§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inquire into the case of J. Davies, recently an operative in Pembroke Dockyard, mutilated for life in the discharge of his duty; if he will make inquiries as to the statement that, after this mutilation occurred, a guard was placed round the machinery; why this guard was not placed there previously if the machinery was dangerous; and if, as J. Davies is now incapable of any work, it would be possible in any way to provide for him?
§ *LORD G. HAMILTONThe case of James Davies has been brought to my notice. This man's left hand was unfortunately injured in October, 1887, while he was oiling a machine in motion. The wheels in which his hand was caught are 6ft. above the ground, and were not considered dangerous; but, as this man happened to get injured, a guard was subsequently placed around them. It would be impossible to guard all machines, so that men could not by any mischance be injured by them. The gratuity granted to Davies was the highest possible under established regulations in the case of injuries short of total and complete disability, namely, a gratuity equal to the whole of a year's wages at the rate of pay received at the time of injury. These regulations are based upon the Superannuation Acts Amendment Act of 1887, and have been presented to Parliament in the form of a Treasury Warrant. Davies is still reported as capable of contributing to his own support to a small degree; but even if he were now totally unable to do any work, no further grant could be made to him out of any money voted by Parliament.
§ *MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)Will the noble Lord say 550 whether machinery in dockyards is subject to the usual inspection?
§ *LORD G. HAMILTONYes, Sir, it is.