LIABILITY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO WORKMEN FOR INJURIES. (Hansard, 27 May 1897)

§ MR. W. J. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)
, in view of the fact that there were different Amendments before the House, asked for an explanation from some Member of the Government as to how matters precisely stood.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight
understood that the Colonial Secretary was prepared to accept part of the Amendment which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. That part of the Amendment was: — 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. 1436 There would have to be some slight alteration of the words. Thus, the expression in the original Amendment "the arbitrator shall be of opinion," would, if adopted, exclude the committee, and the question would arise whether the committee had power to deal with the question, notice not having been given. He thought it would be desirable to alter those words to "it is settled on the arbitration" so as to give power to dispense with notice to the Committee as well as to the arbitrator.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)
very much regretted that the Government proposed to take no account whatever of the notice of accident. It seemed to him to be far more important than the claim. If there were no early notice of accident, there would not be an opportunity of immediately sending a medical man to do the best he could for the poor sufferer. But there was another reason. He had known a great many cases, especially in the railway world, where early notice was essential in order to prevent a similar accident occurring on the same spot or ground. He believed that more had been done by early notice of an accident to prevent the occurrence of similar accidents than any other thing he had known. He felt certain from the miners' point of view that notice was necessary to prevent similar accidents occurring. In regard to wages, if this Bill were to add to the question of cost to the employer, the first defect would be that instead of the workmen receiving an advance in wages, the Bill would prove to a certain extent a deterrent against a rise in wages. If that were so they were bound to do the best they could for the workmen by not throwing upon the employer that cost which could be prevented by early notice, and which would deprive a man of the advance in wages which would be due to him.

§ MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)
agreed with the hon. Baronet about the desirability of early notice of accidents, but cases in which men had failed to give notice for reasonable cause should be provided for. They should I save the case of the man who made a bonâ-fide mistake, exclude the man who presented a bogus claim, and save the case of the man who, through sheer ignorance had not given notice. He recommended his hon. Friend to accept the 1437 view that there should be notice of accident as distinguished from mere notice of claim, if there were a proviso which would include the three main pleas, of mistake, real genuine ignorance, and reasonable excuse.

§ *MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGE (Lincoln, Gainsborough)
said he was glad to state that he and his hon. Friends had conferred with the representatives of the workmen and of the employers, and had arrived at a solution of the matter which would probably commend itself to the Committee. An Amendment had been agreed to as follows: — Provided that the recovery under this Act of compensation for injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and after claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident which caused the injury, or, in case of death, within 12 months of the time of death, provided always such want of notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings unless it is settled on arbitration that the employer is prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or shall be of opinion that there was reasonable excuse for the want of notice. Notice shall be served in the manner provided for by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, Section 7. The hon. Member added that a copy of this had been submitted to the Government, and he believed it met with, the approval of the Home Secretary. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, and that the Amendment he had submitted would be adopted.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said that on behalf of the Government he was prepared to accept the Amendment. As far as he could judge it afforded a reasonable solution of the difficulty raised on both sides of the House. Provided notice of accident did not become a condition precedent, which it might, for technical reasons, be difficult to get over, adequate notice was fair for the employers to expect. He agreed with the ex-Home Secretary that if they made a notice of accident within a fixed period a condition precedent to the workman recovering under the Act, they might be imposing obligations which it would be extremely difficult technically to fulfil and bar claims which no one desired to bar. But it was reasonable 1438 that an employer, who had to ascertain what the facts were concerning a particular accident, should have adequate and proper notice. If notice of accident were guarded as in this Amendment, it would do injustice to no one, and adequately meet the reasonable demands of the employers.

§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Stockport)
asked what was meant by the words "as soon as practicable."

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said he believed it was an understanding arrived at by those who knew best the circumstances of the case as regarded employers and employed. It was proposed to give wide powers to the arbitrators to settle such matters.

§ MR. H. H. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)
said they might all assent to the Amendment as a reasonable settlement of an undoubted difficulty. His own objections and those of others as to requiring notice were based on their experience of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. The fixing of time had best be left to the discretion of the arbitrator. The circumstances of different trades and accidents varied so much that if a hard and fast rule were laid down it might lead to injustice.

§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)
asked whether the words "although a claim to compensation in respect of such accident has been made," implied that the proceedings for the recovery of compensation must have been begun; because if not, there would be a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the employer. If the Attorney General would add the words "after proceedings begun," he thought they would meet his view.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
asked his hon. Friend not to press that. When the hon. Gentleman remembered that it was contemplated in the first instance the matter might go before the Committee, it would not be apt to speak of the commencement of the proceedings. In his view the commencement of the arbitration was the sending in of the claim.

§ *MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan and Kinross)
asked whether the word "practicable" would cover the case of excusable ignorance.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said he thought the case would be covered.

§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)
said that by this proposed Amendment the function would be vested in the arbitrator on deciding whether or no the notice was reasonable. Although he quite agreed that possibly in the majority of cases the arbitrator would take a reasonable view, and would not allow the workman's cause to be injured by the fact that notice had not been given, yet he had known many cases in which a County Court Judge had said, "I shall apply the Act strictly. I think notice ought to have been given," whereas another County Court Judge would take a totally different view. He thought it would be a most pernicious step to take to make it necessary that either notice of the accident or notice of the claim should be given. Under this Bill the question of compensation only had to be dealt with, and except in the case of wilful misconduct the workman would be entitled to compensation in any case. Therefore, there would be no value in the notice except in the case of wilful misconduct. The effect of insisting on notice would be to shut out men who, but from the absence of notice, would be entitled to compensation. He thought it was most undesirable that the Amendment should be pressed, and he should vote against it.

§ MR. THOMAS BURT (Morpeth)
I thought that the Amendment would form a basis of agreement; but his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough rather misled the House when he said I that the terms had already been agreed upon. Some consultation had taken place in the Lobby it was quite true, and he himself was personally quite prepared to agree to the Amendment, but not exactly in the form in which it now stood. He wanted to include ignorance or mistake, and to those words he attached very great importance.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said the Committee was now engaged in discussing an Amendment not before it, and he thought it would be more convenient that the two Amendments before the House should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Member for Gainsborough should then move his Amendment.

§ SIR J. JOICEY
did not think that it was the intention of his hon. Friend the 1440 Member for Gainsborough to say that the exact wording of the Amendment had been approved of by all the representatives of the workmen, but that they substantially had their approval. His hon. Friend the Member for North-west Durham spoke entirely against any notice whatever, but every reasonable person was agreed that some reasonable notice should be given to the employer. ["Hear, hear !"] After all, this Bill conferred an immense boon on the working classes—["hear, hear !"]—and while there was not an employer in the House who wished to place any bar whatever in the way of workmen who were entitled to compensation under the Bill receiving that compensation, yet he thought that every Member in the House, except, perhaps, one or two lawyers—[a laugh]—would agree with him that it was absolutely necessary that the employer should be protected as far as possible from bogus claims. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped this Amendment would form a satisfactory settlement, and he thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Lynn for his action the previous night, for had it not been for the hon. Member's intervention, the Amendment proposed last night would have been carried. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ *MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)
sad he should like to know why the Home Secretary had receded from the position taken up by the Secretary for the Colonies last night. He did not, however, intend to find serious fault, for he wished the Committee not to try captiously for one side to get the better of the other, but to try to come to an agreement which would work well for both parties. ["Hear, hear!"] This question would not be regarded from the lawyers' point of view, as cases would be decided more from practical knowledge of the circumstances, than by lawyers' advice. The arbitrator need not be a lawyer. He was more likely to be a common-sense man like himself. [Laughter.] The words "ignorance or mistake" covered cases which no other words would cover. They would give no support to bogus claims, but would prevent just claims from being defeated by technical objections. The employers need have nothing to fear; for cases where "ignorance or mistake" was pleaded could be settled by a committee 1441 of the trade concerned, and need not come before the arbitrator.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that he could not advise the Committee to accept the word "ignorance," as it would be open to the reasonable objection that ignorance could always be pleaded. But the word "mistake" might be inserted, and that would include cases of genuine ignorance. He proposed that the words should read: — Provided always that the want of such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings, if it is found in the proceedings for settling a claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the absence of such notice, or that such absence was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause.

§ MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)
asked whether there was a vital objection to the words "ignorance of the law."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Yes, a serious objection.

§ MR. BROADHURST
said that he very much regretted it. [Laughter.] How was the workman who was honestly ignorant of the provisions of the Act to escape being penalised? In the case of large industries, where the men were in contact with the unions, there might be no ignorance of the Bill; but the isolated working man would be under a great disadvantage. It was very inconvenient for a long Amendment such as that before the Committee to be suddenly sprung upon hon. Members. He had not been consulted about it, and had only seen it for a few moments. If the Attorney General could accept the phrase "ignorance of the law," he thought that this would relieve the Committee from the difficulty. Otherwise great injustice would be done to many workmen who were isolated from their fellows.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
suggested to the Attorney General that as the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the word "ignorance" he might be able to accept the word "inadvertence" instead. It would probably cover many of the cases to which reference had been made.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said it was impossible to do this. "Inadvertence" was only another form of "mistake," but if hon. Gentlemen, when 1442 they saw the Amendment in print, had any serious objections to the form in which it was incorporated in the section it could be dealt with on the Report stage. At present, however, the Government had endeavoured to meet the objection which had been raised by suggesting the alteration.

§ MR. BURNS
said he was perfectly content to leave the insertion of the words to the Attorney General. He merely suggested the word because in the Courts he had heard that mistakes were described as "inadvertences."

§ MR. CHARLES FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)
thought that the Committee would be prepared to accept the Amendment, always reserving to itself the right to judge of it finally on the Report stage.

§ *MR. BAINBRIDGE
said he was quite prepared to accept the variation of wording proposed.

§ MR. BURNS
called attention to the description of the mode of serving the notice of accident under Section 7 of the Act of 1880, which insisted that in every case the notice of accident should be by letter, message by hand, or registered letter. It might, however, be inconvenient or impossible, in a case where a man was seriously injured, to comply with the terms of the section; and he suggested that a man who gave verbal notice through his foreman ought to be deemed to have given notice in compliance with the Act.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that the words in the Amendment moved the previous day were agreed to by the workmen and the employers, and he had never heard of any difficulty arising as to the mode of serving the notice since 1880.

§ *MR. ROBERT ASCROFT (Oldham)
proposed to leave out Sub-section (4) in order to insert the words: — Any agreement made between an employer and workman for the purpose of contracting themselves out of this Act shall be void. He pointed out that the Bill covered factories, and that the description of factory was very wide. The Factory Act 1443 of 1878 contained a description of no fewer than 26 different kinds of factories; and they were, therefore, placed in this position:—The Registrar of Friendly Societies would have to examine every scheme which came before him in relation to all the different works, and he would have to say whether or not the scheme was, on the whole, not less favourable to the workmen than the provisions for compensation under this Bill. It was utterly impossible for any Registrar, however able, to competently deal with the numerous questions that would arise on the construction of the various schemes. If schemes were allowed and carried out the arbitrator would have thrown upon him the responsibility of construing what the scheme was. [Cries of "No !"]

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,) Birmingham, W.
Under this clause any scheme proposed as a substitute for the Bill would have to obtain a certificate of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and all that would arise subsequently would be that the arbitrator would have to say whether or not there is such a certificate.

§ *MR. ASCROFT
said that if there was a scheme between the employer and the workman, and the question came before the arbitrator, the point might often arise whether or not the workman was to be paid in accordance with the terms of the scheme. If a certificate had been granted the arbitrator would have nothing to do with the Act; he would only have to deal with the scheme as he found it, and would have to construe it. Therefore, they were inaugurating a series of schemes all over the country which the arbitrator would have to construe, and the workmen and the employers would in future be exposed to litigation arising out of the construction of schemes. But there was something even more objectionable. Although the Bill provided that the scheme should be fair and reasonable to the workman, it did not provide anything as to administration and supervision. The friendly societies protested strongly against the policy of this sub-section. It was only recently that the representatives of friendly societies, numbering 2,800,000 Members, met in London They had a fund of over 27 millions sterling accumulated and invested.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I fail to see how the remarks of the hon. Member are relevant to the Amendment. He seems to be going rather far afield from the question he wishes to put before the Committee.

§ *MR. ASCROFT
On consideration, Mr. Chairman, I am certain I was [Laughter.] But he thought he was justified in saying it would only be fair and reasonable if they insisted upon a scheme being forced upon employés, that they should make provision for an annual account being presented or a periodical audit, by which, when complaints arose, the matter could be brought before the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and the scheme cancelled. He might be asked: How could a question of administration arise? He would give a case. Suppose a man entitled, on being injured—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Order, order! The general position of these insurance societies does not arise at all. The only question is whether the compensation which they propose to give is not as favourable as that given under the Bill. The general position and administration of the societies cannot be discussed here.

§ *MR. ASCROFT
explained that he wished to show that circumstances might arise, and that there was no provision whatever for bringing these circumstances before the Registrar, and that that was an omission which should be supplied in Committee.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not think it would be relevant to insert any Amendments except in so fur as they deal with the position of the workman in regard to this Bill—that is to say, whether the compensation is more or less favourable than that which he would get from the Society.

§ *MR. ASCROFT
was afraid the Chairman did not realise the point, but he would not pursue it. He had a happy knack of always saying the wrong thing. [Laughter.] It was not from intention, but rather from ignorance of the forms of the House. But there was one point which could not be denied, and that was that any scheme which came before the Registrar without the workman being heard was objectionable. And as soon as they had got the scheme there was this difficulty, that no matter how good 1445 the scheme might be, they hail the employer on the one side differing with the man who had not a free hand. He considered that there was no advantage or benefit either to employers or workmen in having this Section included, and, therefore, he submitted that the Government would act wisely in removing it from the Bill.

§ MR. BROADHURST
while thinking that not much time need be occupied upon this Amendment, believed the Government would lose nothing by accepting it. If the scheme of contracting out were to be such that the workman should not be placed in a less advantageous position, he did not see what was to be gained for the employer in having a scheme for contracting out at all. He should be glad, however, to hear from the Government what strong reasons could be urged for retaining this clause.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
very much hoped that the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman opposite would be followed. The Government did not wish to exaggerate the importance of the matter, but at the same time they considered that it might be of advantage to the workman to have a sub-section of this kind in the Bill. They did not see why they should profess, even at this stage, to be incapable of error and to have devised a plan which could not by any possibility be improved. Was it not conceivable that an employer and his workmen, considering this matter in the light of the experience of their special trade, and having the most friendly feelings one for the other, might devise a scheme which for them, at any rate, would be much better than the scheme proposed in the Bill? What the Government asked was that the House should not say to them violently, "You shall not have this improved scheme, although you all desire it, and it is proved to be equally as good and perhaps for you much better than the scheme of the Bill."

§ *MR. EDWARD STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)
desired to present the case from the point of view of the friendly societies. When the Employers' Liability Bill introduced by the late Home Secretary came back from another place with the contracting-out clause inserted, Mr. Gladstone argued strongly against contracting out, and cited the opinion of the friendly societies in support of his view; their 1446 judgment, the right hon. Gentleman said, being almost decisive of the question. In reply, the First Lord of the Treasury stated that he had not received a single representation from any friendly society indicating that they had any rooted objection to the scheme of contracting out inserted in that Bill by the other House. However that might be, the friendly societies had now made it perfectly clear by the circular which had been issued that they objected without reservation of any kind to this sub-clause relating to contracting out.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
suggested that the point which was being raised by the hon. Member could be dealt with more conveniently when the Amendment which the hon. Member had himself put upon the Paper was reached. That Amendment ran:— The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not certify any scheme which restrains any workman from remaining in or joining any friendly society.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said that the hon. Member, although he was addressing his remarks to his Amendment, objected to the whole of the sub-clause under consideration, and it was in order for him to ask the House to reject it.

§ *MR. STRACHEY
regretted that he was unable to adopt the suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But he had been informed that the Amendment standing in his name and which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was outside the scope of the Bill, and would be ruled out of order. The National Conference of Friendly Societies had asked him to oppose the whole of the sub-clause. This sub-clause would encourage the formation of benefit societies by employers. To this the friendly societies took objection, fearing that their position might be endangered by the unfair competition of the societies set up by the employers. Cases would arise in which men would be told that they must join an employer's society as a condition of their employment, and in certain industries the wages were not such as would enable a workman to be a member of more than one benefit society. The direct effect of the sub-section, therefore, could not but fail to be prejudicial to the existing friendly societies. He had been sent 1447 a statement by the Secretary of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, giving the case of a workman who had been told by his employers that he must leave the Hearts of Oak Society, to which he belonged, and join their own club. The hon. Member proceeded to read the communication, which was of considerable length. Before he had reached the end,

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said the hon. Member was taxing the patience of the Committee. The hon. Member was objecting generally to the fourth sub-section upon the ground that friendly societies might be injured by its operation. That hardly justified his reading long extracts. The hon. Member ought to state his reasons for objecting more generally, and abstain from going into such, details. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ *MR. STRACHEY
said that if the Chairman ruled that he must not place the case fully before the Committee, he would, of course, bow to the hon. Gentleman's decision.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
observed that he had not given any such ruling as that. He believed the hon. Member was quite competent to put his case fully before the Committee without reading long and elaborate extracts. ["Hear, hear !"]

§ *MR. STRACHEY
said he would, of course, follow the advice of the Chairman. The end of the case to which he was referring was that the man, because he refused to resign his membership of the Hearts of Oak Society, was in consequence given notice to leave, and lost his employment.

§ MR. GALLOWAY
asked for a fuller explanation than had yet been given to the Committee of the character of the schemes which the Registrar of Friendly Societies was to be empowered to certify. There was one other point which was not quite clear from the Bill—that was whether the certificate which the Registrar was to give would be applied not alone to accident funds which might be formed after the Bill was passed, but also to those that were already in existence. It had been said that one of the strong objections which friendly societies had to contracting out was that it competed with them in their 1448 sphere of work; and the Resolution of the National Conference of Friendly Societies had been quoted in support of that contention. But the Resolution proved nothing of the sort. The Resolution said, first of all, that the Conference protested against employers having the power to contract out of the Act. He entirely agreed with that. He thought the workman should be allowed to choose for himself what course he would adopt. The Resolution then went on to say that the Conference protested against restraining in any way the liberty of action of the workmen in joining any friendly society. He agreed that it was most unjust for an employer to say to a workman that he should have his friendly society lodge where he made friendships, such as the employer made at his club, and compel him to do so under threat of dismissal. But he submitted that the Resolution in no way justified the hon. Member in saying that the friendly societies took up the selfish position of objecting to any of their fellow workers getting a larger benefit than they could themselves provide. He agreed that it would be well to secure that the certificate of the Registrar should only be given where it was proved the scheme was actuarially sound, or in a condition to pay all the benefits it professed to be able to pay.

§ MR. S. WOODS (Essex, Walthamstow)
said the Amendment raised one of the most important points connected with the Bill. The power of contracting out of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 had given the greatest possible dissatisfaction to the whole of the working classes of the country. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Therefore it was natural that they should look with very grave suspicion on any proposal which would allow the opportunity of contracting out of the provisions of this Measure. He would like to know how those schemes were to be created. Was the Registrar of Friendly Societies to draw up the schemes himself, or was he to consult the workmen and the employers? There was another important point. If a body of workmen agreed to enter into an arrangement with their employer, would the employer have the right to make the acceptance of the arrangement a condition of hiring? He was certain that if those schemes contained a 1449 condition of hiring it would be greatly resented by the working classes of the country. ["Hear, hear !"]

§ MR. G. WHITELEY
hoped the Government would stand firm by the sub-clause and that the Committee would reject the Amendment. It seemed to him that the Amendment restricted the liberty of action and the rights of the working people of the country, and dealt with them as if they were children unable, in this matter to look after themselves. ["Hear, hear !"] If the Bill were passed the working classes would undoubtedly secure valuable provisions for compensation in cases of accident; but if workmen in conjunction with their employers could devise and elaborate a scheme which they thought more desirable or beneficial to them than the provisions of the Bill, why should they be debarred from doing so? ["Hear, hear !"] He controverted the statement of the hon. Member for Walthamstow that contracting out had given a great deal of dissatisfaction to the whole of the working classes of the country. In the borough he represented there was a large body of railwaymen who were members of the Mutual Insurance Society of the London and North-Western Railway, and they valued its benefits so highly that when, in 1893, it was proposed under the Bill of the late Home Secretary to prevent contracting out, they sent him numerous Resolutions and representations in favour of maintaining the principle.

§ MR. BURNS
said he did not understand the hon. Member for Walthamstow to say that all the members of the working classes were opposed to contracting out.

§ MR. G. WHITELEY
said he took down the hon. Member's words, which were that contracting out had given the greatest possible dissatisfaction to the whole of the working classes of this country.

§ MR. BURNS
said that statement might be qualified, perhaps, but at all events 999 workmen out of 1,000 objected to it. [Cries of "Oh!"] The Oddfellows, one of the largest benefit societies in the world, whose membership was nearly a million, were unanimous as a society against contracting out. The National Conference of Friendly Societies which met the other day, where nearly three million members were represented by elected delegates, decided unanimously that contracting out was a principle which 1450 ought not to be allowed by law. The Trades Union Congress, which, whatever its political difference might be, was generally united on industrial matters, came to a similar decision. During the last ten years all the friendly societies and all the trades unions, representing roughly six million working class members, had protested against contracting out being allowed. The Secretary for the Colonies the other night had said this was a clause which allowed contracting out only in cases where the terms offered to the workmen were better than those contained in the Bill, and their object in inserting the clause was that they did not wish to prevent a workman doing better for himself by the consent and good will of his employer than legislation could do for him. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that these contracting out schemes were based upon good will, and were matters of friendly arrangement between masters and men. That was not so—["hear, hear !"]—and could not be so, so long as assent to a contracting-out scheme was a condition of employment. These schemes were imposed upon the workmen, not collectively, but individually, when they were out of work. They therefore interfered with the liberty of contract—["hear, hear !"]—and the freedom of combination, and the men collectively had no voice whatever in determining the benefits, the superannuation, or the other conditions which were submitted to them. When men did object their promotion was not so rapid and their dismissal occasionally followed. He did not see why the masters and the workmen collectively should not be consulted by the Registrar as to the equivalent to the Bill. He submitted, however, that all existing contracting-out societies should be abolished, and the opinion of the workmen as to the equivalent ascertained by means of a secret ballot. He contended that this Bill ought not to infringe on sick, superannuation, funeral, or other benefits. The fact was they were giving too much work to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and referendum to a Registrar would be a most objectionable form of tyranny. If the Registrar were fair he would kill all the contracting-out schemes submitted to him, for there was not one of them which gave its members actuarially anything like the financial benefits which the workmen got from 1451 their benefit and friendly societies. [Laughter.] If that were done, they would have the railway companies and other big monopolies coming to that House for amended Bills, besides pressure being brought to bear upon the House in other ways. There was only one way, and that was to give to masters and men absolute freedom of employment and of organisation. He would not put it even in the hands of the Board of Trade, but would leave it to voluntary effort. He cited the case of an engine driver in his own district who received 35s. a week. This man belonged to the Hearts of Oak, to which he paid 10d. or 11d. a week, and another society to which he paid 1s., and he paid 6d. a week to his trade union. This man was compelled, as a condition of employment, to pay 4d. or 6d. a week towards a contracting-out scheme. He could not pay more than 2s. 6d. out of 35s. a week, and he was thus driven to choose between keeping on his connection with the Hearts of Oak, which gave him 18s. a week when sick, or join the contracting-out scheme which gave him 10s. a week. Moreover, if he was dismissed by the railway company he got no surrender value for what he had paid in, and if then his health failed him he would have no means of support. These contracting-out schemes sometimes precluded the poorest of our workmen from joining friendly societies, and absolutely prevented them from joining trade unions, and in this way made intimidation possible. He would agree with these arrangements in the abstract if they gave the workmen value for their money, but they did not, and therefore could not be defended. In practice, also, they tied men down to one district, and prevented the mobility of labour. If they wished to kill contracting-out schemes by this Bill let them do so on the front-door step, and not strangle them in the back yard. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The contracting-out system was one of the most nefarious systems of compulsion which had ever been sanctioned by that House.

COLONEL MELLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)
said he regretted very much the tone of the speech of the hon. Member. He had pledged himself against contracting out because he believed that the great majority of the working men of this country viewed contracting out with suspicion. ["Hear, hear!"] They looked 1452 on it as something humiliating to them. But this Bill dealt with the matter on a totally different basis. They were told that the working man would not contract himself out unless he satisfied the Registrar of Friendly Societies that he was going to get something better than that which he relinquished. There was nothing like compulsion in the Bill. If what was suggested were to take place he should vote against the proposal. Surely that House would stultify itself if they prevented the working man enjoying benefits of this character. They had heard a great deal about benefit societies. Were they legislating for the sake of benefit societies or for the benefit of working men who were injured in the course of their employment? He should be the last man to say a word against the benefit societies, which were great and valuable institutions. But there was something more important, and that was preserving the liberties of the subject—["hear, hear !"]—and if workmen saw their way to falling into an arrangement that would be for their benefit the Members of that House would not be doing their duty if they imposed obstacles.

§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)
thought that the Member who had just sat down had hardly read the Bill. Perhaps when the Home Secretary got up to make a statement he would tell them in what part of the sub-section provision was made for the workman to go before the Registrar. What was the meaning of the word "contract?" Why was this alternative scheme placed before them? Was the employer going to give more than was given under the Bill? The employers looked on this Bill as a burden placed upon them. ["Hear, hear !"] What, beyond this Bill, were the employers going to give the workmen? Were they going to give the workmen better terms? He apprehended the employer would expect to get something in return for his money. What they said on behalf of the men was that this contracting-out scheme ought not to be allowed. He believed that the working men of the country were opposed to it. He did not think that the Secretary for the Colonies was enamoured of this clause; and did not care whether it was passed or not. He hoped, therefore, that the Secretary for the Colonies would agree to have the clause eliminated 1453 and so allow the workmen to receive the full benefit which the Bill proposed to give. To many men like those who were working on railways at a low wage, and who were qualified for a higher post to which they could not attain, this proposal would be a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. He appealed to the Secretary for the Colonies not to destroy what benefits might be contained in the Bill.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said he had been asked whether the Government attached importance to this clause. Well, he had said at the opening of the Debate that if there were one thing to which the Government were pledged it was to embody in that Bill the principle of enabling employer and employed to make their own terms. ["Hear, hear !"] It was no fault of the Government to have fulfilled that pledge. If they had not done so they would have been open to a serious charge of having violated their pledges. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow said the workmen of the country viewed with general dissatisfaction the principle of contracting out. It was, however, notorious that in the Division upon the question in Committee on the Bill of the late Government the Ministerial majority fell to the most narrow margin. And, without desiring to introduce any matter of a controversial character, he might fairly recall to the recollection of hon. Members the fact that in many constituencies at the last general election it was made a test question whether workmen should be allowed to contract out. The result was a Unionist majority of 150. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] He did not say that the Unionist majority of 150 was actually due to the decision on that question, but he affirmed that from those constituencies where contracting out was practically made a test question there was no evidence forthcoming that the principle of contracting out was unpopular with the electorate. All the evidence, electoral and otherwise, which they had pointed to the conclusion that there was a general desire on the part, not only of employers, but of workmen, to be allowed, under certain conditions, to make their own contracts. As to friendly societies, he assured the Committee that the last thing the Government wished to do was in any way to injure such societies. Their desire was to carry the friendly societies with them, 1454 and their belief was that there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent those societies giving supplemental aid in the cases which arose. Of course, as he had already admitted, the question of contracting out came before the Committee in a different shape from that in which it came up under the Bill of his right hon. Friend opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill conferred larger benefits upon the working man than the Bill of his right hon. Friend. It conferred definite, if limited, pecuniary advantages upon the workman; but if a mutual society chose to arrange that, by some machinery different from that of the Bill, it would provide benefits like those given by the Bill and go further and give even other benefits, such as aid in time of sickness, he was at a loss to see how the workman could be prejudiced. The Registrar General, a most capable and able officer, would, when a mutual scheme was brought before him, estimate the whole benefits under the scheme, and see that, if workmen contributed to the scheme, they would get a quid pro quo for their subscription over and above what the employers were bound to give under the Bill. If the Government were right in proposing the measures of compensation they had laid before the Committee, surely they were right in providing that if a permanent or mutual society chose to adapt themselves in any way to the new conditions, there should be a field open to them. He trusted that the Committee would, without much further delay, come to a decision upon this question. The Government had purposely made the wording of the clause wide. They did not believe in tying up the Registrar of Friendly Societies too closely. They believed they had sufficiently indicated that there was thrown upon him the obligation of seeing in those cases where schemes were brought before him, that, upon the whole, the workman would have by mutual agreement at least as favourable terms as he would have under the Bill.

§ MR. ASQUITH
said they had heard a good many theories as to the causes of the magnitude of the present Ministerial majority, but it was novel to him to hear that it was attributable to the desire of the working classes to have the privilege of contracting themselves out of rights which the law would otherwise 1455 give them. [Opposition cheers.] The right hon. Baronet had spoken of what he called test constituencies. There was one constituency which would afford a better test almost than any other—[cheers]—of the opinion of the working classes upon this and most other questions, and yet Her Majesty's Government would not allow the electors in that constituency to express their opinion. [Ministerial cries of "Oh !" and Opposition cheers.] Well, he had looked carefully at the other side, and neither to-night, nor, so far as he knew, in the course of these discussions had he seen the hon. Member for Crewe in his place. [Renewed cheers.] However, he was anxious not to discuss this matter in a spirit of party recrimination. He must say the question of contracting out had assumed a different complexion, and was of very much less practical importance to-day than it was when it was raised three years ago in connection with the Bill of the late Government. ["Hear, hear !"] But, having made that admission, he must express his surprise that the Government had thought it worth while to introduce this clause. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not for the life of him see, except as a piece of pious homage to an abstract principle, what possible effect the clause would have in protecting workmen. A mutual scheme must either be as good as the scheme proposed by the Government, or less good than that scheme. If it were less good than the scheme proposed by the Bill, then, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's rather rhetorical language about the expediency of allowing workmen to make their own contracts, the registrar of Friendly Societies was bound to pronounce against it, and prevent the men from acting upon it. On the other hand, if the scheme were as good as, or better than, the provision made under the Bill, what was the necessity for allowing contracting out? If an employer were to give as much under a scheme as the law forced him to give, what possible inducement had an employer to require a man to forego the benefits which the law gave him? That appeared to him to be a dilemma from which there was no possible escape, and, that being so, it showed, not that this clause was noxious, but that it was totally unnecessary. He must go on to 1456 say that, having had some considerable number of these schemes brought under his notice in connection with the employers' liability legislation of the late Government, he had never seen, and he did not know of, any which would satisfy the conditions contained in this clause. The scheme which was the great stalking horse in the battle of that time—the North Western scheme—would not hold water for a minute if the test of this clause were applied to it. That, he thought, was a tribute—a tribute which he made most willingly—to the comparative generosity of the scheme proposed by the Bill. But it was not unworthy of remark that, if that were the case, it showed they were not going, in point of fact, by the operation of this clause, to protect these schemes. On the contrary, they were going to require, he thought he might almost say without exaggeration, 99 out of every 100 of the existing associations to be completely remodelled from top to bottom—["hear, hear !"]—and that with very little benefit, as far as he could see, either to the employer or to the men. If, as he thought he had shown, the clause were not needed for the protection of sound schemes, for what purpose was it put in the Bill? He accepted entirely the statement which the Government made of their object, but let them consider what they were going to do. They were going to put on the shoulders of the Registrar of Friendly Societies—an official as to whose competency in his own duties he made no suggestion whatever —a task of enormous perplexity—["hear, hear !"]—for the performance of which, however skilled he might be in the determination of actuarial questions, neither he nor any other Government Department possessed the necessary knowledge, the necessary experience, or the necessary powers of judgment. It was all very well to say, in the vague language of this clause, that the Registrar was to certify that a scheme was, on the whole, not less favourable to the workman than the Bill, but what a problem they were presenting to the Registrar! What had he got to take into account? If it were a mere question of whether the amount contributed by the employer independent of the amount contributed by the men—if the scheme were perfectly solvent in 1457 other respects—would or would not produce a benefit equal to that, contained in the schedule, that was not an insoluble problem. But unfortunately these schemes were not of that simple character. They were not simple accident schemes. They were schemes which contained a number of other provisions relating to other matters. Take such an elementary thing as this. Was the Registrar to consider whether or not it was made a condition of employment that every man who entered into the service of a particular employer should contribute to the funds? That was a fundamental consideration—["hear, hear !"] —because, although he did not want to use exaggerated language about this matter, he was perfectly certain that the imposition of that condition as our of the terms of employment wan found to a very large extent to fetter the men's freedom of action, and was undoubtedly introduced with the object of making these funds insurance funds against strikes, against labour disputes, and, indeed, against labour organisations. [Cheers.] He did nor say that that, from the employers' point of view, was an illegitimate thing, but no one would deny that that was an element which did not enter into the calculation of those by whom these schemes were promoted. That was only one particular provision in regard to these schemes, but as a matter of fact they contained clauses, extremely complex in their character, which related not merely to the payment for accidents or even sickness, but very often to the general conditions of employment, and to the regulation of the every-day relations of masters and men. How the Registrar of Friendly Societies was going to disentangle from this mass of complicated provisions those parts, and those parts alone, which related to accident insurance, and how, having segregated that part from the rest, he was going to determine whether or not in any given set of circumstances they must be as favourable to the workman as that proffered to him by this Bill, was a matter which he confessed passed his comprehension. He did not think—and he was not saying this in any spirit of undue hostility or carping criticism—this would be found to be a practical way of dealing with the question. If there were any serious object to be gained then he 1458 should say by all means let them even run some risk in trying the experiment, but inasmuch as he had endeavoured to show there was no practical object whatever, either in the interests of the masters or of the men, he did earnestly trust the Government might be disposed to reconsider their position in regard to this matter and to drop altogether this sub-section, which excited a good deal of suspicion among the representatives of the working classes, and which would not lead either to the integrity of their own scheme or to the attainment of the objects which both sides had in the prosecution of this legislation.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether they were really not wasting too much time over matters of secondary importance when they had in face of them questions of very great importance and perplexity? He had observed that the Government did not attach an exaggerated importance to this matter, and now his right hon. Friend opposite, although he found it necessary to criticise it and to object to some of its features, felt that, on the whole, in view of the changes which had been made since the matter was discussed on the occasion on which he introduced his Bill, it was not a matter of practical importance.

§ MR. ASQUITH
Of not so much importance.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said he agreed. He could only say that he did not think the clause would be found in practice to give rise to any of those imaginary evils which had been conjured up by several hon. Members. There was no man better qualified to undertake this duty than the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and he was informed that, although he acknowledged it might cast some additional work upon him, he did not anticipate any difficulty in carrying it out. There was a great fear on the part of some hon. Members lest any scheme suggested under this clause should be enforced upon a workman as a condition of hiring. Well, there was an Amendment on the Paper which was supposed to prevent that, so far as legislation could prevent it, and to which the Government had no objection whatever. [Cheers.] Only let him remind his hon. Friends who believed that by legislation they could prevent a matter of this kind that they were entirely mistaken. ["Hear, hear !"] They might 1459 say that no such condition should be enforced, but they could not help an employer or his managers allowing it to be known that he would require such and such things from his workpeople, and that he would not employ any workpeople unless they complied with them. That was true of every condition of trade, and no legislation which they could enact would prevent it. Even if there were no contracting-out clause, it would still be possible for an employer to make arrangements, and no legislation would prevent that, although it might be worth while to insert such a provision in the Bill in order to indicate what they considered would be right and what they desired should be done. His right hon. Friend opposite asked whether they really thought that any employers would offer better terms under a scheme of this kind than were proposed in the Bill. He did think so, very much. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend that there were no such schemes at present. On the contrary, he could himself quote an important firm that already gave better terms, although they were rather differently framed from those offered in the Bill; and he did not see why, especially in the trades which were not really dangerous—like the textile industry, for instance—and where the operation of this Bill would not be more than from a shilling to half-a-crown per cent. of the wages, a generous employer should not be prepared to come forward with a scheme which would give a good deal more than the scheme of the Bill. Then, said his right hon. Friend, if he offered a scheme of that kind, why did they want a contracting-out clause? What the employers said, and what he thought experience showed had sometimes occurred, was that, if they had not the security of a contracting-out clause, their workpeople might take advantage, as it were, of two worlds. They might take the scheme which the employers offered when it was to their advantage, and they might go back to the scheme of the Bill in any particulars in which they considered they got greater advantages, although it had been a tacit condition that they should accept the employers' scheme not as a part, but as a whole. When he added to these considerations the fact that very many hon. Gentlemen were pledged to the principle 1460 of contracting-out, he thought he had given sufficient reasons for introducting this clause. He hoped they might now come to a decision, at all events, on the principle of the clause.

§ MR. FENWICK
said it was some satisfaction to learn that the Government did not look with disfavour, at all events, upon the Amendment to prevent contracting out being made a condition of hiring. He did not agree with the Home Secretary that the Government needed no justification for the insertion of this principle in the Bill, because the whole of their attitude in 1893 was in favour of contracting out. That was perfectly true, and if the Government had introduced an Employers' Liability Bill instead of a Compensation Bill, he could have understood that there would have been some force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. But this was not such a Bill as was contemplated in 1893. He certainly thought, with the late Home Secretary, that the Government would have been well advised to have omitted the contracting-out principle from the Bill. He did not think any employer was likely to offer any contracting-out scheme giving better terms than the workman was entitled to under the Bill. It was very significant that when the Colonial Secretary, in his reply to his right hon. Friend, said there were many employers who would offer their workmen much better terms than the Bill gave, that observation was received with very faint cheers from the Government side of the House, or from employers. He certainly did not think, as he had said, that employers were at all likely to offer any better terms. He would ask the Home Secretary's attention to this question. The sub-section contemplated the formation or creation of mutual insurance schemes. Upon whose initiative were those schemes to be sanctioned? Were the workmen to be consulted in any way as to the constitution of these schemes.? If not, he was bound to say that he agreed with the criticisms which had been made that the sub-section was very crudely drawn, because there was nothing giving the workman any right whatever to be consulted in the constitution of a scheme that was to be submitted to the Registrar for his approval. Now, if the scheme were to be framed on the initiative of the employer, and on his 1461 initiative it was to receive the sanction of the Registrar, he was bound to say there was great danger that the scheme might be forced upon great bodies of workmen against their wishes and contrary to their desires. If the Government intended to retain this principle in their Bill, they ought to introduce some form of provision which would give the workman an equal right with the employer to be represented when any such scheme was being framed for submission to the Registrar, and unless they recognised that right, the Measure would still remain very imperfect. He regretted that the Government had at all attempted to introduce this principle of contracting out into a Measure which dealt, not with employers' liability, but was simply and purely a Compensation Bill. He repeated that they would have had every justification in the policy they had pursued of late years for introducing the principle of contracting out into an Employers' Liability Bill, but they were not at all justified in introducing it into a Bill of this kind. [Cries of "Divide !"] He hoped the Government would not retain the principle in their Bill.

§ MR. TOMLINSON,
who rose amid continued cries of "Divide !" said there had been some confusion as to what would happen under the Bill. The only arrangements that could be made under it were those affecting accidents. As an employer, he would have nothing to do with any alternative scheme unless he was satisfied the workmen of their own motion desired it. [Cries of "Divide !"]

§ MR. HENRY SETON-KARR (St. Helens)
said that if the Amendment were carried to a Division, he should certainly vote against it. [Cries of "Divide ! "and" Order !"] But if he could get a satisfactory answer on one point it would make him support the Bill much more heartily than he did at the present moment. It was said on the part of the Government that the friendly societies would supplement the Bill, and the hope had been expressed that they would not suffer in consequence of it. He had already criticised the Bill on the ground that it would damage the friendly societies, and although he had carefully listened to the Colonial Secretary's speeches, he had not heard a word that did not confirm his doubts on that point. He should be very glad if the 1462 right hon. Gentleman would only give him an answer that would relieve his mind as to the danger contained in the Bill for these societies. ["Cries of "Divide!"]

§ *MR. ASCROFT
moved in Sub-section (4) after the word "societies," to insert the words "after ascertaining the views of the employers and workmen or either of their representatives." He observed that at the present moment there was nothing in the Bill to provide that the Registrar should take any steps whatever to ascertain whether the workmen had been consulted. The position, therefore, would be that an employer without con-suiting his workmen might send a scheme to the Registrar of Friendly Societies which he might approve, and unless every workman consented to join it he might lose his employment. He was desirous that both the representatives of the workmen and of the employers should be consulted, and an Amendment such as this would certainly tend to make the Bill more workable.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said he was willing to accept the Amendment if the words "or either of their representatives" were left out.

§ *MR. ASCROFT
agreed to the omission of these words.

§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside)
moved in Sub-section (4) after the word "certifies," to insert the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State." He regarded this Amendment as necessary in the event of the Registrar of Friendly Societies not being able to do his work properly. He did not desire to indicate for one moment that the present Registrar was not prepared to do his work properly, but he thought the workmen ought to have some check on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and if they introduced a Government 1463 department into this clause they could then debate any question in that House in the event of the Registrar of Friendly Societies failing to perform his work properly, or abusing the powers conferred upon him by this section.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
thought that the hon. Gentleman by his Amendment was asking a Government Department to do a very great deal more than it could carry out. There was no objection to the Registrar of Friendly Societies being under the Home Office for certain purposes, but to insist on every scheme being considered and approved by the Home Office—after having been certified by the Registrar General—before it could come into operation was asking too much. He was afraid, therefore, he could not accept these words, though he was willing to consider whether what he gathered to be the hon. Gentleman's object could not be secured in some other way.

§ MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (York, W. R.,) Rotherham
considered that the objection the hon. Member had raised was not unreasonable and that there should be some method of raising any question which might arise in connection with this matter in the House of Commons on some particular Vote.

§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfar)
would like to give a reason for associating some one else with the Registrar of Friendly Societies in this matter. Hitherto the simple registration of a Friendly Society had been mistaken for a guarantee of solvency by intending members. Some friendly societies were in a stronger financial position than others and registration should not be allowed in any sense to be mistaken for a guarantee of solvency in any direction. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the past reports of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and to past literature on the subject, he would find that that aspect of the question had been discussed. It would be well to associate some Government Department in the work it was proposed to give to the Registrar under this Bill.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
undertook to consider the matter.

§ MR. J. A. PEASE
said that, in these circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ *COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)
moved, in Sub-section (4), after the word "insurance," to insert the words, "whether mutual or otherwise." he said that as he was anxious to see the Bill passed in a workable form he would not take a minute to move his Amendment, and judging from, precedent he was afraid the Attorney General would not take much longer to reject it. His reason for moving it was that if these words were not inserted the Registrar of Friendly Societies might debar mutual associations on the ground that the men having to contribute anything at all would make them on the whole less favourable than the Bill.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
stated that the hon. Member, as far as regarded the probable reception of the Amendment, appeared to be that very rare being a true prophet. He submitted the words would not be appropriate and it would not be right to describe an arrangement or scheme of the kind as in any sense mutual insurance. It could not be a mutual insurance association to which the masters contributed but from which they would derive no benefit. He objected to the insertion of the words, and did not believe that any harm would result to mutual societies from the Bill.

§ *COLONEL DENNY
said he would rather lose his Amendment than his character as a prophet—[laughter]—and he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ *MR. STRACHEY
had on the Paper an Amendment proposing, in Sub-section (4), after the word "employment," to insert the words: — does not interfere with their membership of any friendly society or the benefits derivable therefrom and.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said the Amendment was not in order, as it went beyond the purpose of the Bill.

§ *SIR C. DILKE
on behalf of Mr. T. G. ASHTON (Beds, Luton) moved, in Subsection (4), after the words "employment is," to insert the words, "so far as regards the contributions of the employer in particular, and." He said he moved the Amendment to get the opinion of the Government whether the 1465 words of the sub-section were clear. The sub-section had been misread and misunderstood. Contracting out in the old bad sense was dead, but it was believed it would continue in an aggravated form in the clause unless clearly provided against.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said he did not think the clause, although it was a difficult one to draft, was open to that adverse criticism. He opposed the insertion of the words of the Amendment, which would not have any elucidatory or clarifying effect.

§ *SIR C. DILKE
said he only wished it to be made clear that there will be no deductions from the wages of the workmen for the purposes of the Bill. He withdrew the Amendment, but suggested that the Government should further consider the matter before Report.

§ MR. PERKS
, on behalf of Mr. HALDANE, moved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words, "on the whole not less favourable," and to insert the words "more beneficial."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said it would be very unwise to alter the clause as suggested, and the adoption of the words would throw an extremely difficult task on the Registrar General.

§ MR J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)
moved an Amendment to the effect that if the Registrar of Friendly Societies certified, that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in any employment was on the whole not less favourable to the workmen "and others deriving right through them" than the provisions of the Bill, the employer might contract with any of the workmen that the provisions of the scheme should be substituted for the provisions of the Bill. He urged that, though the Amendment involved a point 1466 of detail, it was of importance to employers in Scotland, who had been advised by the late Lord Advocate that they had not the power to contract themselves out of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. If was therefore desirable to extend to Scotland the same rights that existed in England.

§ *MR. T. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
stated that, having had an opportunity of consulting the Lord Advocate and the agent of the Mine Owners' Association of Scotland, he found that they were agreed that the Amendment would not meet the case.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said the Amendment would defeat the object, and suggested that the case would be met by inserting after "workman" the words "and their dependants." If that were accepted he should take care to insert in the schedule a definition of "dependants."

§ *MR. J. B. BALFOUR
agreed with the view stated by the learned Attorney General. According to the law of Scotland certain persons had an indefeasible claim in their own right, not derived through husband or father, and therefore the words "deriving right through them" would not touch that case. He had himself handed in a definition of "dependants" which, he thought, would cover the Scotch case.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved in Sub-section (4.) after the words "favourable to the workmen," to insert the words, "and their dependants."

§ MR. GALLOWAY
moved in Sub-section (4) after the words "provisions of this Act,' to insert the words, and also certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workman in any employment does not contain any obligation upon the workman to join in such scheme.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
suggested that it might save time if he stated that the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment later on, but in a more desirable form of words, namely, No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.

§ MR. GALLOWAY
had no hesitation in accepting the words suggested by the Attorney General, and refrained from moving his Amendment.

§ MR. J. A. PEASE
said he begged to move in Sub-section (4) after the word "Act," to insert the words, "and certifies that the financial position of such a scheme is satisfactory." It would be hard lines on a workman that he should go on contributing for weeks and months and even years, it might be, to a scheme which was unsatisfactory, and from which, after all, he would derive nothing in the event of an accident befalling him.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
asked the hon. Member for Tyneside not to press his Amendment at this stage. He had not had notice of it, and the matter had not been considered from that point of view. His reason for asking that was this, that they should have to consider later on whether any steps ought to be taken to make anybody bound. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the position of the Registrar General to be able to say whether he would be the sort of authority that ought to deal with the financial capabilities of schemes, and in the event of a fund coming to an end owing to the number of claims made upon it, an objection might be raised by an employer. "This was certified by the Registrar, and therefore I ought not now to be made liable." The point could be discussed in line 18 at the end, and in the meantime he should have an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the Home Secretary upon the matter.

§ MR. J. A. PEASE
said that if the Government would undertake to consider the matter at the end of line 18 he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Certainly.

§ *MR. ASCROFT,
when called upon to move the next Amendment to Sub-section (4)—after the words "employer may," to insert the words— so long as he complies with the provisions of such scheme and fairly administers the same or"— said he understood from the Attorney General that the question was intended 1468 to be dealt with by the Government at a later stage. He, therefore, did not move the Amendment.

§ MR. GALLOWAY
, on behalf of Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH, moved in Sub-section (4) after the words "contrary made," to insert the words "before or." He said that the friendly societies considered this a matter of the utmost importance, because it seemed to them, and to him, that it would distinctly define once and for all that the certificate of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies applied not only to any schemes which should be made after the commencement of this Act, but also to any schemes which were in force at the present moment, and before the Act was passed.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said the proper way of dealing with existing agreements was pointed out in Clause 4, as they were, he believed almost in terms proposed to be enacted by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Section 4 provided that any contract existing at the commencement of the Act should be deemed to continue after the time at which the workman's contract of service would determine if notice of the determination thereof were given at the commencement of this Act. He thought it was obvious that the question of existing contracts ought to be dealt with on that clause and not now.

§ MR. R. MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.)
moved to add the following new Subsection to Clause 1: — (5.) Where the injury is caused by the wilful and wrongful act of any person in the service of the workman's employer, the employer shall be as responsible for such act or default as if the workman had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer nor engaged in his work. He thought that after what had fallen from various Members of the Government with regard to the doctrine of common employment there could be no objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. All he proposed to do was to do away with the doctrine of common employment.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
On a point of order, asked whether this Amendment was within the scope of the Bill. As he 1469 understood, it amounted to an Amendment of the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said that if the Amendment were inserted it could only apply to the employments to which this Act applied. It was therefore in order.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
thought the words were either unnecessary or absolutely mischievous. When he first saw the Amendment he thought it was intended to be put down with the view to some such clause not being adopted as was now in the Bill. He thought that what the hon. and learned Member was afraid of was already met in substance by Sub-section (2), paragraph (b) of the clause, and if it were not, the Amendment would be open to serious objection. By that sub-section the arbitrator would have decided that the employer was liable for the injuries caused either by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible. After that the only thing that was left was the assessment of damages. Therefore, from the point of view of making the employer liable in the particular case which was contemplated by Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), the words were not necessary. If the hon. and learned Member got these words in, they being unnecessary for the purposes of that Sub-section, then it would be open to the suggestion that the doctrine as to the liability of the employer for the workman's default had been extended and altered. If any such words must be inserted, they should be put in all the conditions under which the employer was to be liable in the issue which was going to be decided by the arbitrator. To put in these words now would, as he had said, either be to extend the scope of the Bill beyond what the Committee intended, or to add words which were unnecessary for the purpose of the previous sub-section.

§ MR. HALDANE
said that in Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), they were dealing with cases to which the ordinary law was to apply, and what they wanted to make sure of was that to these cases the doctrine of common employment was not applicable. They insisted that this 1470 doctrine of common employment was not to be re-enacted.

§ MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)
said he thought that as regarded the first part of the sub-section the words proposed were obviously unnecessary. The question of liability had already been discussed and defined under Sub-section (2), paragraph (b). When they went outside that and said that an employer should be as responsible for such act and default as if the workman had not been a workman of nor in the service of the employer nor engaged in his work, they went much beyond that sub-section as to the extent of the liability. The fact of the liability would not be altered, but the extent of the liability might be very largely increased. It seemed to him that this Amendment not only ought not to be admitted, but that the subject-matter of it had already been dealt with in Subsection (2), paragraph (b).

§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES
argued that the Bill for the purposes of compensation under the Employers' Liability Act abolished the doctrine of common employment. But outside the Act the doctrine existed. The Amendment would therefore only be operative in the case of responsibility of employers outside the Act, in which case it would be outside the scope of the Bill.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
If the argument of the hon. Gentleman is correct, I cannot submit the Amendment to the Committee. [Laughter.]

§ MR. MCKENNA
said the argument of his hon. Friend was not correct. [Laughter.] His Amendment did not cover the general law of employers' liability. The Committee had already decided that in regard to acts of default on the part of persons for whom the employer was responsible, a particular procedure was to be allowed; and, therefore, any Amendment which dealt with that particular mode of procedure must be relevant to the Bill.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved to insert at the end of the clause the following words: — No scheme shall be so certified winch contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring.

§ MR. B. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)
moved to add after the words last inserted the following words: — or which has not been approved by three-fourths of the workmen ascertained by ballot vote.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said he was afraid the Government could not agree to these words. They thought it better that the responsibility should be put upon the Registrar of Friendly Societies, especially in view of the Amendment which had just been agreed to.

§ *SIR C. DILKE
suggested that if his hon. Friend wished to add the ballot provision, he should wait until the Report stage, and then insert the proposed words which referred to the previous Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

§ MR. PICKARD
No, Sir.

§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)
asked would it be competent to submit the scheme to the Registrar if only one-half of the men voted, and would that bind the other half?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said that there could hardly be a doubt that this scheme would be impracticable. In order to give effect to it they must have a clause almost as long and as complicated as a Franchise Bill. It was absolutely absurd to believe that any injustice could be done, as different precautions had been taken to obtain the opinion of the men.

§ MR. PICKARD
asked whether the women and boys would have compensation under the Bill?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
Certainly.

§ MR. PICKARD
said that from his experience there was no difficulty in carrying out the suggestion.

§ MR. FENWICK
So that boys would be entitled to ballot as well as others?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
Certainly.

§ MR. FENWICK
did not see that it was so clear that each workman should be 1472 consulted before such a contract could be forced upon him. He should like to point out that the Bill was not sufficiently clear in that sense.

§ MR. S. WOODS
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this proposal in its present form or some other form.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
thought the Committee might come to a decision.

§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)
asked was it desirable that one-half of the workmen should overrule the other half. Would it not be better for the smooth working of the Act that they should have some arrangement whereby the question could be put to the whole of the workmen, and accepted or rejected?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said he should try to find out words, after consulting with hon. Members, which would meet the difficulty which they apprehended.

§ MR. BURNS
said that, as the Colonial Secretary was in a concilatory mood, he would like to make a suggestion to him. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who had just addressed the Committee would fix upon words which would enable a ballot to be taken in circumstances advantageous to the men, but what provision was to be made for the abandonment of a scheme through, say, actuarial insolvency coming upon it?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
There is an Amendment lower down dealing with that point.

§ MR. BURNS
said he desired to know, before his hon. Friends and the Government entered into conference, whether the workmen would have power to refuse a scheme, even though they had previously assented to it?

§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)
said that the discussion so far had had reference only to coal mines, but it was as well to take cognisance of other industries, shipbuilding, for instance. In ship yards it would be extremely difficult to take a ballot because the men were constantly shifting from one yard to another, according to the circumstances of the work.

§ MR. THOMAS BUCKNILL (Surrey, Epsom)
hoped the Government would not be too conciliatory. The Registrar of Friendly Societies had been chosen to act in these matters, because, having great experience and great knowledge, 1473 and being a non-party man, and absolutely free and independent, he might bring to bear on the questions brought before him a tree and independent and a desirous mind to do right between employers and employed. Given that condition of things, why should they too much fetter his hands? What was the use of putting on record in this Bill that he should not allow a scheme under any circumstances, good as it might be, unless three-fourths of the workmen agreed to it? There might be a transcient difficulty, there might be a spirit reigning for the moment between employer and employed, not entirely of a pacific nature. How great must the difficult v of the Registrar of Friendly Societies be if he was bound hand and foot, and unable to approve a good scheme because three-fourths of the men had not consented to it. He hoped the Government would take the opinion of the House upon the point.

§ MR. G. W. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)
said that in 1893 employers had some object in trying to get the men out of the action of the Bill of that year. It was, he thought, the hon. Member for Batter-sea, who said that no doubt the employers would contribute heavily towards the sick or accident fund, but that, very naturally, they would want somthing in return. He fancied they all knew that what they wanted in return was to keep their men out of the trades unions. [Opposition cheers.] He did not know whether that was a good or a bad thing, but in the works with which he was connected they had never had to any great extent any skilled men who were not trades unionists, and they had got on very well with them. [Cheers.] Under this Bill, contracting out was surrounded with so many conditions that it would be made so excessively expensive an operation that very few employers would attempt it. ["Hear, hear !"] He therefore did not see why hon. Gentlemen opposite should fight so tenaciously over little details. He knew nothing about coal mines, but in respect to ship yards the proposal that a scheme should be approved by three-fourths of the men was almost impracticable. The men were consistently shifting, and a scheme approved at one time might be rejected at the end of six months. Considering that the Amendment had 1474 really never been acted upon, they might safely pass on to the discussion of some other point. [Cheers.]

§ MR. PICKARD
thanked the Colonial Secretary for the courteous manner in which he had met the proposal, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of 'No, no !"]

§ *MR. J. A. PEASE
moved to insert after the words last added the following words: — and no scheme shall be so certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies unless he is satisfied as to its financial position as ascertained by actuarial examination. He said it was conceivable that the workmen might themselves be contributors for some months or even some years to a scheme of which a preponderating amount might be contributed by the employers. It would be very unfair to the workmen, therefore, if on a sudden they found all their contributions cast to the wind and they were deprived of all benefits because the scheme was financially unsound. To put a case. A disaster might occur, and the workmen suffering by the accident would be unable, owing to the unsatisfactory financial position of the scheme, to obtain any compensation, or, at any rate, any compensation in accordance with the amount the arbitrator would give them under the Bill. But that there should be any necessity for moving Amendments of this kind was only another indication that the State rather than the employer ought to be made responsible. The workmen ought to be guaranteed compensation for accidents. He did not in his Amendment propose that any guarantee of absolute solvency should be inserted, but he did feel strongly that the Registrar of Friendly Societies ought to be satisfied in his own mind that these schemes were actuarially sound.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said the hon. Member for Belfast, who had probably as large an experience with regard to industrial occupations as anyone in the House, told the Committee just now that 1475 the provision proposed by the Government was one that would hardly ever be applied in practice; and he was cheered by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ironically!" and laughter.] Ironically! He had thought that hon. Members were sincere, and now he was told that they were ironical. On the contrary, he still believed that they were sincere. Almost every hon. Member on that side of the House had expressed the same opinion, and yet on a clause which they held would hardly ever come into operation, more hours had been spent than had been spent upon very important propositions. He really could not see what motive led hon. Members opposite to pile Amendment on Amendment on a clause which they thought had no practical importance whatever. The hon. Member for Tyneside was, he thought, one of those who were rather hostile to the Bill; but he was only anxious to amend it on points of detail. He credited the hon. Member with good intentions as to the Bill, but he certainly had not taken the best way of securing the result he desired. He wanted to secure that any scheme proposed under the clause should be actuarially sound. How could that be? It was quite possible to ascertain whether the contributions would be sufficient to pay the benefits offered. But that was not the point. The real point was, Would the workmen and the employer pay their contributions? Or if the contributions settled by the scheme proved insufficient would the employer pay the deficiency? All that was matter that could not be the subject of actuarial calculation. They might have a scheme actuarially sound, but if either party declined to make their contribution, well that was a difficulty inherent in every proposition that employers should contribute or should provide for the compensation of their workmen. All they could do—and this he admitted they ought to do—was to secure that under the scheme the workman should have the same guarantee of payment that he had under the Bill; in fact, to carry out the idea expressed in the provision, that he should not be put in a worse position. Under the Bill the position of the workman was this. As long as the employer was solvent he was certain to get the amount to which he was entitled; and he thought it would 1476 be quite right to provide that under any scheme of contracting out the employer should guarantee the payment under the scheme. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped hon. Gentlemen followed him. That was to say, that the employer should take under the scheme the same liability he had under the Bill—his liability to pay his contribution. If that met the views of the hon. Gentleman, the Government would be prepared to deal with the matter when they reached the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. He hoped that if he had satisfied the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"]

§ *MR. J. A. PEASE
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept my words?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
No, I do not. I propose to carry out the only object which is a practical and feasible object in other terms, and I will state the terms I think applicable to the situation when I come to deal with it.

§ *MR. J. A. PEASE
On that undertaking, I agree to withdraw.

§ MR. LIONEL HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley)
moved to insert after the words last added the following words: — (b) Any such scheme shall be deemed to be less favourable to the workmen unless it provides that the contributions to be made by the employer under the scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen in his employment shall be sufficient to secure the full amount and duration of the compensation payable under this Act. He said that of course the two sections of the Amendment stood entirely distinct. The first part, which he now moved, aimed at securing that the employer should contribute in advance, so that one employer should not stand in a better position than another, but that every employer who had induced his men to contract out should contribute what would have been the full amount of his liability under the Act. As to the second part of the Amendment, he should hope that the purpose of that Amendment, even if the words had to be different, might be accepted by the Government, as its object was merely to safeguard the workmen in the event of the contribution by the employer falling short of the amount which he should pay.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
did not think his hon. Friend was present at an earlier part of the evening when they had a short discussion on an Amendment which practically raised the same point. The Amendment of the hon. Member proposed that there should be some separate calculation of the scheme under Subsection (4) as to the amount contributed by the employer so as to see that it was sufficient to secure the full amount and duration of the compensation payable under the Act. He would point out that that would be a calculation it might not be possible to enter into in regard to a scheme. It was quite impossible to say that in all schemes the amount paid by the master should be calculated solely with reference to the amount of compensation payable under the Act. He would again remind the Committee that the duty was thrown upon the Registrar of coming to the conclusion that the pecuniary benefits which a workman would get under a scheme were at least as good as those given by the Act, and. therefore, by an Instruction to tell the Registrar he must make a separate calculation to see that the contributions were sufficient to secure the full amount and duration of the compensation payable under the Act, would be to prevent his taking into consideration as he ought to do other pecuniary benefits which might be given to the workmen, and for which the master would have to begin his contribution at the same time, possibly, as the workmen began theirs. He did not think the Amendment would at all add to the security of the workmen, while it might tend to direct the mind of the Registrar to calculations which might be inapplicable to the circumstances of the case.

§ MR. HOLLAND
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. HOLLAND
moved to insert after the words last added the following words: — If the contributions of the employer, as fixed by the scheme, shall prove in any event to be insufficient to meet any claim or claims to the full compensation payable under this Act, the deficiency may be recoverable from the employer under the provisions of this Act.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
was not quite certain whether he understood what the 1478 intention of his hon. Friend was in moving this Amendment. It stated: — If the contributions of the employer, as fixed by the scheme, shall prove in any event to be insufficient to meet any claim or claims— But the principle of the scheme was that it should be a joint contribution of employer and workman, and, therefore, if there was any deficiency it might be because the contribution of the workman was too small, or that of the employer was too small. The employer had to make a contribution under the scheme which would be equal to the one he would have to provide if he came under the provisions of the Bill, and under those circumstances it would clearly be unfair to make him liable for a larger amount. What, undoubtedly, the Government wanted to secure and what he understood hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to secure was that under no circumstances should the employer under a scheme get out for less than he would have had to pay if he had not been in the scheme. That, he thought, was perfectly right and fair, and he believed that intention was carried out by the clause as it stood. If, however, his hon. Friend thought it insufficiently provided for, then he had to say that he did not think the Amendment which had been moved exactly met the difficulty. The following words would make the matter clear: — If the funds under any such scheme are not sufficient to meet the compensation payable thereout, the employer shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation which would be payable under this Act.

§ MR. PARKER SMITH
hoped the Government would not adhere to the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary, because it would knock on the head the possibility of any contracting-out scheme. [Opposition cheers.] The whole principle of any contracting-out scheme was that a bargain was made beforehand before the circumstances had taken place out of which one side or the other might possibly gain. The whole object of the employer in entering into an alternative scheme of the kind would be that his liability might be known and determined by giving a certain contribution as large as what was actuarially probable he would have to pay if he had not made a contracting-out scheme.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said the Amendment would not have the effect his hon. Friend supposed. It provided that where the workman did not get compensation provided by the scheme, or if the scheme provided for certain accidents or certain cases lesser compensation than the Bill, but the scheme was, on the whole, recognised as a better scheme; provided the amount contracted for was paid, the scheme would be substituted. In fact, if employer and workman mutually contracted out of the Bill for a definite object, as long as that object was observed there was no alternative. But if the employer entered into a pledge that certain compensation should be provided for the workman, it would be perfectly fair to say, "Your scheme has failed in the object you had in view, and therefore you must go back on the original Bill." That was all the Amendment intended.

§ MR. PARKER SMITH
accepted this explanation and regretted that he had misunderstood the Amendment.

§ MR. CRIPPS
said it did appear to him that in substance the criticism of the hon. Member was accurate, and that the result of the Amendment would be that none of those funds would survive in the future. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a question whether the compensation payable by the employer should be under the Act or under a scheme, because one or the other, it did not affect the point. He assumed that an employer and his workmen had entered into a scheme which they considered for their common benefit. For a long period of years the workman had had the benefit of it, that was to say, each workman when an accident arose received far better terms than under the Act, and the employer had carried out his full obligations. After the workmen had had that advantage, say for 15 years or more, to turn round on the employer and throw the whole obligation upon him, if at any given time the fund was not sufficient to meet the claims made upon it, certainly did not amount to a game of "heads I win and tails you lose." ["Hear, hear!"] Surely that amounted to a case in which two parties having entered into an arrangement for their common benefit, in the ultimate result the liability was thrown upon one only. He could not imagine any plan more directly calculated to put an end to 1480 such funds than the plan proposed by the Colonial Secretary. He did not think he had misapprehended the Amendment, and it seemed to him that if his view of it was accurate, the whole of this clause as to contracting out might as well be deleted. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR ASQUITH
said that the argument of the hon. and learned Member was a very good argument against allowing contracting-out at all; but inasmuch as contracting-out was to be allowed, he must say that he entirely agreed with the Amendment proposed by the Colonial Secretary, the effect of which was that, in whatever way a scheme of this sort was carried out, the workman should always be secured, under any fund, the minimum compensation allowed by the Bill. ["Hear, hear !"]

§ *COLONEL DENNY
said it seemed to him that the Opposition could very well afford to sit still and smile, for this simple reason, that they objected to contracting out, and they now saw it being effectually killed. ["Hear, hear !"] If the employer was to get no benefit out of a scheme between himself and his workman, what on earth was he going to enter into it for? ["Hear, hear!"]

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
thought that some hon. Members who spoke for the employers overlooked the advantages which the clause would confer upon them. The Government assumed that the employer's contribution to a substituted fund would cover the payments which he might have to make under this Bill. As a result of the system of substituted funds there would be no litigation and no trouble. The system would work automatically. The Amendment, however, was necessary in order to safeguard workmen in cases where the funds, under a substituted scheme might not be sufficient to meet the compensation payable. In such cases it was only reasonable to hold the employer liable to make good the amount of compensation which it was proposed to sanction and be most useful, inasmuch as they would be likely to promote harmony between employer and employed.

§ MR. W. R. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
thought that this Amendment would effectually kill contracting out. An employer would be required to guarantee the solvency of the scheme which he had arranged, and to which he contributed. That would impose a considerable 1481 burden upon him. He was anxious to see these funds established because he believed that they would induce employers and workmen to associate together for their collective good, and such association would be a guarantee of the ultimate success of the system. He knew that the hon. Member for Batter-sea and the representatives of trade unions held a different view; they thought that these private benefit societies were inimical to trade unions. He supported their formation, on the other hand, because he believed them to be conducive to harmony. But if these funds were to be administered with economy it must somehow be made the workmen's interest that they should be so administered, and he feared that if the guarantee contemplated in the Amendment were to be required of the employer, the inducement to economy would disappear. When the workmen knew that they had the purse of the employer to fall back upon in any eventuality, they were not likely to act economically. The guarantee which was to be required of the employers would practically be a guarantee in favour of the workmen against the results of their own extravagance.

§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
was surprised that this Amendment should cause so much uneasiness. In a previous Measure the contracting out clause contained the same provision for the guarantee of the solvency of the substituted fund. That provision was accepted, and stood the test of discussion. It was desirable that the employer should have the strongest possible interest in maintaining the financial stability of the substituted fund.

§ MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)
thought that the Government had behaved with extreme fairness and impartiality. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] The Government was anxious that the workman should not suffer more than was necessary through the introduction of this subsection; and in the words suggested by the Colonial Secretary the Government had done their best to minimise the effect of it. His regret was that so much time had been wasted on the consideration of the sub-section, which to all intents and purposes would result in no substantial or important effect either one way or the other.

§ MR. G. WHITELEY
urged the Government, in view of the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition side, to make no further concessions on this clause, because it was evident that the appetite was growing on what it fed. [Ironical laughter.] He could not agree with the view that this clause would kill contracting out. He believed that in some form or another there would be contracting out to some extent, even after the clause had passed in its present shape. The workman had ample security. The schemes formulated between workmen and employers had to be thoroughly sifted by the Registrar, and if this gentleman did his duty he would turn his special attention to the financial and actuarial side of the question.

§ MR. SETON-KARR
was disposed to look on the Amendment as another nail in the coffin of the friendly societies. [Laughter.] Judging from the ominous silence of hon. Members opposite, he felt that they also took that view. Nothing, in his judgment, should be done to injure the friendly societies, but here the employer was being asked to guarantee the solvency of other persons over whom he might have no control. If there was anybody on the Treasury Bench who could carry conviction to his mind, it was the Attorney General, but even the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to convince him. Why should they make the employer responsible, not only for his own payment, but also for the possible non-payment of other people in the future? It seemed to him that to impose the obligation involved in the words of the Colonial Secretary they would take away the last possible shred of chance of any person consenting to go into any of these friendly society schemes.

§ *SIR C. DILKE
thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had an undue apprehension in regard to the existence of the great railway societies. He was as strongly opposed to their existence as any one on his side could possibly be, but he was sorry to say that their existence was not likely to be affected by what was being done to-night. The great societies which they had in their mind were mainly the railway societies. They would be destroyed by this Bill. But they would be re-constituted as societies for old-age pensions and for other purposes. He 1483 was certain these societies would not be prevented by the Amendment from coming into existence in that way. In regard to the words proposed to be inserted by the Colonial Secretary, he was sure they were necessary. One of the great railway societies was insolvent at this moment. Of course, the railway company was solvent, but it was debarred by statutory conditions from using its funds to aid this particular society. Although he believed the great railway societies would cease to exist, they would again come into being in a new form.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
moved, after the words last inserted, to add the words: — The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall in every year make a report of his proceedings under this Act, and that report shall be laid before Parliament.

§ SIR J. JOICEY
moved, after the words last inserted, to add the following words: — It shall be lawful for the employer at any time to substitute for his liability under this Act the engagement or guarantee of any insurance corporation or association previously approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and on such Secretary of State certifying that he is satisfied as to the sufficiency of the engagement or guarantee of such corporation or association, and that it has undertaken the liability of the employer, any liability of the employer under this Act so undertaken shall thereupon cease. He said that the provision would be of mutual advantage to the workmen and the employers. In districts where both had organisations, joint insurance would be substituted for individual responsibility and thus the security of the workmen would be increased. But he realised that it was useless to ask the Committee to agree to anything which would be of use to the employers. The present temper of the Committee was to put every burden on the employer that was possible. He knew numbers of employers who would be affected by the Act to whom he would not give credit for £100 for a month. [Laughter.] This showed the necessity for his Amendment.

§ *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said the proposal was that the State should become the guarantor of the insurance 1484 companies to whom the employers might resort to meet their liabilities under the Bill. The Government could not accept such an Amendment.

§ MR. PERKS
said there was no such proposal in the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] The declaration of the Home Secretary seemed to him to be one of the most serious which the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of the discussions. One of the difficulties created by the Measure was that annuities or pensions might be created on an employer's estate which would render it absolutely impossible for that estate to be wound up by the executors after the death of the employer. That was a very serious matter; while, on the other hand, it could not be in the slightest degree a disadvantage to the family of an injured workman or to the workman himself if, on the death of the employer, there could be substituted, at the request of the executors the covenant of some substantial insurance company for the pension or annuity. ["Hear, hear !"]

§ MR. SETON-KARR
thought the Amendment was one which the Home Secretary should have accepted, for it seemed to him to be perfectly innocent, harmless, and friendly to the Bill. It was partly in the interest of the employer and very largely in the interest of the men. [Opposition cries of "No!"] The provision of a guarantee against the insolvency of an employer must surely be in the interests of the men. He maintained that the objection of the Home Secretary was not sound. A number of small employers, if they were not allowed to transfer their liability in this very satisfactory way, might be called upon to pay a large amount, which would render them insolvent.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
confessed that at first he could not see what the object of the Amendment was, and he thought in its present form it was altogether unacceptable. Although he did not know that it actually amounted to a guarantee, yet it did call on the Secretary of State for the first time to give an engagement or a certificate which assumed the solvency of a private institution. That had not been done with regard to friendly societies; it would be a new precedent, and he thought a dangerous one. But he could understand that there was some substance in the Amendment in this 1485 respect—that if the Bill remained in its present form, with continuing liabilities, it would involve very considerable difficulties in winding up estates. That appeared to him to be a serious difficulty which the Government ought to take into consideration. He suggested that if the Amendment were withdrawn some alterations would probably be made in the schedule for compensation which might remove the difficulty; but, if not, they would consider before the Report stage in what way the difficulty might be met.

§ SIR J. JOICEY
said he had been rather alarmed at the answer given by the Home Secretary. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman did not really appreciate the importance of the matter.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said his right hon. Friend had not understood the Amendment as it was drafted.

§ SIR J. JOICEY
said that after the assurance which had been given, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. J. W. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that many of them on that side of the House who supported this Bill did so because they believed that in throwing the responsibility on the employers it would make them take greater care than they did at present.