WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)

said the Amendment was unnecessary.

§ MR. H. H. MARKS

accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)

thought most of the hon. Gentleman's points would be adequately met by an Amendment which would be presently moved by his right hon. friend the Home Secretary. In the next clause, too, ample and generous 784 provision was made for dealing with all difficulties or hardships that arose from omission to make a claim in time. A seaman had not got to claim a definite amount, but the point with regard to seamen would be better raised on Clause 7. It would be seen that a seaman need give no notice when the accident happened on board ship, and if he had omitted to make his claim and pointed out that he had been abroad and unable to do so that was eminently the class of case which the Court would treat as she wing a reasonable cause for preventing the man making his claim earlier, and he would not be debarred from making his claim then. The workman was permitted to go to trial in any event, and all technicalities were swept away.

§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

thought that his hon. friend's point would be largely met by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. When they came to that Amendment he hoped the Solicitor-General would be able to consider words making it quite clear that absence on the seas should be one of those cases.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said he could not accept the Amendment. Undoubtedly there might be cases of hardship to the employer under the Bill as it stood, but, on the other hand, the Amendment of the hon. Member might inflict very great hardship on the individual workman who had erred through ignorance, and not through anything which could be looked on as serious neglect. He thought it was best to rely on the view that, where once a claim was made, the employer himself was able to take steps to expedite proceedings.

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

thought the Home Secretary might really give further consideration to this Amendment, which he did not think would be hard upon the workman and certainly would protect the employer. If there were no limitation an employer might have an action brought against him at any time; and it might be that when the action was brought all trace of the occurrence was lost. It might also be that after a great lapse of time a medical man would find it impossible to certify as to the injury. If the workman acted in ignorance it would be undoubtedly hard, but he fancied that could be met by the next Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore he trusted further consideration would be given to this Amendment.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said he was quite sure the Amendment would be favourably considered if there were any kind of necessity for it. The making of the claim was itself the commencement of the proceedings, and if a workman, after making his claim, chose to lie by, it was competent to the master to take steps to hurry on the proceedings if he thought it was a bona fide claim, so that there was no occasion to put on the workman the severe penalty of losing his right of action altogether. After all, this claim for compensation was a litigation, and a litigation which never ought to be hastily entered upon without counting the cost. It would be very hard if, because a man through want of means was driven to delay an order for three months, he should lose his right of action altogether.

§ * MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said if the right hon. Gentleman compared the Amendment with the clause he would have some doubt as to the draughtsmanship. The word "mistake" would appear twice in succeeding lines, and give rise to very considerable confusion. Notice was required to be given as soon as practicable, and if there was any defect in the notice it was not to be a bar to proceedings if it was found that the employer would not be prejudiced in his defence. The right hon. Gentleman pro posed to deal with the claim on a different footing. If the Amendment were adopted it would always be found that there had been a mistake. Why not boldly leave out the word "mistake" altogether? That appeared to be the only solution. Nobody wanted the employer to be prejudiced in his defence, but if the claim were made twelve or eighteen months afterwards, or even after a longer interval, all the witnesses might have disappeared, and it might be impossible for the employer to resist the claim. He would suggest the addition of the words "provided that the employer is not thereby prejudiced in his defence."

AN HON. MEMBER

suggested the words "service abroad."

§ MR. ASHLEY

said he would accept the suggestion.

§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr (Tydvil)

thought "employment abroad" would be better.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said he would accept the words "employment abroad."

§ SIR E. CARSON

thought some answer was required to the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Ayrshire. He was not prepared to argue whether this limitation ought to be put in or not; but if they did put in this provision they would practically wipe out the limitation altogether. Cases might arise in which the employer would be prejudiced. He would therefore move, for the purpose of raising the question, to add to the Home Secretary's Amendment the words "provided that the employer is not, in the opinion of the Court, thereby prejudiced in his defence."

§ SIR W. ROBSON

pointed out that they could not always proceed with due promptitude for reasons which he had already stated, and it would be a very severe penalty where a workman had neglected to do this that he should be deprived of all right to make a claim. That would be a very heavy penalty, and it was one which they did not wish to impose. The better plan was to confine this provision to extreme cases. If a man 788 did not know that he had to put in his claim within six months, or if he was employed abroad and could not get back to the United Kingdom, he thought it was only fair that he should be at liberty to put those facts before the Court, and the Court should have power to excuse him. They did not want to bar every man who had made a mistake, but at the same time they ought to insist that everybody should proceed with reasonable promptitude. As the clause stood originally it was applicable to both notice and claim. They had now made two sub-sections, one applicable to notice and the other to claim, and it was merely a drafting alteration. There was a provision that a defect or inaccuracy in the notice should not be a bar to the proceedings if an amended notice was then and there given. That was applicable to notice only and not to claims. Before a claim was made notice had to be given of the injury, and it would be very rare indeed that a man would take the trouble to give notice unless he intended to follow it up by a claim. Therefore both parties would take care to preserve the evidence, and a claim could not be sprung upon an employer without due notice. It would be rather hard to bar a workman from all further right to claim compensation, no matter how serious his accident, by reason of in-advertence, or poverty, or for any mistake.

§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

said he was perfectly confident that if the whole provision was not to be a dead letter it was necessary that the Amendment of his right hon. friend should be inserted. At present the workman must either make a claim or satisfy the Court that his omission to do so was occasioned by a mistake. Unless that was done the Court had no discretion at all. The expression "occasioned by a mistake" was one of the loosest and most unsatisfactory that could be used. It would be impossible to distinguish between a mistake and negligence. If a man said he was not aware of the provisions of the Act, and did not know that he had to give notice, the Court would have no option but to allow the proceedings to go on. As far as the principle of this provision was concerned 789 they were all agreed. The principle was that they ought to fix a period and give the Court the widest and the most real discretion, having regard to two things, prejudice to the man who had to pay on the one hand, and hardship or reasonable excuse of the workman on the other. He could not understand upon what grounds the Government felt any difficulty in accepting the Amendment, for they had already put into their Bill these very words when dealing with the discretion of the Court in regard to notice.

§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)

pointed out that, even if the Court was convinced that owing to absence abroad or for any other reasonable cause relief ought to be granted, if the slightest prejudice was shown to the employer the Court would be debarred from granting relief.

§ SIR E. CARSON

said he was satisfied if a discretion was given, and he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. CORY (Cornwall, St. Ives)

said the word "mistake" opened the door very widely, and he thought if that words "by mistake or other" were left out it would strengthen the clause.

§ SIR CHARLES SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

said that he knew from experience in his own constituency that often six months elapsed without a sufferer by an accident having the slightest notion that he would have to make any application. In spite of the fact that the objects of this Bill had been explained in many trade journals and various reports, he had received within the last fortnight applications from working men who did not understand whether their case came properly under the Act or not. He had had considerable experience upon this subject, and ever since the last Act was passed he had been freely consulted, probably because he did not charge a fee. He knew perfectly well the facts of the case, and he had no hesitation in saying from his own experience that frequently six months elapsed before an injured person became conscious that he ought to have made a claim. Many employers frequently paid 790 an injured workman full or half wages, and it often happened that the workman was not told about making his claim until his sick pay was stopped. He supported this proposal because; he considered it was necessary.

§ MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

felt that some such words as the Home Secretary had proposed were absolutely necessary in order to prevent a repetition of cases of extreme hardship which had occurred under existing Acts. He knew of a woman who lost a great part of her right hand, and her employers provided her weekly with the greater part of the wages she had formerly been receiving. She was repeatedly urged to bring her claim for compensation, but she thought the generosity of the employers would continue. At the end of six months, however, their generosity dried up, and when she made her claim she was told that it was too late. That was not likely to happen to members of big trade unions. They were able to protect themselves, and it was in the unorganised trades that the hardship occurred. It the late Government had accepted their suggestion on this point when the Act of 1897 was being passed many hardships and difficulties would have been avoided.

§ MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)

said such cases as the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division had referred to had often occurred. They occurred oftener some years ago than lately, because the knowledge that under the Act anyone who met with an accident was entitled to compensation had become infinitely more general than it was before. If this Bill passed with the clause proposed by the Home Secretary there would be no possibility of anybody not getting compensation owing to inadvertence. He quite approved of the Amendment, but he thought it went too far. It put in the words "by mistake," and left no option to the Court whatever. It compelled the Court to accept any mistake whatever as an excuse for commencing an action months or years after the accident. He thought if the section was simply confined to the words "some reasonable cause," and it was left to the discretion of the Court to say 791 whether the cause was reasonable or not, the requirements of the case would he met. If the mistake or inadvertence was reasonable the Court would allow it, and the workman would not be placed at a disadvantage; but if the words "by mistake" were to be accepted no employer would be sure that an action might not be brought against him long after the evidence which would have enabled him to prove that he was not to blame had disappeared. He was quite anxious to be fair to working men, but he thought the position of the employers ought also to be considered.

§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)

said that, while they all appreciated the generous speech of the hon. Member for East Belfast, he could not agree with the suggestion he had made. All who had had experience of the operation of the Compensation Acts knew that there were occasions when mistakes would operate against workmen getting justice under these statutes. He would give the House the benefit of a little experience he had had this week. In a case in which he was engaged the time for taking action under one of these Acts expired on a Friday. The papers which it was necessary to lodge were sent a day or two before the expiry of the time for giving notice, but the registrar of the county court discovered that there was one paper short. The solicitor who was conducting the case stated that all the papers required by the rules of the county court had been put in the envelope. At all events, the registrar sent back the papers to the solicitor and demanded to have the proper number of papers sent to him. Sunday intervened. The papers, which were returned by the next post, arrived on Monday—a day beyond that on which they should have been sent. That was a reasonable cause of delay. There had been a mistake on the part either of the solicitor or of the reigstrar of the county court. When they appeared in Court in the course of the week this technical objection was taken, and the county court Judge, a reasonable and humane man, asked the counsel on the other side whether he really meant to press that objection. The counsel replied 792 that he had instructions to do so. Those who instructed him were a well-known insurance company. With very great regret and anger the county court Judge said, that while he thought it was a most unreasonable objection to take, he was obliged to decide against his client the plaintiff. He could relate many experiences similar to that stated by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division. He therefore hoped that the words would be retained.

§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)

believed that if those who were opposing such Amendments as this had a little more experience of these matters their opposition would be removed. One ounce of experience was worth a ton of theory. He knew a case where an employer in South Wales paid a workman £1 per week for six months, and then when the time for giving notice had expired the £1 a week stopped. When an action was brought into Court the plaintiff was non-suited. He knew another case where a young man six months ago neglected to give notice. An official of the company in whose employment he had been kindly informed him a week or two after the accident that it was necessary to give notice. Six weeks ago the manager of the company was surprised to learn that the young man had not received his compensation. The money had not been paid, not because the employers were unwilling to give it, but because the case was in the hands of an insurance company. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to his proposal.

§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said this discussion had shown that some such words as those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University were necessary. There had been hard cases under the present law, but he believed that if the Amendment of his right hon. friend were accepted those cases which they deplored would be stopped in future. Notwithstanding what the Solicitor-General had said as to its being perfectly easy for an employer to keep under his hand a note of the evidence that might be necessary in the case of a claim being made at a remote date, he thought the Government 793 might accept the words proposed by his Tight hon. friend.

§ * MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)

said it was very desirable that this Amendment should be carried in the terms in which the Home Secretary introduced it, and the interval allowed was none too long under the circumstances. In his own constituency men injured in South Wales might after a period of convalescence be brought to their homes in Newtown, Machynlleth, or Llanidloes,

§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

said that before the Home Secretary's Amendment was agreed to, he wished to ask whether the phrase "term of employment abroad" did not limit the clause considerably? He would prefer the words "service or absence abroad," because he understood that in the case of apprentices they were held not to be in employment abroad, but only on service.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

did not think the words of the Amendment had any substantially limiting effect, or that any improvement would be effected by the words suggested by the hon. Member. The controlling words were "or other reasonable cause."

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said the point put by the hon. Member was one which deserved and required attention, but he would bring to his notice an Amendment which he had down to Clause 15 which he thought really covered it. The Amendment which he himself had put down provided that— Every scheme under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in force at the commencement of this Act, shall, if re-certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, have effect as if 798 it were a scheme under this Act. The Registrar shall re-certify any such scheme if it is proved to his satisfaction that the scheme conforms, or has been so modified as to conform, with the provisions of this Act as to schemes. If any such scheme is not so re-certified, the certificate thereof shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be revoked. He thought that that proposal covered the point the hon. Gentleman had raised.

§ * MR. RUSSELL REA (Gloucester)

said he seconded the Amendment, not because it would take seamen, sailors and firemen out of the Clause, but because it would bring them in by putting them under some contracting arrangement. The clause itself was a contracting out one, and he was not greatly in favour of contracting out, which ought to be limited and safeguarded. As the clause stood at present, however, shipowners and sailors were absolutely excluded by this difficulty in regard to the imposition of the ballot, and therefore some Amendment was absolutely necessary for. the effective application of the clause. A sub-clause standing in his name had already been referred to, in which the safeguards were quite as strong as those which were applied to all other industries under Clause 3, which provided a practicable alternative for seamen. If they were to have a contracting out clause he could not see why seamen should be excluded from it. On the whole he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aston Manor and his own sub-clause it would protect the shipping industry and preserve all the safeguards which at present existed in the case of other industries. He would be content if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to consider the case of the shipping people, because it was physically impossible to provide for a 800 ballot. It might be provided that the ballot should be taken by degrees, but by the time the ballot was taken the whole personnel of the service might be changed and the men employed would be different. If his sub-clause were adopted or some equivalent it would still be incumbent upon the Registrar of Friendly Societies to discover what the opinion of a sufficient number of men was.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

quite agreed that the points raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment deserved consideration, and that there were difficulties as regarded seamen, but he thought the argument of his hon. friend who had just spoken was really one for excluding seamen altogether from the operation of the clause. Although the hon. Members had said it was a physical impossibility to ascertain the wishes of the majority of seamen by any figures, he had great doubt about it. He did not think it was by any means impossible to do so. The Registrar under this clause could make as many rules as he thought fit to carry it out. Why should not he, by extending the time to six months or a year, give himself an opportunity of ascertaining that a sufficient number of men employed by a particular company were in favour of a scheme? His hon. friend had said that after six months there might have been a good many resignations and changes, but there again the Registrar could come in and make regulations, and it did not follow that because a number of men had resigned that official could not discover for the purpose of the clause whether or not the majority were in favour of a scheme. He thought the clause must stand as it was, or that the sailors must go out altogether, and he was not prepared to keep them out. He could assure the hon. Member that the Chief Registrar would very carefully consider the matter and meet the views which had 801 been expressed that evening. It was quite clear that they could not accept the Amendment.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N. W.)

could hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman had rightly appreciated the force of the contention made in support of the Amendment. Let him give the House a practical illustration. For a good number of years he had been concerned in the shipping trade between two foreign ports, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the reports and figures as to the changes of the crew would really surprise him. It was impossible to get, with any thing approaching accuracy, the opinion of the seamen even at any one particular port. There was one possible solution. They might cut down the decision to that of a majority on particular ships, but he suggested that a solution might be found in the adoption of a standard or general scheme possibly with the approval of the Board of Trade and the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Then it would be perfectly easy to ascertain the opinion of the men at the time they joined the ship and received their advance notes. He put that, forward as a practical point, because he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no matter what view the Registrar took it would be absolutely impossible to work the provisions of the section as they stood.

§ MR. CAIRNS (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said, as one who had advocated the inclusion of seamen in the Workmen's Compensation Act from the beginning, he was naturally anxious to see them secure the full benefits under the Bill. He was not prepared to support the Amendment, but at the same time he did not feel altogether comfortable as to the phraseology used in the Bill. It laid down very clearly the method by which the registrar was to ascertain the opinion of the majority of seamen. It was strictly limited, and if the registrar found a ballot impracticable, and he personally regarded a ballot amongst seamen as almost impracticable, he would not have the option of using some other method whereby he could arrive at the opinion of the majority. He thought that in the case of seamen the registrar should have at his disposal another 802 optional method. He was not prepared at the moment to suggest amending words, but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would undertake later on to frame the clause so that the Registrar might have discretionary powers. What he was most concerned about was to see that the seamen secured full benefits under the Bill.

§ MR. WALSH (Lancashire, Ince)

said he had no special claim to speak on behalf of the seamen, but he had been puzzled to find out what was the real desire for this contracting out. Under the provisions of a contracting-out scheme the employers were to be obliged to give to the workpeople as much as they would be called upon to pay under the Act, and therefore it was difficult to see the real necessity for the contracting-out schemes that had been suggested by an hon. Member on the Opposition side. He believed the Government were taking the right line in this matter, and he hoped they would stick to it.

§ * MR. COCHRANE

said in many instances these contracting-out schemes cost not only as much as, but more than the employers would have to pay under the Act, but one of the principal reasons why they wished for them was that they desired peace. They wished to have a settlement with their own men by which if any accident occurred both the master and man might know exactly, on the one hand, what he would have to pay, and, on the other, what he would receive, so that the money might be paid at once without going to arbitration or the Court. He thought that unless some words were inserted, seamen would be excluded from the opportunity of contracting out. The clause ought to be so drawn that no obstacle was placed in the way of friendly arrangements between the employers and the men, which were made in the interests of peace and were beneficial.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. There was no doubt that the new contracting-out clause would very materially limit contracting out, and if the employer gained no financial benefit, schemes were not likely to be very largely adopted. After all, the scope of the clause was not very wide. The provision 803 that the majority of the men should give their assent would be worthless unless some secrecy were provided for in the mode by which the assent was ascertained. He thought the ballot was probably as good as any other method. The Government were not disposed to dispense with this safeguard for seamen unless, as in the case of other employers, the assent of the majority of the men could be ascertained by some secret method. The case of seamen was quite different from that of workmen on shore. Their employment was not permanent, but was merely an engagement for a voyage, and if it were the fact that these provisions made contracting out more difficult in the case of seamen he would not regret it.

§ MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said he wished to add only a single observation, and that was with, reference to a remark in more than one quarter of the House that contracting-out schemes were not likely to be numerous, having regard to the fact that they were not likely to result in any economy or gain. Undoubtedly there were some schemes in existence which were more beneficial than the compensation provisions of the Bill. He did not say that they were numerous, but if there were no advantage in the maintenance of contracting out it was a mistake to preserve such facilities at all. If, on the other hand, it was an advantage to maintain facilities for contracting out for workmen generally there was no reason why, if they could reasonably secure it, they should not obtain that advantage. There was a way of securing it which seemed to him to preserve all the advantages, if such there were, to seamen without exposing them to disadvantages which had attracted unfavourable comments in various parts of the House. It was desirable that if votes were to be taken at all they should be taken by ballot, and he would suggest that the operation of the ballot might perfectly well be limited to individual ships. If that course were adopted they would secure any possible advantage, and would negative altogether the theory that the real judgment and wishes of the men might be obscured.

§ SIR ROBEET ROPNER (Stockton)

said he had always been in favour of sailors 804 getting compensation equally with men who worked on land, but he wished that the matter had been dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Bill, as it might then have been better discussed. As the clause now stood there was no doubt in his mind that seamen would have no chance of contracting out, for as a matter of fact there was no possibility of obtaining the views of the sailors by ballot or otherwise. He thought it unfair that seamen should have no opportunity of coming under alternative schemes, and he was sorry the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General had not seen their way to amend the clause in this direction. There was no necessity, so far as he could see, of at once coming to a decision. If the Home Secretary would say that if the Amendment were withdrawn he would fully consider the whole matter, and at a future stage bring forward a clause to meet the view of practical owners, that would be sufficient. Seamen would then be placed in exactly the same position in regard to contracting out as their fellow-workmen on shore.

§ Mr. C. DUNCAN (Barrow-in-Furness)

sincerely trusted the Home Secretary would not withdraw the words. He had failed to hear any argument yet adduced to show that it was impossible to take a ballot. It would be a very easy thing to do on a ship. He took it that the Registrar would lay down rules and that if a ballot were taken when the crew were on board it would be difficult for the crew to get away from the ballot. There was conclusive evidence that if there was a place where a ballot could be taken it was on a ship, but he contended that if there was a case to which contracting out should not apply, it was the case of men who had gone to sea.

§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said there seemed to be some difference of opinion as to what was really meant by the word "ballot." It simply meant a secret vote. Hon. Members opposite would agree that the views of the seamen should be ascertained by a secret vote; therefore the views of the men should be ascertained by a ballot, and the only question was what form of ballot should 805 be adopted for this particular purpose. If it were possible to take a ballot on a single ship belonging to a company, as the hon. Member for Liverpool had said it was, it was equally possible to take a ballot of all the ships of the company one by one. On the understanding that had been given that the Registrar would frame rules to meet any difficulty he hoped the House would allow this section to be taken. They did not desire to lay down any cast-iron rules, and every effort would be made to insure that the provision should be a real provision and properly applicable to seamen as well as workmen on shore.

§ * MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said they had the opinion of experts on this subject to the effect that the ballot could not be taken. The Opposition had no objection to the seamen expressing their opinion upon the subject, but, inasmuch as the provisions of schemes under the contracting-out clause must be more favourable to the interests of the seamen than the provisions of the Bill, it was doubtful whether the seamen would derive any special benefit from a ballot. It was extremely difficult to see why the right hon. Gentleman should insist on retaining the ballot in his clause. Those who had a practical knowledge of shipping said that the thing was impracticable. It was suggested by the Solicitor-General that masters when engaging men would insist upon their acceptance of the master's own suggestions as one of the conditions of employment. He thought that even if a master did insist upon seamen accepting better terms than were provided by the Act the Unionist Party, at any rate, who had the interest of the workmen at heart, and who passed the first Act for the protection of the vital interests of the working people of this country, should not stand in their way. The Solicitor-General had asked why the masters preferred to deal with their own men. He was not going to elaborate the reasons why masters preferred to deal directly with their workmen, but one reason was that they did not like to be dictated to by trade union officials. In that respect they were unlike the present Government, who were accustomed to it.

§ * MR. SPEAKER

Order, order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.

§ * MR. CARLILE

said there were many owners of ships, who would be glad to deal directly with the men, and in many cases they would give them far better terms than they would get through the officials of trade unions or from any Bill which a Radical Government might devise. Very often employers would do their own initiative things which they of would decline to do at the bidding of a hard and fast Act of Parliament. For these reasons he supported the Amendment, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see his way to redraft the clause so that seamen would have every facility given to them for contracting out.

§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER

said they all agreed that the opinion of the seamen should be taken. In dealing with a large number of seamen it was almost impossible to ascertain what at any given time was the prevailing opinion amongst them unless the opinion was taken simultaneously. It followed that the ballot would have to be taken on board ship. He understood that the Under Secretary to the Home Office had stated that when the regulations for which provision was made in subsection (8) were published, the Home Office would see that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies made the provision they had been contending for. Under those circumstances he should advise his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. EVELYN CECIL

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ * MR. GLOVER (St. Helens)

seconded. He said it had been stated that there were many schemes more beneficial than the Act itself, but he had never seen any of them. With regard to the schemes of the past and the schemes in operation under the Act he wished to point out that they were not as favourable to workmen as they ought to be. He would like to have an undertaking that under the new Bill the Registrar would be bound to give to a workman, if the scheme was enforced, the benefits which the Act provided for. One scheme with which he had had to deal was forced upon the workmen without their consent, and it was clearly proved to the Registrar that the benefits which the men were receiving were not equal to those the Act would give them. In that case, in 1898 721 of the workmen were for the scheme and 1,719 against it, and again in 1901, when another ballot 808 was taken, there were for the scheme 267 and 1,593 against it, but in spite of that majority against it the Registrar sanctioned the scheme. After five years experience the men were not getting under the scheme the benefits they ought to be receiving, for they were only paid 12s. a week in case of accident, although they had to pay a contribution of 3d. a week out of their earnings.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said he was glad the hon. Member had moved this Amendment because it gave him an opportunity of explaining the new clause. The Government had made some very material differences between the completing out clause in the new Bill and that in the old Act. First of all, there were two conditions with regard to compensation which must be fulfilled before a certificate could be issued. There was in the old Act simply one. The old Act stipulated that the Registrar should satisfy himself that a scheme was not less favourable than the Act. That was the only condition from the financial point of view which the Registrar had to take into consideration. Under the old Act there might be a lower scale of compensation and yet the Registrar might consider that that scheme was on the whole as good because of the other benefits offered by the scheme. Under this Bill the Registrar must satisfy himself not only that the scale was not less favourable, which was the first condition, but also that, even with the contributions that might be called for from the workmen, the provisions of the scheme were as good as those provided by the Act. He asked the House to see what that meant. Supposing a workman made a contribution and was offered a scale equal to that laid down by the Act he was not getting benefit equal to that provided by the Act, because he was 809 paying for it. Therefore the Registrar could not certify that scheme, as it was not on the whole as favourable to the workmen. It would work. out in this way, that any benefit which was paid for by the workmen must be at least equal to the contribution by the employee. Under the clause as it stood the Registrar would not be entitled to certify any scheme which gave the workmen less than he would get if there was no scheme; he must not be in a worse position under a scheme than under the Act. The object aimed at by the Amendment was entirely met by the words in the clause. He thought the mode which the Government had adopted was better than an express provision saying that the workmen's contributions were to be the measure of some corresponding benefit which was not defined. First of all, the Registrar had to see that the scheme was equal to what was provided by the Act, and thon he had to see that the benefit given by the scale was not lost by any scheme.

§ MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.)

said the matter before the House was one of the first importance. The reason that the Amendment had been moved at all was because of the unhappy experience of the operation of contracting out schemes. He had carefully read the clause in the Bill, but it would be the essence of foolishness for him to express an opinion where the Solicitor-General had given his. He was, however, bound to say that to an ordinary man it was not clear in the clause as at present drafted that under a contracting-out scheme the workman was to be given the full benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act plus the additional benefit for the payments he made. His experience of the Registrar had not been a happy one; he had absolutely no confidence in him so far as his discretion and judgment were concerned.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

pointed out that the Amendment only directed the Registrar to do that which under the clause as now drafted he must do.

§ MR. BRACE

said that his experience of the attitude of the Registrar towards workmen emphasised the necessity of having words inserted in the Bill which would leave that official no room to make mis- 810 takes. Registrars had made mistakes— very terrible mistakes so far as workmen were concerned—which had cost them piles of money. He was afraid that it would not be in order at that stage, but he could a tale unfold which would encourage the House to agree that the Registrar was not quite the person to be given full discretion on the subject. It was because he thought his friends were afraid to take any chance upon this vital and important matter that he asked the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment, so that there would be no doubt that workmen should have full benefit of the compensation under the Act, and that if they paid any additional sum they should have the benefit of that also.

§ MR. F. E. SMITH

thought the Solicitor-General was wrong in the opinion he had expressed. The point was not absolutely clear, and it was one with respect to which it would be easy to find plausible arguments in a Court of law in opposition to the view of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had laid great stress upon the difference between the contracting-out clause in the old Act and the clause in this Bill. He ventured to doubt whether a careful study of the words in the clause now before the House supported the contention of the Solicitor-General. He submitted that if the grievance which was felt by the Labour Members survived the contracting-out clause in the last Act it would survive the contracting-out clause in the present Bill. He asked whether the Government could not accept the words of the Amendment or similar words in order to secure the object which seemed to be desired by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

undertook that in the other House the clause should be amended to provide in clear terms that there should be equivalent benefit to every workman for his contribution.

§ MR. WALSH

said that in view of the statement made by the Home Secretary he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. WARDLE (Stockport)

seconded the Amendment, because in connection with railway companies there were now so many schemes for which deductions from wages were made, and he thought they ought not to add any further schemes lest they should make the burden on the workmen too heavy for them to bear. So far as he read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke, its effect would be that it should not be made a condition of employment that the workman should join any such scheme.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said he did not think there was much difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Government on this point. His contention was that there could not be compulsory deductions from wages under the schemes proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member had overlooked sub-section (3) which said that— No scheme shall be certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join that scheme as a condition of their employment or which does not contain provisions enabling a workmen to withdraw from the scheme. How could a deduction from a workman's wages be enforced when he could withdraw from any scheme at any moment? Not only that, but the whole conception of the clause was to suggest agreement between employer and employee. It was really very difficult under these circumstances to see how they were giving any encouragment to making compulsory deductions from wages. No doubt illegal deductions might be made in spite of the Truck Acts. Assuming, however, that his hon. friend's contention was accurate, the proposed Government Amendment in the Bill would cover his point. While he sympathised with the object of his hon. friend in moving the Amendment, he could assure him that there was no ground for holding that there could be compulsory deduction under this clause.

§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)

said that he and his friends held very strong opinions against giving any employer power to contract out of the benefits given by the law. He had always admitted that the late Government had had equally good intentions in regard to this matter as the present Government. They had told the House that something would have to be done in order to ascertain the opinion of the workmen, but he was sorry to say nothing had in fact been done. His and his friends' experience of the contracting-out scheme had been most bitter. The injustice workmen 813 had suffered had been more severe than hon. Members would believe. Under a contracting-out scheme where workmen had been paying their threepence a week, they had received less in compensation than men who paid nothing. If a man went to a colliery to ask for employment, and the employer told him that it was not allowable under the Act that it should be made a condition of employment that he should contract out, that would be honourable. But the man would perhaps want employment very badly; he had a family, and their needs were pressing; and when he went to the employer the latter might agree to employ him, but a book would then be placed before him with a contracting-out scheme, and he would have the option whether to sign or not. If he had independence enough to say that he would not sign, then within three days he would be told that his services were no longer needed. Such things had actually happened, and that was the reason he and his friends were insisting upon some plain language being placed in the Bill so that a man should not be robbed of his rights if he did for the sake of employment agree to a scheme of contracting out. They did not believe that the Government had any intention of allowing any wrong to be done, but he hoped that before the Bill passed it would be so worded as to preclude all possibility of anybody suffering in any way.

§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

said that in all the contracting-out schemes that had come under his knowledge there was not a single one which gave the same benefit to the workman as he would obtain under the Act itself. Where there were a large number of people concerned the tendency was that any scheme put forward should not cost a limited liability company more than the compensation to be given under the Act. [Opposition cries of "No."] The only county he knew where that might occur was Lancashire.

§ * MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now making a speech which is more relevant to the clause as a whole than to the Amendment, which is of a very limited character.

§ MR. MARKHAM

said he apologised for going beyond the limits of the Amendment, but he wished to point out that if this clause were carried the Home Secretary and the Government would be carrying out the contrary of what they said when in opposition—that they were opposed to contracting out altogether.

§ * MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is too late. He ought to have moved to omit the clause altogether.

§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingtoke)

said the Amendment was either unnecessary or it would render contracting out impossible. He was not concerned to discuss whether or not contracting out was a good thing, or whether if there was contracting out there would be compulsion. But he did say that if there should be any compulsion, it would be compulsion which was unavoidable if any contracting out was to be allowed. The employer and the workmen were free to contract with each other as to whether they would take the benefits of a scheme or of the Act. The majority of the workmen if there was a scheme would have agreed to it, and therefore would be willing to adopt it. The workmen in the minority would be in this position, and hon. Members might call it compulsion if they pleased—he would not quarrel over the term—the employer might say that he was going to discontinue his insurance and all the men who worked with him must come under the scheme. If the minority could not agree with him, he might say that he must dispense with their services. In that sense there would be compulsion. But if they were going to make it impossible to have compulsion in that sense, they would make it impossible to have contracting out at all. It would not. be possible for the Registrar-General to devise any scheme which did not involve compulsion in the sense in which hon. Members below the gangway used the word. If this Amendment were carried it would render contracting out impossible.

§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said the. Government did not for a moment accept the views of the hon. Gentleman as to the working of these schemes, and if such a thing was likely 815 to occur under this clause it would be desirable to have words to prevent such compulsion, the likelihood of the occurrence of which was wholly contrary to the view of the Government. Under the Bill the scheme must contain a distinct provision that any workman who was under it could withdraw from it.

§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER

But then he would be dismissed.

§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said that if that were to occur the matter would come under sub-section (4) of the clause, which provided for certain consequences to follow if the scheme was not fairly administered, or if its provisions were violated.

§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER

That would not cover a case of compulsion.

§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said it would be a case in point, because the scheme would have been administered contrary to sub-section (4) and the Registrar might, upon that being shown, unless the cause of complaint was removed, revoke the certificate. As to the contention of the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley, they were all agreed that there might be indirect pressure upon certain employees to join in a scheme, but surely the hon. Member who represented the South Wales miners should be the last to put forward such a contention as that. If in South Wales such a course was attempted to be taken, nothing could be easier than for a great and powerful organisation such as the South Wales Miners Federation to intervene and withdraw all their members from participation in the schemes. He believed there were not many non-unionists left in South Wales, and in many other parts of the country the same argument would apply.

§ * MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said that they in connection with the railway service had had bitter experience in regard to compulsory deductions from wages, and the introduction of provisions which would lead to a similar state of things in arranging compensation would do irrevocable injury to many workmen. 816 Another and most important feature was to be found in the various sick and burial funds existing on our railways which were maintained by compulsory deductions from wages. These matters were inseparably connected with the question of workmen's compensation. Since the passing of the parent Act which came into force on the 1st of July, 1898, the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland had issued instructions to the effect that men entitled to the benefits of the sick and burial funds for which compulsory deductions from wages were made every week would not receive any allowance for incapacity caused by accident which occurred in the discharge of their duty, and that those entitled to workmen's compensation would receive no benefit although they paid for it. That rule had been operative until just lately, so that in addition to only half wages for incapacity the injured men had had to suffer a deduction of 10s. or 12s. a week for which they had subscribed. If the clause were allowed to pass without a clear and distinct definition of the law that these deductions were not compulsory, in the course of a year they would be exactly where they were now. They knew what had happened in the past, and could not expect anything better in the future. He therefore supported the Amendment.

§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE

understood the Under-Secretary to rely upon the existing law, but under that in great undertakings there could be no doubt that membership of the society was absolutely compulsory and any member not joining was turned out. Unfortunately, it had been held lawful to make deductions and he thought the arguments in favour of the principle of the Amendment were unanswerable although its wording was defective.

§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said there were new words in this Bill. Sub-section (3) enacted that no scheme should be certified which did not contain a provision permitting any workman to withdraw from the scheme. That was a change in the existing law. Then there was a power given to the Registrar to revoke a certificate if the Act was violated. These new provisions should 817 prevent the consequences which had been suggested as being likely to occur.

§ * MR. ASHLEY

said he was amazed when he saw on the Paper the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. He did not think the hon. Member could have read the sub-sections which he wanted to amend. No scheme was to be certified which contained an obligation on the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of hiring, and there was a provision enabling the workmen to withdraw from a scheme if he did not like it. This Amendment, however, was directed against these societies as a whole. What did hon. Members want? They wanted that no deduction should be made from wages, and that there should be no contracting out at all.

§ MR. MOND (Chester)

said that while it was perfectly true that no scheme should be certified which contained an obligation upon workmen to join it as a condition of their hiring, yet there was no possible provision which could compel the employer to employ a man who would not join a scheme. He could not see why the Government should not accept the Amendment. He had attended many Grand Committees, but he had never found that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite moved useless Amendments. Their practical experience was better than the theoretical arguments of the Treasury Bench.

§ MR. ASHLEY

seconded the Amendment.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the words were of importance. They were intended to safeguard the workman with regard to all contracting-out schemes. It might be that a workman would accept a scheme when it was put to him in alluring terms, and afterwards, on examination, change his mind. These words would enable him to do so. If he did withdraw he had another safeguard in another sub-section which had to come on, by which it was provided that the Registrar might refuse to certify if he thought the scheme was being unfairly worked. Supposing a scheme contained a provision entitling a workman to withdraw and he did withdraw, losing his claim in consequence, it could not be said that the scheme was properly worked. The Government had recognised that the Bill would be of little use to the workman if he ran the risk of being driven out of its benefits. They had provided these safeguards, and were not disposed to part with any of them. He hoped, therefore, the House would stand by these words.

§ MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)

seconded the Amendment, and said he had given notice of a similar Amendment. The provision under discussion constituted an anomaly. How would it work out in its present form? In the case of a farmer who let out a contract, and one of the men employed disabled himself by falling over a pitchfork in going to or coming from a threshing machine, under ordinary circumstances the farmer would be liable for compensation, but if a contractor happened to be on the land with a threshing machine the liability to compensate would be on the contractor. If, however, the contractor 824 happened to be on the land without the threshing machine when an accident happened the liability would be on the farmer. The mere fact of the physical existence of the machine on the land seemed to be enough to transfer responsibility from the shoulders of the farmer to those of the contractor. This was not only an anomaly, but it was unfair.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the words were taken from the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900. There must be many cases in which the contractor was more solvent than the principal. Such a case was possible in respect of the owner of agricultural machinery. It was impossible to deal with all cases; but here seemed to be a clear case where the contractor was generally a more important and solvent man than the principal, and where it was not desirable to give the workman the double remedy. He was therefore required to make his claim to his own employer, the owner of the machinery, instead of enabling him to go first to the farmer, leaving the farmer to get indemnity from the owner of the machine.

§ MR. J. WARD

said when he was a very small lad he had some years experience on a farm, and during that time he naturally saw threshing machines. He might mention a particular case in which he thought this clause would greatly injure the position of the workmen. He remembered a farmer going bankrupt, and to get a living he hired a threshing machine from a well-known firm to take round the country to thresh for farmers whom he knew. For years this man took the machine round and threshed the com for various farmers, and he also hired occasionally traction engines and ploughs, paying so much per week. He employed his own men, and after paying for the hire of the machine and the wages of the workmen attending the machine he probably did not make more 825 than a few pence above the best of the workmen he employed. He could quite imagine that if such a person were the only man to whom a workman could appeal for compensation, it was very little compensation he would get under the circumstances. It often happened that a machine was brought on to a farm, and the men who undertook the operations were directly employed by the farmer. It was a rare thing for the owner of a machine either to employ labour or to do anything but let out the machine, and very often the man who took charge and paid a regular hiring was a man of straw. Would the Government make sure that injured workmen would not have to proceed against men of straw?

§ SIR W. ROBSON

The words are, "employed by him."

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said he was glad the Government were not going to give way on this point, because it was far better that the contractor—in this case the owner of the machine—should be the person to find the compensation. He was far more solvent than many of the small farmers who hired the machine, and was certainly in a position to know what there was to insure, whereas the small farmer would be in ignorance on this point. This proviso would only apply to those who were directly employed by the contractor and not to ordinary labourers on the farm. Speaking as an owner and farmer himself, he should certainly think it was wise to maintain this old remnant, of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he was certain if the Government valued the feeling of farmers they would be wise to stick to the clause as it stood.

§ * MR. DUNN (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked the Solicitor - General if he was quite sure as to the meaning of the words "employed by him on such work," because it seemed that the last three words limited the first three. He could bear out everything that had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke, because he had had considerable experience of the working of these machines in a large county. A large number of them were not the property of the men using or lending them, but were the property of others, often a company, and 826 therefore he asked whether it would not be possible to put after the word "uses" the words "his own," and conclude the sub-section at the words "employed by him."

§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said he saw great objections to the general principle of this clause. If anything had been shown by the arguments used it was that these exceptions to the Act had not on the whole worked well for either the employers or the workmen, and it was desirable, as far as possible, that the Act should be simple, plain and clear. The theory of the clause was that if a workman wore injured he should have a double remedy against the contractor and the principal, the reason being that under the old system it was found in a large number of cases that the real employer used to arrange that the workmen should be directly employed by contractors, who had not any means, so that the workmen were deprived of the benefits given them under the Act. That danger was particularly present in a case such as was dealt with in this proviso. It would be perfectly easy for the farmer, who wished to avoid liability under the Act, to arrange that all the men who had anything to do with machinery, or the work carried out by machines, should be technically employed by the contractor, so as to free him from liability under the Act. He was bound to support his hon. friend in his Motion. In a case where the contractor was a man of sufficient means to provide machinery of his own he would say that the remedy should be against the contractor. He could understand that, but he could not understand the reason why they should select the agricultural contractor, and him alone, for this exception. Unless some better reason was given by the Government for this exception he would be obliged to support the Amendment.

§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

hoped the Government would not give way on this point. The hon. Gentlemen who had spoken during the last few minutes appeared not to be quite aware of what actually did take place in the majority of cases. These threshing machines and the men who 827 worked them went round from farm to farm, and the men did not as a rule return to their own homes for the night, as they were generally too far away. The hon. Member for Thanet had suggested that an accident might happen to the men on their way to or from their work, and that liability would fall on the farmer, but who was to tell where the employment of one farmer finished and the employment of another farmer began? The men went from farm to farm and did their threshing, and when they had finished one job they went on to the next. There was another point which might interest the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent and the Camborne Division of Cornwall. In the case of farm hands employed by a farmer being injured by threshing machines whilst engaged in assisting the contractor's employees in their work, the liability for compensation did not fall upon the contractor but upon the farmer. It was a perfectly clearly understood arrangement and a simple one. The contractor brought a certain number of workmen with him. The man who understood the machinery was responsible for them and covered his liability by insurance. It was well understood that the contract price paid by the farmer covered the premium for that insurance. There was no reason whatever for the suggestion of the noble Lord that the farmer could wriggle out of his liability by making his farm hands technically the employees of the contractor. The contractor was no fool, he covered his own men by insurance, and he was not going to accept liability by becoming for the time being the employer of farm hands who in many cases were unused to the handling of machinery, and therefore more liable to get injured. He did not think any contractor would make himself liable in such a case. Another question had been raised about a man not owning the machinery, but that was not a material question at all. He had never heard of a single case of threshing machine contractors failing to insure their men. The liability was the contractor's, but he insured his men, and what difference did it make whether he owned or only hired the machinery? He paid the premium on the insurance, but the contract price covered and included 828 that premium. He thought the Government would do well to retain the clause as it stood. He had never heard of a case of any confusion or of any hardship upon the contractor, his workmen, or the farm hands. Serious confusion would arise in many cases, and serious injury be inflicted upon farmers if the clause were deleted from the Bill.

§ MR. MARKHAM

said that in his opinion both the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary were quite wrong in their contention that a small contractor who took round a threshing machine was better off than the farmer. He had had some experience of threshing machines, for he unfortunately became some years ago the owner of half a dozen of them and he was no better off for it. The owner of a machine frequently let it out to workmen to take round. He believed that was the invariable practice all round the Midland district. The men who thus hired machines might be very poor men, and they would not make careful provision to insure the men they temporarily employed, and if an accident happened they would be unable to pay compensation. A farmer, on the other hand, could insure his men against accident. The rate of an insurance company would not be more than 10s. or 12s. per £100 of wages. If a farmer deliberately refused to pay a small sum per annum to insure his men he had only himself to thank if he had to pay compensation out of his own pocket. He did not think it would be a hardship on farmers to insure. The clause as drawn did not mean that any workman employed by a contractor on travelling work, whether a farm hand or anyone else, would, by the fact that he was so employed, be the contractor's man. An ordinary farmer had not sufficient hands to work the thresher and so the contractor gathered together men in the district.

§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)

thought the omission of the words would cause a great deal of unmerited inconvenience. It seemed to him that in these questions of compensation what one had to consider was the maximum of security to the 829 workman coupled with the minimum of inconvenience to the person who had to pay the compensation. He would draw the attention of the House to the case of the small farmer—and there were plenty of them in the moorlands and the remote districts of the country—who practically employed no labour except that of his own family, and therefore had no call to insure workmen under the Act. For the purposes of threshing he had to hire a machine, and had practically no possibility of insuring the men employed upon that machine for the two or three days it would be used. On the other hand, the man who owned the machine knew exactly how many men he would have to employ, and had every facility for insuring them in the easiest possible manner. If the words were left out a liability would be thrown upon the small farmer which in many cases it would be practically impossible for him to meet by insurance. In that case they would not only have the maximum inconvenience to the person who had to pay the compensation, but the minimum of security to the person who was to get it.

§ MR. KEIR HARDIE

suggested that the use of the word "owns" instead of "provides" would offer a way out of the difficulty.

§ MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)

said the principal object of the Government was not to protect the farmer or the contractor, but to protect the men engaged on those machines. What happened in his part of the country was that a contractor went round with, very often, not more than two men, and the farmers joined and sent two or three men apiece to aid each other in the operation of threshing. Farmers insured their men, but only for the work on their own farms, and what he feared was that the men would not be protected except, by the proposal of the Government, if they went to work on another farm.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said this extremely interesting discussion carried him back to the discussions which took place in 1897. He pointed out that this particular proviso had been in operation since the Act of 1897 was passed, and that not a single Member had brought 830 forward any case in which difficulty had arisen on account of the wording of the Act. In the proviso now under discussion they had practically adopted the same wording. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had suggested the use of the word "provides" instead of "owns." A man who hired a threshing machine was as responsible for it as if he owned it. It was quite clear that they should retain the principle that a farmer should be liable for the men on his farm, and that the threshing machine man should be liable for the men working the machine. He thought they must adhere to that principle.

§ MR. F. E. SMITH

said that as the general sense of the House was opposed to his Amendment, he begged leave to withdraw it.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said that the next Amendment standing in his name was to make it clear that no person who was a servant of the employer should be liable to pay compensation to the workman. This sub-section was meant to meet the case of the small employer, but the hon. Member for Ince with a sharp eye had detected a danger from the omission of the words which he proposed to introduce by his Amendment. A man who was a servant of a miner employer engaged another man to act as a butty man, and the question arose whether he would not be a contractor within the meaning of the law, and therefore liable to indemnify the butty man if he were injured. It was to make the matter perfectly clear that he introduced the words of his Amendment.

§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR

said that the Amendment which he wished to propose, taken in conjunction with another Amendment to Clause 13, was meant to deal with cases of very great 831 hardship which had recently grown up under the last Workmen's Compensation Act. His real object was to reconcile conflicting legal decisions and to avoid in the future the confusion which had arisen from these conflicting judgments. In the first class of cases, a man was employed to do a particular amount of work. He went to do the work, supplying his own labour and his own tools. In the course of the operations he was injured, and the Court held that he was not a workman, but a contractor. The other class of cases was where a man was employed, not to do a specific amount of work, but to do a certain kind of work, providing his own labour and his own tools. The Court there found the man not to be a contractor, but a workman. Under the Employer's Liability Act Lord Chief Justice Coleridge held that although a man was paid in the lump, and found his own labour and tools, he was not a contractor, but a workman; but a case had been quite recently decided where an opposite judgment was given. His Amendment would make the law clear, and reconcile these conflicting judgments. He hoped the officials on the Government Bench would see that there was good reason for removing the uncertainty which prevailed in deciding these cases.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

thought that if his hon. and learned friend were to; succeed in getting this clause inserted he would reduce the legal profession generally to something like the state of embarrassment which he should think that many hon. Members were in at that moment as to the precise scope of the clause. His hon. and learned friend wished to exclude from 832 the indemnity what he called a "contractor for labour." He did not wish to introduce a new phrase into this Bill, and "contractor for labour" was not only a phrase unknown to the law, but it was not an expression familiar in commerce or known in trade, and he saw great difficulty in attaching to it any definite meaning. But he apprehended that what his hon. and learned friend meant was that the workman who took, under a contract, some considerable portion of work to do, and who employed workmen, little removed in industrial status from himself, on the premises of some principal, should not be liable. If. however, his hon. and learned friend's point was not met by the existing law and the decided cases it was amply met by this Bill. He would take the familiar case mentioned to-night of the butty man in mines. Butty men were men who were employed to do work in the mine, and they employed labour to do that work. They were paid in proportion to the work done, and they divided the money among the men. It had been contended that the true employer was the butty man, and the case was tried, and in the course of it the Court asked whether the principal employer really exercised any control over the butty and if he was. in a position under the Coal Mines Regulation Act or other Acts to give any kind of direction to, or place any restrctions on the butty. If he had that power they said that he and not the butty was liable. Otherwise a man might sub-let the whole of his work and not be liable for compensation for injury to workmen. That of course would not have done, and the Court said that if a principal employer had any kind of control he was the man to be proceeded against. His hon. and learned friend had mentioned another case—a very strong case, so strong that it might lead to some doubt. In that case a builder sub-let the whole of the brickwork of a building to a sub-contractor employing his own men—quite an independent man working sometimes on this job and sometime on another. He employed his own men. fixed the rate of wages, and paid them what he pleased, but when it appeared that the principal builder had a right to give orders to the contractor's workmen it was held at once that he was the person against 833 whom an injured workman should proceed; so that the "contractor for labour," was amply provided for under the decided cases and the workmen did not look to him but to the contractor. But if the "contractor for labour" was really the employer, then he thought he should be made liable, because if they were to allow no remedy against the employee's own principal it would only lead to evasion of the Act. The Government thought it desirable that each man should sue his own employer, because it enforced insurance on the part of the employer. He thought his hon. and learned friend's Amendment, although carefully conceived and considered, was not necessary, would introduce an element of doubt, and even interfere with the best prospects of the Bill. He hoped therefore he would not press it.

§ MR. DUNCAN

formally seconded the Amendment.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said that though there was something to be said in favour of the words which the hon. Member by his Amendment rejected, the Government had come to the conclusion that all that was useful in the clause was covered by the principle which confined the matter to the words "undertaken by the principal" and therefore they were prepared to accept this Amendment.

§ * MR. COCHRANE

said the Amendment might make some difference to the interpretation of the words "undertaken by the principal." This was a matter which it would be advantageous to clear up. Would it not interfere with the case of a contractor who had undertaken to build a house for someone else?

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the omission of the words in a case of that sort would make no difference. The man who contemplated building a house, and who had handed the work over to a contractor, could not possibly be said to be the employer. The clause applied only to work undertaken by a principal, and sub-let to a contractor.

§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR

said it seemed to him that the workman should, to the extent of the liability of the insurers to the employer, have as against the insurers all the rights which were given to him by this Act as against the employer. In the case of the bankruptcy of the employer the insurer should become directly liable to the workmen. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General had read this Amendment carefully, he would see that it was only an equitable provision to give full effect to the measures which the hon. and learned Gentleman had already proposed. He begged to move.

§ * MR. GLOVER

formally seconded the Amendment.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the object of this clause appeared to be to give a preferential right to workmen if their employers became bankrupt. He would point out as against that, that in the case of bankruptcy the workman would prove his claim in the ordinary way, and thus have all the rights which his employer had against his insurer. Having proved his claim he could make sure of the fund out of which his employer had arranged that the claim should be met. The hon. Member had suggested that instead of that the workman should go to the insurance 837 company. What would that mean? It would mean, first of all, the workman would have to commence proceedings against his employer; that upon the employer becoming bankrupt the whole matter would be transferred to the insurance company and fresh proceedings would have to be commenced; and then there might not be sufficient to pay him, and he would again have to come upon his employer. Such a clause would introduce considerable complexity into the Bill. To compel the workman to bring his action against the London company would involve a good deal of inconvenience and expensive litigation.

§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR

said he understood that his hon. friends, having considered his Amendment side by side with an Amendment which was to be proposed by the Home Secretary they had decided in favour of the latter. He had no desire to set his view, however well instructed, against theirs, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eiffon)

formally seconded.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said it was true that nobody could proceed against a bankrupt without an order from the Bankruptcy Court, because the property of a 839 bankrupt was taken to be in the custody of the Court. To allow anyone to issue an execution under those circumstances would be a very serious step, and would entirely derange the whole proceedings.

§ MR. HILLS (Durham)

formally seconded.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said he saw no reason why a workman should not have this concurrent right. Proceedings against an employer had to be taken within six months, and within that period it was practically impossible for an action for negligence to be determined. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted it would have the effect of making the workman always proceed against the employer.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said the hon. Member led them to believe at the opening of his remarks that his only objection was that the Government had dealt with this subject in the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and not in the Merchant Shipping Bill. But why, if that was his position, did he not move an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill in the Grand Committee transferring this provision bodily to that Bill?

§ SIR ROBERT ROPNER

said this was not the first time he had mentioned the matter, and if he did not move in the Grand Committee it was because he found that the Committee was entirely under the direction of the Labour Party, and that it was useless for him to move any Amendments whatever.

MR. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is exceeding the limit of an explanation.

§ * MR. GLADSTONE

said he was obliged to the hon. Member for the explanation. He did not think it was true that the Committee had been so much under the ruthless and tyrannical domination of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that the hon. Member was unable to move an Amendment. But if it were true, why, when the Bill got to the freer and healthier atmosphere of the House 843 itself, did the hon. Member not move? The truth was, it was only a question of method, and the Government thought it was much better that the seamen should be dealt with under this Bill. But the hon. Member went on to argue not only for a difference of method but for a difference of treatment for the seaman, on the ground that his case was different from that of the workman on shore, and that the shipowner was entitled to much greater consideration than the employer on shore. He agreed that the Departmental Committee recommended that the seamen should be treated under the merchant shipping law, but the particular method adopted in the Bill never occurred to the Committee. Sir Benjamin Brown, who was on the deputation which he met in the course of the summer, spoke about the seamen. He asked Sir Benjamin particularly whether in his opinion seamen should be treated precisely as workmen on shore. It was quite clear that the Departmental Committee quoted by the hon. Member was not at all with him in what he said in the latter part of his speech. Let him state why the Government had chosen to deal with seamen under the Workmen's Compensation Bill rather than under the Merchant Shipping Bill. Under the Merchant Shipping Act the sailor had certain benefits in the event of injury, and the shipowner was liable for his maintenance and care while he was on board and until he arrived home. When, however, an injured sailor landed, under the present law the shipowner had no further liability for him whatever. The sailor might be a cripple for life; he might have lost a leg, or both his eyes; whatever his condition might be, under the present law' when the sailor was landed in the United Kingdom the employer had no further liability for him. The sailor, therefore, might have to go on the rates, to which shipowners did not contribute. This Bill proposed that its operation should come in with the seaman landing in this country. It drew a clear distinction between the seaman's claims under the Merchant Shipping Act on the one side, and the workmen's compensation law on the other, so that there was no conflict between them. The Merchant Shipping Act applied so long as the man was at 844 sea and before he came to this country. When he came back to this country the Government said that the shipowner was not to be free from his responsibility to look after the man who was injured in his service. When the seaman came to this country the shipowner was to be liable for the man injured as in the cases of the mineowner or the factory owner. It seemed to him that that was a clear distinction which had never occurred to the Committee. He protested against the theory being put forward that the shipowner was in a wholly different position from the mineowner. If a ship were struck by lightning the shipowner claimed that that was an "Act of God," and that he ought to be relieved of liability. Providence did not think of the shipowner who did not put up a, lightning rod on his ship. The treatment the Government proposed to give was the right treatment, and he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.

§ MR. F. E. SMITH

said he was quite sure that whatever view the House might take of the Amendment, the motive which induced his hon. friend to move it was entirely disinterested He did not think the Bill would impose a burden on shipowners which was not imposed on other classes of the community. Taking the burdens on shipowners cumulatively, there might be some grievance; but what weighed with him was the obvious convenience of dealing with sailors in the same way as other men who engaged in work at the risk of their lives, especially in mines. In the Workman's Compensation Act introduced by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham the Legislature committed itself to an entirely novel principle, viz., that a man who was engaged for the profit of his employer and received injury, entirely irrespective of negligence, was entitled to compensation. He apprehended that no one would suggest that the considerations which induced the legislature to adopt that novel principle did not apply to sailors with even greater force than to other classes of workmen engaged in risky employment. If that were so, it would be highly inconvenient from every point of view, and un reasonable that they should have one 845 statute, defining the remedies of a person injured in land employment, and a totally different statute determining the liabilty of employers for injury to seamen at sea. His hon. friend had pointed out that the legislature should not discourage shipowners and the servants of shipowners from engaging in an arduous task in order to render assistance to ships in distress. But, shipowners as well as their employees, had very substantial inducements in rendering salvage services. His hon. friend said it was very difficult for a shipowner to collect evidence months afterwards, but every responsible person on board ship was an agent for a ship whose interest it would be to support the case of the shipowner, and to supply the shipowner with evidence. All these considerations made it impossible at this period of the day to differentiate between the position of sailors and that of other industrial classes in the community, and therefore he hoped that his hon. friend would see that the sense of the House was against his proposal, and withdraw his Amendment.

§ * MR. COCHRANE

said he was quite sure that his hon. friend in moving his Amendment did not mean to do anything against seamen or to deprive them of the compensation to which they were as much entitled as any other class in the community. But he thought there were peculiar circumstances connected with the case of seamen which justified the discussion. The proportion of accidents to seamen was sixty-four per 10,000, as compared with seven per 10,000 men engaged in other callings. Many of the accidents were attributable to "Act of God;" and difficult questions would arise as to the liability for compensation in such cases, and also: in cases of loss of life where men voluntered for life-saving service or in cases of collision with foreign ships. There might well be a national contribution to the Compensation Fund in the case of men who went out to save life at sea, but the subject was one more within the scope of the Board of Trade than of the Home Office. The late Government did not include seamen in their Bill, not 846 because they thought seamen ought not to be protected, but because they thought that class would be better looked after by the Board of Trade under the merchant shipping law. That policy was imposed upon them by the stringent findings of the Departmental Committee, presided over by Sir Kenelm Digby, a very strong man. That Committee devoted a large portion of their Report, some five or six pages, to considering this particular question. Sir Kenelm Digby looked at the matter both as the head of a Department, and as the chairman of that Committee, and from both those points of view he came to the conclusion that the Home Office was not the proper Department to deal with the question, they having no experience of seamen and no special knowledge to deal with this Bill after it had passed. The right hon. Gentleman thought that a Bill required no trouble to be spent upon it after it had passed, but after he had been a little longer in office, he would understand that the working of every Bill promoted by a Department required constant watching, constant diligence, and possibly an addition to the staff of that Department. There was one other point which differentiated the owner of a ship from an ordinary employer, and that was that if a collision took place between a British ship and a foreign ship, and both were sunk, there was no claim for compensation on the owners of the vessel, although the foreign ship might have been in the wrong, whereas there was a claim in like circumstances for compensation in the case of the British ship, namely, that the owner of the British ship had to pay compensation to his workmen, but had no claim upon the owners of the ship that had caused he damage. He did not wish to quote at length the Report of the Departmental Committee, because he had no desire to delay the Bill. But he did say that the Board of Trade would have been the better authority to deal with this question, and that the Merchant Shipping Act was the right one in which this power should be included. The mistake was to have two sets of Acts dealing with workmen's compensation, because now when a man received injury, he was entitled to be sent home, and whilst on 847 board ship he was cared for under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, administered by the Board of Trade, the moment he set foot on shore he would come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to be administered by the Home Office. He had every wish that the seamen should receive compensation, and the only bone he had to pick with the right hon. Gentleman was that he had taken the control of this matter into his own hands instead of placing it with the Board of Trade. Perhaps, however, as his hon. friend who moved the rejection of the clause might think he had attained his purpose by the discussion, he would not trouble the House to go to a division.

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

seconded the Amendment, because in his view the hon. and learned Member for the Walton division of Liverpool had adduced an unanswerable argument in favour of what he claimed. It was not possible that this Amendment could be refused, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman should decline to make it clear that the class of seamen referred to in the Amendment would be brought within the operation of the Bill. Anyone who know anything about the small craft on the sea knew that there was very little difference between the captain and the ordinary seamen. The captain had to undergo the same hardships and was subject to the same risk of injury as the seaman. He therefore hoped the Solicitor-General would consent to consider the masters and officers of these small ships as workmen within the meaning of the Act. A good case had been made out by the mover of the Amendment, and he heartily joined with the hon. Member in his appeal to the Government. He hoped that in this case they would draw no distinction between those who "go down to the sea in ships."

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said he should have preferred the debate to have continued for some little time longer before he replied, because the Government were anxious to have a definite expression of opinion from the whole House. The masters of vessels were not originally included in the clause, because it was felt that a serious burden would be laid on the ship owners. There was no desire on the part of the Government to exclude ship masters from the benefits of the Act. Nor did they conceal from themselves the fact that there were a great many masters of small ships who 850 undoubtedly came within the general description of workmen, although they occupied in relation to their crews a somewhat exceptional position. The masters of the great liners were already excluded by the limit of £250. He himself doubted whether the Bill as drafted did exclude masters, because the definition of workmen it) Clause 13 did not do so. The question, however, was whether the House was of opinion that masters might be included in this Bill with other seamen. After listening to the debate, he thought the Government would not be far wrong in assuming that the House was in favour of the Amendment, and, that being so, they would gladly accept it.

§ SIR ROBERT ROPNER

said that masters of small coasting vessels ought to be included in the Bill, but he thought the Government, instead of adopting the Amendment offhand, should give themselves time for the consideration of the whole matter. There was a great difference in the case of captains and seamen, because the former had many opportunities of making money which did not appear on the surface. A few years ago some vessels were employed carrying the mails between Shanghai and Vladivostok, and he discovered that the captains on these vessels had not been making the usual allowances to their wives. Upon inquiry he found that the captain of one of the ships had been able to save all his wages whilst in board, and he had provided for his family with money earned in other ways. It turned out that the Russian officers at Vladivostok liked champagne, and the captains of these vessels bought champagne at Shanghai and sold it at Vladivostok to the Russian officers, making an immense profit on it. Some of his own captains had retired at the age of fifty-five years, having accumulated small fortunes which they could not possibly have done out of their wages alone. He thought the Government ought really to give this matter more consideration, and not deal with it offhand in this way.

§ MR. ASHLEY

pointed out that sub-section (a) of Clause 7 provided that notice of an accident and a claim for compensation 851 must be served on the master of ships as if he were the employer. In that case if this Amendment were accepted and an accident happened to the master he would have to serve a notice upon himself. He thought some other provision was necessary to meet this difficulty.

§ MR. W. R. REA (Scarborough)

welcomed the inclusion of masters within the scope of this Bill. In many cases although they were called masters they were really working seamen. In a good many instances they were captains of tugs who had been promoted from the labourers and ordinary sailors, and it was a great hardship that in consequence of promotion they should lose the compensation to which they would otherwise be entitled for injury. Every self-respecting shipowner would agree that a man who received injury during his employment on board ship should not be allowed to suffer in consequence. It was in the interests of the shipowners that they should know their full liability so that they might insure every member of the crew. The cases referred to by the hon. Member for Stockton would be excluded by the £250 limit.

§ MR. W. BECKETT (Yorkshire, N.R., Whitby)

said he did not hold any brief for the captains who earned more money than they were paid as wages, but he rose to put in a word on behalf of the masters of some of those very small fishing trawlers who received rather small salaries. On their behalf he urged the Government to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. GODFREY BARING (Isle of Wight)

said he had listened with great 852 satisfaction to what had been said upon this question. There were a large number of masters of small ship? who were in receipt of very low salaries, and he was sure they would greatly appreciate the fact that the Government were willing to accept this Amendment.

§ LORD R. CECIL

formally seconded.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the Government could not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member had stated that apprentices had no dependents, and would have nobody to leave their money to. In that case the shipowners would not be called upon to bear any burden.

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

protested against the Amendment as altogether unreasonable, seeing that apprentices worked as hard as seamen, and in addition usually paid a premium to the shipowner. He had had experience himself for two years on board ship as an apprentice. He did not know how the hon. Member for Stockton treated his apprentices, but he knew that parents were first of all called upon to pay considerable premiums to shipowners.

§ SIR ROBERT ROPNER

said that was very unusual.

§ MM. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he could assure the hon. Member that that used to be the Practice. Apprentices were frequently bound to work for a certain number of years without any remuneration at all, although in some cases an arrangement was made by which the apprentice received back again over a period of years the amount which had been paid as a premium. Hon. Members would remember the wreck of the "Primrose Hill," when seven apprentice boys were amongst those who were drowned. Some of the parents of those boys wrote stating that they had paid premiums for their boys on that ship, and asking if it was possible for them to recover compensation. It turned out that the ship was considerably undermanned. He was was sure the House would agree that such cases as those ought to come under this Bill. He hoped the hon. Member would see the inadvisability of his Amendment, and as a generous-hearted shipowner who never took premiums for apprentices, he trusted he would see his way to withdraw this Amendment.

§ SIR ROBERT ROPNER

said the hon. Member for East Clare, when he said 854 that premiums were paid for apprentices, must have been alluding to sailing ships. That was formerly the practice, but he could assure the House that no such practice existed in connection with the steamers with which he was connected. Under the circumstances, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said that the answer to the Amendment need only be a very short one. To exclude sailors who were foreigners on board British ships from the operation of this Act would be to put a premium upon the employment of foreigners.

§ MR. COURTHOPE

seconded the Amendment. He thought that fishermen ran greater risks than any other kind of seamen, and ran those risks in the interests of their employers. It had 857 been said that these men ran risks in their own interests, but he did not think that that was a sufficient answer, and he therefore hoped that the Government would favourably consider the Amendment and do away with an unnecessary and unjust restriction.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

thought that both hon. Gentlemen who had spoken would have altered their opinions if they had been on the Grand Committee where this provision was excluded at the request of the fishermen themselves. They pointed out to the Government that every one of them was his own employer, as they shared profits, and although no doubt they were anxious to get compensation like other workmen where they were in. the position both of workman and employer they did not see where the compensation was to come from.

§ SIR G. DOUGHTY

asked whether any fisherman from the eastern ports had desired to be excluded from the Bill.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the Government had to make their inquiries both in the East and in the West, and they found that a great many fishermen in the East, some for instance in the hon. Member's own constituency, would be 858 included because they were not profit sharing fishermen.

§ SIR G. DOUGHTY

said that many in Grimsby were profit-sharing fishermen.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said that they had done their best to consult them, but the profit-sharing fishermen both there and elsewhere said they wanted to be left alone. If they were to be included who was to pay the compensation? It was a partnership ad hoc and the partnership lasted throughout the season. How was it possible to deal with a partnership of that kind as if it were a continuous employment which lasted throughout the year? The fishermen unanimously accepted this clause, and it was inserted at their instance. He hoped it would not be supposed that the Government had anything to do with the matter.

§ MR. CORY

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep this sub-section in the Bill. The fishermen were in the utmost consternation when they heard of this Bill, and they wrote imploring him to see that they were not included in it. He consulted them himself, and they all desired to be kept out of the Bill, and said that if they were not, their great industry would be ruined. [Cries of "Agreed."] If the matter was agreed he would not pursue it further.

§ SIR W. ROBSON

said the provision as to profit-sharing fishermen was accepted at the instance of the fishermen themselves, but the Government had had no such representation from seamen engaged in small sailing vessels. If the Amendment were accepted the owners might give the seamen a small sum out of the profits in addition to their wages, and call them profit sharing seamen and thus evade the Act. The Government therefore, could not accept the Amendment

§ SIR E. CARSON

could not understand why, after the course followed in regard to the fishermen, this Amendment should not be accepted, because every argument applicable in one case was germane to the other. The truth was that in the case of both small sailing and fishing boats the men were really partners in the venture, and what really ought to happen was 860 that the crew who were so remunerated by profit should themselves form a mutual insurance, under which any person who met with an accident, who otherwise would have a claim under this Bill, would be compensated. The Solicitor-General had given them no reason for not accepting the Amendment except that the fishermen had come and asked for a particular clause, but he was not at all sure that the obligations of the Act had been brought home in their full force to the men on these smaller vessels where exactly the same system was in vogue as in the case of fishermen. Another reason why the Amendment should be adopted was that it would encourage the crews instead of merely making profits for their employers to become partners in the vessels and to work for themselves. They would thus obtain some share in the management of the general venture which was carried on under such risky circumstances and greater care would result. He hoped the Solicitor-General would further consider the matter. He did not know what inquiries the hon. and learned Gentleman had made or whether he had inquired into the views of the crews of these small vessels who were employed under those circumstances.