§ (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of the employment, is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.
§ (2.) Provided that: —
- (a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed;
- (b) When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that the injury was caused by the wilful and wrongful act or default of the employer or some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible nothing in this Act shall affect any liability, civil or criminal, of the employer or persons for whom he is responsible; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to
1347 pay compensation independently of tins Act, except in case of such wilful and wrongful act or default.
§ (3.) If any question arises as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies, or whether the injury was caused by the wilful and wrongful act or default of the employer, or of any person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, or whether the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the workman injured, or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, or other wise as to the liability for compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the first schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the second schedule to this Act.
§ (4.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment is, on the whole, not less favourable to the workmen than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpool, said that he rose to make a statement-arising out of the proceedings in Committee last night.
§ MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)rose on a point of order. He wished to ask whether there was any question before the Committee? [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"]
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSThe Minister in charge of a Bill is always entitled to make a statement. [" Hear, hear ! "]
§ MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that the point of order he had in view was this. If the statement of the light hon. Gentleman, which was obviously of an important character, was to be made, would it not be proper that hon. Members should have an opportunity of commenting upon it, and would it not be more in order that a Motion for reporting progress should be made, and that then the right hon. Gentleman should make his statement?
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSIt is a very common practice 1348 for the Minister in charge of a Bill to make a statement whenever a convenient opportunity arises.
§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that he asked the leave of the Committee to propose an Amendment to Clause 1, which he believed would in effect cover the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Haddington. It had been promised at the close of the discussion last night that the Government would see how they could meet the objections which had been raised to the clause on two or three points. Those points were the use of the words "the wilful and wrongful act or default of the employer," and the inclusion by the words "civil or criminal" of the possibility that the arbitrator would be able to bar the right of a workman under the Common Law or under the Employers' Liability Act 1880, to bring an action. The Government had promised to consider how they could make it clear that that was not the intention of the clause or of the Government. The intention, as he had said on the previous night, was to secure that in the case of the personal negligence of the employer himself or of those for whose act or default he was responsible, the workman should have the same remedy as he possessed under the present law. The Government now desired to make that clear, and with that object it was proposed that Sub-section (b) should read as follows: —
When it is decided, as hereafter provided, that injury caused by the personal negligence or the wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the amount of damages due from such employer may, at the request of the person claiming compensation, be settled by arbitration in accordance with the second schedule of this Act, or may, at the option of such person, be recovered from such employer by the same proceedings as were open to such person before the commencement of this Act.Then came the concluding words of the sub-section,But the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to pay compensation independently of this Act except in case of such wilful and wrongful act or default.1349 It was believed that these words expressed clearly the intentions of the Government, and it was hoped that they would meet to a certain extent, if not entirely, the objections raised at the close of the discussion last night.
§ SIR R. T. REID (Dumfries Burghs)regarded the statement as very important relative to two questions—first, as to what was to be the effect of the Bill upon the rights of the workman against the employer, and in the next place as to the choice of the tribunal. At present it was difficult to say whether the words suggested did leave absolutely unimpaired the existing rights of the workman. Pie desired to make it perfectly clear that not one of these rights should be in the least degree impaired or interfered with. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane) was a more simple method of arriving at the second point. He was completely in accord with the Home Secretary, nothing was more valuable in this Bill than the provision as to arbitration. He believed that some simple and inexpensive machinery should be provided. It struck him that the right hon. Gentleman might well deal with the next clause so as to provide that all questions of liability, whether under this Bill, the Employers' Liability Act, or the common law should be referred to arbitration.
§ MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)said he agreed with every word said by the hon. Member for Dumfries. The effect of the Amendment would not be to send matters to arbitration but the contrary. He considered the Amendment unfortunate as opening the door for litigation, whereas he had understood that the essence of the Bill was to introduce a principle of limited liability to be ascertained by a new and easy method of procedure. By this proposal the limit of liability was taken away. He thought it right to state at, once from the Government side of the House that they did not desire to open the flood-gates of litigation, which would be the effect of this Amendment. It took away the necessity of bringing matters before the arbitrator, and gave the alternative of litigation. Now, was that desired or not.?
§ MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)pointed out that he had put down an 1350 Amendment to insert at the beginning of Clause 5 (Commencement of Act and Short Title) the words: —
All claims for compensation for accidents by workmen or their representatives against employers, whether under the Employers' Liability Act 1880, at common law or otherwise, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the second schedule of this Act.He was anxious to know whether it would be in order to discuss that Amendment at the present time?
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the discussion at the present time ought not to go beyond the Amendment now before the Committee. He could not say that a discussion upon the Amendment which the hon. Member had down some 11 pages on would not be relevant. He would be in a better position to decide when they reached the Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wightassured his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud that the Government had not departed in the slightest degree from the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill still was limited liability in all cases which were mentioned as coming under the remedy of the Bill. Last night it was pointed out that they contemplated by Sub-section (3) that the arbitrator should be entitled to determine whether or not there had been such default of the employer as justified the workman in obtaining larger damages than the limited amount the Bill would give him. It was also pointed out that the workman would of necessity be sent to another Court. He suggested that, instead of forcing the workman to go to another Court, power should be given to the arbitrator to assess the damages— nothing more than that. From both sides of the House the observation came that if the arbitrator could deal with the matter the difficulty would be removed. He would have no objection to the arbitrator dealing with all cases—[" hear, hear ! "]—but the Government felt that if the power to go to the County Court Judge was one the workman appreciated, they saw no reason why they should take that power away from him. All they had done was to say that, if the arbitrator found that the employer was liable for a larger amount of compensation than the limit specified in the Bill, 1351 the person claiming the compensation might then and there ask the arbitrator to fix the amount. They added the words, "or at the option of persons claiming," so that the workman might go to the same tribunal as at present. No one could suggest that they did that for the purpose of encouraging litigation. They did it with the object of providing a ready and speedy means of assessing the compensation. What was the other alteration they had made? Objection was taken to the words, "wilful or wrongful act or default of the employer," and the Home Secretary undertook to consider whether or not the meaning could be better expressed. There was to be considered the personal negligence of others besides the master. There was, for instance, the case of a company where there was a general manager or some responsible person, and accordingly they had adopted the words which were practically those of the Employers' Liability Act—namely: —
Personal negligence or wilful act of the employer, or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible.They believed they had reserved to the workman by those words every case which would come within the Employers' Liability Act. They had not given the workman any greater rights than he had before. Personally he should not have the smallest objection to the last part of the Amendment being left out, but it did not seem to him they could oppose that without the general assent of the Committee, because they were pledged to hon. Gentlemen opposite to preserve to the workman such rights as he now had if he wished to exercise them.
§ MR. H. H. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)said they were at considerable disadvantage in discussing an Amendment which they had never seen in print, and he felt sure the Government would agree that, whatever form of words was adopted, they should, on the Report stage, have an opportunity of seeing whether the intention had been correctly and technically expressed. [" Hear, hear! "] The important point now was that they should be at one as to the intention they meant to embody in the Bill, and he had some hope, after hearing the speech of the Attorney General, that they might arrive at an identity of view. He was glad to 1352 hear his hon. and learned Friend refute the construction put upon the Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Stroud. He did not believe it was ever the intention of the Government that the remedy given by the Bill should be an exclusive remedy, and that the common law or statutory rights the workman had already, if they gave him a better remedy than that provided by the Bill, should be cut down. If the workman was to remain in possession of all the rights—he would not say remedies— which he had at present, and if the compensation provided by the Bill was an alternative right, he did not think there would be any difficulty in embodying that in proper phraseology. He went further. If the question was to be submitted in the first instance to the arbitrator, he thought it would be far better that the arbitrator should retain complete seizing of the case from beginning to end. [" Hear, hear! "] He could not see any justification for first submitting the case to the arbitrator, and then, if the arbitrator came to a particular decision, remitting the parties to litigation. [" Hear, hear ! "]
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,) Birmingham, W.said he entirely accepted what the right hon. Gentleman had just said. Of course, it would be open to any Member of the Committee to criticise the wording of the proposed Amendment on the Report stage. In the meantime, he believed they had arrived at a substantial identity of view. He believed that an hon. Member opposite had suggested that they should do away with the alternatives which they had allowed to remain in the Bill. That was a very important suggestion, to which personally he was not at all unfavourable, but he assumed that what would be desired was that the Amendment now proposed should be carried, and if they found in the interval between now and the report stage that that was the general view of the House, they should then omit the latter portion of the Amendment. He could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud had not entirely appreciated the point in reference to which he addressed the House. They always intended that questions affecting the personal negligence of the 1353 employer should be dealt with by alternative methods. It was perfectly true that the essence of the Bill was, with regard to the vast proportion of the accidents which would come under it, that there should be no choice for either the workman or employer but to take their position under the Bill. But they always made an exception in the cases in which it was alleged that the accident was due to the personal negligence of the employer. Those were a very small proportion of the accidents, but as to that proportion they did intend that the rights of the workman should remain absolutely unimpaired. He was not only to have this new option of taking his position, without discussion, under the Bill, but he would have, if he preferred it, any of the other rights which he would have now under the Employers' Liability Act. Lord Campbell's Act, or the common law. He believed that wan clearly expressed in the Amendment.
§ MR. HAROLD TENNANT (Berwickshire)pointed out that under Section 82 of the Factory Act of 1878 an employer was liable, in the case of a person killed or one who suffered personal injury, to a fine not exceeding £100. Would that be touched at all by the present provision?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid it was not touched.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)looked with some degree of alarm on the choice which was to be given to the workman either to take action under the old Act or under the present Bill so far as compensation was concerned. Those who knew how these matters were dealt with knew perfectly well that very often a workman was perfectly incompetent himself to come to a decision as to which course he should adopt. Very often he fell into the hands of a solicitor who looked more to his own interests than to those of his client, and what he was afraid of was that, if this option was given, in many cases the advice of the solicitor would be to proceed by that method which was likely to sweep the most into his own net. He would be much better pleased if all civil claims under both these Acts could be settled by arbitration. He was sure that ultimately that would be in the interests of the workmen themselves, and that it would tend to make the Bill work much more smoothly.
§ MR. C. B. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)said he viewed with very great apprehension what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud, and it seemed to him that this proposal was going to throw a very grave additional disability on to the employers. He thought that one great feature of this Bill was that they were going to avoid litigation and get rid of the confusion of issues. But now, as it seemed to him, an employer of labour was not only liable to go before the arbitrator, but he had also the prospect of the arbitrator turning the case back to a court of law, and then to have the whole question threshed out, again. Speaking as an employer of labour, he would far rather see the possibility of alternative methods reduced as much as might be. He thought the employers of the country would wish to understand clearly and distinctly what their liability and responsibility were under the Bill.
§ MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)asked if the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was in order?
*THE CHAIRMAN OF AVAYS AND MEANSsaid it was clearly incompetent, for him to accept such an Amendment as that which the hon. Member had on the Paper, because that would be amending the common law, the Employers' Liability Act, and Lord Campbell's Act. That was out of order on this Bill.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLwished to point out that the Home Secretary's Amendment dealt with two questions—the question of procedure and the question of substantive law. So far as procedure was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion seemed to provide a feasible way out of a difficulty; but he was extremely anxious upon the second point. The Colonial Secretary said it was the intention of the Government to maintain all the existing substantive rights of the workman against the employer. But the question was whether, that being the intention of the Government, the words before them carried out that intention? He was afraid they did not. As he understood, a condition precedent to claiming under the existing law was that a workman should establish the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whom he was responsible. He had a great jealousy of the introduction 1355 of the adjective into Acts of Parliament. He would like to know why the word "personal" was introduced before the word "negligence." There was no such adjective in the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. He accepted it that the Government were not prepared to cut down in any way the existing rights; then let them, have what they were well acquainted with, the word "negligence" pure and simple, and do not introduce the word "personal." The other words were "wilful act." He objected very strongly to the introduction of those words. As he understood a trespass was not necessarily wilful.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that the reason why "wilful act" was inserted was because, in the opinion of a very competent draftsman, it was doubtful whether trespass was negligence.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLsaid there seemed to be reason in what the hon, and learned Attorney General had said. He wished to emphasise the fact that the Government had expressed their distinct intention to preserve intact the existing liabilities of the employer towards his workpeople.
§ *SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.)thought the Bill was very well as it stood. Its effect would be to discourage litigation altogether, and it was not unreasonable that if the workman was not satisfied with the generous provision made in the Bill, some difficulties might reasonably be placed in his way. But the present proposal of the Government, as he understood it, was that supposing a workman was not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, and wished to go for an unlimited amount of compensation, he should be at liberty either to go to the ordinary courts of law or to take the decision of an arbitrator. Look at the position of the unfortunate employer. He might have claims against him not by one workman, but by a number of workmen, all under the same conditions and circumstances, which might amount to £70,000 or £80,000. He did not think any prudent man would engage in a business where he might be liable to claims of such an enormous amount, which should be submitted, without his consent, to a tribunal like an arbitrator. The proposal seemed to be monstrous, and the result would be to deter people 1356 going into a business where that was possible.
§ MR. ALEXANDER URE (Linlithgow)said the question had been discussed from the practising lawyer's point of view. The Committee was apt to forget that an employer's liability for negligence applied not only to the negligence of a foreman, but also to that of people placed in charge of machinery, and also to defects in works and plant. The result of any reference to statutory liability in the Bill would be this—that when an accident occurred, the workman would have his choice of two remedies. He would be entitled to go into Court with all the lamentable results hon. Members were so unanimous in deploring, instead of going to the arbitrator, as they were all agreed he ought to do. If all reference to statutory liability was left out, that misfortune, he thought, would be avoided, and no injustice would be done to the workman. Because, under the Employers' Liability Act, the amount of compensation a workman could recover was confined to an average of three years' wages; therefore, under that Statute he would not be able to recover any more compensation than he would under this Bill. Accordingly, they left the workman with a right to recover more money, but by a process that was disastrous to the employer. By leaving out all reference to statutory liability, they would preserve the principle of the Bill, which, as the Colonial Secretary had clearly explained that day, was to preserve full and large remedies to the workman against the employer where the personal liability should be laid on the employer's shoulders, but to limit his liability in all other cases. The omission of any reference to statutory liability would make clear the amended proposal of the Government, and produce a clause which, he thought, would meet with the unanimous approbation of the Committee.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Stockport)said it was inconvenient to discuss the clause without having its words before them; yet, if they refrained, they practically eliminated one of the stages of the Bill as far as this particular clause was concerned. The clause was far-reaching in effect. It gave the workmen further facilities, and took away from the employer certain opportunities of appealing 1357 against a decision involving him, perhaps, in heavy damages. That was a step the House ought not to take without very serious consideration. They were all willing to facilitate the compensation of workmen, and were all desirous of reducing litigation to the smallest amount. At the same time, they had the employer to consider, and it would not do, in creating a new liability, to take away from the employer his present safeguard against being unfairly mulct in heavy damages at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act.
§ MR. CRIPPSsaid the view which he took of the proposal before the Committee was that the Government intended to leave all the existing remedies unimpaired, and to give an alternative remedy in the Bill. If that was their intention, he protested against it, for it would open the gates to litigation instead of providing for the alternative method of arbitration. The proposal would be destructive of one of the best features of the Bill, which established one remedy only—that of arbitration, with a limited amount.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)asked the Government to make it clear what their real meaning was. He could not understand whether they were at one with the right hon. Gentleman opposite or differed from. The Colonial Secretary just now alluded to one class of liability. Under the existing Act there were two classes in which the workman could obtain his remedy. There was the class in which the employer had been guilty of personal and direct negligence; and the provision of this Bill—a provision which, he thought, met with universal acceptance—was that the previously existing rights of the workmen should not be taken away. But there was another class, in which the workman could obtain compensation under the existing law, but in which there was no kind of moral responsibility on the employer's part. As the Bill stood, it was clear that in this class of case the remedy of the workman was taken away, for he could not proceed under the Employers' Liability Act until he had obtained the judgment of the arbitrator establishing direct personal liability. Was it the intention of the Government to continue that?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALCertainly.
§ MR. PARKER SMITHwas glad to hear it, because some hon. Members opposite did not appear to understand it. The great desire of employers was to get rid of litigation. There was nothing in the world that so irritated an employer as to have to pay enormous costs, knowing that the unfortunate man injured only got the merest trifle—[hear, hear ! "]— through having got into the hands of low-class lawyers' agents, who thought more of their own interests than of the interests of the workman. Scotch employers had specially suffered in this way; and he knew that in all cases where there was no direct personal responsibility, they would much prefer to have some kind of fixed payment under arbitration.
MR. T. SHAW (Hawick Burghs)understood the Committee to be unanimous that there should be a simple and economic method of ascertaining the rights of the parties. [" Hear, hear ! "] Yet that was not exactly the point they were now discussing. The point was quite a different one, for it had reference to the undertaking given by the Colonial Secretary—an undertaking which he accepted in the frank and full sense in which it was given. He understood the Government now to have absolutely pledged themselves to what he apprehended to be the sense of the House, namely, that all rights of the workmen at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act should be preserved intact and entire, there only remaining open the question as to the form in which those rights should be protected. [" Hear, hear ! "]
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman has not exactly quoted my words. What I said was that in cases of personal negligence every right the workman now enjoys will be preserved intact.
MR. T. SHAWwas glad he had interposed to make the point clear. He had the good fortune to have a copy of the Amendment, and its language was this: —
personal negligence or wilful act of the employer ('wilful act' might be deleted as superfluous) or some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible.He respectfully asked what that could mean except this—that all responsibility imposed by the Employers' Liability Act 1359 or by common law, which was responsibility not founded upon personal negligence merely, but upon what he might call secondary or deputed negligence, that all this was preserved for the benefit of the workman? Did he understand that the Government really meant to limit that existing right or not? He was not putting this in a controversial spirit, as, he was sure, the Colonial Secretary would recognise. It was only that the Committee might thoroughly understand the position in which it was put by the Amendment now brought forward by the Government. His intention and that of his Friends was that the Bill could not be allowed to pass into law unless they had an undertaking, absolute, specific, and clear, that it should not be cumbered by conditions limiting the existing rights enjoyed by the workmen of this country. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR EDWARD CLARKE (Plymouth)thought the tone adopted by the last speaker—who had said that he and his Friends were determined the Bill should not pass into law except under some conditions he had laid down—was not calculated to assist the Committee in the discussion of a question as to which a difficulty was felt on both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with the hon. Member in his desire that the Bill should deal with the difficulty in the simplest of all forms. Looking upon the Bill as being a provision by way of insurance in a large number of trades, he should like to see all the remedies that workmen in any trade had had up to the present time left absolutely untouched. ["Hear, hear !"] That was not only the simplest, but the most satisfactory way. The idea of leaving the arbitrator to say whether a man was to have compensation under this Bill or was to go on with an action at law and pursue his remedy elsewhere seemed to him inadmissible altogether, while he should have the strongest possible objection to putting provisions in the Bill which would give the arbitrator the right of dealing with cases which were not in the Bill at all, but which really had to be determined elsewhere by the law that had been established with regard to employers' liability. He thought employers in the House had been led by the hon. and learned Member for Stroud into somewhat exaggerated apprehensions in 1360 regard to this matter. What was the real case? Suppose they left the old right to a workman in these trades of suing his employer if he chose under the Employers' Liability Act. That involved litigation, and litigation had been spoken of as if it were a terror to the employer. It was really more of a terror to the working men, and as such had operated in depriving them of the actual benefits which Parliament intended they should have under the Bill of 1880. But the position would be this. Suppose a workman was injured in the course of one of these employments and it occurred to him that the accident had happened through the negligence of the employer himself or of someone for whom he was responsible. It might be suggested to him that instead of going to the arbitrator and having the compensation assessed—which he might do without any question as to how the accident occurred —he might elect to bring an action against his employer, and, if successful, might obtain a larger sum than by the assessment of compensation under the Bill. For his part, he did not believe there would be one case in ten thousand where the workman would take that course and resort to litigation on the chance of getting a larger sum. When a man was injured in the course of employment the real question was how quickly he could get the compensation. The temptation to the workman to come under the Bill to the arbitrator and get promptly assessed a sum which might be as large as any sum he might get if he went to law and adopted a different procedure, would be so great that he did not think there would be one case in ten thousand where a man who had the right to the double remedy—either under the Employers' Liability Act by litigation, or under this Bill by arbitration—would resort to litigation. Under these circumstances would it not be simpler to leave the existing remedies absolutely untouched and unqualified, providing by the Bill there should be, with regard to certain specified trades, an insurance to which the workman could appeal for prompt satisfaction for the injury he had received, which should be sufficiently ample that the temptation to embark in litigation would be removed? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)commented on the extreme inconvenience of the Committee being called upon to deal with a matter like this without having before them the exact words on the force and effect of which the whole question turned. As he comprehended the matter it amounted to this. If the arbitrator so decided, then a man should have two sets of rights or remedies; but if the arbitrator did not so decide, he was only to have one. He said it was not fair or reasonable to ask the Committee to put in the Bill these words which it did not know, on the understanding that it was to be enabled to do something with the words on the Report stage. The present was the proper stage for dealing with the words, and if the Government were not prepared with them, let them move to report progress, and ask leave to sit again and allow hon. Members to see the words. In the interests of order and of good legislation, he declared that the matter was one which entirely depended upon detail, and the detail depended entirely on the wording, so that it was unfair to ask hon. Members to introduce a clause which they could not apprehend, not having the words before them, on some sort of an understanding that some sort of thing was to be done or might be done upon the Report stage. The clause itself seemed little less than outrageous. The arbitrator was a man of limited capacity and knowledge, and the amount of compensation he could award was strictly limited by the Bill. The arbitrator might be not a very able man; he might be an uninstructed man, he might be a layman, he might be a prejudiced person, for instance, the candidate for the county. They strictly limited the powers he was to exercise under the Bill, but when they came to this clause they gave him power unlimited, because he was to say whether a workman should or should not be able to bring an action against his employer which would involve hundreds of thousands of pounds. To hand over to such a person a. power which was absolutely illimitable, and ask the Committee to assent to it, on the understanding that some further action should be taken hereafter, was unreasonable.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)agreed that there was undoubted force in the complaint that it was impossible 1362 to properly discuss this Amendment without having the actual words before them. He ventured to suggest to the Ministers in charge of the Bill a course which might lead them out of their present difficulty. It was possible in the Report stage to re-commit a Bill with respect to any portion of it, and he would ask the Home Secretary whether he would give an undertaking now that if this Debate stopped at the present moment he would offer no resistance to a proposal to re-commit the Bill in such a way as would enable them to discuss this proposition with full freedom and with all the words before them.
§ *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall)pointed out that by the words of this clause with the Amendment, the workman could go to the arbitrator and ask him to decide first whether the accident was caused by the personal negligence of the employer or someone for whom he was responsible, and then when this was done the workman had all his original rights, and might go to the common law or to the Act of 1880 to obtain his remedies. But surely if the workman was to have these two sets of rights so ought the employer? They were told, however, by the Attorney General, that it would not be open to the employer to defend himself in an action brought by the workman under the common law or under the Act of 1880, and to show, contrary to the opinion of the arbitrator, that the accident was not caused by his personal negligence. That question was shut out and the matter limited entirely to the damages which the workman might go for in this tribunal. Just think how that would lead to litigation. As the law now stood an unscrupulous solicitor feared to bring an action lest, after attempting the difficult and expensive task of proving the employer's negligence he should fail to get a verdict, and lose his costs. But if, without his aid, the arbitrator found negligence, the solicitor would hurry the client into an action, knowing that the question being now one of damages only, he must win and get his costs out of the employer. The arbitrator's award should be like the finding of a true Bill by a Grand Jury, and not be conclusive. It would be better still to leave the whole question to the arbitrator, with power, if he found wilful negligence, to mulct the employer in double damages.
§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYrose merely to say that the Government had no "felonious intent" in bringing forward this Amendment. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Last night they were in the presence of objections which they undertook to consider, and they now brought forward the Amendment in the clearest form they could devise. If the Committee would agree to insert the words the Government had no desire to curtail discussion at a later stage.
§ MR. ASQUITHreinforced the appeal of the Home Secretary. The Government had acted very fairly and properly, and for his part he regarded the right hon. Gentleman's assurance as satisfactory.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYmoved in Paragraph (b), Sub-section (2) to omit the words "wilful and wrongful act or default," and to insert instead thereof the words "personal negligence or wilful act."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he was going to try to do again what his right hon. Friend had just accomplished, and to give effect, in an Amendment not before the Committee, to what the Government believed were the wishes of the Committee. A very considerable time was spent the previous evening in discussing whether proceedings with regard to negligence should not be bilateral—whether, if they left the employer open to heavier burdens than the Bill imposed in cases of personal, negligence, they ought not to take care that the workman guilty of negligence of a gross character, by which he had put in jeopardy the lives and limbs of his fellow-workmen, should not be debarred from obtaining compensation to which otherwise he would be entitled. He gathered that the feeling of the Committee was unanimous on two points. In the first place, it was unanimous in thinking that in such cases, however exceptional they might be, it would be an act of injustice and bad policy to give compensation; and he believed it was quite as strongly felt that nothing must be done which would in any way lead to an evasion of the Act by any employer, which would introduce a complicated doctrine 1364 such as the doctrine of contributory negligence, and thereby might prevent the workman from gaining just compensation. The Government, dealing with the Amendment then on the Paper, fancied they found a solution on the Paper in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street, and the Government proposed that where a workman had wilfully and wrongfully brought about an accident by his wilful default or neglect or regulations which had been made by his employer he should not be entitled to compensation. Great objection was taken to that Amendment, and as the Debate went on it seemed to him, that many objections were sustained. It seemed clear that it would probably raise questions of contributory negligence, and provide that the workman would not be entitled to compensation if he broke through a regulation which was altogether too wide. A regulation might be made with the direct intention and object of saving life. But, as a matter of fact, the regulations made were not of that character. They were comparatively trivial. At the same time a breach of them would destroy the workman's claim to compensation. That being the state of the case, and having gathered opinions from all quarters of the House, the Government now suggested an alternative Amendment, which was so short that even the Member for King's Lynn might be able to understand it—[laughter]—which was very simple, and to which, he believed, the objections of the hon. Members for Wansbeck and Durham and other hon. Members would not apply. In line 23 the Government proposed to insert the following new sub-section (c): —
If it is proved that the accident is solely attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman himself any compensation claimed in respect of injuries to such workman shall be disallowed.The sub-section, it would be seen, consisted of two parts. The first defined the act which would disable the workman; the second part only said that compensation should be disallowed. The important point was, what was the disabling act on the part of the workman? In the first place, it must be an act to which the accident was solely attributable. That got rid absolutely of any question of contributory negligence. In the second place, it 1365 must be attributable to serious and wilful misconduct. A trivial breach of rules would not be taken into account. The conditions he had stated could alone prevent a workman from being entitled to compensation. He did not think it was the desire of employers that if this Bill were passed there should be any possibility of evasion off its conditions by the less reputable class of employers. He was certain that that was not the intention or object of any employer in that House, and they would therefore sympathise with the Government in their endeavour, by the very stringent terms they had used, to prevent this clause beings used as an instrument of evasion. He hoped the Government had met objections on both sides of the House and that this new Amendment might be accepted. He begged to move it.
§ On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said there was no doubt that with the object of the words all members of the Committee would practically agree. They would also agree that if it was possible by the insertion of these words to deter wilful and wrongful acts, it would be desirable to do so; but he reminded the Colonial Secretary that accidents of this kind would be singularly few, and it was doubtful whether by the insertion of the words, good though they were, more harm would not be done than good. If, however, the words were to be inserted, he thought it ought to be made absolutely clear that the provision would only apply to the workman who himself had been guilty of a wilful act, and that in no circumstances could it be applied to any workman connected with the man who brought about the accident. The objection he had to the words was that they might lead to the setting up of a number of defences to litigation by some masters, especially in the case of single accidents where death occurred and there were no witnesses. The words might also lead to a defence being set up to an accident where a man was seriously injured and a long period of insensibility, with loss of memory, ensued, and there were 1366 no witnesses for the man seriously injured, or no witness of the act after the injured man had died.
§ MR. HENRY SETON-KARR (St. Helens)was glad to find that the Government had so quickly fulfilled their pledge, and had inserted those words in order to meet the case of serious and wilful misconduct on the part of the workman himself. He was ready to accept the words which had received the approval of the Government. He cited the case of a workman being taken into a court of law to undergo trial for manslaughter, and at the same time claiming compensation under the Bill from the employer. In his judgment the words here inserted met the point contended for the previous day, and the Amendment was the least that could be inserted in order to meet the justice of the case.
§ MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)maintained that the words in the Amendment were no improvement on those of the previous day. What was the grade of misconduct that made it serious? His opinion was that irritation, friction, and serious injury before the arbitrator might arise in order to define the words "serious and wilful misconduct." He therefore opposed the Amendment on the ground that it was wider than the suggested alteration of the previous day. In taking up an attitude of opposition to the new words proposed, labour Members must not be understood as condoning or trying to mitigate any offence arising out of a man's wilful misconduct. ["Hear, hear !"] They had no such view. But how many such cases occurred in the whole industrial life of the country? That was a point which needed to be inquired into and answered. If employers of labour could show a long category of cases, serious in their character and number, where accidents had occurred owing to the man's wilful misconduct, he, for one, speaking for himself, would offer no demur whatever. All he desired was that no innocent man should be prevented from getting the benefits which this Bill gave him, and that nothing should be placed in the way of his getting his compensation speedily.
§ MR. G. W. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)said that, after all, it was the employers who would have to pay. He was rather surprised at the opposition which the clause had met with from hon. Gentlemen who 1367 represented the workman and labour in general. The cases under this clause would be very few, and although it might be a matter of expediency to include even such cases, still they involved such an absolute piece of injustice to the employer that he hoped the idea would not be carried into a legislative enactment. He could not see that the clause would open the door to any amount of litigation. He did not know much about the coal trade, but, speaking of the industry with which he was connected, he asserted that a serious accident, resulting in disablement for life or in death, happening without any one seeing it, was of the rarest possible occurrence. He fully approved the Amendment of the clause proposed, and he hoped the Government would be firm in passing it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, replying to questions put by the hon. Member for Battersea, said there was not the slightest fear that other workmen who were injured by the wilful misconduct of a fellow-workman would be debarred from claiming compensation. The words related entirely to a claim in respect of injury to the workman guilty of serious and wilful misconduct. The hon. Member for Durham appeared to have overlooked the fact that the onus of proof of misconduct would rest with the master. As to defining "serious" misconduct, he submitted that nothing would be more absurd and injurious than to attempt in this section to say what was serious and what was not. But what was meant was this— that the jury should have their attention directed to the consideration that it was not a mere technical breaking of a rule which should deprive a man of compensation, but that it should be serious misconduct in an important matter. The words, he reminded the Committee, were "solely attributable" to the wilful and serious misconduct, etc., which removed altogether the suggestion that contributory negligence could be brought up.
MR. FENWICK, referring to the remark of the hon. Member for Belfast about justice to the employer, said justice had been already cast to the winds by the promoters of this Bill. [Cries of "Oh !"] They were making the employer liable in compensation in cases where he was neither technically nor morally responsible for the accident caused. Therefore they might disabuse their minds of 1368 all considerations of justice. [Ministerial laughter.] He did not agree with the hon. Member for Battersea that the words were an improvement upon the Amendment under consideration yesterday. Would it be contended, if a workman failed to put in sufficient timber to prevent the roof from subsiding, and an accident ensued, that he had misconducted himself, and therefore contributed to his own injury? He feared that, in a ease like that, it would be urged by the employer in defence, and perhaps held, that the workman, having contributed to his own accident, was not entitled to compensation under the Bill. The Government would be well advised not to introduce limiting words of this kind into the Bill. He agreed that the number of accidents which could be proved to be attributable to the misconduct of the workman would be very small, but the words would lead to much litigation and perhaps even to strikes. No working man's representative would defend on its merits the claim of a workman to receive compensation for injuries brought on by his own misconduct; but he opposed these words on the ground of expediency alone. He regretted that the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment without waiting to hear what the labour representatives had to say. Only that day at a very large and representative conference of miners from all parts of Great Britain a Resolution was passed protesting against the acceptance of this Amendment.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)said that it was an extraordinary contention on the part of the hon. Member that the Committee should disabuse their minds of the principle of justice in this matter. But if this very reasonable Amendment were not accepted by the representatives of the working classes the Committee might indeed disabuse their minds of the principle of justice, for the Bill would be more one-sided than ever. It had been decided that the workman was to be placed in no worse position by any negligence of his employer, and the converse of that provision was only fair.
§ MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington)said that there were two considerations which must be weighed one against the other. As a general principle no one 1369 could deny that the workman ought to have no claim in respect of an accident brought about by his own misconduct. But, on the other hand, there was the fear that the defence which this Amendment would enable the employer to set up might lead to the frequent miscarriage of justice. The great majority of employers would wish to act fairly; but they would not always be their own masters. The insurance companies behind them would be bound to use every opportunity of setting up a defence to a claim; and what was easier than to suggest that an accident, the cause of which was not indisputable, resulted from the workman's misconduct? This was not a Bill to penalise the employer, but was a Bill under which the employer took upon himself the business of insuring the workman against injury. The common-sense way, therefore, was to proceed on the principles of the insurance companies, which found it most convenient to pay small claims for fires without inquiring too curiously into the cause of the fire. The balance of convenience under this Bill was that compensation should be as complete as possible in as many cases as possible. There were not many cases where accidents were caused by the wilful misconduct of the workman, and if to provide for such cases was to risk the denial of just claims it was better to keep the Bill as the Government originally intended it to be. The Government had acted generously on many points, but if they accepted the Amendment it would be a little like going back on the fundamental principle of the Bill.
*SIR E.CLARKEsaid that the principle of the hon. and learned Member was in favour of the Amendment. The Bill was to provide insurance against accidents. Where the accident was due to the neglect of the employer the Committee had withdrawn from him any protection against the larger liability. If a workman by his own serious default caused injury to himself, that injury could not be said to be an accident at all. It would be a distinct violation of equity to call upon the employer to compensate such an injury. The hon. Member for Wansbeck had complained that the representatives of the working men had not had an opportunity of expressing their views, and the speech of flip hon. Member showed how little 1370 they would have contributed to the discussion if they had had the opportunity. [Laughter.] It was idle to suppose that litigation would be increased by the Amendment. No question could be raised until the man came before the arbitrator and claimed compensation, when it might be pointed out that it was entirely his own doing, and not an accident at all. The Government had arrived at a form of words which seemed to be as perfect an expression of the general opinion of the House as could be devised, and he therefore hoped they would stand by it.
§ MR. THOMAS BURT (Morpeth)thought that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had done an injustice unintentionally to his hon. Friends. Their complaint was not that they had no opportunity of speaking, for as a matter of fact they did speak, but that his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on Monday night accepted an Amendment before they, the representaives of workmen, had expressed their views upon it. The Amendment now before the House was in his opinion just. [Ministerial cheers.] But his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, in a speech on Monday night, with the terseness and precision of which he was a master, put the case admirably in a few sentences; and the right hon. Gentleman himself recognised that, while justice was on one side, it might be in the interest of both employer and workmen to act on the principle of expediency. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham had described it as worse than the Amendment of yesterday. He did not think it was. He thought the Government had taken great pains, indeed, to guard against opening the door too wide. But his objection was against opening the door at all, and leaving it ajar, because it would be pushed forward —["hear, hear !"]—and considering that one of the advantages of the Bill was the avoidance of litigation, he believed that both employers and workmen would in the end be benefit ed by not accepting the principle of the Amendment. Therefore he should certainly vote against the Amendment if a Division were taken.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he had just a word to say in reply to the admirable speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth, which exhibited all those characteristics of fair-mindedness and 1371 generosity that had made his hon. Friend one of the most popular Members of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend complained that on a previous occasion he had hastily accepted an Amendment without having heard the opinions of representatives of working-class constituencies on the subject. He pleaded guilty. The real fact was that he was not then aware of the strong objections which those hon. Gentlemen took to the proposal; and he rose to accept the Amendment in the hope of shortening the Debate. He could only apologise and express his regret for the mistake, for which the Government and himself had already suffered. [Laughter.] With reference to the Amendment, he thought that justice required that some such provision should be inserted in the Bill. The Government had guarded it by saying that the accident must be solely attributable to the workman, and must also be due to serious and wilful misconduct. Under these circumstances it was evident that the objections to the Amendment and the fears which it had aroused were so improbable of realisation, that he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth, who was at all times and in all circumstances an advocate of justice, would admit that the Government were entitled to ask for the support of the House.
§ *MR. MARK OLDROYD (Dewsbury)felt that the insertion of those words would lead to the very unsatisfactory working of the Measure; and in the interest of the broad and equitable settlement of the question of compensation for accidents he was anxious that the best characteristics of the Bill should be preserved in their integrity. By far the largest number of accidents in textile factories were due to the cleaning of dangerous machinery when in motion. This was forbidden by the Factory Acts and by all masters, managers, and foremen, but it was done every hour of the day in hundreds of factories. It was certain that, in the case of an accident arising in these circumstances, the insurance company would put forward the plea that the accident was due to "serious and wilful misconduct," inasmuch as it arose out of a breach of the factory laws 1372 by which employers as well as workmen were bound. It had been argued that these cases of serious and wilful misconduct would be few in number, but as far as the textile trades were concerned he submitted they would not be few in number. A large proportion of the accidents in those trades arose from the action of the workmen who were thus contravening the Factory Acts. He thought also that it was scarcely in accordance with the facts to say that cases where evidence would not be procurable would be very few. In the textile industries a great deal of work was done by workmen when standing between the different machines where no one could see them, and many accidents happened to workmen when they were not in view of their fellow workmen. This was not a question which would affect colliery owners in the case of disasters in which a large number of men were injured, as the colliery owner in such cases would still be responsible. This Amendment would only relieve them from responsibility in the case of the one man by whom the accident was caused. But if the Amendment was adopted, injustice would be perpetrated in a great many cases, because it would be impossible to prevent the raising of the defence that serious and wilful misconduct had taken place. Very often the energetic, persevering, and strenuous workman would be the victim of his own enterprise, and would fail to recover the compensation which the less enterprising workman would secure. Although the Government had shown every disposition to secure what was called abstract justice, yet if the Amendment were adopted it would be liable to very great abuses which would far more than counterbalance any occasional justice which would be done. He hoped, therefore, the Government would not adhere to the Amendment.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.said he quite understood the importance of the discussion in which they 1373 were engaged, but the matter had been discussed at considerable length, and he thought it must be felt on both sides that the Committee was ripe for a decision. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR F. MAPPIN (York, W.R., Hallamshire)trusted that the Committee would reject the Amendment. The hon. Member, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the Amendment
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Denny, Colonel | Hopkinson, Alfred |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hornby, William Henry |
| Arnold, Alfred | Douglas. Rt. Hn. A. Akers- | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Drage, Geoffrey | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Drucker, A. | Howard, Joseph |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Duncombe, Hn. Hubert V. | Howell, William Tudor |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart | Hozier, James Henry Cecil |
| Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice- |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r) | Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, George H. | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Fisher, William Hayes | Jenkin, Sir John Jones |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds) | Fison, Frederick William | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. |
| Barry, A. H. Smith- (Hunts.) | FitzGerald, Sir R, U. Penrose | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) | Flannery, Fortescue | Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Joicey, Sir James |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Folkestone, Viscount | Kenny, William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Forster, Henry William | Kenrick, William |
| Bill, Charles | Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B. | Kenyon, James |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William |
| Bolitho, Thomas Bedford | Fowler, Matthew (Durham) | Kimber, Henry |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Fry, Lewis | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Galloway, William Johnson | Knowles, Lees |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Garfit, William | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Brassey, Albert | Gedge, Sydney | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l.) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) |
| Butcher, John George | Gordon, John Edward | Lecky, William Edward H. |
| Bucknill, Thomas Townsend | Gorst. Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's | Leighton, Stanley |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Lloyd-George, David |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Binn.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R. (Essex) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Graham, Henry Robert | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry) | Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham) |
| Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) |
| Coddington, Sir William | Greville, Captain | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Gunter, Colonel | Lowles, John |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.) | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Maclure, John William |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hanson, Sir Reginald | McIver, Sir Lewis |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D. | Hardy, Laurence | McKillop, James |
| Cox, Robert | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Malcolm, Ian |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas, Seale- | Maple, Sir John Blundell |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Heath, James | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Heaton, John Henniker | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Helder, Augustus | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc.S.W | Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Monk, Charles James |
| Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh | Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol) | More, Robert Jasper |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead) | Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose) |
| Davenport, W. Bromley- | Hobhouse, Henry | Morrell, George Herbert |
§ would not be satisfactory not only in regard to railway companies but in regard to other large employers of labour in the country.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 123.—(Division List—No. 218— appended.)
1375| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Denny, Colonel | Hopkinson, Alfred |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hornby, William Henry |
| Arnold, Alfred | Douglas. Rt. Hn. A. Akers- | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Drage, Geoffrey | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Drucker, A. | Howard, Joseph |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Duncombe, Hn. Hubert V. | Howell, William Tudor |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart | Hozier, James Henry Cecil |
| Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice- |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r) | Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, George H. | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Fisher, William Hayes | Jenkin, Sir John Jones |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds) | Fison, Frederick William | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. |
| Barry, A. H. Smith- (Hunts.) | FitzGerald, Sir R, U. Penrose | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) | Flannery, Fortescue | Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Joicey, Sir James |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Folkestone, Viscount | Kenny, William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Forster, Henry William | Kenrick, William |
| Bill, Charles | Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B. | Kenyon, James |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William |
| Bolitho, Thomas Bedford | Fowler, Matthew (Durham) | Kimber, Henry |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Fry, Lewis | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Galloway, William Johnson | Knowles, Lees |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Garfit, William | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Brassey, Albert | Gedge, Sydney | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l.) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) |
| Butcher, John George | Gordon, John Edward | Lecky, William Edward H. |
| Bucknill, Thomas Townsend | Gorst. Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's | Leighton, Stanley |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Lloyd-George, David |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Binn.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R. (Essex) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Graham, Henry Robert | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry) | Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham) |
| Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) |
| Coddington, Sir William | Greville, Captain | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Gunter, Colonel | Lowles, John |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.) | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Maclure, John William |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hanson, Sir Reginald | McIver, Sir Lewis |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D. | Hardy, Laurence | McKillop, James |
| Cox, Robert | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Malcolm, Ian |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas, Seale- | Maple, Sir John Blundell |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Heath, James | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Heaton, John Henniker | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Helder, Augustus | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc.S.W | Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Monk, Charles James |
| Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh | Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol) | More, Robert Jasper |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead) | Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose) |
| Davenport, W. Bromley- | Hobhouse, Henry | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Mount, William George | Russell, Sir George (Berksh.) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Rutherford, John | Ure, Alexander |
| Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Waring, Col. Thomas |
| Myers, William Henry | Seely, Charles Hilton | Warkworth, Lord |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Seton-Karr, Henry | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight) |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wharton, John Lloyd |
| Pearson, Sir Weetman D. | Smith, Abel (Herts) | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Pease, Arthur (Darlington) | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) |
| Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | William, Joseph Powell-(Birm.) |
| Pender, James | Spencer, Ernest | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon | Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) | Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath) |
| Pryce-Jones, Edward | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Strachey, Edward | Wyndham, George |
| Renshaw, Charles Bine | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Richardson, Thomas | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Sutherland, Sir Thomas | Younger, William |
| Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir MatthewW. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Thorburn, Walter | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Robinson, Brooke | Tollemache, Henry James | |
| Russell, Gen. F.S. Cheltenham) | Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke | Gourley, Sir Edwd. Temperley | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Pinkerton, John |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Harrison, Charles | Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Harwood, George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H. | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Baker, Sir John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Roche, Hn. James (East Kerry) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm) | Holburn, J. G. | Roche, John (East Galway) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Bethell, Commander | Jacoby, James Alfred | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Billson, Alfred | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) | Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarshire) |
| Birrell, Augustine | Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Blake, Edward | Jordan, Jeremiah | Souttar, Robinson |
| Brigg, John | Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth | Spicer, Albert |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Kitson, Sir James | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Burns, John | Labouchere, Henry | Stuart, James (Shoreditch) |
| Burt, Thomas | Lambert, George | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Caldwell, James | Langley, Batty | Tanner, Charles Kearns |
| Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Leng, Sir John | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lockwood, Sir Frank (York) | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) |
| Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Tully, Jasper |
| Colville, John | Macaleese, Daniel | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Commins, Andrew | McArthur, William | Wallace, Robert (Perth) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | McEwan, William | Walton, John Lawson |
| Crombie, John William | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.). | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) | Wayman, Thomas |
| Daly, James | McKenna, Reginald | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Dalziel, James Henry | McLeod, John | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Davitt, Michael | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Williams, John Carvell (Notts.) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Molloy, Bernard Charles | Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk) |
| Dillon. John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Doughty, George | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Woodall, William |
| Dunn, Sir William | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.) |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Woods, Samuel |
| Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton) | O'Kelly, James | |
| Farrell, James P. (Cavan,W.) | Oldroyd, Mark | TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda). |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Paulton, James Mellor | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Pickard, Benjamin |
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" —[Mr. Chamberlain]—put, and agreed to.
§ *MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)wished to move an Amendment, in order to put the question whether the arbitrator was to have power, when the facts were brought before him, to decide whether the workman claiming was to go to a court of law to obtain his remedy, and whether, if the workman lost his ease in the court, he was to be still entitled to go again to the arbitrator. Hon. Members had expressed a desire to prevent litigation as far as possible, but it seemed to him that unless this point was made clear, an employer of labour might be called upon to defend two actions where it might be possible to have only one.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the query of his hon. Friend was a very natural one. The first question was whether the arbitrator was to have power to decide that there was such a state of circumstances that a man could have a greater remedy than the compensation tinder the Bill. As matters now stood a workman had the right to go either before the arbitrator or to the Court. It might possibly be necessary to insert some words to prevent the cost of a double litigation. His impression was that the proceedings taken must be final and conclusive for all parties, but he would take care there was no possibility of double proceedings being taken.
§ MR. J. L. WALTON (Lewis, S.)said he would be glad to know the view of the Attorney General with regard to a position which, it seemed to him, must necessarily be created under the operation of the first words of the clause. As he read the clause, a court of law was debarred from deciding whether the Act did or did not apply to an action which was brought before it. An engineer employed by a colliery company and receiving £1,000 or £1,500, might be injured, and might seek compensation on a larger scale than that provided by the Bill. He would possibly be advised he had an action at common law. He might take action and go through all the usual ramifications of pleading. When the case 1378 came before a Judge and jury the Judge might find there was a question whether the Act applied or not. The costly proceedings would be avoided, and the plaintiff forced back to the arbitrator to have the preliminary question determined. He would suggest that words should be struck out so that any competent Court should be entitled to decide whether or not the Act did or did not apply to the case brought under its notice.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALasked what were the words the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested should be struck out?
§ MR. WALTON"If any question arises whether employment is one to which this Act applies."
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYmoved in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "willful or wrongful act or default" and to insert "personal negligence or willful act," explaining that the Amendment was consequential upon what had been previously decided by the Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed another consequential Amendment, namely, to insert in Sub-section (3) after the words "injured," the following words:—
or whether the accident was solely attributable to the serious and willful misconduct of the workman in respect of whose injuries compensation is claimed.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. RENSHAWmoved after the words last added, to insert the words,
or whether loss or damage has resulted to the dependants from the death of the workman.He desired to have it made clear that the arbitrator was to consider when he was arriving at his award whether or 1379 not the dependants were entitled to claim. In the first schedule the expression "dependants" was defined as—such members of the workmen's family as are entitled to damages in cases under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846";and under that Act, which, by the way, did not apply to Scotland, grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, and stepchildren were regarded as dependants. What he thought ought to be made clear was that compensation ought only to be given to those who had really and truly suffered loss or damage. Supposing a father was killed, it ought not to be in the power of the arbitrator to award damages to a son who was in full employment, and who was not really dependant upon his father. While at the present moment good employers did not grudge showing every consideration to those dependants who were really dependant upon an individual who met his death in the course of his employment, he thought there ought not to be, through the operation of this Bill, a suggestion that compensation was to be paid to individuals who really and truly suffered no loss or damage. The question was one of importance, and he thought it would reassure employers if they were perfectly certain that the arbitrator would have the whole question in his discretion.
§ HE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid no doubt it would have to be considered, when they came to the definition of dependants in the Schedule, whether the words "must have suffered pecuniary damage" must be the limit. He would suggest that it would be better that the discussion should be taken on paragraph 3 of the Schedule.
§ *MR. RENSHAWsaid it seemed to him that in this part of the Bill there was the power of giving to the arbitrator a discretion in this matter. If they waited until they came to the Schedule it seemed to him they would possibly be met with the argument that they had given the arbitrator no power to deal with the matter.
§ R. CHAMBERLAINsaid that could not be. Paragraph (3) of the Schedule said that any question as to who was a dependant or as to the amount payable to each dependant should be settled by the arbitrator. Therefore they had only got to 1380 define "dependants" in the paragraph previous to prevent any question arising out of it.
§ *MR. J. B. BALFOUR Clackmannan and Kinross)said that there was a difference in the law of England and the law of Scotland in regard to the persons who had a right of action against an employer in respect of the death of a workman, and that if any definition was put in here it should be without prejudice to the existing rules of Scotch law on that subject.
§ *MR. RENSHAWsaid it seemed to him that the third sub-section of the schedule failed in doing what he suggested.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not say that the schedule did it now. He was only suggesting that that was the proper place to raise the question whether or not it should be done.
§ MR. HOPKINSONsaid it appeared to him that his hon. Friend was right in his contention. They were enumerating here the issues which the arbitrator had got to determine, and it appeared to him better to enumerate them all here.
§ *MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid he understood that the provision as to arbitration was not to arm the arbitrator with the power to determine the legal question who should fall under the class, but rather the question of fact whether certain particular persons did fall under the class, which should be defined by the law.
§ MR. SETON-KARRasked whether it would be competent for them to introduce into the third clause of the schedule the point,' not whether certain persons were or were not dependants, but whether such persons had suffered loss.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALrose to point out that not only could that course be taken but that it was the right place to take it. The proper way was, when they came to discuss the meaning of the third paragraph of the schedule, to move an Amendment that dependants should mean such members of a workman's family as had sustained pecuniary damage. There was no doubt that then that question could be properly raised. It was very inconvenient to prejudge in this section the question whether or not the arbitrator should have power to decide whether loss or damage had resulted to dependants before they determined whether that should be the 1381 governing condition or who were to be dependants under the Bill.
§ SIR ROBERT REIDpointed out that if his words were included now it would not make it obligatory upon the arbitrator to require proof of loss or damage in the least. All it would do would be to add another to the number of questions which were enumerated as being appropriate for consideration by the arbitrator. In his judgment none of these questions were in the least degree necessary. It would be sufficient to say that all questions arising as to liability or amount under this Act should be referred to the arbitrator.
MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)said the question raised by his hon. Friend's Amendment was just one of the questions which the Bill as it stood did refer to the arbitrator. One of the questions was as to the amount of compensation under this Act, and the amount of the compensation under the Act would depend upon the amount of damage suffered.
§ MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)said that if he understood the Amendment aright it would restrict the operation of the Bill very much, because, where a man was killed except the dependants showed that they had suffered pecuniary loss by his death, the sum held out in the schedule—this death legacy of, £150 or £300 or any sum between—would not be paid.
§ *MR. RENSHAWsaid the hon. Member was quite right in his interpretation of the Amendment, but in view of what had fallen from the Attorney General, who, he understood, would bring forward words dealing with this question when they reached that portion of the schedule, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he was not aware that he had given such a promise. What he intended to say was that, if it was the opinion of the Committee that the compensation to dependants should be paid only to those dependants who could show that they had sustained pecuniary damage, then at the proper time it would be necessary to deal with that opinion in the second schedule. He did not pledge himself or the Government on the matter.
§ MR. ASQUITHhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not pledge himself either.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. REGINALD MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.)moved in Sub-section (3) after the word "agreement" to insert the words "and any question as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies shall."
§ MR. WALTONsaid he opposed the insertion of these words for the reasons he had already given. The question whether the Act applied or not was an initial question which was outside the scope of the questions connected with the Bill, and that question, he submitted, was one which any legal tribunal ought to be entitled to decide when the matter was judicially brought into the Court.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought there was a point here which required to be dealt, with, and it was only fair to say that his attention was called to it by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. But he did not think the remedy which the hon. Member suggested was the right one. He thought it was quite clear when he assented a little while ago to the Amendment, that these words must come in, for this reason, that they could not exclude this question from the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. It was quite clear that there might be cases in which it would be necessary for the arbitrator to decide it. What he could assure the hon. Member was this. Possibly a question might arise in an action at law brought by a man who was mistaken as to his rights. There were two courses which might be adopted, and he was bound to say he did not think it unreasonable that when a man elected going to law under such circumstances, the penalty should fall on himself. But there was another course that would not be so hard; that was to say, if an exceptional case arose of an action being improperly brought, the Court should have power to decide the question as though it had been an arbitration under the Act. He would consider the point, if the hon. Member would allow him, between this and a later stage of the Bill, especially as the remedy suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham was that if a mistake should be made any Court 1383 should have power to deal with that exceptional case. He thought it was quite plain that these words must be re-inserted, but they must consider what was to happen if and where a mistake arose as to the form of litigation.
§ SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that he was not going to press the Attorney General to deal with this matter finally at present, after his appeal for time to consider it. But he could not conceive the necessity for inserting the words, because they had already stated not only a large number of questions to be left to the arbitrator, but he was also to decide whether there was any liability to compensation under this Act. Now, supposing the arbitrator had before him this fact, that the employment was not an employment within the scope of the Act, how on earth could he refrain from deciding that there was no liability under the Act? But supposing the question arose in another case, for example in the High Court, was it really intended that litigation arising in the High Court or the County Court, under the Employers' Liability Act should be interrupted, and there should be a remission of this matter to the arbitrator? Replying to an observation of the Attorney General which was not audible in the Gallery, Sir R. Reid said he would not occupy the time of the Committee further, but he must say that when a Bill—without making use of any observation of an unduly critical character—was presented in this form, it was not unreasonable to comment upon it, and he hoped the Attorney General would not resent suggestions provoked by the character of the Bill.
§ MR. CRIPPSurged that the door must not be opened to the workman to take a wrong course of procedure, in order to get compensation in another way than was contemplated by the general principle of the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)moved to insert, as anew sub-section, the words:—
(4.) Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice that injury has been sustained is given within six weeks and 1384 an arbitration is commenced within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or in case of death within twelve months from the time of death. Provided always that in case of death the want of such notice shall be no bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if the arbitrator shall be of opinion that there was reasonable excuse for such want of notice. The notice shall be served in the manner provided by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, section seven.In moving this Amendment, he wished once again to express what he expressed on the First and Second Reading of the Bill, namely, his sincere desire to assist in passing the Measure. He cordially approved the principle of the Bill. But he had also said that it certainly required some important alterations. He trusted the Government would recognise that employers like himself—and there were many in the House—had no desire to withstand the principle of the Bill, but they wished to make it a workable and a harmonious Bill. It was workmen who were to call the tune, but it was the employers who would have to pay the piper. Well, they wished to have the tune somewhat soft, harmonious, and pleasing. They wished to avoid friction. [A. laugh.] Well, that had been the great argument, that they were not to have more litigation, or that the litigation was to be reduced to the minimum. He hoped that was their intention, and it was their (the employers) desire to assist them in realising it. He had framed his Amendment with that object, and he thought it would be admitted on both sides of the House that it was an Amendment which did justice to both employers and employed. Speaking on behalf of a mining constituency, from which he had been returned largely by the votes of the mining employés, they all thought that the Amendment was required. The Bill fixed no term for giving notice of claim or action, and it was a great and a serious omission. The Employers' Liability Act required notice, and he did not think any hon. Member could resist the contention that some notice at all events should be given, and he thought the term set out in his Amendment was a reasonable one. He trusted, from the remarks which fell from the Attorney General last night, that the Government would favourably consider his Amendment.
§ MR. UREhoped the Government would not consent to the Amendment 1385 just proposed. If there was one serious defect in the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 it was the requirement that notice of claim should be given. It had been found in the great majority of cases— and he was speaking from long experience to be quite useless. No accident could occur without its being known to everyone concerned, and to require notice of the accident was hopelessly futile. On the other hand, no time limit ought to be raised in the way of a workman making a claim or bringing his action. Depend upon it, self-interest would in every instance induce the workmen to take steps at the earliest possible moment and no inconvenience had ever been felt in securing that sufficient evidence on both sides should be available. The notice clauses, in the experience of those closely acquainted with the working of the Act, of 1880, had proved a great injustice to workmen, and had resulted in no corresponding advantage to the employer.
§ MR. W. J. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)supported the Amendment. There was no argument against it in what the hon. Member who had just sat down had said. Surely, if no accident occurred without its being known, there could be no hardship in asking that the employer should have notice.
§ MR. GALLOWAYSurely, if the hon. Member suggests that notice is futile, it cannot work hardship on the workman. He will forgive me if I cannot see it in the same light as he does.
§ MR. GALLOWAYIf notice is unnecessary, surely I am not wrong in contending that there can be no hardship in its being given. They were putting on the employer a responsibility which some of then thought very heavy and grievous indeed; and surely they had a right to ask that they should know at some 1386 time in their lives when their responsibility for a particular accident would cease. It was a small pittance they were asking, when they asked that they should at least know the extent of their liability. If he thought his Amendment would work any hardship to the workman, or prevent for one moment any just claim being substantiated, he would not submit the Amendment. They were told that justice and equity were not to be found in the Bill; but surely, even on the ground of expediency, which seemed to be the great argument used in favour of the Bill, they might well ask that the employer should be protected in this small way.
§ MR. ASQUITHobserved that they spent a considerable time in discussing this matter the previous day, when he understood the Government to say they intended at some later stage to introduce some provision to the effect that the delivery of a notice of the accident within a prescribed time should not be made a condition precedent to a claim for compensation. That being so, he could not see any justification for again going over a matter which had already been discussed and as to which he understood the Government had come to a final decision.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid he thought the proposal with regard to the notice a reasonable one. As this appeared to be a Bill chiefly affecting mining industries, he would like to call attention to a rule which appeared in the book of rules of an accident relief society connected with his own district, and which was worked mainly by the working men themselves: —
Rule 20. Reporting Injury. Any workman on being hurt must report the injury to the head banksman and also to the steward as soon as possible and before leaving the premises, or bring sufficient evidence from the colliery of his injury.Surely if such a rule was considered reasonable by the workmen, the Committee might also adopt that view. The main object of requiring notice of the accident to be given was that evidence might 1387 immediately be collected of the way in which the accident was caused, whereas if a long time was allowed to elapse before notice was given all traces of the cause of the accident might long ago have been swept away.
§ MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)opposed the Amendment. There were, he said, a great many cases in which the operation of such a clause as this would be injurious to the workmen. Take the case of a fall of the roof in a mine. A workman might have received some spinal injury, but not have given notice of it at the time, thinking that by continuing at his work he might work off the effects of the accident, the full force of which would not develop till long afterwards. If men were compelled to give notice of an accident within a specified time they would feel bound, in order to safeguard themselves, to give notice at once, even in those cases where they had received an even slighter injury than they at first imagined, and which they would soon have worked off. The matter was a small and trifling one, and he hoped the Committee would not spend further time over it.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINcould not agree with the hon. Member that this was a small matter, nor yet was it unimportant. On the contrary, he regarded it as one well worthy of consideration and although at the present moment there appeared to be a considerable difference between the two sides of the House, he hoped that in the course of the discussion they might arrive at some common agreement in reference to it. He thought his right hon. Friend opposite somewhat misunderstood the position of the Government, because he seemed to have assumed, from something that was said when this matter was under discussion, that the Government had expressed themselves as opposed to requiring any notice either of the accident or of the claim, and that, therefore, they might be expected to be hostile to the principle of the Amendment. [Mr. ASQUITH: 1388 "As a condition precedent!"] That was not the position taken by the Government. As to the notice of claim, they undertook to give further consideration to the matter and see if they could not meet what appeared to be a reasonable demand; and as regarded the question of notice of the accident, to which they attached less importance, they said they would consider it at the same time, and they might possibly find some means of dealing with that also. He considered, therefore, that as far as the Government were concerned, they were entitled to say they still had an open mind on the subject, and were not pledged against the consideration of an Amendment which, he thought it must be admitted, was at the first sight, at any rate, extremely plausible. He would go so far as to say he should consider it to be more than that, if it were not for the fact that they had behind them the experience of the Employers' Liability Act, in which almost precisely the same words occurred, and where, undoubtedly, the clause had not been found to work altogether satisfactorily. ["Hear, hear !"] "It had led to a great deal of irritation and litigation, and he doubted very much whether the employers or the workmen would express themselves as satisfied with the results of this clause, so far as their experience of the Employers' Liability Act had gone. On the other hand, surely the object of everybody should be to see that the persons who enjoyed the benefits of this Act should be deserving of them, and it was as much the interest of the workmen that the benefits of an Act of this kind should not go to malingerers or persons putting forward fraudulent claims as it could be of any Member of that House. ["Hear, hear !"] Undoubtedly, if notice of the accident was indefinitely delayed, and, above all, the claim was indefinitely delayed, there was much more room for a fraudulent claim than there would be if it was possible to give notice of the claim immediately. That, he believed, was admitted. On the other hand, it must be equally admitted that there were cases in which notice could not very easily be given, and where a claim could not be made for a considerable time afterwards. Take the 1389 case of a fall of a roof in a mine, in which a man was injured, but in which evil consequences were not developed until long afterwards, either in connection with the spine or brain. These were, therefore, cases in which the claim could not be made at the moment of the accident. There was no reason, however, in the case suggested, why notice should not be given of the accident, and all the information concerning it might be in possession both of the person who might subsequently have to claim compensation and the person who might have to resist such a claim. All he should ask for would be notice of the accident, and if that were given that would be sufficient as regarded the question of notice. The question whether injury had been sustained would arise when the claim was advanced. With regard to the claim, the Amendment proposed that that need not be commenced within six months from the occurrence of the accident in the case of injury, or in the case of death within 12 months.
§ MR. ASQUITHwas understood to say that his objection was not merely to the notice of injury, but to the notice of accident, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had agreed that it was not necessary for the protection of the employer that notice of the accident should be given. When it was necessary, no doubt the claim should be made within a reasonable period.
MR. CHAMBERLIANhad admitted that in the opinion of the Government the question of the notice of the accident was a matter of less importance, because in the great majority of cases the knowledge of the accident would come to the employer or his representative at the same time. Although he did not think it was of the same importance as notice of the claim, yet on the other hand he did not think there could be much objection in requiring, with proper safeguards, that notice of the accident should be given, especially when, as in this Amendment, they provided that the arbitrator might relieve the claimant of the condition if he found there was a reasonable excuse.
§ MR. ASQUITHThat is in the case of death.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINbegged the Committee, not to consider that he was 1390 asking for any more than the principle of the Amendment. He agreed that if they accepted the Amendment, it would require to be further amended, and one Amendment should be that the proviso should apply to all cases of injury, and should not be confined, as it was in the Employers' Liability Act and in this Amendment, to cases of death. There might be main' cases of accident which did not result in death, but in which claims might be bonâ fide delayed for a considerable period; and, if the arbitrator was satisfied that there had been reasonable cause in that case as well as in cases of death, he should be allowed to take notice of it. The Government might accept the principle of the Amendment, but he suggested that his hon. Friend should abandon reference to notice of injury or accident and confine himself to notice of claim, the Amendment to read: —
Proceedings fur the recovery under this Act of compensation for injury shall not be maintainable, unless the claim is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, provided always that in every case want of such notice shall be no bar to subsequent proceedings if the arbitrator shall be of opinion that there was reasonable excuse.If this alteration were consented to, the Amendment would be worthy of acceptance by the House.
MR. J. WILSON (Durham)considered the Amendment unnecessary, as notice would be given of every accident, and a claim made a long time before the six; months expired. Accidents often seemed trivial at first, but subsequently developed serious complications which incapacitated a man for life. Because an accident seemed trivial, and a man, therefore, did not give notice of action for compensation, was he to lose his right of action?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid the proposal he had made would not be open to the hon. Member's objection, he would read how the Amendment would stand if his own suggestions were accepted: —
Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the claim is given within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within twleve months of the time of 1391 death, provided always that the want of such notice shall be no bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if the arbitrator be of opinion that there was reasonable excuse for want of notice.If an accident to a workman had been trivial, no notice of it need be given. He would have to make his claim within six months, and in a case apparently trivial at first, he would do so if the effects of the accident made themselves known before the expiry of six months. If a longer period elapsed before notice, he would be able to argue that he had had reasonable excuse.
§ MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston)suggested that there should be a direction in the Bill that notice of the accident should be given, but that the Bill should not state specifically what would be the consequences of not giving notice. The arbitrator might be left to inquire whether notice had been given, and, if it had not, he might draw his own inferences.
§ SIR R. REIDsaid there were many statutes under which notice of action was required to be given, but it was a bad policy to require notice of action, and he was opposed to it in principle. Notice of claim was here made a condition precedent, and if it was not given, the workman's right to compensation might be set aside if the arbitrator thought there was not reasonable excuse. The true test was whether the employer had been prejudiced in his defence by the absence of notice. If the arbitrator thought he had not been, was it fair to allow a technical point to prevail against the claim of the workman. He suggested that a provision in the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 (which afforded a precedent) should be adopted, and that the words should be:—
Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be any bar to the maintenance of such proceedings, unless the arbitrator considers the employer is prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, and the omission to give such notice was with the intention of misleading.
§ SIR J. JOICEYwas very much surprised that there should be any strong objection to the just demand on the part of the employer for notice of an accident. He failed to see that any case could arise 1392 in which it would not be prejudicial to the employer if notice were not given. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not want to prejudice the workman in any degree in regard to his claim, but the employers wanted some notice by means of which they could verify the accident. He was really surprised that any fair-minded man could object to a reasonable notice. It was most unjust and unreasonable that no notice should be given, and he was sure that if he were to appeal to anybody of workmen in the country there would be a sufficient number of fair-minded men among them to agree to giving the employer fair notice. Every benefit society and every insurance company required a notice of this sort. Why, then, should such a reasonable demand on the part of the employers be refused? ["Hear, hear !"]
§ *MR. ROBERT ASCROFT (Oldham)said that the notice under the Employers' Liability Act was unsatisfactory in its form and required lawyers to construe it. The time within which it had to be given was at present six weeks. That length of time was considered by the workmen far too short, and within the last few weeks he had had the opportunity of handing to the Secretary for the Colonies a resolution passed by the representatives of 200,000 operatives in favour of an extension of time for notice from three to six months. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might alter his proposed Amendment by providing for notice within six months, action within 12 months, and, in the case of death, action within 12 months of the date of death. He thought that would get rid of a very difficult position.
§ COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)denied that any man on his side of the House desired to prejudice the workman in any way. In all their friendly society rules provision was made for notice, and if it did not prejudice them in connection with friendly societies, why should it prejudice them in this case? ["Hear, hear!"] He would make an offer on behalf of the employers, and that was that whatever was the best notice of accident under any friendly society's rules, they would be content with. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he hoped a decision would be come to before half-past five.
§ MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)said he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment so far as it was necessary to give effect to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI move to leave out from the word "notice" down to "commence," in the third line, in order to insert after the word "notice" the words "of the claim is given."
§ *MR. RENSHAWsaid he wished to point out that one of the great difficulties with regard to this question of notice, from the employer's point of view, was, not that the employers wished to have notice in order to prevent the workman substantiating his claim, but to be perfectly certain that the injury was met with in the employment of a particular employer. If no notice whatever was to be given, a workman, who had been off work for a time sufficient to entitle him to get compensation, might go to other employment, and, meeting with an injury in it, might make a chum on his previous employer. He submitted that some words ought to be inserted to the effect that notice should be given that the injury had been sustained before the workman entered such second employment. The words the right hon. Gentleman proposed might then be inserted.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)hoped that this question would not be rushed through. ["Hear, hear!"] There were a number of propositions before the House, all of which required consideration, and, as it was within a few minutes of half-past five, he suggested that the Government might now report Progress, in order to give time for consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.