HL Deb 02 August 1875 vol 226 cc367-9

(The Lord Chancellor.)

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY moved, in Clauses 4 and 5, to leave out the words ('of service ") after the word ("contract "). The noble Earl said, his object was to bring all the clauses of the Bill in harmony with its principle. That principle was to put employers and employed on the same footing in respect of contracts. It was difficult to see what objection there could be to the Amendment, or why contracts of service should be treated differently from other contracts.

Amendment moved, in Clauses 4 and 5, page 2, lines 10 and 36, to leave out ("of service ").—(The Earl of Rosebery.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

opposed the Amendment, which, he observed, proceeded upon a misapprehension on the part of the noble Earl. The Bill was not framed, as the noble Earl appeared to suppose, on the principle of placing employers and workmen exactly in the same position as other persons, for it gave to workmen benefits which other persons did not possess. A contract of service was different from other contracts, because a man could carry on a large business only through trusted hands and the betrayal of the trust by the person employed might be attended with the most serious results to the employer. In other kinds of contract there was no position of trust. Again, in respect of those other kinds of trust the world was open to the contracting parties; while in the case of contracts of trust the employer must fix on some particular person and hand over to him the control or the partial control of his works.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 24: Majority 7.

Resolved in the Negative.

LORD PENZANCE

suggested the omission of the word (" maliciously ") in Clause 5, and other clauses providing against offences under the Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that in the Malicious Injury to Property Act the word "maliciously" was used in analogous cases. In that Act, however, a clause was inserted which stated that the provisions of the statute were to apply, whether the injury had been inflicted out of malice against the owner of the property or otherwise. Before the third reading, he would consider whether some such declaratory clause might not be inserted in this Bill.

Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 249.)