maintained against a corporation neither ' extra shilling induced the man who did the could negligence.1 Another characteristic work. Is he nolens or has the shilling made perversion was his application of the maxim him rolens? There seems to be a strange ralenti non fit injuria. "It is a rule of good notion either that a man who does a thing sense," he said in Smith v. Baker, 9 App. and grumbles is nolens, is unwilling, has not Cas. 187, "that if a man voluntarily under the will to do it, or that there is something takes a risk for a reward which is adequate intermediate nolens and roteas, something to induce him, he shall not, if he suffers like a man being without a will and yet who from the risk, have a compensation for which wills. If the shilling made him voleas, why he did not stipulate. He can, if he chooses, does not the desire to continue employed do say, 'I will undertake the risk for so much, so? If he would have a right to refuse the work and his discharge would be wrongful, and if hurt you must give me so much more, with a remedy to him, why does not his or an adequate equivalent for the hurt/ But drop the maxim. Treat it as a question of preference of a certain to an uncertain law bargain. The plaintiff here thought the pay not make him volens as much as any other worth the risk and did not bargain for a motive? There have been any infinity of compensation if hurt; in effect he undertook profoundly ¡earned and useless discussions the work with its risks for his wages and no as to freedom of the will; but this notion is more. He says so. Suppose he had said, new. 'If I am to run this risk you must give me The truth is, the good Baron's politi six shillings a day, and not five shillings,' cal views were so pronounced that in a and the master agreed, would he in reason certain line of cases they influenced his have a claim if he got hurt? Clearly not. judicial opinions. He was the stoutest of What difference is there if the master says, liberals, and looked with alarm upon modern 'No, I will only give the five shillings.' socialistic tendencies—"grandmotherly pro None. I am ashamed to argue it." tection," he termed it. "Please govern me He reargued the same matter in Membery as little as possible," he said. This was the basis alike of his opposition tcj the prohibition î'. Great Western Ry., 14 App. Cas. 179: "I logic (see his articles on "Drink" in Nine hold that where a man is not physically con strained, where he can at his option do a teenth Century, May and June, 1885), to employer's liability legislation (see his thing or not, and he does it, the maxim applies. What is volcns? Willing; and a pamphlet "On the Liabilities of Masters to man is willing when he wills to do a thing Workmen for Injuries from Fellow-Ser and does it. No doubt a man, popularly vants," London, 1880), and his point of speaking, is said to do a thing unwillingly, view on many legal doctrines. Sometimes with no good will; but if he does it, no matter this tendency moved in directions where his what iiis dislike is, he prefers doing it to fearless independence and plain speech were leaving it alone. He wills to do it. He does most needed. In the trades union case of not will not to do it. I suppose nolens is the R. т-. Druitt, ID Cox Cr. Cas. 592, he asserted opposite of volcns, its negative. There are in broad terms that by the common law of two men; one refuses to do work, wills not England the liberty of a man's mind and will, to do it, and does not do it. The other how he should bestow himself and his means, grumbles, but wills to do it and does it. Are his talents and his industry, was as much both men nolens, unwilling? Suppose an the subject of the law's protection as was that of his body. Certain details of his exposition 1 Observe, also, his position on the liability for rent of an original lessee whose assignee has become bankrupt of the law in that case have since been re and disclaimed the case. Smyth v. North, 7 Ex. D. garded as obiter dicta, but his views deserve 250.
