HC Deb 08 July 1897 vol 50 cc1369-92

(1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act, such compensation shall be payable whether the injury occasioned arises from the act of the employer or of some person in his employ, or from the act of a stranger thereto. Provided that where such injury shall be occasioned by the act of a stranger under circumstances creating a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may at his option proceed. either at law against such person to recover damages or against his employer for compensated under this, and if he be compensated under ties Act the employer shall be entitled to enforce in the name of the workman all rights of action possessed by him against the person occasioning such injury as aforesaid.

(2.) Provided that:—

  1. (a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed;
  2. (b) When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the amount of damages due from such employer may, at the request of the persons claiming compensation, be settled by arbitration in accordance with the second schedule to this Act, or may at the option of such persons be recovered from such employer by the same proceedings as were open to such persons before the commencement of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to pay compensation independently of this Act, except in cases of such personal negligence or wilful act
  3. (c) If it be proved that time accident is solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of a workman, any compensation claimed in respect of injury to that workman shall be disallowed.

(3.) If any question arises as to whether the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of time employer, or of any person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, or whether the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in time course of the employment of the workman injured, or whether the accident was solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman in respect of whose injuries compensation is claimed, or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, or otherwise as to the liability for compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, and any question as to whether the employment is one to which tins Act applies, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the second schedule to this Act. Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening- thereof, and the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within twelve months from the time of death. Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or that such absence was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause. Notices shall be served in the manner provided for by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, Section seven.

(4.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after ascertaining the views of the employers and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment is on the whole not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, Eave as aforesaid, this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act. No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.

If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable thereout the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act.

(5.) The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall in every year make a report of his proceedings under this Act, and that report shall be laid before Parliament.

(6.) If any workmen or their representatives shall submit to the said Registrar primâ facie evidence that the provisions of any scheme are no longer so favourable to the workman as the provisions of this Act, or that the provisions of such scheme are being violated, or that the same is not being fairly administered by the employers, or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking the certificate, then he shall examine into the complaint, and, if satisfied that good cause exists for such complaint, shall, unless the cause of complaint is removed, revoke the certificate.

(7) Whenever a scheme has been certified as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the employer to answer all inquiries and to furnish all such accounts as may from time to time be required by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

And which Amendment was to leave out the following words from Sub-section (4),— If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable thereout, the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act."—(Mr. Wolff.)

Question again proposed, "That the words from the word If,' to the word 'payable,' in line 19, both inclusive, stand part of the Bill."

SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

resumed the Debate. He said that if the clause remained he was satisfied that there would be no inducement whatever to any employer to formulate a scheme with his workmen to be substituted for the Act. He had discussed the point with some gentlemen who were not only legal experts, but had a large experience in milling matters, and they confirmed him in his view that if this clause remained as it was it was hopeless to expect that any employer would join with his workmen in producing a scheme that could be carried out for their mutual benefit. When a scheme was approved of by the Registrar of Friendly Societies it was substituted for the Act; and the employer was brought as completely under the operation of the scheme as if the scheme were embodied in the Act itself. What did that lead them to? Supposing a scheme was adopted, that the workmen contributed as much as the employer, and that the whole sum went into the revenues of the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund. Out of this fund was to come not only compensation for accidents, but superannuation and payments during illness. Supposing there was a sufficient surplus to pay compensation for accidents, but not to pay superannuation or sick allowances, would the employer be expected to contribute something more in order to give the compensation which was provided by the scheme adopted by the employer and workmen, and sanctioned by the Registrar of Friendly Societies? Supposing, again, that under the scheme, payment from the fund were made for two or three years to a workman who had sustained an accident, would those payments be taken into consideration if the fund became insolvent, or would the employer be expected to contribute the whole of the compensation for which he was liable under the Act, and would get no credit for the payments made previously? It was quite possible that a scheme might be adopted under which the employer was to pay a certain sum in the case of death by accident. In the event of any one being killed it might be decided that instead of handing over the whole amount to the widow and children, which was usually a very unwise course to pursue, because a lump sum was spent quickly with little or no benefit to the widow or children, a certain number of payments should be made. Supposing a serious accident took place, causing the death of 150 or 200 people, and involving the payment of £40,000 in compensation; and supposing that after the money had been paid to the common fund it became insolvent some few months later—the employer would be required to pay this enormous sum of compensation a second time. With this clause in the Bill there would be no contracting out at all.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Cardiff)

said when the second reading and Committee stages of the Bill were taken the House was on pleasure bent, and not able to give proper attention to a novel and complicated Measure of this kind. In view of the great principles involved, it was necessary to make as clear as possible the intention and probable result of this Bill. The other night the Colonial Secretary mentioned, with that ingenuous air which he knew so well how to assume, that he had a kindly feeling for the joint schemes and hoped that they would continue and increase. But what inducement would there be for the employer to enter into them? There was nothing to prevent the Colonial Secretary, some two or three years hence, when he had completed that assimilation of the Tory Party which was now going on—[laughter and cheers]—from telling the House that the workmen ought not to pay anything towards their maintenance during sickness, and proposing to throw the whole burden on the employer. The employer, with his experience of what had become these mutual funds to-day, was not likely to start new ones. The Colonial Secretary had said that in his view the contribution of the employers to these funds was insufficient and ought to be increased. But in what degree? If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed at the last General Election to increase that contribution in the degree now proposed, the right hon. Gentleman would not now be sitting on the Treasury Bench. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The amount now subscribed annually to the South Wales Miners' Provident Fund was £65,000, of which the employers subscribed £12,500. The Colonial Secretary had declared that the burden placed on the coal trade by the Bill would not be 3d. a ton. Supposing it was only 1½d. per ton, that would represent a charge of £100,000 on the coalowners of South Wales instead of the present charge of £12,500. That Miners' Provident Fund had secured the industrial peace of South Wales for more than 20 years. The effect of the Bill would be to destroy that fund and bring about disputes between employers and employed.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now discussing the policy of the Bill, and not the particular Amendment before the House.

MR. MACLEAN

said that the burden thrown upon the employers would make it necessary for them to put some of it on the men. The Government were evidently determined to impose this burden; and their supporters were willing to vote for it, as it would apply only to some trades. But hon. Members should remember that their turn would come. The turn of the shipowners was actually fixed for next year. [Cheers.]

MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)

regarded the speech just delivered ! as one severe indictment against the whole principle of the Bill, and he repudiated its insinuations altogether. He should vote against the Amendment if only in consequence of that speech, which had for its object, not so much the insertion of any special amendment as the defeat of this important Bill, which large numbers of workpeople were waiting for outside the House of Commons.

MR. C. B. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)

taunted the hon. Member for Leicester that his speech contained not one remark relevant to the Amendment. For his own part he regarded the insertion of the four lines which the hon. Member for Belfast moved to have expunged as the death-blow of contract, ing-out. If they remained in the Bill no capable and intelligent employer of labour would ever dare to contract out. 1The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary put the case of a fund to which the employer paid £1,000 and the workmen £1,000, and showed that the workmen would be benefited if such a fund existed. But no employer of labour was likely to enter into any scheme of contracting-out which would render him liable for the same amount as he would be liable for under the Bill. What he imagined would happen under the portion of the section already dealt with, would be this:—There might be a fund of £1,500 raised, £750 of which would be paid by the employer, and £750 of which would be contributed by the workmen. That would be £500 more than the case the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. A workman undoubtedly would be better off under a fund of £1,500 than under a fund of only £1,000 contributed by the employer. Now they were told that, suppose such a fund as this was in existence and a difficulty occurred and the whole fund was swept away, then the whole liability under this Bill to its full amount would be placed once more on the shoulder of the employer. That entirely militated against the possibility of contracting out. It seemed to him that these four lines constituted an overwhelming obstacle in the way of the possibility of contracting out, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was right when he said that if they passed this clause as it was, it meant the death-blow of contracting-out.

MR. HENRY SETON - KARR (St. Helens)

considered the speech of the late Home Secretary on Tuesday night as one of the strongest arguments in support of the Amendment. He shared the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Amendment was in favour of contracting out and in favour, naturally, of the friendly societies, but for that reason he proposed, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, to vote for the Amendment. The Colonial Secretary based his whole argument against the Amendment on the assumption that the employers' contribution to any scheme must be the same as under the Bill. He could not find any words in the Bill to that effect. The employers' contribution was not the whole part of the scheme; it also embraced the workmen's contribution. Hon. Members must clear their minds of cant, and he could not agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that employers did not altogether consider the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation under the Bill was uncertain, and particularly in dangerous trades. It could not accurately be ascertained or insured against, as in the colliery industry; and one inducement to an employer to enter a scheme was that he would know practically what his liability was. He would contribute a certain amount to the scheme, and that would be supplemented by the workmen's contribution. Therefore, he submitted, it could not be said on that ground again that the contribution of the employer must be as large as under the Bill. A fortiori, it followed, if these four lines remained in the clause, that one inducement would be taken away from the employer to enter into any scheme. The whole argument of the Colonial Secretary was founded on a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman said the amount an employer must pay to any scheme was the measure of the compensation he must pay under the Act. If so, he should like to have words put into the Act which would make that perfectly clear. Those four lines, unless taken out, would, he submitted, make it impossible for any employer to go into any scheme. He would like to say a word about contracting out, and the attitude of lion. Members opposite with regard to the principle. It was perfectly well known that hon. Members opposite were opposing the Bill because they hated contracting out. ["Hear, hear!"] They did not want to encourage the friendly societies. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That at least was his impression, and he should like to be convinced to the contrary. What was the real principle on which the objection rested? It was due to a feeling which existed many years ago, and which had now passed away — namely, that no workman should be bribed, coerced, or terrorised into making an unfair bargain, that he should be compelled to sell his life or his health for more money, that he should be compelled, so to speak, to coin his blood. That was the feeling which he believed had actuated many hon. Members in the past towards the principle of contracting out, but it was absolutely groundless now. No man under the existing law could be bribed, coerced or terrorised to go into any scheme which was not favourable to himself. Thus there was no argument on that ground against this Amendment. One of the great objections he had entertained to the details of the Bill— and in this he shared the apprehensions of his hon friends—was that he believed it would, particularly if these four lines were included, deal a death-blow to the mutual friendly societies. If an employer, entering into a scheme by which he gave the workman benefits outside the Bill, and by which he knew that his liability was defined, found by the insertion of these four lines that in some other circumstances lie would be compelled to pay an uncertain amount of compensation by the Bill, what, lie asked, would be the inducement for the employer to go into the scheme I The House was debating an important Amendment, and if it could make employer and employed get rid of litigation, form a scheme in which no lawyers could interfere, and according to which employers and workmen were alone responsible, in which compensation was paid without any question being asked and litigation entered upon, then many dangers incident to the Bill would be avoided. But the introduction of these lines would prevent tins, and would render the whole clause absurd and impossible of operation, while, at the same time, inflicting a serious injury on the industrial employers of the country. That was the reason why he supported the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said that the speech of the hon. Member was very important. He did not agree with the hon. Member, however, that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, in voting against this Amendment, would desire in any way to discourage friendly societies.—[Cheers.]—He was disposed to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said that the words in the clause would, to a large extent, if not altogether, prevent contracting-out. [Cheers.] That was a very clear issue, and he did not believe that there was any answer to the arguments on that point. But, after all, the process of conversion ought always to be easy—[laughter]—and if the adoption of the view that contracting-out should not be permitted was facilitated by this particular form of words introduced in the clause he did not think, if they secured the substance, the House ought to object to the methods. It was because the clause as at present drawn would discourage, if not destroy, the principle of contracting-out in connection with all schemes of the character referred to that the Opposition would maintain the clause as it was, and would oppose the Amendment.

MR. T. W. LEGH (Lancashire, Newton)

said that, having listened to the debate, and particularly to the statement of the Colonial Secretary, he failed to see the necessity for the retention of this sub-section. If the employers were to be responsible for the whole amount under the scheme, as well as for compensation, it was plain that the contributions of the men were in the nature of an optional and superfluous luxury. The only explanation he could suggest for the appearance of the sub-section was, that it was either put in the clause to please hon. Members opposite or because the Government were not entirely of one mind on this Question. [Ironical cheers.] It was important that the supporters of the Government should be reassured on this point by the Attorney General. [Ironical laughter and cheers.] What the Debate had done was to point out the somewhat ridiculous position in which, as a party, the Unionists now found themselves. [Ironical laughter.] Two or three years ago contracting-out was one of the principal battle cries of their party; but now they were engaged in furthering the progress of a measure the obvious result of which would be to put an end to these arrangements altogether. [Ironical Opposition cheers.]

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said that the Leader of the Opposition thought it was desirable to make the process of conversion easy. Not being desirous to be converted—[laughter]—not having yet arrived at that happy stage, he heartily supported the Amendment. It was true, as the last speaker said, that it was only a few years ago when the whole of the Unionist party rallied on the great battle cry of contracting out. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] They were then told that they were vindicating individual liberty and maintaining not only the rights of capitalists, but the liberty of the workers. Although he had received one or two lessons in his life as to the somewhat doubtful character of party pledges—[ironical laughter]—he did really believe for once, at any rate, that they had a solid and substantial cry with which they might with confidence go to the country. [Ironical cheers.] The platforms rang with this cry; the principle of contracting out attained absolutely sacred limits—[laughter]—but where did the Unionist party now find itself They found that words had been put into the Bill which made contracting, out an absolute impossibility. ["Hear, hear!"] To tell him, or any one else, that any employer would be fool enough to enter into contracting out schemes in face of a provision like this was really trifling with the intelligence of men. [Laughter.] He hoped that some, at any rate, of the Unionist Members would adhere to their pledges of a few years ago.

MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

said that if this proviso was left in the clause contracting out would be absolutely impossible. One of the great advantages of contracting out was to promote the friendly feeling which ought to exist between employer and employed, and if contracting out was not in the future to be permitted, litigation, arbitration and friction would destroy this friendly feeling which they were all anxious to promote and foster; any scheme under the Bill as it stood was not for the advantage of the employer so much as it was for the advantage of the employed, because in accordance with the words of the sub-section no scheme could possibly obtain sanction unless it was not less favourable to the men than the terms of the Bill, and there was no likelihood of any scheme being authorised unless it was more favourable to the men than the terms of the Bill. He thought that one of the great objects in connection with contracting-out was that the employer might in some form or other be able to gauge his liability, and to know the amount of compensation which he was likely to be liable for. If such a scheme was adopted it would be for the advantage of the employed that in such a scheme the liability of the employer might to some extent be limited. He looked with great fear on the results of the Bill so far the colliery employers were concerned. He knew from personal experience what the results of colliery accidents meant. He knew of one case in which 200 miners lost their lives. In ordinary circumstances, apart from the loss of business, there would be the compensation under this Bill, and such compensation would, he believed, mean the close of the mine, the loss of business in the district, and the loss of work for the men. He thought that in some form or another the amount of compensation should have been limited in the case of these big accidents.

*MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member's observations did not bear on the Motion before the House.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

was simply going to say that if such a scheme as that referred to in the sub-section were to be authorised, then the employers' liability might to some extent be limited in the case of accidents, such as the one to which he had alluded.

*MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)

had no hesitation whatever in saying that this clause was most unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. He had said before that he supported the principle of the Bill, and spoke in its favour on the First Reading; but be also warned the Government that if in the slightest degree the principle of contracting out was tampered with he would have no hesitation in voting boldly against the Bill. Now this clause most emphatically did away with contracting out. He had no hesitation, as an employer of great experience, in saving so. There would he no more friendly societies; no more friendly arrangements would be made. He said so in spite of the heroic speech of the Leader of the House. [A laugh.] It was a truly heroic speech; but it was like the Charge of the Six Hundred at Balaclava. That was magnificent, but it was not war, neither did his speech mean business. [Laughter and Opposition cheers.] If the Leader of the House meant to convince his colleagues, he would advise them to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast. He was not afraid to go to his constituents, because, while he had supported this Bill in principle, he would not support anything that was unfair and unjust.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

said he did not rise to continue the discussion on the merits of the Amendment. The Debate had been sufficiently prolonged. But he did rise to repeat the protest made by the Leader of the House the other night against speeches suggesting that there had been any inconsistency on the part of the Government—[Opposition, laughter]—in supporting the clause as it, now stood and their action on the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Those who had taken the pains to study the Debates with reference to the Dudley clause and who knew the conditions attached to that clause, those who remembered that hon. Members behind hint actually moved Amendments making the employers responsible for the solvency and efficiency of schemes under the Dudley clause, would at any rate have a little better knowledge of what the true facts were than those who said that, because the Government had intended that as far as possible no scheme should deprive the workman of his compensation under the Bill, they were acting inconsistently with anything they had previously done. [" Hear, hear ! He did not intend to go over the arguments again. He believed that when this matter came to be reviewed hereafter, upon sound considerations of humanity and good feeling and a desire for the benefit of the workman, the masters would be led very generally to make contracts and arrangements which would free them from the responsibility of submitting to arbitration and which would at the same time interest the workmen and effectually protect the masters against malingering. In fact, there were many circumstances under which the masters might feel that it was their interest to go into a scheme; and, notwithstanding all that had been said, he hoped the House would support the Government in their adherence to the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said they were face to face with a critical situation. He sincerely trusted that the Opposition would not exploit the character of the situation forced upon the Government by the reactionary rump of their own Party—[laughter]—but would really discuss the question before the House in the light of their own action in this matter three or four years ago. The Opposition were correct when they said that they had been consistently opposed to contracting out, and although they might chaff the Government and twit them with having been inconsistent, that ought not to induce them to vote for the Amendment moved on the other side. He sincerely trusted that, whatever view the Opposition as a whole might have about the Amendment, and the reason which induced I he Government to oppose it, they would not depart one jot from the consistent attitude they had taken up against contracting out. ["Hear, hear!"] Having said that, he now wished to say a word to some of the Gentlemen who supported Lord Dudley's Amendment. He would like to point out that those who (lid so were inconsistent in opposing the Government now, because Lord Dudley's words, or rather so much of his Amendment as could be applied to the Bill under discussion, were these,— Provided also that in case the insurance fund is insufficient to provide the agreed compensation, and the employer is unwilling to make up the deficiency, the agreement for contracting out shall be considered void.'' Now to that extent the Attorney General was thoroughly well within his right in claiming that in the special words of this Bill the Government were not inconsistent to the extent the right hon. Member for Thanet said they were. The right Mender for Thanet seemed to know a little more about the electoral mind of his friends a few years ago than what the circumstances justified. But what had he in his hand at that moment? The fact was that the Government view on contracting out had fluctuated in accordance with electoral exigiencies, because in 1892 every Conservative candidate—

Several HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"

MR. BURNS

Yes, that was the question. The Government were twitted with inconsistency. ["Hear, hear!"] They were twitted with running away from the position they had hitherto adopted on this point. Well, he had been looking at the election addresses of Conservative Members in 1892; and this was what was issued in a stereotyped form for the whole of the candidates in London of the Conservative Party,— I would advocate an improvement and amendment of the Employers' Liability Act, making it impossible for the workman to contract himself outside its provisions, and making it easier for hint to put forward his just claims to compensation.

An HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?

"MR. BURNS

The hon. Member for Clapham and the Conservative candidate who opposed me, and I have a number of others which it is not necessary to read. The fact was that in 1892 no contracting out was the platform on which many Conservative candidates went to the electorate. It was true they changed to some extent in 1895; but that was no reason why the men who wanted to stick to their pledges with regard to contracting out, and really carrying out Lord Dudley's Amendment in so far as the Bill could possibly do it—that was no reason why they should desert the Government at the eleventh hour and join in the attack which had been made in the hope that the Government Bill would be destroyed. He should support the Government [cheers]—as against some of their own reactionary forwards, because he preferred Philip sober to Philip drunk. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"]

MR. ROBINSON SOUTTAR (Dumfriesshire)

said he had given the matter some little consideration, and he objected to contracting out most entirely. But he thought that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were giving a somewhat unfair interpretation of the clause. He did not think the clause was at all so clearly

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Brassey, Albert Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Brigg, John Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Allan, William (Gateshead) Broadhurst, Henry Dalziel, James Henry
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Brookfield, A. Montagu Darling, Charles John
Allison, Robert Andrew Brown, Alexander H. Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)
Arnold, Alfred Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Davitt, Michael
Ascroft, Robert Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Ashton, Thomas Gair Burns, John Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Burt, Thomas Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon
Atherley-Jones, L. Buxton, Sydney Charles Doughty, George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Caldwell, James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Cameron, Robert (Durham) Drucker, A.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Campbell, James A. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Cayzer, Charles William Dunn, Sir William
Balcarres, Lord Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan
Baldwin, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.) Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW (Leeds Channing, Francis Allston Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Evershed, Sydney
Banes, Major George Edward Chelsea, Viscount Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Barlow, John Emmott Clough, Walter Owen Fenwick, Charles
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.) Colville. John Fielden, Thomas
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Commins, Andrew Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Bemrose, Henry Howe Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Fisher, William Hayes
Bethell, Commander Cox, Robert Flannery, Fortescue
Bhownaggree, M. M. Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy Fletcher, Sir Henry
Biddulph, Michael Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Folkestone, Viscount
Billson, Alfred Cubitt, Hon. Henry Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.
Birrell, Augustine Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Foster, Sir Walter. (Derby Co.)

a step in the direction of abandoning the policy of contracting out as some thought. It went on the assumption that employers would not do anything more for their employés than they were bound to do under the provisions of a compensation Bill. But he himself knew many employers who did a great deal more for their employés at present than they were at all bound to do by law; and why should they not follow the same course after the passing of this Measure? There were various channels which would be still open for arrangements between employers and employés, and he, for one, believed there would still be a legitimate future for contracting out, and that it would not be an injurious future for the workmen. He would like to point out that the clause did not put the employer in a worse position; it simply stipulated that the employer should not evade his responsibilities under the Bill.

Question put:—

The House divided:—Ayes, 278; Noes, 63.—(Division List—No. 281—appended.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Brassey, Albert Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Brigg, John Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Allan, William (Gateshead) Broadhurst, Henry Dalziel, James Henry
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Brookfield, A. Montagu Darling, Charles John
Allison, Robert Andrew Brown, Alexander H. Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)
Arnold, Alfred Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Davitt, Michael
Ascroft, Robert Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Ashton, Thomas Gair Burns, John Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Burt, Thomas Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon
Atherley-Jones, L. Buxton, Sydney Charles Doughty, George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Caldwell, James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Cameron, Robert (Durham) Drucker, A.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Campbell, James A. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Cayzer, Charles William Dunn, Sir William
Balcarres, Lord Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan
Baldwin, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.) Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW (Leeds Channing, Francis Allston Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Evershed, Sydney
Banes, Major George Edward Chelsea, Viscount Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Barlow, John Emmott Clough, Walter Owen Fenwick, Charles
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.) Colville. John Fielden, Thomas
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Commins, Andrew Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Bemrose, Henry Howe Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Fisher, William Hayes
Bethell, Commander Cox, Robert Flannery, Fortescue
Bhownaggree, M. M. Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy Fletcher, Sir Henry
Biddulph, Michael Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Folkestone, Viscount
Billson, Alfred Cubitt, Hon. Henry Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.
Birrell, Augustine Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Foster, Sir Walter. (Derby Co.)
Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'tn) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Fowler, Matthew (Durham) Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Fry, Lewis Lorne, Marquess of Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Lough, Thomas Robinson Brooke
Gilhooly, James Loyd, Archie Kirkman Round James
Gilliat, John Saunders Lucas-Shadwell, William Rutherford, John
Goddard, Daniel Ford Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gold, Charles Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Goldsworthy, Major-General Macaleese, Daniel Scott, Charles Prestwich
Gordon, John Edward Macartney, W. G. Ellison Seely, Charles Hilton
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Macdona, John Cumming Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.
Goschen, Rt. H.n. G. J. (St. G'rg's) McArthur, William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) McCalmont, Maj-Gen. (Ant'm, N Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C Souttar, Robinson
Graham, Henry Robert M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Spicer, Albert
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Greene. W. Raymond- (Cambs.) McKenna, Reginald Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Gretton, John McLeod, John Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Greville, Captain Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Stephens, Henry Charles
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Stevenson, Francis S.
Hammond, John (Carlow) Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stock, James Henry
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Milton, Viscount Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hare, Thomas Leigh Molloy, Bernard Charles Strauss, Arthur
Harwood, George Monk, Charles James Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Haslett, Sir James Horner Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. More, Robert Jasper Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Morgan, Hn. Frd. (Monmthsh.) Tennant, Harold John
Hickman, Sir Alfred Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir G. O (Denbs. Thomas Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Holburn, J. G. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Holden, Angus Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr) Thornton, Percy M.
Holland, Hn. Lionel Raleigh Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose) Tollemache, Henry James
Horniman, Frederick john Morris, Samuel Tritton, Charles Ernest
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John Usborne, Thomas
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Murnaghan, George Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Nicol, Donald Ninian Walton, John Lawson
Isaacson, Frederick Wootton Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Jacoby, James Alfred Norton, Captain Cecil William Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Johnston, William (Belfast) Nussey, Thomas Willans Warr, Augustus Frederick
Joicey, Sir James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Wayman, Thomas
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wedderburn, Sir William
Kemp, George Oldroyd, Mark Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Kenny, William Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Kenrick, William Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Kenyon, James Paulton, James Mellor Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) Willox, John Archibald
Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)
Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Pender, James Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lafone, Alfred Pickard, Benjamin Wilson, John (Govan)
Lambert, George Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)
Langley, Batty Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon Woodall, William
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Power, Patrick Joseph Wyndham, George
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Price, Robert John Yoxall, James Henry
Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H. Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.)
Leighton, Stanley Pryce-Jones, Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Leng, Sir John Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Lloyd-George, David Reid, Sir Robert T.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col.A.R. (Essex) Rentoul, James Alexander
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Richards, Henry Charles
Long,Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Rickett, J. Compton
NOES.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh
Bainbridge, Emerson Bowles, T. Gilson (King's Lynn Denny, Colonel
Baird, John George Alexander Coddington, Sir William Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart
Banbury, Frederick George Coghill, Douglas Harry Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cranborne, Viscount Galloway, William Johnson
Bond, Edward Cripps, Charles Alfred Gedge, Sydney
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cityof Lond) Knowles, Lees Smith, James. Parker (Lanark)
Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gunter, Colonel Maclean, James Mackenzie Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Hardy Laurence McKillop, James Thorburn, Walter
Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. Malcolm, Ian Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Heath, James Melville, Beresford Valentine Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Heaton, John Henniker Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Helder, Augustus Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Mount, William George Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Howard, Joseph Myers, William Henry Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Howell, William Tudor Pierpoint, Robert Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Quitter, William Cuthbert
Jenkin, Sir John Jones Renshaw, Charles Bine TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Legh and Mr. Wolff.
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Seton-Karr, Henry
Kimber, Henry Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Resolution agreed to.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) to leave out the word "thereout," and to insert the words "under the scheme."— (Attorney General.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to leave out Sub-section (5). The intention was to put the clause with regard to the Report of the Registrar at the end of the section. There was no principle involved. This was only a drafting Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

could not agree with that remark. As the clause stood the responsibility of deciding on a scheme was to be put on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but now the Attorney General spoke of a chief Registrar. That seemed to imply that local Registrars were to decide on the merits of schemes, and that another official who was named for the first time was to make a report to Parliament.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said there was a chief or principal Registrar who now made an annual report to Parliament. It was intended that to save a duplication of reports these reports should be included in the Paper which was now annually submitted to Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words Any workmen or their representatives shall submit to the said Registrar prima facie evidence that, and to insert the words— complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workmen of any employer. He explained that this and several subsequent Amendments to Sub-section (6) were proposed with the object of showing clearly who should apply to the Registrar in the event of a desire to put an end to a scheme or to make an alteration in a scheme.

MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

was desirous of knowing how these complaints were to be carried from the workman to the Registrar. Would it be necessary that three-fourths of the majority of the workmen should be in favour of the scheme? The proposal was very vague, and did not make it clear as to the machinery to be used. He hoped the Attorney General and the Colonial Secretary would indicate to them by what form of machinery the complaint made by the workmen could be conveyed to the Registrar? Would it, for instance, be competent for the trades union agent in an office in London to snake a complaint on behalf of workmen in the far-off North of Scotland or remote parts of England? Would it be necessary for 300 out of 500 men to make a complaint? What he asked was the form of the machinery that would be set in motion as to the complaint when it was made?

MR. ROBERT ASCROFT (Oldham)

thought the Amendment would be a very commendable improvement if the clause stood as it was, requiring prima facie evidence; it would cause an immense amount of trouble and do a great deal of injury. All that was now required was that complaint should be made on behalf of the workmen.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

was understood to object to the words "by or on behalf of the workmen."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ventured to make an appeal to hon. Members to take these drafting Amendments a little bit more shortly. It was thought that the clause might be construed more widely than intended, and, therefore, those words were suggested. They wished to leave the Registrar unfettered and to give the power more to one workman, so that if it was an important matter the Registrar could deal with it, and if it was a trumpery matter he might refuse to deal with it. He could assure the House there was no evil design.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

warned the Attorney General that representation might be made in such a way as not to give the true views of the workmen.

MR. BURNS

could see nothing to take exception to in the words proposed which would give to the plaintiff a better status than he would have under the Bill as it stood. ["Hear, hear!"] The Registrar would differentiate between trivial and serious complaints whether from one man or a thousand.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the Bill as it stood required the production of primâ facie evidence, but this Amendment, which removed the last rag of protection from the employer, would allow the Registrar to proceed without any evidence at all. The Government did not require that there should be the smallest tittle of primâ facie evidence. They did not propose to require any evidence at all. The mere tittle tattle of the workshop, the discontent of one workman was to cause the whole of the scheme, over which so much trouble had been taken, to be reconsidered by the Registrar.

COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

thought the Attorney General had hardly considered the effect of this Amendment. What the House ought certainly to provide for was the protection of the majority of the workmen. His own belief was that no such scheme would come into existence; but if one did, it ought to have a chance. He did not think it was fair that an official in the position of the Registrar should be asked to interpret what the meaning of the Government was. He ought to have more definite instructions. ["Hear, hear!"]

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6), after the word "longer," to insert the words "on the whole."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "workman," and to insert the word "workmen and such employer and their dependants."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "same," and to insert the word "scheme."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "employers," and to insert the word "employer."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the words "then he," and to insert the words "the Registrar."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs) moved in Sub-section (6) after the word certificate," to insert the words, whereupon time funds of the scheme shall be distributed as may be arranged between the employer and workman, or as may be determined by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the event of a difference of opinion.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (7) after the word "all," to insert the word "such."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RENSHAW moved in Sub-section (7), after the word "accounts," to insert the words "in regard to the scheme." It seemed to him that the expression "such accounts," used in the Bill, might involve an inquiry into the solvency of the employer. He thought it should be made clear that the accounts to be looked into were the accounts of the particular scheme only.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (7) to leave out the words "from time to time."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved in Sub-section (7), after the word "be," to insert the words "made or."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved at the end of Sub-section (7) to add the words, The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shall include in his annual report the particulars of the proceedings of the Registrar under this Act. He said that this was carrying out what he had promised on behalf of the Home Secretary.

MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil) moved to leave out Clause 2. He said that under the clause the owner of a piece of land who was working the coal might let a contract for sinking a shaft, and might go away and absent himself from the country, leaving the sub-contractor in sole control of the work; and if any accident happened to a man or men working in the shaft, the sub-contractor alone would be liable to them. He apprehended that was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He understood that the object of the 13il1 was to protect the workmen, and that the employer should be the person liable to pay compensation for injuries to workmen. He had submitted the clause to four or five Members of the Bar, and not one of them had been able to thoroughly understand it. If the clause had any meaning at all, he submitted it was to make the sub-contractor liable. He thought the clause should be struck out, because it was unintelligible and obscure, and would involve everybody in considerable litigation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said he did not think the hon. Member would consider him guilty of discourtesy if he did not argue this matter afresh. It was quite impossible for the Government to agree to strike out the clause. This question of sub-contracting formed the subject of a long discussion in 1893, and the Government had adopted this clause because it seemed to them on the whole to approximate as nearly as possible to a solution of the question. As far as the Government could judge the clause carried out the considered opinion of the country on this question. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. H. H. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

said he thought his hon. Friend was under a misapprehension as to the effect of this clause. It would not relieve the Subcontractor from anything for which he was not now liable, or impose any liability which he did not now bear. The clause as it stood would cover 99 cases out of a hundred.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2,—