I beg to move that the Bill, as amended, be read a third time.

I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the honourable Member for Louth. I understand that the Government have agreed to accept it, and I congratulate them on a satisfactory settlement of the question.

With regard to this Amendment, I may say that it has been under consideration, and we found that no great advantage would be derived if we adhered to the clause as it stood, and that possibly if we did so, it might jeopardise the passage of the Bill. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to accept the Amendment.

I had a similar Amendment to this on the Paper, which, of course, under the circumstances, it is not necessary for me to move.

I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my honourable Friend the Member for East Finsbury.

said he hoped the honourable Gentleman would not persist in moving the Amendment, as it was one that the Committee could not possibly agrees to. He also thought the honourable Member who put the Amendment down did not attach much importance to it, as he was not in his place to move it; he therefore trusted that it would not be proceeded with.

(who had entered the House during the discussion) said that the Attorney General's Amendment having been carried, it was not necessary to proceed with this: he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.

in rising to move the Amendment, said this Amendment was taken from two Bills introduced in this House of Commons by the Attorney General in 1886–1887, for the purpose of securing the public interest in regard to marriages of this kind. He had not been able to satisfy himself that the Amendment of the Attorney General would effect the object they had in view. At the same time he disclaimed any desire to stand in the way of the passing of the Bill, but he moved this Amendment because he thought there was time to consider it, and it was a, very desirable Amendment. The object of it was to secure that all persons who performed the ceremony of marriage other than the ministers of the Church of England, the Church of Rome, Quakers and Jews, should be duly authorised. The only question was how they could be best authorised. The Attorney General's Amendment was an alternative one, and it did not seem to him [Mr. Gedge] to give sufficient security. There was no provision made for keeping a list of the gentlemen who were authorised, or for declaring how long the authorisation lasted, and it would be better to adopt the suggestions embodied in his Amendment. If they did not wish to have just anyone to perform the mar- riage ceremony without a proper certificate or authorisation, clearly they ought to have some responsible body or person to see that the Act had been complied with, and that the marriage had been, rightly performed according to law.

appealed to the honourable Gentleman opposite not to persevere with his Amendment. The scheme he proposed was really a scheme in competition with the Attorney General. On behalf of the promoters; he wished to state it was their intention to accept the whole of the Amendments placed on the Paper by the Attorney General. With regard to the proposal put forward, which was taken from the Bill of 1886, he would point out that that Bill which had been carefully considered by the Nonconformists of the country, was found to be impracticable. He also desired to say that this Amendment would impose on Nonconformist churches very serious trouble in annually registering the whole of the ministers' names who were authorised to perform the ceremony of marriage in Nonconformist places of worship. The Amendment also threw upon the Registrar General the duty of discovering or determining whether the minister was an authorised person or not, instead of throwing it upon the trustees or governing bodies of the various churches in winch these marriages had to be solemnised. He hoped, under the circumstances, the honourable Gentleman would not persist in the Amendment.

expressed his gratification that the Amendments of the Attorney General were to be accepted.

in the temporary absence of his right honourable Friend the Attorney General, supported the appeal to the honourable Gentleman.

said he made his. Amendments without seeing those of the Attorney General, but as the right honourable Gentleman was responsible for looking after the public interests he was quite content not to press his Amendment, although he preferred it to those of the right honourable Gentleman.

, in moving this Amendment, said it would not be possible to allow this Bill to extend to the Channel Islands, as representations had been made to him that if it did it would create difficulties.

said he did not know whether the matters had been considered by the promoters of the Bill, but it had been suggested to him that the operation of the Act should be postponed a little longer than, January 1st next, but if honourable Gentlemen thought sufficient time was given by that date to allow all arrangements to be made to carry out the provisions of the Act, there was nothing more to be said.

in moving this Amendment, said that he desired to take the opportunity of stating what the scheme of his Amendments was. He should have been glad to have received more help than he did from honourable Gentlemen in dealing with this difficult question, but he hoped the Amendments on the Paper would serve as a working basis for the satisfactory solution of the Bill. In his speech on the Debate for the Second Reading of the Bill he had been compelled to criticise the Measure in the shape in which it was presented to the House, as in his opinion it did not provide a sufficient safeguard for the proper registration of marriage. He had ventured to draw attention to the important paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee which had considered the questing, in which it was said that it was important that there should be a permanent register kept at the building at which the marriage was solemnised, and that there should be some person responsible in connection with that building, for the registration of marriages. The honourable Member for Lincolnshire admitted that the criticisms which he [the Attorney General] had addressed to the Bill were well founded, and intimated that he would be prepared to accept any Amendments which he might be able to frame, and in those respects he would be prepared to consent to a modification. It was with that object that the Amendments had been placed upon the Paper. In framing the Amendments the idea had been—instead of their being on loose sheets of paper, which were often lost, and for the safety and custody of which there was no safeguard, and the obligation, to return which was so vague—to provide for the formation of official registers, thus approximating the position of the Nonconformist churches with that of the Church of England. In the second place it was found that there must be some person in connection with the church who must be responsible for the keeping of correct registers and of returning the certifying copy or the certificate of marriage to the proper quarter. It was from that point of view that he had asked the Committee to amend clause 4 in the way he proposed. When he dealt with the subsequent Amendments he would endeavour to safeguard with sufficient liberty the person who was going to be made responsible for the registration. It was necessary that there should be some duly authorised person who should undertake this responsibility. Having explained the general outline of the Amendments, he would be very glad later on to answer any questions as to detail, or to consider any modification of the lines he had laid down.

ventured to say that the promoters of the Bill ought to have had an opportunity of conferring with the right honourable Gentleman upon the details, and had the Amendments been placed upon the Paper at an earlier date no doubt they would have had an opportunity. He had stated previously that the promoters were prepared to adopt anything in reason which the. Attorney General proposed with regard to "duly authorised persons." There was an official list published of all the ministers of the great Nonconformist churches. He did not know whether it would be proper to put in en bloc that list as showing who were authorised to solemnise marriage. Perhaps some future provision would be made for that.

pointed out that the difficulty under which he had laboured had been that he had had to develop his Amendments out of his own inner consciousness to the best of his ability. The one point the authorities would insist on would be that there should be reasonable provision made for registration. There must be something like personal responsibility in connection with the chapel. With regard to the suggestion that the official list should be handed to the authorities as a list of all the established and authorised ministers, he might say at once that that would not be accepted.

The honourable Members upon this side of the House, as well as the bodies they represent, attach very great importance to the removal of this unpleasant grievance which has been forced upon them by the presence of a public officer representing the Registrar General at their marriages. We are quite as anxious as the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General that there should be sufficient safeguard for the due solemnisation of marriage, and I approve of the proposals of the right honourable and learned Gentleman for the securing of the proper registration of marriages. The ministers of by far the largest proportion of Nonconformist places of worship registered for marriages are in each case appointed by a public body, the trustees of the building So far as the various shades of Methodism are concerned there will be no difficulty in preparing and handing in an official list of those ministers.

The "duly authorised person" in many cases would not be the minister, because the ministers in certain denominations are changed about every year from one place to another. I think it would be well to provide that the person responsible for the registration of marriages should be a person resident in the parish. [Cries of No, no."] Well, if the promoters of the Bill do not like that I may say that I have always been in favour of the principle of this Bill.

The honourable Member is not, perhaps, acquainted with the circumstances, but if his suggestion were adopted the whole Methodist bodies would be excluded from the benefits of the Bill.

I do not make the suggestion in that spirit. I thought that the objection to the registrar was that he would not belong to the same denomination, and that the objection would be met by the presence of a registrar of the same denomination.

I do not know if it is necessary to explain this fully. The clause does not seem to us in accordance with the existing Marriage Acts, and I propose to alter the form of the clause.

moved—

"Page 2, line 30, leave out 'return,' and insert 'certificate.'"

moved—

"Page 3. line 8, at end, add—

"'No person shall officiate at or solemnise a marriage in any registered building under this Act unless he has been certified as having been duly authorise for the purpose by the trustees or other governing body of the building, and it shall be the duty of the trustees or governing body of every registered building to certify the name and address of the person authorised for that building to the Registrar General and to the superintendent registrar of the district in which the building is situate:

"'Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building.'"

He said: should like to hear from those Members who are in a position to speak whether there will be any difficulty in any Nonconformist body in carrying out this proposed system. Unless it satisfies the whole of the Nonconformist bodies there is no use in moving it. I do not think the House will come to the conclusion that I have not gone far enough in dealing with the matter. In a previous Session I proposed a, different system: I proposed that there should be a personal responsibility on the part of ministers, and that the Registrar General should satisfy himself as to their connection with the building and other matters to justify the persons on the list acting as registers. I am bound to say with regard to that scheme of mine, though I received very kind letters from Nonconformists, it met with considerable opposition from the officials. The Registrar General has led me to endeavour to find out some other scheme of dealing with the question. We must be satisfied, before the presence of the public official who is responsible for due registration can be dispensed with, that there is a person duly certified for the purpose of solemnising marriages by the trustee or other governing body.

The difficulty of this clause, so far as the Methodist religious bodies are concerned —and I speak not only for the Wesleyans, but for the Primitive Methodists, the New Connexion, and the Free Church Methodists—is this, that in four chapels out of five there is no minister actually resident and attached to those particular chapels. Take, for example, the Division of Louth. In the town of Louth there are three Wesleyan ministers, one Primitive Methodist, and two Methodist Free Church ministers, and these six gentlemen have to solemnise marriages in about 50 villages around Louth. Now, if the name of one minister has under the proviso to be attached to one chapel it will cause almost insuperable difficulties to these religious denominations, and make the Bill absolutely useless to the great Methodist churches. I will confine my remarks to the Wesleyans, who have an official list authorised by the conference containing the names of about 1,700 ministers who are under the jurisdiction of the conference. What we suggest is that we should each year send to the Registrar General a copy of the official list of ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and all that the Registrar General would have to do would be to turn to the alphabetical list and see whether the name was there. If this clause means that one minister must be attached to one chapel it is absolutely useless to the great body of the Methodist churches of this country. We might just as well have no Bill at all as have a proviso that one minister, and one only, is to be licensed for one particular chapel. If, however, it is deemed sufficient that the governing body should notify a list of ministers from time to time who were certified to celebrate marriages in the chapels, no difficulty or danger would arise, either as regards the solemnisation or the due recording of the marriage. If the Attorney General is of opinion that such a list would suffice I am quite willing to accept the clause.

It seems to me very clear that all that will be necessary will be to certify that Mr. A. or Mr. B. or Mr. C, as the case may be, is the proper person to perform the ceremony of marriage in a particular chapel. When this Bill had been read a second time, I proposed to the honourable Gentleman who has charge of it to confer with him upon the Amendments which I thought necessary, but he refused. I saw in my own constituency some 20 gentlemen—clergymen and laymen belonging to at least six or seven of the Nonconformist denominations— and they, I think, with one exception—that of a very eccentric gentleman—were in favour of certain Amendments which I have drawn to meet their views. I put them on the Paper two days ago. Wesleyan Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists, all thought that the governing bodies ought to be defined in some way or other, and they thought that the definitions in the Bill of 1856 would suit them down to the ground. I do not know that the Attorney General intends to do anything of that kind. It requires a very careful definition. In considering this Bill we shall go wrong if we only take the case of the very important Nonconformist denominations. There would be no difficulty whatever about the matter if there were only Wesleyans and Baptists, and so on. But there is a large number of Nonconformist bodies, increasing year after year, which have no such organisation as those important bodies, and it is for them that we have also to provide.

I should like to say one word on this Amendment, as it affects the Congregational body, and the same remarks would apply to the Methodist body, though I have no authority to speak on their behalf. So far as the Congregationalists are concerned, the clause of the Attorney General would work very well, and would be perfectly satisfactory. We have in our denomination a considerable number of chapels, attached to which there is no resident minister, but all these chapels are connected with other larger chapels. In each of these churches or chapels there is a governing body. That is the body of trustees, more especially of church members, who have in their hands the control of these places of worship in all respects, both structurally and, I may say, spiritually. I take it that the clause of the Attorney General would work in this way, that the governing body at each of these chapels would give authority to some person to solemnise marriage. That person so authorised would be authorised for more than one place. It seems to me that the clause of the Attorney General would work admirably well so far as the Congregational body is concerned, and I may say also that the Baptist body would be satisfied with the proviso in the clause as it now stands.

I should like to explain the general structure of the Congregational and Baptist churches, and say that the trust died of a chapel simply vests in the trustees the estate in the site of the chapel, the cèstuis que trustentbeing the members of the congregation. Assuming that the governing body means the members of the church, how is it proposed to be done? Must all the members of the church sign, or the trustees, or is it intended that the governing body may certify by calling in the ordinary way a church meeting, and then, by resolution, certifying the minister who is authorised to solemnise the marriage? If that is so, these words would cover the case. Apart from the question whether there is any practical difficulty in the use of these words, my own opinion is that this arrangement would work admirably with regard to these particular bodies.

Several important questions have been raised, which it would be convenient if I dealt with at once before the discussion goes any further. I never imagined that anyone would read the first paragraph of any Amendment as meaning that "no person" would mean "one person" for one chapel, or only one person for not more than one chapel. Apart from anything which follows, it is perfectly competent to have two or three clergymen authorised for one chapel or church, and it is perfectly competent for A or B to be authorised to solemnise marriages at three, four, five, or six churches. The discussion which has taken place satisfies me that my proviso goes too far as it stands. That is an important point. The honourable Member for Lincolnshire asks me to assent to a system under which anyone in a list of 1,700 ministers, authorised all over the United Kingdom —at any rate, he said in England and Wales—is to be authorised to solemnise marriages in an individual chapel. Now that is going much too far. In that he is asking for a much greater privilege than the Church of England now enjoys, because, although sometimes the casual clergyman is brought in by friends to perform the marriage ceremony in the Church of England, he is not really the responsible person, because the respon- sibility rests with the clergyman attached to the building, who has to see that the marriage is duly registered and entered. Therefore you have to go to the church and get a copy of the marriage lines, and not to the person who performed the ceremony. Therefore, I cannot assent to the proposal of the honourable Member, The honourable Member charged me with suggesting one minister for one chapel, and his other alternative was would I accept the authorised list of 1,700 ministers as being a sufficient identification of the ministers authorised to solemnise marriages at chapels. Now, I do not think that honourable Members will consider that I ought to do so. Now, I am very much surprised that the powers given to ministers in the Wesleyan churches are so large. I can understand that when anybody is down to preach he cannot do so unless he is on the list, and there is no difficulty. We know the Wesleyan churches very well, for they are familiar in the country villages, and there always is a Wesleyan minister residing in each district. What I should have conceived and imagined the Wesleyan body would wish to do is, not that a minister in Cornwall should be the registrar of a marriage in Norfolk, but that in regard to the marriage in Norfolk, it should be done by somebody connected with the district and connected with the chapel, who will be responsible for the registration, just as the Church of England minister is responsible. The working out of this question, of course, must be done to a certain extent by rules. I should imagine that the great Wesleyan body, having this Bill before them, would have immediately said that there should he so many ministers authorised in connection with each of the Wesleyan chapels. It would be an absolutely unworkable scheme, which I cannot myself sanction, that the mere fact of Wesleyan ordination and recognition as preacher would be sufficient, and something further must be done to attach the responsibility to the minister who is personally connected with the chapel. The honourable Member has stated perfectly frankly the working of the clause. Either the trustees or the governing bodies themselves will nominate the minister for the time being, either permanently or as long as the minister is connected with that particular chapel, and they will nominate him for the purpose of solemnising marriages. With reference to the point put to me, that some rule would apply, I do not know that it is necessary in the Bill to lay down exactly how the authority of the governing bodies or the trustee is to be exercised, but that will be subject to rules. What we wish is that, in order to register the marriages properly, there must be some person authorised by the representative governing body of the chapel or church, who will be the responsible person, and whose duty it will be to see that the marriages are properly registered.

The Attorney General, I am sure, will pardon me when I say that he is rather incorrect in his apprehension of what the Wesleyan system is with reference to the appointment of their ministers, for their whole territorial distinction is not unlike the Church of England, and what is equivalent to the parish is almost the same. There is to every circuit two ministers, sometimes three and sometimes four, and I have known five, to the authorisation of whom my honourable Friend behind me referred when he mentioned the 1,700 ministers. Now, I want the right honourable Gentleman to understand exactly what our position is. A certain number of ministers are authorised to perform acts of religious worship in the chapels of that particular town. We have there no equivalent body to the trustees or governing body as far as the appointment of the minister is concerned. The trustees do not appoint the minister who occupies the pulpit, for he is appointed by one central organisation which this year may appoint a man in Cornwall, and next year he may be in Northumberland. A Congregational minister may be appointed for one, 10, 20, 40, or 50 years, but every Wesleyan minister is reappointed every August, and they are appointed for 12 months. There is an official document signed, and, it is not only in writing, but it is printed, by which the minister's appointment is evidenced, and all that my honourable Friend behind me asks is that that document shall be received as evidence of the appointment in Wolverhampton, for instance, or in Louth. He does not want the minister at Louth, Wolverhampton, or Norwich to have a document showing that he is appointed all over the Kingdom. All he wants to have is the official document of the man appointed by that specific town, or within that, specific superintendent registrar's area. I assure the Attorney General that this is a question of evidence, and that is why I suggest that it should be done by rule, and that the Registrar General, with the approval of the Local Government Board, should make rules to certify what evidence is to be tendered and what will be received to satisfy him for a person to authorise marriages. Let us look at one sentence in his own Amendment. It reads—

"No person shall officiate at or solemnise a marriage in any registered building under this Act unless he has been certified as having been duly authorised fur the purpose by the trustees or other governing body of the building."

Wesleyans are like other people, and they may have a friend who is a minister in Cornwall whom they may wish to perform the marriage ceremony of their daughter. Just as an outside clergyman of the Church of England may perform the marriage of a friend, that custom prevails in Nonconformist circles, and, although the Attorney General is quite right when he says that no marriage can take place in the church without the consent of the rector or incumbent, he knows that scores and hundreds of marriages take place without the clergyman of the parish being present at all. I agree personally with the section which reads—

"Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building."

That means that the Bill authorises a certain person to perform a marriage in Leeds, and it will also allow him to perform a marriage at Birmingham if it is required. So far as the wording of this clause is concerned, my honourable Friend behind me, and my two honourable Friends who have spoken on behalf of the body with which the difficulty is the greatest, are satisfied; and I think the difficulty is one which can be settled hereafter by rule, which, I think, is the most satisfactory way of doing it. I should, therefore, advise my honourable Friend behind me to accept the Amendment as the Attorney General has put it.

I do not wish in the least to prevent a minister from a Wesleyan body solemnising a marriage in any chapel in the same way in which a clergyman of the Church of England is allowed to perform the marriage ceremony; but, if that is done, we shall have to have the presence of the minister of the chapel, or one of the ministers authorised to solemnise marriages in that chapel. It is the common practice that if one of the clergymen of the Church of England from another district performs the marriage ceremony, one of the clergymen connected with the district in which the marriage takes place is present, and I should have thought it would have been a very reasonable solution of the difficulty that one of the registrars in connection with that building should be present. I had that in my mind when I said that it was not quite sufficient. What I want to point out is this, that I am not quite sure that it will be sufficient for the officials to have simply the annual evidence of the ministers authorised at particular churches and chapels in the list of the Wesleyan Conference, because, of course, under the machinery of the Bill, we have got to send books and registers, and they have to be returned, and we must, of course, know the person who is to be responsible to us to see that they are returned. I do not think, therefore, that I am asking too much when I say that the governing bodies or trustees of these chapels, or each church or circle, should send year by year a list of the persons taken from the list of the central authority indicating that they are duly authorised persons. I agree that this is a matter that might be carried out by rules, but while I agree with that, I think that what we all desire is that there shall be a responsible governing body, or a responsible person, who shall tell us who are the authorised ministers. I think it would be putting too much work on the central body to pick out the names, and there would be no objection to a responsible party in the district informing those persons who are recoginsed ministers for this particular building. As I have been obliged to answer— and wish to answer—the point put by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, I may say that I think it is clear that my clause will require some little amendment, but I am doubtful whether I can do it now. I think this proviso goes a little too far, for, although it remedies one grievance, there are other matters which will require safeguarding, and there ought to be a minister present connected with the chapel. If the honourable Member could suggest something, we might be able to pass it today.

I do not think this clause would require alteration if we really meant to have only gentlemen to solemnise marriages who have solemnly taken holy orders, but as we are now dealing practically with anybody who may have sufficient influence to be authorised for that purpose, I think we ought to take every reasonable precaution to secure the right conduct of the ceremony, and the preservation of the certificates.

I think it is only in a. few isolated cases that Nonconformists desire the laity to perform their marriages. The number is not one in 10,000, and we need hardly provide for a case of that sort. Perhaps the case would be met if the minister in the locality attended the wedding in cases where the marriage was performed by a clergyman coming from a distant part.

I think the case of the person authorised for any particular place of worship being present, in addition to the officiating stranger, would constitute an insuperable difficulty. The minister who is, registered in connection with the specific chapel may be away on his holidays, or detained at home by ill health, and his attendance would consequently be impossible; consequently the party solemnising the marriage would have to go to some chapel where the minister was not ill or away and for the time being that chapel would be practically closed as a place for solemnising marriages.

What I have said is only proving what you say.

That is one of the difficulties which a revision of this proviso might raise.

I, Sir, do not think it is contemplated that there will be more than one minister or more than one person authorised for ordinary chapels. If tins concession is given, it is not asking very much that he should be present. At any rate, in order that we may get on, I will suggest some words, and I will move them, and if they are not satisfactory I will reconsider the matter on the Report stage.

I do not think this would be the general rule in Congregational chapels, where there are not two ministers. The Attorney General says it would be very wrong to allow a stranger to come and perform the ceremony without the consent of the minister duly authorised. Now, that is impossible in a Wesleyan chapel for nobody can perform any act of religious worship without the consent of local senior minister. Therefore, if you have the consent of the minister on the spot, you get what you require. I can fully appreciate the Attorney General's objection. I think it ought to be met, and if he will allow me to say so, he had better let this clause go as it stands, and let there, be some consultation between himself and the promoters to amend it, so that all these points may be met. What I did mean when I addressed the House before was just what the Attorney General said—that the local authority should furnish the local superintendent registrar with the names only of two or three ministers who are appointed to officiate in that chapel, and all we want to do is to make it easy for the man authorised to perform a marriage in one part of the country to, with the consent of the local minister, perform a marriage in another place. At Congregational chapels in some small district there might not be a minister within 20 or 30 miles, and it would be exceedingly hard upon the members of that denomination to say that they must wait till the minister comes from his holidays, or recovers from his illness, before they can get married. That is the question before us, and perhaps the last proviso in the Amendment had better be added to the Bill.

I think the real difficulty is with those smaller bodies, which are very much scattered about country districts, and it has been suggested that there should be someone properly responsible in the locality. It is very likely that the suggestion which the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has made will answer very well in the cases he has mentioned.

I should like to press upon the Committee that on the lines laid down there is a distinct difference between the Free Churches. There is much less difficulty in a certain number of men performing marriages in the same circuit, and they are much better regulated. There may be, even in the same town, different organisations, and I would suggest that in these cases, if the consent should be given of the man who is in charge of that place of worship, another minister should perform the ceremony. I quite conceive the line which the right honourable Gentleman has taken up, and it is a very safe line for the Free Churches generally. But, inasmuch as they include Presbyterians and all shades of Free Churches, it would be difficult to do that, and I quite acknowledge the necessity for his attempt to meet the difficulty by authorising other persons, if the consent of the person, whoever it may be, is obtained who has the right from the proper authority in that particular building to solemnise marriages.

As I have already indicated to the Committee, I cannot move the proviso in the actual words on the Paper, as the right honourable Gentleman opposite has an addition which he will read to the House. The words, as they stand at present, are—

"Provided that a person authorised for one registered building may officiate at or solemnise a marriage in another registered building."

It is quite evident we want elasticity in these questions, as rules may apply to ministers of one denomination and not to another. That will require the careful consideration of the Local Government Board. Therefore I move to insert after "may", the following words—

"In accordance with, and subject to, such conditions as may be prescribed by rules to be made under this Act."

I propose to add at the end of the clause the words, "'belonging to the same religious denomination." It seems to me there may be an interchange of courtesies between ministers of different denominations, and the time may come when clergymen may preach in Congregational or Wesleyan chapels; but I do not suppose that a clergyman, would perform the marriage ceremony in a. Wesleyan chapel, or a Wesleyan in a Congregational or Independent chapel. The one idea of the Bill is to remove. Nonconformist ministers from being in an inferior position to the clergy of the Church of England so far as conducting the marriage ceremony is concerned. No clergyman can perform the marriage ceremony except in a Church of England church, and it certainly seems only natural and reasonable, considering that there are such a number of denominations, each with its own ministers authorised only by the governing body of the chapel, that the power which Parliament gives should be limited to the buildings belonging to each particular denomination. We are not merely dealing with great religious bodies such as the Wesleyans, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, and so forth, but we are also dealing with very small Nonconformist bodies which may come into existence one week and expire the following year. But there is nothing to hinder any body of people calling themselves a Nonconformist body, and not lasting more than two or three years, and whose governing body may be a few humble people in an obscure village—in fact, a denomination never heard of before—from availing themselves of this Act. A small Nonconformist sect may break away from another sect, and may start a denomination of its own, and have one little chapel, the governing body of which has it registered, and they may nominate a person—a layman if they please—to perform the marriage ceremony. I may be answered by the fact that these are small bodies, that they are insignificant, but you are giving them rights over the whole. They should be limited to the denomination to which they belong, and they should not receive from Parliament power to perform the marriage ceremony in any registered chapel in England, whether it belongs to their own religious denomination or not. I beg to move to add at the end the words "belonging to the same religious denomination."

I am happy to say that Nonconformist bodies do not differentiate among themselves as the honourable Member imagines. I think it would be highly objectionable if, for instance, a Congregational minister were not allowed to perform the marriage ceremony in a Wesleyan chapel. It is altogether foreign to Nonconformist feeling and Nonconformist practice, and I do not think it requires further argument.

Of course, in one sense this is a matter which may possibly be dealt with by rule. I have no feeling in the matter, and it is for the Nonconformist representatives to say whether it should be possible for a minister of one denomination to perform the marriage ceremony in the church or chapel of another denomination. I will ask my honourable Friend not to move.

I move—

"Page 3, line 11, leave out from 'law' to end of line 12."

This is an important Amendment with reference to registration. The proposal in the Bill was that the district registrar should issue loose sheets to the person desiring to get married, or possibly to the person solemnising the marriage. He would hear no more about it until they were returned, and the only safeguard was that they should be returned within three months. If they were not returned it was suggested that the superintendent registrar should take such steps as he might deem necessary, to ascertain where the intended marriage had been solemnised, with, a view to receiving registration thereof. It would be very difficult to impose this duty of going to find out where the parties were, as they might have left the place; and without a. record of where the ceremony was performed, the task of the registrar would be absolutely useless. When I came to grapple with the problem of this Bill, I found that, it was absolutely necessary to have something more than loose sheets of paper, and, in addition, I concluded that the registration should be in connection with the building. I therefore propose, for two reasons, that books shall be issued in which entries shall be made by an authorised person, and by the parties to the marriage, and that copies of each book shall be returned regularly in the same way as other Reports are returned. I therefore move.

This, of course, is a provision which practically corresponds with the provision applying to the Established Church. As regards the custody and safe keeping of documents, I should like to ask the careful consideration of right honourable Gentlemen, and honourable Gentlemen who represent Nonconformist bodies, as to whether this direction for retaining documents is sufficient. I do not know whether or not it is common for marriages to be solemnised in the chapels of many of the smaller bodies. As the Bill first read it applied to buildings which were licensed; I think the words were "registered for religious worship." It is obvious that there are many small chapels in which it would be unwise to have marriages, though the services are most proper, and ought to be encouraged, and accordingly a provision has been put down confining the Bill to buildings registered for the marriage ceremony. But I am informed—and I now come to the matter—that in some of the Nonconformist churches and chapels there are no proper arrangements for the safe cus- tedy of documents, and that, in even those licensed for marriages, safes and other things are not provided. I should be very glad if those dealing with the matter would make it part of their duty to secure the safe custody required. Of course, we could not refuse to allow marriages to be solemnised if the buildings were licensed simply because there was no proper place in which books could be kept. Perhaps some Member would suggest some words which would meet the case. I have framed the words generally, but I should be glad if honourable Gentlemen opposite would suggest some Amendment with a view to the better safeguarding of these documents. I move, Sir.

It is quite evident that this only applies to registered buildings. In all large registered buildings there are safes and other conveniences. What I do not like in this Amendment is that the register shall be retained among the documents belonging to the registered building. The title deeds may be in the hands of a lawyer or some other person, and I should rather like if the register could be retained in the building. I do not think that it ought to go away into private custody.

Would my Amendment lower down meet the point? It proposes to add to the clause the words—

"To the registered minister of the building where the said marriage was solemnised, and shall be kept in a reasonably secure place in. the said building."

We must secure the safe custody of these documents, but I do not agree that they should be away from the buildings. In every large church there are always safes, and documents appertaining to the church are kept there, and the necessity for providing for the safe custody of these marriage documents will encourage the provision of proper facilities where they do not at present exist. I prefer the Amendment as drawn by the Attorney General.

asked why the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General was imposing restrictions on the Nonconformist churches which were not imposed on the Established Church?

If the honourable Member will be good enough to look at the Amendment he will see that it is not stronger than in the case of the Church of England. I am afraid that in avoiding one danger I may fall into another. Those churches and chapels may not have secure places of keeping, but I will consider the point of the right honourable Gentleman. My only concern is for the safe custody of the documents.

I think the Attorney General has exercised a wise discretion in framing the clause is he has. I am quite content with it, if it is understood that the retention of the documents in the buildings is not compulsory. There are some places of worship where there are safes and secure places beyond all question, but there are other places which would not be secure for lodging documents. The practice in such cases is that a responsible person takes charge of the documents. If you leave the local authority power to determine in what way they can best comply with this requirement, and hereafter it should appear that the Statute is not complied with, it would be in the power of the Registrar General to enforce a change, and to require that such measures be taken as will secure the proper custody of the documents.

I beg to move—

"On clause 11, page 4, line 14, after 'Acts' to insert—

"And shall, upon conviction, cease to be a person authorised to solemnise marriages."

There is no other way of preventing any man authorised to solemnise marriage from continuing to do so after he has committed an offence. If he has been convicted of an offence by failing to comply with the Act, I think he ought to lose his right to celebrate marriages in the future.

said that the Motion was that these words be inserted.

was understood to say that it seemed to him desirable that some such words should be inserted, and he accepted the Amendment, subject to consideration before the Report stage of the precise form of words. No one would desire to keep in office a man who misconducted himself.

I beg to move—

"On clause 12, page 4, to leave out after line 17 to end of clause and insert—

"Registrars and registrars under the Marriage Act, 1836, and the marriage licence shall be payable in respect of marriages under this Act: Provided that whenever a notice of marriage, in which the attendance of the registrar of marriages is not required, is taken and attested by the registrar, he shall be entitled for taxing and attesting the notice and transmitting it to the superintendent register of his district to a fee of 5s. for a marriage by licence, and to a fee of 2s. 6d. for a marriage without a licence."

I understand, from representations made to me—representations that ought to be considered—that the registrars are not altogether satisfied with the provisions of the Bill. This particular clause deals with the question of superintendent registrars. I ought to say at once that any question of compensating the registrars out of public moneys is not possible under this Bill. At all events, it is not a scheme I am justified in putting forward, and I do not think that those who are anxious for this Bill would ask that. However, I think there is a case to be considered, and I take this occasion to mention the matter in connection with the clause.

said the question he had to put was—

"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

I may say that the majority on this side heartily sympathise with the principle of the Bill, but I cannot think that the registrars are fairly dealt with in the mode proposed by the Attorney General. The superintendent registrars have been rightly provided for, but supposing the services of the registrar are to be dispensed with, there will be no obligation to pay him a fee, and there is no provision to pay him compensation for the loss of fees which he would sustain by the Bill. I hope that between now and the Report stage some provision will be made.

The Bill introduced by the Attorney General in 1887 made no provision to compensate the registrars. Now, in this case it is proposed to give the superintendent registrar 5s., instead of 40s., where the marriage is by special licence, and the registrar 2s. 6d. instead of 1s. Now, the proportion of marriages in Nonconformist chapels is small, owing to prohibitive fees. We feel it would be rather a grievance in having to pay 2s. 6d. instead of 1s., and we should have to pay 5s. to the superintendent registrar, who never attends at all. It should not fall upon the Dissenter, who has already been charged 2s. 6d. instead of 1s. In one of the Attorney General's Bills he provided that any compensation which he then made should terminate with the office of the existing registrar, and whatever provision he now makes for compensation should not be extended beyond the occupants of the existing offices. I would point out to him the injustice of paying 2s. 6d. instead of 1s., and also paying the superintendent, registrar, who is not intended to attend at all. I deny that Dissenters desire the attendance of registrars, but if it were so the registrars would be wanted as much in the future as in the past.

I fully agree with what was said by the honourable Member for Islington. I hope a wise and generous provision will be made to safeguard the registrars from any pecuniary loss.

I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, and I will ask the House to pass this Amendment, reserving the right to make an alteration.

I do not see why registrars should be entitled to fees for marriages which do not take place in Nonconformist chapels. There is no doubt that a large number of Nonconformist marriages are not solemnised in Nonconformist chapels owing to the conditions which the law has imposed upon Nonconformists.

Many of the registrars do their work exceedingly well, and without offence, and we should be sorry were they to suffer any pecuniary loss. I quite agree, if any consideration is shown to the existing officials, that when their terms, of office cease the consideration should also cease. I should be sorry to take part in a discussion which would do an injustice to any class of officials.

moved—

"To leave out clause 14, on page 5."

There is one religious body perfectly satisfied with the position in which they stand under the law in relation to marriages, and they are anxious that their position shall not be weakened by the concession, too tardily made, to the claims of our Nonconformists. I beg to move the following' clause—

"Provided always that nothing in this Act shall be taken to relate or have any reference to marriages solemnised in accordance with the practice and usages of the Society of Friends."

as an Amendment to Mr. Ellis's new clause (proviso as to the non-application of the Act to the Society of Friends), at the end of line 3 to add—

"Or of persons professing the Jewish religion."

I beg to move the following—

"Schedule 1, page 5, leave out all after line 11, and insert—

"The Marriage Act, 1836 (6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 85); the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4, and 1 Vic, c. 22); the Marriage Act, 1840 (3 and 4 Vic., c. 72); the Marriage and Registration Act, 1856 (19 and 20 Vic., c. 119); the Marriage Act, 1886 (49 and 50 Vic., c. 14)."

I beg to move, on schedule 2, page 6, to leave out the form of return.

I beg to move the following—

"Schedule 2, form of return, page 6, line, after 'officiating at the said marriage,' add 'being a person registered as qualified to solemnise marriage under the Marriage Act, 1898.'"

"Schedule 2, form of instructions, page 7, line 2, before 'person,' insert 'registered.'"

"Schedule 2, page 7, line 14, before 'person,' insert 'registered.'"

I beg to move, on schedule 2, page 7, line 16, to leave out from "witnesses" to end of form.

I beg to move the following—

"Preamble, page 1, line 4, after 'that,' insert 'under proper restrictions.'"

"Preamble, page 1, line 6, leave out 'religious bodies,' and insert 'authorised persons.'"

I beg to move the following—

"Title, page 1, leave out 'attendance of registrars at.'"

"Title, page 1, leave out 'in Nonconformist,' and insert' of Nonconformists.'"

"Title, page 1, leave out 'places of worship.'"

declined to accept the Amendment, on the ground that the phraseology correctly described the object of the Bill.

I think this is an illustration of the parable about straining and swallowing.

I desire to move an Amendment in line seven, to leave out the words "orphan, or deserted." I do this for the purpose of obtaining some explanation from the promoters of this Bill as to why it is limited, as regards its first clause, to orphan and deserted children in the workhouses. It appears that all parties are agreed upon this Bill, and it is therefore desirable that while they are so agreed the Bill should be made as generally beneficial as possible. If the boarding out system is a good system, as I believe it is, I should like to know why the advantages of that system should be confined to orphan and deserted children. There are, of course, children in the workhouses who do not come under the definition of orphan and deserted children, and I do not see why they should be debarred simply because they have one parent alive. I do not know whether there is any legal definition of the term "deserted child." If the parents of a child desert it and go to America, or to England or Scotland, that child is a deserted child, but if one of the parents should return, then the child would become not deserted, and would be deprived of the advantages of the boarding out system. In order to get some explanation I move the omission of the words "orphan or deserted."

In the early part of the day, thinking that the Bill was likely to come on, I took the opportunity of asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he approved of the Bill as it stood, and he replied in the affirmative. In the point raised the clause follows the English law, and to introduce this Amendment into the Bill would effect a radical alteration in the Poor Law system. I do not say that this might not be desirable, but this is not the time for discussing it.

The opinion of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary has great weight with me, but it should be mentioned that there is great objection to the limitation in the English Poor Law, and there is an organisation in existence for promoting the extension of boarding out to all workhouse children. Under this Bill there is a chance for Irish pauper children to obtain a great advantage which is sought to be obtained for English pauper children, and to say that the Bill follows the English precedent does not seem, to me a sufficient answer.

The Amendment raises the whole question of parental authority, and the discussion of such a question should be taken in relation to the general law.

I hope my honourable Friend the Member for the Thirsk Division will press his Amendment. I cannot see any objection to an Amendment of the law as affecting Ireland, especially as it is admitted that such an Amendment would be of great advantage in England. The Government have not shown themselves averse to legislative experiments in Ireland, and I think this should be tried as an experiment. If it proved satisfactory it could very well be extended to England.

The honourable Member who has just sat down said this Amendment should be tried as an experiment. The object of this Bill is not to try any experiment at a11, but to give to boards of guardians in Ireland the same powers as are possessed by boards of guardians in England. I think it would be unwise to open up this question now. It will be very easy, when the English system comes to be altered, to make the alteration apply to Ireland. At present I think the mover of the Amendment might give way.

I hope honourable Members are not going to destroy this Bill by academic discussions. Every section of Irish, opinion supports the Bill; every section wants it, and even Dublin Castle wants it. We only wish he law of Ireland to be assimilated to that of England, and I hope there will be no attempt to choke the Bill by raising academic objections.

At this hour the interruption of the honourable Member is wholly uncalled for. There is ample time for a reasonable discussion. I do not think we should be passing any special compliment to Ireland if, without consideration of the various points, we were to hurry this Bill through.

I do not wish to press my Amendment, as it is not received with general support; but my honourable Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board made one remark to which I think I ought to reply. He said that in proposing this Amendment I was raising the whole question of parental authority. Sir, that question is raised in other parts of the Bill. It is in this clause, and one other, that the advantages are confined to "orphan or deserted" children. However, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

May I appeal to the House to allow the Third Reading to be taken?

Mr. Lowther, when this Bill was before the Committee on Second Reading I gave an assurance that I would on the Committee stage propose Amendments which would limit the abolition of common employment to those cases not covered by the Compensation to Workmen Act of last year, and previous Employers' Liability Acts. In accordance with that pledge, Mr. Lowther, I have move—

"Page 1, line 6, leave out 'under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880,' and insert 'by a workman.'"

I should like to ask what the precise effect of the Amendment will be. I notice there are other Amendments on the Paper dealing with the question of the omission of these words, and the insertion of the words "by a workman." This naturally leads us to consider what the definition of "workman" is to be. I should like to know whether it will exclude seamen and domestic servants.

The word is defined in a subsequent Amendment.

The mover of the Amendment stated that the object of the Amendment was to limit the operation of the Bill. It appears to me that if you leave out the words "under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880," and substitute "by a workman" the effect will be to extend the operation of the Bill and not to limit it.

By a later Amendment I define a "workman" strictly to the interpretation given in the Act of 1875, governed by the Act of 1880, excluding all those workmen whose cases are dealt with by the Compensation Act of 1897.

Mr. Lowther, I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman in charge of this Bill what he means by this Amendment. The Employers' Liability Act of 1880 comprises under the definition of "workman," "workman under the Act of 1875"; and therefore, as I understand, what the right honourable Gentleman proposes is merely an alteration in words which makes no alteration in substance at all. If that is so, the objection to the alteration in a sound one. It was pointed out, during the Second Reading of this Bill, that if there was to be an abolition of the doctrine of common employment at all, it ought to be made in a general form. There is no reason why sailors and domestic servants should be excluded. I will not say that this Amendment was introduced for the purpose of "blinding" the Committee, but it is an Amendment without any meaning whatever. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will explain why it is he proposes to take out a limitation here for the mere purpose of inserting the very same limitation, practically in the very same terms, in a subsequent part of the Bill.

What has been said by my honourable and learned Friend who has just sat down I think clearly shows that this Bill, as it stands, is unworkable; I was going to say absolutely nonsense. No court of law could possibly give it interpretation, for it has no definition for "workman." What I want to point out now is this, that at this moment these words, "under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880," could have no application at all.

I beg to have these words inserted in the Bill in order to follow closely the lines of other Bills dealing with employers' liability and the Bill of last year.

My right honourable Friend the Home Secretary has expressed some doubt as to what these words in the clause conveved. I do think it very desirable that this Bill should be made perfectly clear, and that we should not have confusion worse confounded. I make this proposal solely to render the clause absolutely intelligible.

I hope the Committee will retain these words. My object is to prevent contracting out. I propose to add words after the word "contrary," to make it in consonance with the Bill of last year, so that, after an injury has occurred to a workman, that workman may claim and receive compensation for his injury. If in the course of employment one of the conditions is that the employer may contract out you deprive the workman of benefits which it is intended that he shall receive.

The right honourable Gentleman in charge of this Bill has given an interpretation to these words which I think is certainly the right one, but because of that interpreta- tion I am strongly opposed to them. Taking the interpretation he has given, he is really raising the whole question of contracting out upon this Bill. I admit the Employers' Liability Act is now taken out of this Act, but I understand similar provisions are likely to be introduced later on. So far as that Act is concerned, you are contracting out of it; so far as that Act is concerned, if in an engagement between an employer and a workman the workman likes to make terms which her may consider more favourable to himself, he is entitled to do so. I want to know why, in this Act, affecting, as I understand, the doctrine of common employment, if a man can get better terms, he should not be entitled to do so. I am aware this question of contracting out has been constantly discussed in this House, before I became a Member of this House, and also last Session, but I am one of those who believe in leaving to workmen and employer as much liberty as possible, and, if you are to leave them as much liberty as possible in order that, like other men, they may incur mutual obligations in regard to these matters one with another, you certainly ought not to abolish contracting out. To my mind this is an exceedingly important matter. It is raising again the question raised last year. Are you to deprive workmen of the opportunity of making the best bargain they can on a matter of this kind? And, on the other hand, are you to debar an employer from entering into those relationships which are exceedingly important, not only as regards liability between the parties, but in order to promote good feeling and to get rid of friction? Why, in a matter of this kind, if the employer on the one side and the workman on the other like to make an arrangement under which compensation is given without any risk of litigation, without any risk of trouble, without any risk of expenses between the parties, why should it not be done? It can be done, and it is done, in a large number of cases, with great advantages to both sides, because, although at the present time employers are not liable in certain cases under the doctrine of common employment, yet in a large number of cases they have entered into arrangements with their workmen which make them liable in these cases for injuries arising from whatever cause. Whether the injury be due to an act of folly on the part of the workman or not, the workman is compensated by his employer upon agreed terms. That is done in a very large number of cases, and it brings about the best possible relationship between the parties, and I should like to encourage a relationship of that kind in every possible way. What particular reason is there in this Bill for abolishing the principle of contracting out? There is nothing very special in this Bill; it deals really with a very important part of the question, but with only one part, and where in other connections you permit contracting out on certain terms, why in this particular case, and under these particular circumstances, should you abolish the doctrine of contracting out altogether? I hold, Sir, to this ground because no reason whatever has been given for abolishing contracting out in this particular case. I hope my honourable Friend will go to a Division, and if he does I shall certainly support him.

There is no doubt about the importance of this Amendment, because if the Amendment were carried, then the effect would be that, although the Act abolishes the doctrine of common employment, it would enable any employer to insist that the contract between himself and his workman should relieve him of liability. Now I think, although there have been many discussions in Parliament during the last four or five years, that it was practically agreed by all parties that to leave absolutely free power of contracting out was an inadvisable thing. Well, Sir, it is quite true that it was contemplated in some cases to contract out, but those cases were restricted, and there is machinery in the Bill by which, unless equivalent benefits are given by the employer, he cannot deprive workmen of the benefits intended for them. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Stroud [Mr. Cripps] and the honourable Member for Renfrew [Mr. Renshaw] proposed that this Bill should be absolutely at the mercy of the contract that may be imposed by the employer on the workman; in other words, that the protection which in the legisla- tion of last year was considered to be necesary for the purpose of that Act should absolutely disappear for the purposes of this Act. Now that is purely and simply depriving the workman of any sort of protection, and I cannot help thinking that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Liverpool would wish a more just interpretation of the wishes and opinions of the Conservatives in this matter than the honourable and learned Member for Stroud and the honourable Member for Renfrew have given them. At all events, it is not for me to interpret between those two honourable Gentlemen as to what the feelings are on that side, but I cannot help thinking there are very few on this side of the House who would agree to this destructive course.

There seems to be an impression that contracting out of the employer's liability is an act done generally by the employer as against the workman. The fact is that the opposite is the case. Contracting out is often done on the suggestion of the workmen. I have known several instances within my personal experience where workmen have urged and urged upon their employers some scheme by which an arrangement should be substituted for the statutory obligation. And here you are going to say that the law is still to remain, as regards most subjects which come within employers' liability, but this one particular thing, this matter relating to common employment, is to he taken out of the Rule. However much a workman may desire it, he is not to be allowed to conclude any substitute arrangement. It seems to me absurd on the face of it. If we are to abolish the power of making any contract in substitution of liability under this Act, let it be done once for all. If not, if we do not give that power, on what principle are we to except this particular thing—the question of common employment—out of its scope?

I think the appeal made by the honourable and learned Member for Stroud is a mere repetition of his position on the Bill of last year. Sometimes he wishes us to believe that he is really in favour of a fair measure of compensation towards the workman, and the moment we get one he gets up and supports Amendments which are fatal to the Bill. And now he is here again, with that seductive manner of his, trying to lead astray the innocent lambs on his own side of the House, who are not.so fully advised of his intentions as some of us are on this side. This is an attack at the very heart and principle of the Bill, and therefore I hope the Committee will refuse to be advised in the direction indicated by the Amendment.

I am one of the lambs alluded to by the honourable Member opposite. It seems to me sufficient to point out the enormous disadvantages of leaving a great question like this to a late hour on a Wednesday afternoon for discussion on a Bill which was not expected to be reached. I had thought that the legislation of last year would have settled, at all events for a few years, the question of workmen's compensation. I understood that certain classes were included in last year's Bill, and certain classes were left outside, and that for those classes left outside the law would be settled after we had had an opportunity of seeing the effect of the passage of that Measure. Now that we have this Bill sprung upon us, I should like to ask my right honourable Friend the Member far Liverpool what would be the position of the agricultural labourer. That question alone shows how great a change is involved. I do not think we should decide the great question of common employment, as regards the immense class of agricultural labourers and marines, by a few words said late on a Wednesday afternoon.

As this Bill, as I understand, applies to Ireland, I feel bound to express a hope that the right honourable Gentleman [Sir A. Forwood] will press his Amendment to a Division. I think it is quite time now—though it is only a Wednesday afternoon—to get rid of the whole doctrine of common employment, and, in order to do that effectually, we should not give power to contract out of it, because workmen and employers are not meeting on equal terms. A workman anxious to get, employment, perhaps under the pressure of hunger or want, will enter into a contract just as of old the Irish tenant was ready to submit to any arrangement for the purpose of getting land. If you allow this principle of contracting out to creep in, you might as well drop the Bill altogether. The whole doctrine of common employment, has been always of late considered by judges, at least in my country, as rather the result of a very ingenious decision by, I think, the late Lord Abinger. It was a doctrine unknown originally to the law as expounded by common law judges in times of old. It is not based upon any Statute. It has not even any great antiquity. It sprang up some fifty or sixty years ago, and before that time such a. doctrine was never dreamt of. It is quite time now to get rid of it altogether; but in order to get rid of it altogether and effectually you must also take care, just as you did in the Act of last year, that the workman cannot be induced, by the employer laying a contract before, him which he must enter into, to forego the right enjoyed under what I believe to have been the original common law of England, and, at all events, what appears to me to be more consistent with natural justice—namely, the right that if he has been injured in the employment of another he should have the same claim to compensation whether that injury was immediately brought about by the act of a fellow servant or not. This is an absurd and refined distinction. If there were no fellow servant in the case he clearly, according to the law, would have an action for damages and compensation against his employer, and that the fact of a fellow servant, more than any other person in the community, being more or less ancillary should be a ground for depriving him of that right seems, as far as I can form a judgment, to be wholly inconsistent. I cannot appreciate the argument of the honourable and gallant Member who last spoke, that because this is a Wednesday afternoon, this principle should be rejected by the House. I believe some of the most important Measures on the Statute Book have been passed on a Wednesday after- noon, and some of the most important principles have been established in Bills brought forward by private Members, and it is only on a Wednesday afternoon that a Bill can be brought forward by a private Member, and principles which a Government may not care to adopt can be made effectual.

I consider the subject of contracting out must be dealt with us a whole, but I think the Committee is in extraordinary difficulty in dealing with this clause, owing to the very remarkable manner in which this Bill has been drawn. I agree as to the difficulties of this Bill. Will the Committee let me point out what the consequences would be of the words as they stand? At present a master is liable to pay compensation to his servant in a variety of cases—bad plant, negligence, cases which come under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and so forth. In all these cases the master may contract out of his liability. He may agree with the workman on taking employment that the workman shall have no cause against him. I am not now speaking of the Act under which, subject to certain provisions, contracting out is permitted on fair terms; I can only point out that in all those cases in which at present by common law a workman has a right against his master for injury incurred in his employment contracting out is not permitted. Well, this Bill is not produced for the purpose of enabling the workman to sue his master in cases in which at present he could not sue him, and you propose to restrict contracting out only in this one case. I would appeal to the Committee whether any result more grotesque could be imagined. You leave the common law in existence as to the right of contracting out, and you forbid contracting out only in one case, in a very tortuous, involved way. I think the whole subject has not been grasped by those involved in the construction of this Bill, and the Committee must be very cautious in seeing that it does not indulge in words like those, which would lead to preposterous results such as I have described.

The honourable and gallant Member for Warwick said he should vote against this Amendment because we were discussing it on a Wednesday afternoon. I cannot think that is an adequate reason. When last Session the Government passed an Act which gave protection to certain sections of the working classes and deliberately omitted a very large number of other industries they expressed themselves in favour of the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. When we were discussing that Bill the Home Secretary, then present, also declared that in his opinion common employment ought to be abolished. Last year the Government expressed themselves in favour of the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, and the logical consequence would have been for them to introduce a Bill to that effect. They have not done so, but we have to be thankful for small mercies, and we are content to accept the Bill as far as it goes. But if the Government accept this Amendment, the Bill will be worthless.

I have always thought that the doctrine of common employment was unsound. It is a mere legal fiction that ought to be abolished as soon as opportunity offers. I also agree that, if common employment is to be abolished, it ought not to be done by practically nullifying any clause which enables the employer to bring undue pressure to bear upon workmen with a view to contracting out. At the same time I think there ought to be some reserve for cases of better treatment being offered to a workman by contracting out than he would be able to obtain if there were no contracting out and only dry legal rights. I think an opportunity is required for a more careful consideration of this aspect of the question. My own feeling is that it is a great mistake to meddle or interfere with employers' liability so soon after the great Compensation Act of last Session, which has not yet come into force, and when, therefore, there has been no opportunity to see the effect of its provisions. I agree with the principle of this Bill, and in time I hope to see that principle applied with discretion; but in the meantime I shall vote in favour of the Amendment, in order that an opportunity may be given for a more careful consideration of the question before it is finally dealt with.

I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept this clause. I agree that the Committee should do nothing to disturb the good feeling between employer and employed, but I would point out that contracting out only takes place where proceedings have actually been taken. Under this Bill no proceedings will be taken, because the workman will not go to law, where he gets better terms than under the Bill. I regret that this question of contracting out has been made a Party one, because the workman has been made the sufferer. I hope the Committee will take this opportunity of removing what we feel to be an injustice in all cases where personal injury is put before the Court.

I am unable to agree with those who think that the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act last year is any argument against this Bill. The whole House was agreed, as long ago as 1893, that the time had arrived for the abolition of the defence of common employment. Last year it was found possible to introduce and pass through both Houses a very special Bill dealing with the dangerous trades. With regard to those dangerous trades, where the risk of injury was a part of the risk of the undertaking, very stringent but very beneficial provisions were passed for putting an end to disputes and ensuring reasonable compensation; but that left the non-dangerous trades as they were before, and the workmen in those trades are entitled, in my opinion, to call upon Parliament at the earliest opportunity to give them what it was willing to give them in 1893—namely, a release from the defence of common employment. But now I come to the words against which this Amendment is directed, and I must say I regret that they were introduced into the Bill at all. If I thought that under the clause, as it would stand without them, there would be any chance of a general tendency on the part of employers throughout the country in the non-dangerous trades to bargain with their workmen to remain subject to the defence of common employment, I should possibly vote against this Amendment, or, at least, prefer some other Amendment limiting, without prohibiting, contracts in this respect. But I believe that no such inclination would exist. On the other hand, the words against which the Amendment is directed go too far, for they would prohibit and nullify those contracts which are beneficial to the workman, and in which, for greater advantages, he foregoes any such limited benefit as he would get under this Bill. Those beneficial contracts are the only contracts which I believe would ever have been made so as in any way to interfere with the advantage obtained under this Bill. I shall, therefore, feel obliged to vote for this Amendment because the words forbidding contracting out seem to aim at an evil which, would never exist, and, on the other hand, to deprive the workmen of those beneficial contracts to which they are entitled. It might be advisable, on striking out these objectionable words, to provide later in the Bill certain conditions to which any contract should conform before it should be allowed to supersede the rights given to the workman under the common employment defence abolition clause.

I have been obliged to make many speeches on this subject, both inside and outside the House, and I only rise now for the purpose of making one observation. I welcome this Bill, in so far as it abolishes, throughout the whole range of our industrial system, the defence of common employment. But I should not regard it as carrying out the object which it professes to carry out, if it is left to private arrangement between employers and workmen to get rid of the protection which the Measure gives as it stands. I am certain I am speaking for everybody on this side of the House, and, I hope, for a considerable number of Members on the other side, when I say it is perfectly useless to offer this pretended boon to the workmen of this country unless we safeguard against it being whittled away by an arrangement of this kind.

I think that honourable Members on the other side of the House who have spoken against the Amendment did not do sufficient justice to the energy, independence, and determination of the working people of this country. I represent a manufacturing district, and I am sure that there is a large number of my constituents who are anxious that the privilege of contracting out should be maintained. Surely, it is the privilege of the working people to make a better bargain than the law gives them. We have reason to object to the Bill because of its drafting; indeed, to bring forward, at this time of the Session, and at this hour on a Wednesday afternoon, a Bill which is badly drawn, is not a compliment to the House of Commons.

I am strongly in favour of the Bill, and I hope the Amendment will not go to a Division. If we could dispense with the doctrine of common employment, and simply pass a Bill of one clause, we shall do a good deal to put thousands of working people, excluded from the last Act, on a better footing in respect to any injury they may receive.

I happen to be in a position to know the views and opinions of the working classes of the country, both on the question of the abolition of common employment and upon the question of the benefit to be derived from contracting out, and I think I shall not be overstating the case when I say that, for the last 18 years, the working classes of this country have been deluging the House with petitions against the power of the employer to force workmen to contract out of the benefits of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, which has been such a blot upon the legislation of the House. Working men, almost without exception, object to an Act of Parliament which gives the right to the employer to take any steps, or adopt any stratagem, which will compel his workmen to contract out of the Act of Parliament. For my own part, I am unable to see the consistency of passing an Act of Parliament with one hand, and giving the right to contract out with another. I am sure no honourable Member of this House would tolerate an Amendment to the Public Health Act, or to the Vaccination Act, upon which the health of the people depends, enabling persons to contract out; and when we are considering questions of the life and health of the people, I think it is the duty of the Committee to suggest that the right to contract out ought to continue no longer. I hope my honourable Friend who has charge of this Amendment will not give way to the arguments of those who favour contracting out. I am persuaded that millions of working men will welcome this Bill, which, if passed into law, will remove from the legislation of this House a blot which ought never to have been tolerated.

I trust the right honourable Member in charge of this Bill will stick to it as it stands. It simply abolishes the plea of common employment as a line of defence when a case comes into court, but will not materially affect contracting out, as when a workman has contracted out—i.e.,made a better bargain—he will not bring his claim into court at all.

If the words proposed to be omitted are left in the Bill the workman will still be at liberty to contract with his master, in respect to all matters, except those which arise out of common employment. That will be a most illogical position. I may also say once more that, having on many occasions, taken part in discussions such as this, and having sat on a Committee which considered the question, I maintain that, so far from workmen being universally opposed to contracting out, they have given evidence in favour of the principle, and Select Committees have reported unanimously in favour of the principle.

I only wish to point out that the people who are the least organised, and the poorest, and the least able to take care of themselves in the whole industrial world, were excluded from the benefits of the Act of last year. Unless the Committee see their way to accept the words as they stand, I shall take no further responsibility with the Bill.

moved—

"Page 1, line 9, after 'contrary' insert 'made before the accrual of the right.'"

moved—

"Page 1, line 13, leave out from 'applies' to end of clause."

He said he moved this in accordance with the engagement he made on the Second Reading of the Bill. The discussion on the occasion of the Second Reading applied almost entirely to the latter part of the clause, which he now proposed to omit. He did not wish to interfere with the action of Parliament last year in passing the Workmen's Compensation Act; he only wished to deal with those workmen who were left out of the Act last Session. He submitted that he was keeping strictly within the pledge he gave to the House on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill.

moved—

"Page 1, after clause 1, insert the following clause—

"Where the injury was caused by the act or default of another workman in the service of the same employer, the amount of compensation recoverable shall not exceed such sum as may be found to be equivalent to the estimated earnings during the three years preceding the injury of a person in the same grade employed during those years in the like employment and in the district in which the workman is employed at the time of the injury."

He said he felt in regard to this matter that it was the only possible way of giving the employers an opportunity of knowing the extreme liability which they incurred. He had adopted in the clause the conditions of the Act of 1890, limiting the amount of compensation to three years' wages. Thus the employer was well able to protect himself in consequence of such an Act by insurance.

also moved—

"Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following clause—

"In this Act the expression 'employer' includes a body of persons corporate or incorporate.

"The expression 'workman' means a railway servant and any person to whom the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, applies."

In moving that clause, he said he had strictly carried out the engagement he gave to the House that he would not attempt to extend the scope of the Act of 1880. On that condition he understood the House would accept the clause. Although he should have very much wished to extend the scope of that Act, he stood by the condition imposed upon him.

protested against the limitations in the clause. It excluded all seamen, and he should like to know why such an important section of the community was excluded. Seamen were quite as much entitled to the benefit of the Act as any other class of workmen, or any industry in any part of the country. He wanted to know why the right honourable Gentleman who represented Liverpool should have suggested such an Amendment, which excluded a class of workmen who were particularly prominent near Liverpool, and who certainly ought to be included. The mover of the Amendment protested against excluding certain workmen from the benefit of the Act, and he [Mr. Cripps] wanted to know why it was that he now sought to exclude seamen from the benefit of the abolition of common employment, which was of very great importance. So, too, with regard to domestic servants. It was difficult for a moment to know what this meant. He thought he was right in asking whether this limitation did not exclude the whole class of domestic servants. Some explanation ought to be given to the House as to why a particular class should be excluded. He wanted

said he explained on the Second Reading of the Bill his attitude as regarded the treatment of those classes excluded from the Bill. His wish was to pass a Bill which would give as great a benefit as possible to the largest number, but, from the practical point of view, he felt that no Bill could be carried which was strongly opposed by representatives of one class; and he also further explained that this interpretation clause embraced within it those whom he pledged to keep within the Bill.

said it must not be supposed that honourable Members on his side of the House had abandoned the principle that all classes of workmen ought to be included. They only acquiesced in the limitation proposed by the right honourable Baronet because they were unwilling to imperil the Measure.

said he had argued throughout that if the Bill were passed there ought to be no limitation. Holding that opinion, as he strongly did, he certainly thought there ought to be a Division.

I beg to move—

"Page 1, line 22, leave out 'approved and.'"

I think the regulations must be approved by somebody, and I do not quite understand the object of the honourable Gentleman in moving to leave out the words "approved and."

I have no particular object in doing so myself, but I was asked to do so by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

I understood that the Registrar of Friendly Societies had agreed to approve these rules. I think there ought to be some authority, and I am not at all anxious to undertake it myself. It might be further considered, but there should be some approving authority.

Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I may explain that all this Bill proposes to do is to give the urban councils and councils of boroughs the same powers as parish councils already have. There are parts of boroughs and urban districts remote from the centre of population which are unable to get these facilities, and are thus excluded from the benefits which they would get if they were separate districts.

I beg to move the following new clause—

"This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland."

Might I appeal to the honourable Member not to press this new clause? Perhaps it would save time if this clause is not allowed to extend to Ireland, because it is to be tacked on to the Irish Local Government Bill.

One is the counterpart of the other, and for uniformity's sake it should apply to both.

I beg leave to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is supported by the Incorporated Law Society, the London bankers, and by a large number of insurance companies and merchants. The Act is a very necessary one, and has the general approval of the interests concerned.