Lords Sitting of 31 July 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Commissioners of Woods (Thames Piers)* (168); Municipal Elections (Ireland)* (169); Border Summons* (170).
Second Reading—Petroleum Act (1871) Amendment* (161).
Committee—Industrial Schools (Powers of School Boards) (153); Companies Acts Amendment (71), Order discharged.
Committee—Report—New Forest Act (1877) Amendment* (149).
Report—Summary Jurisdiction (162).
Third Reading—Bills of Sale (Ireland)* (155), and passed.
Withdrawn—Workmen's Compensation (7).

THE LUNACY LAWS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ABERDAREasked the Lord Chancellor, Whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill amending the Lunacy Laws?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Lunacy Laws, and in doing so to make certain Amendments not of any great importance, but which experience had shown to be desirable in the existing Statute Law; but he need not say that at this period of the Session, and in the present state of Public Business, it was impossible for the Government to introduce a measure haying that object during the present Session.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 7.)
(The Earl De La Warr.)
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 7.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that the debate had been adjourned several times, in order that the measure of the Government on the same subject which had been introduced in the Commons might have come up and have been considered by their Lordships with this Bill. But this, he regretted, had not been the
  1696
  case. The subject with which the Bill dealt was one of great importance, affecting, as it did, the interests of a large number of the industrial classes of this country. In the existing state of the law, Companies and other employers of labour got rid of all liability to workmen injured in their employment by appointing a manager to act for them, and the object of this Bill was to make Companies and all employers of labour in mines and railways or other occupations, liable in the same way that masters were already liable by law for accident or injury sustained in their services through negligence or want of due precaution on their part. There was a strong feeling out-of-doors in favour of the measure, and numerous Petitions had been presented in favour of its becoming law. For these reasons, he thought their Lordships might well give a second reading to the Bill in order that it might be considered in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwished to take that opportunity of expressing his thanks to his noble Friend for the course he had taken on previous occasions in postponing this Bill in order that their Lordships might have the advantage—if it could have been so arranged—of having before them the Bill on the same subject proposed by Her Majesty's Government in the other House of Parliament; but that had not been possible, and he hoped that the noble Earl would, on the present occasion, adopt the same course he had previously taken. The subject was, unquestionably, one which occupied a good deal of attention on the part of the working classes of the country; it also occupied the attention of the great employers of labour, and those who had embarked a large amount of capital in industrial undertakings; and, obviously, every word which might be used in a measure dealing with a question of this kind would have to be scanned and considered with the greatest care. The matter had been taken up by Her Majesty's Government, who had referred the whole subject to the inquiry of a Select Committee, who took a great deal of evidence, and they had also introduced a Bill on the subject in the other House. A measure dealing with the question, and identical with that of the noble Earl—Employers Liability for Injuries to Servants Bill—had also been brought forward in "another place"

  1697
  by private Members. He did not see how it would be possible for their Lordships to enter upon a discussion of the matter until they had these Bills before them; and the opinion of Parliament upon them, and upon the subject generally, could not be fairly obtained at this period of the Session. He might take the present opportunity) however, of stating that the Bill of the Government was founded upon the recommendations of the Select Committee who inquired into the question; while the measure of the noble Earl was framed in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee; but he believed that the Bill of his noble Friend was framed on a Report composed by a Member of the Committee, but which was not adopted. In these circumstances, it was not going too far to say that their Lordships would not be in a position to decide until they had the Bill of the Government before them; and there was no hope of this in the present Session. He thought he could show his noble Friend that, in its present form, this Bill was not workable. He should be sorry to ask their Lordships to reject the Bill of his noble Friend—his case was that they had not time to consider it; and if his noble Friend did not move the discharge of the Order, he would ask their Lordships to allow him to move the Previous Question.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that the difference between the Bill of the Government and the Bill of the noble Earl was one of degree, and not of principle. They were much agreed on principle. An employer's common-law liability for injury done by his servant might be too wide; but the Judgment of 1837, removing all liability to a servant for injury by undefined fellow-servants, relieved the employer from liability too much. The Scotch Courts were more favourable to servants; and in England the workmen had an undeniable and palpable grievance in being deprived of all remedy, even when the master had been distinctly to blame for his injury, and when he was injured while following the express orders of his master. The release of a master from such responsibility was greater than justice required or could excuse. Employers were legally responsible for the due care of those exercising their full authority, and that their machinery was in order. With these two conditions fulfilled, no
  1698
  compensation for injury was due from them to an injured servant; nor in any case, so far as the servant's own negligence contributed to his injury. But for injuries caused by the non-fulfilment of these conditions they ought to be liable to their servants as to anyone else. The Government Bill denned employers so as to include Companies, and made servants exercising the employer's full authority implicate him in the ordinary liability of qui fait per alium fait per se. It was a great pity this Bill had not even been discussed, as it might have been if introduced in that House. The existing interpretation of the law was admittedly unsatisfactory; but what was the exact remedy for the grievance he was not prepared to say. Their Lordships might have to fall back in questions of injury in service to the test of express warranties; but the present law exposed employers to needless odium, and servants in some cases to most unjustifiable deprivation of their due.
  EARL DE LA WARR, yielding to the request made by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, said, he would move the discharge of the Order, in the hope that the Government would take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing the Bill forward next Session.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(No. 162.)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexpressed regret that he should have been unable to insert any clause into the measure dealing with its operation on the Borders of England and Scotland. The reason he felt he could not introduce such a clause was this—that he feared that, by doing so at this late period of the Session, he should incur the risk of its not being returned from the Commons in sufficient time to enable it to pass this year. He, however, proposed to introduce a separate measure for Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was aware of the great inconvenience arising from the fact of warrants and citations on the Borders being ineffective if the offender got across the line; and,

  1699
  therefore, lie was sorry to hear the noble and learned Earl's statement. He thought a clause to meet the case might have been inserted in the Bill without difficulty. That had not been done, however; but as it was imperatively necessary that some steps should be taken, he wished to know when the Bill mentioned by the noble and learned Earl would be brought in?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill would be laid on the Table at once, and he would ask leave to move the second reading to-morrow.
  Further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  And, afterwards—

  BORDER SUMMONS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the service of summons in the Border Counties—Was presented by The Lord CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 170.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (POWERS OF SCHOOL BOARDS) BILL—(No. 135.)
(The Lord Steward.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (POWERS OF SCHOOL BOARDS) BILL—(No. 135.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that at first he entertained great doubts about the Bill, which he defied anyone to understand by merely reading it; but it appeared to be its object to give school boards powers to contribute to, or erect industrial schools, and to borrow money for that purpose. They ought to be very cautious of giving school boards increased powers of spending money. At the present time they were recklessly spending, and there was no other body in the country which possessed such unchecked powers; they were endeavouring to introduce into the elementary schools the same kind of education that was given in secondary schools, and to crush out the voluntary elementary schools. They required watching; but he was informed that the actual effect of this Bill would really be to economize their work in the most essential part of it—provision for the most neglected children. He should have liked to revert to the approval of the Education Department in preference to that of the Secretary of State, as industrial schools ought not to be part of Home Office or prison administration; and on the third reading he would move an Amendment directed to that point.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the purpose of the Bill was to enable school boards to do directly and effectually what they were already indirectly authorized to do by the Industrial Schools Act and Elementary Education Acts, and to give power to Guardians to contribute towards the maintenance of a child in a certified industrial school in the same manner as if they were a school board.
  EARL FORTESCUEremarked, that there had been too easy an acquiescence in the expenditure by the school boards.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Power of School Board to borrow for contribution towards or undertaking cost of, enlarging, &c., industrial schools).
  EARL FORTESCUEmoved an Amendment, the effect of which was to limit the making of loans extended over a great many years to sums raised for permanent works, and to prevent its applying to sums to be expended on furniture.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Power of Guardians to contribute to maintenance of child in industrial school) agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

COMPANIES' ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Aberdare.)
(NO. 71.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD ABERDAREmoved that the Order be discharged. He said he did this because the Bill would require Amendments, which could not be made at this period of the Session.
Motion agreed to; Order discharged.

RAILWAY RETURNS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) ACT, 1878.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WAREasked, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay on the Table a further Return by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom, in pursuance of the Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) Act, 1878? Up to the time of the last

  1701
  Return most of the Companies had expressed themselves willing to take into their consideration this important question; but a very large proportion had taken few steps in the matter. He believed the Brighton Company had adopted a brake, and the Great Northern Company had made many experiments, but had come to no conclusion. Between 1870 and 1876, out of 1,234 accidents investigated by the officers of the Board of Trade, 952, or nearly four-fifths of the whole, might have been prevented, or their effects materially lessened, had there been continuous brakes. He also wished to ask, Whether there was any objection to lay on the Table any Correspondence which had taken place between the Railway Companies and the Board of Trade on the subject of brake power, and whether the London and North-Western Railway Company still refused to comply with the requirements of the Board of Trade?
  LORD HENNIKER, in reply, said, a Return as to continuous brakes under the Act of last year—the Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) Act—for the half-year ended June 30 was being tabulated and printed, and would be presented with the least possible delay—probably on Tuesday next. In reply to the further Question—of which his noble Friend the noble Earl had given him private Notice—namely,
  "To ask if there is any objection to laying upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Board of Trade and Railway Companies relative to the use of brakes, and to ask whether the London and North-Western Railway Company still refuse to adopt the requirements of the Board of Trade?"
  he had only to say that all the Correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies on the use of continuous brakes was already before Parliament; and that from the Return received from the London and North-Western Railway Company for the first half of the year it appeared that they were still using a brake known as Clark and Webb's chain brake, which from the Returns did not appear to be continuous throughout the train or automatic in its action.

TREATY OF BERLIN—EASTERN ROUMELIA—THE EVACUATION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL STANHOPEasked, Whether his noble Friend the Secretary of State for
  1702
  Foreign Affairs had any information which would enable him to say that the evacuation of Eastern Roumelia by the Russians would be effected by the 3rd of August—the day stipulated in the Treaty?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in reply, said, that two or three days ago he received, information from our Vice Consul at Burgas that the last Russian soldier had left the Province, and that the Province was entirely evacuated by the Russians.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten. o'clock.