SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 31 July 1879)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
said, 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 CHANCELLOR
wished 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 NORTON
said, 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.