§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1.
THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)asked for some explanation as to the object of the Bill.
§ MR. BENSON (Oxfordshire, Woodstock)said, that at the present time there were often serious and even fatal accidents in connection with the use of these chaff-cutting machines which could be prevented by the adoption of preventive appliances. The Bill was to enforce the adoption of such appliances so that accidents of the kind should be obviated. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would allow the Bill to be taken.
§ MR. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)said, no doubt this Bill had an admirable object; but as very few hon. Members had yet seen it, he thought the hon. Member should consent to the postponement of the present stage, so that they might have an opportunity of looking into its provisions. The Bill, he agreed, might do good, but it might also do a great deal of harm, even whilst it was brought in with the very best objects in view. He would therefore suggest that the hon. Member should postpone the Bill for a week.
§ SIR C. DALRYMPLE (Ipswich)observed, that the Bill had been before the House for a considerable time, and there had been abundant opportunities for hon. Members to make themselves acquainted with it. The object of the Bill, as had been explained, was, as far as possible, to obviate accidents, and he sincerely hoped the House would pass it.
THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENdesired to know whether it did or did not impose penalties on an employer for injuries to a workman which might be inflicted simply and solely from the workman's negligence? If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would assure him that these penalties were not imposed he should have no objection to the Bill proceeding; but unless he got such assurance, he should certainly 1249 object to proceeding any further on that occasion.
§ MR. BENSONsaid, certainly the Bill did not impose penalties on an employer for any accident to an employé arising from the carelessness of the latter. It simply required that the machines should be supplied with certain appliances.
§ SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)said, there were 70 Bills on the Paper which he confessed he had not read, nor had he read the present Bill. He had never heard of accidents from these machines, and he considered that before the Bill was taken they should have more information on the subject. He therefore moved to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir J. Goldsmid.)
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the hon. Baronet was the gentleman who strongly objected to the Rule increasing the block from one to ten. He would put it to the hon. Baronet whether it was not generally agreed that non-contentious Bills such as this should be allowed to pass?
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)Is this pertinent to the question?
§ MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)appealed to the hon. Members who objected to allow the Bill to be taken. He could assure them that plenty of accidents happened from these machines to sober and steady men, and the object of the Bill was simply to place all employers on the same footing, and compel them to protect their servants who had to use this machinery.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid), in the interests of the agricultural labourers, appealed to hon. Members not to persist in their objection.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)said, in answer to that appeal, he would ask hon. Members opposite would they withdraw their opposition to the Agricultural Education in Elementary Schools Bill?
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.