Lords Sitting of 14 December 1893

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Seeing the noble Earl in his place opposite, I may say that rumours have reached me as to the conduct of Public Business in another place, and I wish to know whether the noble Earl has anything to tell us as to the proceedings of this House in this totally unexampled state of affairs?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): The noble Marquess takes me in one respect a little by surprise. So far as I can judge, speaking of the immediate Business of the House, I may say, in the first place, I think it will be necessary that the House should meet next week on account of a Bill in which I am much interested—the East India Loan Bill. It is essential that that Bill should be passed before Christmas, and it will be necessary to take the requisite Sittings for that purpose. I am not aware of any other pressing Business before Christmas for this House. I do not quite know what will be the exact course of the Business of the other House with regard to the Amendments to the Employers' Liability Bill. I should hardly think the Bill will come back to us in sufficient time for us to consider any Amendments before Christmas. With regard to our further proceedings after the Christmas Recess, my belief is—and I dare say the noble Marquess has quite as good a knowledge on the matter as I have—that the House of Commons will be invited to proceed with Business immediately after Christmas in order that what is commonly called the Parish Councils Bill may be advanced. It is not in my power to say how soon the other House will deal with that Bill, but I suppose it will come within some reasonable time to a conclusion, and then it will certainly be our duty to ask this House to consider the Bill with a view to its being disposed of before the commencement of another Session of Parliament. That is the best answer I can give the noble Marquess at present.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only wish to call the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that such a proposal as that Parliament should meet in January to consider an important Bill in Committee is absolutely unexampled. I believe that you might go back for many centuries without finding a precedent. The inconvenience of such a proposal to noble Lords is extreme. I am not speaking of myself, for I have the fortune to have a house very near London; but to most other people, who are forced by their duties at Quarter Sessions and County Councils to remain in the country at that period of the year, it will be a great inconvenience to have to come backwards and forwards, especially in the weather with which we are familiar in January. I think it is a hardship which is inflicted upon Parliament—if it be inflicted—without any justification, and in consequence of a decision which cannot be at all defended. But what I wish to say is that, though on all matters concerning the Business of the House I have deferred most anxiously to the views of the noble Earl opposite, and while I fully recognise the consideration with which he manages everything in the House in regard to which he has an independent judgment, yet I cannot admit that in a matter which is so wholly unexampled as this, we are bound by the usual rule to accept without demur whatever the Government may think it right to propose. I therefore reserve to myself the right to make any proposal or to take any course that may seem to us desirable in view of the very unprecedented and unexpected course that Public Business appears to be taking. I do not wish to go further into details until we know a little better how Business is likely to go on, but I cannot accept the idea that in consequence of what has taken place in the House of Commons we should sit in this House in the earlier part of January.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In the first place, with regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess as to the meetings of County Councils and other Local Authorities, no doubt they generally have their meetings at the beginning of January, but however important those duties may be it seems to me that the demands of Parliament upon the services of its Members must be paramount. I cannot think that

  1339
  those meetings are a sufficient reason to urge against the course suggested; and certainly, as to the weather being severe, I do not know that it is more inclement in London at that time than in the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is to the fact of having to go backwards and forwards that I referred.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: This is not the first time that the Members of this House have been asked to travel to London in January in order to attend to their Parliamentary duties, and I do not suppose that would be a very serious inconvenience. Of course, the noble Marquess is perfectly within his rights in reserving his judgment as to the course which he will pursue; but I shall be slow to believe that when a Bill of great importance is sent up to this House from the other House your Lordships will decline to receive and consider it even at any time.

  EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 288.)
  THIRD READING.
  Bill real 3a (according to Order).
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass, with the Amendments,"
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS moved to amend the Amendment inserted in Clause 4 of the Bill, on the Motion of the Earl of Dudley, by substituting the Registrar General of Friendly Societies for the Board of Trade as the authority charged with the duty of granting licences for Mutual Insurance Societies under the Act. He explained that he proposed the Amendment at the request of the representatives of the great body of workmen who were in favour of Lord Dudley's Amendment, which had been accepted by their Lordships. They were the representatives whom Earl Kimberley had declined to receive, but who had been very kindly given by the Marquess of Salisbury an opportunity of laying their views before him. They originally went to himself, and he advised them to go first to the noble Earl, believing that either of two things would happen: that they would see and convince the noble Earl that the Bill should be made more liberal in its scope, or that he would refuse to see them at all, and that they would have to appeal to Lord
  1340
  Salisbury. And that was exactly what had occurred. These men were grateful to their Lordships for the course which they took in accepting Lord Dudley's Amendment, for they considered it to be a really Liberal Amendment in the old and true sense of the word "Liberal." Of course, he was not referring to the Liberalism which was seen now, and which was in direct contradiction to all the teaching and traditions of the Liberalism of their younger days, for it consisted in curtailing people's liberty, in breaking and preventing contracts, and in taking the property of those who had few votes to buy the votes of those who had many. This Amendment, therefore, must be taken in the sense of true Liberalism of former days and not of the miscalled Liberalism which was really the illiberalism of the present day. These men were anxious to retain their existing advantages of free contract with their employers in matters which were honest and right. At the same time, while taking that view they considered that the authority to regulate these Insurance Societies under Clause 4 should not be the Board of Trade. Meetings had at his suggestion been held for the men to state whether they were satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and the executive committee of the London and North Western Railway Insurance Society had written to him on behalf of those who approved Lord Dudley's Amendment in the following terms:—
  "We would suggest that the Registrar General of Friendly Societies be appointed the authority to grant a licence for Mutual Insurance Societies to be continued under the Act, and, as an equivalent for any right surrendered by the workmen in making the contract, the employer should subscribe an equal contribution to that of the workman to the said insurance fund."
  One reason for appointing the Registrar General of Friendly Societies was that he was not connected with any political Party. Not only would he be entirely outside political Parties, but he would be better able to see that all was fair and above board, and that no bogus contracts were made between employers and employed. The equal contributions would also have the effect of preventing the establishment of bogus Societies. Comparing the duties respectively of the head of the Department and of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, everything seemed to point to the latter being the proper

  1341
  person to be appointed for this purpose. So extensive were the duties already east upon the Board of Trade that they required to be divided under 18 heads and had to be carried out with a staff of some 300 clerks at annual salaries amounting to £18,989. No question of public safety arose here to make the Department the proper controlling body, while the Registrar's office was, of course, accustomed to deal with these matters, having a complete though smaller staff, receiving £4,500 in total salaries for the purpose, and one portion of its work already under Table 13 was investigating the position of Railway Savings Banks. No less than 10 railways came in that respect within that work—the Manchester and Sheffield, the South Eastern, the Metropolitan, the Caledonian, the Great Eastern, the Metropolitan District, the London and South Western, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Great Western, and the London, Chatham, and Dover, in regard to management of their savings banks. This duty also, therefore, seemed naturally to belong to the Registrar and not to the Board of Trade; and he hoped their Lordships would agree that he should supersede the Department in the matter. That was the view of a most intelligent body of engineers and other workmen whom he represented, who greatly desired that this improvement should be made in the Bill.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 4, page 2, line 23, to leave out ("Board of Trade ") and insert (" Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies ").
  In line 27, after ("employer") to leave out ("is a contributor") and insert (" and workman contribute in equal proportions ").
  In line 33, to leave out (" Board of Trade ") and insert (" Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies").—(The Earl Wemyss.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not desire to take any part in this disquisition. It is a question between my noble Friend, Lord Dudley, who is not in the House to-day, and my noble Friend on the Cross Benches. It is very difficult for us to say which of these two Departments would be likely best to discharge this duty under Clause 4 of the Bill as it now stands. The other evening I placed before your Lordships some objection on
  1342
  the part of the Board of Trade to this addition to the duties of that Department, and I think the same objections would apply if, as now proposed, the Registrar General were substituted for the Board of Trade. The duty which would be imposed is the duty of deciding whether the sums paid into these various funds are sufficient to compensate the workmen in cases of injury. That is a question of very considerable difficulty, and there is no doubt that participation in delicate questions of that kind is likely to expose Public Departments to a good deal of odium. The view of the Government is that the original Amendment, which it is now proposed to amend, was a bad one, and they must therefore leave the decision upon the point now raised to the supporters of that Amendment to deal with as they think best.
  LORD FARRER LORD FARRER, without wishing to take any actual part in the discussion, pointed out that the Board of Trade already discharged the duty of criticising the accounts of Life Assurance Societies, which was a duty analogous to that which the Department would have to discharge under Clause4as it stood at present. That duty was, in fact, even more difficult and delicate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the announcement of the noble Marquess opposite that he intends to take a neutral attitude on this question must have been fraught with much perplexity to himself, for he is in the agreeable position, perhaps not a little unexpected by him, of being in a majority in the House at this moment. As the noble Marquess and his friends are in that somewhat novel position, I do not know what will happen to the majority in this House if the momentary majority remain neutral on this occasion. I view this discussion, I confess, as one of not very first-rate importance, for I do not myself attach much value to the restrictions which my noble Friend, Lord Dudley, has thought it desirable to insert in his Amendment for the sake of conciliating opposition. I do not think these restrictions are really necessary. The main object that we have is that the workmen of this country shall remain as free after this Bill is passed as they were before; or, at all events, that their freedom shall not be interfered with in the extravagant fashion which was pro-

  1343
  posed by this Bill as it originally stood. Whether the Board of Trade or the Registrar General would be the best authority for this purpose is a question which I can quite imagine may give rise to difference of opinion; but my experience, which is not. a very large one, of the functions of the two bodies is that the Board of Trade are more in the habit of exercising a discretion of this kind than the Registrar General. The Registrar General does no more than certify facts, and the exercise of discretion is alien to the functions and character of his office. Further, the Board of Trade, as we have just heard on very high authority, has been in the habit of dealing with questions not very different or foreign to this, and, therefore, it is to be presumed that they will be able to do the work in future. I have one reason, however, which, I confess, makes me feel it difficult to accept the Amendment. I have received a strong representation from a body representing the shipowners. They represent nine-tenths of the tonnage of the United Kingdom. From their point of view the Registrar General would be wholly unsuited for this purpose, and they say that the relations in which their industry already stands to the Board of Trade would make it much more satisfactory to them that the Board of Trade should have the duty. That part of the Amendment which deals with future Societies is important to the maritime industry, for that is the industry that will suffer most if the clause is restricted to existing Societies as proposed in the House of Commons, and if the Bill were to pass without the Amendments which have been carried in this House. Therefore, I think their judgment in the matter should be regarded with great respect, and that we should be loth to change what has been already accepted unless we are certain that the most important body affected by it will accept the change with satisfaction. But, my Lords, I do not, as I say, consider these restrictions as of any real importance. The great thing is to know what the men themselves wish, and that their wishes should be carried out. That seems to me a principle of far more importance than even the material interests which are concerned in this discussion; and all the restrictions which have been proposed upon that free-
  1344
  dom must be looked upon simply as concessions to an unreasonable apprehension, and not as being governed by the strict principle of the matter, if we could legislate in this affair on principle alone. I would further observe that supposing the Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book as it leaves your Lordships' House, which, after the action of the noble Marquess opposite, appears to be doubtful, no very great harm would be done even if the Board of Trade turns out not to be the fittest authority for giving these certificates in order to set up new Insurance Societies, and to give them the benefit of the Act. We shall always be able to examine into any practical difficulties or evils which are discovered. It is not easy theoretically to determine beforehand what is the best authority, though the balance seems to me to lean in favour of the Board of Trade. If any difficulty should arise Parliament will always be ready to make a slight alteration of that kind, and I do not imagine that if the Bill should arrive in its present form on the Statute Book, even the dislike of the noble Marquess opposite would prevent him from acquiescing in any changes which experience might show to be necessary.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would not press the Amendment to substitute the Registrar General of Friendly Societies for the Board of Trade as the controlling authority.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, with regard to his next Amendment, that as it stood on the Paper it sought to enact that to bring any Society within the clause its funds must be contributed in equal proportions by the employers and employed. It had since been represented to him that the men would be perfectly satisfied if one-third were contributed by the employers. Some even thought one-quarter would be enough, for one-quarter was the proportion now paid by colliery owners. It would give great protection to the men that some provision of this kind should be inserted in the Bill. He therefore begged to move that the contribution of the employer should be not less than one-third.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I cannot deny that this would be an improvement on the clause as it was passed

  1345
  the other day. One of the objections which I ventured to take to it at that time was that under the clause as it stands a contribution by the employers of 6d. would oblige the Board of Trade, as far as that was concerned, to certify to the solvency or sufficiency of the fund. But, as I said before, Her Majesty's Government do not wish to meddle with this Amendment at all. The Amendment will be dealt with in another place. I understand my noble Friend opposite to say that he thought the Bill would become law with this Amendment in it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; I said exactly the reverse.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Very well; otherwise I should have thought my noble Friend was rather in a fool's paradise.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid my Friend's vocabulary will require correcting. I think he has borrowed too much from certain brilliant examples in the other House. I quite recognise that some limitation is necessary, and that for the purpose of preventing such criticisms as were made by my noble Friend opposite some provision of the kind would be very desirable. If Her Majesty's Government oppose it, I do not say I should go into the Lobby to vote for it against them; but if, as I understand, the noble Marquess opposite is prepared to accept it with such peculiar indifference as he has shown, I will not take the responsibility of opposing it, because I think it is in itself just and right. I should only be afraid that it might be adopted without sufficient consultation with those whom it immediately concerns. But with the Amendment of one-third I do not think any serious evil can happen, and, therefore, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept it I shall not resist it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANpointed out that the colliery owners now as a rule contributed one-fourth, without any objection on the part of the workmen. He thought, therefore, it was desirable that the minimum should be one-fourth, as that would not disturb existing arrangements.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSwas quite ready to accept that if it were understood to be the minimum. He believed most of the colliery owners would give more than one-fourth.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I quite agree with my. noble Friend. If it be the case that one-fourth has been contributed in relation to the existing liabilities of owners, and the law under this Bill casts an additional liability upon them, the amount of their contributions on that head should on that account be increased.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is, I think, a most curious and novel application of the doctrine of ransom. The noble and learned Lord says that the view is of escaping the liabilities imposed upon owners by the law at present; and, therefore, that the more the liability imposed the more the ransom should be increased. That is a curious view of the relations between employers and employed under the law upon this question. I quite admit that Parliament proposes to impose a liability upon the employers of this country, from which it is admitted at the same time they may desire to ransom themselves in proportion to the inconvenience it may inflict upon them. It gives a cruel, tyrannical, and almost savage view of the relation between the Government and the employers of this country, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not wish to attach to the Government of which he was a member.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My contention has always been that that is not the ground on which employers make their contributions at present. But it is asserted to be merely a method of purchasing off their existing liability under the law. I was merely stating the views and dealing with the attitude of those who advocate the clause, and it was in relation to that that I made the observation I did.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, then the Amendment would be "to an extent of not less than one-fourth."
  LORD STALBRIDGEdid not believe that an Amendment of this kind would work, though he should not object to it. His own impression was that the wishes of the men would, in the first instance, govern the matter. No scheme of insurance could go on if the men were not in the first instance thoroughly satisfied. It was impossible for bogus Societies to exist under the Bill as amended. Take even the case of a jerry-builder with 10 men in his employ. How could he put

  1347
  coercion upon them? The very first ballot would upset it, and any scheme of the kind would fall to the ground. He would also have to show the Board of Trade that the fund was sufficient to meet the liabilities he would necessarily incur. On all those grounds he did not think any such Amendment as that proposed was necessary, but if the House was of a different opinion he hoped the proportion of one-fourth would be adopted. The London and North Western Railway Company subscribed 5–11ths of the funds, and they were not likely to alter that arrangement, but colliery owners were in a different position. Accidents involving terrible loss of life frequently occurred in mines, and if the owners were obliged to provide one-third or one-half of the insurance they would prefer to leave the matter open under the law as it stood. As the establishment of such funds was for the benefit of the men, he trusted their Lordships would accept the Amendment with the alteration to one-fourth as accepted by its Mover, Earl Wemyss.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  FRANCE (ANARCHIST CRIME IN THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)acquainted the House, that, in pursuance of instructions received during the sitting of the House on Tuesday last, he had addressed the following letter to the President of the Chamber of Deputies in France:
  House of Lords,
  14th December, 1893.
  SIR,—
  ON behalf of the House of Lords I have the honour of conveying to you the expression of their deep sympathy with the Chamber of Deputies of France, and with yourself as its President, in regard to the recent lamentable event in the Chamber, and of their horror at the atrocious outrage which was perpetrated there.
  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your obedient Servant,
  HERSCHELL,
  Chancellor and Speaker.
  A Monsr. le President de la
  Chambre des Députes, Paris.
  Resolved, nemine contradicente, That the Lord Chancellor's letter to the President of the Chamber of Deputies in France be entered on the Journal of the House.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  ISOLATION HOSPITALS BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Monday next in order to its being dispensed with for that day's Sitting.

  THE EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved that the House adjourn till Monday, and stated that on that day the East India Loan Bill would be dealt with.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are you sure of getting it by that day?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think it is almost certain. At any rate, it would be convenient that we should adjourn till Monday, and if, unfortunately, the Bill has not reached us, then we can meet again on Tuesday.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next a quarter past Four o'clock.