§ [THIRD READING.]
§ Order of the Day for the Third leading read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be new read the third time."—(Viscount Cross.)
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSI should like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a. very few words before this Bill passes. I quite admit that the Bill is a necessary and natural consequence of the Act of 1897, but I strongly object to the policy of such Bills. The agricultural labourer was left out of the Act of 1897. Of course it would never do to place other workmen under the shelter of the Act and leave agricultural labourers out, especially just before a General Election. That we readily understand. But I contend that, when once you have started on these lines, you cannot possibly stop, and domestic servants even will have to be included. Does anyone believe that you can exclude the cook who burns her fingers or gets scalded in cooking the 38 dinner, or that the housemaid who breaks her ankle can be left out? Of course, this legislation will have to extend to them. That is as certain as is the fact that the sun will rise to-morrow, and if it is not done by my noble friend it will be done by someone on the other side of the House. I saw my doctor this morning, and he appeared to misunderstand the Bill. He thought it was a Bill to include domestic servants, and he said that if that was the case he would never give a vote again for a Conservative; and he added that he would do without domestic servants in future. This sort of legislation, moreover, will tend to reduce wages and employment. In the competition which is going on, every charge which the employer of labour has to bear has to be considered, and, where possible, leads to a reduction of wages. This legislation has already reduced employment. Persons of certain age are not employed now in consequence of liability to accidents. I once had a discussion in this House with reference to a rule adopted at a certain largo works to the effect that no mail should be engaged over sixty years of age. As a result of this sort of legislation no men are employed, if it can be helped, who have any defect of eye, hand, or limb. Employment is there by diminished, old people are turned out of work, and wages are reduced. If it is found impossible to reduce wages, then prices will go up. In my opinion there is much that is dangerous in this kind of legislation. If people know that it tended to lessen wages, I am sure there would not be such a demand for it. I have made inquiries as to how this Bill will affect myself personally. I find that if I insure—a course which everyone who is wise should adopt—the insurance of those employed by me would be between £30 and £40. To some people this is a very large sum. and if it is deducted from the wages of the men it amounts to a reduction of one-fifth of a penny per day. I think it is probable that, as a matter of principle and with the view of bringing home to the men concerned the bearing of this sort of legislation, I shall deduct this amount from the wages. I protest against this sentimental, liberty-interfering-with, and mistaken legislation. My opinion is that the best form of Government would be secured by having a strong Conservative Opposition and a Liberal Govern- 39 ment—falsely called liberal, for there is no liberty about them—with a good working majority of one. Then I think we should get on much better, for at the present moment both parties are tobogganing down the Socialistic ladder. When the question is put from the Woolsack I shall say "not content," for I believe this legislation to be contrary to all the principles which form our nation, and which made the English people a great, a free, and a ruling race.
§ VISCOUNT CROSSI do not know that the noble Earl requires an answer from me. He said that the Bill was inevitable, and if it is inevitable it must pass. His principal objection was to something that was not in the Bill—namely, the extension of the Act of 1897 to domestic servants. He said, however, that that would be the next stop, but I reply that sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. The noble Earl also said this sort of legislation tended to reduce wages. We have had the Act of 1897 in operation for three years, and we have had no complaint from the workmen that their wages have been lowered. They appear so content with the Act of 1897 that it would be almost cruelty not to extend its provisions to agricultural labourers. I trust your Lordships will recognise that the Act of 1897 has worked well, and will allow this Bill to pass.
§ On Question, agreed to.
§ Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.