HL Deb 26 August 1880 vol 256 cc55-87

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

My Lords, before your Lordships go into Committee, I wish to ask a question of the Government as to the position in which we are placed with reference to this Bill. It is quite unnecessary to dilate on the importance of the measure. That is universally recognized; and, indeed, all measures with regard to the relations between employers and employed are amongst the most serious that can be brought under the consideration of Parliament. Having, however, given Notice of an Amendment in Committee, I think it well to refer to some points connected with the introduction and progress of this Bill. There is this peculiarity about the measure that the importance of the subject is equalled by the difficulty of dealing with it. Having myself, while in a responsible position, carefully considered the question, and submitted a similar measure for the consideration of Parliament, I was so impressed with the difficulties connected with it that I made up my mind that, whatever Ministry might attempt to deal with the subject, I would give them whatever assistance I could under the circumstances, and that if I differed from them on any points, I would certainly exercise the utmost forbearance. It is with that feeling that I make these remarks. These is no doubt about the sympathy which your Lordships must feel with British workmen in the dangers which they encounter in the fulfilment—I may say, in most instances, the admirable fulfilment — of duty; but, at the same time, whatever may be our feelings for the people and their suffering, we must not indulge that sentiment at the expense of the first principles of justice, when the interests and rights of other parties are concerned. Although I support the general policy of this measure, and have proved my feelings on the matter by not opposing the second reading, I am bound to say that there is much in this Bill which appears to me to be immature. This, perhaps, may be accounted for by the precipitation which has too often attended its conduct in the other House of Parliament. Its introduction to Parliamentary notice has been remarkable, and I think that point was adverted to on the second reading by the noble Lord near me (Viscount Cranbrook). The measure was not originally a Government measure. Although it is one which has for some time ranked among measures of first importance, and although the tone which the Government have of late assumed with regard to it shows that they deem it one of first importance, still it is a fact that the measure was originally introduced by a private Member in the other House of Parliament. It was adopted by the Government; but I conclude that it was not found, adequate, because it was read a second time under circumstances which I will not say are unprecedented, but which are of very rare occurrence. It was read a second time on an understanding by the Ministry that its being so read should bind the House to nothing but an approbation of its principle. That was remarkable; but when the Bill was in Committee the circumstance was explained by the fact that a new measure was substituted for the notice of Parliament, and that was the Bill now before your Lordships, subject afterwards to considerable modifications, made, no doubt, in the other House. That is a state of circumstances which justifies our assuming that the measure has not been prepared with great care by the Government. An illustration of this is afforded by what occurred when the Bill was read a second time in this House. When the Bill was before the House of Commons an important Amendment was proposed by a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and the Amendment was peremptorily rejected by the Leader of that House. In moving the second reading of the Bill here, however, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack informed us, almost casually, that the Amendment which had been so rejected was about to be adopted by the Government. I do not object to the Amendment, because I think it a good one; but that, I repeat, is an illustration of the immature manner in which the measure has been prepared. These are circumstances which render it necessary that the Bill should be investigated and scrutinized with great care, if we at all desire to bring about a settlement of a difficult question. Whether the principle of common employment be wise or not it is not necessary to enter into at this moment. That principle has been, to a certain degree, adopted by Her Majesty's Government; and I am willing to accept the general line on which the measure is framed. That is a principle, however, on which it would have been extremely desirable to have had discussion in this House. The result of not discarding the principle of common employment is that you have been compelled to modify it, and the consequence has been that you have had to create a crop of limitations and exceptions. Now, your Lordships must be perfectly well aware that exceptions and limitations are exactly that part of legislation which demand the most careful scrutiny and deepest consideration. You have not rejected the whole principle upon which the custom rested; but you have departed from it to such an extent as necessarily to produce a crop of limitations and exceptions. We have, at the same time, evidence before us that the Bill has not been considered with the care and time which legislation under such circum- stances necessarily requires. Allow me for a moment to briefly call attention to the manner in which the late Government proposed to deal with this subject. When we first considered it, we had the advantage of the labours of a Royal Commission, not on the entire question, but an important part of it, and of the labours of a Parliamentary Committee which had considered the main question —namely, the liability of employers. We prepared a Bill founded on the information which the Reports of those bodies afforded us. Very valuable information was contained in the Reports; but on several important points it was imperfect, and on that account we proposed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That Committee could have examined experts and given definitions; and, in that way, Parliament would have avoided the danger of applying general principles to different trades of great variety, where the principles applied would, according to circumstances, produce different results, some of which might even be dangerous. Events prevented the Bill of the late Government going before a Select Committee; but I much regret that Her Majesty's present Ministry did not follow the example which we ventured to adopt in referring the matter to a Select Committee. But, as they have not done so, the question naturally arises, how are we to remedy the evil? It appears to me that the best method would be to act on the suggestion embodied in the Amendment of which I have given Notice in Committee—namely, to limit the duration of the Bill—as that would give us an opportunity hereafter of profiting by the experience gained during the interval, and enable us, when the time again arrives, to legislate with more confidence, more information, and more advantage. The suggestion that I am prepared to make is, that if we pass this measure we shall limit its duration to two years. The advantage of doing so will be considerable. Both employers and employed would have experience of its working, and during the two years controverted points would, doubtless, be brought before the Courts. We have precedents for such a course in matters of importance; but I need not now allude to the precedents. These are the chief reasons which have induced me to place my Amendment on the Paper, and I regret very much that the Amendment was not circulated sooner. I sent it out early yesterday, and I had reason to believe that it would be in your Lordships' hands this morning.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

concurred in the regret expressed by the noble Earl, that his Notice of Amendment was not circulated sooner, so that their Lordships might have been made aware of the fact that so important an Amendment would be brought under the consideration of the House. He presumed that it had reached him as soon as any other noble Lord, and he did not see it till after he entered the House that evening. Therefore, a great majority of their Lordships must have been entirely ignorant that such a proposition was going to be made. When their Lordships got into Committee, he thought he should be able to suggest reasons by which the House, and he would venture to hope even the noble Earl himself, might be convinced that it would not be expedient to adopt the noble Earl's proposition. It would, of course, be premature to discuss the Amendment before it was moved; but he must at once state that this Bill had not been introduced in the other House by a private Member, but by Her Majesty's Government. The Government thought it convenient to introduce a Bill which, in a former Session, had been brought in by an hon. Gentleman then a private Member, but who was now a Member of the Government, because they thought it embodied the principle which ought to be adopted; but they did so, with full knowledge that it would be necessary to define and guard the application of that principle by detailed provisions, which could only receive a satisfactory form after full discussion and consideration during the passage of the Bill through the other House. The course thus taken was very similar to that which had been adopted by the late Government. In the Bill which the late Government introduced in the House of Commons in 1879, and in their Lordships' House at the beginning of the present year, they merely indicated the lines on which they proposed to proceed, leaving the detailed provisions of the measure to be supplemented and more perfectly formulated in its progress through Parliament. It was true that this year the late Government proposed, in that House, to refer that Bill to a Select Committee; but their Lordships' House was not so full as was the House of Commons of Members having practical knowledge and experience in this matter. In the House of Commons there were a very large number of employers of labour in all branches of industry, and there were also Representatives of working men, who knew their views and wishes and wants upon these subjects. The House of Commons, therefore, was specially well qualified to discharge, in a Committee of the Whole House, those duties in reference to the present Bill which the late Government proposed should be discharged by a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. He ventured to say, with confidence, that there had never been a measure with which the House of Commons had taken greater pains, or which had been better considered in all its details, than that now before their Lordships.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, the late circulation of the Amendment of the noble Ear] (the Earl of Beaconsfield) was entirely due to an accident. The noble Earl yesterday gave him the Notice. When he came down to the House to attend a Committee, he handed it to his secretary with instructions that it should at once be given to the Queen's printer. The Queen's printer gave it to his boy to take to the printing office; but the boy put the Notice in his pocket, and forgot all about it. He regretted that the Bill had not been originally introduced in their Lordships' House, where it could have been sent to a Committee.

LORD VERNON

said, he must take exception to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the House of Lords had not the same amount of practical experience as the House of Commons with which to deal with these questions. He would remind their Lordships that the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville) was one of the largest employers of labour.

LORD DENMAN

expressed a hope that the Bill would be now withdrawn, and re-introduced early next Session, exactly in the form in which it came up from "another place."

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he thought it very unusual that so important an Amendment as that to be proposed by the noble Earl should be introduced without Notice; but he was bound to say that the explanation of his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) was perfectly satisfactory. He was not sure that the boy who had put the Amendment in his pocket, and forgot all about it, was not a very intelligent boy, who had endeavoured to dispose of the proposition in the best possible way. He was at a loss to understand why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Seeing the elaborate attendance on the Benches opposite, he could not see why two or three days might not have been spent over the second reading of this Bill by their Lordships, and as many over the Committee. He did not think it necessary to dilate upon the merits of the Bill, after the luminous explanation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but it was not because he did not thoroughly approve of its principle. He believed, whatever his feelings or prejudice might be as to the arrangement come to, that it was likely to operate fairly as between the employer and employed. So far as regarded the interests represented in that House, he pointed out that he represented mines very largely; and, as they had heard, his noble Friend behind (Lord Brabourne) represented the large railway interest.

Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1 (Amendment of law).

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

complained that the clause only gave compensation to the workmen, and did not consider the foremen and superintendents in the same employment. He should like to know whether foremen were to be considered workmen; and, in the event of an accident taking place under one foreman, in what position another one would be?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that all railway servants of every class came under the definition of workmen; but, as to other persons, the definition was taken from the Act of 1875—the Employers and Workmen Act. That Act excluded two classes of persons— domestic servants and those in the sea service—and it included all labourers, servants in husbandry, journeymen, artificers, handicraftsmen, miners, and all persons otherwise engaged in manual labour; but not clerks or persons employed in mental work only. He was of opinion that foremen and superintendents, if they were engaged at all in the conduct of the practical operations of a business, would be included in the definition under the 1st clause.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

did not consider the reply satisfactory. There was no reason whatever why the same protection should not be thrown round the foreman and the superintendent as around the private workman.

EARL GRANVILLE

suggested that the noble Earl should move an Amendment, if he thought it desirable, upon the subject at the proper time. The Government would then consider the point.

On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:— In page 1, line 7, after ("defect in") insert ("the condition of"); and after ("machinery") insert ("or").

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 9, the omission of the words "stock-in-trade," which, as the Bill stood, were among those things for defects in which the master was to be made liable. It was possible that the term might bring in some things as to which the principle of the Bill would not apply, therefore he proposed its omission.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out, accordingly.

LORD BRABOURNE,

in moving to leave out sub-section 3 of the clause, which was in these terms— By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer to whose orders or directions the workman at the time of the injury was bound to conform, and did conform, where such injury resulted from his having so conformed, said, their Lordships had listened to him with so much indulgence upon the Motion for the second reading of the Bill that he should be ungrateful if he occupied their time for more than a brief space, and, save as regarded his first and last Amendments, a couple of sentences would explain the rest. He moved to leave out this sub-section, because it extended the liability of the employer far beyond the point contemplated by the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1877. That Committee based their Report upon this point upon the celebrated judgment in the American Courts, "Boston v. Farwell," which he (Lord Brabourne) would ask leave to read to the House. These were the words— When several persons are employed in the conduct of one common enterprise or undertaking, and the safety of each depends much upon the care and skill with which each other shall perform his appropriate duty, each is an observer of the conduct of the other, can give notice of any misconduct, incapacity, or neglect of duty, and leave the service if the common employer will not take such precautions and employ such agents as the safety of the whole party may require. 'By these means the safety of each, will be much more effectually secured than could be done by a resort to the common employer for an indemnity in the case of loss of life by the negligence of each other.' The Select Committee recommended that liability should be extended; and he (Lord Brabourne) had never opposed its extension to cases in which authority had been delegated to superintendents. They added— The fact of such a delegation of authority would have to be established in each case; but this would not be a matter of difficulty. Now, he (Lord Brabourne) contended that the sub-section went far beyond the views of the Committee, and would include many persons to whom there was no sufficient delegation of authority. It would, in fact, render the employer liable for the acts of any individual who could give an order in any capacity, down to the very lowest grade of persons in his service, many of whom he had never so much as seen, and some of whom might give orders expressly against his (the employer's) wishes. The late Government had referred their Bill to a Select Committee especially for the purpose of having it defined who those persons were who had sufficient superintending authority to make it fair that their employers should be liable for their acts; but this Bill would include everyone. The worst of it was, too, that whilst it would disturb all industrial employments, it really only touched the fringe of the subject, and dealt with about 3 per cent of the accidents which annually occurred. The vast majority of those accidents either proceeded from unavoidable causes or from contributory negligence on the part of the sufferer, and of those the Bill took no account. They could only be reached by a proper system of insurance. Upon this point the Lord Chancellor had hardly treated him (Lord Brabourne) fairly, when he had said that in Germany employers were liable. He had not liked to contradict the noble and learned Lord at the time; but the fact was, that since 1865 the German law had made compulsory, in every mining district of Germany, a system of insurance against accidents, to which both employers and employed were obliged to contribute. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord had much under-estimated the probable or possible expenses to owners and employers of the proposed alteration in the law. Indeed, as far as mines were concerned, he had spoken in a contemptuous manner of the possible loss of ¼d. per ton. He (Lord Brabourne) should like to ask the owners of collieries present how many of them were at this instant making a profit of ¼d. a-ton? Moreover, he well remembered that when the Mines Regulation Bill—a valuable measure, no doubt—was passed, they were told that the cost of it would not be more than 2d. per ton at the outside; whereas it had since been given in sworn evidence, and was now generally admitted, that the additional expense imposed upon mine owners by that Bill caused an increase of 1s. to 2s. per ton in the working of the coal. The expense caused by this sub-section would be great, and the evil would not fall upon the employer alone. Suppose a man having authority over a gang of miners opened his lamp to light his pipe, against his employer's orders and authority, and caused an explosion by which 50 lives were lost. What happened now? It was a melancholy thing, no doubt, and no one grieved more than the employer, who was sure to suffer heavily in the injuries caused to his mine. In all probability, however, he subscribed largely to the widows and orphans, and public charity was never deaf to the appeals made on their behalf. But, if this Bill were passed, the employer might be liable for such a sum by way of compensation as might oblige him to close his works, and then not only 50 families, but 500 would be injured by the cessation of employment. In that, and in many other cases, the employer would not be in fault; he would have prevented the accident if he could, and he ought not to be liable for it. He (Lord Brabourne) had observed a letter from a Mr. Evans in the newspapers that morning, who represented himself as secretary to the Railway Servants Associa- tion, and said that the workmen would be much disappointed if their Lordships did not sanction the Bill in the same shape as that in which it left the Commons. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful about Mr. Evans, or the association, of which he really knew nothing. From its very nature, and perhaps from the fear of offending employers, it kept rather out of sight, so that he (Lord Brabourne) could not speak as to its numbers or importance. But there were some400,000 railway employés, and Mr. Evans had no right to speak for more than what was probably a comparatively limited number of these, many of whom certainly repudiated him and his association. He (Lord Brabourne) deprecated the litigation which would be caused by the Bill as it stood, and therefore moved the omission of the sub-section.

Moved, "In page 1, to leave out subsection (3)."—(The Lord Brabourne.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought that, on every conceivable principle, the persons named in the 3rd sub-section were persons in authority. He wondered how anyone could read it and not see that. The more the whole of the 1st clause was examined, the more it would be seen that this sub-section was necessary to carry out the principle of making the master responsible for the acts of those, and of those only, to whom he, directly or indirectly, delegated authority. The Amendment was opposed to that principle, and was, therefore, inadmissible. There was really no reason why an employer should not be just as liable for an accident caused by a sub-agent as for one caused by an agent. The obligation of the workman to obey the orders given him was in both cases the same.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK,

in supporting the Amendment, said, the Bill of the late Government only imposed liability on the acts of persons whose authority was distinctly delegated from the master. In this case it was totally different, and it was proposed to include that "little brief authority" with which anyone might be charged at any particular moment, and not alone a regular delegation of authority, It, therefore, went beyond the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It was for the Court to determine the extent of the authority, and the amount of litiga- tion to which it might give rise seemed to condemn it absolutely. They all knew that, in carrying out works, a man, having himself authority, might tell or order any workman to do something; but it did not follow that he had a delegation of that particular authority. For instance, a bricklayer might issue some order to a hodman, the execution of which might lead to an accident; and it would be the unfairest thing in the world to make the builder responsible for it. In fact, it would render an employer liable for the acts of persons who were in no way selected by him. Although the Bill had been carelessly drawn, yet, if the Government had said they would limit its operation in point of time, he would have left the resposibility with them. They had declined, practically, to do that. Such a Bill as that before them would, as he had said, make an employer liable for anybody in his employ exercising a little brief authority, and it was necessary to make a protest in the interest of capital, and, therefore, in the best interest of labour

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he could not agree with the noble Viscount's (Viscount Cranbrook) reading of the clause. He considered that if they left out the sub-section, they would, in fact, destroy the principle of the Bill. He must remind their Lordships that the principle of the Bill was to extend to employés the same right as others now enjoyed of holding the master liable for the acts of his agents.

LORD DUNSANY

was of opinion that to adopt the clause as it stood would be to carry the principle to a dangerous extent. Half the work in colleries was performed by boys, and to them all adult workmen were "persons in authority," whose orders boys were bound to obey. Were employers to be liable for such orders given by men to boys?

EARL FORTESCUE

supported both the Bill and the clause, observing that it was too often taken as a matter of course that accidents were unavoidable. His own opinion was that, after the Bill had passed, there would be greater security against the occurrence of accidents, in proportion to the amount of the responsibility which could, without injustice, be put upon the employers. It had been well observed that it was a great object in legislation to make interest as far as possible coincide with duty.

LORD NORTON

considered that the 3rd sub-section of the clause extended the principle of the Bill much too far, and, certainly, much further than originally contemplated. He agreed that employers should be held responsible for the acts of their directly appointed agents; but he could not admit the justice of making them liable for the lâches of those who might be called subordinate agents. The principle of the Bill should be to make the employer liable for any injury occasioned by himself directly or by an agent representing himself, and not an agent appointed by a sub-agent to whom he himself had not given authority.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, some of their Lordships were too much disposed to look at this matter from the point of view of the employer. Now, this was a Bill—and there was no harm in avowing it—introduced with the view of consulting the interests of the workman. What was the difference between an order of the master and an order of a foreman? The Amendment struck at the very principle of the Bill, the object of which was to give compensation to a workman for the injuries caused to him in his employment, and it could make no difference to him whether the injury was caused by an agent of the employer, or by a general superintendent working under him.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, the speech of his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had left on his mind a most unsatisfactory impression. He had heard with unfeigned astonishment the statement of his noble Friend that the Bill was introduced in the interest of the workman alone. Was the Bill intended to apply only to one single class in the community? That House never could for a moment agree to such a doctrine as that. As it would give rise to a monstrous injustice, it was their duty to adjust these matters, that justice might be done to both parties. He could understand that a superintendent was, as the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said the other night, the alter ego of the master; but that could not be said of subordinate agents. In the case which had been put by his noble Friend (Viscount Cranbrook)—that of the bricklayer and the hodman — the hodman surely could not be described as the alter ego of the master, but of the bricklayer whom he was supplying with materials. He could not help thinking that it would be a monstrous injustice to hold an employer responsible for the actions of such persons. The speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) had qnite convinced him that he ought to vote against the Bill, because he simply put it that every workman was entitled to compensation whenever there was an accident which caused him an injury.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the object of the Bill was simply to put an end to an injustice now existing, and to give the workmen the same compensation which they would be entitled to had they been strangers, but accompanied by all the restrictions the Government thought fair to prevent injustice being done to employers.

VISCOUNT SHERBROOKE

said, that the Judges, by introducing the doctrine of common employment, and by carrying it to the extent which they recently had, virtually relieved the head of an establishment from all responsibility whatever. The consequence was that people who had a remedy 40 years ago had none now. The only object of the Bill was to restore that liability on the part of the employer for acts for which he was justly liable. The clause did nothing more than give workmen that which they had previously possessed. He understood the object of the Bill to be not to absolutely undo all that had been done by the Judges with regard to common employment, but to give a workman a right of action if he sustained injury owing to the negligence of any person to whom the employer had delegated his authority. The head of the establishment would not, therefore, be saved from liability because he was not guilty of the negligence himself, and that was a principle which seemed to him to be perfectly intelligible.

EARL SPENCER

said, that the subsection had been most carefully prepared, so as to be applicable only to the workman who had conformed to the orders of his superior. The distinction it made was a very important one, and showed how strictly the Bill had been framed with a view of limiting its operations as far as possible. He sincerely trusted that their Lordships would agree to it, because, if it were rejected, it would greatly interfere with the principle of the Bill. While sub-section 2 was very general, the 3rd sub-section was limited in its application. It only applied to the case of a workman who was injured in carrying out the order of his superior, that superior being one who was authorized to give the order to which he had conformed.

LORD PENZANCE

said, that the Amendment, if carried, would destroy one beneficial effect of the Bill. The principle it embodied was that of delegation, and the employer would only be responsible under the sub-section if the workman received injury through obeying the order of the person to whom the employer had delegated his authority. He trusted, therefore, the Amendment would not be adopted.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

believed that to make the employer liable for the acts of those who were very little above the workmen themselves, and perhaps not more skilled than they were, would have a very injurious effect upon men of small capital.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, it was evident that that portion of the clause was considered to more or less involve the whole principle of the Bill; and, as he did not speak on the second reading, he might be allowed to explain his views now. He approached the subject entirely unprepossessed on one side or another, and he confessed that he had been sorry to hear it suggested that the object of the Government was to promote the interests of one class more than those of another. ["Hear, hear!"] Why, the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) distinctly admitted that he moved the Amendment in the interests of capital, adding that those interests involved the interests of labour. In that general principle, of course, all their Lordships agreed. He thought that the observations of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kim-berley) had been entirely misunderstood. He (the Duke of Argyll) looked upon the Bill as a Bill in the interests of justice—simply justice. It was impossible, after listening to the luminous speech of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, not to feel that judicial decisions, setting up a doctrine of a most unjust character, had obstructed workmen in seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment, and that obstruction it was the whole object of the Bill to remove in certain well-defined cases. In the exercise of their discretion, the Courts had pursued to its logical conclusion some general and abstract rule, totally forgetful of other principles which ought to have been considered in each particular ease; and the result had been one which might be fairly described as absurd. The object of the Bill was to remove this doctrine of common employment in all cases in which accidents occurred in carrying out the orders of the employer. Having read the words of the clause, he asked whether anyone could say it was a just thing to forbid a man having a claim to compensation under the conditions laid down, by setting up the doctrine of common employment? Was it reasonable to interpose the doctrine where life was lost in circumstances such as those in which a boy was killed by an explosion of firedamp through a man erecting a bit of scaffolding which interfered with the ventilation, or miners were killed through the fall of a roof, the pillars of which they had been ordered to remove? In such cases the effect of the Bill would be simply to remove the application of the doctrine, and to give access to a Judge and a jury. It would be unjust to maintain the law in its present state; and he should deeply regret it, if the House should practically go against the principle of the Bill by throwing out this sub-section, when their Lordships had not divided on the second reading. It was said that their Lordships were the special Representatives of the interests of capital as against those of labour; but he denied that imputation. In the long controversies which arose on the question of factory legislation, there was far more obstruction in the House of Commons than in the House of Lords to legislation which was designed to save the working classes from the terrible consequences that unlimited competition had entailed upon them. He was sure that his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), if he were present, would give his testimony in favour of the view he had expressed as to the general tendency of their Lordships' action in these matters, and that their Lordships had always been disposed to receive legislation of that description favourably. He believed that they would look at the present Bill with a desire to do justice, and that they would not sanction the omission of the sub-section under discussion, forty doing so, he believed they would be doing a most unjust thing to the working classes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

was surprised to hear that a Vote which would really defeat the whole Bill was now proposed to be given, on the ground that the Government had refused to entertain the Amendment of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (the Earl of Beaconsfield) for limiting the operation of the Bill to two years. What he (the Lord Chancellor) had said was, that when they came to it in Committee he hoped to be able to state reasons why that Amendment should not be adopted. It was an unusual and extraordinary thing, because such an answer had been given, and before the reasons for not acceding to such a proposition had been stated, to vote for another and a different Amendment which was really directed against the principle of the Bill. If he should not satisfy the Committee when the noble Earl's Amendment came to be discussed, the same majority, which seemed likely to support the Amendment now before the Committee, could doubtless carry the noble Earl's Amendment, whether the Government agreed to it or not.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he must again repeat that this was a measure in the interests of workmen, regarding whose welfare, it appeared that his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) cared very little, if anything at all, so long as Railway Directors were safe.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, he should have wished to have had the point more thoroughly examined by the Committee. The principle of common employment was invented by ingenious lawyers, and their Lordships must take care that they were not led to the other extreme by the arguments of other ingenious lawyers. At first, his opinion was against the sub-section; but, after the discussion, he was not prepared to vote against it. Having heard the arguments, he did not think it would be wise to throw out a sub-section the rejection of which would be interpreted as going directly against the principle of the Bill.

On Question, "That the sub-section stand part of the clause?"

Their Lordships divided: —Contents 49; Not-Contents 75: Majority 26.

CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (Z. Chancellor.) Carrington, L.
Chelmsford, L.
Chesham, L.
Somerset, D. Churchill, L.
Westminster, D. Emly, L.
Camperdown, E. Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-mare.)
Derby, E. Leigh, L.
Fortescue, E. Lyveden, L.
Granville, E. Methuen, L.
Jersey, E. Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Kimberley, E. Moncreiff, L.
Morley, E. Monson, L. [Teller.]
Nelson, E. O'Hagan, L.
Northbrook, E. Penzance, L.
Spencer, E. Rayleigh, L.
Sydney, E. Robartes, L.
Verulam, E. Sandhurst, L.
Saye and Sele, L.
Sherbrooke, V. Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
London, L. Bp. Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Belper, L. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Blachford, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] Sudeley, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.) Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Vernon, L.
Calthorpe, L. Wrottesley, L.
Carew, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D. Combermere, V.
Leeds, D. Cranbrook, V.
Northumberland, D. Hardinge, V.
Richmond, D. Hawarden, V.
Wellington, D. Hereford, V.
Melville, V.
Abergavenny, M. Alington, L.
Bute, M. Amherst, L.(V.Sohnes-dale.)
Exeter, M. Ashford, L. (V.Bury.)
Amherst, E. Aveland, L.
Beaconsfield, E. Bagot, L.
Beauchamp, E. Bateman, L.
Bradford, E. Beaumont, L.
Cadogan, E. Borthwick, L.
Carnarvon, E. Brabourne, L [Teller.]
Coventry, E. Braybrooke, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Durham, E. Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)
Ferrers, E. Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]
Feversham, E.
Gainsborough, E. Congleton, L.
Hardwicke, E. De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Harewood, E.
Lucan, E. Dunsany, L.
Macclesfield, E. Forbes, L.
Mansfield, E. Forester, L.
Manvers, E. Gerard, L.
Mount Cashell, E. Lamington, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E. Lilford, L.
Onslow, E. Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Powis, E.
Redesdale, E. Norton, L.
Stradbroke, E. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
Tankerville, E. Raglan, L.
Rowton, L. Walsingham, L.
Saltoun, L. Wimborne, L.
Templemore, L. Windsor, L.
Teynham, L. Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
Trevor, L.
Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

Sub-section struck out accordingly.

LORD BRABOURNE

rose for the purpose of moving the omission of subsection 5, when—

THE EARL OF DURHAM

said, he had an Amendment to put before that of the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne), which was, to insert, in page 1, line 25, the word "public" before "railway." He feared that the provisions of the Bill would apply to tramways where only waggons were used.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the sub-section related only to railways on which there were signals, points, locomotive engines, and trains, and he did not see why it should not apply to such railways, whether they were public or private.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

said, he could not agree with the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

LORD BRABOURNE

moved the omission of Sub-section 5— By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has the charge or control of any signal, points, locomotive engine, or train upon a railway. He begged to point out that the subsection was a sample of special or class legislation. No persons could be more emphatically engaged "in a common employment" than those enumerated, no one of whom could perform his duties without the co-operation of the others. But the liability imposed under this sub-section would be most unfair. Take an instance. A driver of an engine in a shunting-yard might tell his fireman to jump down and hold a pair of points; the fireman might take the wrong points, and the driver run off the rails and be killed. He had no remedy against the fireman; but if he killed the fireman or a third person, the Company would be liable through him, or, at all events, there would be litigation. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) had accused him (Lord Brabourne) of being careless as to the workmen in whose interests the said Bill was introduced. Nothing that he (Lord Brabourne) had ever said, either in or out of that House, justified such a groundless statement. What he desired was to see it recognized that the workmen and their employers had a common interest, and those who talked of the interests of one as if they were opposed to the interests of the other, committed a grievous error, and were doing an incalculable amount of mischief to both. He moved the omission of the subsection.

Moved, "In page 1, to leave out Subsection 5."—(The Lord Brabourne.)

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

said, he could not support the Amendment. The sub-section was clearly necessary, and to strike it out would be a direct negation of the principle of the Bill. In all the cases enumerated there was a distinct delegation of authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he was glad to hear the remark which had just fallen from the noble Earl, which was perfectly correct.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, that, under the circumstances, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.

On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

LORD BRABOURNE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 27, after ("workman"), to define the "legal personal representatives" of the workman, who were to have a right to compensation, by adding the words "as specified in the Act 9 and 10 Vic. c. 93"(Lord Campbell's Act).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had misunderstood the effect of the clause, and he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Exceptions to amendment of law).

On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 11, after ("machinery") insert ("or"); and leave out ("or stock in trade.")

LORD NORTON

moved, as an Amendment, In page 2, line 12, after ("condition") insert ("and unless the employer had not used reasonable care and caution in the selection and appointment of such person, or had not used reasonable care and vigilance in supervising him").

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

opposed the Amendment as simply nullifying the whole effect of the Bill, and bringing back the present state of the law. The noble Lord opposite (LordNorton) should first have proposed to strike out Subsection 1 of Clause 1, as what he now proposed to do was covered by that subsection.

Amendment negatived.

LORD DUNSANY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 23, after ("knew") to insert the words ("or had reasonable means of knowing").

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Limits of sum recoverable as compensation).

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from ("exceed") to the end of the clause, and insert ("a maximum sum of one hundred and fifty pounds").

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought that the Amendment would be unfair both to the workman who earned more than £50 a-year, and to the employer, who would have to give an excessive compensation to workmen earning lower wages. The maximum prescribed in the Bill fairly represented the amount of the annual average wages of workmen of all classes during a period of three years; calculations had shown that that average amount, in the case of mines, would be £150. It was clear, therefore, that the hard-and-fast line proposed, while it would be unjust to those whose wages exceeded the average, would tend to suggest to juries a figure which would be above the mark in a large majority of cases.

LORD DUNSANY

did not quite understand on what principle the noble and learned Lord had opposed the limitation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

explained, that if a particular maximum sum were fixed in the Act, juries would be likely, in most cases, to take that sum as the proper measure of damages. The practical effect would be to give £150 in almost all cases. Such a limitation would be too favourable to those who had suffered a less loss, and would unduly cut down the compensation which ought to be paid to those who suffered a greater. The principle of Lord Campbell's Act was that the jury should assess the damages on their own valuation of the loss sustained; and the principle of this clause, as it stood, was to fix a variable limit to that power, according to the rate of wages which the particular workman might have been receiving.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he was informed by an Indian official that the widows of those killed in the Indian Civil Service received each a pension of £300 per annum.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

was afraid the Indian official who gave his Lordship that information knew nothing whatever about it.

LORD DUNSANY

said, as a case in point, that the amount of compensation to be paid to the widow of a passenger killed while travelling in one of the workmen's trains was limited to £100.

LORD BRABOURNE

hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, as there was some considerable difference of opinion upon the subject, the stating of a maximum sum in an Act of Parliament having a tendency to insure the granting of that sum in cases in which a smaller sum would otherwise been given. On the whole, it would, perhaps, be better to leave this clause as it had come from the other House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Limit of time for recovery of compensation).

On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made: — In page 2, line 40, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").

LORD DUNSANY

inquired, whether six weeks was not too long a time to give a man to ascertain that he had received an injury, and if 12 months was not too long a time to allow his representatives to ascertain he was dead?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

considered six weeks a very short time to give a man, not, indeed, to ascertain whether he had received an injury, hut to make his claim for compensation on account of the injury which he had received. The 12 months' limitation referred to the time within which; in case of death, an action might be brought.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Money payable under penalty to be deducted from compensation under Act).

Clause 6 (Trial of actions).

LORD NORTON,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 23, insert as new sub-section— (1a.) At any time during the pendency of such action the Court may order the plaintiff to give such security as it may deem fit for the payment of the costs of such action, should any payment of costs he ordered; said, his object was to put a check upon vexatious and unfounded actions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

declined to accept the Amendment, as he was sure the noble Lord must see that it would be unjust to saddle working men with conditions of that kind, to which no other classes of litigants were subject.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Mode of serving notice of injury) agreed to.

LORD BRABOURNE

moved, in page 4, after Clause 7, insert as a new Clause— It shall he lawful for any employer and workman or workmen to mutually contract for the insurance of such workman or workmen against personal or bodily injury, and for such employer to deduct the proportion of premium payable by such workman or workmen in respect of such insurance from his or their wages; and it shall be lawful for such employer and workman or workmen to mutually agree upon the amount of compensation to be paid to such workman or workmen for such personal or bodily injury, or to his or their legal representatives, should the injury result in death, and in such case no claim shall be made under the provisions of this Act by or on behalf of such legal representatives. The noble Lord said, that insurance was, in his (Lord Brabourne's) opinion, the true solution of this question of accidents. All accidents could be reached by a good system of insurance, whereas the Bill only reached a very small proportion, and imperilled discipline and good feeling in order to do so. The insurance system had been slowly but surely making its way, and it would be a most unhappy result if the Bill encouraged men to neglect the self-reliant and provident habits inculcated by provident insurance institutions, and rely upon compensation to be obtained under it by litigation. The mining interest showed in a marked manner the progress of the insurance system. In 1869 there were 12,000 members of the mining insurance societies. In 1879, out of 524,000 men employed in mines, no less than 117,000 were members of such institutions, the revenue was considerable, and, in cases of disablement, from 5s. to 8s. per week was paid to the sufferers; 5s. to widows, and a substantial amount to the family in case of death. He (Lord Brabourne) had already stated that the German Government had made that system compulsory. That he did not ask; but he did hope that Government would not discourage the system. He would ask the noble and learned Lord to answer his question on a previous night, as to the power to contract out of the liability created by the Bill, and he earnestly commended the clause relating to insurance to the favourable consideration of the House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the clause related to two perfectly independent subjects, one of which was insurance. If it stopped there no such clause was necessary, as it would be open to the parties after the Bill passed, as freely as it was now, to make any arrangement they pleased with regard to that matter. He saw no reason why the existing system of insurance should not continue, inasmuch as workmen were liable to many accidents for which masters could not be held responsible, and for which, of course, they would still have to provide on their own account. The other subject of the Amendment was the limitation of the workman's right to compensation by express contract, as to which a question had been put to him by the noble Lord. His answer to that question was that there was nothing in the Bill which would interfere with any workman entering into a contract to take any personal risk, or to fix a compensation to be paid to him for any particular kind of injury, short of death, which he might sustain. It was the unanimous opinion of the Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by his noble Friend (Viscount Sherbrooke), that, looking to the strength of the workmen's combinations, it would be better to leave the utmost freedom of contract to the parties; and, therefore, he thought that the provisions of the Bill, as far as freedom of contract was concerned, ought to be left as they were by the House. The existing law provided that, in case of death from injury, the compensation paid went to the widow and children of the man killed, and not in increase of his personal property. He was not aware that it had ever been determined that a man could, by a contract in his lifetime, bind his widow and children when they claimed, not through or under him, but under the provisions made directly in their favour by Lord Campbell's Act; and he thought it at least doubtful whether he could do so. The same rule would, he presumed, apply in the construction of this Act. The Government could not accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

supported the proposal to establish insurance funds, on the ground that such a system would impress the workmen with the consideration that they had an equal interest with their employers in preventing the occurrence of accidents. Beyond that, the principle was perfectly consistent with recent legislation, and he therefore trusted the Government would hold out some hope of dealing with it. This was a matter of great importance; and if a clause could be drafted which would meet the views of the noble and learned Lord, it would remove many of the apprehensions and objections felt by the employers with regard to the Bill. Several of the great Railway Companies, and in particular the Great Western and the London and North Western, now subscribed to such funds, and he should be sorry to see any plan adopted which might have a tendency to stop the flow of such liberality, seeing that the scheme had been successful in its working. He much feared that the effect of the Bill would be to check the operation of that valuable principle, by withholding from those funds, or diverting into other channels, large sums of money at present contributed to them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

could not hold out any hope that the Government would consider this subject in connection with this Bill.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, that, after the debate which had taken place, it was evident that their Lordships would not be inclined to adopt the clause in its present form. He would be glad if the Government could frame a clause embodying the principle of insurance; but he was so far satisfied in having elicited from the noble and learned Lord the important declaration that there would be a power between masters and workmen to contract.

Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause 8 (Definitions).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved, in consequence of the carrying of the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) early in the evening, to omit the definition of "a person who has superintendence entrusted to him," the definition being— A person whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendent, and who is not ordinarily engaged in manual labour.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, the Amendment was so very important that he would be glad if the noble and learned Lord would defer it until the Report.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought the request of the noble Viscount a very reasonable one. It was the intention of the Government to ask that the Report might be taken to-morrow.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD DUNSANY

moved an Amendment, to enable a number of actions arising from the same occurrence to be consolidated.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought the noble Lord could not have read the Bill, the 6th clause of which gave power to make rules for the Purpose of consolidating any actions under this Act in a County Court, and otherwise preventing multiplicity of such actions.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Commencement of Act), agreed to.

Clause 10 (Short title).

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

moved an Amendment at the end of the clause, providing that the Bill should continue in operation until the 1st of January, 1882, unless Parliament should otherwise determine.

Moved, in page 4, line 44, add, ("And shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine."—(The Earl of Beaconsfield.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

expressed his conviction that it would not be expedient to adopt the Amendment. Their Lordships were legislating on a subject of great and general importance, and they had arrived at a considerable amount of agreement as to the principle and the provisions of the Bill. He did not believe that anyone seriously thought this legislation ought to be, or could be, of a temporary character. If the measure were passed, it would, like other measures, be subject to amendment, if experience should show amendment to be necessary; but no useful purpose would be attained by making it temporary. To make it temporary would be the same thing as to suggest that it was no settlement, and to to encourage an agitation for further changes which could hardly be in the interest of the employers of labour, for whom the noble Lords opposite seemed to have so much regard. Even if the principle of limitation were agreed to, two years would be an absolutely insufficient time to test the efficacy of the Bill. He did not expect that many questions of law would arise under the measure; but if any did arise, the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) must be sanguine indeed if he imagined that those points would be settled before the lapse of two years. The Amendment was also delusive, because, in another portion of the Bill, the parties were given 12 months to decide whether they should bring an action or not; so that if an accident happened on the 31st of December, 1881, and the parties took a year to decide whether an action should be brought or not, the Act would have lapsed, and their remedy would be gone. The reasons given in favour of the Amendment satisfied him that it ought not to be accepted. He knew that he was in the presence of a majority which could carry it; but it would be a satisfaction to him if he could convince that majority.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, he was sorry to say that the reasons of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) for opposing the Amendment had not satisfied him. The Party to which he belonged had accepted the Government Bill with doubt and hesitation, and, considering the character of the measure, he could not agree to the proposal that it should be a permanent measure. They desired a long and careful consideration, not only of the principle, but of the details, in order to enable them to arrive at an accurate conclusion as to the probable effect of such legislation. Although the measure came before them at such an advanced period of the Session, they thought it better that it should be carried on the responsibility of the Government. The objections of the noble and learned Lord to the Amendment would apply to any length of time which might be named. It would be easy to prove that any action commenced within the two years should not be affected by the termination of the measure. Suppose the postponed Amendment of the Government were adopted on the Report, and they omitted the definition of the words "person who has superintendence entrusted to him," questions would arise as to what was the meaning of the phrase; and it might be as advantageous to the workmen as to the employers that the question should be brought to the test in a Court of Law, and that they should have some instruction as to what was the meaning of the Act. Many questions would naturally come up in the course of two years, and it must prove of great advantage to have their attention called to what was going on during that period, and to the manner in which the Act as a temporary measure was working.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, it might be supposed, from the argument of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), that the experiment under this Bill could be conducted as if it were carried on in a philosophic manner by a chemist in a laboratory, and that while the Act was being put in operation, everybody was to look on quietly. That was a great mistake. The noble Viscount talked about the matter in that fashion, and yet he knew that the working classes were now organized in a very formidable manner upon all questions affecting their interests. They had pronounced a strong opinion on the doctrine of common employment. Their opinion was that nothing could be more unjust than the whole of the Judge-made doctrines which had been laid down, and that the principle of common employment ought to be altogether abolished. Beyond that, a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by one of their own Representatives, providing for the entire abolition of the doctrine of common employment, and there were many men who were of opinion that it ought to be abolished altogether. It had been stated by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that the doctrine was hardly known in other countries. He asked their Lordships, considering all the circumstances of the case, whether it would be a wise or safe experiment that, after they had arrived at something like an understanding upon the important question of common employment, to throw the question open to fresh agitation at the end of two years? It would be a subject of vehement agitation amongst the organizations of the working men, which was not a desirable state of things. He denied that the Amendment would be in the interests of the employed, and he was sure it could not be adopted in the interests of the employer. After what had been said as to the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, altogether they had a measure in regard to which there was a real hope that it would effect a lasting settlement of the question. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment, which he inferred was to be taken as a substitute for the Amendment which the Government had proposed to make, but which, at the suggestion of the noble Viscount, they had postponed to the next stage of the Bill. It was a very unwise proposition, and would have serious results if adopted; therefore, he should ask the House to vote against it.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

said, the remarks of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) and other noble Lords, were really in favour of the Amendment. The assumption of the noble Duke was that they were passing a measure which would satisfy neither the working classes, nor those who employed them. That being the case, it was extremely desirable that both classes should have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. If the legislation, upon the whole, as seemed to be the case, did not satisfy either employer or employed, there could be no doubt as to the desirability of an Amendment like this, and the chances were that in a country like England, there would be much discussion upon the point; but "agitation," the term used by the noble Duke, was an exaggerated term to apply to what would be fair and reasonable discussion. If neither class saw in this measure the attainment of their views, it was clear that the passing of it for two years, by affording an opportunity for the consideration of the question, would not foment or cause agitation, but would prevent agitation. There were no reasons, therefore, in the view which the noble Duke took, that would justify the conclusion at which he arrived. The subject was one that very few were masters of; they all wanted information on many points. Phrases required to be defined, and they wanted to avoid the great injury that might follow from the application of general principles and mere theories to industry; and it was only by experience they could obtain the requisite knowledge. By fixing a certain period they would gain the advantage which must accrue from questions of this kind being brought into the Courts of Law, and the language of the Act receiving authoritative interpretation. He was persuaded himself that the Amendment proposed would operate beneficially, and that, instead of an irritating, it would have a soothing effect upon those classes most interested in the question. The noble Duke had talked of their discussing the question as if they were engaged in some philosophical laboratory, and he took no account of the passions and prejudices of their fellow-subjects. The Ballot Act furnished a precedent for the course proposed in this Amendment; and that was a question in which the country took a great interest, and the Party opposite, who introduced that measure represented that it was absolutely necessary, from the strong feeling in favour of it, that the settlement of the question should be final. When the Ballot Act was made a temporary measure, did it provoke those fierce assemblages of passion which the noble Duke imagined was to be the consequence of the Amendment now proposed? On the contrary, the wisdom of the limitation had been acknowledged. There were many Liberals who, formerly in favour of the Ballot, were now opposed to it; while, on the other hand, many Conservatives now viewed it in a much more favourable light than they did at the time the Act was passed. What more reasonable than that the country should have the opportunity of revising their legislation with additional experience? The precedent of the Ballot ought to guide them to the acceptance of his Amendment.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the arguments used by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield) in favour of the Amendment would apply to almost any Bill on which a difference of opinion existed, or which affected different classes of persons in the country. It might be said that all such Bills should be tried for two years before they were made permanent measures. Unfounded assertions had been made as to the Bill having been insufficiently considered; but he thought this Amendment could not have been sufficiently considered by those who proposed it. The noble Lord had compared this Bill with the Ballot Bill; but the Bills were perfectly different. He did not think the Ballot Bill was the most brilliant instance of the necessity of having these Continuance Bills from year to year. The noble Lord seemed to think lightly of this Bill being a settlement, and said it was unpopular among workmen and unpopular among employers. It would be a happy medium which would be accepted by both parties, and the chance of its being so accepted depended very much upon its being of a permanent character. But if the question was to be re-opened in a year or two, both parties in the meantime would be trying to strengthen their position with a view to a change. Her Majesty's Government were not in favour of compulsory insurance; but there was a general opinion in favour of voluntary insurance being tried. Now, he could not conceive anything more inconvenient than to have this a temporary measure, the effect of which would be to render all attempts to enter into such arrangements completely futile. The noble Earl seemed to think that this Bill would, if enacted, become one of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. Nothing of the kind. If it were passed it would be simply like other measures; and if it did not work satisfactorily, and was found to possess grave defects, nothing could be easier than to follow the usual Parliamentary course, and bring in a Bill to amend it. He hoped that their Lordships would not agree to what he could not help considering the crude suggestion of the noble Earl.

On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 72; Not-Contents 40: Majority 32.

CONTENTS.
Beanfort, D. Amherst,L. (V. Holmesdale.)
Leeds, D.
Northumberland, D. Arundell of Wardour, L.
Richmond, D.
Wellington, D. Aveland, L.
Bagot, L. [Teller.]
Abergavenny, M. Borthwick, L.
Exeter, H. Braybrooke, L.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Amherst, E.
Beaconsfield, E. Byron, L.
Beauchamp, E. Chelmsford, L.
Bradford, E. Colville of Culross, L.
Cadogan, E. Congleton, L.
Carnarvon, E. Dunsany, L.
Coventry, E. Forbes, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.) Forester, L.
Gerard, L.
Lamington, L.
Ferrers, E. Lilford, L.
Feversham, E. Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Gainsborough, E.
Hardwicke, E. Lyveden, L.
Harewood, E. Norton, L.
Macclesfield, E. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Mansfield, E.
Manvers, E. Raglan, L.
Mount Cashell, E. Rayleigh, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E. Rowton, L.
Nelson, E. Saltoun, L.
Onslow, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Powis, E. Strathnairn, L.
Redesdale, E. Templemore, L.
Strange, E. (D. Athol.) Teynham, L.
Tankerville, E. Trevor, L.
Verulam, E. Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)
Cranbrook, V. Walsingham, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Wimborne, L.
Hereford, V. Windsor, L.
Melville, V. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Alington, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Derby, E.
Fortescue, E.
Granville, E.
Somerset, D. Ilchester, E.
Westminster, D. Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.
Camperdown, E. Northbrook, E.
Clarendon, E. Spencer, E.
Sydney, E. Methuen, L.
Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Sherbrooke, V. Moncreiff, L.
Monson, L. [Teller.]
Belper, L. O'Hagan, L.
Blachford, L. Sandhurst, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] Saye and Sele, L.
Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.) Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Calthorpe, L. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Carrington, L.
Chesham, L. Sudeley, L.
Emly, L. Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-mare.) Vernon, L.
Leigh, L. Wrottesley, L.
Lyttelton, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble read, and agreed to.

House resumed.

The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.