WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

HC Deb 06 December 1906 vol 166 cc1204-71

As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.

MR. HICKS-BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

moved to amend the definition of "dependants" by declaring that the members of the workman's family must be "actually" dependent, either wholly or in part, on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. The hon. Gentleman said his object in moving the Amendment was to secure a better definition of the word "dependant," because in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act difficulties had frequently arisen in deciding whether relatives were or were not dependent on the earnings of the deceased. In the case of Simmons v. White Lord Justice Romer stated that in his judgment a dependant in order to get compensation must be dependent in the proper sense of that term, and that it was not sufficient if he was merely deriving benefit from the earnings of the deceased; he must be to some extent dependent on him for the ordinary necessaries of life, having regard to his class and position in life. That was the interpretation which he believed the framers of the original Act and the House in general intended to be put on the word "dependant." Everybody agreed that if the wage-earner was unfortunately killed, and the wages he had earned were lost to his family who had been dependent on him, they ought to receive compensation for his death. But other learned Judges had put a different interpretation upon this word "dependant," and he would refer the Home Secretary to certain decisions of the Law Courts on this question. In the case of Davies v. The Main Colliery Company, the deceased was a boy of sixteen, earning 8s. per week. He left a father who was earning 25s., and two brothers earning 12s. and 7s. 6d. respectively. The County Court Judge decided that the father was dependent on the son, although he was only earning the very modest wage of 8s. a week, and awarded him compensation to the amount of £23 8s. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Again, in the case of Brackton v. Strakers and Love, the deceased had been earning 6s. 8d. per week, the father was earning 16s. 6d. with a free house and coal, and two brothers were living in the same house, one earning 18s. 6d. and the other 24s. 6d. Thus in all these three members of the family earned just on £3 a week and had a free house and coals. It was obvious, and it was indeed admitted by the father, that the wages of the deceased lad were insufficient to provide for his own maintenance, nevertheless the Judge found it was a case of dependency and awarded a sum of £60. That decision, to his mind, went beyond the moaning and intention of the word "dependent," for by it the father and brothers really made a profit by the death of the deceased—they were not only saved the expense of maintaining him in part, but they were declared entitled to compensation. Everybody must deplore accidents which resulted in the death of young boys, but he submitted that the decisions which he had cited had not borne out the interpretation intended by the framers of the Act. He, therefore, moved his Amendment.

MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.)

seconded. He agreed that words were necessary to make clear the meaning of the word "dependant." Undoubtedly great differences of opinion had arisen in the past as to what constituted a dependant. There might be a family of four all earning good wages. If through an accident one died could it be said that the others were in any way dependent on him for the necessaries of life? He thought not; and he, therefore, had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 34, after the word 'part,' to insert the word 'actually.'"—(MR. Hicks Beach.)

Question proposed— That the word 'actually' be there inserted in the Bill.

* The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. Gladstone,) Leeds, W.

said he did not profess to be bound in every way by the findings of the Committee, and he had to exercise his free judgment in the matter. He did not, however, think that anybody would deny the impartiality of the Committee, and in face of their recommendation he did not think it would be wise to accept the Amendment.

* MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

said he was sure they all desired that when a family had been deprived of the breadwinner they should receive compensation. The expression "in part dependent upon the earnings" had raised great difficulties, and whatever the Departmental Committee might say, now or never was the time to put the matter right, and it should not be left to a private Member to grapple with. The rough test used to be, had the dependant suffered in his means of livelihood having regard to the ordinary amenities and comforts of people in that position in life. It was never suggested that the dependant should be reduced practically to starvation. The matter had been before the House of Lords, and they came to the conclusion that anyone who came within the degree of consanguinity and had sustained any real pecuniary loss was entitled to compensation. Although he did not think the Amendment of his hon. friend was the best that could be applied, he trusted that the Government would give some indication that they would attempt to deal with what was an admitted blot upon the Bill.

MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.)

hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, because it would only introduce another bone of contention which would disturb the Courts and the arbitrators, and they would find themselves face to face with more litigation in consequence. He thought the House might safely leave this matter to the Courts to act upon a well-established principle.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 36, after the word 'death' to insert the words 'or would but for the incapacity due to the accident have been so dependent,'"—(MR. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. KEIR HARDIE moved an Amendment to the effect that where the workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate child, leaves such child so dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, the expression "dependents" shall include such an illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively. He assumed that his Amendment was going to be accepted, and acting upon that assumption he would not attempt to make anything in the nature of a speech. He hoped the fact that a child was illegitimate would not be held of itself to deprive a child or parent of compensation. He understood that the Government were, on the whole, sympathetic towards the Amendment and would offer no opposition to it. It very often happened that illegitimate children were quartered upon grandparents. They were admitting the mother to the benefits of the Act, and he trusted the Government would not offer any opposition to the words "or grandparent" being included in each case in his Amendment after the word "parent." With that addition he begged to move his Amendment.

Me. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 36, after the word 'death, to insert the words' and where the workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegiti- mate child, leaves such a child so dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, shall include such an illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively."—(MR. Keir Hardie.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

* MR. GLADSTONE

said there were so many cases of real hardship of this kind that, as far as the Government were concerned, they were ready to accept the Amendment.

Me. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St Augustine's)

said his experience did not permit him to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the decision he had arrived at. He thought very great difficulty would arise if they opened up questions of illegitimacy in this way. He wished to protest against the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped the House would reject that Amendment.

MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil— To leave out the words or being an illegitimate child, leaves the parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, and to also omit the words "and parent or grandparent respectively" at the end of the Amendment. He wished to extend the benefits of the Act to the illegitimate child but not to the parents of that child. He agreed that it would be a terrible thing that the sins of the father should be visited on the children, but it was a very different thing to say that the parents of an illegitimate child, who had neglected to conform to the marriage laws of the country should receive any benefits under the Act. He could not imagine any greater hardship upon a child than that it; parents should be encouraged to neglect to go through the simple form of the marriage ceremony. He thought if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in its entirety, they would be putting a premium on people living together without being married.

Lord R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

seconded the Amendment to the Amendment. He thought it was a reasonable compromise between the view of the leader of the Labour Party and the provision in the Bill as it stood. He felt that the House ought not to do anything which would lead people out-of-doors to suppose that they did not attach importance to the sanctity of marriage.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— To leave out the words 'or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings.'"— (MR. Ashley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill."

Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY (Great Grimsby)

expressed the hope that the House would not accept the Amendment to the Amendment. He looked at the question from the point of view of persons he had met, and especially women, who suffered hardships because they were denied, by a technicality of the law, the advantages of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

* The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,) Leeds, S.

thought the House would be both logical and humane in accepting the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. They would be logical because this Bill was intended to provide for persons who were in fact dependent, and he thought that a child or parent in the circumstances contemplated would be in fact dependent. Therefore, if they established the relationship in nature and the dependency in fact, he did not think the operation of the Bill should be checked by any inquiry as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their natural ties.

MR. ASHLEY

said he was not proposing a disability on bastardy.

* SIR JOHN WALTON

said the illegitimate child had no share in the blame. Surely, therefore, its position was one which demanded the consideration of humanity. In the case of a woman who had an illegitimate son on whose earnings she was dependent, were they before they relieved her to call upon her to produce marriage lines? Did they discriminate in the distribution of their charity upon the same principle. The practice of society was to make the burden as light as might be for all persons who were placed in that unfortunate position. He could not contemplate without dismay the alternative to the Amendment in the case of the mother of an illegitimate child. The breadwinner was gone. Was she to be thrown upon the rates? This was not a measure for attaching a new sanction to the marriage law. It was a measure to give practical relief in circumstances of practical hardship. Therefore he hoped the House would approach the Amendment in no spirit of Pharisaism but in a spirit of humanity.

* MR. COCHRANE

said one felt in great difficulty in touching on this subject. He gathered that the Amendment would not cut out from the benefit of the Act the illegitimate child, but that it would cut out the parent. If he recollected aright the Home Secretary adduced a wealth of argument against this Amendment in the Committee.

* MR. GLADSTONE

dissented.

MR. COCHRANE

said he had a distinct recollection that the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Amendment on moral grounds. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman led him to think that he was not going to accept the Amendment, because he voted against it upstairs.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said the Amendment was not before the Standing Committee.

* MR. COCHRANE

said the Amendment proposed in the Committee was to insert after the word sister the words "the mother of an illegitimate child, son or daughter." The Committee divided, and the right hon. Gentleman was successful in the division. He supported the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. The Amendment was defeated by twenty-nine to fifteen. The sudden change was made when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil gave the command "On the knee." He saw no signs of mutiny or rebellion on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member said a few brief words and immediately the right hon. Gentleman accepted the situation. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not want your sympathy.

* MR. COCHRANE

said the Government was going somewhat far in this matter. It was almost impossible at a moment's notice to consider all the circumstances that might arise. Let them suppose the case of a man with a wife and family. On the man's death a claim might be brought on behalf of an illegitimate child. The mother of that child might come forward and compete with the widow who was the lawful mother of his other children before the compensation was paid. In that way bitter feelings and jealousy might be created. Aspersions might be thrown on a man's character after his death on account of the cases which were certain to arise. In hundreds of cases where a man might have been living a respectable life someone might make a dastardly attack on his memory by bringing forward a claim. [Cries of dissent.] He ventured to say that these cases would arise. In a case where a man had been bona fide almost in the married state it was difficult to differentiate between him and a married man except on high moral grounds. The right hon. Gentleman was going to work in the wrong way. Let him take a leaf out of the Scottish law, which, was humane and just. If a man at the last moment on his death bed desired to legitimatise his illegitimate family he had only to say, "This is my wife and family." He did not say that was English law.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

Suppose he is married already.

* MR. COCHRANE

said that the law in Scotland did not allow of bigamy. What he would suggest to his right hon.

friend was not to introduce questions of illegitimacy into a Bill of this kind. What was required was an amendment of the law of England so as to bring it up to the humane and just standard of the law of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would be doing justice to thousands of families in this country. He should certainly support his hon. friend in his Amendment, which was designed not to injure the illegitimate child. The illegitimate child would still have a claim for compensation if it had been supported by the parents; but to extend the provision beyond that would create jealousies and difficulties amongst the families of the working classes when a man was dead and no longer able to defend himself against bogus charges.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said he wanted to remove a possible misunderstanding as to what the Amendment would really effect. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire said that the effect of the Amendment would be that if a workman was injured a claim might be made by the mother of the workman's illegitimate child. That was not so. It was only the illegitimate child and not the mother who could make a claim for compensation. The Amendment went on to say that if a workman was himself an illegitimate child his parent or grandparent might claim.

MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

said that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire had made a very unfair attack on the Home Secretary. He thought that all the Amendments that had been moved on either side of the House had been met by the right hon. Gentleman in a fair manner. The opinion was practically unanimous on all sides in the interests of humanity to give compensation to all children, whether legitimate or not.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 461.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Anson, Sir William Reynell	Atherley-Jones, L.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Anstruther-Gray, Major	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Barker, John
Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't)	Hall, Frederick	O'Grady, J.
Barnard, E. B.	Halpin, J.	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)
Barnes, G. N.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	O'Malley, William
Beale, W. P.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Paul, Herbert
Billson, Alfred	Hart-Davies, T.	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Harwood, George	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Boland, John	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Priestley, W. E. B. (Br'df rd, E.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hayden, John Patrick	Radford, G. H.
Brace, William	Hedges, A. Paget	Rainy, A. Rolland
Bramsdon, T. A.	Henry, Charles S.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Branch, James	Higham, John Sharp	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Brigg, John	Hills, J. W.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Redmond, William (Clare)
Brooke, Stopford	Hodge, John	Roes, J. D.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Richards, Thomas (W. Mon'th)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)	Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm't'n)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberd'n)	Horniman, Emslie John	Richardson, A.
Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rickett, J. Compton
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Jardine, Sir J.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)
Byles, William Pollard	Jenkins, J.	Robinson, S.
Cairns, Thomas	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jowett, F. W.	Rose, Charles Day
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Kearley, Hudson E.	Rowlands, J.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Kekewich, Sir George	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Clough, William	Kelley, George D.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Clynes, J. R.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Laidlaw, Robert	Sears, J. E.
Cogan, Denis J.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Seaverns, J. H.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lamont, Norman	Seddon, J.
Cooper, G. J.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lehmann, R. C.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cory, Clifford John	Lough, Thomas	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Snowden, P.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Stanger, H. Y.
Crean, Eugene	Macpherson, J. T.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Ches.)
Crossley, William J.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Steadman, W. C.
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Crae, George	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	M'Killop, W.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Sullivan, Donal
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Summerbell, T.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	M'Micking, Major G.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Maddison, Frederick	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Donelan, Captain A.	Mallet, Charles E.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Doughty, Sir George	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Thomasson, Franklin
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Toulmin, George
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll)	Menzies, Walter	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Erskine, David C.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Wallace, Robert
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Mooney, J. J.	Walsh, Stephen
Essex, R. W.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Walters, John Tudor
Farrell, James Patrick	Morrell, Philip	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Murphy, John	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Ffrench, Peter	Murray, James	Ward, oho (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Myer, Horatio	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Fullerton, Hugh	Nicholls, George	Wardle, George J.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Gill, A. H.	Nolan, Joseph	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Glover, Thomas	Nuttall, Harry	Whitbread, Howard
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	White, Luke (York, E. P.)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Whitehead, Rowland
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Shackleton and Mr. Fenwick.
Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)	Winfrey, R.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Everett, R. Lacey	Morpeth, Viscount
Agnew, George William	Fardell, Sir T. George	O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Balcarres, Lord	Furness, Sir Christopher	Partington, Oswald
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Percy, Karl
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Ginnell, L.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamilton, Marquess of	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'xh'm)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bull, Sir William James	Hogan, Michael	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hooper, A. G.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Carlile, E. Hildred	Idris, T. H. W.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Kimber, Sir Henry	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Spicer, Sir Albert
Chance, Frederick William	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cheetham, John Frederick	Lambert, George	Tomkinson, James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Liddell, Henry	Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Lundon, W.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Craik, Sir Henry	Maclean, Donald	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Delany, William	MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Younger, George
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Massie, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ashley and Lord Robert Cecil.
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Meagher, Michael
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Molteno, Percy Alport

Question put, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 462.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Burke, E. Haviland-	Delany, William
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)
Armitage, R.	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Donelan, Captain A.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Doughty, Sir George
Atherley-Jones, L.	Byles, William Pollard	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cairns, Thomas	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l)
Barker, John	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't)	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Erskine, David C.
Barnard, E. B.	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Barnes, G. N.	Clough, William	Essex, R. W.
Beale, W. P.	Clynes, J. R.	Farrell, James Patrick
Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastb'ne)	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Beck, A. Cecil	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Ffrench, Peter
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Cogan, Denis J.	Fullerton, Hugh
Billson, Alfred	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cooper, G. J.	Gill, A. H.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	Ginnell, L.
Boland, John	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Glover, Thomas
Bowerman, C. W.	Cory, Clifford John	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brace, William	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Branch, James	Crean, Eugene	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Brigg, John	Cremer, William Randal	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Crombie, John William	Hall, Frederick
Brooke, Stopford	Crossley, William J.	Halpin, J.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Dalziel, James Henry	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Menzies, Walter	Rowlands, J.
Hart-Davies, T.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Harwood, George	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Mooney, J. J.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Hayden, John Patrick	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Sears, J. E.
Hedges, A. Paget	Morrell, Philip	Seaverns, J. H.
Henry, Charles S.	Morse, L. L.	Seddon, J.
Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hills, J. W.	Murray, James	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Myer, Horatio	Sherwell, Arthur James
Hodge, John	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hogan, Michael	Nicholls, George	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Holland, Sir William Henry	Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hooper, A. G.	Nolan, Joseph	Snowden, P.
Hope, W. Bateman (S'm'rs't, N.)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Stranger, H. Y.
Horniman, Emslie John	Nuttall, Harry	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)	Steadman, W. C.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Sullivan, Donal
Jardine, Sir J.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Summerbell, T.
Jenkins, J.	O'Grady, J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)	O'Malley, William	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Mara, James	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Jowett, F. W.	Paul, Herbert	Thomasson, Franklin
Kearley, Hudson E.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Toulmin, George
Kekewich, Sir George	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kelley, George D.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wallace, Robert
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Walsh, Stephen
Laidlaw, Robert	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Walters, John Tudor
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Radford, G. H.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Lamont, Norman	Rainy, A. Rolland	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wardle, George J.
Lehmann, R. C.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lough, Thomas	Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lundon, W.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lupton, Arnold	Rees, J. D.	Whitbread, Howard
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Whitehead, Rowland
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Richardson, A.	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Macpherson, J. T.	Rickett, J. Compton	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilson, P.W. (St. Pancras, S.)
M'Crae, George	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Killop, W.	Robertson, Rt. Hon. E. (Dundee)	Winfrey, R.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
M'Micking, Major G.	Robinson, S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Shackleton.
Maddison, Frederick	Roe, Sir Thomas
Markham, Arthur Basil	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Masterman, C. F. G.	Rose, Charles Day
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex, F.	Bull, Sir William James	Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Agnew, George William	Carlile, E. Hildred	Fardell, Sir T. George
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cavendish, Rt. Hon Victor C.W.	Fletcher, J. S.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Balcarres, Lord	Chance, Frederick William	Fuller, John Michael F.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Furness, Sir Christopher
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Craik, Sir Henry	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Hamilton, Marquess of
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Dickinson, W. H. (St Pancras, N.)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Idris, T. H. W.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Everett, R. Lacey	Kimber, Sir Henry
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Faber, George Denison (York)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Partington, Oswald	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lambert, George	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Liddell, Henry	Ratcliff, Major R. F.	Valentia, Viscount
Maclean, Donald	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Vivian, Henry
M'Kenna, Reginald	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Massie, J.	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Younger, George
Meagher, Michael	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ashley and Lord Robert Cecil
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Morpeth, Viscount	Spicer, Sir Albert

Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 1, after the word 'ship' to insert the word 'vessel.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR W. ROBSON moved to insert after "1894" the words "except that seamen to whom Section 10 of that Act applies shall include pilots." This was, he said, an important Amendment and one of substance, as it extended the definition of seamen so as to include pilots. The word "pilot" was, however, limited to some extent by the Act of 1894. The Amendment would not apply to foreign pilots, but it seemed hard that this particular class of seafarers should be excluded from the benefit of the Act.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 2, to insert after '1894,' the words except that seamen to whom Section 10 of that Act applies shall include pilots."—(Sir W. Robson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

was very glad that the hon. and learned Member had moved this Amendment, because had he not done so he had been asked by the pilots around our coasts to bring the matter forward.

SIR W. ROBSON moved the following addition to the clause "'Manager,' in relation to a ship means the ship's husband or other person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted by or on behalf of the owner." It was necessary to define in the definition clause what the word "manager" meant.

MR. ASHLEY

asked what the expression "ship's husband" meant?

SIR W. ROBSON

said that 'ship's husband' was a term of art known to all people engaged in shipping and in commerce. He was a person who managed the ship, and a ship in nautical language being a female the man who managed her was called her husband. It was a perfectly legitimate relationship.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 2, at the end, to insert the words 'manager' in relation to a ship means the ship's husband or other person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted by or on behalf of the owner."—(Sir W, Robson.)

*MR. GLADSTONE moved to amend the definition of "outworker," so that the term should mean "a person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, or repaired, or adapted for sale, in his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the materials or articles." This provision was, he said, introduced in order to make it clear what "outworker" meant.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 8, to leave out from the word 'whom,' to the word 'premises' in line 9, and to insert the words 'articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, or repaired, or adapted for sale, in his own home or on other.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)

inquired whether it was not possible to do something for this class of person. He knew that they had settled that the outworker was to be excluded from the operation of the Act; at the same time it appeared to him that the temptations would be increased to employers to give out work to this class of people and so avoid liability. Could not the right hon. Gentleman do anything either by this Bill or in any other way for this class of persons?

* MR. GLADSTONE

was afraid he could not answer that question in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 10, to leave out the word 'work,' and to insert the words 'materials or articles."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) moved the omission of Clause 14. He said he did so not in order to attack the right hon. Gentleman, but to give him an opportunity of stating the ground upon which he thought it desirable to make this great departure. The clause would do away with the ancient right in Scotland to have on appeal a trial by jury under the Employers' Liability Act. That was a most important departure to take in a Bill of this kind. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman considered that this privilege had been considerably abused in Scotland, and that a number of speculative agents, of solicitors as they were called in Eng-land, had against the interests of their clients been the cause of bringing many cases before the Court of Session which could have been settled under the Employers' Liability Act on a more equitable basis. There were in Scotland no doubt shady members of various professions as there were in England, but the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to say that that applied as a general rule throughout Scotland. Generally he thought it would be better to let the workmen, who were usually members of a trade union, look after their own interests in the way they thought best. He believed every trade union in the kingdom was against this clause. Both the trade unions and the mining organisations in Scotland had passed unanimous resolutions against it, and so far as he had been able to ascertain not a single resolution had been passed in its favour. If that was not a case for the rejection of the clause, it was at least a case for its reconsideration. He wished to know, if the right of a trial by jury on appeal was to be taken away, what was intended to be substituted for it, because there was a strong feeling upon the part of the workers of Scot-land that their cause was safer in the hands of a jury than in the hands of a Judge alone. He thought if the right was to be taken away the House ought to have some understanding that in Scotland they should have a similar procedure to that in the county courts of this country. He begged to move.

* MR. SPEAKER

There being no seconder the Amendment falls to the ground.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 14, lines 19 and 20, to leave out 'instead of taking proceedings for recovering compensation under this Act.' In page 14, line 22, after 'accident,' to insert 'arising out of and in the course of the employment.' In page 14, line 23, to leave out 'a.' In page 14, line 25, to leave out 'or at common law.' In page 14, line 27, after 'shall,' to insert 'notwithstanding anything contained in that Act,' In page 14, line 27, after 'removed,' to insert under that Act or otherwise."—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 27, to leave out from 'session' to end of sub-section, and insert 'nor shall it be appealed to that court otherwise than by appeal on a question of law; and for the purposes of such appeal the provisions of the second schedule to this Act in regard to an appeal from the decision of the sheriff on any question of law determined by him as arbitrator under this Act shall apply."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill"

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

expressed his conviction that this Amendment was dictated by a desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to put a stop to vexatious actions and the practical robbery of working men by a lot of land sharks who had been engaged in raising perfectly useless and unnecessary actions. That would be stopped by this Amendment. He had heard it constantly said that in Scotland the lawyer's minions were often in the house of a man who had suffered from an accident before the doctor. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,) Hawik Burghs

said he perhaps might be allowed to explain, as this section contained a very important alteration in the right of appeal, how this matter of judicial procedure under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 stood in Scotland. The object of the clause was to prevent the compensation awarded to the working classes of Scotland from being seriously encroached upon by the operations of those who were neither workpeople nor employers, but who belonged to the professional classes, and who as the law at present stood succeeded in many cases in depriving the working classes of any effective compensation. In England it was competent to have a jury in the county court, but that was optional and in many parts of the country very little advantage was taken of the right. What he proposed to do under this Amendment was to prevent in Scotland actions being taken from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session. Here was a statute which affected the poorest part of the community; yet when its machinery was put into operation the expenses incurred by agents of the kind which had been described, on an appeal to the Court of Session on a matter affecting compensation often, of a most slender amount, ran into hundreds of pounds. Every hon. Member would understand his personal anxiety, when such a Bill as this was going through the House, that he should not lose the opportunity of making it effective in its whole purpose to those who should have compensation. One or two by no means exceptional cases in the ordinary course of law in Scotland had come to his notice. One case brought in the Sheriff Court was sent to the Court of Session; a jury was empanelled and two counsel a side instructed. The cost of getting compensation to the amount of £30 was no less than £200. In another case £60 was obtained and the costs were £335 and so on. One very gross case had occurred recently. The jury in that case awarded an injured workman £25, but in order to get that amount his case was taken to the Court of Session, where the costs were no less than £225. It was very doubtful whether that workman would get a single sixpence. Because as everyone knew there were a great many extra-judicial costs and they might absorb and more than absorb the amount which had been awarded as compensation. He quite granted what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to certain unions. Their case was well presented to him by their secretary. This gentleman, who presented a case apparently in favour of the present law, was himself a lawyer, and he (Mr. Shaw) took the opportunity of asking him a few questions. The secretary very properly said that owing to the way in which the cases were conducted all the money recovered in the union cases went to the union operatives. He (Mr. Shaw) asked him whether there were any extra judicial expenses. His reply was "Oh, a matter of £30 or £40." And then, in answer to his question as to who paid this, the secretary said that the unions paid it. He (Mr. Shaw) replied, substantially, in these words— Then the unions are steadily bleeding themselves in order to pay extra-judicial costs under a system which I want to abolish under this Bill. Could the House have any more convincing testimony that that was a case which this House would wisely remedy? It had been suggested that the unions took care of themselves, and that they made the contributions and the particular aggrieved party did not suffer. But what if that party were not a member of a union? Then the whole burden fell upon the individual workman or his relatives. This was emphatically the case of the poor and those that have no helper. And he quite mistook the trade unions of the country if they were not with him in this consideration, that it ought to be the very special care of Parliament to look after the case of the unorganised workers, and that if the average sum wore on the very moderate scale he had mentioned—and it was very much under what one's own experience confirmed—they ought to see to it that where there was no union to protect the workers, the widows and children did not have to pay that sum to the lawyers. The hon. Gentleman had stated truly that there was no system of jury trial in Scotland in the Sheriff Court. He proposed, subject to the approval of the Government, to submit a scheme of Sheriff Court reform and, so far as he was concerned, he confessed that he would personally welcome the introduction of an option similar to that which existed in England; but he might point out that a good deal of the opposition of trade unions in Scotland arose from the fact that these schemes for jury trial could not be embodied in the Bill. It would require the formation of a Sheriff Court code, and they would require very carefully to watch the panel from which juries in those cases were formed. Furthermore, there had been a certain opposition to the Bill because in the form in which he originally drew this clause it proposed to abolish the appeal for jury trial at common law. The employers' unions wanted the appeal for trial at common law done away with also. He had opposed that. He said that the length he proposed to go was at present a fair Parliamentary step to take. He admitted the deep cut it made into existing procedure, but he was not at present disposed to take away the time-honoured system of trial at common law. Of course under the clause as framed appeals should be left open on points of law; but they would be promptly and inexpensively disposed of. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had so persistently maintained the necessity in all this legislation of seeing that whatever was done the effective remedy should go to the widows and children. In that view, and in the hope that the House would not lose this excellent opportunity of a good remedy for a state of matters approaching a scandal, he ventured to submit this clause.

MR. DALZIEL

explained that he had not asked for a seconder to his Amendment because he understood that the hon. Member for the Ince Division was going to second it, but the hon. Gentleman was not in the House, owing, no doubt, to some inadvertence. He was glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that there was some prospect of the provision of a jury in the case of the Sheriff Court. He was only sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not more definite as to when that measure would be introduced. There was a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the costs in Scotland, but all cases in law cost a great deal too much. He regretted that there was not in Scotland a system, as in the case of the county courts of England, whereby no costs were allowed unless certified by the Registrar. With regard to the gentleman the Lord Advocate cross-examined on the subject of costs, he had a suspicion who the gentleman was, and he was not sure the right hon. gentleman was correct in saying he was secretary to the Unions.

* MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he might have been wrong in that. He understood the individual in question was a, prominent official and led the movement. He might add that he was a very excellent and capable professional man, very justly respected by the unions, for whom he spoke on almost every occasion.

MR. DALZIEL

said he believed he knew the gentlemen referred to, but he did not think the unions in question would acknowledge him as a leader. He was their legal adviser. It was not fair to put all the cases of the kind referred to on the same basis, and he thought, generally speaking, the parties were well advised. However, he did not propose to offer any further opposition to the clause.

MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

said it was not through any disrespect that the hon. Member did not get a seconder for his Amendment. It was owing to the unexpected absence of the hon. Member for the Ince Division, who was attending a deputation, that the Amendment was not seconded. He himself did not second the Amendment because he was not in favour of it. He preferred the course mapped out by the Lord Advocate. As a member of the Departmental Committee it was borne in upon him with overwhelming force that the particular part of the appeal appertaining to trial by jury had been scandalously abused. He did not say it had been done in all cases wilfully, but men in pursuance of their calling had done it, and great expense had been incurred by the labouring classes throughout Scotland. Although he was in Parliament as a trade union representative, or rather as a representative trade unionist, he was present on behalf of a constituency which was one of the poorest in the country, representing people whose wages left no margin even to join a trade union. These people were his first consideration in the House, and it was because he was absolutely sure that the provisions of the Act as applied to these people had been abused, and that the money of the trade unions had been to some extent spent unnecessarily, that he was prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Advocate, apart from his proposal—which he was not aware of until this afternoon— for placing the law of Scotland on the same footing as that of England. That was an additional satisfaction to him and an additional reason for sup- porting the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 30, to leave out sub-section (b)."—(The Lord-Advocate.) In page 15, line 10, at end, to add the words, '(2) Every scheme under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in force at the commencement of this Act shall, if re-certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, have effect as if it were a scheme under this Act. (3) The Registrar shall re-certify any such scheme if it is proved to his satisfaction that the scheme conforms, or has been so modified as to conform, with the provisions of this Act as to schemes. (4) If any such scheme has not been so re-certified before the expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act, the certificate thereof shall be revoked.' In page 15, line 12, to leave out the word 'January,' and insert the word 'July.'"— (Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Schedule 1, page 16, line 7, to leave out the words" at the time of his death.'"—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent Ashford)

asked the Home Secretary to give his reason why those words were to be omitted.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said the omission of the words was consequent upon the House having accepted an Amendment to Clause 13. A county court judge had held that a woman who claimed compensation was not totally dependent at the time of her husbands' death because she earned a few shillings a week charing. This Amendment would meet that point.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith) moved to insert in the schedule words to secure compensation representing 156 times the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards the maintenance of his dependants. He thought that would constitute a fair basis of negotiation.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

formally seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 16, line 22, to leave out from the word 'sum,' to the end of paragraph (ii.), and insert the words, 'as shall represent one hundred and fifty-six times the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards the maintenance of such dependants for a period of twelve months prior to the date of the accident causing the death.'"— (Sir William Bull.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

* MR. GLADSTONE

said he could not accept the hon. Member's proposal. It was quite impossible to propose an alteration of the scale in this respect, because it would lead to proposals being forced upon them for altering the scale in other directions. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM BULL

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 16, line 26, after the word 'dependants,' to insert the words, 'provided that any weekly payments made under this Act and any lump sum paid in redemption thereof, shall be deducted from such sum.'"—(Mr. Cory.)

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 16, lines 30 and 31, to leave out the words 'after the first three days'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. COCHRANE moved an Amendment to add words providing that in the case of a serious accident, such as a fracture of a limb, or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or any other serious personal injury incapacitating a workman for over twenty-eight days the employer should be liable to pay compensation for the whole period of disablement. At present, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, an injured workman did not receive any compensation for the first fourteen days of any incapacity resulting from an accident. When this Bill was introduced the period was reduced to seven days and was further reduced in Committee to three days. This had since been altered back again in the first clause to seven days. The Home Secretary now proposed that an injured workman should not get compensation for an injury which did not incapacitate him for seven days, but if the incapacity lasted for fourteen days then the injured workman was to receive compensation from the date of the accident. Hon. Members below the gangway would like to put down malingering, and they were no friends of the malingerer. Where a man met with a serious injury the loss of a week might be a very serious consideration. What would happen under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment? Simply that a man would get more money if he remained idle than if he went back to work, and that was a direct incentive to a man not to go back to work. The nearer the man got to the period of fourteen days the stronger was the incentive. Under his Amendment where a man lost a limb or an eye or some other serious personal injury he would be able to get compensation at once. There were some serious injuries the nature of which it was impossible even for a medical referee to tell for some time after they had been sustained. If a man suffered from an injury which incapacitated him from work for twenty-eight days that would be a sufficient indication that his injury was a serious one, and he would under this Amendment get compensation from the date of the accident. He thought that fairly and squarely met the difficulty that arose. Various employers' mutual insurance companies had drawn up scales which showed that while fatal accidents had remained nearly constant in point of numbers since the passing of the Act of 1897, there had been a remarkable increase in the number of claims for lesser accidents ranging from 21 to as high as 63 per 1,000. That showed that the Act was becoming better known, The fact that the fatal accidents had remained constant seemed to point to the inference that accidents generally had not increased, and that therefore they must look in another direction for the explanation of this marked increase in the number of claims for compensation. He knew it was unpopular to speak of economy in this House. It was far easier to say "Let them all come, and divide up the property of the employers amongst them." He thought that they owed something to the people who provided the work on which the country maintained its position as a manufacturing nation. It was their duty to see that funds which they compelled the employers to provide were not frittered away and wasted. This Amendment would be accepted for what it was worth by the large mass of employers. He hoped that if it were carried the workmen who sustained serious injuries would get compensation from the date of the accident, which he was sure everybody desired.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 16, line 35, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that where the disablement arises from a fracture of a limb, or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or from any other serious personal injury which prevents the workman from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed for a period exceeding twenty-eight days, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation for the whole period of such disablement, starting front the date of the accident.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

* MR. GLADSTONE

acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman had stated his case in reasonable and moderate language, The difference between them on this point was in regard to the qualifying period. The House would observe that the hon. Gentleman had failed to define the very important word "serious" in his Amendment. He did not think the hon. Gentleman's argument went to show that the wording of the Amendment succeeded in defining that word, or that it would really give any adequate direction to an arbitrator in coming to a conclusion. His hon. friend's contention was that the mere fact that a man was incapacitated for twenty-eight days would go to show that it was a serious accident.

* MR. COCHRANE

It would be a measure.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said it would be a time measure or time limit. That being so he assumed that the seriousness was to be measured by the time.

* MR. COCHRANE

said he desired two measures of the extent of the injury. The first measure was one which any man could see for himself in the case of a broken arm, the loss of a finger, or the loss of an eye. There was another class of accidents, the effect of which could not be so well seen, such as a strained back or an internal crush, for which there must be another class of measure. If a man was incapacitated for twenty-eight days there would be a time measure.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said he followed the hon. Gentleman's point. His time measure of a serious accident provided that if a man was disabled for twenty-eight days his compensation was to start from the date of the accident. He would point out that the effect of this was that the hon. Gentleman's argument against fourteen days fell to the ground.

* MR. COCHRANE

No man would remain off for twenty-eight days if he was not seriously injured.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said that if at the end of three weeks a man who had been seriously injured was convalescent or approaching convalescence he would be able to prolong his illness till the expiry of twenty-eight days in order to complete the qualifying period. The Government preferred the period which they had already announced and by which they stood.

MR. CORY (Cornwall, St. Ives)

said he had always felt sympathy with the man who met with a serious accident, and did not receive payment from the date of the accident. With that in his mind he proposed in Committee an Amendment similar to that under discussion, which gave rise to the Home Secretary's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the principle, but had carried it so far as to make it entirely unfair to the employers. He thought the measure of a severe accident proposed in the present Amendment a very proper one. The Home Secretary had said that to fix a period of twenty-eight days would not prevent malingering any more than to fix fourteen days, but he thought that was hardly correct. If a man was really shamming he might get sick of it in twenty-eight days, whereas he might be willing to keep on for fourteen days. To extend the period to twenty-eight days would do no injustice to the man who was really seriously injured, but might make it less easy for the man who was desirous of malingering. The Home Secretary had said that the effect of the present Act would be as if wages of 20s. a week were raised to 20s. 1½d. and that the Bill would add another 1½d. or 2d. That did not seem a very important affair, and yet Members who had collieries which were losing money would find on looking at their pay sheets that to add 1d. or 2d. a ton was a very serious matter. In many cases collieries were being kept on at a loss year after year in the hope of improvement, and also because the owner did not wish to discharge men. Therefore the question of extra cost not only entered into the calculations of employers, but should not be lost sight of by the workmen, because it might make the difference between keeping a colliery open and shutting it down.

* MR. GILL (Bolton)

desired to thank the Home Secretary for proposing his Amendment. The organised workers of the country had for years been asking that they should be paid compensation from the day an accident happened. It seemed to be forgotten that this Bill was bringing in a much poorer class than formerly obtained the benefit of compensation. There were thousands of men who were not earning more than £1 a week. How could they manage to keep a family on that and also save against the day when they met with an injury? In former days when an accident occurred an employer sent an injured workman to his own doctor and paid the bill; but that was almost a thing of the past. In Lancashire at any rate the workman paid his own bill, and if he was off work for fourteen days the lost wages, together with the surgeon's bill, amounted to more than the compensation he received. He was not prepared to admit even that the employer found the whole of the money for the compensation. When he himself had had to negotiate with employers' committees on questions of advances or reductions of wages the compensation cost was put as a reason for not granting an advance. The employer insured against fire, against injury to his machinery, sometimes against failure, and he thought it only reasonable for him to insure his workmen who contributed as much as his machinery to earn the profit of his business. The cost was not great. In the spinning section of the cotton trade it had gone up to 6s. per cent. and they were told that it would increase still more; but even then the total did not reach one penny in the pound on the wages paid. So that under the circumstances there was no need for alarm, as trade was now in a satisfactory condition. In the manufacturing section of the cotton trade the amount was much less than that. He therefore hoped that the Home Secretary would stick to the provision of fourteen days in the Bill.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

said that the hon. Member for Bolton had stated that the workman would after injury have to pay the doctor's fee and that the compensation would be thereby swallowed up. All he could say was that the firm with which he and his family had been associated for 120 years had always found the doctor's fees. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider, in preference to his Amendment, that which he himself had put on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee had stated that he was doing the best he could for both parties, and surely he might make some compromise. The representatives of the workmen acknowledged that there was some distinction between a slight accident and a serious accident, and that there should be some brief interval before the judgment took place. He thought the difference between twenty-eight and fourteen days was a very slight one; but he suggested as a compromise twenty-one days instead of fourteen or twenty-eight, during which opportunity would be given of distinguishing between a slight and a serious accident. The Amendment of his hon. friend had this advantage, that they would be freed from the litigation that might arise from the definition of what was a serious accident. Statistics showed that employers had not exhibited the slightest desire to drive a hard bargain, and an arrangement might be come to which would satisfy both parties, and at the same time cause no injury to any industry.

MR. MARKHAM

said he did not think the hon. Member for North Ayrshire was a great employer of labour, or that the hon. Member for St. Ives had any large experience of the working of the present Workmen's Compensation Act. In France if a man met with an injury the compensation was paid in nine days. In practice the man before he got compensation had to go to the office and be inspected by the manager, and if the manager had any doubt he went to the doctor and got a certificate. Under the law in this country as it had been for the last ten years thousands of men who were earning only 25s. or 30s. a week had gone to work after meeting with an accident when they were not fit to work. He spoke from experience on this subject. An hon. Member had spoken of the cost of compensation as being 2d. per ton of coal raised in Wales. Since the Act of 1897 was passed there had been more money made in the coal trade than in any period since 1870; and at the present time they were making more money in Wales in the coal trade than they knew what to do with. The whole burden that Parliament had put on the trade did not amount to more than 1d. or 1½d. a ton. That did not amount to more than a quarter per cent. on the dividends of the coal companies. It was their duty when they saw all the wealth being piled up in the country to do what they could to protect the lives of those who created that wealth.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

said that the hon. Member for Mansfield spoke as if he were the only colliery proprietor in the House, and had suggested that the charge on colliery owners was by no means a heavy burden. But he could assert that the charge for compensation on colliery owners was equal sometimes to 3½d. or 4d. per ton; and if the right hon. Gentleman intended to impose a further 1d. per ton he would be laying a heavy burden indeed on the employers of labour. He made no appeal on behalf of the employer. He and his friends came there to do their duty to the workmen and to see that they were compensated when injured. But there were questions to be considered over and above money compensation—the question of good order and discipline in a colliery. It was absolutely necessary to have in a colliery foremen and oversmen to see that the men did their duty and did not sit down resting themselves when they ought to be taking part in the work which they were paid to do. If that sort of thing took place in the works, what happened at home? The man often laid up for a fortnight when he only ought to lay up for two days. The question of labour was a very serious one for employers, because their machines had to be going and their establishments to be kept working even if they were short of hands. Statistics were brought before him from month to month regarding the working of the Compensation Act, and anyone looking through the list would see how very small was the number of cases in which compensation was awarded, and that in the main they were of a trivial character, such as injury to a finger and things of that kind, so that if a man desired to get back to work he could do so in a very short time. Many of the accidents were not indeed of a real or serious character, and, without accusing the men of malingering or being wicked or careless, he did not desire, as hon. Members below the gangway did, that they should be put in a stained glass window. It was the fact that men who had sustained a slight accident were very apt not to come back to work if there was any temptation to keep them at home. One great temptation occurred when a pit was working half time and there were only three working days. A man would say that there was no need for him to go to work because he was getting half wages, and as they were only working half time it was better for him to stop at home. In the cause, not only of the worker, but of the discipline and proper working of the pits, he urged this proposal. He knew very well he would not get a favourable decision, but he wished to point out that the employers had a very strong feeling on this point, for an inducement was being removed by means of which men would be brought back to work. They certainly approved of the clause suggested by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, because it really gave effect to a reasonable proposal. The House had taken away from the employers their powers in regard to wilful misconduct, and the power of preventing a workman from going into an infectious place, and he thought that here at all events they ought to have some protection. He had no feeling against the men; in fact, in one of the works with which he was connected the owners had left the whole payment and management of the compensation fund to the men, and since they had done so their costs and charges had been greatly reduced. That was a great credit to the men. While it was the master's purse they were dipping into they felt that it was a very wide and deep one, but immediately the fund came under the control of their fellows they seemed to have a higher standard as between each other and to feel that they had not the same fund to dip into. The proposal under which encouragement would be given to a man to delay his return to work would be a

great injury to the country and the general prosperity of the workmen. He felt it right to make this protest, as the employers' views should be known, and they felt themselves injuriously affected by this clause.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

hoped the debate would not be continued, in view of the understanding that it should finish about eight o'clock.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes,307. (Division List No. 403.)

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Percy, Earl
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cory, Clifford John	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Ratcliff, Major R, F.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Balcarres, Lord	Doughty, Sir George	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, George Denison (York)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hamilton, Marquess of	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kimber, Sir Henry	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Butcher, Samuel Henry	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Younger, George
Carlile, E. Hildred	Liddell, Henry
Cave, George	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Viscount Valentia.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Agnew, George William	Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Berridge, T. H. D.	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd)	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Armitage, R.	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Byles, William Pollard
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Billson, Alfred	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Astbury, John Meir	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight
Atherley-Jones, L.	Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Cawley, Sir Frederick
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Boland, John	Chance, Frederick William
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Balfour, Robert, (Lanark)	Brace, William	Cheetham, John Frederick
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bramsdon, T. A.	Clarke, C. Goddard
Barker, John	Branch, James	Cleland, J. W.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somers.)	Brigg, John	Clough, William
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bright, J. A.	Clynes, J. R.
Barnard, E. B.	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)
Barnes, G. N.	Brodie, H. C.	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Beale, W. P.	Brooke, Stopford	Cogan, Denis J.
Beauchamp, E.	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J T (Cheshire)	Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W.)
Beaumont, Hn W. C. B. (Hexham)	Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Beck, A. Cecil	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd)
Bell, Richard	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Burke, E. Haviland-	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Cowan, W. H.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Partington, Oswald
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Paul, Herbert
Crean, Eugene	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cremer, William Randal	Jowett, F. W.	Philipps, Col, Ivor (S'thampton)
Crombie, John William	Kearley, Hudson E.	Philipps. Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crossley, William J.	Kekewich, Sir George	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Dalziel, James Henry	Kelley, George D.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Kincaid-Smith, Gaptain	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Radford, G. H.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Rainy, A. Rolland
Delany, William	Laidlaw, Robert	Raphael, Herbert H.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lambert, George	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Dillon, John	Lamont, Norman	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Lehmann, R. C.	Rees, J. D.
Donelan, Captain A.	Lewis, John Herbert	Renton, Major Leslie
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lough, Thomas	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Lundon, W.	Richardson, A.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Luttrell, Hugh Eownes	Rickett, J. Compton
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Elibank, Master of	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Maclean, Donald	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Essex, R. W.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Everett, R. Lacey	Macpherson, J. T.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Farrell, James Patrick	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Robinson, S.
Fenwick, Charles	M'Callum, John M.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	M'Crae, George	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Ffrench, Peter	M'Kenna, Reginald	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	M'Killop, W.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Fullerton, Hugh	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Schwann, C, Duncan (Hyde)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Micking, Major G.	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Gill, A. H.	Mallet, Charles E.	Sears, J. E.
Ginnell, L.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Seaverns. J. H.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Markham, Arthur Basil	Seddon, J.
Glover, Thomas	Massie, J.	Shackleton, David James
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Meagher, Michael	Sherwell, Arthur James
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Micklem, Nathaniel	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hall, Frederick	Molteno, Percy Alport	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Halpin, J.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mooney, J. J.	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Snowden, P.
Hart-Davies, T.	Morrell, Philip	Spicer, Sir Albert
Harwood, George	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Murphy, John	Steadman, W. C.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Murray, James	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hayden, John Patrick	Myer, Horatio	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Napier, T. B.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hemmerde, Edward George	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Sullivan, Donal
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Summerbell, T.
Henry, Charles S.	Nicholls, George	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Higham, John Sharp	Nolan, Joseph	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Hodge, John	Nuttall, Harry	Thomasson, Franklin
Hogan, Michael	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Tillett, Louis John
Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Tomkinson, James
Hooper, A. G.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Toulmin, George
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Verney, F. W.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Vivian, Henry
Hyde, Clarendon	O'Hare, Patrick	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Idris, T. H. W.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)	Walsh, Stephen
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Malley, William	Walters, John Tudor
Jackson, R. S.	O'Mara, James	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jenkins, J.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Winfrey, R.
Wardle, George J.	Whitehead, Rowland	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wiles, Thomas
Whitbread, Howard	Williamson, A.
White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Wilson, T. W. (Westhoughton)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 1, after 'that,' to insert the words '(a) if the incapacity lasts less than two weeks no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said the Amendment he now moved was brought forward in accordance with, a declaration made in the Standing Committee. The clause as originally produced contained a provision for a special rate of compensation in the case of old men, but it did not find favour with the Committee, and was withdrawn on the understanding that an Amendment of it should be brought up on Report drafted in such a way as to include injured and maimed men. In order that the House might be able to express a free and unfettered opinion he should not move this as a Government clause, and hon. Members would have to make up their minds as to the way in which they should vote. The Departmental Committee, which took a great deal of evidence on this point, came to a very clear decision upon it. They thought that in consequence of the difficulty which aged, infirm, and maimed men had in finding occupation, some special arrangement ought to be made by which that difficulty should be as far as possible diminished, and they recommended that it should be in the power of the employer and the workman to contract for a lower rate of compensation. He had always recognised that this was a question which directly and immediately concerned the working men and working women of the country, and he would not venture to put an imperfectly formed opinion of his own against the actual experience of those immediately concerned. He knew hon. Members opposite and on his own side of the House below the gangway were not favourably disposed towards this proposal, but there was a great deal of evidence given to the Departmental Committee in its favour. In the new form which this Amendment took the Government were careful not to obtrude any particular age at which a man should be brought to the notice of his employer. There were Amendments on the Paper to this proposal, one of which said that when a man reached the age of sixty it should be brought to the attention of the employer. He was absolutely opposed to any such thing. After full examination he had come to the firm conclusion that it would be most ill-advised for the House to enact that when a man reached the age of sixty it should be brought under the notice of his employer and, what was more important, under the notice of the insurance company, and that he should be stigmatised as being not worth the wages of an able-bodied man. He heard with great pleasure a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his hope that at no distant date he would be able practically to deal with the question of old age pensions. Let it not be supposed that the proposal, if carried out, would meet all the difficulties of the clause before the House. It might or it might not meet the case of the old men, but it would not meet the difficulty of those who were maimed or enfeebled through some physical cause connected with their employment. The evidence given before the Departmental Committee seemed to him to show strongly that the workmen were in favour of the proposal he now submitted. He hoped the House would give its best attention to the case, and form an impartial judgment on a question which was of great importance to a vast army of men.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(b) in the ease of a workman who has, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, obtained from a certifying surgeon a certificate to the effect that on account of old age, or of the loss of an eye or a limb, or of any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in the regulations, he is specially liable to serious accident if employed in any employment of any class specified in the certificate, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act, the compensation, if payable in respect of an accident happening to the workman whilst employed in an employment of any such class, shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less— (i) where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependants, than fifty pounds; (ii) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, than a weekly payment during the incapacity of ten shillings; and"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. BARNES

said that, on behalf of his colleagues, and, he believed, on behalf of every humane and sympathetic man in the House, he rose for the purpose of strongly opposing this Amendment. He believed the Government were seriously and anxiously desirous to do something to mitigate the hard lot of the man who had been overtaken by old age and infirmity. They all admitted that evil, and they knew that owing to the increasing intensity of workshop life and industrial competition there was not the same chance of employment at sixty or even at fifty. It was a case of "too old at forty" in many occupations requiring physical strength rather than any special aptitude. Therefore so far as that particular phase of the question was concerned they all admitted the evil. They believed that the Government were seriously anxious to grapple with it, but he maintained that the proposal now made, so far from being likely to do old men any good, was far more likely to do them serious injury. In the Bill as it was presented to the Committee the proposal was that a man should be barred from employment or should have a smaller amount of compensation when he reached sixty years of age. That was bad enough. There was no special duty thrust upon the man of saying anything about his age, which was to be left to somebody outside. That also was bad enough, because probably the insurance companies would have their agents around and would do something to induce the employers to discharge old men. What did they find now? Instead of having a hard and fast rule of sixty years or something of that sort, and instead of anything in the nature of a guiding principle in the clause, they had a vague and loose proposal. A man might at forty or fifty, after a life of toil, find his eyes getting dim and his back weaker, and in the proposal of the Home Secretary there would be a temptation for him to go to a certifying surgeon and get a certificate with which he could go to his employer and contract himself out of the Act of Parliament. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"] There were many reasons. They, as trade unionists, were engaged— as some of the hon. Members above the gangway in a particular profession —in upholding a certain standard of pay, and they knew that anything that made it easier for a man suffering from physical disability arising from approaching old age to dissociate himself from his fellows and individually sell his labour under the standard wage, as he would be tempted to do under this proposal, would tell not only against the man but against the whole class to which he belonged. They felt strongly in this matter, and were convinced that this proposal was one of the worst things in the Bill. He appealed to the House to reject what they were convinced would be a serious blot upon the Act.

MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

quite agreed that there were injuries so severe as to increase the liability to accidents. On the other hand, it seemed to him there would be very serious difficulty created by this Amendment in deciding what did or did not impair the efficiency of a workman. For instance, it was stated that the loss of an eye was sufficient to impair efficiency, but in a very recent-case the doctor, on behalf of the insurance company, swore that the loss of an eye did not impair the efficiency of a quarryman. The best argument against the suggestion that old age should be taken into account in estimating compensation was that he knew no insurance company which asked any question on the proposal form as to the age of the workman to be insured. The reason was that as a rule old men were more careful and were not put to do the most dangerous work, besides which, if a young man were permanently injured, the liability of the insurance company in the ordinary course of events would last many years compared with the duration of their liability in the case of an accident to an old man. He had received from a committee of the Accident Insurance Offices a large number of suggestions for Amendments to this Bill, but it was rather significant that there was no suggestion made by them that old age should in any way affect the question of liability.

MR. MARKHAM

appealed to the House to follow the lead of the Home Secretary in this matter. The questions involved excited a good deal of interest amongst the working men in the country. It was a fact that a certain section of his constituents disagreed with him on the matter. He thought that on this question, however, employers of labour were better judges than the representatives of the working men. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for the Eifion Division had said, to his own personal knowledge there were large industrial companies which refused to set men on who had attained the age of between sixty and seventy, because of the fear of having to pay compensation. Reference had been made to the fact that no insurance company asked any question about old men. This was quite true, but with a very large experience of insurance under the Act he could say that there was no company which yet knew what the cost of insuring was, and that their rates of insurance had been rapidly rising, some 30 per cent. having been added in the last year. As for mutual insurance societies, he had one in his mind which made it a rule that no old men were to be employed. He asked the House to consider whether the interests of old and imfirm workmen were really served when they told the employer that unless he paid the full rate of compensation he could not employ such men. He thought it one of the greatest hardships that could be inflicted on old men to debar them from obtaining employment because of the extra charge on the employer. It might be said that he was speaking from a selfish point of view. So far as his own personal interest was concerned it made not a farthing of difference to him, because the companies he was connected with were insured and he only supported the Amendment because he did not wish to see em- ployment closed to a large body of men. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow said his object in opposing this proposal was to maintain a high rate of compensation for the old men. Under State Socialism it might be possible to secure the same compensation to old men as to others, but while they were dealing with the state of affairs in which large joint stock companies operated for purposes of gain it was not practicable. In the interest of the old men, many of whom were to-day prevented from getting employment by the Act of 1897, he supported the Home Secretary in his Amendment.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

said that some hon. Members so far had agreed to extend the Act to all sorts of workpeople, but they were now anxious to limit the Act when dealing with the question of old age. It would be a great mistake to accept the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division had called attention to one phase of the Amendment which seemed to him to answer itself. He had asked whether it was fair that an employer should be required to pay the same rate of compensation in case of accident to a man who was infirm as to a man who was strong and perfect. It was a moral certainty that no employer would take an infirm man into his employment at the same rate of wages as one who was sound and healthy. The consequence would be that in case of an injury, which would be rare, considering the kind of work given to these men, the compensation would be reduced in exactly the same proportion.

MR. MARKHAM

said that unless a man was employed as watchman he was, by the rules of the trade unions, to be paid trade unions wages, or none at all.

MR. J. WARD

said that was not the case. It was impossible for a carpenter with one arm to do the same work as a carpenter with two arms, and a collier would be in the same position. Almost all the men employed by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division were employed at piece-work, and if there was any deficiency in ability to work the remuneration was reduced, and the compensation payable was in proportion. As to the evidence of trade unionist leaders before the Departmental Committee, it only amounted to this, that men in certain trades who looked old and decrepit stood a much smaller chance of employment than those who looked fit and strong and in good health, and an exactly similar statement could have been made before the Act of 1897. The difficulty for old men to get employment prevailed prior to the Workmen's Compensation Act, and would always prevail, for naturally the employer wanted to get young, healthy, able-bodied men, if he possibly could. The old men were naturally at a disadvantage, and he feared that disadvantage would be increased if the Amendment were passed. There was one point in the evidence before the Departmental Committee upon which he would like to say a word from personal knowledge. A witness, who was not a practical man connected with the trade but a grocer, said that since 1897 it had been more difficult for old men to get employment in the building trade. As one with personal experience he ventured to say that in the building trade there was, as a matter of fact, no discrimination. Every employer would admit that a man over forty-five—it might be sixty-five— was, except in some special cases, a much more careful man to have on a scaffold than a young man from nineteen to thirty, and, as a matter of fact, contractors specially selected old and tried men for dangerous work. He had been a foreman himself, and he would not have put on an eighty feet or ninety feet scaffold giddy young fellows who looked at everything that occurred, but good old greybeards who were steady and paid attention to their own business. There was another way of looking at the matter. An old man, when he received an injury, required greater attention and greater care than a young man, and on humanitarian grounds alone he considered the Amendment as most unfortunate. Those who really represented the interests of working class constituencies had only one course to pursue, and that was to oppose the Amendment by all means in their power.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said he was glad to find that the Government was given credit for good motive in this matter. As a rule in these debates he found an economic motive on one side and a humanitarian motive on the other. The question generally was how much they could afford to do for the needy and distressed. In this case it was a conflict between two motives. There was a desire to do what could be done for the aged and infirm, and there was the desire not to lower the general standard of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He admitted that there was much to be said on both sides, and for that reason the Government desired the House to express its opinion freely upon it. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division was right in saying that employers might use a provision of this kind to bring pressure on men to whom it was not really meant to apply, and for purely selfish reasons to induce them to accept a lower scale of compensation. It was true, also, that in all legislation of this kind exceptions were an evil thing. The fewer exceptions they had to the general law the more smoothly would the Act work, and the less litigation there was likely to be. On the other hand, the Government had to take into account the specific cases to which their attention had been drawn, and they felt that by this Bill they were running the risk of the heavy responsibility of turning thousands of men out of the employment in which they were engaged or preventing them from securing the employment which they might otherwise obtain. He mentioned a case in which a gentleman residing in Devonshire had written to the Home Office stating that he was anxious to employ a gardener and to insure him under the Compensation Act. The gardener suffered from epileptic fits, and the Ocean Insurance Company stated that it was quite impossible to cover a man suffering from a complaint of that kind. Representations had also been received from persons interested in the deaf, dumb, and blind, showing the hardships to which persons suffering from these infirmities were subjected owing to the obligations in the way of compensation which were thrown on employers who from charitable or other motives engaged them. Parliament was now extending this measure to all employers, and if a man was rejected by one employer on account of these infirmities he ran the risk of being rejected by all. As to the aged, he thought the difficulty in their case was not so great in that particular as in the case of persons suffering from the loss of sight, or hearing, or from other special infirmities. The trade unionists throughout the country had indeed always urged that the Act caused hardship to the aged, and at their annual conference the Miners' Federation had passed a resolution unanimously declaring that in consequence of the large number of aged workmen dismissed from their employment on account of the Workmen's Compensation Act it was necessary to provide a system of old-age pensions. He thought that perhaps trade unionists had an interest in making out that the case was rather a bad one in order to show the necessity for old age - pensions, while employers had an interest in presenting the case as a bad one in order to show how workmen might suffer if compensation was carried too far. For his own part he was a little sceptical as to whether the Compensation Act had had the effect of throwing old men out of employment merely on account of their age, and he thought the putting in of the figure sixty, as suggested in this Amendment, might possibly be liable to abuse. If it would meet the opinion of the House generally the Government would have no objection to leaving out the words "old age or" and leaving the Amendment to apply to persons suffering from the loss of an eye or limb or any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in regulations. That would of course include infirmities which were due to old age. As he had said, the Government recognised that there was a great deal to be said on both sides, and doubtless in coming to a decision every Member would take the course which, on balancing the arguments, he thought would most conduce to the good of the classes concerned.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said it was but a short time since the Spectator, in one of its weekly lectures, stated that nobody ought to be admitted into the Cabinet after the age of fifty. He supposed they must sorrowfully admit that the race had changed. He remembered the high hopes he had when the Compensation Act of 1897 was passed

that they were going to confer real benefits, without any deductions, upon the working classes. That, however, had proved to be a delusion. In one of his elections—and he had no doubt that others had had a similar experience—it was used as a point against him that the Workmen's Compensation Act had caused the refusal of employment to men in some instances who had reached no greater an age than forty-five. The Home Secretary was applying to that difficulty a very well-meant palliative and a substantial measure of relief. He noticed that no alternative scheme had boon proposed by the Labour Party. They argued that it would be the object of a workman to seek a lower scale of compensation, and thereby lower, not only the scale of compensation, but also the standard rate of wages. Labour Members forgot that it was not likely that the workman would seek the lower scale except when a certain event had happened. Who would seek it unless and until he found that the employer to whom he applied for employment said that he could not give him work because of his age or infirmity? In that case, what comfort did the hon. Members below the gangway offer to the man? When he got outside the yard, it would be very poor compensation to him to be told that in his deserted condition he was doing something to maintain some theoretical principle of the solidarity of trade unions for the maintenance of the standard rate of wages. The working man in such a condition would be apt to think too much was being done by Parliament for young able-bodied men. It was possible to pay too high a price for an aristocracy of labour.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 211. (Division List No. 464.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Anstruther-Gray, Major	Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry
Allen, Charles P. (Sroud)	Armitage, R.	Astbury, John Meir
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Ashley, W. W.	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	Morpeth, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Morrell, Philip
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Myer, Horatio
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Napier, T. B.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Fletcher, J. S.	Partington, Oswald
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fuller, John Michael F.	Percy, Earl
Beauchamp, E.	Furness, Sir Christopher	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexh'm)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Beck, A. Cecil	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Bertram, Julius	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hamilton, Marquess of	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Bright, J. A.	Hemmerde, Edward George	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hills, J. W.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hobart, Sir Robert	Thomasson, Franklin
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N.)	Tomkinson, James
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Valentia, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred	Keswick, William	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cave, George	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Waterlow, D. S.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lambert, George	Whitbread, Howard
Cheetham, John Frederick	Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Cory, Clifford John	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Crossley, William J.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Williamson, A.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Lupton, Arnold	Wills, Arthur Walter
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Doughty, Sir George	Maclean, Donald	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Callum, John M.	Younger, George
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Elibank, Master of	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Markham and Mr. Samuel Roberts.
Erskine, David C.	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Everett, R. Lacey	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Burke, E. Haviland-	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Delany, William
Alden, Percy	Byles, William Pollard	Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Dillon, John
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dobson, Thomas W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Chance, Frederick William	Dolan, Charles Joseph
Barker, John	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Donelan, Captain A.
Barnard, E. B.	Cleland, J. W.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Barnes, G. N.	Clough, William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Beaumont, Hn. H.(Eastbourne)	Clynes, J. R.	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Bell, Richard	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cogan, Denis J.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Essex, R. W.
Bennett, E. N.	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Farrell, James Patrick
Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd)	Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Ffrench, Peter
Billson, Alfred	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Fullerton, Hugh
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Gill, A. H.
Boland, John	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Ginnell, L.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cowan, W. H.	Glover, Thomas
Bowerman, C. W.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brace, William	Crean, Eugene	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Branch, James	Cremer, William Randal	Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Brigg, John	Crombie, John William	Hall, Frederick
Brooke, Stopford	Crooks, William	Halpin, J.
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)	Dalziel, James Henry	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Hart-Davies, T.	Mooney, J. J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Harwood, George	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Murphy, John	Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)
Hayden, John Patrick	Murray, James	Seaverns, J. H.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Nicholls, George	Seddon, J.
Higham, John Sharp	Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Hodge, John	Nolan, Joseph	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hogan, Michael	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Nuttall, Harry	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Snowden, P.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Steadman, W. C.
Hyde, Clarendon	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Idris, T. H. W.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Sullivan, Donal
Jackson, R. S.	O'Hare, Patrick	Summerbell, T.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jenkins, J.	O'Malley, William	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Mara, James	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Toulmin, George
Jowett, F. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kearley, Hudson E.	Paul, Herbert	Verney, F. W.
Kelley, George D.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Vivian, Henry
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Perks, Robert William	Walsh, Stephen
Laidlaw, Robert	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Walters, John Tudor
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lamont, Norman	Power, Patrick Joseph	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Wardle, George J.
Lehmann, R. C.	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Radford, G. H.	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Lough, Thomas	Rainy, A. Rolland	White, George (Norfolk)
Lundon, W.	Raphael, Herbert H.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Macpherson, J. T.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Wiles, Thomas
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
M'Crae, George	Rees, J. D.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Kenna, Reginald	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Winfrey, R.
M'Killop, W.	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Richardson, A.
Mallet, Charles E.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Shackleton.
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Meagher, Michael	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Brad'd)
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Robinson, S.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

*MR. GILL moved to leave out the latter part of the proviso after the words "ten shillings" in order to insert the following words—"Provided also that this section shall apply to a workman who is over twenty-one years of age, whose average weekly earnings are less than twenty shillings per week, if he is employed in the same grade, in the same class of employment, in the same district as a workman under that age." His object was more than anything else to prevent an anomaly. They had been arguing for many years past against the large number of anomalies which existed in the present Act, and he wanted this Bill to become an Act, if possible, without any anomalies whatever. The clause as it stood at present read that— As respects the weekly payments during total incapacity of a workman who is under twenty-one years of age at the date of the injury, and whose average weekly earnings are less than 20s., 100 per cent. should be substituted for 50 per cent. of his average weekly earnings, but the weekly payment shall in no case exceed 10s., nor 50 per cent. of the average weekly earnings of a person over twenty-one years of age, employed in the same grade in the same class of employment and in the same district. That provision was evidently designed to deal with the system of apprenticeship which generally ended when the apprentice was twenty-one years of age. But he would call attention to the fact that the system of apprenticeship had largely decreased. In the cotton trade at the present time men did not get the full wage until long after they were twenty-one years of age. In the last fifty years apprenticeships had been done away with in the cotton trade and in many other trades, and he wanted to point out the anomaly which the Bill would create in its effect upon the spinning portion of the cotton trade and in other trades. Three persons were engaged at the spinning wheels—a spinner with two assistants under him. One of these assistants ranged from thirteen to eighteen years of age, and was called a "little piecer," and he received a wage varying, according to the size of the machine and the rate at which they were running, from nine shillings to fifteen shillings a week. Under this Bill the person who received nine shillings a week would get a hundred per cent. of his; wages in the way of compensation, but the person who got ten, eleven, twelve, or thirteen shillings a week would only get ten shillings a week. The "big piecer," the man next to the spinner, would receive generally sixteen to nineteen shillings a week, many of which were over twenty-one years of age. At all events 5,000 of the "big piecers" were over twenty-one years of age. The result of this Bill would be, therefore, that the "little piecer" would receive ten shillings a week as compensation while the older man would only receive eight or nine. This was the anomaly of which he complained. The men worked side by side and the man in superior position received less than the man beneath him. That he thought was a ridiculous principle. The anomaly was the greater as the "big piecers" had to wait for promotion to the post of spinner, but the men were willing to wait and work for small wages after they came of age, because the post of spinner was well paid and the work was constant. It might be objected that his Amendment would apply to the agricultural labourer, but why should it not do so, as it only provided for a minimum of ten shillings a week, although his wages were, it was true, only twelve, fourteen, or fifteen shillings a week.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

seconded the Amendment, and said as one who employed a good many people he thought It was a reasonable one. It might be asked why men in their trade were paid such small wages. It was because there were many posts which were highly paid, and therefore the men were prepared to wait for them, looking to be rewarded when they attained promotion. The anomaly which his hon. friend had pointed out ought to be removed. It was ridiculous that a man under twenty-one years of age might be getting two or three shillings a week more than the man who was over that age and who was working at a low wage because he was awaiting promotion. If his hon. friend had done anything to procure that the agricultural labourer over twenty years of age should never get less than ten shillings a week, in his judgment he had done an excellent thing. The principle of the Bill seemed to be that the lower the workman's wages the higher the amount of compensation, and they only asked for a fair adjustment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 6, after the word shillings,' to insert the words 'provided also that this section shall apply to a workman who is over twenty-one years of age, whose average weekly earnings are less than twenty shillings per week, if he is employed in the same grade in the same employment in the same district as a workman under that age.'"—[Air. Gill.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR W. ROBSON

admitted that there would be an anomaly, but it had been created out of a desire to deal generously with minors, to whom it was shown it would be a hardship in case of incapacity from accident if the wages they received were taken as a standard for the rest of their lives. Now it was pointed out that some persons under twenty-one might get more wages than others over twenty-one. If there was any grievance it was trivial in amount and that could scarcely be considered a grievance which was an excess of generosity to one class not extended to another. It was proposed to abolish the limit of twenty-one years and to substitute a vague test scarcely to be defined. With an arbitrary limit there would always be anomalies, but the Government must stand to the well-understood limit of twenty-one years and could not, to meet a few anomalous cases, make a change that would introduce great confusion in the administration of the Act and unknown difficulties in many trades.

Question put, and negatived.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

*MR. GLADSTONE moved to substitute the following rules for computing the weekly payments during total incapacity for those contained in the section: "(a) Where the workman was employed exclusively by one employer at a fixed weekly or other periodical wage, the amount per week of that wage shall be his average weekly earnings; (b) where the workman was not employed at such a wage, his average weekly earnings shall be computed in such manner as is best calculated to give the rate per week at which he was being remunerated. Provided that where by reason of the shortness of the time during which the workman has been in the employment of his employer, or the casual nature of the employment, or the terms of the employment, it is impracticable at the date of the accident to compute the rate of remuneration, regard may be had to the average weekly amount which, during the twelve months previous to the accident, was being earned by a person in the same grade employed at the same work by the same employer, or, if there is no person so employed, by a person in the same grade employed in the same class of employment and in the same district; (c) where the workman was engaged under contracts of service with two or more employers his average weekly earnings shall be computed as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident.'" The right hon. Gentleman said this was a rather long Amendment, but its object was to make the whole provision clear, and it was rather a matter of drafting than anything else. The practical effect under the proposal was that under paragraph(a) they dealt with fixed weekly earnings, and under (b) they dealt with the piece worker. This would save much discussion before the arbitrator. If any case arose which could not be dealt with under (a) and (b), they came under the proviso which was incorporated in the Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone had, with his usual courtesy, brought to the attention of the Government a point that was necessary to deal with. The noble Lord had pointed out that in the case of sailors and others it was necessary to include board and lodging in the wages paid, in order to arrive at a proper estimate of their earnings. To meet that he would move to insert instead of "wages" the word "earnings." He thought that Amendment would meet the views of the noble Lord, because in "earnings" was included board, lodging, coals, and other things necessary to the person's occupation. But if on further consideration that was not found to be sufficient to meet the noble Lord the Government would find other words and insert them in another place.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 10, after the word 'schedule' to insert the words 'the following rules shall be observed, (a) where the workman was employed exclusively by one employer at a fixed weekly or other periodical wage, the amount per week of that wage shall be his average weekly earnings; (b) where the workman was not employed at such a wage, his average weekly earnings shall be computed in such manner as is best calculated to give the rate per week at which he was being remunerated. Provided that where by reason of the shortness of the time during which the workman has been in the employment of his employer, or the casual nature of the employment, or the terms of the employment, it is impracticable at the date of the accident to compute the rate of remuneration, regard may be had to the average weekly amount which, during the twelve months previous to the accident, was being earned by a person in the same grade employed at the same work by the same employer, or, if there is no person so employed, by a person in the same grade employed in the same class of employment and in the same district; (c) where the workman was engaged under contracts of service with two or more employers his average weekly earnings shall be computed as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident.'" — (Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

LORD R. CECIL

thought the Government had dealt with the point he had brought to their attention very fairly, though he did not much admire their wording. The point was of such importance that he would like to state it once more. In the case of sailors or domestic servants, their earnings depended partly on their wages and partly on board and lodging. It was quite clear that some provision should be made to include in the sum given as compensation both the board and lodging as well as the wage paid. So long as that was in the mind of the Government and the Government draughtsmen would make it clear in the Bill he was content, although he thought his words dealt with the matter in a better form than those of the Government.

SIR W. ROBSON

thought the word "earnings" was adequate to the propose, but if, on consideration, that was found not to be so, the Government would find other words.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 17, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the word 'continuous.' In page 17, line 13, to leave out the word 'injury,' and to insert the word 'accident.' In page 17, line 15, to leave out the words 'for a period exceeding two weeks.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved an Amendment to exclude such sums as were paid to a workman for any outlay entailed upon him by his employment from being reckoned as part of his earnings. He said the Amendment was rather in the nature of a verbal Amendment than one of substance, as he thought the object of his right hon. friend was the same as his own. An allowance for all those things which were required by the workman and his work, such as oil for his lamp, and for keeping his pick sharp and matters of that kind, which were given by the employer, were held by the Courts to be his gross earnings. The Departmental Committee, who went closely into the matter, pointed out that in the face of recent decisions the word "earnings" might have the effect of laying a much heavier burden on the employer than was intended. They contended that "earnings" should mean net earnings. He moved this Amendment because he thought the words of the Bill did not carry out the intention of the departmental committee. The words "special expenses" could not, he thought, be held to include such things as he had mentioned, whereas if his Amendment was accepted it would make perfectly clear what was intended. He begged to move.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

formally seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 16, to leave out from the word 'employer,' to the word 'and,' in line 19, and insert the words 'pays to the workman a sum to include any outlay entailed on him by the nature or conditions of his employment the sum so paid shall not be reckoned as part of the earnings.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR W. ROBSON

thought the Amendment hardly carried out the intention of its proposer. If it did he could only say he would regretfully have to ask the House not to accept it. The hon. Member evidently desired to restrict the compensation of the workman to what was called "net earnings," and it would be practically impossible in dealing with these matters to embark on a large inquiry as to what the net earnings were. If a man were employed at Westminster and lived at West Ham his fare to and fro and matters of that sort would have to be considered. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

MR. WALSH

said a more insidious proposal had never been made to the House. In many cases the effect so far as miners were concerned would be that, not only would the miner have to work for nothing, but he would positively at the end of the week or the fortnight, after having made deductions for his picks, explosives, lamps, and so on, be in debt to his employer.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 19, to leave out from the word 'earnings,' to end of line 25.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. W. T. WILSON (Lancashire, Westhoughton) moved to delete from the schedule the words which provided that in fixing the amount of the weekly payment for partial incapacity the average amount the workman was "fit to earn in some suitable employment or business" should be taken into consideration. The clause, he said, if carried, would place a workman in a peculiar position. If he accepted light employment and then lost that employment he would get no compensation afterwards. The workman indeed would be placed in two difficult positions. If he accepted light work in some other employment the question would arise, did he voluntarily leave the employer for whom he was working when he met with the accident? If it were found that he did, the compensation would cease, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 31, to leave out from the word 'earning' to the word 'after, in line 32."—(Mr. W.T. Wilson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or is,' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. GLADSTONE

said he could not accept the Amendment, the effect of which might be to lead a workman to refuse some other employment for which he was properly competent.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 31, to leave out the word 'fit,' and insert the word 'able.'"—(My. Walsh.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALSH moved to insert words to ensure that the suitable employment or business in which the partially incapacitated workman was fit to earn wages should be "open to such workman." The reason for these words was that a man might be able to earn wages at an employment, but that if the employment were not open to him the difficulties would still remain. If a man

refused such employment as was open to him the argument of the employer would be overwhelming. All that the Amendment asked for was that the compensation should be assessed at the workman's capacity to earn wages.

MR. W. T. WILSON

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 32, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'open to such workman.'"—(Mr. Walsh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR W. ROBSON

said the Amendment was not necessary, especially after the insertion of the word "able."

* MR. GILL

said a man might be able to do some kind of light work, but the employer said he could get sound men for the work, the employment was therefore not open to him, although he was able and willing to do it.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said that if they inserted the words proposed it would mean that the arbitrator would have to consider the state of the labour market.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

suggested that the words "or is fit to earn in some suitable employment or business," should be deleted.

MR. J. WARD

said the question was would the employer give a man who was able to work the chance of returning to some light employment? An employer often made a, job for such a man by putting an abler man to do something else, and that sometimes settled a case.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 465.)

AYES.
Alden, Percy	Burke, E. Haviland	Cremer, William Randal
Atherley-Jones, L.	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Crooks, William
Barnes, G. N.	Byles, William Pollard	Dalziel, James Henry
Bell, Richard	Clynes, J. R.	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Boland, John	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Delany, William
Bottomley, Horatio	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Bowerman, C. W.	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Dillon, John
Brooke, Stopford	Cowan, W. H.	Dolan, Charles Joseph
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Crean, Eugene	Donelan, Captain A.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lehmann, R. C.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lundon, W.	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
Farrell, James Patrick	Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)	Richardson, A.
Fenwick, Charles	Macpherson, J. T.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Ffrench, Peter	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Rowlands, J.
Fullerton, Hugh	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Gill, A. H.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Seddon, J.
Ginnell, L.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Shackleton, David James
Glover, Thomas	Meagher, Michael	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)
Halpin, J.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Snowden, P.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mooney, J. J.	Steadman, W. C.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Murphy, John	Sullivan, Donal
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Nicholls, George	Summerbell, T.
Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Vivian, Henry
Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Hodge, John	O'Hare, Patrick	Wardle, George J.
Hogan, Michael	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Malley, William	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, J.	O'Mara, James
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brace.
Jowett, F. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Power, Patrick Joseph
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cave, George	Harwood, George
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Cleland, J. W.	Hills, J. W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Clough, William	Hobart, Sir Robert
Armitage, R.	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Holden, E. Hopkinson
Ashley, W. W.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Holland, Sir William Henry
Astbury, John Meir	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancr's, W.)	Hooper, A. G.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	Hope, W. Bateman (S'm'rs't, N.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Horniman, Emslie John
Balcarres, Lord	Cory, Clifford John	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hunt, Rowland
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cox, Harold	Hyde, Clarendon
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Crombie, John William	Idris, T. H. W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Crossley, William J.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Jackson, R. S.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Barnard, E. B.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Sir D Brynmor (Swansea)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm)	Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)	Kelley, George D.
Beck, A. Cecil	Dobson, Thomas W.	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Doughty, Sir George	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Benn, W. (T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Bennett, E. N.	Elibank, Master of	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James
Bertram, Julius	Essex, R. W.	Laidlaw, Robert
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lambert, George
Billson, Alfred	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lamont, Norman
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lewis, John Herbert
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Fletcher, J. S.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. Col. A. R.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lough, Thomas
Bramsdon, T. A.	Furness, Sir Christopher	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Branch, James	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lupton, Arnold
Bridgman, W. Clive	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Maclean, Donald
Brigg, John	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bright, J. A.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Crae, George
Brodie, H. C.	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Kenna, Reginald
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Hall, Frederick	M'Killop, W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)	M'Micking, Major G.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Mallet, Charles E.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hart-Davies, T.	Masterman, C. F. G.

Menzies, Walter	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Tomkinson, James
Molteno, Percy Alport	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (B'df'rd)	Toulmin, George
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Robinson, S.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Morpeth, Viscount	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Valentia, Viscount
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Robers, F. E. Newman	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Murray, James	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Myer, Horatio	Rose, Charles Day	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Napier, T. B.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Waterlow, D. S.
Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Whitbread, Howard
Nuttall, Harry	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	White, George (Norfolk)
Perks, Robert William	Sears, J. E.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)	Whitehead, Rowland
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Sherwell, Arthur James	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Radford, G. H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wiles, Thomas
Rainy, A. Rolland	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Williamson, A.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Rees, J. D.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Thomasson, Franklin
Roberts John H. (Denbighs.)	Tillett, Louis John

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 32, after the word 'accident,' to insert the words 'but shall bear such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circumstances of the case may appear proper."'—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

said that the object of his Amendment was simply to secure that where a workman deliberately refused to submit himself to a medical examination he should forfeit his right to compensation.

SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY (Great Grimsby)

formally seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, line 38, after the word 'place,' to insert the words 'and if the Court shall be of opinion that the employer has been in any way prejudiced by the delay caused by the workman's refusal to submit himself to such medical examination, the workman's right to any compensation shall be absolutely forfeited.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said the Government could not accept the Amendment.

In reply to Sir FRANCIS POWELL,

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said that it was already provided under the Bill that if a workman refused to submit himself to a medical examination he would forfeit his right to any compens- ation in respect of the period during which he had so refused.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendments proposed— In page 17, line 39, to leave out the words agreed or. In page 18, line 26, after the word 'where,' to insert the words 'on application being made in accordance with rules of Court.' In page 18, line 26, to leave out from the word 'Court' to the word 'ought,' in line 32, and insert the words 'that on account of neglect of children on the part of a widow or on account of the variation of the circumstances of the various dependants, or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Court as to the apportionment amongst the several dependants of any sum paid as compensation, or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependant is to be invested, applied, or otherwise dealt with.' In page 18, line 33, to leave out from the word 'may,' to the word 'make,' in line 34.' In page 18, line 35, to leave out from the first word 'the,' to the word 'as,' in line 37, and insert the words 'variation of the former order.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. BRACE

said he desired to modify the provision in the schedule which enabled an employer on application to the register and without reference to the county court Judge to compel an injured workman to go before the medical referee, by providing that such application should be made in writing by both parties.

MR. WALSH

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'to the Court by either party,' and insert the words 'in writing by both parties.'"—(Mr. Brace.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

announced that he accepted the Amendment with considerable regret. The workman had now a right to go to the county court. Under the Bill he would still have that right, but he would have to go with the certificate of the medical referee, and the Judge would not be able to exercise his own independent discretion. That seemed to him be an argument rather favourable to the proposal as it stood at present in the Bill.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

protested against the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. He hoped this matter would be dealt with properly in another place.

MR. BRACE

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, line 32, to leave out the words 'either party,' and insert the words 'both parties.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved to insert "shall" after "party" in line 32. The object of this Amendment was to make the provision in regard to the medical referee more effective than it had been under the old Act. The function of the medical referee under the Act of 1897 had been a dead letter, because the county court Judges had not availed themselves of their power of reference. The policy of this Bill was to increase the functions and powers of the medical referee. The Amendment would give to either party the right on payment to ask the registrar of the county court to refer the matter to the medical referee. He thought this would save litigation and facilitate the settlement of claims.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, to leave out lines 33 to 38, inclusive, and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'applicant,' in line 33, stand part of the Bill."

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said the Government could not accept the Amendment. The reason why an option was given to the registrar was that the proceedings might be found not to be of a purely medical character. The question whether the condition of the workman was due to his employment might have to be decided. If a workman or employer wished to take vexatious proceedings he might take proceedings before a medical referee and also before the county court. In order to avoid that, the registrar was to have power to refuse to make a reference to a medical referee. He would point out that if the provision regarding fees were struck out a largely increased charge would fall on the Treasury.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 19, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words 'two pounds,' and insert the words 'one pound.' In page 19, line 34, to leave out from the word 'prescribed,' to end of line 38. In page 20, line 3, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State.' In page 20, line 5, to leave out from the word 'workman,' to end of line 7.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 20, line 31, after the word 'employer,' to insert the words 'or workman.'"— (Mr. John Taylor.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

* MR. GLADSTONE

said he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill included a great mass of small employers throughout the country, and if this Amendment were carried it might have the effect of ruining a great number of them.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said there was no Amendment which had created greater apprehension than this, and he was glad that the Government had refused to accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 20, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'in default of agreement.' In page 20, line 43, to leave out the words 'but if he proves,' and to insert the words 'unless the medical referee certifies.' In page 20, line 44, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'likely to be.' In page 20, line 44, to leave out from the word 'nature' to the end of paragraph (18), and to insert the words 'If the medical referee so certifies, the workman shall be entitled to receive quarterly the amount of the weekly payments accruing due during the preceding quarter so long as he proves, in such manner and at such intervals as may be prescribed by rules of Court, his identity and the continuance of the incapacity in respect of which the weekly payment is payable.'

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 22, line 37, at the end, to insert the words (a) no such memorandum shall be recorded before seven days after the despatch by the registrar of notice to the parties interested; (b) where a workman seeks to record a memorandum of agreement between his employer and himself for the payment of compensation under the Act and the employer, in accordance with rules of Court, proves that the workman has in fact returned to work and is earning the same wages as he did before the accident, and objects to the recording of such memorandum, the memorandum shall only be recorded, if at all, on such terms as the judge of the County Court, under the circumstances, may think just.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

* MR. GLADSTONE

said that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs in whose name the Amendment originally stood was not present. The Government agreed with him on a certain form of words, but he was not sure if the Amendment as now read carried out that agreement. However, he would accept the Amendment, and in another place the Government would make it conform with what had been agreed upon.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 24, line 8, after the word 'award,' to insert the words 'but in respect of proceedings in the Court as between principals and contractors or between employers and any other persons, or between different employers, the same Court fees shall be payable if an action were taken instead of such proceedings.'"—(Mr. John O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR W. ROBSON, on behalf of the Government, accepted the Amendment.

MR. JOWETT (Bradford, W.) moved an Amendment to include in the schedule aniline poisoning and chrome ulceration as diseases affecting dye-workers. He had no intention of giving any experience of his own in support of his case, but he would quote the testimony of Dr. Whitelegge, the chief inspector of the Factory Department of the Home Office, who wrote a memorandum in 1905 in regard to the two diseases mentioned, in which he said— The vapour of aniline oil as used industrially is known to give rise to definite symptoms of till health by inhalation, mainly by absoption through the skin and by the decomposition of salts which are allowed to dry on the clothes. As to chrome poisoning Dr. Whitelegge reported— Chromic acid or solutions of the alkaline bichromatics cause ulceration of the skin, which commences frequently, but not always, after an abrasion of the skin…. In club dyeing the chrome affection in susceptible persons had been found to take the form of papular eruption on the hands, especially round the knuckles, on the palms, in the fold between the thumb and first linger, and about the wrists and forearms. Constant contact with the solution causes the papule to burst, leaving the chromic ulceration condition so often found in workers. He submitted that that was quite good enough evidence as to the existence of these industrial diseases, and he could not imagine on what grounds they should not be included in the schedule. He begged to move.

MR. BARNES

seconded the Amendment. He said he gladly joined with his hon. friend in pressing the Home Secretary to include these diseases within the scope of the Bill, if not now as soon as he possibly could. At all events he hoped he would give them a promise that by July next year these diseases would be scheduled. As this was the last Amendment, he wished to thank, not only the Government and their supporters, but those above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House for the kindly and full consideration they had given to the Amendments from the Labour Benches. He hoped the Bill, while benefiting the workpeople, would not be found, as some had feared it might, to be an undue burden on the industry of the country.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 25, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, 'aniline and chrome poisoning, persons employed in or about dye works.'"— (Mr Jowett.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said they had now reached the last Amendment upon this stage of the Bill, and he wished that it was possible to signalise that event, in view of the harmonious nature of the discussion, by accepting the Amendment, but the Government could not do so for the reason they gave yesterday. These diseases needed inquiry, and inquiry by the Departmental Committee was proceeding. Aniline poisoning was only one form of poisoning by products of benzine, and there was no reason why they should not include all benzine poisoning in the schedule. Chrome poisoning was a thing which was not known. The disease to be dealt with was chrome ulceration. Nor was it sufficient to include only persons employed in dye-works. Persons engaged in the manufacture of these products suffered from the same diseases, and often in a more pronounced form. Under these circumstances it was necessary that the Committee should frame proper and right terms in which to describe these diseases and employments, but he did not think it would be respectful to his Committee to forestall their Report, and he could, therefore, give no pledge. But in his own mind he had little doubt that before the end of July these diseases would be brought in.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 365.]