CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS SEASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 3 September 1880)

§ LORD BRABOURNE

said, that after what had occurred in "another place," he had nothing to do but to retreat from the position he had taken up with what grace he might. A taunt had been thrown out "elsewhere" that the omission of this sub-section had been moved by a Liberal Peer; but as 74 out of 77 Peers who supported that omission were Conservative Peers, there was not much political capital to be made out of the circumstance. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had stated, in the course of the discussion on the Bill, that he (Lord Brabourne) had acted in the interest of the employers, and had only stated, by way of postcript, that he believed his Amendment would be beneficial to the workmen. It was true that 1173 he had moved the Amendment in consequence of a Resolution passed by employers of labour, representing an immense amount of capital, requesting him to do so; but he would not have done so if he did not conscientiously believe that it was for the interest of the employed as well as of the employers. He believed still that it was for the best interest of the workmen to feel a community of interest with their employers. The Bill, he feared, would disturb that feeling and plunge the workmen into litigation, so that the only persons who, in the long run, would benefit by it would be the lawyers. The vast majority of accidents were caused by what was called "contributory negligence" on the part of the workmen; but that would now be constantly denied, and litigation would follow. He (Lord Brabourne) begged specially to remind their Lordships that, in the course of the debates upon the Bill, he had ventured to deny the assertion of the Attorney General, and had stated that he did not regard the Bill as a compromise, but that it would lead to fresh agitation. In confirmation of his views, he had only to call attention to the fact that the Gentleman who represented the trades unions, and had a seat in the other House, had deliberately stated that he would only regard the proposed limitation of the Act as the period for which the trades unions would have to wait before getting an ulterior measure which would embody all their demands. He had only again to say that, in taking the course he had adopted, he had felt great regret at having been obliged to oppose his personal and political Friends; but, in spite of the abuse which had been showered upon him, and the imputation of motives which had never entered his head, he had acted only for what he firmly believed to be the public interest, and nothing should ever deter him from doing that which he felt to be his duty.