SCALE AND CONDITIONS OF COMPENSATION—SCALE.

HC Deb 12 July 1897 vol 50 cc1608-59

(1.) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be—

1. (a) where death results from the injury—
1. (i.) if the workman leaves dependants, a sum equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum; and
2. (ii.) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds;
2. (b) in case of total or partial incapacity for work resulting from the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings at that employment during the previous twelve months, but if the period of his engagement has been less than twelve months, then the average during the period of his actual engagement, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.

(2.) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment, regard shall be had to the difference between the amount of the weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the amount which he is able to earn after the accident.

(3.) The payment shall be made on the application of the person entitled thereto, or his authorised representatives.

(4.) The payment shall, in case of death, be made to the legal person representative of the workman, or, if he has no legal personal representative, to his dependants, or, if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due.

(5.) The expression "dependants" in this schedule means such members of the workman's family specified in the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, as were wholly or in part dependant upon the cunnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death; and any question as to who is a dependant, or as to the amount payable to each dependant shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.

(6.) Tile sum allotted as compensation may be invested or otherwise applied for his benefit as directed by the committee or other arbitrator.

(7.) Any sum ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested may he ordered to be invested in whole Or in part in the Post Office Savings Bank by the Registrar of the County Court in his name as Registrar.

(8.) Any sum so ordered to be invested may be accepted by the Postmaster-General as a deposit in the name of the Registrar an such, and the provisions of any statute or regulations respecting the limits of deposits in savings bunk, and the declaration to be made by a depositor, shall not apply to such sums.

(9.) No part of any money invested in the name of the Registrar of any County Court in the Post Office Savings Bank under this Act, shall be paid out to any Registrar, except upon authority addressed to the Postmaster General by the Treasury or by the Judge.

(10.) Any person deriving any benefit under any moneys paid into a Post Office Savings Bank under the provisions of this Act, may nevertheless open an account in a Post Office Savings Bank or in any other savings lank in his own name, without being liable to any penalties imposed by any statute or regulations in respect of the opening of accounts in two savings banks, or of two accounts in the same savings bank.

(11.) Any weekly payment may be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and on such review many be ended, diminished, or increased, subject to the maximum above provided, and the amount or pay-cant shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.

(12.) Where any weekly payment his been continued for not less than twelve months the liability there for may, on the application of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum, to be settled by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application.

(13.) A weekly payment shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law.

(14.) In the application of the Act and of this schedule to Scotland the expression "dependants" means tile persons who, according to the law of Scotland, are entitled to sue the employer for damages or solatium in respect of the death of the workman, and who are wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of or immediately prior to his death.

SIR HENRY HOWORTH (Salford, S.) moved, in Sub-section (a), Section (1), to leave out the words "if the workman leave dependants," which would necessitate also, he said, the omission of the second sub-section. He wished to make a strong appeal to his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to reconsider the position of the Government in this question. It seemed to him that the principle of having two scales of compensation, dependent not upon the wages a man received, nor upon the risks he ran, nor upon the kind of occupation he was engaged in, hut dependent entirely on the adventitious fact that he might or might not have a number of people dependent upon him was absolutely indefensible on economical and other grounds, and would certainly lead to very disastrous results in trades in which the occupation was a dangerous one. It must inevitably lead in such cases to the exclusion from employment of married men and with children. The Bill put a tremendous penalty on the employer who employed married men. In collieries especially, where a large number of the employés were men with families, the risk that would be run in employing such men would be a very serious and awkward one, and for the sake of the men employed, apart altogether from the enormously enhanced cost of working, coal, he would appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision as to the scale of compensation.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

could not think his hon. Friend was in earnest in proposing this Amendment. His argument was that an inducement was held out to employers to employ men who had no dependants. In the first place, that argument was not borne out by the experience of the relief societies, which recognised the principle followed in the Bill, and he had not heard that the effect of the rules of those societies had been to induce employers to select only those men who had no dependants. If the liabilities were the same, whether there were dependants or not, a further question would arise as to who was to have the money. Surely that was a practical question. He could hardly think that employers would be willing to agree to an Amendment which imposed the same liability whether there were dependants or not.

Amendment negatived.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick) moved an Amendment applying the scale of compensation payable in case of death where the workman leaves dependants "wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of or immediately prior to his death." This had to be read in connection with a subsequent Amendment as follows:— If the workman leaves dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of or immediately prior to his death, such sum not exceeding in any case the amount specified in the preceding sub-section as the arbitrators may consider reasonable and proportionate to the injury to such dependants. The scheme of the Bill was to divide the cases into two classes—the case where the workman left dependants, and the case where he did not. The object of the Amendment was to introduce a third class—the case where the workman left people partly dependent—the principle being that, whereas the scale might be quite reasonable for the case of the father of a family leaving persons wholly dependent, many cases would arise in which the earnings of the person killed formed only a small part of the earnings of the so-called dependants., and, therefore, under the scale of the Bill the amount to be paid to those partial dependants would be much larger than anything they actually lost by the death of the workman. In the case of a man over 65 there would rarely be anyone except his wife wholly dependent upon him, and in that case it would be arguable whether the scale of the Bill was not excessive; while, in the case of young persons earning 5s. or so a week, the amount given by the scale would represent perhaps a dozen years' wages of the child killed. The scheme in the Bill seemed to look simply to the case of the full-grown man in the prime of life, and there was reason to fear that if it stood as it was the effect might be serious in discouraging the employment of old men. The limitation of dependants was taken from the Fatal Accidents Act, but that Act included the principle of the present Amendment. It did not contain any minimum, but it gave power to the jury to award a less sum so as to cover the actual loss of the person. He thought that in this Bill, one way or another, a similar provision ought to be made, and that not merely the case of grown-up men but the case of old men and children ought to be considered; and he believed that the suggestion in the Amendment, without drawing any arbitrary or hard and fast line, such as the age of 65 or 12s. a week, would give discretion to the arbitrator to meet the requirements of justice by reducing the amount of compensation.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,) Birmingham, W.

said that he did not dispute for a moment the importance of the question raised by his hon. Friend and the reasonableness of the arguments Which he had advanced in support of the Amendment. The fact was that this Amendment and other Amendments on the Paper to which reference had been made, raised the question of scale under the Bill in case of death; and there was this peculiarity about the scale, that the minimum had been fixed at £150. To that extent the discretion of the arbitrator, which they had endeavoured to preserve throughout the Bill, had been limited. He was bound to admit that he saw in that a certain inconsistency. The Government held very strongly to the view that in dealing with the different complexities of trade it was impossible to stereotype terms and put them into a statute; they must allow a certain freedom to the judge or arbitrator who had to decide a case of doubt. In most cases they had, he thought, preserved that freedom of the arbitrator. But in the present case the freedom of the arbitrator had been limited by the schedule, and, as a rule, there were two questions which undoubtedly arose. The first was the case where the minimum fixed might be more than the value of the deceased to the dependants who were to benefit; and it was conceivable, therefore, that the death of the workman might actually be an advantage to time persons who were interested in his wages. Certainly, at first sight, there appeared to be an anomaly. The second case was that where the wages of the person killed did not amount to the sum which would justify the compensation given. Take the case of an old man who was in casual employment, and earning 5s. a week. On his death £150 had to be paid to his dependents just the same as if he were a workman in full health, earning 30s. or 40s. a week. That also constituted an anomaly. He thought his hon. friend would see that the Government appreciated the difficulty that had been raised. He did not look, however, on the proposal of his hon. friend as being at first sight absolutely satisfactory. He thought that the division which the hon. Member had proposed between those who were wholly and those who were partially dependent was rather arbitrary. For instance, suppose that a wife was dependent upon her husband, hut that she earned by charing an occasional 2s. a week. She would be only partially dependent, but it would be very hard to make a distinction between a wife in that position and another woman who was wholly dependent. The difference between wholly and partially in that case was very trifling, and one which it was impossible to deal with in the terms of a Bill. There were other exceptional csses which suggested themselves to his mind, and they went to show how extremely difficult it was to find words to do absolute justice in all these cases. He was bound to say, however, that, having recognised these difficulties, and having departed from the principles of the Bill by limiting the discretion of the arbitrator in this one case by fixing the minimum at £150, the Government had raised some difficulties which he thought had not been fully discussed on previous stages of the Bill, and which they ought to endeavour to meet. While he did not feel justified on behalf of the Government in accepting the Amendment, he hoped that his hon. Friend would see that the Government were alive to the difficulties raised, and he trusted that they might be able in the course of further consideration of the Bill to be able by some means to give effect to the suggestion.

MR. A. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)

said that the Amendment proposed that there should be discrimination between the cases of "wholly dependent" in the case of a workman killed, and where the dependent on the workman was "partially dependent." The Colonial Secretary had pointed out that in some cases the person who was partially dependent might be entitled to substantially the same amount of compensation as a person wholly dependent. This case was dealt with in the Amendment, because in that case the arbitrator was to have full discretion. It was only a question of taking away the minimum, and if the arbitrator thought it right in any particular case to give the same measure of compensation as the Bill would give, where a dependent was wholly dependent this would be within the discretion of the arbitrator; and he hoped that on further consideration the right hon. Gentleman would see that the possible injustice to which he referred would not in any circumstances arise if the whole of the Amendment of the hon. Member were accepted. This case had been in the mind of those who had prepared the Amendment, and the whole of the Amendment looked at as one was carefully worded. They must discriminate in the Bill in order to get a fair measure of compensation; this was all that the hon. Member proposed as regarded that portion of his Amendment. The other point referred to by the Colonial Secretary was, he thought, of equal importance, but it rested on a different principle. It was not a question whether a dependent was partially dependent on a workman, but whether the compensation was not out of proportion to the earnings of the workman at the date of his death. This point was not immediately dealt with in the Amendment, but still it was essential that it should be considered. The point had been raised on the Committee stage, and the Colonial Secretary acknowledged the difficulty. Supposing they had a work woman or a child earning 5s. a week, then they had a minimum compensation of £150; thus they gave 13 years' wages as compensation in a case of that kind. No one would suggest that this would be fair. Again, suppose a case of compensation between workmen and workmen, not employer and employed. Was it fair that the fellow workmen in that particular case should provide 13 years' compensation? It would be far more fair in all these cases that the amount of compensation should be proportioned to the earnings of the person injured or killed. If in all cases they apportioned the compensation to the amount of earnings they attained a fair and self-acting system. No one would suggest that they ought to give £150 as a minimum in the case he had suggested. He hoped that the Colonial Secretary would consider these two points, not in any way with a view to cutting down the terms of compensation under the Bill, but in order that they might establish a fair adjustment and to apportion the amount of award to the proportion of the injury.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said he wished to reply to the previous speaker on two points he had made in connection with the case of a child earning 5s. a week, and the supposed injustice as between workman and workman. As to the injustice between workman and workman, he might be allowed to point out that in their relief societies the workmen entailed that injustice upon themselves now, because there was no distinction made as to the amount of relief between die man who had a wife and several children and the man who had no wife. It might be argued that in strict justice there ought to be a differential rate of compensation, according to a man's earning power and the number of persons dependent on him, but that would raise another serious complication, and cause a great bar to cases being promptly dealt with. The Bill had been very much altered since it was brought forward, and they had now another alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies; and he would like to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them exactly what they had to meet in these amendments. This matter was fully discussed in Committee; the right hon. Gentleman heard the same arguments; and if it was necessary, as he said, to make some alteration to meet what he called the justice of the case, why was the Amendment not put down on the Paper? In his own opinion it was not necessary; but if the right hon. Gentleman had anything of the kind in mind, he could not have been impressed by the arguments brought forward that evening, because there was nothing new in them; the same arguments and the same objections were all used at the Committee stage. As to the case of the child earning 5s. a week, was there not such a thing as prospective dependence upon a son He could understand the case of a father of a family dying and leaving a son who was earning low wages and the widow struggling on till the boy grew up The widow had what he called a prospective right in that boy—she was depending on him for support in her old age. Now, if this Bill was intended to meet injuries sustained, that was a case which should receive some consideration when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his proposals. He hoped that if the Secretary intended to carry out the ideas he had suggested, he would give them some outline beforehand so that they might have time to consider it, and not leave it to the fag-end of the session, when there would not be full opportunity to study the whole bearings of the question. He feared that the benefit of the Bill to the workman was being very much minimised, and if the right hon. Gentleman did bring for ward an alteration that would authorise the committee or the arbitrator to inquire how much a family was dependent on the injured workman, wholly or partially, then it must tend to further minimise the benefit that was intended to accrue to the workman. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider any idea he might have in his mind, which was no doubt intended to mollify hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the employer's point of view. He did not think there was any need for them to fear, for he believed that every iota of benefit that went to the workman would in the long run be most assuredly paid for by the workman himself. They must look at this thing as straight as they could. Workmen must not be deluded—at least, he was not deluded—into thinking they were going to get any great gifts from the employer, because he believed that the relations between wages and prices were so close that any benefit paid by the employer would come out of wages in the end. Let them speak plainly. It might be that the employer was the best and the most necessary channel through which the workman could receive this money; but let them fully recognise that the money winch came through would ultimately come from the workman from the producing power of the workman. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the right hon. Gentleman mould not bring forward any alteration to produce complications. Too many complications had been produced in the Bill already, and this would make another. Let any hon. Member bring before his mind a county like Durham where there were between 70,000 and 80,000 men down in the mines; let him consider that from 17,000 to 18,000 accidents occurred in a year, and if 10,000 of these had to be decided by a committee or by arbitration as what the workman was to receive based on his earning power for the time being, it was obvious that the court or committee would become so congested with arrears of work that it would be many months perhaps before any money was paid to the sufferer. Anything of this kind must tend to check the speedy operation of the Bill. He certainly thought that this was a point upon which the decision of the committee might be fairly maintained, and he urged the Government to maintain it.

MR. SETON-KARR

said in supporting the Amendment, and in putting down an Amendment of a similar nature on the Paper, he had no desire to minimise the fair and just compensation payable under the Bill. It had been said that this matter was fully discussed in Committee. He ventured to differ. A very short discussion took place late in the evening. The point raised was admitted to be a very important one, and the Government went so far as to say that it was a point which had escaped their attention, and they would, between Committee and Report stage, look into it and see what could be done. He did not for a moment complain of what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had said, so far as the merits of the case were concerned, but there was some justice in the complaint of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he did think, after what passed in Committee, that it was a pity the Government had not seen their way to put down on the Paper the Amendment by which they would desire to meet the case. It was an important matter. Let him put a case which had not been mentioned at all. The case of the child earning a few shillings a week had been spoken of. Take the case of a man with half-a-dozen full-grown sons working in a colliery or a glass-blowing factory. The old couple were dependent on the sons, each of whom perhaps contributed 2s. a week to their parents, who might be able to do some trifling work besides. If one of these sons was killed, as the Bill now stood these parents would be entitled to receive a minimum of £150—all discretion to reduce would be taken away from the arbitrator. Yet look at the parents' loss by actuarial figures. Two shillings a week was £5 a year; three years' payments were £15; therefore, on a simple calculation, a payment of fifteen or twenty years would more than meet the justice of the case. Yet the arbitrator was absolutely prevented from awarding the old couple less than £150. As he said in Committee, the Bill was altogether one-sided. Here was a case of absolute injustice—it was lavish generosity at the expense of the employer, or rather at the expense of the employé. The Amendment he had put down, and that of his hon. Friend, were intended to meet this case. It took away nothing from the workman, it merely gave the arbitrator a fair discretion. There was another view to be taken, viz., that they were putting a very high premium on the death of an able-bodied man. To his old parents that man would be worth four or five times as much when dead as he was when alive. ["Oh!"] He was no doubt putting it perhaps in what some people would think a brutal way. But it was the simple fact of the case; and he thought, therefore, that it was appoint winch the Government should meet. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had met these arguments in a fair and conciliatory spirit; but there had been month or more between the Committee and the report stage, and he confessed he should have liked to know in what way they proposed to meet a point in the Bill which must be met if anything like justice was to be done. The right hon. Gentleman would see that in his Amendment he had practically embodied the same point as his hon. Friend, and he should like to know if there was anything in the words set down that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept in regard to this point. He did not believe that the Amendment would have the effect of complicating the proceedings before the arbitrator.

SIR W. HARCOURT

thought the House ought to have a clearer declaration from the Government with regard to the alteration which they proposed to make in the Bill. They ought to be told how and why this alteration was to be made. Did the Government intend to abandon the minimum altogether, or did they intend to fix a lower minimum?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

wished to make it clear that the Government had no intention of abandoning the minimum. What they thought was that the words in the Bill appeared to limit the discretion of the arbitrator. [Sir W. HARCOURT: "Of course, it would not be a minimum if the arbitrator had the power to award a smaller sum!"] His right hon. Friend had shown that in certain cases it would not be just that the arbitrator should have no discretion. As yet, however, the Government had not found any form of words which would meet the necessities of the case.

MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)

had heard the statement of the Colonial Secretary with considerable alarm. The arguments used by the hon. Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for St. Helens showed that they did not understand labour matters. They seemed to think that a boy who was just entering upon a life of labour was to be reckoned of less value to his family than a man who had been working for a number of years. That was quite wrong. A poor widow left with children dependent upon her labour counted the days up to the time when her eldest boy was able to work, and when he was at work she counted the months that must elapse before he would get an advance of wages. In the lad, in fact, lay her chief hope. In the case of a man who had worked for 30 years, so much of his capital—that was, his capacity for work—had gone. The lad of 16 had all those years to the good, and was therefore of greater value to Ids family. He wanted the Colonial Secretary to consider the following case: A member of a family was often dependent upon a family contribution for the greater part of his or her maintenance. Supposing three brothers contributed and one of them was killed, the survivors might not be able to subscribe a sufficient amount to keep the dependent member of the family out of the workhouse. What would be clone in a case of that kind were the proposal of the hon. Member for the Partick Division accepted?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

explained that the suggestion that had been made was that the arbitrator should be given discretion to take into account all the circumstances of the case, and to award a less sum if the circumstances of the case should warrant it, but only under those conditions. In the case put by the hon. Member the arbitrator would, lie presumed, award the full sum.

MR. BROADHURST

said that that assurance relieved his anxiety in a Measure. The Bill contained very much that was good, and he wished to preserve as much of it as possible, and to leave in it as little as possible that was vague.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said he did not think anybody wished to deprive the arbitrator of the discretion and power to give an old widow the prospective value of the earnings of her son whom she had lost by an accident. That, however, did not cover the whole case, and if they were to speak of surrenders they must refer to a contention which had been repeatedly made on the Committee stage, that justice forbade that anyone should be pecuniarily the gainer by the death of a workman. If there was to be a minimum it should be that sum which under the old law a jury would have given when a ease was brought before it, and such a sum being variable could not be fixed in a Bill. Ho thought therefore that it would be best to give an unfettered discretion to the arbitrator.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY moved in paragraph (i), Sub-section (a), after the words "a sum equal to his earnings," to insert the words "at that employment." He thought these words were required in order to deal with cases where the employment had not been for three years.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said the Amendment would not read, and could not be inserted at this point. The House had decided that the sum was either to be equal to the earnings during three years, or to be the sum of £150, and they thought that was the proper way of dealing with the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.) moved to insert in the same paragraph after the words "preceding the injury," the words at that employment, if employed for three years, and, if for a less period, then for the amount of three years' earnings calculated at the rate of his actual earnings during the period employed. He thought the compensation should be based not upon the workman's previous earnings, but on what he would probably have earned if he had continued his work.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

pointed out that the words could not be inserted; the words if inserted would have to be "at his employment," or "at the employment." If the hon. Member wished the earnings to be calculated on a different principle he would suggest that lie should put forward his Amendment at the end of the sub-section.

MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk)

pointed out that sonic Amendment was necessary as a workman might be employed by two employers, from one of whom he received 2s. 6d. a week, and from the other 30s. The question arose as to what should be paid if he was killed whilst in the employment of the employer who paid him 2s. 6d. a week.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall)

cited the case of a man who might have been earning £200 or £300 a year as a teacher but who had lost his situation through drunkenness. Having become a tramp the man might be found a situation by the Church Army at 15s. a week, while his average of earnings for three years would be much more than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.) moved in paragraph (i), Sub-section (a) to insert after the words "three hundred pounds," the words:— and such sum shall be paid in the following manner: (1) By a sum of ten pounds for medical attendance and burial; (2) by weekly payments for fifty-two weeks of two-thirds of his average earnings during the three years next preceding the injury; (3) by a sum at the end of fifty-two weeks equal to the balance of the total amount due for compensation under this Act. He proposed this Amendment really in the interests of the workmen, but he would also point out that in the case of the smaller employers a lump sum might be a very heavy burden. He would also point out that it was probable that in the majority of cases, after a fatal accident, the relatives of the deceased workman would remove to friends at a distance; and in these circumstances the weekly payments would give rise to considerable difficulty mid inconvenience. He knew it had been suggested that the decision of the question whether it would be better to give a lump sum or weekly payments should be left in the hands of the arbitrator. But he objected to any increase in the burden that was already placed on the arbitrator, and besides it would be very difficult for the arbitrator to decide in particular cases whether a lump sum should be given or weekly payments. He would point out that what the widow of the workman killed would first want was a small sum to defray medical and funeral expenses; secondly, provision for some time in the shape of weekly payments, and then after a period of about 12 months, a capital sum which might be devoted to secure for her a permanent livelihood. He believed the best interest of a working man's family would be served by some such arrangement, and he thought that instead of leaving the matter at the discretion of the arbitrator, an automatic system should be provided.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

pointed out that Subsection (6) of the schedule gave the arbitrator discretion to carry out the arrangement suggested in the Amendment if he thought it desirable in any particular case. The words of the Sub-section were:— The sum allotted as compensation may be invested or otherwise employed for his benefit, as directed by the committee or other arbitrator.

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

said the object of the hon. Baronet was an excellent one. Any one that had experience of the way in which the sums paid in the lump as compensation to widows were spent would venture to assert that some such scheme was desirable. When he pointed out that in the event of any large accident in which there were 200 lives lost, a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 would be thrown into one village, it would be seen how desirable it was that the arbitrator should have discretion to deal with the mode of paying the compensation as he thought proper. As his hon. Friend the Member for the Lichfield Division had pointed out, Sub-section (6) gave full power to the arbitrator to make an arrangement such as the hon. Baronet suggested if he thought fit; but as it might be desirable in some cases to give a lump sum rather than weekly payments, it would not be well to fix a hard and fast rule.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said he thought the object of his hon. Friend was one that would be appreciated everywhere. He confessed that at first he was inclined to accept the Amendment, although it was always objectionable and dangerous to adopt anything in the nature of a stereotyped rule; but on further consideration he had come to the conclusion that Sub-section (6) left to the arbitrator a discretion to make such a disposition of the money as his hon. Friend proposed.

Sat W. HOULDSWORTH

asked what would be done with the money in case such an arrangement as he proposed was made.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said that in that case the £150 or whatever the sum might be would be paid over and invested in the Post Office, and be withdrawn in instalments.

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said the labour representatives appreciated the intentions of the hon. Baronet, in moving the Amendment; but they thought it would be well to allow Subsection (6) to regulate the distribution of the money.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said that in order to meet the point of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that the earnings on which the amount of compensation was to be based should be the earnings in the employment in which the workman was at the time of his death. He moved to insert in line 8 after "injury," the words, "in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of his death if he has been so long employed."

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)

asked whether the Attorney General meant the employment under an employer for all the industry, or for one branch only of the industry. A man, for instance, might be earning 5s. or 6s. a day in one branch of an industry for two years, and then owing to some change in that branch of the industry he might be put to something else at which he earned only 3s. a day. In such a case as that would the compensation be reckoned on the 3s. a day or on the whole sum the man earned during the three years?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said he had endeavoured to meet the particular case mentioned by his hon. Friend behind him, but if hon. Members opposite had any objection to the Amendment he would withdraw it.

*SIR JAMES JOICEY

thought there was something in the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham, and he advised the withdrawal of the Amendment.

MR. BENJAMIN PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)

also supported the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Amendmenlt, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Sub-section (b), to leave out the words, "in case of," and to insert the word "where."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in the same paragraph to leave out the word "resulting," and to insert the word "results."

Amendment agreed to.

*COLONEL BLUNDELL moved in paragraph (b) to leave out the word "second," and to insert the word "sixth." He said that the object of this Amendment was to indirectly induce employers and employed to form mutual relief societies, and so secure to the employed the guarantee of en association that if injured, ho and his would receive the money compensation promised, irrespective of the solvency of the employer; while it would secure to the employer that the supervision of the fellow workmen would be brought to bear upon workmen suffering from bruises and slight strains, owing to their having an interest in the funds which paid them. With regard to the necessity for such mutual associations, in the relief societies of this country, in Germany, and in New Zealand, the workmen had a direct pecuniary interest in the economical administration of accident funds, although their systems differed in detail if in this country the workman was absolutely severed from all pecuniary interest in accident funds, mid these funds were paid for by the employer almost alone, there was a great temptation to a workman to prolong his case, if he was at all given to idleness. The exclusion of compensation for the first fortnight was so small as to be useless as against such prolongation. The House would have noticed the great difference between the calculations of the Home Office and of the employers in respect of the compensation that would be payable. The Home Office in estimating the cost took the average wage of ail the workers as the guide; but the relief societies took the past as their guide, and found that the average wage of all the workers did not represent the average wage of the injured, but that the injured were chiefly derived from those earning higher wages and working in more dangerous places. This was specially the case in coal milting. The Home Office, too, did not appear in its calculations of the incidence per ton of the cost of accident to have taken into consideration the liability falling upon the fund from past serious accidents. If in the Act the whole cost was thrown upon the employer, how would the arbitration work referred to in the second schedule? It had been the experience in many cases of arbitration between employers and employed that they were so well conducted that the arbitrator was hardly employed at all. The employer could hardly feel confidence in the representatives of the workman on the arbitration dispensing the moneys which had to provide, and which they as well as those injured would regard as drawn from a sort of consolidated find whose dimensions they probably exaggerated absurdly. If they looked at the experience of Germany they found that the Germans had made the mistake of paying too much in small injuries, for this had led to a postponement of the cure. It had, in fact, en- couraged malingering. The Government by throwing away self-help parted with the only means whereby that evil could be checked. Anything to be successful must be done mutually. Let employers and employed pay half and half, and then they could safely go as far as they liked but if one paid all and the other had au equal right to dispense, the scheme would not succeed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said that the argument of his hon. Friend really went to the question whether or not a longer period than two weeks should be taken before the allowance could be paid. If the argument was that if a longer period was to Le taken there must be back payments of the amount, then there was a forcible objection to the extension of the time, and if the argument was that the employer should not be made responsible until the actual payments began, then there should be as short a period as possible.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said that in Committee the House was almost evenly divided on the question whether the payment of compensation should not begin immediately after the accident, or whether there should be an interval of two weeks before the employer should be held to be liable at all. He thought that if any change was to be made in the Bill it should be made in the direction of making the payments to begin on the very earliest day after the accident.

MR. TOMLINSON

said the question was not so simple as the Attorney General seemed to suppose. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had suggested that the two weeks taken off would reduce the liabilities of the employers by 30 per cent., but the calculation of that eminent authority, Mr. Neison, showed that the relief in these circumstances would be very small indeed.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

rose to order. He submitted that this matter was provided for in a former section of the Bill. Sub-section (20) provided that the period should be two weeks.

*MR. SPEAKER

That point has already been taken. The hon. Gentleman is in order.

MR. TOMLINSON

, continuing, said that he should be very glad if the figures in relation to this matter would work out as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had made them.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said that the meaning of the language he used to the deputation had been entirely misconceived. He never said that tins deduction of two weeks was equal to 25 per cent. of the value of the compensation. He said it was equivalent to 25 per cent. of the total number of accidents, and he agreed with Mr. Neison that that was equivalent to five per cent. of the value of compensation. Then he went on to say that it not merely knocked out all accidents which lasted two weeks, but that it also knocked off two weeks from the duration of the compensation in regard to all other accidents—that was to say, that in regard to 75 per cent, of the total number of accidents it knocked off two weeks of compensation, and, as the average term of compensation was found by the Miners' Relief Society and other associations to be six weeks, from these accidents the deduction amounted to 30 per cent. These were the two statements he made.

*MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGE (Lincoln, Gainsborough)

said he would like to submit the hon. Gentleman's exact words, and then the House would be able to gauge whether he was justified in the interpretation he had put on them. The right hon. Gentleman said:— I daresay it is well known to most here that the result of that is to exclude altogether at least 25 per cent. of all the accidents that take place, and to exclude two weeks' compensation from all the rest. As the average of incapacity is very small in the vast majority of cases, this practically reduces the amount of compensation by something like 30 per cent.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

Hear, hear. The first statement is 25 per cent. of the number. The second statement is 30 per cent. reduction of the compensation payable in the great majority of accidents.

*MR. BAINBRIDGE

said that though he accepted the explanation, he was justified in his interpretation. This Amendment really dealt with one of the most important principles in the Bill—namely, what proportion should the employer bear as compared with the burden imposed on the workman. On the one side there was two weeks to be borne by the workman and on the other side the rest to be borne by the employer. As he had said, he thought this a very unjust burden. The right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, on the same occasion, used the following important words:— I think the most important of all the points to which reference has been made, and one which has already given us an immense deal of anxiety and continues to occupy our attention is the question of the prevention of malingering. He suggested that one of the surest ways of reducing malingering was to extend the two weeks to a longer period.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (b), leave out "at that employment."

Leave out: "Then the average during the period of his actual engagement," and insert— If he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been engaged in the same employment."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)

MR. PARKER SMITH moved in Sub-section (b), after "pound," insert— provided that no such payment shall continue for a longer period than three hundred and sixty-five weeks. He contended that it was of the greatest importance that the question of this weekly allowance to the workman should be left in such a position as to give a sufficient amount to the workman, and at the same time would be defined in some way and made capable of being insured against. Of course any number of hard cases could be quoted in which the fixing of a maximum would tell hardly, cases in which the incapacity was permanent; but the principle that hard cases made bad law came in here. They could not take into consideration individual and exceptional cases in laying down a general rule in this way. He thought it important from the point of view of insurance, to have a maximum as definite as possible, and they must make a general estimate of what they thought it fair to impose as a maximum and exclude considerations of possible hard cases, and he submitted that the general rule framed in the Amendment was a satisfactory one to establish.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the amendment. He must say that it was discouraging to the Government to find that having made a concession to meet the views of hon. Members in the Committee stage, and that concession having been accepted, it was now proposed to upset the arrangement and to introduce quite a different principle. He did not think it was to the advantage of the workman that there should be this maximum established, nor would it be fair to the workman. If they took a case of permanent injury an, t incapacity, such payment as would he included in a payment of 365 weeks might be a very insufficient compensation. It was said that this change was necessary in order that the insurance might he effective. That was an argument advanced with reference to commutation, and it had some weight with the Government, but it was one which could not be advanced in regard to the present Amendment. In the first place, insurance offices had plenty of definiteness in their arrangements. They only wanted to know what the average was, and in this case there was ample means at the disposal of the insurance offices to enable them to say how many accidents involving permanent and total incapacity were likely to come forward for compensation. They would be able to make an exact calculation front the returns in the different trades, such as was afforded, for example, by the returns of the miners' relief societies. That was one reason, and the second reason was, if it was insufficient they always had the opportunity, if an accident was going on for an indefinite time, of coming forward under the commutation clause. He thought the Government had gone quite as far as they could be expected to go.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said that as the right hon. Gentleman had explained it, the employer would have the opportunity to go forward and commute, but as he read the words, lie would have no opportunity at all of doing so unless the arbitrator agreed to let him have it. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "Hear, hear!"] Then it was not a commutation clause absolutely but only potentially and what his hon. Friend proposed was that there should be an absolute limit and that limit, in his opinion, was a generous one. As the words stood, the weekly payment might go on for an indefinite period, only to be increased by the life of the persons injured.

MR. CRIPPS

thought that the Colonial Secretary hardly appreciated what was intended to he guarded against by the Amendment. Why should they limit the liability in the case of the rich employer who was aide to commute and leave it unlimited in the case of the poorer employer who could not afford to commute because lie could not afford the expense of commutation? They might have an employer by no means a rich man, very little richer than his workman. The workman might be permanently injured by some stranger over whose acts the employer had no control at all. What was the result? A man, equally poor, who had a wife and children dependent upon hint, had to provide during the whole lifetime of another under the terms of this Bill. He said without any hesitation that that, as a matter of principle, was not right. The small employer would not be able to insure at all, because the expense of keeping a small account would be greater than any benefit the insurance company would be able to derive from it; and it was exactly in the case of the small employer that it was specially hard there should be no limit of liability at all.

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

hoped there would be some definite assurance from the Government, because the words as they stood had raised a great deal of doubt in the minds of employers in various industries. It was important that the House should be invited to consider the limitation of 365 weeks from the point of view submitted by tile hon. and learned Member for Stroud; especially in the interests of the small employer, who would he by far the most injured by the provisions of this Bill, it should be made perfectly clear that the liability in respect of an accident was only to run for seven years and no longer.

MR. TOMLINSON

said that there was only one conclusion to be drawn from the argument which had been addressed to the House, that whatever was done with this Amendment the Bill could not he made to operate fairly and justly unless it was accompanied by State insurance. The only employments that were exempt from difficulty on that account were the large ones, employing a large number of persons entitling them to become their own insurers. But if they took an employment liable to some sudden catastrophe, or a small employer without capital, it was manifest that in these cases the employers would very often be left in a very unfair position.

MR. PARKER SMITH

Does the Colonial Secretary mean to insert the words "be ordered to" when we come to section 12?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

No, those words are not to be moved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR A. HICKMAN moved at the end of Sub-section (b), to insert the following proviso:— The workman shall produce, when so required, to the employer a certificate, from a duly qualified medical practitioner appointed and paid by the employer for that purpose, that his incapacity for work occasioned by the accident continues; and, in the event of such certificate being refused, he shall be entitled to appeal to the arbitrator. He said that these requirements were found to be necessary by universal experience. In arrangements between workmen and employers it was always customary, and in Mutual Benefit Societies and Friendly Societies rules existed towards this end. He quoted from the rules of the Oddfellows, the Free Foresters, and the Free Gardeners, showing that a certificate should not only be produced, but that the person disabled should be visited every week by one of the officers. The rules of those societies had been made by the men for their own government, and had been in operation for many years; if they had been found to be irksome no one could doubt that they would have been modified long ago. A workman's certificate could be produced by the man's wife or child, and it might be taken for granted that the employer would not insist unnecessarily upon the production of a certificate, because every certificate was to be provided at his expense. Without some such provision as this the Bill would be absolutely unworkable. He had supported the Bill from the beginning, and he had not advocated any change which would in any degree lessen the advantages to be received by the men. In making this proposal he was doing it in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill. He was willing to accept anything which should provide that a workman should go to a surgery to be examined.

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

said there was nothing unreasonable in the hon. Baronet's asking for some form of words to carry out the object of the Amendment he had put on the Paper. There was nothing at all in the Bill by way of precaution against malingering. He was not prepared to say that workmen were greater malingerers than anybody else; lie should say that Members of Parliament under similar circumstances would be as great malingerers as workmen. [Laughter.] But it was a precaution that was found to be necessary in the case of every fund where benefits during incapacity were given. He held in his hand the rules of the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund, a great relief fund in connection with the miners of Durham and Northumberland. That fund, though contributed to by the employers, was altogether managed by the men, and the rules specially provided for the renewal of the medical certificate every fortnight if deemed necessary by the local committee. He was not tied to any particular form of words—he had an Amendment down on the Paper which provided for the same thing as the hon. Baronet's; but lie thought everybody would agree that it was perfectly reasonable that there should be some precaution of this kind to insure that the compensation should not be continued when the workman was not really any longer incapable of working. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

said he should not have taken part in this discussion had it not been for a few of the speeches they had heard that afternoon on the necessity of employers providing for workmen. They had about 100,000 men in the district of Wales which he had the honour to represent, and they paid for their own doctor. They had agreed on a principle, and the representatives of the Welsh miners were not afraid of their men being so dishonest as was represented by some hon. Members on both sides of the House. [An hon. MEMBER: "Nothing has been said about dishonesty!"] The men he represented were not opposed to certificates required for a reasonable time—they were not in the least afraid of such a provision, because they themselves required those certificates from their fellow men. But where hon. Members missed the point was here—these societies provided their own medical officers, and it was by the medical officers which the society provided that the men were examined. The proposal now made was that the employer who had not provided the workmen with any medical assistance, should be allowed to provide them with a medical detective. ["Hear, hear!"] If the right hon. Gentleman would say that the medical officer should be an impartial man provided by the State, they would agree to it at once—["Hear, hear!"]—but to allow the employer to provide a medical detective was most unreasonable.

MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said he perceived that the Home Secretary had an Amendment down which indicated that the Secretary of State should provide medical practitioners for this purpose. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, because there was serious objection on the part of the men to the appointment of the examining doctor by the employer. Much had been said about malingering; but doctors could malinger as well as workmen. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said he had listened carefully to what had been said by hon. Members on both sides about the Amendment, which was not necessarily a controversial one. ["Hear, hear!"] He said it was admitted by both sides that something of the kind suggested should be provided for; the only question was how they sly mid proceed. It was admitted that all these relief associations found it necessary to require frequent examinations of the workmen who were claiming compensation. Therefore, it might be fairly claimed that when the employer paid compensation in place of the association, he should have exactly the same right as the association now had, and that he also should he entitled to have frequent examination if he thought fit to demand it. He did not mean to say that lie liked the exact form of the Amendment, but as he understood the proposal it was that if the employer thought necessary he should at his own expense appoint a doctor who should examine the injured person from time to time. Suppose, however, that upon the report of this doctor the employer alleged that the man was malingering, or was no longer incapacitated, the report of that doctor did not count for anything; it did not lead to the withdrawal of compensation until the report of the employer's doctor had been confirmed by the arbitrator, who might call in what he might call the State doctor; and the result of that was that the State doctor would only be called upon in a case in which there was a dispute between the doctor employed by the employer and the workman. It would be very undesirable, in his opinion, that the State doctor should be called in upon every possible occasion. It was a little too much to ask, as he understood the bin. Member to ask, that the State doctor should be called in to act as the weekly examiner of every incapacitated workman at the demand of the employer. If that were done, instead of there being one State doctor, or even more, in a district, they would want to employ all t lie doctors in the district for the purpose. And it would be absolutely unnecessary, because he ventured to say that although a clause of this kind might give power to the employer to demand such an examination, there would be many cases in which he would not think of demanding it. ["Hear, hear!] As the employer would have to pay for the examination, it was quite certain that he would never employ a doctor unless he thought there was reasonable cause to suppose that the workman was no longer incapacitated. Therefore on the whole the object of his hon. Friend's Amendment appeared to he a reasonable one; and the only question lie should ask would be—was it so drawn that the demand might be used to the unnecessary annoyance of the workman? ["Hear, hear!"] If so, let them try to prevent that. He found that in the Amendment it was S proposed that the workman should, if required, produce to Ids employer a medical certificate. Now he was going to test the matter by an extreme case. He was assuming an employer who wanted to make a bad use of this provision. In that case he might require the workman—as a mere matter of annoy-once, and in the hope that the workman might be tired out—to produce a certificate every week; and that meant that a man who was more or less incapacitated would have to attend somewhere or another once a week to obtain this certificate. Now that appeared to him to be going farther than was necessary—["hear, hear?"]—and he should have thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for St. Helens would be found to be better, because all lie required was that the workman should from time to time, if required by the employer, submit himself for examination. He had not got to produce a certificate necessarily, he had from time to time, when required, to submit himself to a medical practitioner, and if he refused (as he was going to suggest) without due reason to submit himself to examination, then the compensation payable would be suspended until he complied. He thought, however, that even if the Government accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens, he would probably not object to give an appeal to the arbitrator if the workmen objected altogether to the examination; and he thought, if they inserted words to that effect, it would get rid of any possibility of a provision of this kind being used by the employer to harass the workmen—because if the workman thought it was evidently unnecessary and absurd that he should be called upon to submit to examination under the particular circumstances of the case, he would put the case before the arbitrator, and the employer would be at once told that he was not to make the requisition. ["Hear, hear!"] On the whole, then, he thought that the object could be accomplished, and that they ought to accomplish it, and as at present advised lie thought it best to accept with a slight amendment the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens.

MR. BROADHURST

said if the right hon. Gentleman could produce a scheme to carry out this to the full, every Member representing workmen would accept it. ["Hear, hear!"] All the Trade Unions had the strictest possible regulations; and in addition, in many Unions they had visiting members whose duty it was to keep an eye on the sick member to see that he was doing his best to get well as soon as possible. The only doubt they had with regard to this Amendment was this—that instead of employing a doctor who knew the progress of the case and was thoroughly acquainted with it, the employer might select one who had no special responsibility as to the consequences of a too early return to work, and he might even be in reality the doctor of the insurance company in which the employer was insured. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in the case he names, the report of the employer's doctor could not have any effective result? All it would do would be to inform the employer, who would have to take certain steps if he wished to withdraw the compensation. It would be a double process. The right hon. Gentleman hoped that his hon. friend (Sir A. Hickman) would withdraw his Amendment, and suggested that the exact form of words to be adopted should be considered on the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helens.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. HARRISON (Plymouth) moved to insert at the end of Sub-section (1):— (c) Where such injury within twelve calendar months from the occurrence of the accident causing such injury directly causes to the workman the loss by physical separation, whether by accident or surgical operation consequent thereon, of a hand or a foot, or the complete and irrecoverable loss of sight of an eye, a payment for each such loss as aforosaid equal to 50 per cent. of the amount that would have been payable had death resulted from the injury under Seethe, 1 (a), Sub-sections (1), (2), provided the aggregate amount payable in respect of the accident causing such losses to such workman shall not exceed the maximum compensation payable under Section (1) (a), Sub-sections (1) and (2). He said the object of the Motion was to insert in this schedule, which in effect constituted the terms and conditions of a statutory policy of insurance between workman and employer, a fixed amount of compensation for the physical loss by accident of a hand or a foot, or the irrecoverable loss of an eye. The Motion proposed 50 per cent. of the amount pay able at death for each such loss, and in no ease exceeding the total maximum payable under the Act. The weekly compensation was limited by the words Of the Bill to "the duration of incapacity." The duration of incapacity from work in the case of too injury to an eye followed by its loss might, be a few weeks only, and it would be urged that the workman might not be incapacitated, after the actual loss of the eye, from work; lout yet under the Bill he would receive no compensation for such loss unless the Bill was intended as proposed by the Motion. For that reason alone the proposal should be adopted. There was not a single accident policy issued, whether for personal accident, employers' liability, or accidents to workmen, but what contained conditions to the effect of those mentioned in the Motion. Workmen Accident Fluid policies contained similar provisions. Further, the provisions would encourage assurance, as in its absence the offices would charge larger premiums, even if they did not refuse them altogether.

*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said the Government could not entertain the Amendment without going much further, and entering into minute detail.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. W. LEGH (Lancashire, Newton) moved to add at the end of Sub-section (1):— Every workman directly employed and paid by some person other than the undertaker, as hereinbefore defined, Shull from time to time, when required so to do, furnish full particulars as to the amount of his weekly earning to any employer who may be liable to pay compensation to such workman under the provisions of this Act.

He instanced the ease of a hewer of coal in Lancashire where it was difficult for the employer to know the amount of a man's earnings, and urged that, while the proposal would be slightly to the benefit of the employer, there would be nothing inquisitorial. He believed the Amendment would be a real advantage to both parties.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said that he could not see that this Amendment would be of much advantage to the employer, and it might lie a great annoyance to the workpeople. if the hon. Member could not trust the injured workman to state what his earnings had been, how could he trust him to make this return, winch would probably be perfunctorily filled up, because no one would see the importance of it until the accident had occurred. The employer had the right to go to the arbitrator if he thought the workman had exaggerated the amount of his wages.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Sub-section (2), before the word "weekly," to insert the word "average."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in the same sub-section, before the word "amount," to insert the word "average."

Amendment agreed to.

*SIR JOICEY moved, at the end of Sub-section (2), after the word "accident," to insert the words— and to any payment which he may receive from the employer in respect of his injury, and to the value of any house or fuel with which he lay is, provided by the employer during the incapacity. He said that this Amendment only affected the Northumberland and Durham districts. It had long been the custom there, when a workman in a mine was incapacitated by an accident, to give him during the period of his incapacity his house-rent, coal, rates and taxes, and compensation known as ''smart-money." This system load worked well and had given satisfaction, both to employers and workmen. To a certain extent the Bill would interfere with the system; and his Amendment provided that the contribution which he had mentioned should be taken into account by the arbitrator in fixing the compensation under the Bill. The supposed wages of the workmen were, say, 26s. a week, and in case of incapacity by accident, the arbitration would be able to award half the wage, or 13s. a week. But the Northumberland and Durham miner would receive, apart from the Bill, rent, coal, rates and taxes, amounting to, say, 5s. a week, and "smart-money" amounting to another 5s. a week. Perhaps it would be contended that the rent, coal, rates and taxes were really a part of the man's wages; and on that basis the wages would be not 26s. but 31s. per week. Then the arbitrator would be able to award 15s 6d. a week. But the workman would continue to have the benefit of his house and coal; and if he got the "smart-money'' as well he would be receiving 35s. 6d. a week from his employer instead of the 31s. he was supposed to have been earning before the accident. The arbitrator was to take account of the difference between the man's earnings before the accident and what lie was able to earn afterwards; and that very thing being specifically mentioned, the arbitrator would be bound to consider no other circumstance. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be accepted, or some localities would be placed under a great disadvantage.

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

said that he was very sorry that the hon. Baronet had raised this question. The custom to which he had alluded was peculiar to one part of the country, and it would have been better to leave it out of the discussion. He was glad to hear the hon. Baronet state that house-rent, rates, taxes and coal were part of the men's wages. The statement would no doubt be of use to the miners in their future dealings with the hon. Baronet Putting them, as the hon. Baronet did, as worth 5s. a week, meant 1s. a day on each working day. The average wage of the workmen included in this Bill was a great deal less in the county of Durham than 26s. a week. The hon. Baronet had made a threat that if this Amendment were accepted the miners of Durham and Northumberland might prepare themselves for having their houses and coal taken away, at least when they were injured, and might have the smart money taken from them.

SIR J. JOICEY

said lie did not mean anything of the kind.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said if that was so, why was this Amendment brought forward? He would like the Government to understand the relations which existed at present. These things had been part of their wages during the whole of his fife, and for a longer time than that, and if these words were inserted into the Bill it would disturb the wage relations of Durham and Northumberland. They had got on peacefully in those counties, but this Amendment would disturb their peaceful relations, and he suggested to the hon. Baronet that it would be wise to withdraw his Amendment.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

agreed that it would be desirable if his hon. Friend opposite would not press the Amendment. It had been a matter of controversy not only between political economists, but between practical men as to whether smart money, houses, or fuel were or were not technically part of wages. He gathered that the hon. Baronet did not dispute that.

SIR J. JOICEY

said that was undoubtedly so, but his point was, were the wages to continue after incapacity?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said that if these things were part of the earnings they would be considered by the arbitrator, but, in any case, he did not think it desirable to insert the words proposed. It would be much better not to complicate the Bill, especially as there appeared to be some doubt attaching to the meaning of the suggested provision, which might have a disastrous effect on the relations between capital and labour in Northumberland and Durham.

MR. CHARLES FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

said he regretted exceedingly that this Amendment should ever have been put upon the Paper. It would have a tendency to disturb the existing relations between the workmen and their employers. If the Amendment were pressed to a division one effect would be that the workmen, at least in the two counties which had been mentioned, would demand an immediate advance of wages equivalent to the value of their house and coal, and if it was taken on the estimate which the employers themselves had been pleased to put upon the value of these allowances, he thought the workmen would have the best of the bargain.

MR. PICKARD

said this did not affect only the miners of Durham and Northumberland but of Lancashire and Yorkshire also. If the matter was pressed it would simply lead to a strike.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to omit Sub-Section (3).

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RILDEY moved to insert in Sub-Section (4) after the words "if he has no legal personal representative, to" the words "or for the benefit of."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to add at the end of Sub-Section (4) the words— and if made to the legal personal representative, shall be paid by him to or for the benefit of the dependent or other person entitled thereto under this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RILDEY moved to omit the first part of Section (5), from the beginning down to "prior to his death; and."

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY the following Amendments to Clause 1 were agreed to:—

In Sub-section (6) after the word "compensation," insert the words "to a dependant."

Leave out the words "his benefit," and insert the words "the benefit of the person entitled thereto."

Leave out the word "directed," and insert the words "agreed, or as ordered."

In Sub-section (7) after the word "sum," insert the words "which is agreed or is."

Leave out the words "be ordered to."

In Sub-section (8) leave out the words "so ordered to be," and insert the words "to be so."

After the words "may be," insert the words:— invested in the purchase of an annuity from the National Debt Commissioners through the Post Office Savings Bank, or be.

In Sub-section (9) after the word "judge," insert the words "of the county court."

*SIR F. POWELL (Wigan) moved at the end of Sub-section (10) to insert:— If the incapacity of the workman is continued or aggravated by excess or misconduct on his part, the arbitrator shall have power to diminish or end the payment. He remarked that this was in accordance with the rules of the Northumberland and Durham, and the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Permanent Relief Societies. The German law was much more severe. The intention was to secure regularity of life on the part of persons in receipt of compensation, and to secure that there should not be waste of money arising from the workman's misconduct.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said the words the hon. Baronet wished to insert were unnecessary and might be dangerous.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said the object of the Amendment was already provided for in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

MR. SETON-KARR moved to add at the end of Sub-section (10):— Any workman claiming compensation under this Act shall, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself for examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid for by the employer. If the workman refuses to submit himself to such examination, or otherwise obstructs the same, his right to such weekly payments shall be suspended until such examination has taken place.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

, on behalf of the Government, accepted the Amendment with the addition of the words:— provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator, whose decision shall be final.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

SIR A. HICKMAN moved in. Subsection (10) to add after the words last inserted:— in the case of a workman who is not disabled, lie shall attend at the house or surgery for the purpose of such examination. He submitted that when an employer had to pay his workmen half wages while the injury lasted, it was a small return that the workman should take the trouble to walk down to the surgery and submit himself to examination. There could be no hardship in it, and indeed it was an arrangement which had subsisted for many years in connection with the Friendly Societies.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

really thought that his hon. Friend was carrying this legislation into too much detail. The Government in any case could not accept the words he proposed to add. Look at the number of questions that would arise if the words were made part of the statute. They would first of all have to decide whether he was disabled or not, and that was a question they would have to go to arbitration about. It would be a separate arbitration as to whether he was in a state in which he could move to the surgery or whether he was to be visited in his own house. Then there would be the difficulty that they would have to find out where the num was in order to inform him of the address of the surgeon on whom he was expected to call. Surely, too, the surgeon's residence must be at a reasonable distance from Hit, workman; otherwise it would be a harassing demand. It was much better to leave all this to the common sense of both workmen and employers. In the ordinary case the workman would not object to an arrangement to which lie was accustomed in his own friendly society.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FENWICK

said he had some difficulty in following the argument that when application was made by a workman or an employer for commutation of liability the arbitrator would have the right in his discretion to refuse power to commute. He was advised this was not so under the provisions of this subsection, that the workman's employer could apply to the arbitrator to fix the sum to settle his liability, and the workman, if he did not desire to take such lump sum, would have no power to object to commutation on the employer's application, the only question would lie the amount of the sum to be paid. In many cases it would be a decided advantage to the workman to receive the large sum, but, as the House might conceive, there were circumstances in which the workman would not desire that, and where it would not be to his advantage to take the lump sum, and in such a case the workman should have the right to have his case heard before an impartial arbitrator. On the other hand, lie could understand that an application from a workman to have the account settled by a lump sum might he opposed to the wish of the employer, and there again the objector should have the right to show cause why the arbitrator should refuse the application. The commutation should proceed upon a mutual application, but as he was advised the application was not to be mutual, but if made on behalf of the workman or on behalf of the employer, the arbitrator had no alternative but to grant the application and proceed to settle the sum to be paid on settlement of the account. To meet his view lie moved to strike out Sub-section (12).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

could quite understand the feeling of the hon. Member from his point of view, but lie reminded the hon. Member that in Committee this sub-section was adopted as a compromise after considerable discussion, and, as such, accepted on both sides. ["No!"] He quite agreed there was difference of opinion, but it was the sense of a large number of Members. The hon. Gentleman was, he thought, rightly advised that as the clause stood the discretion of the arbitrator was as to the amount, and this was the ordinary and natural meaning to he attached to the words, "the arbitrator may on the application of one party or the other," anti that, he thought, was the general sense of those who supported the Amendmene in Committee, and he did not think the House should go back on the decision of the Committee.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had clearly stated what had happened. Neither he or his hon. Friend objected to the principle of commutation in itself, but they objected to its being forced upon the workman, the object they had in view was that employer and workman, having agreed, should apply to the arbitrator to have the amount settled. There were cases where commutation might be a benefit to the workman and not acceptable to the employer, but as the sub-section was drawn the workman would have the right to receive a lump sum on making application to the arbitrator. That would not be fair to the employer, for lie might think the man was near the point when he might start work, that the state of his health permitted this and so there would be no need for commutation. If the thing could be arranged on lines of mutuality, if the parties agreed to commutation and arranged the amount between themselves or on the decision of the arbitrator that would meet the desired end. Much had been said about the permanent relief funds throughout the country, and experience on this point was certainly in favour of mutuality in application. If a man received 8s. a week from the Relief Fund and desired to have the weekly sum commuted into a lump sum he submitted his proposal, and if it was approved then arrangements were made as to the amount that should be paid. Tim Government should understand that as far as commuting was concerned they were not opposed to it, but simply they objected to it being competent for the employer or the workman to go to the arbitrator and say, "I want this sum commuted between the two extremes." It might be unfair to the workman who might be permanently injured. He knew of a man who line been disabled for twenty-five years and was yet living but unable to work. It would be an absolute injustice to allow an employer to say "I will commute the payments for which I am liable in thin case for a lump sum that may be lese than the payments over six years." If there were no maximum fixed the arbitrator might take into his cognisance and consideration the probability of the man being ill for more than six years. It was with the view of making provision for such a case the omission of the sub-section was moved, but if the Government would suggest the insertion of any words giving the sub-section the character desired the Motion would not be persisted in.

*MR. THOMAS BURT (Morpeth)

agreed with his hon. Friends, but the question before the House now was the retention or rejection of the sub-section, though an alternative might be offered in the direction suggested. Considering how fully this subject was discussed in Committee, it was undesirable to re-argue the subject at length now. A Division might he taken to test the opinion of the House, though, for his own part he did not advise that course. Possibly the Government might see their way to give these applications a mutual character in the sense advocated by his hon. Friends.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

said the Government did not want to have a Division on this question if it could be avoided. The position was this. It was perfectly, true that, speaking as a layman, and therefore ignorantly, he was under the impression that "may" meant "may," and left a certain amount of discretion with the arbitrator to refuse the application, but lie gathered from what the Attorney General had said that that was not the case, and that practically the arbitrator would have no discretion to refuse when the application was made to him by either party. So far, he admitted, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the section. But then the Government came under a pledge, or an assurance, not to disturb the arrangement arrived at. It was discussed at some length, and, on the whole, must be regarded as a compromise, and they could not attempt to deal with any possible case that might be imagined to arise. But, at the same time—and it must not be taken as committing the Government to anything more—he was quite ready to pledge himself to give this subject his personal consideration, with a view to seeing if it could be met by Amendment inserted in another place. He did not give any pledge that any alteration should be made.

MR. FENWICK

having expressed satisfaction with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. REGINALD MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.) moved an Amendment providing that where any weekly payment, had been continued for not less than twelve months "and the injured workman is not wholly incapacitated for work," the liability may be redeemed by payment of a lump sum. With reference to the assurance which the Colonial Secretary had just given, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether this form of words was not exactly the kind of concession which he might reasonably make to Members on the Opposition side. The effect of the words would be to assure to every workman who was totally incapacitated for every kind of work, so, long as the incapacity lasted, a weekly pension. A lump sum for such a man was perfectly useless. In these exceptional eases an immense hardship would be inflicted on injured workmen if they were not provided with a. weekly payment instead of a lump sum.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

thought that from the workman's point of view this Amendment would be inadvisable. If this Amendment, were adopted, how-every much the injured workman might wish to obtain, £200 wherewith to set up his wife in business, the arbitrator would be absolutely debarred from hearing the application.

*SIR C. DILKE

said he felt strongly on this point, and he, did not think that the answer of the Attorney General met the necessities of the case. This matter was dealt with here as though it was a, new subject; but it, had been already thrashed out in every country in the world, and it had been settled in the way here suggested. Monstrous injustice would be done, and frightful hardships would ensue if the matter was not settled in the way suggested by the Amendment. He knew that there was a desire to hurry the Bill through that evening, but the more it was hoped that this Bill would be extended and applied to other trades; the more the House ought now to settle these questions in the way indicated.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said there was no desire to hurry this Bill through, if by so doing they would commit what the right hon. Gentleman called a monstrous injustice and a frightful hardship. He called that a monstrous misuse of language, and a frightful abuse of invective. [Laughter.] What was this monstrous abuse? The Government were going to give the injured workman compensation which he had never received before. It was true that that compensation might not be in a. particular and very exceptional case as much as they should like to see it; but whatever it was it was all in addition to what he had now. The House was not dealing hero with absolute rights; it was dealing with questions of expediency and humanity; and the Government thought on both grounds it was desirable to give injured persons compensation to which they had no legal right or moral right at present. The House had made a great advance in reference to this particular point which had been fully discussed in. Committee. A compromise was arrived at which, on the whole, was fairly satisfactory, and it was not possible now to review the whole matter, because if it was to be reviewed from one point of view it must be reviewed from the other as well. The Government must, therefore, resist any changes in the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (12), after the word "application," insert the words "by or on behalf."

After the word "settled," insert "in default of agreement."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)

MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) moved in Sub-section (12) to omit the words— but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the data of the application. Personally ho was opposed to commutation, especially to unfair and unequal commutation. The words he proposed to omit were inconsistent with the idea of commutation. A man incapacitated for work might live for many years, and if he was only to receive six years' allowance they were practically depriving him of a very great part of that compensation which by the previous position of the Bill the House had declared to be due to him. The arbitrator should be left to fix the amount without any limit, to decide in each case what should be the fair capital value of the allowance. This proviso was entirely in the interests of the employer. If they had a maximum limit surely they ought to have a minimum limit; but there was no minimum limit in this Bill. He objected to the proviso as unfair, as unilateral, and as drawn entirely in the interests of the employer, because there was no corresponding limit which might operate in the interests of the workmen. The proviso would operate most harshly in the very cases which appealed most strongly to their sympathies, and which had, he thought, the greatest claim—the case that was, where a man's life was completely wrecked and where he would never again be capable of any work at all. In the case of that man, what an absurd thing it would be to give a sum which would not produce anything like the equivalent of the allowance which in a previous part of the Bill they declared to be suitable in such a case. If these words were allowed to remain the result would inevitably he that at the end of seven years a man would be left absolutely without resources.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised again a question that hail been discussed many times that evening and many times previously. It was perfectly true that, in one sense, this deprived the workman of what he might call in an exceptional case, the full value of the weekly payments for his life. But to say that it was unilateral seemed to him to disregard the terms of the clause. The majority of the House had decided that commutation was desirable, and it was pointed out in the course of the discussion that unless there was some limit insurance would be more difficult, and that it was very much to the interest of the workman that he should be able to get his commutation at once, and know how much it was going to be. While a great boon was given to the workman, far more than had ever been proposed by any other system of legislation in connection with this subject of compensation for accidents, it was felt it was quite right to have a limit. It would be quite impossible to take an exceptional case of weekly payments and say there should he no limit. The result of accepting the hon. and learned Member's suggestion would be to leave the amount of commutation wholly at large, and to deprive one side to this compromise of whatever justice or advantage they might think had been given to them by the compromise having been accepted in this form. It was perfectly obvious that the Government could not accept this Amendment, which would be, in his opinion, not to keep faith with, at any rate, one set of the parties by whom this clause was agreed to in the shape it now stood.

*SIR C. DILKE

asked if the Attorney General would consider the bearing of Clause G of the Bill upon this Amendment. The Government spoke as though all the proposals which were being made to the House by these words were proposals to give the workmen something which they had never had before. He ventured to say that the calculations lie had seen showed that five-sixths of what the Government workmen got now would be taken away from them. If they looked at Clause 6 they would find that the Treasury took power to modify the warrants made under tile Superannuation Act. Under these warrants at the present time, he ventured to assert, the men, in sonic cases, would get five or six times as much as under the commutation proposals of the Bill.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said it had been made clear by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that if this maximum sum were left in, the workman might be left without assistance in the most dire and necessitous hour, and when he most required such help as this Bill might give him. There were a number of workmen who would be injured but who owing to their provident habits, had saved some little capital, would not feel very much the need of this Bill in the first year they were out; but after they had been out a year, there came up an arbitration case and there was a sum fixed which these men must take as commutation. Then there came an hour when he needed support most, and when, his own capital having gone, he found the support of this Bill refused to him. If the Government desired to make this Bill all round as acceptable as it was when it was brought in, they would remove the limit, and invest the arbitrator with a discretion to give such a sum as he thought would meet the necessities of the case. He thought that the Attorney General ought to tell them why the Government had fixed this arbitrary period of six years, arid by what mode of reasoning they had arrived at this sum.

*MR. BAINBRIDGE

was anxious to say a word in the interests of the working man. It was to the interest of the workman to know that an employer had some wool on his back, and the only way to assure that was to enable the employer to insure against the burdens of this Bill. He had taken pains to inquire from the insurance company with whom he had insured since 1880 as to whether they would, without a clause of this sort, give an assurance against the burdens of this Bill, and he was informed that there would be so much uncertainty as to the consequences of the Act that they would absolutely decline to give that assurance unless this limit was introduced.

*MR. MCKENNA

would submit to the Attorney General a direct case—that of a lad earning 10s. a week, who was injured by the careless act of an employer or some person for whose actions the employer was responsible. In such a case as that, the lad, after this Bill became law, could not proceed under the Employers' Liability Act. His remedy would be solely under this Bill, and his remedy under this clause would amount to three and a half years' wages. That was to say that a lad who was injured and totally incapacitated for life from doing any work whatever, would receive under this Bill the maximum compensation of £91. If this Bill did not pass into law, such a lad would be entitled to go before a jury and to receive an amount of compensation which he submitted would be vastly more than such a sum as £91. The House by this paragraph in the schedule, and by a sub-clause of Clause 1, would be actually taking away from the workman a remedy he already possessed, and would be limiting the rights of a man who was totally incapacitated to the paltry sum—in the case he had named—of £91.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said he did not understand that the House was taking away any man's common-law rights.

*MR. MCKENNA

Yes, it is.

MR STUART-WORTLEY

did not understand anything of the kind. He did not believe any jury would ever give such sums as the compensation that would be obtained under the present Bill, which went transcendently beyond anything contained in the pedantic proposals previously laid before the House for the solution of the employer's liability question.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

said they had been led to believe that under this Bill the workman was to receive something he never could receive before. ["Hear, hear!"] It was perfectly true also that some of the things the workman was entitled to before would be taken away. This Bill, they were told, was an experimental Bill. Certainly, the House must allow that the Government must have well thought out this matter before they made their original proposals. But since then it appeared to him that strong influences had made them change considerably their original views. Allow him to remind the House that he was one of the supporters of the Bill, and he was one of the men who were grateful for it. He was entitled, therefore, to say this, that they were justified in looking to the Government to fulfil their first intentions. ["Hear hear!"] Now if this Amendment was to be rejected, the permanency of the Bill was totally done away with, it would be a temporary relief Bill. The rejection of the Amendment would place hundreds of workmen in tins position, that although they might be permanently injured not one of them would be entitled to a permanent compensation. Permanent compensation would be limited in some of the most extreme cases, and where the money was most needed. ["Hear, hear!"] He was sorry that after the Government had gone so far, and raised the expectations of the workmen as they, had done, they should do anything to disappoint those expectations. They had laid down a new foundation, as it were, in the legislation of this country, and he was sorry they did not adhere to it. It was comforting, indeed, that the compromise they were asked to make was not a compromise in which he and those whom he represented had any part. It was a compromise between the Government and some other people who were not representing the workmen of this country—a compromise that was helping to dwindle away the rights which thousands of workmen were led to expect after the promises made by Government when laying down the lines of the Bill. He did not suppose they had now any hope of carrying the Amendment; but the Government would pardon him for saying that their credit with the British nation would stand much better if they had stood to their original Bill and kept to the principle of permanent compensation instead of allowing it to be dwindled away into a temporary relief Bill.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said he did not at all Wonder that cases of permanent disability raised the acute sympathy of the hon. Member for Rhondda. But after all they must look at the matter from both sides—from the side of the man who was hurt and from that of the man who had got to pay. If injury came to a man through the personal negligence or culpability of the employer, then of course the rights of the man were not limited at all by the section, for lie still had every right which a jury at common law would give him. The cases they were dealing with were those in which the accident had happened in the course of work, with no personal fault, of the employer at all. Surely in such cases it was an. entirely unreasonable penalty to put on the employer such a liability as, for instance, in the melancholy case quoted by the hon. Member for Durham When he spoke of a man who had been permanently incapacitated for 25 years. Surely to put on the employer the liability to pay half-wages for 25 years to a man who had the misfortune to be hurt by no kind of fault on the part of an. employer was going entirely beyond the bounds of justice. They were giving in such cases a very great advantage to the workman. They were giving him in cases where at present lie got nothing at all, at least 3½ years' half-pay, surely that was ample under the circumstances.

MR. D. F. GODDARD (Ipswich)

fully agreed that in this Bill the Government were giving the working men advantages they never enjoyed before. But, after all, that was not the point at issue. The point was, as it seemed to hint, that the restriction put upon commutation was distinctly against the idea of the Bill from the first so far as he ball understood it. The idea of the Bill had been that a man who had been injured in his employment was to be adequately compensated for that accident. In the original scheme of the Government there was no clause like this at all. There was no question of the commutation of the payment to a mall but as had been already stated, this was arrived at by some kind of compromise—he did not exactly know between whom, but there was a compromise that there should be the possibility of paying down the compensation in a lump sum rather than by continuous weekly payments. But he ventured to say that there was no compromise on the question of a limit to the commutation. As far as he could understand, that limit had been put in without any adequate reason, and certainly without any fair explanation to the House as to why it was fixed at 312 weeks. ["Hear, hear!"] He felt strongly that to limit the commutation in tins way would he a real injustice to the men. Take the case of a man who by au accident had been rendered blind. He would never be able to work any more so as to earn his living. He asked any reasonable man, would it be fair compensation to that poor blind man if he got seven years' compensation? What was to happen to him at the end of seven years, except to fall back on the rates and perhaps to go into a workhouse. If there was to be any limitation at all, six years after one year of weekly payments was far too small. But he felt that it was wrong to set up any limitation of this sort. They had established a court of arbitration—let them have confidence in the arbitrator. The working men had already expressed their willingness to trust to arbitration, and he begged the Government not to disfigure their Bill which offered such a great boon to workmen, by continuing the words whose rejection had been moved.

MR. HUDSON KEARLEY (Devonport)

understood that the Government I had justified this provision, because they were giving something that was quite new to the working men of this country. Well, that nit doubt was perfectly true as regarded workpeople outside their own employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all!"] Not all probably, but most. But he wanted to know how the Government proposed to apply this to their own workpeople. Under the sixth clause Crown employés were entitled to the benefit of the Bill. At the same time there was a reference in the clause to the fact that there existed a warrant under which Government employés were entitled in the event of permanent disablement to a certain amount of compensation. He would endeavour to point out what the effect of this sub-section would be if applied to men in the permanent employment of the Admiralty or the War Department.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I suppose the hon. Member assumes that there will be no scheme for men under the Government?

MR. KEARLEY

said he assumed nothing. He should be glad to be told what the scheme was; but he was entitled to look at the case in the absence of a scheme and see how it would apply. Under the warrant, a Crown workman, if permanently incapacitated, became entitled to two-fifths of his weekly wages. If Government employs were still going to be treated on that basis he had not much to say. ["Hear, hear!] But this was the occasion to ask for an assurance. He only knew this—that if the Government took advantage of this provision the workmen in their employment would fare very badly in future as compared with the present. The Attorney General seemed to think the case was hardly capable of being discussed at all. Here was the warrant, and here was the provision the Government were making for the workmen of other people. Now what would happen if Government employés were treated in the same way as those in private employment? A Government employé in receipt of £1 a week would get now, if totally disabled, a pension of 8s. a week, but under the Bill he would get a capital sum of £156, which, if invested at 3 per cent., would only bring him in 1s. 9d. a week. In his constituency the Admiralty employed about 22,000, and therefore he was anxious to know whether the Government proposed to make any modification in the warrant.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Question!

MR. KEARLEY

said that to him and his constituents this was a most important question. What he asked was, "Did the Government intend to modify the warrant so far as regarded their own employés, or was the warrant to stand good?"

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that the hon. Member for Devonport, in common with many other hon. Gentlemen, seemed to imagine that this Bill was intended to provide for every workman large sums of money which he might invest in Consols and live happily for the rest of his life. [A laugh.] The Bill did not offer to the workman anything as an act of justice, but it offered him something on the ground of pure generosity. [Cries of "No, no!" and cheers.] Yes; the accident might have arisen through an earthquake, and still the employer was liable. In a case like that, where the accident fell equally on the employer and employed, justice demanded that the workmen should bear half the loss. But justice was put aside, and it was now a case of generosity. The Government felt, however, that there must be a limit to the generosity, especially as in the generosity the money of the employer was used. He imagined no one desired to absolutely ruin the employer and stop all employment. The only way to avoid that was to leave the employer some chance of insuring against the new risks about to be put upon him, and the only possibility of doing that was to put some check upon the amount that the employer had to pay under the Bill. In his opinion the limit of seven years was a very fair one. He was surprised hon. Gentlemen opposite complained. He was especially surprised that the representatives of dockyard constituencies should complain. The cannibals in the dockyards never ceased their whimpering. They had been treated by successive Governments with the utmost generosity; they were not entitled to a farthing more than they had got, and he hoped to goodness this Government would not give them another farthing. [Laughter and cheers.]

SIR J. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said it seemed to him that his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean was quite right when he pointed out that the particular words which it was now proposed to omit had an effect upon Clause 6 as amended in Committee. He gathered from the gestures of the Attorney General while the hon. Member for Devonport was speaking, that it was not intended to diminish any of the advantages which workmen employed by the Government now had. If the Attorney General would give an assurance in words as well as in gestures it would be on record, and, he believed, the scruples of the hon. Member for Devonport would be satisfied.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said he could only speak with the indulgence of the House. He certainly did think that the observations of the hon. Member for Devonport were scarcely germane, but he had certainly no hesitation in answering the question. It had already been before him as a Law Officer of the Crown whether or not the warrant to which the hon. Member for Devonport had referred would be a scheme under the Act. There was not the slightest intention to deprive Government workmen of a single sixpence, on the contrary, the intention was to turn the warrant into a scheme under the Act so that its advantages would be secured to those employés.

SIR J. BRUNNER

said the statement of the hon. Member for Devonport was that Government servants were now entitled to much more than the Bill would give them. The assurance he asked for was that nothing would be taken from them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I cannot say more than I have said.

*MR. LIONEL HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley)

pointed out that the six years' limit might be fair in the majority of cases, but it was admitted by the terms of the clause that it would not be universally fair, that there might be cases in which the purchase value of six years would be inequitable, and, therefore, the clause proposed that the arbitrator should be empowered to revise the limit. But he was only able to revise it to the detriment of the workman. [Opposition cheers]. He was to have unlimited power to cut down the period from 312 payments to ten and give a merely nominal sum, a peppercorn compensation, for the injuries a workman had received. It required some ingenuity to conceive a case in which it would be fair to give a workman less than six years' present money value of his annuity. It was perfectly clear that in 99 eases out of 100, a workman must be a loser from a pecuniary point of view, though they might be the gainers in other ways under the clause. It would be only in the case of very old men that the annuity would not be worth more than six years money value. In this connection he thought the arbitrator should have wider discretion to deal with special cases of hardship. It was obvious that there were cases in which six years' compensation would be admitted theoretically by everybody in that House to be too low. Take the case of a youth of 14 or 15. His injuries might unfit him for the rest of his life, and yet the utmost the arbitrator could give him was £39. There were bound to be cases of this kind, where the loss would be far greater than it would be to a man of mature age. Apart from this clause the youth was to receive compensation on the basis of the wages he was earning. It might be difficult to remove this inequality, but it was not impossible to prevent the further inequality that the annuity of a youth would be commuted on the same basis of years' purchase as a man of 60 or 70. In any case the employer must be a gainer by a limit being placed on the discretion of the arbitrator.

The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 89.—(Division List, No. 289.)

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.) moved to omit from Section (12) the words,— but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application, and to insert,— such lump sum, together with the weekly payments already made, shall not exceed three hundred and sixty-four times the weekly payment originally fixed. He pointed out that in many cases the weekly payments would be of more use than a lump sum. This clause gave a distinct advantage to the employer to apply for commutation. He thought it was a pity to offer a premium on commuting, and he would take away the inducement to commute.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

pointed out that by Sub-section (11) of the Schedule the amount of the weekly payment might be increased as well as diminished. The Amendment, in their judgment, would go directly against the compromising arrangement, and they could not consent to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to insert, at the end of Subsection (12), the words,— and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested as above-mentioned.

MR. PARKER SMITH moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert the words "or otherwise applied" after the word "invested."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said there was no objection to that.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs) moved to add at the end of Sub-section (12) the words,— or by the purchase by the employer for the workman of an annuity or annuities certified in writing by the County Court Judge to be of at least equivalent value. As far as he could see, the Bill only gave power to invest in the Post Office, and he supposed if the money could be lodged there it could also be withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said if these words had any meaning it was that the employer was to purchase an annuity which was equivalent to the amount of the weekly payment. Of course that would be commutation.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved to omit Sub-section (14).

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: To add at the end of the Schedule,— where compensation under this Act is assured by a friendly society, and the scheme of such society has been certified under this Act, the provisions of section sixteen and section forty-one of the Friendly Societies Act 1896 shall not apply to such society in respect of such scheme."—(Sir Matthew White Ridley.)

Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (14), to insert, "and the expression 'Registrar of the County Court' means sheriff of the county."—(Mr. Ure.)