THIRD READING. (Hansard, 31 August 1880)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
moved, as an Amendment, in Clause 1 (Amendment of law), page 1, line 11, to insert after ("has") the word ("any") in the 2nd sub-section, the effect of which would be to make the clause read as follows:— By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has 'any' superintendence intrusted to him.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
moved the re-insertion of the 3rd subsection of the 1st clause, which had been struck out in Committee, on the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Bra-bourne). The sub-section ran as follows: — Whore, after the commencement of this Act, personal injury is caused to a workman … 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 hound to conform, and did conform, where such injury resulted from his having so conformed. The noble Lord asked, whether it was worth while to strike out the clauses, looking at the provisions of the Bill?

LORD DENMAN
hoped their Lordships would not re-open a question which they had, after full consideration, already disposed of. The Amendment just agreed to, on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) inserting the word "any," had both considerably and sufficiently widened the liability of the employers.

§ LORD BRABOURNE
said, he also most urgently hoped that the Amendment would not be agreed to. It would, in his opinion, be most undignified for their Lordships to restore that which, after full debate and in a full House, had been struck out so lately as Thursday last, and that without anything having occurred in the interval to cause them to change their opinion. Whether he was right or wrong in what he did, his Motion received the sanction of their Lordships' House; and the Bill, as amended, could now go down to the Commons for them to deal with. It would be quite time enough to consider this Amendment after that had been done. If the House of Commons did not agree to the omission of the subsection in question, there would be a fair ground for considering whether it should be restored; but he protested against its being now sought to re-introduce it merely because a mandate to that effect had gone forth from the Trade Union Societies.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, as he had not been able to be present at the second reading of the Bill, or on 781 the consideration of the Report, having been prevented from attending by a severe illness, he desired to express now, in a few words, the deep and almost unspeakable regret with which he had heard of the action of their Lordships in this matter. He was sure their Lordships could not be aware of the anxiety with which the working classes regarded the Bill, and of how necessary they considered the retention of the subsection in question. Since that time a great deal of evidence had been adduced, publicly and privately, by a great many Representatives of the working classes, showing unanswerably the absolute necessity for such protection as the sub-section provided, and he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) fully concurred in the idea that it should be re-inserted. To leave it out would leave the matter beset with difficulties. The Bill was limited to two years' operation. In his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) opinion, that was a wise proceeding, as it would practically place it in the same position as if it had been referred to a Select Committee, and at the end of that time it could be revised and its defects remedied. In that time both parties might come to an agreement as to the remedies to be applied, and after that they might go on harmoniously. He hoped their Lordships would reverse their decision.