§ Order for Second Reading read.
599§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Burt.)
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)I trust that when this Bill is referred to a Select Committee the question whether its operation is to be compulsory or not will be open. Many men of various occupations can be brought forward to say that the working classes do not desire that the Act should be compulsory—in fact, I personally would regret it very much if the Act were made compulsory, because I think it would operate in a retrograde direction.
§ MR. LLOYD (Wednesbury)The object of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was to strike at injurious contracts which may be made between employers and their workmen. Now that, of course, is a most desirable thing to accomplish; but it is questionable whether the proposal of the Act does not go to prevent beneficial agreements being made. Some workmen would be injured if they were prevented from making beneficial agreements; and, therefore, I hope the Proposer of this Bill will take care that nothing is done to damage the interests of the working classes. I also desire to know whether any evidence will be given before the Select Committee to which it is intended to refer this Bill, because there are several points on which I think evidence should be adduced. In the Act of 1880 there is a mistake made, to which it is well the attention of the House should be drawn. In Section 6 of Clause 3 it is said that in County Courts in England cases can be heard before a jury; and it is also stated that the Sheriff's Court should be taken as a synonymous Court. Now, the fact is that in the Sheriff's Court in Scotland there can be no jury. The two Courts, therefore, are not synonymous; and I would ask that the Select Committee may have their attention called to the clause, If people wished to have a jury in Scotland they were forced to go into the Superior Court at very great expense; whereas a case can be heard before a jury in an English County Court, providing the sum in dispute does not exceed £50. I wish also to say that the objection which is raised to the compulsory character of the Act is more imaginary than otherwise. I approve of the compulsory character of the Act, 600 though I think that if the employers go beyond the Act and give something better than the Act they ought not to be prevented from doing so. Some working men have suggested to me that every contract that is made should not be valid unless it is agreed to by, we will say, the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade should have the power of making a contract valid if it was considered beneficial to the contracting parties. It seems to me that that would be a great improvement.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment Bill.