EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 288.)

HL Deb 08 December 1893 vol 19 cc750-804

COMMITTEE.

House in Committee (according to Order.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

LORD KNUTSFORD

suggested for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether, after the words "reasonable protection," in Clause 2, it might not be desirable to insert "on the part of an employer or his authorised representatives." As the clause now stood, the employer was made liable even where he had taken every reasonable precaution and had laid down reasonable regulations. If those precautions or regulations were thoughtlessly disregarded by a workman the employer might still be made liable, although he had done everything in his power to prevent accidents. He believed that Amendment had been proposed in the House of Commons, but withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, the matter had been called to his attention by a Petition from some Public Body, but he thought the words suggested unnecessary, because workmen would only have the same right to compensation under the Bill as in other cases. "Negligence" meant by the employer, or by some person for whom he was responsible.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked whether the noble and learned Lord objected to putting in the words "by the employer"?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, they were unnecessary for the reason mentioned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved to add, at the end of the clause, a proviso for contracting out where agreements for assurance against injury between workmen and their employers existed. He said the Amendment would, under certain conditions, allow workmen to contract themselves out of the Act. The primary object of the Amendment was to safeguard the interests of private insurance funds, such as those now in existence in the case of many of the great in- dustrial undertakings of this country, which it was believed would be injuriously affected by the Bill as it stood. He would not reiterate the statements that had been made as to the advantages of these funds. Nobody would contend that workmen were not in a more advantageous position under a system from which they derived compensation in all cases of injury than they would be if no such system existed. Surely it was impossible to deny the benefits enjoyed by the men of the London and North Western Railway Company from their insurance fund, or by the many thousand colliers employed under similar conditions in the Western and South Western Coalfields; nor was it more possible to gainsay that the interests of industrial prosperity and harmony were more effectively advanced by an arrangement which engendered good feeling between employers and employed than by one which had the tendency to divide them into separate and hostile camps. Therefore, he would not waste the time of the House in urging matters on which they were all pretty well agreed, but would come at once to the subject on which he admitted there was a difference of opinion, and that was, whether these private insurance funds would or would not be destroyed by the operation of the Bill as it stood. He personally was of opinion that in the great majority of cases the Bill would most certainly have such a tendency. The supporters of the Bill thought otherwise; but their Lordships should remember that these funds had in many instances been maintained under the direct condition that workmen should contract themselves out of the Act. There were, he admitted, exceptions, as in the case of the Midland Railway fund, but in those cases the contributions of the employers were so small that the men could not fairly be asked to relinquish their legal rights. Employers made contracting out a condition, because they wanted to know how they stood in regard to liability for injury, because they wanted to be secured against the possibility of vexatious and expensive litigation, and to avoid the friction with their men that litigation would entail. There were no other reasons which need be mentioned which induced employers to contribute so largely to the benefit funds of their men. Were those reasons of which the employers need be ashamed? From all that was said it might be supposed that the Act of 1880 was so sacred, and that contracting out of it would have so terrible an effect, that it was a fearful sin on the part of the employers to carry on their business under some independent arrangement; but had it ever been shown that they had abused the liberty allowed them by the existing law? If Parliament destroyed the main advantage which was derived by employers in maintaining their contributions to these funds, what would be their reason for continuing to make these large annual payments? It could not be economy, for they would economise by withdrawing them, as had been shown over and over again. Then it was said that the maintenance of good feeling between themselves and their men would furnish a sufficient motive. No doubt employers were ready to submit to very considerable sacrifices in order to maintain such a feeling and remain on friendly terms with the men in their employ. Anybody who had any experience of business would know how great an element cordial co-operation between employer and employed was in carrying it on; but to say that employers would pay as highly as they did now when their main motive was destroyed was to use a very hypothetical argument. Private employers might be prepared to make concessions, though he did not think that many would, but in the great majority of cases such a course of action would be utterly impossible. How could the Directors of a large Industrial Company justify such enormous and unnecessary expenditure? How could the Directors of the London and North Western Railway account for the fact that they were spending £20,000 a year for merely sentimental benefits, when they could insure themselves for £5,000 or £6,000 a year against all the liability imposed upon them by Parliament, and thereby put an additional £17,000 or £18,000 into the pockets of their shareholders? This was a question which could only be dealt with from a purely business point of view. At present the employers thought they received an adequate return for their contributions; but if Parliament destroyed the main element in that return, they would naturally withdraw their contributions. That opinion was not merely speculative, but was shared by the great majority of the workmen whose interests were concerned. The Petitions presented and resolutions passed by workmen showed not only that they were perfectly satisfied with the present arrangements, but that they believed these arrangements would be seriously imperilled by the provisions of the Bill. He therefore believed that the evidence pointed altogether to the conclusion that the prohibition of contracting out would be fatal to the system of private insurance; and unless they provided safeguards against such a result, many thousands of workmen were in danger of losing benefits greatly appreciated and valued by them. They would, he supposed, be told that, even admitting the possible destruction of these funds, the prohibition of contracting out was so desirable upon other grounds that they ought to let it pass. That line of argument had done duty more than once, and was based upon the assumption that contracting out led to negligence on the part of the employer, and that an employer whose liability for accident was covered by a fixed annual payment to a private insurance fund was less likely to take precautions than one who was legally liable for any compensation assessed in a Public Court. But that argument fell to the ground at once when they remembered that if they prohibited contracting out the employers would in all probability transfer their contributions and their liability to some Insurance Company, and would remain in exactly the same position as before. Moreover, statistics did not bear out the assertion that contracting out led to negligence. In 1878—two years before the passing of the Employers' Liability Act—there was on the London and North Western Railway one fatal accident for every 432 men, and one minor accident for every 78 men engaged in the company's service. In 1888 the proportion was one fatal accident for every 1,058 men engaged, and one minor accident for every 92 men engaged. The Returns for the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway showed exactly the same result, there being one fatal accident to every 333 men in 1878 and one minor accident to every 111; while in 1888 the figures were one fatal accident to 1,638 men, and one minor accident to every 239 men. Those figures had been compiled by the Board of Trade. In the coal mines of Lancashire and North Wales— where, in 1891, 61,000 men contracted out, against 29,000 men who did not— the average of accidents for the eight years prior to 1880 was one fatal accident for every 339 men employed, while the average for the 10 years following 1880 was one fatal accident for every 445 men employed. It was commonly said that statistics could be made to prove anything, but he failed to see how these figures could be made to show that in cases where contracting out had occurred accidents had increased. But, putting these figures aside, he could not understand how the supporters of the Bill contemplated that by prohibiting contracting out greater protection could be secured for the lives and limbs of workmen. Parliament had already by many different Acts insisted that an employer of labour should take every possible means to secure the safety of his men. If it was shown that there still existed need for legislation in that direction, the object in view would be far more effectually attained by extending and strengthening the existing law than. by a proposal which merely entailed a transfer of liability. Another argument sometimes used was that if contracting out was allowed the workmen were liable to be coerced into arrangements which might in reality be opposed to their interests. He could hardly believe that anyone was really deceived by that argument. It was absurd to talk about coercing the 60,000 men employed by the London and North Western Railway Company. It would be as true, and a great deal more so, to say that the present proposal was an attempt to coerce the workmen who were content to contract out for the purposes of organisation. The possibility of coercion was destroyed by his Amendment. That Amendment differed to some extent from the corresponding Amendment proposed in the other House by extending the liberty of contracting out to all future arrangements, instead of confining it to those already in existence. He did not think anybody could logically object to that extension. If these private arrangements were considered to be satisfactory by certain workmen at the present time, there was no possible reason why similar arrange- ments should not be considered satisfactory by other workmen in the future, or why their liberty to establish them should be curtailed. The principle of the Amendment was that the workmen of this country were the best judges of their own interests, and should not be prohibited by law from following their own judgment in a matter which so closely and seriously concerned their own interests. The Amendment provided that no arrangement should be considered satisfactory which had not been approved of by a majority of the men concerned voting in secret ballot according to Rules laid down by the Board of Trade. That, he thought, secured that the men should be able to express their opinion freely and without constraint. The Amendment also provided that the insurance fund should be one to which the employer was a contributor, and that the compensation provided by it should be considered reasonable by the Board of Trade. By those means a safeguard was provided against any attempt to establish an inadequate fund, and under cover of that fund to escape just liability. It might be asked upon what standard the Board of Trade was to base its requirements in the case of funds proposed to be established? He might be asked to define what he meant by reasonable compensation, and to state to what extent an employer should contribute to these funds. But they were not providing for a new and untried system. Insurance funds were already in existence which worked with complete satisfaction to all parties concerned. Therefore, the Board of Trade in framing its Regulations would be guided to no small extent by the experience which they derived from that source. Behind all these Regulations the strongest safeguard was the ballot of the men themselves. If they did not approve of the terms which their employers offered, they could reject them; but if they were satisfied, he could not see by what principle of liberty or of justice they should be prevented from accepting these terms. The only other point he need notice was that the Amendment proposed to empower the Board of Trade to take such steps as might seem advisable for enabling workmen to express their opinions with the utmost possible facility. If he had failed to convince the House of the necessity for such an Amendment as this, it was his own power of argument that was to blame, for he believed that the object for which he contended was a most important object, not only in the interests of industrial harmony, but also —and chiefly—in the interests of many thousands of workmen.

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 13, at the end of the Clause add— The foregoing enactment shall not apply to any agreement for assurance against injury which has been made between workmen and their employer before the date of the passing of this Act, and which subsequently to the said date shall be approved by a majority of them voting in the prescribed manner. Nor shall it apply to any such agreement made after the passing of this Act which shall have been approved as aforesaid, and in respect to which the Board of Trade shall have certified—

1. 1. That it provides reasonable compensation in all cases of injury from whatever cause incurred in the course of employment:
2. 2. That the compensation is paid from a fund to which the employer is a contributor.

The Board of Trade may make rules for taking the votes of workmen by secret ballot in such a way as to ensure that they vote freely and without constraint; and it may from time to time, at its discretion, require such votes to be taken anew after the lapse of any period of not less than three years; but in the case of seamen and others employed afloat, the Board may make such provision for enabling them to give their votes freely and without constraint as shall in its judgment be suitable to the requirements of their employment."—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

proposed to amend the Amendment by substituting a majority of two-thirds for a bare majority of the workmen. He desired, in the first place, to say a few words as representing the direct views expressed to him recently by a large body of the workmen employed by the London and North Western Railway at Rugby. He had no interest on the Board, and was not a shareholder in any sense, but happened to live in the immediate neighbourhood and to have been among the men a good deal for three years as Parliamentary candidate. He knew large numbers of them, and knew what their views were on this question. On Tuesday last he attended a very representative meeting of the employés of the London and North Western Railway, held at Rugby Station, for the purpose of discussing with them the Amendment of his noble Friend the Earl of Dudley. At that meeting a resolution was unanimously passed protesting against the clause in the Bill prohibiting contracting out, and expressing an earnest hope that their Lordships would insert a clause on the lines of his noble Friend's proposal. These insurance funds had been amply discussed both in the House of Commons and in the Press, and he would not weary their Lordships with details on the subject beyond referring to an example given on the Second Reading of the working of the fund on the London and North Western Railway. He happened some days ago to see the Returns of accidents. In one case a man had slipped on the frosty ground and had had his foot badly crushed by a truck; in another a man was hit on the head by a piece of coke while looking after his engine; and another man had his thumb badly pinched by a bar of iron while cleaning put his engine-box. Those were accidents which were of common occurrence, all of which were dealt with under the insurance, but none of them would come under the Act of Parliament. Another feature was the "natural death" allowance of £10 for men and £5 for boys after six months' service with the company. The noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said the Government had no desire to crush out such Societies. The Home Secretary said the same; but it was an undoubted fact that others did desire to crush out those funds, and it was only too apparent that the Government would be placed in a rather awkward position in another place if they ventured to withstand the dictates of the Trade Unionists, who formed a formidable section of their supporters. It was said that the employers encouraged these funds because they were an insurance against strikes, but a greater fallacy was never uttered. There were other funds besides the insurance fund in connection with the London and North Western Railway— the pension funds, the provident fund, and the superannuation fund—and these might be said to be an inducement to the men to think twice before they resorted to a strike; but, in the case of the insurance fund, there was no cumulative fund for the men to forfeit. A man was at perfect liberty to strike, and, if he resumed his work after the strike, a small amount was deducted from the amount due to him, but he remained in the same position as before he went on strike. He would not go into the question whether the Directors were not entitled to cease their contributions to these funds, but could only reiterate what had appeared in the Press, and what had been stated in their Lordships' House, expressing that intention in most unmistakable terms; and though Her Majesty's Government regarded as so much bluff the statements of the Directors of the Railway Company, that if the Bill passed in its present shape they would be compelled to withdraw their contributions to the insurance fund, the men did not take that view, but accepted it in sober earnest. He had heard many of the men say that it was only fair and reasonable to suppose the Directors would discontinue their present large contribution if these liabilities were incurred by the Bill. With regard to intimidation, he read to the meeting at Rugby the statement of the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) that the Directors were trying to frighten the men and that the men were trying to frighten the public in relation to this question. The meeting scouted that suggestion, and were unanimous in the opinion that the talk about intimidation was absolute rubbish. His Amendment was a short one, but he thought it was important, and he had put it down for several reasons. In the first place, he was sure that none of their Lordships were desirous of coercing large minorities upon this question; and that they would see the force of the Home Secretary's argument in a speech of two nights' ago upon this matter. Secondly, they desired to get the Amendment accepted by the Government for the purpose of securing to the working men in large concerns existing benefits, which they considered were far in excess of anything they could obtain under the Bill. For that reason their Lordships should concentrate their attention on the main points at issue. He earnestly hoped their Lordships would accept the noble Earl's Amendment, for in doing so they would be standing up for true individual liberty, and would be allowing the men to secure the benefits they so much desired.

Moved to insert in the proposed Amendment the words "a majority of two-thirds."—(The Earl of Denbigh.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

said, as the noble Lords who preceded him had spoken on behalf of the railway men, he would say a few words as representing 128,000 colliers. They by no means accepted the term "coercion," or desired that an employer of 100 men should be able, by obtaining the sanction of 51 of them, to coerce the remaining 49. The members of the Miners' Permanent Relief Societies in Lancashire, Cheshire, and North and South Wales asked their Lordships to affirm their individual right to do what they thought best for themselves without being themselves coerced or in any manner coercing their fellow-workmen. Mr. Asquith had stated that even a bare majority would be coercion; but the, two-thirds majority proposed by Lord Denbigh would be no less a coercion of the minority, and preventing them doing what they desired. Such coercion would be worse than that now existing. He would not say more than to impress upon their Lordships the great importance attached by the men he represented to this Amendment, and that they no more desired to coerce those working alongside them than they wished to be coerced themselves. He had, however, no absolute objection to Lord Dudley's Amendment, and therefore would not speak against it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that to avoid confusion Lord Dudley's Amendment should be first moved down to the words "approved by" only, leaving out the majority for the present. That would decide the general principle whether the House would allow contracting out of the Bill. Afterwards the rest of the clause could be framed as they thought fit. A large principle was at issue, and only very subordinate elements had been dealt with.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, that might be a very convenient way of putting the question, but subsequent speakers must not be confined to the first few words of the Amendment. He presumed that was not what was meant?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Not in the least.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, that would scarcely be fair to the discussion. He would deal first with the general question raised by the Amendment, leaving Lord Dudley to settle with his noble Friends the improvements they suggested in it. The main question in dispute was whether or not the clause as it stood would altogether put an end to and ruthlessly destroy these insurance funds? It had been urged with great ability that that would be the result, but there was a great deal to be said on the other side. Their Lordships were, of course, dealing entirely with probabilities, as to what was likely to happen if this clause were passed. It had been suggested that if the clause should pass employers would altogether withdraw support from these funds; but he had great doubts whether that was likely to be the case. He could not help thinking that there were many large employers of labour who, when they came to think calmly and quietly about this matter, would arrive at the conclusion that the right course for them to adopt was that stated by the Marquess of Londonderry the other night. The noble Marquess then said, amidst universal applause, that whatever might happen he, as an employer of labour, would not desist from his efforts in favour of his men. He believed that the noble Marquess possessed no monopoly of that good feeling as compared with other employers of labour.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

reminded the noble Marquess that he was careful to say that he pledged no one but himself.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

understood that to be so; but he thought that many employers would imitate the example of the noble Marquess in this respect, and would see that it would be highly to their own disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the country to withdraw their support from these funds formed in the interests of their men. This conviction was considerably strengthened by an argument used by his noble Friend Lord Dudley, in support of the Amendment. He asked how the Board of the London and North Western Railway Company could possibly justify to their shareholders a continuance of their subscription to the insurance fund if they did not get rid of their liabilities under these Acts? It had been stated that the whole object and purpose of the fund was to avoid their liability under the Act of 1880. But how could that be when the noble Lord himself stated that all such liabilities even under the present Bill would be covered by a yearly payment of between £5,000 and £6,000, whereas the London and North Western Railway actually paid £22,000 a year. He believed, however, that the payments were not made only for the purpose of escaping from their legal liability, but for other obvious purposes—namely, to place the conditions and relations between employer and employed on a friendly and cordial footing; and, if it were worth while for the London and North Western Railway Company to make so large a contribution at the present time in order to promote harmony and good feeling among their men, they would also find it to their advantage to deal with their men in the same manner in the future. If the Amendment of his noble Friend was found to be open to considerable criticism, it was, he believed, not his noble Friend's fault, but the fault of the principle which he endeavoured to advocate. The Amendment, no doubt, did not propose to give individual freedom to every man in regard to contracting out; but by it a majority would be allowed to put very strong pressure upon the remainder of their fellow-workmen to give up the advantages which Parliament intended to confer upon them by the Bill. There was just as much interference with freedom on the one side as on the other. Parliament in this measure thought it right to lay down for the protection of life and limb that individuals or bodies of men should not be enabled to contract out of it. What was the result when that simple principle was departed from? A variety of proposals had been made on the subject—that of the late Government in 1891, Mr. M'Laren's in the House of Commons, and now that of the noble Earl opposite in this Amendment. He would ask their Lordships to consider how it would act, whether it was a very workable proposal, and one which it would be easy to carry out effectually? He was not convinced that these funds were correctly described by the Amendment, or that that of the London and North Western Insurance Fund could be described as an agreement made between the workmen and their employer. That was a legal question for noble and learned Lords rather than for himself. By the Amendment, however, workmen were to be allowed by a majority to contract themselves out of the Bill. That, presumably, meant all the workmen, though the Amendment did not say so. A majority in any employment would be able to deprive the rest of the men of the protection afforded by the Bill.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

reminded the noble Marquess that the 128,000 miners he represented did not wish that.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the Amendment proposed that funds established in the future should be allowed the same privilege as those now in existence, subject to certain conditions. Although possessing a very high respect for the officials of the Board of Trade, he thought that to cast upon them the duty of determining what was a reasonable compensation fund in all these cases would be to saddle them with a task which they had neither the power nor the means of performing. Their Lordships heard the other night something said about an arbitrary Secretary for Scotland; but this proposal, if accepted, would be setting up an arbitrary President of the Board of Trade, and would tend to create great unpopularity in regard to that Department. In each individual case it would have to determine whether the fund would afford a reasonable compensation to the workmen, and whether it should be limited (in the case of death) to £50 or £500. That was a duty which it would be impossible for the Board of Trade adequately to discharge. Not only was the Board of Trade to inquire into the amount of compensation provided, but into the probable solvency of the fund. But funds of this kind were necessarily subject to considerable fluctuations; and supposing they became insolvent, were workmen to be deprived of the right of remaining outside funds which were insolvent? His noble Friend, again, did not say what proportion the employer was to contribute. The employer might contribute 6d., and the Board of Trade under the Amendment had no authority to object, but would be bound to set up the fund and give their certificate that the fund came under the terms of the noble Earl's Amendment. These criticisms were not made for the mere sake of criticism, but to show how exceedingly difficult it would be to provide any satisfactory means of judging of the solvency or adequacy of funds of this description. On the grounds mentioned, he believed that Lord Londonderry's declaration in that House the other night would not stand alone, and that it would be found these funds would not be ruthlessly destroyed by the Bill as it stood. On the other hand, he was quite certain that if the Amendment were accepted it would, in the first place, deprive a considerable number of working men of their freedom; and, in the second place, it would establish a system which would be found in practice very difficult to work, and that a good many funds would be set up on a not very sound basis which would not have been established if this artificial support had not been accorded. With regard to the miners of Lancashire, spoken of by Lord Crawford as being largely opposed to the clause prohibiting contracting out, he would call the noble Lord's attention to the proceedings of the Miners' Conference at Birmingham, at which a resolution was passed to the effect that the deputation which waited on Lord Salisbury was not authorised to speak in the name of the miners, and protesting against the principle of contracting out of the Bill. Some of the officials of the Society at the meeting had no knowledge of the deputation. That showed that the great body of the miners took a different view of the subject. For those reasons, he earnestly trusted their Lordships would reject the Amendment, and would leave the Bill in its present shape prohibiting contracting out and preserving to all classes of workmen in the country the rights which Parliament desired to confer upon them.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he heartily supported the Amendment which had been so ably moved and so earnestly advocated upon a somewhat broader ground. The expression "contracting out," which had now become habitual, had been used by his learned Friend. He had the honour to receive a few days ago a deputation from a very important body—the workmen of the Elswick Company, in Northumberland— and was addressed by a most intelligent artisan, one of the most intelligent men he had ever met in that class of life, who protested strongly against the use of the words "contracting out." He said— We do not want to contract out; we want the law to acknowledge our contracts, as better than that which the law provides. That was a very different thing. The words "contracting out" were used by the supporters of the Bill as if that was a dodge or device of the masters to get the men to give up some great advantage. But that was not the position of affairs. It was that the men were to be allowed to accept a greater advantage than that which the law gave them. And who was the great authority for that? If it was acknowledged, as the Lord Chancellor seemed to acknowledge on the Second Reading, that these contracts were better than the law afforded, why should the Government and their supporters do anything to endanger the funds, even though some of them should have a struggling existence? When it was considered, moreover, that these contracts covered all accidents, whether arising from negligence or not, their enormous advantage to the men could hardly be overrated. There could be no doubt that this clause struck at such agreements, and was intended to do so. It had been stated by the noble and learned Lord that only 6 per cent. of the total occurring in the country would be affected by the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, those were not his figures. He had merely quoted those given during the Debate by, he believed, the noble Duke.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he did not give the figures. But it had been stated over and over again that the percentage of accidents to which the present law applied was very small. This Bill only went to cases where negligence could be proved, and in 99 out of 100 cases, as their Lordships knew, that was very difficult. The noble and learned Lord, however, went much further than referring to the small number of cases which the Bill would touch, and pronounced a eulogium upon these contracts. Anybody must see that the London and North Western scale of compensation was more generous and ample than the law would give the men. He had not the experience of noble Lords who had spoken, and could add nothing to what they had said as large employers of labour, but he believed that many large employers would find it not to their interest to continue their contributions to these funds, which included all accidents whatever, whether due to negligence or not. They were, therefore, of enormous importance to the men from a pecuniary point of view, besides the social advantages connected with them, which might possibly not survive. With regard to the last words of the Amendment, he had some doubts whether they would fairly meet the case of sailors, but he had no Amendment to propose which would do so. As an employer of labour a shipowner stood in a totally different position to an employer on land. The former, when his ship left port, was obliged to place himself entirely in the hands of the captain and officers of the ship; while, if a disaster occurred, it was difficult for him, and indeed it might be impossible if the ship was lost with all hands on board, to obtain rebutting evidence if the claims were made against him by relatives of the crew on the ground that the disaster was in any way due to negligence. If they alleged that it was due to the negligence of the officers of the ship, what rebutting evidence could the employers call? None whatever, for all the men would have been drowned. One of the most important parts of this Bill was the removal of all limitation on the amount of compensation payable; and though it might be expedient to enlarge the present limit of three years' pay, which was certainly rather small, it should not be left to juries, possibly filled with the new Unionism, to give damages against the capitalist on totally different grounds to those on which a jury would ordinarily find. He had, therefore, very grave doubts how far sailors ought to be included in this Bill at all; and he found support for that view in the fact that only six years ago a House of Commons Committee, representative of all parties, came to the conclusion that this system of compensation ought not to include the Mercantile Marine. In short, the opinion of that Committee was that sailors ought to be put on the same footing as soldiers, un- dertaking, as they did, a service in which incurring imminent danger was part of their duty. That being the opinion of Parliament only six years ago, what great change had come about to justify the present Government in bringing with one sweep of the pen the whole Mercantile Marine of the country under this provision? The provision presented a serious danger to the interests of the Mercantile Marine, for it would induce the employment of foreign sailors, who might be less likely to bring these actions for damages against shipowners. Their Lordships and the Government should recognise that danger in bringing the whole Mercantile Marine within the sweep of this Bill. With regard to seamen, a clause had been put into his hands by the Federation of Shipowners, but he confessed it did not strike him as being very workable, and as the proposed Amendment was, perhaps, as much as they could hope to attain at present, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. Parliament had, indeed, attacked the question of the protection of life at sea in another way. The Board of Trade had the duty of seeing that a ship's equipment, furniture, and complement were adequate; and notwithstanding the noble Marquess's criticism, the Board of Trade was quite competent to look after the duties which the noble Lord's Amendment would impose on the Department. Since the agitation which Mr. Plimsoll raised some years ago with regard to the Mercantile Marine, stringent provisions had been passed by Parliament which were enforced by the Board of Trade; so that the proposal in the Amendment would not involve new duties. The Board would not have to go into the case of each employer; and even if they had, trade was more and more passing into the hands of great syndicates and companies; and rules and regulations would be drawn up according to which every inquiry would be conducted. The Marquess of Ripon had greatly exaggerated the difficulties of the case in that point of view. He could not help feeling that the position of the Government was rather a perilous one. They asserted over and over again that they did not wish to prevent private agreements; that they thought them excellent. Then why not encourage them? The position of the Government was due to political tempta- tions. It was due to the pressure of the new Liberalism, which, like the new Unionism, hated individual freedom; it liked coercion provided it came from below; and disliked every Act promoting direct and voluntary arrangements between the employer and the men. That was not the feeling individually of noble Lords opposite, or of the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill; but it was the influence under which the Government were now acting. The Government were not relying on the formed opinions or known wishes of the operatives among the British people. In another place a very small majority was gained by the Government, and a majority entirely composed of their Irish allies. These motives were not imputed to them; they were avowed by themselves. Not many weeks ago Mr. John Morley boasted that the Government had made a permanent alliance with Irish nationalism and British democracy. By "British democracy" Mr. Morley meant that portion of the democracy, the new Unionism, which happened to agree with the interests, opinions, and philosophy of Mr. John Morley. It had been avowed that the British people in these domestic matters were to be governed by a majority entirely composed of the Irish Members. The great majority of the Irish Members represented constituencies where there were no industries whatever, in the ordinary sense of the word. They represented nothing but the industry of digging a few potatoes, feeding a few pigs, or making butter. They had no regard for industry; they hated it, and they wished to put pressure through the Government on their British fellow-subjects. It was his duty to say this, because he believed it to be true, and was the only interpretation of the language which had been distinctly used by Mr. John Morley. The case had been put to him very forcibly by the deputation which waited upon him. One or two of the members were very outspoken on the subject. They said that the object of this clause was to prevent them from having their individual freedom; that they were perfectly competent to know their own interests; that they had their own Trade Unions and were independent of the masters in that respect; and that they hoped that their freedom would be respected by Parliament, and that the injustice which the House of Commons had done them by a majority composed of an Irish faction would be remedied by the House of Lords.

THE BISHOP OF DURHAM

said, the Amendment raised a question of the highest importance to all who were interested in the prosperity of the country. It recognised that employers and employed were equally interested in the well-being of the work in which they were united, and alike responsible for its prosperity. That principle needed, at the present time especially, to be maintained, and, if possible, extended in its application. They all knew that the actual conditions of labour rendered close and free intercourse between employer and employed more and more difficult; and it was, therefore, important not to lose any opportunity for such salutary intercourse. Insurance against accidents was just one of those questions which might be most satisfactorily discussed and settled in private conference between those best acquainted with the varying circumstances of different forms of employment. The evidence which had been laid before the House showed that large bodies of men had by such negotiations secured for themselves far larger material advantages than would be afforded them under the provisions of the Bill. It was important to notice also that in one case, at least, the original arrangement had been reconsidered and amended several times in the interests of the employed, which showed that the question received living attention. That being so, surely it was reasonable to keep such advantages for those who had already gained them, and to offer facilities to others in a similar position for gaining greater advantages than any offered them by the Bill. To refuse those privileges would be an infringement of liberty. Could Parliament reasonably refuse to trust those men with the protection of their own interests where they were fully cognisant of all the facts of the case, to whom large influence on graver questions where they had less knowledge was gladly given? No doubt it was important that careful safeguards should be provided lest workmen should surrender their just claims either through ignorance or undue pressure. The Amendment, he believed, provided satisfactorily against such abuses. The material advantages obtained under voluntary arrangements were highly valuable, but he valued still more the good will and mutual trust between employer and employed which those arrangements necessarily produced. The Bill as it stood, on the other hand, must necessarily tend to produce friction between the employer of labour and his workmen, for the prospect of litigation must always be disquieting. Nothing was further from his wish than to diminish the benefits which the Bill would confer upon workmen. He did not wish to take away anything of the just compensation and protection which it ensured to all alike; but, nevertheless, he desired, in supporting the Amendment, to secure for those who were able to use it an opportunity of gaining still greater advantages. It was quite uncertain how far the opportunity could be used, but it was, at least, the duty of the House to preserve it. His own experience in the North had deeply impressed him. He knew what had been effected during the last 21 years in Durham by the joint Board of employers and employed, who thus met face to face. It was difficult to over-estimate the value of their friendly intercourse at the meetings of the Board, and employers and employed had readily confessed how much they had learned from them. The extension of that understanding was the best hope for the future. The Amendment before their Lordships would leave the door open to one large field, at least, for salutary conciliation between the parties whose interests the Bill dealt with. The Bill gave workmen greater protection than they had hitherto enjoyed by providing legal compensation for them in certain cases; and, believing that the Amendment would increase the benefits which the measure would confer upon workmen, he gave it his hearty support; and especially because it tended to deepen and strengthen that goodwill between employers and employed, and to extend the good understanding between them, in which alone a beneficent solution of the grave problems of industrial life could certainly be found.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, if he rightly heard the noble Marquess when objecting to the Amendment, he threw some faint doubt upon the question, whether the Bill would really affect insurance societies for workmen, and he thought he was not wrong in interpreting the Lord Chancellor's speech last week in the same way. It was as plain as daylight that the Bill prohibited insurance contracts, by which workmen accepted the employers' contributions in lieu of what the Bill would give them, and was intended to do so. The language of the 4th, 5th, and 13th clauses put that beyond dispute. To make the matter, if possible, more clear, the 13th clause put an end to all existing contracts of that kind as soon as a workman, by giving notice, could leave his employer's service. Why should the Bill strike at these contracts? No reason had been given, either in the former Debate or now, none whatever; and it was his deliberate opinion that the proposal of the Government was the most illiberal that had been made to Parliament for many years. Where workmen had made contracts which gave them bread, the Government gave them a stone, and said that they should not have the bread. That was the effect of the Bill. There was reason for some restraint upon unlimited liberty of contract where the employer was powerful and the individual workman might be weak; but there was no ground whatever in the workman's interest for prohibiting or discouraging the particular class of contracts dealt with by the Amendment. Could there be anything more just and reasonable than that workmen whose wishes were ascertained by a secret ballot, and who desired to have certain benefits which the Bill would not give them, should be allowed to contract for those benefits? Then, on the other hand, could anything be more just than that an employer who gave freely a large contribution to an insurance fund, probably very much exceeding anything which could possibly be recovered from him under this Bill, should be permitted thereby to cover his liability to the individuals who profited by it? What did the workman buy? Take the case of the London and North Western Railway Company and their 61,000 men. Not one of them knew beforehand under what circumstances he might suffer from accidents which might deprive him of life or limb, or in some other way injuriously affect him. He might suffer injury from accidents for which his employers would not be responsible under the Bill, but nevertheless he obtained a liberal provision in every event. And he was to give up that right for an uncertainty. He might never come within the class for which the Bill made provision: and the contract was made when nobody could know whether he would or not. All that was to be overturned, not for the benefit of the 61,000 men, a large number of whom might suffer from all kinds of accidents, but for the benefit of those unknown individuals among them who might happen to sustain injuries for which the Bill would give compensation, which might or might not be more than the scale of insurance. What could be more reasonable than that workmen should be allowed to contract on the terms which had given such satisfaction to the 61,000 men working for the London and North-Western Railway Company? The only thing that he had heard that sounded at all like a real argument in favour of the clause as it stood was the suggestion that this was all a false alarm, and that employers would do just as much for the men after the passing of the measure as they did before. It was hardly reasonable to expect, however, that employers would act in that way in the new circumstances in which they would be placed, and he did not believe they would. Though they might very likely still act liberally, they would not do the same thing—would not give the same money. Some assistance was afforded towards the determination of that very practical question by what had happened in the cases of the two great Railway Companies whose men desired that the benefits of the contracts they had made should not be taken away from them. What had been the contributions of the London and North Western Company? Until the passing of the Act of 1880, which made them liable for many things for which they were not liable before, their contribution was £1,600 a year. Under the new terms, framed expressly to cover their liability under that Act, as well as to be liberal and generous towards their men, their contribution for the 12 years had been £169,406, or an average of £14,475 a year; while last year it amounted to £17,475; and the arrangement was that the Company should pay five-sixths of the total amount contributed by the men. Anything more extravagantly monstrous than the proposition that that agreement should be terminated by law for the sake of giving to those individual men to whom this Bill might give compensation the privilege of litigation, with the possible chance of getting a little more than they would get in the same case by this agreement, he had never heard. The case was the same with the Brighton Company, except that their total contributions had been smaller. Before the Act of 1880 was passed they gave £1,680 a year, and in the 12 years since they had given £43,602, more than twice their former contribution. Even supposing that both those Companies, if these contracts were destroyed, would give half their present contributions, all that benefit would be taken from the men. He would conclude, as he had begun, by saying that he had heard no reason, and he could conceive none, for putting an end to these contracts, which, besides being beneficial to the men, also tended to promote good feeling, good will, cordiality, and harmony, except that possibly there might be some people in the world to whom the existence of that cordiality and harmony between employer and employed was not acceptable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

My Lords, my noble and learned Friend who has just spoken says he has heard no reasons given in support of the proposals in the Bill. I am afraid, when I have finished he will probably be of the same opinion, because those who entertain very strong and somewhat excited opinions upon any particular question are very apt to think that those who differ from them have no reasons for their views. Though I cannot hope, therefore, to persuade my noble and learned Friend that there is any reason in support of this proposal, yet, nevertheless, I shall state what seem to me to be reasons, and strong ones. The question involved in the Amendment is not whether complete freedom of contract in this matter should be left to the individual; that question of principle is abandoned by the Amendment which your Lordships have to consider, because it is not proposed to leave to the workman his individual choice: he is only to be allowed to contract out of the Bill in case over one-half of the men in the same employ are of opinion that that contract is expedient for them. Therefore, do not let us suppose that the difference between us is the principle of an absolute right to freedom of contract; that is as much abandoned by the noble Earl who supports the Amendment as it is abandoned by the proposer of the Bill. The question is, it being admitted that it ought not to be left to the individual to choose whether he would contract out of the Bill or not, whether it is a sound proposal that the majority should be permitted to determine whether the contract should be made or not? This has been treated all along as if it were a mere money question, a mere money arrangement for the whole of the workmen in the same employment. It was nothing of the kind. One great argument against permitting contracting out is that it is largely the belief of the workmen, and I share that belief, that contracting out would diminish the security for life and limb. It is not merely a money question. It is not merely whether the majority shall be allowed to barter the right of the minority to a certain money compensation as provided by the Bill, and to make a better arrangement, it is whether the minority of the workmen in the employment can be compelled to accept less security for life and limb than if there were no such agreement. That is the argument in favour of the Bill. My noble Friend quoted certain statistics to show that before certain contracts were made in the case of two Railway Companies the proportion of accidents was greater than at present. That, of course, proves nothing at all, because there may have been a variety of circumstances tending to diminish the number of accidents which have had no relation to contracting out one way or the other. The other night the noble Marquess opposite said that in the county of Durham a very small sum indeed— I think £2,900, but I forget in what period of time—had been recovered under the Act of 1880. I am aware of that fact, but the workmen of Durham, so far from regretting it, rejoice at it, and consider it a proof of the great benefits of the Act in considerably diminishing the number of accidents and injuries.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said, that, though the sum recovered under the Act of 1880 was small, as he had stated, the amount of money paid voluntary by the owners was very much larger—he forgot what the exact figures were at the moment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

That does not touch the point I am upon now. In that case there was no contracting out. The amount recovered under the Bill was small, but the miners said— That does not show that we have not received advantages under the Bill, because the stress of the law has led to a diminution of accidents and injuries. They believed it had reduced the chances of accidents. They were men who were able to observe and judge, and that observation was not made at all in relation to this measure, for it was made some four or five years ago, before this measure was in contemplation. Now, my Lords, see what the proposal here is. It would enable the majority of the workmen to secure that the whole of the workmen should contract themselves out of any liability whatsoever of the contractor or others in his employ in cases of negligence. It is certain that the stress of the liability to pay compensation for accident does lead to the exercise of greater care. It is only human nature that it should, and I am satisfied that it does. I will give your Lordships a curious proof of that. Some years ago a considerable number of accidents caused by negligence had occurred on the system of one of the leading Railway Companies. The Directors appointed a Committee to inquire what arrangements or improvements could be made. That Committee went carefully into the matter, and reported a number of particulars in which they thought greater care might be displayed. I venture to say that that Report would never have been made or those changes effected if it had not been for the stress of the money the company had had to pay by reason of their liability for the negligence of their servants. People need some sort of stress put upon them to keep them up to constant watchfulness, and I am convinced that a liability of this description would ensure greater watchfulness. I am quite aware that there are many injuries owing to negligence covered by this Bill which are not caused by the personal negligence of the employer or even of those who may be in the position of superintendents or managers; but it covers them all. It is not enough to show that there are certain cases in which the employer could not be more careful, and which do not result from his negligence, but which are covered by the Bill. This power would allow contracting out in respect of all negligence of the employer, or manager or superintendent of every person in his employ. If there is the knowledge that negligence leads to liability you will have a pressure from the top of the hierarchy downwards throughout the entire employment, which I am satisfied will tend to the greatest safety. That, at all events, is the belief of the workmen, and I place more confidence in the sound judgment of those liable to meet with these accidents than in the theories of those who merely talk about them. I therefore deny that this is a mere money matter. It is a question of greater safety. Surely men will be content, and will be wise to be content, with a smaller sum of money if the result is that accidents are less frequent and fewer lives are lost. What is the compensation given to the family of a man who is killed under the much-lauded arrangement of the North Western Company? £80.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

£100.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

£200 on the Brighton Railway.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

It is £100 only in the case of passenger guards and brakesmen. In fact, to all except a very limited number, it is not £100 but £80, and in cases of permanent disablement it is the same, £80. It is no satisfaction to a man to say—"It is true you are maimed for life; you will never be able to continue your employment, and your means of earning your living is takes away; but you made the terms." Surely it is better that employers should see that a much smaller number of their men are maimed. It is not a question that ought to be argued only as a money question. It may be better for the men to get a somewhat less sum and receive a greater amount of security. It has been said that this is a question between the in- surance arrangements and the plan of the Bill. That is of course a matter of opinion, and when we are told of the opinion expressed against the proposal of the Government by those in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company it is necessary to consider what was the alternative put to them on which they were asked to vote— If you are in favour of the conditional insurance put a cross opposite this; if you are in favour of the Bill a cross opposite that. One can well understand if they understood that they were to give up any provision made by the insurance fund they would think it an undesirable thing. But is that the choice the men would have to make? I am as desirous as the right rev. Prelate can be that good relations should exist between employers and employed. He has spoken of a county of which I know something, and of the Joint Board which exists there. I believe they are as strong there against contracting out as in any part of England. The men there have a Joint Board which has done invaluable work in preventing disputes and dislocation in the mining industry, and at the present time they are not in the slightest degree desirous of being in anything but the position in which this Bill would put them. And now, my Lords, I am going to state why I do not think these funds would come to an end. Can it really be suggested that the contribution of the London and North Western Company was made simply to get free from the liability imposed by the Act of 1880? The figures that have been given show that that is an utter absurdity. If that was all they were insuring against they would be paying the most monstrous premium ever paid since the world was. It was a premium wholly and utterly disproportionate to the risk against which it was supposed to assure. I am satisfied that that was not really the sole reason for which the contribution was made. It was said by the noble Marquess the other night that it was paid to avoid litigation. If you take the possible litigation under the Act of 1880 the amount paid was greatly in excess of what was reasonable, if that was all. For my part, I do not accept the doctrine that employers have no sort of responsibility to those who are injured in their employ. The law may impose upon them this out payment, but I say a certain amount of consideration is due from employers to those who have been injured, maimed perhaps for life, while working in their service; and I maintain that a Railway Company or any employer of labour is not doing more than is just and right and fair in taking that fact into their consideration. We therefore ought not to assume that employers who have thought it right to contribute towards the support of those injured in their service will now cease to make those contributions. But if the one great object in making the contribution was to avoid litigation, that motive will remain in all eases of accident in which the amount of the payment under the fund would be as much as the claimant would get by legal proceedings. Of course, the payment would avoid litigation now as much as before, and those would form by far the greater number of cases. Litigation will only ensue where the claim made is for a sum in excess of that provided by the fund, which would be practically a very limited number of cases. But what would be the result if the fund were given up? The employer, being liable in every case for the negligence of his workmen, would have the risk and probability of litigation in a vast number of cases, from which he would be perfectly free if he had the fund, even although it existed without any contracting out at all. The Bill enlarges the area of the employers' responsibility; but it is not supposed that the employers will add to their contributions to the insurance funds. It must be remembered that the men make the larger contribution as it is, and that is made on the basis of the existing liability. With regard to this increase of the employers' liability, the first clause of the Amendment gives power to the majority to bind the minority to allow themselves to contract out of the Bill without any regard to the fact that they acquire under this Bill increased rights. That does not seem to be altogether fair, even from the point of view of the opponents of the Bill. Then, with regard to future funds. I cannot help thinking that if the proposal of the Amendment were permitted it would go far to render the Bill nugatory. It would be perfectly easy to make arrangements under the second part of the Amendment which would give the employé no substantial return for the benefits which he gave up. What is it he contracts himself out of? What is the right which he is to give up? It is the right when he has been injured by the negligence of the servants of his employer to receive fair and reasonable compensation. That is the only right which Parliament gives him; but the proposal is that he shall be content with something less than fair and reasonable compensation. He is to give up the right. Why should such a contract be required at all between employers and employed? Because that is what it comes to. Now, my Lords, I own that I have the greatest objection to one part of the proposal as the Bill now stands. It is that the Board of Trade shall determine whether the compensation given is reasonable or not. There is an analogy to this proposal, but I will not say whether the result has been successful or not. The Board of Trade was engaged for some time inquiring as to what were reasonable rates. After the subject had been considered by the Department, and by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, everybody said the rates were utterly unreasonable, and the matter had to be considered over again by a Committee of this House. That is not, therefore, a very encouraging precedent. First of all, it seems to me to be a dangerous thing to bring in the Board of Trade, which, after all, is a Government Department, presided over by a Minister, to settle matters of acute controversy with great bodies of workmen. I was rather surprised I did not hear this denounced by the Duke of Argyll—I was surprised to find him supporting this part of the proposal. The noble Duke is very fond of warning us of the danger of leaving matters to a Public Department. He would not have a Public Department made the arbitrator to settle the question of betterment, because it was presided over by a Minister subject to political influences. But he had nothing but expressions of satisfaction for a proposal to leave to a Public Department the determination of a disputed matter between two classes of workmen as to whether the standard of compensation was reasonable or not. What is to be the test of whether the compensation is reasonable or not? It is said you may be guided by what is done now by Railway Companies and other employers. Is that a test? The London and North Western Railway Company give £80 and £100 in cases of death or permanent disablement. There might be two opinions as to whether that is reasonable compensation. Another Railway Company, which does not require its servants to contract out of the Act, provides £130 in similar cases. How are those payments to be a guide to the Board of Trade? How is the President of the Board of Trade to say that the £80, any more £130, is reasonable compensation? I believe in the latter case also the Company requires no contracting out of the provisions of the Bill.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

asked whether the Lord Chancellor was able to state what was the amount contributed to the fund by the Company?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

I am unable to say. But that is no test at all; and whether the employers contribute one-tenth or one-hundredth part of the fund, they will equally come within the provisions of this section. What I was dealing with for the moment was the test of reasonable compensation, and I ask why are you to take the £80 of one Company more than the £130 of the other. The noble Earl alluded to the fact that one of those Companies paid only £1,400 at one time, while they now pay £14,000 a year to the fund; and he asks, Can you suppose that they will continue it if they can no longer contract out of the Bill? My answer is that some Companies do find considerations which lead them to pay, although they do not even require their men to contract themselves out of the Act. Now, my Lords, I do not think this a convenient time for discussing the general question as affecting seamen to which the noble Duke alluded. I do not withdraw a single word I said on the last occasion as to the expediency of arrangements by which workmen may be compensated in all cases of accidents. I believe it to be a good thing, but I do not believe you will satisfactorily secure it in the manner proposed by this Amendment. I do not believe that you will in the result further the cause we all must desire by the proposal now made. I believe that the funds will go on, and that the good funds will flourish just as much afterwards as now, with this additional advantage, that in certain cases the men will receive fuller compensation than they get now; I should desire that whenever a man is injured he should as far as possible receive full compensation. It is not a bad thing that he should get it, and my belief is that if this Bill is allowed to pass without the proposed clause, the men in a certain number of cases would be better compensated than at present, and that on the whole there would be no cases in which they would lose the compensation they have hitherto enjoyed.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I shall not deal with the observations of the noble Lord in regard to the power of the Board of Trade to deal with this matter, because to all objections of that kind there is the simple answer that if the Board of Trade finds the task more difficult than we anticipate, the result will be that the clause to which he objects will be rendered less operative than it otherwise would be, and therefore that the Amendment will do better than he expects. There is consequently no reason why I should attempt to remove his profound belief in the incapacity of the Board of Trade. But with respect to what he says we have conceded regarding the principle of the Amendment, I must say the noble and learned Lord hardly treats us fairly. As far as I am concerned, I do not want that clause about "reasonable" at all. I am quite satisfied with the approval of the men, which seems to me the one thing needed and the one thing I care about. If I have got that, I am willing to get rid of the Board of Trade and every other restriction. But by way of conciliation, in order to satisfy critics like the noble and learned Lord, we have made certain concessions, and when they have been made the noble and learned Lord comes forward and says:—"In making those concessions you have sacrificed the whole principle on which you stood. We are agreed upon the principle, and it is now a mere matter of detail." The noble and learned Lord reminds me of the tempter in the mediaeval story, who, having induced his victim to take one step from the path of right, told him that the principle was gone, and that there was no reason why he should not at once plunge into the utmost enormities of guilt. But the noble and learned Lord took the strongest ground that I think he could take in the early part of his speech. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord, and I would much rather not consider this as a matter of shillings and pence. I entirely and heartily concur with him in the belief that there is a much higher object to be attained, so far as it can be attained, and that is the safety of those who practise these industries to the danger of life and limb, which often produce such lamentable accidents. Those are the objects which we have in view. I would go a step further than the noble and learned Lord, and if I could have my way I should like to see insurance made universal on the principle on which these agreements are now drawn—namely, that it should apply to all accidents to whatever cause they are due—whether they are due to the negligence of the men or not—and I would gladly see the State giving its aid in order to provide the machinery for carrying such insurance into effect. I have merely entered that protest in order that the noble and learned Lord may not accuse me of any indifference to what may be called the saving and protective action, if it exists, of these pecuniary arrangements. But I cannot understand how the noble and learned Lord imagines that the advantages of protection in these cases tell against the Amendment of my noble Friend, or in favour of the state of things which would exist if the Bill passed without the Amendment. By the Amendment a certain number of employers would be bound to pay compensation in the case of all accidents however caused. Would that not supply every motive that could be supplied by such a payment for care in the selection of materials and in the employment of those who are to use them? How would you increase the intensity of that motive by cutting off the number of cases in which it would be applied? Instead of applying it to what, for want of a better word, I may call culpable accidents, these arrangements for payment of compensation apply to all accidents. Whatever protective motive is infused into the employer's mind by the necessity of that payment applies to all accidents whether great or small. You have compensation for a certain number, and you reduce the number of those who are to have it, and then you tell me you have supplied him with a greater motive for care than he had before. It seems to me the noble and learned Lord has shown a most ingenious power in putting the argument upon its head. Supposing the Bill passed as it is, without my noble Friend's Amendment, what would be the result? Do you think that the great employers would sit still and wait till the risks came to their door with which this Bill threatens them? Do you imagine that they would not all protect themselves by insurance against the very great increase of danger that you have provided? The danger is not so great now, and yet insurance prevails very largely. But if this Bill passes, the danger, the risk, the uncertainty would be such as might make many an employer tremble. Let me take two instances. First, let us take the owner of a fiery mine. Now he is only liable if it is really his own fault that an accident happens to his workmen. By way, as Voltaire would have said, of encouraging him, you want to provide that he is also to pay if the accident is due to the fault of somebody else, and you do it by abolishing the doctrine of common employment. Three hundred men are at the bottom of a mine. I suppose that no care or judgment whatever could enable the employer, even if he were an archangel from Heaven, to determine whether all these men are to be absolutely trusted for entire care, circumspection, and prudence. One of these men opens his lamp, and a fearful calamity occurs. Three hundred men are killed. I should rejoice if the families received compensation, but I should like, as I have said, to see it done by a system of universal insurance which would not press it upon any one particular man. If he does not protect himself against these sudden risks by insurance, the employer is liable for the payment of £20,000, £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000—enough to be his absolute ruin—and that is a risk which stands before him always, dependent upon no circumstances that he can control, to be averted by no precautions that he can possibly use, and he may be reduced from the position of a rich man to a beggar by the operation of this statute. Do you think that under these circumstances he will not protect himself by insurance? Of course it is his only chance, and I hope it may be possible for insurance to be provided with sufficient ease to prevent a very large falling off in this kind of industry. Take another industry which has been mentioned in this debate—the industry of the seaman. There is the greatest possible consternation among the owners and employers in consequence of this Bill. I have seen the representatives of nine-tenths of the tonnage of this country, and the language they held as to the dangers laid upon them from the natural risks of the vocation, and also from that liability to false testimony which anybody who has anything to do with the Admiralty Courts knows is congenital to all maritime causes, showed that their fears are extreme, that unless they could be protected by insurance it might make a very serious diminution in the extent to which commerce and their industry could be prosecuted. I have a letter from the Steamship Owners' Association written yesterday. They say— This Association, in conjunction with several large steamship owners in the City of London, have for a considerable time past had under consideration the provisions of the Employers' Liability Bill, and they view with dismay the disastrous effect it will have if passed as it now stands upon shipowners as a body. Your Lordships cannot treat this as an imaginary danger. Just think what it is you do. That you should require compensation for accidents upon land arising from deficient equipment, from bad materials, or anything for which the owner could control, I do not for a moment complain; but if at sea the look-out man slumbers for a moment and does not see a reef, if the man who throws the lead is careless and calls the lead wrong, if the helmsman at a critical moment turns the wheel the wrong way —in all those cases, if the result is the loss of the ship and the loss of the men, the owner will, under the Bill, be liable for any damages which a jury may be pleased to inflict for every one of those men. That is a fearful danger to place before shipowners. It is a danger which they have never been made to undergo before: and when you likewise reflect upon those other dangers that arise from the very doubtful testimony which is always obtainable at sea, I think you will quite understand that insurance will not be a matter of choice, but a matter of absolute necessity. And if they all insure, your argument about this Bill protecting life and limb is absolutely destroyed. The other point upon which the noble Lord dwelt, as he dwelt the other night, was the question whether the owners would cease to contribute to the funds which they have hitherto supported. The intention of the owners is not, however, a matter of doubt. The most prominent among them, the London and North Western Railway Company, have declared it in the most specific and emphatic manner, and they are supported by a great many other owners, who use the same language. Here is what is stated by the executive committee of the London and North Western Insurance Fund— The Board of Directors, in July last, —it was not passed, therefore, merely to influence this House— after careful consideration, passed a resolution that, if the Bill became law in its present form, the contribution must cease. Any amount of hypothesis is, of course, open to a Minister in a difficulty; but, short of an imagination that can compass the Arabian Nights, is it possible to conceive that grave business men, speaking in the face of the world, who intended to continue the arrangements as they now exist, though the Bill should pass, would ever have written such a formal letter and given such a formal notice as that, or that any of those who have expressed the same opinion would take a similar course? I have seen many of the members of these Societies, and they, none of them, have any doubt whatever but that the employers will cease to contribute if the Bill passes in its present form. It is all very well for the noble Lord to make optimistic suggestions, but the men know their own business best, and they are sure that under the clause they would lose the very great advantage of being compensated for accidents of all kinds if this Bill should pass as it is now. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord allows enough for the feelings of human nature. If, after these employers have made great exertions in order to establish good relations and to avoid litigation with their men, Parliament comes in and shatters with a rude hand all they have done, merely in order to get the election votes of the Trades Unions, is it likely that there would be no feeling of exasperation and resentment at treatment so unworthy and so unjust? I do not believe that these contributions would be renewed or the funds kept up. On the contrary, I think a far less agreeable feeling will be introduced into many employments between employers and employed by this action of the Government. Gradually they will learn to look upon themselves as hostile interests, as the Government persists in treating them, and the employers will be constantly on the watch for the possibility of new encroachments being made upon their freedom, dictated by similar motives; and an attitude of mutual suspicion and hostility, instead of an attitude of mutual friendship and conciliation, will be fostered by the unfortunate action which the Government have thought fit to take. I believe that the right rev. Prelate who spoke this evening touched the real key-note of the matter. It is a great object, no doubt, to save shillings and pence; it is a great object, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, to prevent accidents to life and limb; but there is a greater object still, and that is, that the classes of society by whom the work of this great complicated machine is carried on, should live in harmony and good will towards each other. It is quite as much because I believe that the Amendment of my noble Friend will contribute to that great and supreme object as because it will best secure the other two that I shall give him my hearty support.

LORD STALBRIDGE

said, remarks had been made by the Lord Chancellor and also by the noble Marquess who first spoke on behalf of the Government to which it was his duty to reply at once. The noble Marquess was puzzled by two things: how the North Western Company were justified now in paying the sum paid by them to the insurance fund, and why they should not continue paying the same amount in the future. The reason why the employers had continued the existing arrangement as long as they had, was that when the existing Act was passed in 1880, it was considered that it would conduce very much to the friendly feeling between employers and employed if advantage were taken of the clause which gave the power to contract out; and the men were met in such a way as to give them perfect compensation, which justified them in contracting out of the Act. The bargain was made at that time with the men; it had proved a great advantage to them; and they were so thoroughly satisfied with the working of that arrangement that they wished it to continue. It was not, therefore, the duty of the Directors to withdraw from that arrangement. On the contrary, it had conduced to such good feeling between employers and employed, and had worked so satisfactorily as an insurance against accidents, that they felt bound to continue it up to the present time. But when the Directors of the London and North Western Railway Company saw that the condition on the part of the men, that they should contract themselves out of the Act, would be taken away from them, then it was clear that automatically, ipso facto, the contribution of the Company must cease; and a resolution to that effect was passed by the Board in July last. This was a battle of the soldiers and not of the officers. The men had showed that they wished the freedom which they to-day enjoyed to be continued to them in the future, and that they had no wish to be deprived of that freedom by any Act of Parliament. They had taken every means in their power of showing their approval of the existing arrangement, and why they approved of it. If the men had not approved of the existing arrangement, surely under the ballot they had every opportunity of showing their disapproval of it, and of indicating that they wished to throw the arrangement to the wind; yet 95 per cent. had, on the contrary, shown that they were anxious and determined to do all in their power to go on in the same way in the future as they had done in the past. The company would not, however, continue the present arrangement, because, as already pointed out, the condition of the one side having fallen through there could be no advantage to the other in its continuance. He would ask the Lord Chancellor how there could possibly be greater security in the future than there had been in the past, when the powers of the company were delegated to an Insurance Company, who, in the future, would take all the responsibility upon their own shoulders for a comparatively small payment. Then with regard to the point of greater security being afforded to life and limb. He could say that in the North Western service the money question did not enter into the matter at all. Whenever an accident of any sort or kind occurred, the first question asked by the company was how could such an accident be avoided in the future? On the question of security it had been shown by a document drawn up by the men themselves, and which there was no reason whatever to doubt, because it was taken from official figures, that the yearly average for the nine years , before the passing of the Act, 1872–1880, when there were 25,900 members, the average number of accidents paid for yearly by the Insurance Company was 85, or 3.281 per 1,000 members; while for the 12 years subsequently to the passing of the Act of 1880, when there were 39,749 members, the yearly average paid for was 79, or 1,987 per 1,000 members. These figures, therefore, showed an enormous reduction since the Employers' Liability Act was passed. The company wished that to continue, and did not wish that their money, which now went into the pockets of the men or their representatives, should in future go to the Insurance Companies. That the London and North Western should continue to pay the same compensation which they paid now was out of the question, as it would be the means of putting a certain sum of ready money into the men's pockets, which would immediately be grasped at by speculative attorneys, who would tell the men that they could get them perhaps £200 or £300 more. It was impossible to imagine that they could be a party to such a scheme as that, and so put a premium on litigation. That fact was perfectly well recognised by the men themselves, who were as anxious to keep free from litigation as the Directors could possibly be. A great deal had been heard lately about national insurance, and surely, when there were such large bodies of workmen in connection with whom schemes of insurance had been found practicable and well carried out, it was one step towards national insurance in the future. The Lord Chancellor rather sneered at the £100 given in case of death, and said that was limited only to a certain class. The fact, however, was that class No. 1 was open to any employé who earned more than 22s. per week. More than that, if from failing health or the like his wages were reduced, he still had the option of staying in class No. 1 on payment of 3d. per week, so that in that way it was open to a large majority of the employés of the company to get for their personal representatives either £100 or £80 at death as they thought fit. He hoped their Lordships, on behalf not only of the men of the London and North Western (who had taken spontaneous action in this matter), but of hundreds of thousands of other working men all over the country, would accept the Amendment, and not drive working men into the litigation and difficulty which would be the inevitable result of the Bill as brought in by Her Majesty's Government. On Her Majesty's Government the blame and responsibility would lie for the disagreements and troubles which would be inevitably occasioned in the future should the Bill pass in its present form.

On Question that these words be here inserted? Their Lordships divided:— Contents 148; Not-Contents 28.

On Question upon the Earl of DENBIGH'S Amendment to omit the words "by a majority of them," and to insert "two-thirds of the said workmen,"

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, as a matter of logic, he preferred the bare majority, but he thought there was a very general consensus of opinion in favour of the larger figure, and would therefore suggest, as conducing to an agreement among their Lordships upon the matter, that the substitution should be made. He had communicated with the North Western men, and agreed with them that two-thirds would be preferable to the bare majority.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, in framing Lord Dudley's Amendment the words had not been made sufficiently plain to accomplish the object aimed at in the Amendment moved in the House of Commons, which, beyond all question, ought to be done, in order to preserve the principle of what their Lordships had done. For that purpose he moved, after the word " ballot," to insert the words or of any future accession of workmen in the same service to such agreement. It was of the very nature of these insurance agreements that the men as they entered the service should come under them if they pleased. That should follow as a matter of course if it was not sufficiently provided for already, which he thought was not the case.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that persons who might join the service of the company afterwards were provided for in the words, "agreement made after the passing of this Act."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, the existing Societies which it was intended to preserve should be open to those joining the service afterwards: otherwise their integrity and continuity would not be preserved. That was what was proposed in the House of Commons, and it followed reasonably and necessarily.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, it was not much use opposing any proposal on this clause, though the result might very well be that persons might be taken into a service on condition of joining a fund and contracting out of the Act, notwithstanding that they might on entering the service have been sufficiently numerous to turn the majority the other way, and against the arrangement.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

said, the case was met by the Friendly Societies Acts upon the question of increasing or opening new branches. He had had occasion some time ago to look into the very point now raised by the noble and learned Lord, and thought Lord Dudley's Amendment would meet the case, and that these funds would come under the clause in that Act if the Societies were properly registered.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

reminded their Lordships that at the first triennial examination, or when the Board of Trade thought fit to inquire, those persons would be allowed to come in, and would give their votes by secret ballot.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

The Board of Trade had a discretion in the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

agreed that it was unlimited.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

thought it would be dangerous to rely upon any words which might be found in the Friendly Societies Acts. If the Friendly Societies Acts would have the effect stated, the addition of these words could do no possible harm; and, if not, they were necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

proposed to add a new sub-section to Lord Dudley's Amendment, enacting that it must be certified by some actuary who is approved by the Treasury, who has exercised the profession of actuary for at least five years, that such funds and the contributions thereto are proportionate to the contingent liabilities. This was to guard against a future danger of Societies being started or contracts being made between employers and workmen, which, if not sound, would result in the latter having given up very valuable consideration under the Bill, for what would be no consideration at all except in bankruptcy. If State policy would allow, it would be well that the State itself should guarantee the sound financial basis of these funds. That, however, had never been part of the duty of any Government Department. But under the Friendly Societies Act the Department appointed an actuary to certify to the Registrar by signing a statement of the funds and contributions. He wished to provide that the same official should certify in these cases also. This was very important, and he had been specially requested by the workmen he represented to see it done if possible. The noble Marquess had twitted him with having no authority, on behalf of those men, from the Miners' Federation. They had no desire to speak for that body of Trades Unionists, but those men, possibly Trades Unionists themselves, looked in the first place to their individual freedom. Coercion could come just as readily from below as it was said to come from above, and the ballot was quite necessary to protect workmen against the tyranny of the new Unionism. The Societies he represented were not, established yesterday, but were founded long before this employers' liability was heard of. He spoke for 59,300 men in Lancashire and Cheshire, for 14,000 men in North Wales, and for 59,600 in South Wales, every one of whom had a right to make himself heard in that House, and were not to be silenced at the bidding of any Central Association in Birmingham. The revenues of those Societies were £61,000 in Lancashire and Cheshire, £11,000 in North Wales, and £55,000 in South Wales, and they treated their men quite as liberally as the Railway Companies, of whom so much had been said. Contracting out of the Act as it was called had been an unqualified benefit to the men. At a time of great disquietude the coalowners in Lancashire met the men to see what could be done, and, at the men's request, raised their subscriptions to the fund from 15 to 25 per cent. They got the best legal opinion they could, and were advised by the Solicitor General, Sir Farrer Herschel, and Mr. Smith, to adopt the form of contract which was in existence at the present time. The Lord Chancellor said these subscriptions would always be kept up from sentiment. Well, sentiment could always be reduced to figures, and the figures showed employers' contributions of 5.6 per cent. from sentiment in the various Societies, including Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, and North Staffordshire, as against 25 per cent. given by the employers where the men contracted out of the Act. In the event of this Bill passing, and the employers reverting to their original subscriptions, as he was absolutely certain would be the case, their Lordships could understand how much the funds would go down, and the great loss the men would suffer. At present, from the moment the men left their doors for their day's work until they returned home at night they were insured for any injury just as much as if the injury occurred while they were doing their master's work and from his negligence. The noble and learned Lord further said that if the masters had to pay under the Act they would take more care, but he forgot the comparatively small amount for which they could insure and what they paid under the arrangements with their workmen. They could insure for £13 per 100 men employed, against every risk arising under the Act, as against £24 7s. 6d. contributions to these funds, the men contracting out of the Act. In saying the contributions would be continued, the Lord Chancellor was speaking "sentimentally" and not as the man of sterling common sense they knew him to be. It was certain that these large funds would be greatly depleted. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved, to add the following sub-section:— That it shall be certified by some actuary approved by the Board of Trade who has exercised the profession of actuary for at least five years, that such funds and the contributions thereto are, in his opinion, duly proportionate, to the contingent liabilities."—[The Earl of Crawford.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, the noble Lord appealed to him, but he had no answer to give him. All he had to say was that he bowed to the decision of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

VISCOUNT CROSS moved to insert after Clause 5 a clause providing that any seaman intending to claim compensation for personal injury should give notice in writing, stating the nature of the injury, to the master of the vessel on which he is employed, who should forthwith enter a copy of the notice in the official log of the vessel, or to the owner of the vessel, within three months from the date of his sustaining the injury, and that the action should be commenced within three months of the seaman's arrival at any port of the United Kingdom; but providing that if he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that, by reason of the nature of his injury, or otherwise, it was impossible for him to give such notice the Court might dispense with it, and decide the case as though such notice had been given. He said: My Lords, I presented to the House, a few days ago, two Petitions, signed by the shipowners of London and Liverpool, setting forth reasons why a clause of this kind should be agreed to, and their fears with regard to the working of the Bill. The signatories of those Petitions represented nine-tenths of the whole Mercantile Marine, and rather than have this Bill as presented by the Government, they say they would prefer to be made liable for all accidents under all circumstances. There would be a great feeling of relief among all shipowners at the action taken by your Lordships, and I hope this Amendment will receive more favourable consideration from the Government than that which has just been discussed. Of course, there is a great difference between the case of men employed in shipping and the case of men employed in other industries. A ship goes to a foreign port, and the owner can exercise no control over it, or over anybody there. When the Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1886 came to make their Report, they intentionally confined their recommendations to shipping when in home ports. And your Lordships will remember the great difference between home and foreign ports. Assuming an accident to take place at Hong Kong, and that owing to the negligence of the owner (that is to say, one man on board the ship having been negligent) another has been hurt. Under the Bill as it stands, the owner would be liable. But in regard to anything happening in foreign ports, the question of evidence is a very important matter, and the shipowners complain of the great difficulty they might have in obtaining evidence to show that they would not be liable under the Act. The crew may disappear or go to other ships, and when the vessel comes home and the action is brought, evidence that would perhaps have freed the owners from liability may not be available. When the ship comes back and the complaint is made, all the evidence may have disappeared which the shipowners could have called, or he may simply be able to call one or two sailors who had been mere spectators. In this matter of evidence you place the owner of the ship at a very great disadvantage. An action might be brought in respect of an accident said to have occurred on a voyage, and half the crew might have dispersed in a foreign port. It would therefore be very difficult in these circumstances for the owner to obtain evidence. I venture to hope my Amendment will receive favourable consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, because when the shipowners waited upon the Home Secretary, although he would have nothing whatever to say to them upon the main question which we have just disposed of, yet upon this question of evidence he treated the deputation in a very different way. I am told that the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman said to the deputation was this: "Let me deal," he said, "with one or two other points. One is the difficulty in getting evidence. There I think you have a strong case—I mean to say, the case where an accident perhaps is sustained through negligence upon a voyage upon the high seas; the person who is injured and perhaps a large number of the crew discharged at a foreign port, the shipowners' means of obtaining evidence as to what actually occurred is dissipated, and practically destroyed before any claim is made upon him. I agree with you. I think that is a case of hardship, and it is one which certainly deserves careful consideration to see whether it cannot be met in some practicable and reasonable manner. Closely connected with that is a point of time, whether or not there wight to be some special limit of time within which claims of this kind should be made. Well, I am quite prepared to consider that, and to see whether it is not possible to devise some remedy for the purpose." No further communication came from the Secretary of State, and, therefore, the shipowners have drawn this Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper. I ask the Government to say—and I press them very strongly—what practical or reasonable Amendment preferable to my own they could suggest. And if they cannot suggest anything preferable, then I press upon them to accept what is down upon the Paper. It is a matter upon which the shipowners feel very strongly, and the Home Secretary felt very strongly that great injustice might be done unless some Amendment such as I propose is adopted. I therefore move the Amendment which stands on the Paper.

Amendment moved, to insert the following clause:— A seaman intending to claim compensation for personal injury shall give notice in writing, stating, in ordinary language, the nature of the injury, to the master of the vessel on which he is employed, who shall forthwith enter a copy of the notice received into the official log of the vessel, or to the owner of the vessel, within three months from the date of his sustaining such injury, and the action shall be commenced within three months of the seaman's arrival at any port of the United Kingdom. Provided always, that if on the hearing of the case the plaintiff can show to the satisfaction of the Court that, by reason of the nature of his injury, or otherwise, it was impossible for him to give such notice as aforesaid, the Court shall dispense with such notice, and shall hear and decide the case as though such notice had been duly given."—(The Viscount Cross.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

Upon the general question as to whether seamen should be brought within the operation of this Bill, I should like to say a few words. It was felt it was very difficult in principle to exclude them from the operation of this Bill if the principle was sound that the doctrine of common employment should cease as regards other members of society. When you are doing away with that doctrine generally, and bringing all employed into the same position of freedom, it seemed very difficult on any sound principle to omit the seamen altogether. I am conscious that this necessarily casts a considerable burden on the shipowners, but I do not think it. casts a greater burden upon them than it does upon other employers. One cannot but remember the very grave fears which were expressed when the Employers Liability Bill of 1880 was before the House of Commons, and the satisfactory proof we have since had that those very grave apprehensions were unfounded. I have a very decided hope that it will be the same in the case of the shipowners for the present Bill. The apprehensions as to the effect of the change proposed are very great. I think the shipowners take an exaggerated view of the probabilities of the case. I remember quite well it being asserted in the House of Commons that the Bill of 1880 would destroy the mining industries, and that they would absolutely cease if the Bill were passed. With regard to the present Bill, it having been said that it was a monstrous thing a measure of this description should be carried through by the votes of the Irish Members, because the Irish are a purely agricultural people, and have no industries. If that argument goes for anything it must go beyond Ireland. If you exclude Irish counties which are agricultural why should not English counties which are agricultural and Scotch counties be excluded? And if you take away agricultural opinion and confine the voting to what I may call the seats of artizans, I am not at all sure the expression of opinion would not be even more favourable to the Government. This matter of seamen is, I agree, one well worthy of consideration. I am informed it was discussed in the House of Commons to amend it, but the general feeling was against this special dealing with the case of seamen. There is an indisposition to treating one particular class of employed differently to the others—making them give a notice which you do not require other classes of workmen to give. It makes the workman feel he is in a worse position than the rest of the working classes. It is said that it is more difficult for the employer when he is a shipowner to get evidence, as an accident might take place at a distance. I think that argument applies more to the employed—the sailor himself—than it does to the shipowner, because very often the shipowner has the master of the ship and the men in his constant employment. Whereas when the crew disappears and vanishes the obtaining of evidence would be greater on the part of the sailor. But the objection to this clause is not merely the requiring exceptional treatment for the sailor. When you require notice in writing to be given, as here suggested, it may prove, as it has in the past, rather in the nature of a trap. It has stood in the way sometimes of sound and legitimate claims, and I doubt very much whether it has really prevented any unjust claims. With one part of this clause I entirely agree in principle, but I think it should be of more general application. Our period of limitation for bringing actions of personal wrongs and personal injuries is, I think, ridiculously too long. It seems to me that if a person has sustained an injury of this sort there is no reason why the action should not in all cases be brought in a very much shorter period. I hope at an early date to bring in a measure in respect of all these injuries very greatly diminishing the period within which the action can be brought. I hope to deal not only with the case of seamen, but all others in the direction which the noble Viscount desires, because I have a very strong feeling on the subject. I cannot help thinking that any seaman who has sustained an injury and who does not complain of it to the master of the vessel at the time would be in great difficulty when he came into Court to claim damages for that injury. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that notice would not in that way come to the mind of the master. It would be in the power of the shipowner, and I think it would be a power which the shipowner would exercise, to give directions to the master to enter into the log any injury to a workman and the particulars of the injury given at the time. That would be the shipowner's safeguard. It would be a very good safeguard against a man who had given no notice or received an injury not in the way he described, or received no injury at all. I do not, however, think the additional advantage to the shipowner would be worth the insertion in this Bill of a clause putting the seaman—and this would be very strongly felt—in a different position to other workmen.

VISCOUNT CROSS

I have not the immense amount of faith that the learned Lord on the Woolsack has. We have had examples of his faith before this evening as to what will be the result— and my faith will be when this clause is put upon the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

I shall not divide against the clause. I shall simply say "Not-content."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 6.

THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY

This clause relates to the procedure under this Act to be adopted in case of accidents. The clause gives jurisdiction to the County Courts, but at the same time it gives power to transfer actions to the Higher Court in all cases where the claim is £300 and over. When this Bill was first framed the sum named against which the action could be transferred was £100. I propose by the Amendment I move, and which I hope will be accepted by the Government, to merely change the £300 to £100—the sum which the Government themselves originally fixed. I would like to ask, whoever replies to me, by what means the Government changed from the £100 to the £300? One of my reasons for moving this Amendment is that the natural effect of this clause, if it is carried as it stands, will be that all claims of £300 and under the plaintiff will of necessity select the County Court in which to lay their actions. I would remind your Lordships that while I speak with every possible respect of County Court Judges, their Courts, and the juries over which they preside, the jury which would have to try this action would be a jury of five men, in all probability shopkeepers in the locality in which the disaster had taken place, and naturally their sympathies would be, to a great extent, in favour of the claimant. And while I do not wish in any way to speak disrespectfully of the County Court Judges, I think you will agree with me that the County Court Judges are not of the same calibre as the Judges of the Higher Courts. It must also be remembered that a great deal depends in these cases upon the manner in which the Judge directs the jury both as to the evidence which is laid before them and to what does and does not constitute negligence. Therefore, I say that a far better chance of justice—using the term with every respect—will be found in the High Court. I know it will be said that appeals from the decisions of the County Courts are permissible, but, at the same time, I think—and no lawyer will contradict me—that appeals in which these County Court decisions have been reversed are very few and far between. To have those decisions reversed it must be proved that the Judge has misdirected the jury, or that there is no evidence to support the finding. But the present Bill proceeds upon the general principle of placing employers upon the same footing with regard to responsibility for injuries caused to workmen by their fellow-workmen and injuries caused to strangers by their workmen. As your Lordships know, under the ordinary law, if an action was brought by strangers against the employer, it would necessarily be tried in the High Court in any case where the amount claimed exceeded not £100, but £50. It is well known to your Lordships that the High Court can only remit to the County Court when it is proved by the defendant that the plaintiff has not means wherewith to pay the costs if he loses. If, therefore, the alteration of the law is to be logical, the employer should have the same power to select the tribunal in cases of injury to his workmen by their fellow-workmen as he has in the case of injury caused to strangers by his men. I could tell your Lordships many cases in which the decisions of the County Courts and the Superior Courts have not been the same in identical cases. I was told of cases by a legal friend of mine with regard to an explosion which took place. No less than four claims were put forward in connection with that explosion, all owing to the same cause and all injuring the same property. In three of these cases, as the claims were under £50, the trials took place in the County Courts, and in all three cases, as decided, the claimants received their costs. The other case, identically the same, but in which the damages were put at a higher figure, was tried in the Superior Court, and that action was dismissed. Again, I would draw attention to the fact that in Ireland if any claimant or defendant is cast in damages, it is open to either party to appeal to a higher Court for a re-hearing of that case, and the case is heard by a Judge without a jury. Why should the County Courts have such immense jurisdiction in complicated cases—for I maintain that these are and must be complicated cases—while in the simplest actions such as for goods sold and delivered they have only jurisdiction limited to £50? It may be said that the costs of the higher Courts are so expensive that they might deter men without means entering into litigation. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that in cases of accidents that happen in mines, the claimant is, as a rule, carried by the Union of the workmen to which he belongs. In all probability the Union will take entire control of his case and fight it for him. I daresay the noble Lord on the Woolsack knows that if the employer wins he does not often get his costs, for the simple reason that he cannot get it from the individual man who has brought the action, and he cannot get any redress from the association which has carried the man through. If the Government will consider this question I think they will say that I have good grounds for bringing the Amendment forward. I hope they will allow the Amendment to be adopted.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 26, to leave out ("three") and insert ("one"). — (The Marquess of Londonderry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

The sentiment upon this subject does not seem to be the same on this side of the Tweed as it is on the other, because I have received from employers in Scotland applications asking that an alteration should be made so that cases over £300 should not be too readily taken from the Sheriff Court, which corresponds to the County Court in England, into the Court of Session. Therefore the request from the other side of the Tweed is precisely opposite to that of the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

But there is a difference with regard to jury and non-jury.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

I will come to that presently. The noble Marquess says workmen will be supported by the Unions, that the Unions will bring the actions, and therefore the question of expense will not be so important. But it really is a question of expense which has led to this revision. Of course an action will still be taken to the Superior Court if good cause is shown. This provision in the Bill only applies to taking the action to the High Court as a right. The measure deals with workmen generally, and there are a great number of workmen who are not members of Unions, and even where they are the Unions are not always prepared to enter into litigation. A friend of mine who has seen a great deal of the work in the East End of London told me that in many cases where men have met with accidents and serious injuries they have never received any compensation because they could not themselves take the case into Court, and it is not every day you can find a speculative attorney to take up the case. That, is the real explanation for the revision, but, of course, there ought to be no revision if justice can be done without. But on all questions of law there will be an appeal from the County Court to the Court above, therefore it will be only questions of fact which will be determined in the County Court. The cases which the noble Marquess has quoted where there has been difference of opinion will not be repeated. Under the present Act the issue will be much simpler. The issue will be negligence or no negligence in the fellow-workman or the person under the employer. The differences in decisions in the past have arisen from the different restrictions. I do not think it would be above the competency of a County Court Judge with a jury to try the simple question as it will be after the passing of this Act. With regard to the number of jurymen, I am not particularly enamoured with the number of five. I would as soon seen the number altered, and there have been proposals to change the number, but I do not think the point is of any great importance. Speaking of the County Court Judges as a body, I think that they are an extremely competent set of lawyers and perfectly well qualified to try actions of this kind. There can be no doubt that if you make the cost of this litigation more considerable you may have men who have really just and righteous claims deprived of their right entirely, and simply because of the difficulty of getting the action removed. In this case, under the Bill the costs of the action will be certainly very small. The noble Marquess spoke of cases where, if the employer won, he could not get his law costs out of the plaintiff. According to that argument the lower the costs the better it will be for the employer whether he was successful or unsuccessful in the action. If unsuccessful, the employer does not want to pay in addition to the compensation a long lawyer's bill. I think this clause will not work more in favour of the employed than the employer, for the result will be that upon the whole the sum the employer will be out of pocket will be less than if the actions were tried in the High Courts.

Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, the next Amendment I have to propose is also to add to Clause 6, but the remarks I have to make will be very brief, because I gathered from what fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite that he agreed the limit of time which is at present permissible before an action is brought is too long. An action under Lord Campbell's Act must be brought within 12 months from the date of the injury. In my present proposal, in non-fatal cases the action can be brought at any time within six months from the time of the injury. I am sure it is not the wish of the law in any way to encourage what I may call State claims. State claims must necessarily be very injurious to the employers, and especially employers of miners, because in these villages the mining population fluctuated to a very great extent, and after a limited time had elapsed it would be very difficult to get evidence to controvert the claims. Another point was that underground arrangements in mines were often materially altered in a short time, and in some cases being altogether destroyed. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will sympathise with this Amendment.

Amendment moved, In line 27, at end of clause, to add—" An action shall not be maintainable unless it is commenced within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within 12 months from the time of death, except with the previous consent of the Judge, who may permit such action to be commenced in any case in which he shall be satisfied that the plaintiff has been prevented by illness or other reasonable cause from commencing the action."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

What I said before as to the too great length of time allowed did not of course imply that I was prepared to agree to the insertion of such a clause as this in the present Bill, because I mean to bring in a Bill and to apply the principle to all cases alike. I cannot agree to this Amendment as proposed by the noble Marquess. . In one respect I should object to it because it would be extending the time in ease of death; it would give permission to bring an action for fatal accident within a longer time than the present law. I think 12 months long enough in any case. As to non-fatal cases the noble Marquess proposes six months from the time of the accident, with a dispensing power if the previous consent of a Judge is obtained. I do not know of any proceeding by which, before an action is brought, you can get the consent of a Judge to allow an action to be brought. The noble Marquess wishes us to say an action shall not be maintainable unless it is commenced within a given time "except with the previous consent of the Judge." But there is no legal machinery to carry that out. Then if an extension of time is to be allowed there are other causes besides illness which, in my opinion, ought to come in the same category. I think the limit of time for these actions should be dealt with generally, and I will bring in a measure myself at an early date in respect of all cases of personal injury.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 11.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Watson which the Lord Advocate desired should be inserted. He accordingly moved the Amendment.

Amendment moved, In page 5, after line 34, insert,—" Provided always, that when the application is made to the Sheriff Principal it shall be competent to the respondent in such application to intimate that he insists upon such application being disposed of by the Court of Session; and, upon such intimation being made, the process shall be transmitted as hereinafter provided, together with the said application, which shall then be disposed of by the Court of Session."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Amendment agreed to.

A consequential Amendment, to leave out lines 21 to 27, on page 6, was also adopted.

On page 7, line 26, the words "in Scotland" were ordered to be struck out.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

suggested that after the word "Act," at the end of the first line of the clause, should be added these words— Other than an agreement of insurance against injury which can be contained under Section 2.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is merely a consequential Amendment to bring the clause into line with what we have already done.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

All right, agreed.

Clauses 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Title of Bill agreed to.

On the Motion that the Chairman report the Bill with Amendments to the House,

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

I do not feel at all sure about the Amendment which has just been put into Clause 13, that the result will be that any contract in force at the commencement of this Act will not be put an end to but will continue.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should have thought that all Clause 4 does is to prevent you setting it up in the event of an action, and, therefore, although it would be contained in this clause it would only be contained in a disembodied and indecisive character.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

Not having seen the words I do not like accepting the Amendment.

Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended (No. 288.)