choose between throwing away the protection offered by the measure and obtaining no employment, for the reason that there would at all times be employers who would take good care to escape by such means from the responsibilities imposed by the new measure. The Commons finally rejected the disputed clause, but when the Bill went up to the House of Lords the clause was maintained in its original form. The whole measure was then withdrawn by the Liberal Administration.

Another Bill for the same general purpose was brought in by the Government, now that of Lord Salisbury and the Conservatives, in the Session of 1897. During its discussion in Committee there were some new clauses introduced which led to a long debate. One of these was a clause, moved by the Home Secretary, which proposed to give to any working-man injured by the act or neglect of an outsider the right to decide for himself whether he would take proceedings against the outsider under the common law of the country, or proceed directly against his employer under the provisions of the new measure. This clause was opposed, evidently in the interest of the employers, on the ground that it was not fair or reasonable to make the employer liable in any sense for the act or the neglect of one over whom he had no direct control. The new clause, however, had the support of the Opposition, and it was finally passed by a large majority, the minority being made up for the most part of those who supported the interests of the employers.

The Government soon after made, or supported, some concessions to the employers, which were set out in new amendments. One member of the House, the head of a great ship-building firm, carried an amendment altering the time during which the claim for compensation should be made in case of death, from twelve months to six months. This would not seem to be a very serious

alteration, but some of the leaders of the Opposition. contended that such amendments were a breach of the compromise understood to have been accepted by the House in general. Some compromise, it was clear, had to be made. It was impossible to introduce any legislation which could contrive to give complete satisfaction to both employers and working-men alike. The difficulty of finding and maintaining any fair and reasonable system of compromise brought up many discussions which, read over subsequently, bewilder the reader a good deal as to the side whence the support of a particular amendment or the opposition to it might naturally be expected to come. Some members of the Opposition set themselves against amendments which seem to have been rather liberal in their application, and some followers of the Government thereupon accused these Liberals of having deserted the cause of the working-man. In the same manner some habitual supporters of the Government strongly condemned certain concessions made by the Administration, these concessions being, as was but natural, supported by leading members of the Opposition.

The Government were put in a very peculiar position. In the ordinary course of things it might be taken for granted that Lord Salisbury's Administration would have been found to act generally in support of the employers' interests, and that the Opposition would, as a rule, back up the claims of the working-men. The Government were to all appearance sincerely anxious that as much as possible should be done to recognize in every way the just claims of the operatives. But the majority of the capitalists and employers of labor were on the Government side, and if the Administration did not take their demands into account, might have succeeded in throwing out the Bill altogether. Compromise is always a matter of great difficulty and delicacy in any case where special and op

posing interests, the interests of one as against another class, have to be taken into consideration. One almost unavoidable result of this state of things was that the Bill had to be left without some of the most important improvements which would have to be made if the measure were intended to be anything like a final settlement of the rival claims of employers and employed. There can be no doubt that if the Government had gone too far on the side of the employers they might have endangered, for the time, the carrying of the whole measure, and there can be just as little doubt that the measure as it passed through the House of Commons was ineffective as a lasting settlement of the great dispute.

The Bill was read a third time without a division, and then sent up to the House of Lords. The members of the Upper House debated the measure at much length, and with an earnestness which is not, to put it mildly, very often to be observed in the sittings of the hereditary chamber. The Marquis of Londonderry raised strong objection to many parts of the measure although he did not directly oppose it. He accused the Government of having introduced a Bill which, if brought in by a Liberal Administration, they would have condemned and rejected. This speech, delivered by one who was habitually a supporter of Conservative Governments, who had held and was again to hold office under a Conservative Prime Minister, supplies a fair illustration of the difficulties which so many Conservatives found in dealing with the whole proposal for the compensation of working-men. Lord Londonderry took care not to associate himself openly and directly with hostility to the principle of the measure, or to rank himself on the side of capital as against labor. But he raised every objection that could be raised to some of the provisions of the Bill; he condemned it because it was too limited in its operation, and