt, from his knowledge of the relations which existed between employers and workmen, that such an ar- rangement would give rise to any difficulty. He believed that employers, as a rule, endeavoured to obtain the services of the best men they could find for the subordinate officers in their employ, precisely in the same way that non-commissioned officers were selected for regiments, and the good wages which they gave, generally secured the services of good men. He had little doubt that no practical grievance would arise, and he felt also that fellow-workmen would not oppose the appointment of a really good man. If out of any prejudice merely they did so object, then it was provided that the matter be referred to the Inspector of Mines or Factories as the case might be. If they considered the appointment of men under those circumstances, it would be obvious to them, he believed, that such appointments would entirely remove what might be a just excuse of complaint on the part of the men, that they had no voice in the appointment of those subordinate officers. He had also provided that by some machinery they might object to any man continuing to hold any such office—namely, by the process of 10 men giving notice to the owner that they objected to such man continuing in such office. He thought himself that a great advantage would ensue to the employer from that course, because the character of the man was better known to the employés than to the employer. A man might not be supposed to be worthless or idle; but his fellow-workmen might be fully aware of the fact. Under the clause which he proposed the men would be able to object to the employment of a man whom they did not consider to be a proper and a right man to occupy a certain post. He could not understand the very grave objection that had been felt to that proposal by employers at the time that the Mines Regulation Act was past, and those same objections might be raised now perhaps. If the employer did not avail; himself of that clause, then he would continue liable for the action of that man, and he would almost say justly so. On the other hand, if he availed himself of that clause, which allowed him to give notice of his intention to appoint any particular man to a particular office, then he thought that the employer might fairly and justly claim to be relieved from responsibility. He had endeavoured not to occupy the time of the Committee longer than was necessary in order to explain the bearing of that particular clause. He believed that it would be considered by workmen as a very great concession on the part of the employers, and he would put the Amendment on the Notice Paper in compliance with a request which he had received. For his part, he thought it was a just, fair, and reasonable proposal, and he pressed it on the consideration of the Government.

said, he believed that the various objections to the proposed Amendment were obvious. One of the recommendations brought before the Committee in favour of that Amendment was that it would be a great advantage to the employer to be able to consult the workmen, who knew more about the man than those in a responsible position. One would suppose, from what the hon. Member who had just sat down had said, that at present an employer was forbidden to consult his men as to the character of a man whom he proposed to appoint to a particular office. The various objections to that Amendment were of a highly positive kind. In the first place, it obviously defeated the responsibility of the employer, which was the guiding principle of the legislation on that subject; and not only did it defeat the responsibility, but it diminished the efficiency with which the work was carried on. If they wanted a thing carried out well, let them make one man do it. By dividing the responsibility it would not be done better, but worse. Let them bear one thing in mind, which was that if they carried that Amendment the workmen would be in part liable for those employed in superintendence, and the employer might be relieved from all injury arising from the carelessness of an inferior workman. It was perfectly true that the workmen might know of a person disqualified who would necessitate an inquiry into the case. But, supposing that the superintendents were men wholly unknown to the workmen, but known to the employer? How could 10 men really raise an objection to a man of whose antecedents they were wholly ignorant? And yet they might be desirous to object to him, because the employer had appointed a man whom they did not know. He had said that the workman would be, in part, responsible.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman had not read the last part of the clause, which provided for raising the same objection during the continuance of the employment.

said, he did not quite see how that affected the argument. An accident might happen before an owner could be made aware of the facts. There was still one more objection to the Amendment. It said that in case there was a difference of opinion, appeal lay to the Inspector of Mines and Factories. What on earth could the Inspector of Mines and Factories know about it? The hon. Member said that the master was ignorant of the qualifications of the man appointed. How much more ignorant was the Inspector of Mines, Factories, and Workshops, who knew nothing whatever of the man personally, and yet was to be a final Court of Appeal. It appeared to him, for the reason he had stated, and for many other reasons that might be stated, that the Amendment was an anomalous one; and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would not accept it.

said, he thought that the objections which had been raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down were sufficient to induce the Committee not to accept the Amendment. He would just point out one other objection. That was, that the Amendment would apply to all employers—for instance, to a farmer or a boatman—in fact, to every trade; and it did seem a little absurd, in such cases, to appeal finally to the Inspector of Mines, Factories, and Workshops. He would say, on behalf of the Government, that they could not accept it.

said, he would move to add to the end of Section 2, in order to give effect to the undertaking he had entered into with the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).

said, that he had an Amendment to move before that, which was, in line 11, to insert the words, "illegality or unreasonableness," instead of the words "impropriety or defect."

said, there was an Amendment before that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce).

said, he did not intend then to move his Amendment.

said, then he would move the Amendment he had just read.

said, he did not know what those words would imply, except something which was directly in opposition to the statute of Common Law. The words used in the sub-section were carefully chosen, and the Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

said, he referred to bye-laws, and certainly bye-laws might be illegal and in contradiction to the law of the country.

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. At the same time, he did not think that the words used by the Government were altogether perfect. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed to insert in that subsection the same Amendment as had been inserted in a sub-section of Clause 1?

Yes.

said, he was sorry that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had not moved his Amendment. It seemed to him that persons claiming under that sub-section should be bound to prove an impropriety or defect in the rules; and also, on the other hand, that if, through obedience to the instructions, injury were received by a workman, that should be dealt with as a liability.

said, he would then propose to add at the end of sub-section 2 the words which would give effect to what he had promised the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).

said, that under the Mines Regulation Act there were certain rules, and he did not think that the Amendment would cover them.

said, the hon. Member was quite right as regarded the general rules, as laid down in the Coal Mines Act; but there were also special rules which, applied to all collieries, and which had to receive the approval of the Home Secretary.

said, that he should like to hear what the subsection was as it now stood in the Bill.

said, that he thought it would be well to insert the words "or any authority at law stated for that object."

said, he would suggest whether it would not be well to add this as an Interpretation Clause at the end of the Bill.

said, that in accordance with the request of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) he would insert at the end of sub-section 2:—

"Provided that where the rule or by-law has been approved or accepted as a proper rule or by-law by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, by the Board of Trade, or any other Government Department, it shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be an improper or defective rule or by-law."

said, he thought that it would be in accordance with precedent if the words were inserted "in pursuance of an Act of Parliament."

said, no Government would have power to approve of rules except under the authority of an Act of Parliament.

said, that he thought his right hon. Friend somewhat misconceived his objection. This Bill proposed, in effect, to give power to the Government to recognize bye-laws to be settled by some Department of the Government. He thought, therefore, it would be well to add in the clause that the bye-laws were accepted in pursuance of the powers of some Act of Parliament. He would move that "under or by virtue of any Act of Parliament" be inserted after the word "Department."

said, he would suggest that the clause should be brought up upon Report, because it was obvious from what had been said that, as it now stood, it was liable to some misinterpretation.

said, he was not quite clear as to whether the rules in the Mines Regulation Act would come under the provisions of this clause. There were 31 general rules laid down by that Act of Parliament.

said, that the objection raised by his hon. Friend really amounted to a Breach of Privilege, for he was assuming that rules laid down in an Act of Parliament could be improper or defective.

said, that he begged to move to omit sub-section 3, on the ground that it was clearly unnecessary. There could be no doubt that the doctrine of what was commonly, though perhaps inaccurately, called contributory negligence was part of the Common Law. That being so, it was unnecessary to insert this as a sub-section in the 2nd clause, for the 1st clause of the Bill only gave a workman the same right of compensation against his employer as a stranger would have, and the stranger's right being subject to the doctrine of contributory negligence, so would the workman's right be likewise. He would further submit that there was a real danger that the word "materially," as applied to contributory negligence in this sub-section, would cause considerable difficulty. In all probability, if that word were left in the subsection, it would be a fruitful source of litigation, for the question would be raised whether there was a difference between "contributing" and "materially contributing."

said, that he must ask the Committee to retain the sub-section. The words were in the original Bill before it was amended in Select Committee of the House; and it was the opinion of the Government that it was desirable to retain this declaration of the existing law, in order to keep the statement of the law clearly before the Judge. He did not think that any difficulty would arise from the sub-section, the provisions of which had been very carefully considered.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to the omission of the word "materially?"

said, that he had no objection to the omission of that word.

said, that if that word were omitted it would injure the cause of the workman. The general law was that they must show some material contributory negligence. If, however, the Law Advisers of the Crown thought that this word might be safely left out of the sub-section, he should have no objection; but it seemed to him that it would be better to retain it.

said, that he thought the sub-section was right as it now stood.

said, that he proposed to withdraw his Amendment, if the Government would consent to omit the word "materially" from the subsection.

said, that he thought his hon. and learned Friend was absolutely right upon the point which he had raised, and he should like to know what the Government had to say against it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that it must be taken to be right, because it was in the original Bill. But that did not recommend itself to him as a legal argument. He should like to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had to say upon this matter. He fully agreed with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets that this declaration of the law was quite unnecessary.