WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

HL Deb 18 December 1906 vol 167 cc1158-227

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

*LORD AMPTHILL

moved an Amendment to sub-section2 (c) which would have the effect of making insobriety or the wilful breach of any rule printed and published by the employer for the safety and protection of his workmen "serious and wilful misconduct" within the meaning of the Act. He was assured that it was most necessary for the proper and consistent working of this Bill that certain defined acts should be specified in the Bill as coming within the expression "serious and wilful misconduct." The views of county court judges in the past had differed very largely on the interpretation of the phrase "serious and wilful misconduct." He had been told of the case of a judge who held that although a man was admittedly drunk and, therefore, violating the rules of the factory in which he was working, it was not serious or wilful misconduct. There was another even stronger case illustrating the extreme variety of the opinion of judges in this matter, and that was the case of a man who, in spite of very well-known rules for the safety of workmen, insisted on probing a dynamite charge with a steel crowbar and consequently met with a serious accident; but even in this case the judge did not hold it to be serious or wilful misconduct. He could quote a considerable number of cases of the same kind, such as, for instance, the opening of a safety lamp in a mine when a workman wished to light his pipe. He had another case in mind of a workman who met with an injury because he insisted, in violation of the rules, in oiling machinery while in motion in order to save himself trouble; but in all these cases judges were to be found who did not consider that these breaches of the rules constituted serious and wilful misconduct, and to such a pitch had this timidity on the part of judges gone—this fear of establishing a precedent by committing themselves to any particular interpretation of this vague phrase—that employers and others had ceased to fight these cases because they knew it was almost impossible to get a judgment condemning a breach of the rules. The object of the Amendment was merely to make the Act more clear and definite and to ensure that its working should be uniform and consistent throughout the kingdom. He was aware that a similar Amendment was rejected in the House of Commons, but he could not find in the Reports that there was any very lengthy discussion upon it. He hoped that since that time the Government had altered their opinion as to the necessity of the Amendment, and that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would allow it to pass.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'disallowed' to insert the words 'insobriety or the wilful breach of any rule printed and published by the employer for the safety and protection of his workmen shall be serious and wilful misconduct within the meaning of this Act."—(Lord Ampthill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

resisted the Amendment. The Government could not accept it, because in the terms in which it was drawn it would allow an employer to prevent the Act coming into operation at all within his factory. An employer merely would have to frame a sufficient number of rules, and it would be almost impossible for a workman not to have broken some rule or other. Insobriety, when it was serious and wilful misconduct, was already within the clause.

LORD NEWTON

said that under ordinary circumstances he would have felt disposed to support the Amendment, but so far as he was able to gather, without assuming any legal knowledge, it appeared to him that his noble friend would not effect any benefit by the Amendment. As he understood the Bill, serious and wilful misconduct of any kind would be condoned, and there was no possibility of denying compensation to a man if he injured himself sufficiently seriously, if he only damaged himself to the extent of losing a finger or a toe, he would obtain nothing; but if he carried his wilful and serious misconduct sufficiently far either to bring about his death or permanent incapacity, under the Bill the employer would have to pay compensation. He submitted, therefore, that there was not much object, in view of this fact, in the moving of the Amendment.

LORD BELPER

said the provision with regard to serious and wilful misconduct was in the original Workmen's Compensation Bill of which he had charge in their Lordships' House, and he had to resist a similar Amendment to the one now moved by Lord Ampthill. This matter was carefully considered by the Committee which reviewed all the difficulties that had arisen under these Acts, and they declared that it was open to grave objection to lay down by legislation any such hard and fast rule. The Committee stated in categorical terms that they did not think it possible for the Legislature to lay down a statutory definition of serious and wilful misconduct. In those circumstances he hoped his noble friend would not divide the Committee on the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved an Amendment in sub-section (a) of the clause providing that the failure to make a claim within the period should not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings, if it was found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, "absence from the United Kingdom"or other reasonable cause. He explained that the object of this Amendment was to make proviso (a) correspond with proviso (b.)

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 14, after the word 'mistake' to insert the words 'absence from the United Kingdom."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER

moved to amend subsection (b) by omitting the words "it is found," and inserting the words "the court is satisfied." He said this was an Amendment of some importance. The Committee would see that the Clause dealt with two matters. In the first place, it dealt with a notice which had to be given. In that case the terms in the original Bill were adhered to, that the notice should be given as soon as practicable. With regard to the claim, it was now laid down that it should be made within six months of the occurrence of the accident, a sufficient time, one would certainly have thought, where notice had been given, for a man who had met with an accident to send in his claim. The Committee in their Report recommended that the time for making the claim should be three months. He did not propose to move any alteration with regard to that, and was content to leave the longer period in the clause. But when they came to sub-section (b), to which his Amendment referred, they found it provided that— The failure to make a claim within the period above specified shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, employment abroad, or other reasonable cause. He was afraid that that sub-section as it stood would put a great premium on carelessness and lead to men not paying due regard to the regulations as to the making of claims. In every case where a man had been careless, and had not made his claim within six months it would be very easy to say it was a mistake. If it was enacted that a mistake cleared him, he would always adduce that as his reason why he should not be precluded from making his claim at a later period. The same thing applied in regard to employment abroad. A man who was absent from the United Kingdom could perfectly well make his claim through the post, although it might not be so easy to do so as if he were at home. He should, therefore, be required to make the claim within the time specified. At all events, there should be some security for the employer. The object of making the claim within six months was that the employer might not be prejudiced in his defence to the action when the time arrived. He proposed subsequently to move the insertion at the end of the clause of these words— And that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim. If those words were inserted, it would be some safeguard, and would point out to the workman that he must use his best endeavours to make the claim within the specified time. Moreover, it would carry out the recommendations of the Committee which considered this matter. The Committee discussed the question a good deal in their Report, and the conclusion they came to was that, although they did not wish the time either for the notice or the claim absolutely to preclude a claim being subsequently made, if there was good reason for it, yet in no case should a claim be allowed after a specified time unless the person claiming obtained the permission of the Court. The insertion of his Amendment appeared to him a proper safeguard for the employer, and to carry out the scheme of the Bill.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'it is found' and to insert the words 'the court is satisfied."—(Lord Belper.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

did not think the noble Lord comprehended the importance of his Amendment, which would go a great deal further than he suggested. The words as they stood were introduced into the Bill of last year by the late Government, and this was the first time that they had been seriously challenged. The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the application to a court and to bar arbitration proceedings under this section. The words "it is found" could be taken cognisance of by the arbitrator, whereas if the Amendment were carried it would be impossible for the arbitrators to take this into consideration, and it would have to be done by a court.

LORD BELPER

said that if the noble Earl would accept his second Amendment, to insert the words "and that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim," he would withdraw his first Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he was unable to accept either Amendment. Lord Belper's idea appeared to be to try and make the alternatives the same in sub-sections (a) and (b), to give safeguards in both cases. The noble Lord would see that the words at the end of sub-section (b) were "or other reasonable cause" and not "and other reasonable cause." The effect would be to give the employer a second safeguard against any attempt to make a claim under this section.

LORD BELPER

said there were the same words in both sub-sections.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

replied that sub-section (a) contained the word "or," thereby giving the workman an alternative. The alternative was not given in sub-section (b), because it was desirable to discourage undue delay in proffering claims. Therefore the workman ought only to be excused on the ground of mistake or reasonable cause.

LORD BELPER

quite recognised that there might be some force in the remarks of the noble Earl with regard to the substitution of the words "if the Court is satisfied" for the words "if it is found." But his general object in moving the Amendment was to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, that in the case both of giving the notice and of making the claim it should be open to the workman to make the claim after those times, but only by leave of the Court. The clause as it stood was an absolute invitation to carelessness with regard to making the claim within the specified time, and there was no safeguard whatever to the employer. He might be very much prejudiced by the fact that the witnesses might be dead or out of the way, and there would be no means of defending the claim.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Loreburn)

said it was a mistake to attempt to draw a Bill of this kind to meet all kinds of imaginary and ex- tremely improbable contingencies. The point was that a man was required to give his notice within a fixed time—six months. It was, of course, desirable that there should be some time fixed, but it would be a very great misfortune if the person injured were liable to be tripped up because, for some reasonable cause, he failed to give the notice in time. This was really in the nature of an insurance Bill, and they wanted the very fullest good faith and the most complete absence of technicalities. He thought it best to leave the provision as it stood that the failure to make a claim within the period specified should not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings if it was found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, employment abroad, or other reasonable cause.

LORD BELPER

said he did not propose to interfere with that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

pointed out that the noble Lord wished to provide that there must be something else proved in addition—namely, that the employer was not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claims. If he was prejudiced it was not the fault of the workman ex hypothesi.

LORD ASHBOURNE

did not think it at all reasonable that there should be a complete absence of any limit after which no claim could be made.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

suggested that the Committee should dispose or Lord Belper's first Amendment and then take the second.

LORD BELPER

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER

then moved the Amendment to which he had previously referred.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 19, after the word 'cause' to insert the words 'and that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim."—(Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought Lord Belper would make his case a good deal stronger if he altered his Amendment to read "or" that the employer is not prejudiced, instead of "and."

LORD AVEBURY

asked why the word "mistake" was included in subsection (b). If the mistake was a reasonable one it would come within the words "reasonable cause," and, if it was not reasonable, why should it be included?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said he imagined the word was put in for the purpose of indicating the general character of what was intended by the Bill. The words "other reasonable cause" would mean other reasonable cause of the same character. The Department concerned might have good reasons for objecting to the insertion of the Amendment, but, reserving liberty to strike the words out later, he saw no objection to accepting them now. With the substitution of the word "or" for "and" the Amendment gave an extra option to the workman whereby he might escape the consequence of not making his claim in time.

LORD BELPER

amended his Amendment to read "or that the employer," etc., subject to reconsideration on Report if necessary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved an Amendment in sub-section 2 providing that notice in respect of an injury should give the name and address of the person injured, the cause, and the date at which "the accident happened." He said Clause 8 provided that disablement or suspension on account of disease was to be treated as the happening of the accident. This clause therefore ought to refer to the happening of the accident and not to the sustaining of the injury.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words 'it was sustained' and to insert the words 'the accident happened."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved an Amendment providing that if the Registrar of Friendly Societies certified that any scheme of compensation provided scales of compensation not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the corresponding scales in the Act, and "that where the scheme provides for contributions by the workmen, the scheme confers benefits at least equivalent to those contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled under this Act,"and that a majority of the workmen were in favour of the scheme, the employer might, while the certificate was in force, contract with any of the workmen that the provisions of the scheme should be substituted for the provisions of the Act. He said the Amendment was intended to carry into effect a promise given on Report in the other House. He understood there were some schemes to which workmen themselves contributed. If the words in his Amendment were inserted, such schemes would also be included as well as those which were originally in mind.

Amendment moved—

In page 3, line 41, to leave out from, the word 'and' to the word 'and' in page 4, line 2, and to insert the words, 'that where the scheme provides for contributions by the workmen, and the scheme confers benefits, at least equivalent to those contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled under this Act."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD INVERCLYDE

said the object of his Amendment was to exclude seamen from this clause. The Bill was primarily drawn up for compensation for workmen on shore, but under Clause 7 seamen were brought within the Bill. Later on he proposed to move that that clause be struck out. All that shipowners desired was that they should be put on an equal footing with employers of labour on land, and if this Amendment were adopted it would be possible for shipowners to have the benefit of the contracting-out clause. In many respects he thought the Bill would be very difficult to work in regard to seamen, because under this clause the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies could only certify a scheme after ascertaining by ballot from the workmen that they were in favour of the scheme. That was an impossibility with seamen. In a large line employing a large number of seamen those men were distributed all over the world, and it would be impossible to take a ballot of workmen in those circumstances. He would like to know whether the Registrar General of Friendly Societies had approved of this clause and had stated that it was workable.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 2, after the word 'that' to insert the words 'except in the case of seamen."—(Lord Inverclyde.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that he could not enter into an examination of this question at that particular stage of the Bill. A similar Amendment was withdrawn in the other House on the understanding that the Registrar-General should frame rules for the holding of a ballot on all the ships of a company. While it was true that it was very difficult to secure a ballot among seamen it was obviously quite as difficult to put a scheme before them to secure contracting out. He trusted that the noble Lord would not press the Amendment, reserving what had to be said until they reached a later clause. The subject had been referred to the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, and he was not aware that he had found any difficulty in regard to putting the clause in operation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved that the words "any of those workmen" in sub-section (1) should read, "any of his workmen." He said the word "those"might possibly be construed as meaning the workmen who had voted in favour of the scheme. That was not intended.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 5, to leave out the word 'those' and to insert 'his."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD INVERCLYDE

said the object of the new sub-section which he now moved was to allow the Registrar of Friendly Societies provisionally to certify a scheme. This would enable a scheme to have more consideration, especially when seamen were out of the country, than if the matter was left as it stood.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 10, after the word 'Act' to insert the following new sub-section: (2) The Registrar of Friendly Societies may, if required, by the employer grant a provisional certificate for any scheme before ascertaining the views of the workmen, but in such a case the employer shall not contract with any workman that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of the Act until the Registrar of Friendly Societies has, after ascertaining the views of the workmen, further certified that the scheme satisfies all the requirements of this Act."—(Lord Inverclyde)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the idea of the Home Office was that this Amendment was consequential on Lord Inver Clyde's other Amendment dealing with the questtion of contracting out in the case of seamen. Any difficulties there might be would be met by the regulations which the Registrar of Friendly Societies would draw up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to amend the latter part of the clause so as to provide that just as the workman was to have the right to recover from the insurance company in the event of the bankruptcy of the employer, so the insurance company should have the same rights and remedies as the employer had against the workman. The matter was, he said, perfectly simple, and he did not anticipate that there would be any objecttion to the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, line 5, to leave out from the first 'and' to the end of line 7, and to insert the words 'upon any such transfer the insurers shall have the same rights and remedies and be subject to the same liabilities as if they were the employer, so however that the insurers shall not be under any greater liability to the workman than they would have been under to the employer."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the object of his next Amendment was to make it quite clear that the £100 referred to was the limit applicable to each individual case and not to the whole amount of the compensation.

Amendment moved

"In page 6, line 17, after the word 'exceeding' to insert the words 'in any individual case."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

explained that the object of the next Amendment was to define more clearly how the capitalised value of a weekly payment was to be taken.

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, line 24, after the word 'accordingly' to insert the words 'Where the compensation is a weekly payment, the amount due in respect thereof shall, for the purposes of this provision, be taken to be the amount of the lump sum for which the weekly payment could, if redeemable, be redeemed under the First Schedule to this Act."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:—

LORD INVERCLYDE

moved an Amendment to provide that only one set of costs should be recoverable. He said that under this clause a workman was entitled to raise two actions and to obtain two judgments, He contended that only one set of costs should be recoverable.

Amendment moved—

"In page 7, line 7, after the word 'compensation' to insert the words 'nor the costs of both proceedings.'" (Lord Inverclyde.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP,

seeing no reason why the workman should be deprived of his costs, opposed the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:—

LORD INVERCLYDE

moved to insert among the modifications to which the application of the Act to seamen should be subject the following:—"(a) If it is proved that the injury to a seaman is attributable to any offence against discipline by that seaman, or to any act or default of that seaman dangerous to the safety of the ship, or of the cargo or lives of those on board the ship, or that it occurred while the seamen was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed."Unfortunately, in the case of seamen there were many occasions when they were the worse for drink, and his Amendment was proposed in order to protect shipowners from liability in regard to accidents happening to men in that condition. In this matter seamen were in a very different position from men on shore. If a man was the worse for drink on shore he could be put out of the factory or workshop, but that was impossible on board ship, and it was most unfair to make shipowners liable for accidents to seamen who were the worse for drink.

Amendment moved—

In page 7, line 25, after the word 'modifications' to insert the following new paragraph: '(a) If it is proved that the injury to a seaman is attributable to any offence against discipline by that seaman, or to any act or default of that seaman dangerous to the safety of the ship or of the cargo or lives of those on board the ship, or that it occurred while the seaman was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed."—(Lord Inverclyde.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

objected that if the Amendment were adopted a seaman would be deprived of compensation if the injury could be attributed to any breach of discipline, however trivial. If the default of the seaman coming under the other conditions of the Amendment amounted to serious and wilful misconduct it was obvious that, without any Amendment of the Bill, the compensation would not be payable.

LORD AVEBURY

said the triviality of the breach of discipline ought not to affect the question if it was the cause of accident, and as regarded intoxication it ought to be laid down for the guidance of the Court whether this was or was not a cause for disallowing compensation. It would be very hard on shipowners if they were obliged to pay heavily because a seaman had met with an accident owing to his being intoxicated.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

suggested the omission, as superfluous, of the words— Or to any act or default of that seaman dangerous to the safety of the ship or of the cargo or lives of those on board the ship A seaman would not, of course, wilfully incur injury while in a state of drunkenness, but such things had happened before as a seaman being drunk and falling into the hold. That was a case which his hon. friend wished to meet.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My point is that it probably is already met under the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

"Probably." That is just it.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Courts at the present time commanded the confidence both of employers and employed, and His Majesty's Government would be very sorry if, by any Amendment in this Bill, the Courts were prevented from having that full jurisdiction in the matter which they had had in the past. It was not desired to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts by minute directions.

LORD BELPER

said these difficulties were due to the inclusion of the seamen in this Bill, instead of in a separate measure. The proposed procedure was contrary to the recommendation of the Committee which dealt with the subject.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he now came to a number of small Amendments which hung together. The intention of the Amendments was to make the clause applicable to masters of ships, who were included within the scope of the Bill by an Amendment moved in another place by a friend of noble Lords opposite.

Amendment moved—

"In page 7, line 27, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'except where the person injured is the master."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

"In page 7, line 32, after the third 'the' to insert the word 'master."—Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked how the master would come in. He was neither a workman nor an employer.

*LORD HAVERSHAM

explained that the master was included in the application of the Act by the words in the first line of Clause 7.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

*LORD INVERCLYDE

moved to amend sub-section (b) which provides that in the case of the death of a seaman or apprentice the claim for compensation "may" be made within "six months" after the news of the death has been received by the claimant, by making it necessary that the claim "shall" be made within "twelve months" after the date of death. He urged that under the sub-section as it stood it might be years before the claim was made.

Amendment moved—

"In page 7, line 33, to leave out the word 'may' and to insert the word 'shall,' and to leave out the word 'six' and to insert the word 'twelve.'"—(Lord Inverclyde.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said there was no objection to change the word "may" to "shall," but in the opinion of the Home Office "may" was the proper word from the draughtsman's point of view. There were occasions when "may" was equivalent to "shall," because it was governed by other words. There was, however, very little difference and if it was any satisfaction to his noble friend he would be glad to agree to the substitution proposed. But he was unable to accept the rest of the Amendment. It might be many months before the news of the death of a seaman abroad reached this country. He thought it would be better on the whole that the provision should remain as in the Bill, and that the date when the news was received should be treated for the purposes of this Act as the date of the death.

LORD INVERCLYDE

said the point was not so much that the limit should be twelve months but that there should be some limit. He would be quite agreeable to substitute eighteen months if that would be acceptable.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he could not accept the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

LORD INVERCLYDE

moved a further Amendment to leave out paragraph (e)— (e) The weekly payment shall not be payable in respect of the period during which the owner of the ship is, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, or otherwise, liable to defray the expenses of maintenance of the injured seamen or apprentice, and to insert the following new paragraph— The weekly payment shall be payable as from the date when the injured seaman or apprentice is brought back to the United Kingdom. He argued that the clause as it stood was a direct discouragement to owners to allow their seamen to run risks in saving life at sea.

Amendment moved—

"In page 8, line 13, to leave out paragraph (e) and to insert the following new paragraph—'The weekly payment shall be payable as from the date when the injured seaman or apprentice is brought back to the United Kingdom."—(Lord Inverclyde.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Bill was not in any way intended to interfere with the Merchant Shipping Act; but when a man come on shore that Act no longer applied, and at that stage this Bill took him up. It was possible that an injured seaman might be landed in a foreign port, and one result of the Amendment might be to encourage the landing of seamen at foreign ports, where they would not be entitled to weekly payments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendments ageed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to leave out paragraph (h). (h) Where any matter under this Act is to be done in a county court, or by, to, or before the judge or registrar of a county court, it shall be done in, or by, to, or before the judge or registrar of, such county court as may be prescribed by rules of court. He explained that this paragraph would be unnecessary if the Amendment proposed to be moved in paragraph eleven of the Second Schedule were agreed to.

Amendment moved—

"In page 9, lines 1 to 5, to leave out paragraph (h),"—(Earl Beauchamp)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved the insertion of a sub-section dealing with the case of pilots.

Amendment moved—

"In page 9, line 9, at the end, to insert as a new sub-section—'(2) This section shall extend to pilots to whom Part X. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, applies, as if a pilot when employed on any such ship as aforesaid were a seaman and a member of the crew."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD INVERCLYDE

protested against the Amendment on the ground that it was very hard on shipowners to be made liable for accidents to men who were forced upon them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Moved, That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill—(Earl Beauchamp.)

Lord INVERCLYDE

opposed the clause altogether, on the ground that as recommended by the Departmental Committee seamen ought to be provided for by an Amendment of the Shipping Act and not by a Bill dealing with land employment. On that Committee there were no shipowners at all, but there was a Labour representative who signed the Report agreeing to that. This was the first time that any shipping matters had been brought directly under the Home Office. The shipping trade had a special Department in the Board of Trade, which was the right Government Department to deal with shipping affairs. If seamen were to be brought under the workmen's compensation arrangements, it ought to be by an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, and not by means of a Bill applying to land employment. In moving the Amendments which stood in his name he had endeavoured to show the difficulty there was in the machinery of the Bill as far as seamen were concerned. Under the Bill foreign sailors would get compensation. When the measure was first introduced His Majesty's Government did not propose that foreigners should get compensation, but the Bill had since been altered, he believed, on the ground that if foreigners did not get compensation, it would be an encouragement to shipowners to employ them. It was often said that shipowners employed too many foreigners and wanted to employ foreigners. He repudiated that a together. All that shipowners wanted was to get the best seamen they could, and if for various reasons the foreign seaman was more suitable than the British seaman he would be employed; but he was quite sure that on the whole British shipowners would sooner employ British sailors if they could get them. The bringing of foreigners under the Bill was an inducement to foreigners to come to this country to get employment. If a British ship was in collision with a foreign ship, and the foreign ship was to blame, and was sunk, then the British shipowner could not, under the Bill, recover any damages for compensation which his men might have received. He was not entitled to speak for the whole body of British shipowners, but he had authority to speak on behalf of a very large number of representative associations of shipowners, and he was prepared to say that if His Majesty's Government would exclude seamen from this Bill, the shipowners were perfectly ready to meet the Board of Trade and agree upon a scheme which could be brought forward next year as an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act, which would bring seamen under the Workmen's Compensation provisions. If His Majesty's Government agreed to his proposal he felt sure that there would be no difficulty in next year arriving at a Bill which would be satisfactory to all parties interested.

*LORD BRASSEY

said no class of men had rendered more service to the country than the seamen class; none were more exposed to hardship and danger in the execution of their duty. It would be hard that they should remain in a position of exceptional disability in regard to compensation.

*EARL BEAUCHAMP

heartily associated himself with Lord Brassey. Seamen should have at least equal advantages in the case of disability as persons employed in factories and workshops. In including seamen the Government had, he claimed, done something to encourage merchant shipping, and to encourage men to go to sea. He could not agree with Lord Inverclyde that there were any serious difficulties in applying the Bill to seamen. The Departmental Committee to which the noble Lord had referred did not have the point before them as it had been settled in the present Bill. The Departmental Committee were against seamen being dealt with in this legislation on the ground that while seamen were on board ship they received their wages and worked under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The idea of the Committee was that seamen should continue to be provided for under the Merchant Shipping Acts. But he did not think the Committee had in their minds at all the scheme of this Bill by which seamen only came under the operations of the Bill when on shore. That was a very great distinction. As to foreign seamen, in the Bill introduced by Lord Belper foreign seamen were given equal rights with British seamen. There was no departure from that rule in the present Bill. He was convinced that the retention of the clause would confer a very real benefit on a large class of deserving workmen.

LORD BELPER

said that at this stage he could not support the noble Lord, in his proposal to leave out Clause 7 He still felt, however, that it would be a more convenient course to deal with seamen in a different manner.

LORD INVERCLYDE

wished to repeat that he had no desire to prevent seamen getting compensation.

On Question, Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:—

THE EARL OF LYTTON

moved the omission of the words "mentioned in the third schedule to this Act"with the object of ensuring compensation for all workmen injured in the course of their employment by disease directly incidental to and caused by their employment. This Amendment was, he said, a very important one. It went to the root of one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and he asked their Lordships' serious attention to the question with which it dealt. The object of the Amendment was to ensure that all those who were injured in the course of their trade by a disease directly incidental to and caused by their employment should receive compensation exactly as if they had been injured by an accident. That was a principle which was already admitted by the Government's Bill. He submitted, however, that the machinery by which it was intended to carry that out would in practice have the effect of excluding a very large number, if not an actual majority, of persons who were so afflicted by industrial diseases. In the third schedule there was a list of six diseases specially mentioned, and if any workman contracted a disease in the course of his industry, and if that industry was included in the schedule, the workman would receive compensation; but if, in the course of his employment, he contracted a disease which was not included in the schedule he would get no compensation. The schedule as it stood was incomplete. A large number of trades certified as dangerous were not included in the schedule. He did not, however, wish to press that point, as he understood the Government themselves did not regard the schedule as complete. Their Lordships would notice that by sub-section (6) of this clause power was given to the Home Secretary to extend the schedule and include in it other diseases. But that was not his point. His contention was that the whole method of proceeding by schedule was unworkable. However much they might extend it, it was impossible to cover the whole area of industries affected, and a great injustice would always be done to those who did not come under the schedule. In the case of a worker who contracted a disease in any industry mentioned in the schedule, once he could establish his case he would get compensation and the machinery would be quite simple; but there were a great many diseases incidental to trades, which not only were not in the schedule now, but which it would be quite impossible at any time to put into the schedule by reason of the fact that they could not be called dangerous trades. Take, for instance, the boot trade. No one could call the boot trade a dangerous trade, and yet in the manufacture of the cheaper classes of boots there was an ingredient used which was a poison, and might inflict great injury to those who handled it. No one could say that the boot trade should be included in the schedule, and yet it was surely very unjust that a workman who was injured in the course of such a trade should not get compensation. Then there was a trade in which disease was caused by the use of boxwood, and a similar disease had been caused by the use of satin wood. The poison was incidental to the presence of the sap, and therefore when the wood was used in bulk there was this danger. That being the case, all these trades would be affected. The danger existed in ship-building, cabinet-making, sawmills, and joinery of all kinds. It would be obviously unfair to call any of these trades dangerous trades, and yet very serious injury might be caused in every one of them. There was another trade—the oxidising of silver. In that trade there was a chemical which ought to be used, and was generally used, diluted, and which when so used was harmless; but when a careless employer used that chemical undiluted and thereby poisoned his workmen, he maintained that those workmen should receive compensation Then there was the case of lacquer work Cases had been mentioned in the Factory Reports where disease was caused through simply lacquering tin in a jam factory. Those were injuries which were happening every day; yet if the Bill passed in its present form it would be impossible for workmen who contracted these diseases, although they were specific industrial diseases, to get compensation. The Bill would work unjustly even where a particular disease was scheduled. If their Lordships turned to the third schedule they would see that the first disease mentioned was anthrax, a disease caused by a bacillus of a very virulent kind. Their Lordships would also see, in the second column, a description given of the processes under which this disease most commonly occurred, namely, handling of wool, hair, bristles, hides, and skins. So long as a workman contracted anthrax by handling any of those trade ingredients he would be entitled to compensation; but anthrax could be contracted by handling leather, and it also occurred in the use of sacking. Moreover, the bacillus might be freed by one worker handling hides and skins, and might attack another workman who would not have handled them at all, and who, therefore, would not be entitled to compensation. Cases of anthrax had occurred in upholstering and bedding work, and in harness manufactories where no hides were handled, but where leather was used. There was a case of a grain dealer who contracted anthrax probably from the sacking in which the grain arrived from a foreign country. All these were cases which would not come under this Bill. Unless a worker got anthrax in the process of handling the ingredients mentioned in the schedule he could not obtain compensation. He mentioned these cases as showing how unworkable the schedule system was. The proper principle was that the compensation should be determined by the injury inflicted, and not by a particular trade in which that injury occurred. He asked the Committee to imagine the feeling of a man or woman who had contracted an industrial disease and was afterwards told that he or she could not get compensation because the industry engaged in was not included in the schedule. The workman who was injured by lead poisoning in potteries could get compensation, but if he was injured by what was known as potters-rot, he could not get compensation as that was not a scheduled industry. He could not help thinking that a very grave injustice would be caused if the Bill was allowed to become law as it stood, and he made an earnest appeal to the Lord Chancellor on the points he had raised. He could not think that His Majesty's Government really intended that industrial diseases should be dealt with in such a one-sided and unsatisfactory way. In the House of Commons the Under-Secretary for the Home Department urged that if all diseases were included, as would be the case under the Amendment now before their Lordships, it would be impossible to prove that the disease was due to the nature of the employment itself. The worker had to prove that. He had not only to get the fact of his disease certified, but he had to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that it was a disease specifically caused by the nature of his employment. He submitted that if a worker could prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had incurred a disease by reason of his employment, he was and ought to be entitled to compensation. Then it was urged that this method would lead to a great deal of litigation. It was perfectly true that if they excluded a large proportion of cases which might come under the Act they thereby got rid of a number of cases which possibly might be taken into Court; but he ventured to think that very considerable litigation would be incurred by the Bill as it at present stood. Let them take, again, the case of anthrax. Anthrax was included in the schedule in the processes of handling wool, hair, bristles, hides, and skins. He had already pointed out that cases had occurred in which anthrax had been caused by handling leather. The Court under this Bill would have to decide the question, When is a hide not a hide? Presumably the answer would be, When it is a subject for compensation under this Act. If a workman contracted anthrax in the process of sewing up bedding, he would not himself have handled the horse-hair, but in sewing up the mattress he might contract the disease. All these were very difficult and complicated points of law, which, under the Bill as it stood, would have to be taken into Court. Some difficulties would undoubtedly arise under the procedure recommended in his Amendment. He did not deny that there might be cases in which the border line between what was specifically due to the nature of the employment, and what was a disease contracted otherwise might in some cases be rather difficult to define. By a subsequent Amendment he proposed to exclude two industries in which that difficulty would be more especially marked—namely, agriculture and shipping. Those two industries were excluded because in them diseases might often be contraced in which exposure to the air would play a very large part, and, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to define whether they would come under the Act or not. He submitted that it was far better to exclude certain specific industries in which the difficulty was very great rather than proceed by a schedule which included only a few diseases and excluded a large number of workers who ought to come in. He held that unless this change was made a very great injustice would arise in the future, to avoid which some procedure of the sort suggested was indispensable.

Amendment moved—

"In page 9, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

observed that the noble Earl, whose interest in problems of social reform was so well known, had delivered a most stimulating speech. His quarrel with the Government was not that they had done wrong in this clause, but that they had not gone far enough. The noble Earl was one of the very few men in that House who held that view. This principle of giving compensation for diseases was quite a new one in this country, and it would be very rash of the Government to proceed with such an innovation in any but a very tentative and careful way. The diseases for which compensation was to be payable must be limited in the first instance to those which were perfectly well known and had to be notified under the Factory Acts. It was only prudent to postpone the inclusion of other diseases in the schedule until inquiry had shown to what extent they were due to particular industrial processes. If the definition of any disease were made too wide or too narrow, considerable hardship would result either to employers or workmen. The Home Secretary had appointed a small committee that was now investigating between twenty and thirty trade diseases, and a pledge had been given that many of them would be added to the third schedule by the time the Bill came into operation in July. The difference between the Government and the noble Earl was one of administration rather than of principle. The Government did not wish to proceed too hastily, or without such inquiry as would satisfy the employers. The Amendment was of a very far-reaching character. It would strike out all limitations and enable a workman to claim compensation for any disease on the ground that it was due to the nature of his employment. The onus of proving that the disease was not so contracted might entail great hardship on the employer, as well as lead to litigation, and make the clause unworkable. For example, a shop-girl suffering from anæmia might complain that her anæmia was due to the nature of her employment, and it would be very difficult to prove that it was not. The Government had taken the middle way on this question, which was the wisest in the circumstances.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that the Government, in framing the clause, had recognised that they were dealing with a new and novel aspect of an extremely important question, and had deemed it right, he thought wisely, to proceed in a tentative and moderate manner. It was best to approach this question in a cautious and prudent spirit. He therefore hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

said he was inclined to dispute the contention advanced by the noble Earl that his Party enjoyed an exclusive or, at all events, a preponderating, sympathy for the working classes. He was disposed to think that on the whole the working classes had benefited just as much from legislation proposed by the Party to which he belonged as from that brought in by the Liberals. It was gratifying to observe that His Majesty's Government were advancing with due deliberation in any direction. At the same time he confessed that, on the spur of the moment, he was not altogether convinced of the good logic of the noble Earl opposite. The contention of Lord Lytton was that supposing workpeople contracted any of the diseases mentioned in the schedule it would be exceedingly hard upon them if they obtained no compensation because they did not happen to be engaged in one of the employments scheduled. Logically his noble friend Lord Lytton appeared to be in the right. If a person was to be compensated for one of these diseases, it seemed fair that he should be compensated through whatever cause it was contracted. A person would consider himself exceedingly aggrieved if he suffered from one of the diseases mentioned and yet was unable to claim compensation because the employment in which he was engaged was not mentioned in the schedule.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said that he sympathised unreservedly with the purpose of the noble Earl. He would like to see all diseases made the ground for compensation as all accidents were. But it would be going outside the scope of the Bill to strike out all limitation. The safer method was to specify those diseases which were certainly attributable to particular employments, and to give the power of indefinitely extending the list to the Home Secretary. That course had been assented to by the representatives of both employers and workmen. Any disease that was scientifically traced to any particular work would be immediately included in the schedule.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

did not like to pass the Amendment over entirely in silence. He held views that were not perhaps held by those immediately behind him. He to a very great extent sympathised with the object which Lord Lytton had in view, and agreed very much with what the noble and learned Lord had just said. On the face of it, it seemed to him that it was impossible to have any fair legislation on the principle of a short schedule which gave compensation to workmen who contracted disease in very limited cases, and excluded a large number who might feel themselves aggrieved and might fairly be entitled to compensation. But having heard the argument used by his noble friend behind him, and the arguments which had been advanced on the other side, and understanding that the Government were now engaged in enlarging the description of diseases set out in the short schedule, he ventured to think it would be unwise to press the Amendment. It would be preferable to proceed on the lines on which the Government were now moving.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

said that, though the Government were taking a safe course, he was not convinced of its wisdom. If noble Lords supported him, he was quite willing to go to a division on the point.

THE EARL OF MEATH

hoped the noble Earl would press the Amendment to a division. He would like the Committee to divide for the simple purpose of showing the noble Earl who spoke from the Government Bench that there were others besides those sitting behind him who had an interest in social reform. He thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, and he ventured to predict that some day schedules would be left out of Bills of this character altogether.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I hope the noble Earl will not take the advice which has been offered to him by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I think if your Lordships were to divide upon the Amendment it would lead to a misapprehension and misrepresentation of the views of the House generally. We sympathise with the object of the noble Earl, but we desire, and I think rightly, to proceed with greater caution. Do not let the noble Earl take a step which is not likely, I think, from what has been said in this debate, to be successful, which would give a false impression as to the feelings of this House generally, and which would rather prevent the extension of the provisions of this clause.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to leave out the word "such" and to insert "the requisite."The purpose of this proposal was to complete an Amendment inserted on Report in the other House. It was thought that the word "such" might lead to misapprehension. He was afraid there was some misapprehension in the mind of Lord Meath. He could not charge his recollection with having said that noble Lords opposite were not anxious for social reform. He thought a phrase to that effect slipped from Lord Newton. He did not contradict the noble Lord at the time as he thought it was one of his witticisms. He could assure noble

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," Lords opposite that he was entirely innocent of harbouring such an idea, because he knew there were many noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who were extremely anxious for social reform.

their Lordships divided:—Contents, 87; Not-contents, 14.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Verulam, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
	Waldegrave, E.
Crowe, E. (L. President.)		Emly, L.
	Churchill, V.	Fitzmaurice, L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Cross, V.	Forester, L.
	Falkland, V.	Glantawe, L.
Newcastle, D.	Hardinge, V.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.] [Teller.]
Northumberland, D.	Hill, V.
Wellington, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Grey de Ruthyn, L.
		Grimthorpe, L.
Bath, M.	Knutsford, V.	Hamilton, of Dalzell, L.
Bristol, M.		Haversham, L.
	Allerton, L.	Inverclyde, L.
Albemarle, E.	Ardilaun, L.	Kilmaine, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Lawrence, L.
Camperdown, E.	Avebury, L.	North, L.
Carrington, E.	Barnard, L.	Overtoun, L.
Cathcart, E.	Barrymore, L.	Pirrie, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Craven, E.	Belper, L.	Reay, L.
Darnley, E.	Brassey, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Dartrey, E.	Brougham and Vaux, L.	Sanderson, L.
Derby, E.	Burton, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Haddington, E.	Castletown, L.	Seaton, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Harrowby, E.	Clinton, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Lauderdale, E.	Colchester, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Morley, E.	Coleridge, L.	Templemore, L.
Nelson, E.	Denman, L. [Teller.]	Tweedmouth, L.
Onslow, E.	Deramore, L.	Weardale, L.
Radnor, E.	Dunboyne, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D.	Halifax, V.	Clonbrock, L.
	Milner, V.	Lovat, L.
Carlisle, E.
Denbigh, E.	Ampthill, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E. [Teller.]	Boston, L.	Stanmore, L.
Mayo, E.	Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)	Stewart of Garlies, E. (E. Galloway.)

Amendment moved—

"In page 10, line 7, to leave out the word 'such' and to insert the words 'the requisite."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved an Amendment to provide for the case of local insurance societies.

Amendment moved—

"In page 12, line 15, at end to insert the words 'Where such a company or society has been established, but is confined to employers in any particular locality or of any particular class, the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of this provision treat the industry, as carried on by employers in that locally or of that class, as a separate industry."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to leave out the words "either party" and to insert the words "an employer or workman"in the provision which read: Where a medical referee has been employed as a medical practitioner in connection with any case by, or on behalf, of either party, or by any insurers interested, he shall not act as medical referee in that case.

Amendment moved—

"In page 13, line 13, to leave out 'either party' and to insert 'an employer or workman."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:—

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said there was at present no definition of summary conviction so far as Scotland was concerned. The object of his Amendment was to remove any possible ambiguity.

Amendment moved—

"In page 14, lines 16 and 17, to leave out 'summary conviction' and to insert 'conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:—

THE EARL OF LYTTON

moved to omit the words "or an outworker"so as to bring outworkers within the scope of the Bill. Their exclusion was, he held, contrary to the principle of the whole Bill in this case, by reason of the fact that the class of people excluded were the poor, helpless, unorganised workers. They ought to make sure that this class were not excluded from the operation of the Bill, unless they were certain that their inclusion would prevent the provision of the Bill from being put in operation. Therefore he would devote his remarks as closely as possible to the question of practicability. The chief argument used against this Amendment was the difficulty which would be incurred in proving that in the case of an outworker the accident, or the disease, from which he was suffering was really due to his employment. Here again he submitted that the onus of proof rested with the workman. He would have to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was not suffering from some casual disease to which all flesh was heir—that he was suffering from a particular disease, or that he had met with an accident in the course of, and due to, his employment. If the workman could prove that, he submitted that he ought to receive compensation. He granted that in many cases it would be very difficult for an outworker to prove that the accident, or the disease, of which he complained was incurred in the course of his employment, but if he was able to prove that to the satisfaction of the Court he could not conceive any grounds for his exclusion from the receipt of compensation. Another argument used against the Amendment was that in the case of outworkers they would be removed from any supervision of the employer. They would be working under conditions over which the employer had no control. That argument appeared a very plausible one at first, but he would like to ask the Committee whether it could be applied at all more strongly to the case of outworkers than to the case of a miner working by himself at the end of a shaft in a mine, or to a railway man working entirely by himself on a siding of a railway. In both those cases, as in the case of the outworker, the employer would have no control over the workman while at his work, and would have no knowledge of the circumstances under which the accident happened; and in the case of all these people they would be obliged to prove, if an accident happened, that it happened in the course of their employment, and in consequence of their employment. But against those two arguments he would put forward one of a strong general character, which, in his opinion, far outweighed them both, even if they were stronger than he was prepared to admit they were. The class of outworkers which he desired by this Amendment to include in the Bill was a class at the very bottom of the industrial ladder. It was a class which was ill-paid, and which carried on a very hand-to-mouth existence, and the conditions under which they worked were often of an insanitary and unsatisfactory nature. In fact their work was exactly that class of work which their Lordships desired to discourage as much as possible. What would be the effect of this Bill? If it passed in its present form, and the outworkers were excluded, there would be a direct inducement brought to bear upon employers to give more outwork rather than less. There would be a direct temptation to employers to evade their responsibility under the Act by giving out work, which would be carried on under conditions the reverse of satisfactory. He did not put that forward only as his own opinion; he maintained that there were facts in support of it. The whole past history of factory legislation went to show that when a particular class of factory was excluded from the operation of the Acts there was a great increase in that particular exempted class. He would instance the case of laundries, and the precautions imposed against fire. It was laid down there that those precautions had to betaken if there were as many as forty people employed in a factory or workshop, but that, if there were less than forty, they need not be taken. They had seen in the past where, that being the state of the law, employers had deliberately cut the number of their workmen down to thirty-eight and thirty-nine in order to get out of the provisions of the Act. He did not approach the question from the point of view of either the employer or the employee, but from the point of view of the State, and he submitted that the whole tendency, both of the Factory Acts and of Acts like this Workmen's Compensation Act, was to improve the conditions of labour as far as possible, and to secure that in the course of the industry of this country there should be as few accidents and casualties as possible. Therefore, to leave this Bill as it stood would, he submitted, be to give direct encouragement to that class of work which was contrary to the whole spirit of the Factory Acts, and of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He would also like to urge upon the Committee one more general consideration. This seemed to him to be an opportunity of making a change in the Bill which would be very acceptable to all parties in the House of Commons. When the Bill was read a third time in that House a direct appeal was made to His Majesty's Government not to resist attempts which would be made in the House of Lords to insert this Amendment. The occasions were only too frequent in which their Lordships' House had inserted Amendments in Government Bills which were not cordially accepted by the House of Commons. Here, on the other hand, they had an opportunity of inserting an Amendment which would be welcomed in the other House—an Amendment which would render the Bill more acceptable than it was at the present moment; and he therefore most earnestly hoped that the Government, in consideration of the appeal made to them on Third Reading in the House of Commons, would give favourable consideration to this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 14, line 37, to leave out 'or an outworker."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he was afraid he was not able to accept the parallels which had been suggested by the noble Earl either with respect to the railway man on a siding or the miner in a mine, because he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that the railway company, if they had not inspected the siding, ought to know all about it, and, if an accident occurred, they were a great deal more responsible for it than an employer would be for an accident which might take place in a room which he had probably no opportunity whatsoever of inspecting or finding out anything about. And so also with regard to the mines. A mining company certainly ought to know all about the farthest corner of their mine, even the part which had been most lately opened, before they allowed the miners to work there. In those two respects, the parallels of the noble Earl hardly ran on all fours as completely as the noble Earl seemed to think. With regard to the question of outworkers as a rule, he was sure that on behalf of His Majesty's Government he could express the sympathy which they had already expressed in another place. They expressed their regret on the Third Reading of the Bill that it had not been found possible to include this class. As Lord Lytton was aware, the chief reason for excluding them was that the outworkers were on premises of the nature of which the employer could know very little, and over which he had no sort of control. If they put this liability upon the employer, it would become a matter for consideration whether they should not give the employer some sort of control over the place in which the work was done. He thought he might remind the noble Earl, too, that outworkers were a class who were not very susceptible to disease arising from their employment, and that this Bill did certainly give compensation to very large numbers of people throughout the country. Considerable expressions of opinion had reached His Majesty's Government with regard to the extent to which compensation was given, and they were unwilling to enlarge the area of compensation, at any rate at present, however much they might desire that they could meet the wishes of the noble Lord now, or might hope to be able to do so sometime in the future.

*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

hoped Lord Lytton would not press his Amendment to a division, because he thought if he did so the Committee would be placed in a position of considerable difficulty, and the noble Lord would be raising—quite unintentionally, he was sure—a false issue. Nobody who had heard the noble Lord speak could doubt his thorough sympathy with these, in some cases, unfortunate men the outworkers, and he was sure that all their Lordships would sympathise with that part of his remarks. But it was impossible not to see the force of what had fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—that this would be impracticable, in the sense that it went too far, and that they were throwing what was really an unfair responsibility upon the employer. These outworkers were so very often employed by small employers. They had it on the authority of His Majesty's Government that the Bill dealt very hardly with the small employer. They had that on the highest authority they could have it, namely the hon. Member who took charge of the Bill in the other House. He ventured to point out one other consideration, and that was whether this proposal would really redound to the benefit of the workman. If they put too heavy a burden upon the employer, and especially the small employer, it would certainly tend gradually to reduce employment throughout the country. If they put too heavy a burden upon him and strained him to the breaking point, they almost forced him to take every opportunity that he could, though no doubt very often against his will, to employ as few workmen as possible. He trusted the Committee would take that view into consideration. They would see that it was really not ultimately to the benefit of the worker to put undue and practically impossible burdens upon the shoulders of the employer.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

said that as the Government had exhibited such nervousness on the question of the progress they were going to make, and in view of the diverse opinions which had been expressed, he would not press his Amendment to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved to omit from the definition of "dependants" the words— And where the workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate 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. This was the first time that the word "illegitimate"—at least so far as he knew—had appeared in an Act of Parliament, and he submitted that it would not be expedient to insert these words. First of all, he would say a word or two with regard to their history. The Government had changed their mind on the matter. A similar Amendment was moved in Grand Committee in the other House; the Home Secretary voted against it, and it was defeated. But, on Report, Mr. Keir Hardie moved the words which were now in the Bill, saying he had good reason to suppose they would be accepted, and they were accepted What was the reason for the insertion of the words? He had asked the noble Lord on the Woolsack the other day, and he admitted that it was an entirely new kind of provision, but he pointed out that being illegitimate was not the fault of the child. The noble and learned Lord also stated that in Scotland the matter was dealt with otherwise. He quite agreed, and he thought that the proper way to deal with the matter was to deal with it in the same manner in which it was dealt with in Scotland—namely, by altering the marriage law, and making it similar to the marriage law in Scotland, by which a parent was able to legitimatise his children subsequently by a declaration. But he did not think that the right way of doing it was the way adopted here—to do it by a side wind, in a clause. It was quite true that there were some cases of hardship. But let them think how much greater hardships they would create by inserting these words in the Bill. If the case were simply this—that there was a child born before marriage, and its parents were subsequently married, he quite agreed that that was a hard case. But by inserting these words in the clause, in the first place they introduced a considerable temptation to fraud. A person might have a servant who was unmarried, and have no reason to suppose that he or she had any children. But if the servant happened to die, a child might turn up and say that it was the child of this servant, and was dependent on him or her. It seemed to him that they exposed themselves to cases of that sort. Where a married man had children, and had also an illegitimate family, considerable hardship might be caused by bringing in the illegitimate children to share the compensation with the legitimate children. He could easily show that it was a discouragement to marriage, because if it did not matter, from the point of view of the Court, whether the parents were married or not, clearly that was an inducement to them not to be very particular about being married. He thought he had said enough to show their Lordships that it was not desirable to introduce, for the first time, words of this sort. If they wanted to remedy illegitimacy, let them do it by altering the marriage law, and not by words in a particular clause. He begged to move.

Amendment moved—

"In page 15, line 12, to leave out from 'dependent' to the end of the paragraph."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR

very strongly deprecated the adoption of the view of the noble Earl. He had not the slightest doubt that his Lordship wished, by the method he proposed, to promote marriage and regularity of life. He would ask him to consider, in the first place, what the general meaning and scope of this Bill was. It was a Bill, and the Act of which it was an Amendment and a consolidation was an Act, really in the nature of a general insurance—that an industry should suffer itself the losses, and compensate the losses incurred in the industry. It was a large and a fine idea. It was not given by reason of the merit or demerit of the sufferer, because a man might have been guilty of misconduct, though not serious and wilful, and yet have the benefit of the Act. It was not limited to liability on the part of persons who were blameworthy, because the employer in all these cases was personally free from blame, and it was in no sense a penalty for anything he had done or omitted to do. In his opinion the scope of the Act, notwithstanding his difference in many points from its author—and he supposed he differed from Mr. Chamberlain as widely as it was possible for one man to differ from another—would always stand as a lasting monument to his humanity and breadth of view. As he had always said, in the House of Commons and out of it, the Act was passed with the idea that an industry was to be taken as a whole, and that it was to bear theconsequences—the wear and tear, and the human wastage, so to speak, that attached to it. And the reason—he remembered perfectly well being appealed to himself—of what took place, and what led largely to the passing of the measure, was that on the pay day in the yards there would be seen a small row of the widows, and the little children, of those who had perished. In most cases he was quite certain they were cared for by the employers, who in this country were as a rule humane people; but in some cases these poor people, especially the dependants of those in company employ, were not cared for, and there they were on pay day, and the men would put their hands in their pockets and help these poor people out of their trouble. It was felt that that ought not to be, and that was the origin of the measure. It was dealt with quite apart from any question of merit or demerit on the part of the employer, and quite apart from specially deserving conduct on the part of the workman; in fact the question was dealt with quite apart from merit altogether. Why were the children, because they had the misfortune to be illegitimate, to be excluded from this scheme? He could not understand it. He could have understood the noble Earl doing a thing he was quite sure he would not do—throwing stones at the parents, but he could not understand people thinking it right to punish the poor children. Blame the parents by all means; punish them by secular punishment if needs be—although secular punishment had never been applied to people of that kind in this country. It was not attempted to do this, and to his mind all the fabric of the law which had the effect of punishing illegitimate children, so to speak, with the view of warning the parents, and teaching other people not to do the same, was a mistake, and essentially inhumane in its nature. He asked them to look at the French law. The French law allowed part of the property to go to the illegitimate children, and there was nothing wrong or inhumane in it. They might throw as many stones as they pleased (as long as they did not ask him to join in throwing them) at the parents, but he asked them not to throw stones at the children, and not to injure the children. Why should not one of these little creatures get its compensation because it was illegitimate? It was dependent upon a breadwinner; that breadwinner was one of a number engaged in a great industry, and this was a great, wide scheme for the purpose of preventing the leaving unprotected and unsolaced its own victims. And he would make this further observation: for his part he did not believe that this provision would have the least effect in promoting a regular and seemly life. It seemed to him difficult to imagine, if they thought of it, that those who had trespassed would really think for a moment, as an incentive towards virtuous courses, that in the event of an accident taking place, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in the case of a victim of such accident leaving an illegitimate child, that child would be unprovided for. The thing was so remote from human nature. This was a humane Bill; let it remain a humane Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.

First Schedule:—

*LORD AMPTHILL

moved to amend the first schedule (scale and conditions of compensation) so as to secure that where death resulted from the injury sustained the dependants who were only in part dependent upon the workman should be compensated at the rate of 156 times the amount of the average weekly contribution of the deceased towards their maintenance. He said the Amendment was not an ambitious one, but he thought it was nevertheless well worthy of the serious attention of the Committee, and particularly of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Its object was simply to make the Bill more consistent than it was in its present form and to prevent, or to minimise, the risks of unnecessary litigation. He did not wish to prevent any litigation by which the workman would benefit, but there was no object in having litigation which benefited nobody except the lawyer. In the preceding sub-section the allowance for total dependency was ascertainable on a definite and fixed principle, and therefore he was unable to see why the same principle should not hold good in cases of partial dependency. That was what he meant by saying that the object of this Amendment was to make the Bill consistent. With regard to avoiding un-necessary litigation, he would point out that the words "reasonable and proportionate" opened a wide field for differences of opinion among lawyers and judges. The Committee would realise at once what an immense field those words gave for differences of interpretation and for an enormous amount of unnecessary litigation. He hoped the Government would agree that this was a reasonable and necessary Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 18, line 20, to leave out from the beginning of paragraph (ii.) to 'and' in line 26, and insert 'If the workman does not leave any such dependant, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum 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."—(Lord Ampthill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

agreed that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl was a perfectly logical one. It was not resisted by His Majesty's Government on the ground of its being illogical, but for quite different reasons. Amendments to the same effect as that of the noble Lord and of Lord Zouche were moved in another place and rejected on the ground that the Government did not propose to interfere with the main scales of compensation provided in the existing Act. Lord Ampthill, he was quite sure, had realised by this time that the present Bill was a very complicated measure, and one nicely adjusted to very various interests. It was already complicated, but if His Majesty's Government had decided to interfere with the different scales which existed under the present Act there would have been a very large number of Amendments in addition, which would have made the Bill even more complicated. Those were the grounds upon which he ventured to hope that the noble Lord would not insist upon his Amendment. The Government from the first moment rather intimated to the other House that they did not propose in this case to interfere with the scales which already existed, and that intention of theirs was acquiesced in. He ventured to think that it would be very inconvenient if now the Committee were to interfere with the scale because, in view of that intimation of the Government, Amendments which might have been moved by Members of the House of Commons were not brought forward. Any Amendment, therefore, on the lines of that of the noble Lord, however logical, would, he was afraid, interfere very seriously with the plans of His Majesty's Government as they had been carried out so far. He might also say to the noble Lord that if he saw his way not to press the Amendment, after all no very great harm would be done, because the matter would be left to the discretion of those Courts of whom he (Earl Beauchamp) had already been able to say—he was glad to think with the acquiescence of the Committee—that they commanded the confidence of both employer and employee. What Lord Ampthill's Amendment would do would be to take away from these Courts certain discretion, and as, so far, at any rate, these Courts had not exercised their discretion in any way which was thought unfair by employer or employee, he ventured to hope that they might be allowed in the to exercise that same discretion.

*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

agreed that there was a great deal to be urged on behalf of this Amendment from a mere logical point of view. In those cases where there was a definite weekly contribution by a workman out of his earnings towards a partially dependent relative, no doubt the basic figure of 156—which was the same as that in the earlier part of the schedule—would simplify proceedings in the way of enabling a claim to be easily calculated. But it was impossible not to see at the same time the force of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had said, that although the Amendment might be strictly logical yet in many cases it might produce the very complication which was sought to be avoided. They could not have exactly the same class of case always occurring, because where there was a money payment more or less regular that was a very simple thing, but among the poor workmen he fancied it was a very common custom for a generous man to support a relative who was not his wife or child, partly by money perhaps, in the shape of an occasional gift, partly by help in the way of sharing his dinner for example, or some method of that sort—sometimes by a gift of clothing or what not—noneof which methods would be exactly a money payment, and the value of which would have to be calculated and a weekly average struck and the amount of such weekly average multiplied by the figure 156. That would no doubt, as had been represented, cause some complication, and would, on the part sometimes of very unscrupulous people, unfortunately promote or tend to promote the very litigation, which it was sought to avoid. Therefore, although he was sorry, looking at the matter in its simplest form, that His Majesty's Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment, yet he could not think that even if it were rejected any great harm would be done practically, inasmuch as the Court before whom the case would be tried, if it had a free and unfettered jurisdiction, would probably deal out as far as might be practical justice in cases brought before it. It might often happen that where a claimant came in the guise of a partial dependant, the employer, if a just man, might say, "Well, this is rather a doubtful case, but I do not wish to be hard, I will try and settle this matter by paying a fair sum down;"and he thought that very often—possibly in nine cases out of ten—that would settle the matter.

*LORD AMPTHILL

said that he fully admitted the force of Earl Beauchamp's reply so far as it related to the convenience of the Government, and the last thing that he would wish to do was to embarrass the Government, even if he could count upon any degree of support for this Amendment. But there was a further argument used by the noble Earl which he could not allow to pass unchallenged. He had declared that the effect of his Amendment would be to interfere with the discretion of the Courts, in whom both employers and employees, as well as the country generally, had the greatest confidence. He could not admit that the Amendment would have that effect. It would not interfere with the discretion of the Courts, but he thought it would rather give them a line of guidance. They would have a basis, a principle, upon which they could frame their decisions, and the result would be a more even and consistent working of the Act throughout the country. He did not think that could in any way be described as interfering with the discretion of the Courts, and he need hardly say that he did not in any way dispute or deny what the noble Earl had said about the confidence which was felt in the Courts of law in this country. He was not inclined to withdraw the Amendment until he could ascertain whether he had some support or not, and he should therefore challenge a division. It was impossible to see until this was done whether his Amendment, which had been admitted to be logical and consistent, was supported or not.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

pointed out to Lord Camperdown that if he moved and carried the Amendment standing in his name it would have the effect of shutting out the subsequent Amendment of Lord Belper.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he would be very sorry to shut out Lord Belper's Amendment, and so far as he was concerned he was perfectly prepared to let it be taken first. He did not, however, suppose that that would be in accordance with the ordinary rules of the Committee. Therefore, if the noble Chairman thought it better, he would proceed to state the case for his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

suggested that the difficulty might be met by a slight modification in the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he could not move the Amendment by simply alluding to half a sentence; he must either state it or postpone it. Perhaps he had better state his case and at the same time say what he had to say with regard to Lord Belper's Amendment. What he proposed to do was to provide that— unless the incapacity arises from a fracture of limb or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or from any other personal injury which prevents the workman from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed for a period exceeding twenty-one days, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week. As the Bill stood, for the first seven days a workman was not to receive compensation. Then if the injury lasted for fourteen days or thirteen days he would receive compensation for six days. But supposing it lasted for fifteen days, then he would receive compensation for fifteen days. He suggested that this was evidently a temptation to malinger. That was not his own opinion only; it was the opinion of the Home Office Departmental Committee which was appointed to inquire into this law in 1904. They said as regarded the suggestion that in the case of injuries incapacitating a man for two weeks or more the compensation should be dated back to the day of the accident. The danger of malingering if a fortnight's compensation became due at the expiration of fourteen or fifteen days would be very great and must, in our judgment, be regarded as a fatal objection. He thought that spoke for itself, and it was unnecessary for him, therefore, to trouble their Lordships in elaborating that point. What he proposed was that that fourteen days should be extended to twenty-one days, because there was much less probability of a man malingering for twenty-one days than for fourteen. If the Committee excepted the cases of incapacity arising from a very severe injury, he thought all justice would be done, and there would be much less probability of anything approaching to a fraud arising under this clause than if it were left as it now stood. With regard to Lord Belper's Amendment it was only slightly different from his own. He must say that of the two he preferred it to his own, and if the Government preferred Lord Belper's Amendment he would be quite content to withdraw his own and accept that of Lord Belper. He begged to move.

Amendment moved—

"In page 19, to leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert '(a) unless the incapacity arises from a fracture of limb or dislocation of a limb, or loss of an eye, or from any other personal injury which prevents the workman from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed for a period exceeding twenty-one days, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week, and."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD BELPER

said perhaps it would be convenient that he should say a word or two on Lord Camper down's Amendment, especially as the noble Lord had intimated that he preferred his (Lord Belper's) Amendment to his own. If both Amendments were before the Committee perhaps the one standing in his own name would be accepted. He would say at once that he was very reluctant to move any Amendment which would have the effect of limiting the compensation which had been agreed in the other House to be paid to workmen, and which to a certain extent at all events—although he did not say the exact terms had been agreed—had not given rise to so much discussion there as might have been expected. The history of this clause, or of the part of the Bill which dealt with compensation, was rather remarkable. In the original Bill the provision was that no compensation should be paid until after the first fortnight. That point was very carefully considered indeed by the Committee which sat upon that Bill, and after full consideration, and after hearing a great many arguments on both sides, it was decided that it would not be wise to extend the compensation payable by making the fortnight into a shorter period. Notwithstanding that, when this Bill was brought in, the time was reduced to seven days. In the Standing Committee in the other House it was still further reduced, in spite of the remonstrance of the Government, to three days. When it went back to the House the seven days was re-inserted, but it was accompanied by the proposal that in the case of an incapacity which lasted a fortnight, compensation for the first week should be paid to the workman who had suffered the injury. He entirely shared Lord Camper down's view with regard to the principle of dating back. He did not think any stronger words could have been used in a Report from a Committee than those which he read, declaring the view of the Committee that it was absolutely out of the question to adopt a proposal to date back in a case where the injury had only lasted for a fortnight. He was quite aware that the principle was the same, even if the period was extended to three weeks, but at all events it would do away with a very large number of cases where there would be a very strong inducement—he would not say to malinger, because he had not the least desire to cast any aspersion of that kind upon the workmen, but to stay at home when, otherwise, they might go to work. Let the Committee consider what the provision meant. It meant that by staying at home the workman would get a considerably larger sum than by going to work, and anybody under those circumstances, would be rather influenced to stay at home. The temptation to regard one's self as not thoroughly cured of the injury suffered was almost too strong to be withstood. Under those circumstances he ventured to press that the time should be extended to twenty-one days. It was clear that the cases they wanted to meet, and to give extra compensation to, were the cases of really serious injuries. The more serious those injuries were the more important it seemed to him that the workman should have some extra compensation. Where the doctor's bill was a large one, and the workman was kept from working a considerable time, the necessity of his family must be greater, and, therefore, the longer the injury lasted the more desirable was it to give some larger compensation than could be done by giving the compensation for the first week. He hoped the Government would understand his reason for putting down the Amendment standing in his name. He thought the clause as it stood was really a premium on malingering, although he hardly liked to put it in that way; at all events it was not human nature to resist where such a temptation was held out, and it was certain to have the effect of extending these injuries, especially when such a very great inducement was held out to a man not to go back to his work at the time he might have done. He could not, of course, move his own Amendment now, but in case Lord Camperdown withdrew his, he would certainly move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said there was an Amendment upon the same point by another noble Lord, who was not present (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and he had thought, perhaps, that it might have tended to the convenience of the Committee if all three Amendments were discussed together, seeing that they dealt so much with the same point. He might say at once that he would like to accept fully the account which the noble Lord had just given of the history of this provision in the Bill. It was perfectly true that the Bill as first introduced was not the same as it was now, it had been altered in Committee, and it had been changed again since then. There was one point which came into his mind while the noble Lord was speaking, that if to workmen—it was difficult to choose a phrase on this subject, as all the members of that Committee were so tender—there was a tendency on the part of any workman to delay his return to work, would not the suggestion of the noble Lord that he should wait for twenty-one days, rather go to show that he would delay his return for three weeks instead of for a fortnight?

LORD BELPER

No.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

After all there was that point—that if he was likely to delay his return for a fortnight was it as likely that he would be still more anxious, or just as anxious to delay his return for the full three weeks. But that was not the ground upon which he wished, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord. He thought it might be taken that the noble Earl, who had expressed a preference for Lord Belper's Amendment, would not wish in any case to press his own.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I withdraw mine at once.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that as a matter of fact, as their Lordships were made well aware by the noble Lord, this provision was the result of considerable discussion in the lower House. It had been arrived at generally, he thought he might say, with the consent of all Parties, and it represented the consensus of opinion upon a matter of very considerable difficulty which had evoked a great deal of criticism and discussion, not only inside the House of Commons but also outside. The Bill of last year, which was introduced by the late Government, mentioned a fortnight as the qualifying period. This Bill started with seven days. The Committee reduced it to three days, and then by arrangement the seven days, with the dating back after fourteen days, was inserted. He could not help thinking that that system, even if it did not commend itself to the Committee as being entirely logical, had that atmosphere of compromise about it which he hoped at that time would be likely to approve itself to the Committee as one that would be agreeable to both sides. The general question of dating back, it was perfectly true, was one upon which the Committee to which Lord Camperdown had referred did not feel itself able to recommend that legislation should proceed upon those lines. But the answer, and the only answer, which he could give to the noble Lord upon that point was one which would not be entirely unexpected by him, namely, that there was now a Government in office which did not agree with the Committee which reported so long ago as 1904, and that they had proposed more generous terms. On the general question of expense he thought that on the whole the associations of employers and the insurance companies, whose opinion had been somewhat freely circulated amongst noble Lords, and which had also been sought by His Majesty's Government, were of opinion that there was very little difference between the proposal which emanated from the Committee in question and the proposal now before their Lordships, He could only say that this was a provision which His Majesty's Government had considered at great length, and which they had introduced into the Bill in another place in the hope and in the belief that it would end by being acceptable to all Parties.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

did not think the noble Lord could quite say that this clause was acceptable to all Parties in the other House, because, unless his recollection served him wrongly, there was a division, or two divisions, against it. It was acceptable to this extent: that, where there was a majority and a minority, what the majority wanted was determined to be the decision of the House. But, with regard to the question of whether fourteen days was more likely to en courage a tendency, to use the noble Earl's phrase, not to desire to return to work, there could be very little doubt, because twenty-one days meant at all events a considerably longer abstention from work and also a considerably smaller gain on the part of the person who did not return to work than in the case of a person not working thirteen days and being paid for six, and not working fifteen days and being paid for fifteen. It seemed to him that the encouragement given by full payment as soon as a work man had been fourteen days away from work must necessarily encourage a person to desire to stay at home. He felt sure that would be so in the case of any of their Lordships, and it would certainly be the case with himself. Therefore, if Lord Belper moved his Amendment and divided the Committee he should certainly vote with him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

"In page 19, line 2, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'three."—(Lord Belper.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

quite felt the force of the arguments adduced on both sides of the question. He was sure, not only from what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated, but from what he had read of the progress of public business, that this was a matter discussed more than once very fully in the other House, and he, therefore, would advise his noble friend not to press the matter further.

LORD BELPER

said that under the circumstances he should not press his Amendment to a division. But he wished to make a protest, because he did not think this was a desirable way of dealing with the question of compensation. He thought it would have been far better that compensation should have been paid at an earlier day rather than that they should go back and hold out this inducement to workmen which they would not otherwise have had. He thought the noble Earl had rather lightly passed over the remarks he had made in quoting from the Committee of 1904. He had said, "Oh, there is another Government in office now, and they do not adopt the views of that Committee." He would, however, remind the noble Earl that the Committee in question was an absolutely impartial one, and was not appointed as representing either the late Government or the present Government. The Chairman of it, as everybody present would admit, was as impartial a man as could be found; and the present Government had already asked Sir Kenelm Digby to sit on one or two Commissions appointed by themselves, which showed their confidence in his impartiality. That Committee considered the point he had put to be a fatal objection to the proposed system. That was all he desired to say, and he begged to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

moved a new sub-section providing that a workman who had obtained a medical certificate stating that from age or physical or mental infirmity he was specially liable to accident, and who had entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him, the compensation should not exceed the maximum, or be less— (1) Where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependant, than £25, or a sum equivalent to thirty-nine times his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger; (2) where total or partial incapacity results from the injury, then a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week of 5s. or one quarter of his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger. He hoped this Amendment would not only receive the sympathy of the Committee but also its support. He had been very much disappointed to find when the Bill came up to their Lordships' House that this Amendment, which had been proposd in a somewhat different form by His Majesty's Government, had been cut out on the Report stage. What was the proposal? It emanated like other suggestions which had not in all cases been adopted from the Report of the Committee of 1904, to which so much attention had been drawn to-night. That Committee said that the evidence had led them to the conclusion that the Workmen's Compensation Act had largely increased the difficulty of old men finding and retaining employment. They went on to say that they feared the tendency of these difficulties was to grow, and that when the working of the Act of 1900 came to be more fully and generally understood (that was with regard to agricultural labourers) there seemed to be ground for apprenhension that the difficulties might be more felt in rural districts, and they further went on to say that they thought the danger was sufficiently great to justify the attention of the Legislature. That was a very weighty opinion, but he might remind the Committee that, if it was weighty at the time it was written, it had infinitely more weight now, because this Bill proposed to add to the workmen who would be able to get compensation if injured, another 6,000,000 in addition to the 6,000,000 under the original Bill, and, he believed, the something like 2,000,000 who were supposed to be added under the Act of 1900. What were the classes of these workmen? The original Bill dealt with workmen in large employment, railways, large commercial undertakings, and dangerous trades of such a character that the great proportion of them had benefit societies of which they could reap the advantage in old age or when they were suffering from any infirmity. The present Bill added to those an equal number, but a great proportion of them were in small employment, where they would not have the same advantages—to as large an extent at all events—as was the case with those employed by large companies and large industrial undertakings. It seemed to him, therefore, that their sympathy ought to be even stronger than before for those workmen who would lose their places and be turned out owing to the compensation given under this Bill. With regard to the old people, he believed it was perfectly clear that they were more liable to injury than the young men, with the result that a large number of old men had lost and would lose their places in consequence. His Amendment also dealt with those who, owing to physical or mental infirmity and incapacity, were specially liable to accident. He would like, with the leave of the Committee, to leave out the first portion of his Amendment, because he understood, since he put down the Amendment, that there was an objection in the other House to dealing with, or at all events recognising, the case of men of a particular age; and he found, on reading his Amendment, that the case of an old man would be sufficiently covered by the latter part of the Amendment, under sub-section (d), which said— In the case of a workman who has, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, obtained from a medical referee a certificate to the effect that his age, or any physical or mental infirmity and incapacity from which he is suffering, is such as to render him specially liable to accident, and that they should be met by being allowed to agree with their employer for a smaller amount of compensation. Therefore, he would like to amend his Amendment by taking out sub-section (c) and leaving in sub-section (d). He believed that was very much the form in which the Amendment was left by the other House; and probably, if that was the case, it might be more acceptable to them than if be put in the first part of his Amendment. With regard to the case of those suffering from some physical or mental infirmity, it was quite clear, from the evidence given before the Committee, that that was a very serious case indeed for many of them. In one case there were six men in one employment who had each lost an eye; and the insurance company had absolutely refused to insure them on any terms whatever. More than that, he understood that the mutual insurance companies of the men themselves would decline to insure men who were suffering from an infirmity of that sort. Therefore, it was not to be wondered at that there was a great reluctance on the part of employers to give employment to men who were suffering from some infirmity of that character. He regretted that this Amendment, although there was a closer division upon it in the other House than there had been on some Amendments to the Bill, had not been accepted. As far as he could learn the arguments against it were that to recognise in any way the principle that a man in a particular trade should receive less wages, and therefore less compensation, was contrary to the principle of trade unionism. He did not quite understand why in these cases there could not be an exception made. There were men who were obviously suffering from old age or from some infirmity, and, therefore, it could not be supposed that they would be earning the same wages as men in possession of all their faculties or younger men. However, that was the argument used, and it proved fatal to the Amendment. He was bound to say that when Parliament brought in this measure for the good of the workmen, and when their attention was called to the fact that there was a large class of workmen who especially deserved sympathy and support and who had suffered in this way in consequence of the measure that was brought in, the least that could be done was that Parliament should try and meet their case and do what it could to prevent their suffering in that way. Under these circumstances he trusted the Committee would support the Amendment, and that, if it was sent down to the other House with a strong expression of feeling from their Lordships, at all events some further consideration would be given to it, because it seemed to him to be eminently a matter on which their Lordships were not only able but bound to express their opinion. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In line 9, after the word 'shillings,' to insert '(d) in the case of a workman who has, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, obtained from a medical referee a certificate to the effect that his age or any physical or mental infirmity and incapacity from which he is suffering is such as to render him specially liable to accident, or to render the result of an accident to him specially serious, 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 shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less: (i.) Where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependant, than twenty-five pounds, or a sum equivalent to thirty-nine times his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger, (ii.) Where total or partial incapacity results from the injury, then a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week of five shillings or one quarter of his average weekly earnings, whichever is the larger."—(Lord Belper.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said there had been two points really raised by the Amendment of Lord Belper—one with regard to the principle and the other with regard to the details of the Amendment he had proposed. With regard to the principle, he would say at once that His Majesty's Government proposed to follow the course which they had taken in another place, of not interfering directly in any division which might take place on the question, leaving it to be settled exactly as their Lordships' wished. There was a remarkable division in another place, when the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill, and also the Under-Secretary voted for a clause on lines similar to the present Amendment. In spite of that, however, it was defeated, and the Bill had reached their Lordships' House without that clause. Under those circumstances it would be improper for him to express his views on either one side or the other, or to endeavour to influence their Lordships' vote in either direction.

LORD ASHBOURNE

What were the arguments of the Home Secretary?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that the Home Secretary had voted, and had also spoken, in favour of the clause, but what he had been about to observe was this. There was the further point of the drafting of the Amendment In the event of the Committee carrying, or desiring to carry, the principle of this clause, the Home Office trusted that their Lordships would not carry it exactly in the form proposed by Lord Belper, but would rather use the form of words in which it left the Standing Committee. The Home Office would wish it rather to appear in the form proposed by the Home Secretary himself. Perhaps it would be convenient if he were to read it— ( (c) In the case 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 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) and then it would follow on accordingly.

LORD ASHBOURNE

Is it intended to leave out all reference to mental failure?

LORD BEAUCHAMP

imagined that would be so. The regulations made by the Secretary of State would perhaps cover that, because, as the noble Lord (Lord Ashbourne) was aware, the Secretary of State was in favour of regulations based on that idea. Having said so much, he was bound to confess that he should vote against the Amendment if it proceeded to a division, in spite of the high authority there was for the Amendment and for the principle now before the Committee. He did not know what opposition there was likely to be to the noble Lord's Amendment, but unless it was considerable he should not think of dividing the Committee on the subject.

LORD BELPER

said he was quite willing to accept an Amendment in the terms proposed by Earl Beauchamp. As far as he could see it would fully carry out his object, and it appeared to be really very much in the form of the words contained in the second part of his Amendment, the only difference feeing in reference to the amount of compensation.

LORD STALBRIDGE

said he was very glad indeed that His Majesty's Government at last had really done an act of justice to the workmen, because if they had insisted on opposing the Amendment of Lord Belper they would undoubtedly have inflicted a great injustice upon a very large body of deserving men. He, of course, spoke only from one point of view—the railway point of view—and he represented a railway that employed an enormous number of men. It stood to reason that in one of their departments, which employed 5,000 or 6,000 men, there must every year be a certain number of old men falling out of the ranks, and when it came to reducing the numbers of employees it naturally followed that the oldest men must leave. To render the hardships of those men as light as possible they endeavoured to give them employment at a reduced rate of wage wherever they could, but it was obvious that in justice to their shareholders they could not place such men in positions where the company would stand a grave risk of losing largo sums of money if any accident happened to them. The men were perfectly willing to forego it themselves if the opportunity was given them. He was sure that if noble Lords were able to vote according to their own feelings, even the noble Earl himself (Earl Beauchamp) would vote for the Amendment, although he had said that he would not. He meant that he would do so if he thoroughly understood the position. He was very glad indeed that the House was left free to vote as it liked, because there were many on the Government side who had strongly sympathetic feelings for these old men who would lose their employment if the Bill was carried in the form in which it now stood.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The noble Lord, I understand, moves the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill?

LORD BELPER

Yes, I withdraw my own Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

"In page 19, line 9, after the word 'shillings' to insert (c) In the case 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 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 is 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)."—(Earl Bauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

*LORD AMPTHILL

moved an Amendment to provide that in the case of partial incapacity the weekly payment should in no case exceed, not the difference, as the schedule proposed, but half the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he was earning or was able to earn after the accident. At the risk of appearing monotonous, he must repeat once more that the only object of this Amendment was to make the Bill consistent, and to prevent unnecessary litigation—litigation which would not be of any advantage either to the employer or to the workman. He further explained that this Amendment restored the Bill to the original form in which it was approved by the Government—to a form which was approved in principle by the late Government and by the Departmental Committee. In fact the omission of the words "one half" was made by the Standing Committee on Law. They had the weighty authority of the late Government, the present Government, and the Departmental Committee for the insertion of these words. The whole principle of the Bill was based on the "half"—the principle that one half of the loss in these cases was to be borne by the employer and one half by the workman. That was what he meant by saying that the effect of this Amendment was to make the Bill more consistent, or rather to restore the consistency of the Bill. It stood to reason that if the limit of compensation paid to a man who was totally disabled was half his earnings, when a man was only partially incapacitated he should still be compensated to the extent of only one half of his loss. To make the matter quite clear he instanced the case of two men of the same age, each earning £2 per week. One of them was permanently disabled, and received £1 per week as compensation, or one half of his wages. The other man was able to earn £1 per week in spite of his disablement. Nevertheless, as the Bill stood, the second man would be able to receive the same compensation as his fellow workman—namely, £1 a week—and he would pro tanto be the better off. Although only partially disabled he would be getting, by way of compensation, supplemented by what he was earning, £2 per week, while his fellow workman, who was totally disabled, would only receive £1 per week. He did not see on what grounds that arrangement could be described as fair, and he must also point out that to leave the Bill as it stood was to encourage what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had very aptly described as a tendency to delay a return to work. That, he thought, was a serious objection, and he hoped the noble Earl would accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 20, line 2, after the word 'exceed' to insert the word 'one half of."—(Lord Ampthill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he was afraid this Amendment really sprang from what he was quite sure was not in the mind of the noble Earl who moved it, and that was some desire to fetter the discretion of the Courts. It was quite obvious, in spite of the contradiction which Lord Ampthill had entered to his previous argument on that point, that if the Court was prevented from giving more than half, its discretion was to that extent fettered. Here they had the noble Lord, once more asking that the Court should not give more than half. It was perfectly possible to conceive of a case where it would be just as unfair to give more than half as it would be to give less than half. The instance the noble Lord had given was perfectly obvious, and they could all think of instances in which they could introduce unfairness either on one side or the other. But the objection which he should take to the noble Lord's Amendment, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, was that the County Court Judges had really so far, administered the Act in a way which had met with the approval of all litigants, both on one side and the other, and, as they had done that in the past, he hoped their Lordships would not now feel inclined to put in any Amendment which would prevent them from continuing to carry out in the future those functions which they had exercised with so much wisdom and discretion in the past.

LORD NEWTON,

in supporting the Amendment, said that the Bill had been described that afternoon by the Lord Chancellor as an "Insurance" Bill, and the noble and learned Lord had pointed out that it was desirable that it should be complicated as little as possible by legal technicalities. The object of his noble friend's Amendment was to secure simplicity, and, still more, uniformity of procedure, so far as he could understand. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had asserted that the varying decisions of County Court Judges had met with the approval of all parties. He would like to have the opinions of the noble Lord the Chairman of the London and North Western Railway, and of his noble friend the chairman of the Great Northern Railway, on that point. He thought that if inquiry were made it would be found that a considerable variety of opinion existed as to the varying decisions given by County Court Judges upon this particular point. The principle of this Bill—and, as far as he knew, the principle of the existing Act—was that the workman's loss should be divided between himself and his employer. Under the Bill as it stood it was perfectly obvious that that loss might fall solely upon the employer, because the decision of the County Court Judge might, as had been already pointed out, amount to this—that a partially incapacitated man, who was able to earn something, might be awarded the same proportion of his earnings as a man who was incapacitated from earning anything. He knew perfectly well the sort of argument with which such an Amendment was met; but he submitted that it was in accordance with common sense, and he really thought the noble Earl might be generous enough to leave this Amendment, as he had done the last, to the decision of the Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said that allusion had been made to a remark of his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who had expressed a desire that this Bill should be kept as dear as possible from technicalities. He confessed that he could not see any question of technicality in this matter at all. There was nothing of the kind. The proposal of the noble Lord was to place a limit upon the discretion otherwise left to the County Court Judge. His Amendment was rather the technicality, because its object was to restrict and confine the County Court Judge within the limits that he laid down. Now, as he understood, and believed to be the case, speaking generally, the Compensation of Workmen Act had been administered very satisfactorily by the County Court Judges. He did not understand that there was any charge made against them. In- dividual County Court Judges might have made mistakes in particular cases, but on the whole he believed they had administered the law very well Under those circumstances it seemed to him that it would be exceedingly inadvisable to place upon them a restriction of the kind proposed.

LORD ASHBOURNE

was disposed to think that it was nearly always advisable, in framing legislation, to trust the tribunal—to lay down certain guiding lines, and then leave the tribunal free to apply itself to the particular case, keeping, of course, within those guiding lines. The Bill, as it stood, laid down a maximum, and said that under no circumstances was that maximum to be exceeded. That maximum was the difference between the amount the man was earning before the accident and afterwards. Then followed certain cautionary words to the effect that the amounts awarded to the workmen— Shall bear such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circumstances of the case may appear proper, showing that the maximum was not to be given as a matter of course, but that the tribunal was bound to consider how far it should be given. Under those circumstances he was inclined to think that it would be better to follow the usual rule in considering these questions, and that it would be nicer, safer, and more in accordance with the ordinary principles of administering justice, to trust the tribunal.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,

in moving an Amendment to provide that reference should be made to a medical referee on the application of either party, instead of, as the Bill provided, only with the consent of both parties, said that the proposal embodied in his Amendment first came before the public in the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1904. Its subsequent history was that it was inserted in the original Bill, was approved of by the Standing Committee, and was altered only on Report, and certainly it seemed the most natural thing that when the two parties had both consulted their medical advisers upon the question of the health of the workman, and had failed to agree, either of them should refer the matter to the referee of the County Court, and so get a speedy decision. The whole object of the clause was to give a speedy reference in which this dispute, which was not one of law, but one purely of medical fact, should be settled. But as the schedule stood at present it required the consent, not of one of the parties but of both, to refer the matter to the referee, and that certainly appeared to him to be the most extraordinary form of reference he had ever heard of. The word "referee" was suggestive rather of the football field. He did not know how the system would work on the football field, but on the cricket field it certainly would seem a most extraordinary thing that an appeal to the umpire should only be made with the consent of the batsman as well as of the field, and it seemed to him that the natural and proper method was to put the provision back into the form in which it originally stood, and allow either party to refer the matter to the medical referee of the county court, and to get a speedy decision which would prevent a danger which was very obvious—that it might be to the interest of one of the parties to keep the matter hanging on for the time that it might take to bring it before the Court, during which period he would be enabled to claim the actual amount which was practically in dispute. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment moved—

"In page 22, line 3, to leave out 'both parties' and insert 'either party."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

*LORD AMPTHILL

hoped this Amendment would be accepted, and observed that his name appeared in connection with it on the Amendment Paper. The words "both parties" had a specious appearance of fairness, and he imagined—though he did not know whether it was the case—that they might have been introduced in another place when the House was not fully alive to their effect, and where, perhaps, if he might say so without disrespect, that House was in as drowsy and unreceptive a condition as their Lordships' House occasionally fell into during very late sittings. The words had a specious appearance of fairness, but they were really most unfair. His noble friend had taken an illustration from the football field, and he would take one from the Courts of law, He would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill how it would work if legal proceedings might not be taken against a man, except with his consent. That was practically the principle which the Bill was introducing if the words "both parties" were left in. If those words were omitted, and the words "either party" inserted, they would restore the principle which prevailed in regard to ordinary litigation, and indeed in regard to all matters of dispute which were decided on ordinary principles of equity and common sense.

LORD NEWTON

said that as his name also appeared upon the Amendment Paper, in connection with this proposal, he might be allowed to make an appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The Amendment dealt with what had been delicately described by Earl Beauchamp as a disinclination to return to work—a disinclination which was reluctantly admitted in all quarters to exist. He only wished to point out that as it stood the clause was perfectly useless. It was quite obvious that in all cases where it would be most desirable to have the opinion of the medical referee—in cases where a man was reasonably suspected of shamming—those would be exactly the cases in which the workman would refuse to join in the application. He submitted that this was most emphatically a clear case, and he hoped that the Committee would, if necessary, divide upon the subject.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

was sorry that he was not able to agree at once, or indeed at all, to the Amendment. The fact was that the Government could not regard the words "both parties" as having merely that specious air of fairness which Lord Newton had mentioned. The Government thought that the words "both parties" were really fair, and that it was only if both parties agreed that reference should be had to the medical referee. He thought their Lordships would see that if one party was allowed to hale the other party before the medical referee, that side would have an advantage which was denied to the other.

EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Why?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

thought the Committee must see that in the event of any accident occurring, it was open to the employer to hale an injured workman against his will before the medical referee. It appeared to him that that was giving him, without any doubt at all, an advantage which there was certainly no reason for giving him, and it also seemed to him unfair, because the workman would have been already examined by his own medical man, and that ought to be sufficient. This provision had been inserted in the Bill upon the motion of one of the Members for a mining district in South Wales, and it was accepted by the Home Secretary on the ground that he considered the point to be one for the workmen themselves to decide. This was without any doubt, in his (Earl Beauchamp's) opinion, one of the points upon which the workmen felt very strongly indeed, and upon which they would be most unwilling to allow themselves to be called before the medical referee without their own consent. He could not help thinking that their Lordships would see that it did inflict, at any rate, something of a disability upon the workmen, and therefore upon those grounds he trusted their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.

LORD ALVERSTONE

thought the noble Earl had really not grappled with the case. Under the clause a work man could not be called upon to submit himself to examination except under the regulations of the Secretary of State, and when he had so submitted himself to a medical practitioner selected by himself, and when he had seen that practitioner's report, then he was to be allowed to say: "I will not allow myself to be examined by an in- dependent man. All he could say was that if it were desired to make the clause unworkable, the best way of doing so was by putting in a provision that there should be no review of the report of the workman's own medical man. It might be supposed to be in the interest of the workman, but he was sure the clause would practically be a dead letter. If there was to be a dispute and an appeal, why should there not be an appeal at the request of the party who thought himself aggrieved by the report?

LORD BELPER

said he had had a very strong representation with regard to this Amendment from an official member of the Committee of 1904. The whole of the scheme, which was drawn by the Committee, and adopted by the Government, would be knocked on the head if this Amendment were not accepted. The object was purely a medical one, to get at the medical state of the workman, what his injury was at the particular time, and the report was to be brought before the referee in order that he might know what the state of the workman was, for the purpose of saving money and avoiding litigation if possible. He really thought that the words must have been inserted under some misapprehension, because they defeated the whole object of the clause. If both parties were obliged to make the application, it was clear that when there was any dispute about what the medical state-of the workman was, they would not both agree. But the object was to get at the real, true state of the workman, and therefore it was extremely desirable that the Amendment should be introduced into the Bill.

*LORD SANDERSON

wished to call the attention of Earl Beauchamp to the words of a paragraph a little lower down in the schedule— If a workman, on being required so to do, refuses to submit himself for examination by a medical referee, and so on. There was no sense whatever in those words if the workman had already agreed. If his consent was absolutely necessary the paragraph must have been left in by mistake.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.

Proposed words there inserted.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD BELPER

moved to amend the provision permitting any weekly payment which had continued for not less than six months to be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum of such an amount as would, when invested, purchase an annuity. He proposed to substitute the words 'not exceeding such an amount" for "of such an amount." He said that as the words stood in the Bill it was perfectly clear that the amount must be a specific lump sum of a certain amount which was described as a sum, which, if invested, would purchase an annuity equal to 75 per cent. of the annual value. As far as he could see the argument, there ought to be an option to the workman and employer to agree on a lump sum even if it was not the exact sum mentioned in the schedule. For instance, in the previous paragraph it was provided that— Any weekly payment may be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and such payment may be ended, diminished, or increased. It was clear, therefore, that where a weekly payment was being made there might be circumstances which would suggest that that weekly payment should be made at a particular time; and in the same way, where a lump sum was agreed to be put in place of that weekly payment it would have been thought that an option would have been given for the parties to agree if they thought it desirable so to do. He understood that in the past there had been hardly any settlement of a compulsory character, but there had been an immense number of voluntary settlements, and a lump sum had been agreed to by both parties. His Amendment, therefore, proposed a lump sum not exceeding such an amount. It did not say that that should not be the amount fixed as the maximum, but that in a case where the parties wished to agree together they should agree for a lump sum. He would point out that it was just as much in the interest of the workman as of the employer.

Amendment moved—

"In page 22, line 39, to leave out the third 'of' and insert 'not exceeding."—(Lord Belper.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

explained that the object of the clause in the schedule was that if the workman wished to commute for a lump sum, the lump sum must be sufficient to purchase a Post Office annuity equal to 75 per cent. of the annual value of the weekly payment. The result of the noble Lord's Amendment would be altogether to alter the intention of the clause, making it not a fixed sum but a maximum sum.

LORD BELPER

It would give an opportunity for the sum to be a less sum.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that was so, but the view of His Majesty's Government was that commutation was not, as a rule, and as a matter of experience, a very good thing for the workmen, because lump sums were apt to be squandered in foolish ways, and therefore it was not thought desirable to enable either party to commute on easy terms. In the view of His Majesty's Government it would be very much better to adhere to the clause in the schedule as it stood, and he trusted the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said there was nothing in the nature of the case to assure them that the weekly payments would, under ordinary circumstances, be continued for the rest of the man's life; and therefore there might be cases in which it was questionable for what periods the weekly payments would go on. That was an element which might induce the workman to take a fixed sum down rather than to trust to the chances of the period of his disability. The argument of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill appeared to him to be, that if the weekly payments had gone on for six months they must necessarily continue for the rest of the workman's life. But that seemed to be a very large assumption.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

explained what perhaps he ought to have said before, namely, that both, parties might agree for any sum they liked; but the paragraph in question only dealt with commutation against the will of the workman;

LORD BELPBR

Where does it say so?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think that is what the noble Lord will find.

LORD BELPER

said he should like to have that made clear, because that was the very point his Amendment was addressed to. If the parties could agree for a less sum, then the workmen would not suffer, because no application could be made. He understood that in the past there had been enormous numbers of agreements, but very few compulsory settlements. With regard to the argument used by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that the money was sure to be squandered at once, he must point out that there were very many cases in which it might be to the interest of the workman to have a lump sum paid. He might want to set up in a business in which he could be occupied even though incapacitated from his ordinary work; and he thought it was very desirable that he should be encouraged in doing so. Unless it was made clear that a settlement could be made by agreement—as the workman himself could not apply but only the employer—there would be a great many cases in which he would not apply to have an annual payment commuted, because he might think he would have to pay too

much. He thought it was quite as much in the interest of the workman as of the employer that there should be an option of commuting for a less sum.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he was informed that the commutation would be compulsory under those circumstances.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that until the noble Earl had stated it, such an idea had never crossed his mind as that the compulsory element would come in. If the noble Earl would look at the last two lines of his own clause, he would find this— Such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or the arbitrator or judge of the county court to be invested or otherwise applied for the benefit of the person entitled thereto. It was not treated as being a matter entirely for the benefit of the workman. The workman might desire to have a lump sum in order to pay for the emigration of his children, or to emigrate himself, or to go into business, or for many other objects; and therefore power was given to the arbitrator or other authority to invest the money "for the benefit of the person entitled thereto."

LORD STALBRIDGE

said he could assure the noble Earl that this was very often done by agreement, and many such cases had come within his own experience.

On Question, "That the word 'of' stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, E. (L. President.)	Castletown, L,	(Glantawe, L.
	Colebrooke, L.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Courtney of Penwith, L.
	Denman, L. [Teller.]	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Overtoun, L.
Beauchamp, E.		Pirrie, L.
Carrington, E.	Emly, L.	Sanderson, L.
Craven, E.	Farrer, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Portsmouth, E,	Fitzmaurice, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Denbigh, E.	Scarbrough, E.
Wellington, D.	Devon, E.	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]
	Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)
Salisbury, M.		Churchill, V. [Teller.]
Camperdown, E.	Lytton, E.	Falkland, V.
Dartrey, E.	Onslow, E.	Halifax, V.
	Plymouth, E	St. Aldwyn, V.
Abinger, L.	Belper, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Allerton, L.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Ravensworth, L.
Amphtill, L.	Clinton, L.	Saltoun, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Clonbrock, L.	Seaton, L.
Balfour, L.	De Mauley, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)	Forester, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Barrymore, L.	Newton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted.

LORD BELPER

said that his next Amendment was really a drafting Amendment, and followed as a matter of course on the Division which had just been taken.

Amendment moved—

"In page 22, line 44, after 'settled,' to insert 'in default of agreement."—(Lord Belper.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the noble Lord was quite right, it was a consequential Amendment.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported to the House.

Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 253.)