§ Resolutions reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £926,300, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Half-Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
§ "That a sum, not exceeding £1,468,200, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
§ Consideration of Resolutions postponed.
§ Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £395,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
I beg to move to reduce the said sum by £100.
I desire to move this reduction in order to raise a question of paramount importance to all Government employés. I do 1618 not want to weary the House, but I should like to enter into the whole details, and the different dates connected with this case, in order that the House may realise the state of affairs. On 26th October, 1909, the medical inspector under the Factory Acts certified that the house that a certain George Horn was working in in the dockyard was insanitary. He also certified that George Horn was suffering from lead poisoning. George Horn was treated for three weeks in the dockyard surgery for lead poisoning. On 16th November he was sent to Haslar Hospital, and on 12th December, a month afterwards, he died in the hospital. On 28th December the solicitor, who was employed out of certain funds, wrote to the Treasury asking that he might put the case in regard to this George Horn's widow getting certain compensation. On 30th December the solicitor received a letter from the Treasury stating that his letter had been sent to the Admiralty. On 13th and 24th January, and on 4th February, 1910, the solicitor wrote to the Admiralty asking for a reply to his letter to the Treasury. On 8th February he received a letter from the Admiralty in which it was stated:—That the medical advisers of that Department, having given the ease their most careful consideration, are of the opinion that Horn's death was due to heart disease of long standing, and was not attributable to the service. We therefore regret that the widow's claim for compensation cannot be admitted.1619 I want the House to pay attention to this letter, which was in face of the medical inspector under the Factory Acts, who had declared that Horn had suffered from lead poisoning, and had had the man in the dockyard surgery for three weeks treating him for that complaint. The solicitor wrote again to the Admiralty on 8th February with regard to that decision, giving further information of the case. To this letter he got no reply. He again wrote on 15th February, and asked for an immediate answer. On 4th March he received much the same answer to the effect that the decision of the Admiralty was based on the report of their medical advisers; that neither during Horn's illness nor by the post mortem examination were any other symptoms discovered, and the post mortem examination revealed a diseased heart of long standing, and of much earlier origin than the lead poisoning. Here again I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that this was in face of the medical inspector under the Factory Acts' opinion that the man had been treated for three weeks for lead poisoning. On 12th March the solicitor called the attention to this fact in a letter to the Admiralty, though this already had been communicated to them. On 11th April, the solicitor filed an application in the Portsmouth County Court. On 30th April, the Treasury filed an answer. I hope the House will excuse me giving these details, because I want to give the facts clearly before I produce my own opinion on the case. On 6th May, the solicitor was approached by the Treasury solicitor with a view to an agreement to adjourn the County Court case to 9th June. The reason that the Treasury solicitor gave was that the Admiralty were instituting an inquiry.
One of the points I want to bring before the House is: Why did not the Admiralty, if there was a doubt about the matter, institute an inquiry before? The medical officer had given his opinion that the man was suffering from lead poisoning, and the Admiralty knew that the shed he had been working in was an insanitary shed. On 2nd June the solicitor received a letter from the Treasury solicitor, and in this letter the Treasury solicitor said that the claim was still being considered, but, he added, whatever decision was given by the County Court the Admiralty would consider that they had no jurisdiction in the case."
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
The hon. Gentleman will interrupt me if I am making any mistake in the case. I want the thing to be perfectly clear, and I am certain he also wants it to be clear.
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
On 1st June, five days before the case came before the County Court judge, the solicitor received another letter from the Treasury Solicitor, in which the latter gentleman stated:I am now instructed On behalf of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to inform you that, after full consideration of the ease, they admit full liability for compensation.That was a sum of £266 2s. 2d. This was after the Admiralty inquiry had been ordered. What I want to point out is that the Admiralty inquiry ought to have been ordered directly there was a doubt thrown on the case by the medical opinion. On 6th June the solicitor for the case wrote to the Treasury saying that he would not consent to the withdrawal of the county court proceedings unless the Treasury paid the costs of his application. That in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the House, was only fair. Litigation was rendered quite unnecessary, and the action taken was amply justified by the result. On 16th June the county court judge gave judgment in favour of Mrs. Horn. From December, 1909, till July, 1910, Mrs. Horn never got one single penny, although this doubt had been thrown upon the case.
On 12th July the Admiralty allowed Mrs. Horn 10s. a week as a gratuity. This was seven months after George Horn's death. On 26th November of last year Mrs. Horn received the first penny of the £266 2s. 2d., although her husband died on 12th December, 1909. I must say, and I expect hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me, that there has never been such an incredible state of meanness as the action of the Admiralty when they gave this compensation. What do you think they did? I believe it is of doubtful legality. But as I am not a lawyer I cannot say. They gave this £266, which, I maintain, they were forced to give to this poor woman, and they (the Admiralty) absolutely deducted £10 from the compensation for twenty weeks and the half-wages paid Mrs. Horn during the months 1621 Horn was at Haslar before he died. I ask the House if that is not incredibly mean?
The facts of the case are shortly these: Horn worked in a confined place known to be insanitary, and which was several times reported as a place damaging to health. That statement is perfectly fair and just, and proved to be true, because the unfortunate man had lead poisoning. The medical officer of health for Ports mouth, as I have already said, reported it as lead poisoning. The point I want to raise here is that so far as the employés—I have not been able to calculate what the number is that come under this Act for contracting out, but they must be a considerable number, a hundred thou sand, or perhaps 150,000—and remember the Admiralty appealed, as they said they would, against the decision of the county court judge——
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
I beg your pardon, against the jurisdiction of the county court. That puts the employés in this position; no employé can ever again go to law at all, and that is a most important matter for the whole of the employés under the Government at the present moment.
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
Not before, if he had not contracted out. What the hon. Gentleman probably would say is the Admiralty settled this case and they are now going to turn it over to the Treasury. But my point is that no Department of the State, more particularly one that is to settle points for poor people who cannot defend themselves, should act in this manner. If this poor woman had not someone behind her to fight her case she would never get a red cent. The Treasury, I am sure, in ninety cases out of 100, or even a great deal more, would give a perfectly fair and just decision, but as in this case there may be great injustice done. How many more cases are there like that of Mrs. Horn, but who, having no one behind them to fight their case, never got a penny.
The fault I find with the Admiralty is for not having appointed a committee directly that there was a doubt raised. They waited all this time, and kept this woman out of her money, and then they 1622 subtracted the 10s. a week and the month's half-pay that she got. The wording of the estimate is that the compensation is only for injury. There is nothing as to death. This was a case of the death of a workman employed in an insanitary place, and the widow was not allowed any compensation, although the medical inspector reported the place was insanitary. As far as this case goes the Admiralty have not a leg to stand on. I claim that Gentlemen sitting on the Labour benches must back me up in this matter, even if we go to a Division. They must not do now what they did when I supported an Amendment of theirs on the Address last year. When it came to the point they walked out or voted against me, as my fellow-countrymen here did to-night in the case of their own tobacco growing. I claim that the Labour Members must support me now and bring this matter to a decision. Let them not be talked over by the Admiralty. The Admiralty are very clever. Perhaps they will climb down, but here we are fighting a question which may concern a lot of people who are not able to fight for themselves. The Treasury settles cases to the best of its ability, but they may be misled, and there should be some referee at the Department to adjudicate on matters of this character, and no great Department like the Treasury' should be permitted to adjudicate upon it themselves.
I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here, because I have a few words to say to him. I would point out that this case shows that the statement he made the other day was right. He claimed that if any document was sent to him by any member of the Board and he approved of it that it was approved by the Admiralty. I say that was a most preposterous and arrogant statement. I should like to hear what the Sea Lords would say to it. This appears to me to be a sort of arrogant domination which is being carried on, and I should like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to say that this statement was absolutely incorrect. He will say perhaps he cannot go against his Chief, and of course that is very loyal and very proper discipline, but he must say something about it or I shall have to question him again. The statement was inaccurate, and it looks as if that statement had something to do with the case of George Horn, as it had to do with the case of Archer-Shee, which we shall bring up this day week. I am sure the House will sympathise with me in trying to stop further 1623 cases which would put poor women in the position in which this poor woman was put for seven months without a penny, and nearly a year without getting the compensation to which she was entitled, and which in the interests of fair play she should get.
§ Mr. BERTRAM G. FALLE
I rise to second the Amendment of my Noble and gallant Friend. He has gone into the question very fully, but there were one or two points he omitted. I want to point out that the medical inspector visited this shed in which George Horn was working, and although the medical inspector was not called in to see him, he immediately "spotted" him, if I may use the expression, as a subject of chronic plumbism or lead poisoning. And he said I will have that man reported to the Fleet Surgeon, and then he told the man to come to his house and he would examine him. He did examine him, and he found he was suffering from albuminuria hypertrophy of the heart and inability to use the extensor muscles of his fore-arm. These are the most typical characteristics in lead poisoning, so there was no excuse whatever on the part of the Government. After they had this report, and they ought to have immediately inquired into the matter. I want also to take another line. I am afraid it is almost impossible to shame a Public Department; but we may be able to touch the consciences of the occupants of the Treasury Bench. I have no doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty is as tender-hearted as any of us, and I make my appeal to him. My object is not to injure the Government of which he is a most courteous Member. I want to see that justice and fairplay is done to this poor woman, who has been most hardly used. When she was left a widow she had seven children and the eldest was only fourteen years of age. She had no wages at all to provide for herself and her family. That should have moved a heart of stone, and had it been the heart of the hon. Gentleman opposite no doubt it would have been moved, but it was the heart of the Department. It is impossible to deny that in this case there was a certain amount of bungling and the bungling was on the part of the Admiralty. It was my good fortune to see the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I brought this matter before his notice. Speaking as a member of the profession to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, I told him that this 1624 widow had a good case against him, but he preferred his own authorities, and the case had to proceed to the Law Courts. As the House knows, at first the Admiralty declined to pay any compensation.
Finally the case went into court, and the Admiralty decided to pay compensation, and at the last moment a telegram was sent to the solicitor saying that the Admiralty would pay reasonable costs. That telegram was never confirmed, and there is no lawyer in the country who would accept an unconfirmed telegram simply saying that reasonable costs would be paid. I have the honour to belong to that great profession, although I do not follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not wish to be the bird that fouls its own nest, but I must say that I have never heard the word "reasonable" used in regard to costs. There are tax costs between solicitor and client, but reasonable costs in a telegram might give a solicitor a hint that it was a bogus telegram, and had the verdict gone against the solicitor he would have had no grounds whatever for complaint. The Admiralty have now got the matter settled by the Court of Appeal, and that will remain until we can get a change in the law. That is a great gain for injustice, and it is a great gain from the point of view the Admiralty took. I do not think, however, that it is an attitude which a great Department should take. Now they have won their case and they cannot be disturbed again until the law is altered. I think it would be a graceful act and fair and just on the part of a great Department to pay the costs for this poor woman. She has no means of her own, and it is very unfair to ask her to pay the residue of the costs out of the compensation which has been given to her for what is very little more than the slow murder of her husband in that shop. That workshop was unfit for people to work in. The husband of this woman had spent all his time in soldering ammunition cases. He was there eight years, and he was being slowly murdered. The costs amounted to £95, a very small sum it seems to me, and as in this case the Government are strong, it is the duty of their department to be merciful.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I wish to say a word upon this subject. I understand this man has been for eight years in a shed or workshop under conditions where it was quite possible for him to become inocculated with the fumes of lead and suffer from ill-health from the result of lead poisoning. 1625 I understand that at the end of a certain time he was certified as suffering from lead poisoning, and he went into the hospital for three weeks. I believe the Admiralty paid half-wages, or about 10s. a week, while he was lying aside in the hospital, between the time of being certified as suffering from lead poisoning up to the time of his death. There is no dispute about that. A post-mortem takes place, and the Admiralty, on the advice of their medical adviser, decided that this is a case of long-standing disease of the heart. To novices this decision would seem to exclude the possibility of lead poisoning having any connection whatever with his death. I happen to have been a member of the Lead Committee which inquired into the lead poisoning question. For some two years we were engaged in listening to expert evidence upon this question, medical and otherwise, in order that we might get some information as to the cause of this disease.
I think it is understood that lead poisoning can be gradually acquired over an enormous number of years, and that lead taken into the system in small doses, as it would be in this case, is more insidious and deadly than if taken in larger quantities at any given time just before the real attack of lead poisoning. In addition, it is well known—and no medical expert would attempt to deny it—that these small doses of lead taken into the system over a number of years produce disease of the kidneys and disease of the heart. It is taken in almost all the cases tried in the Potteries—as was proved in the cases brought before the Lead Commission which is inquiring into this question—as a sign of lead poisoning if there happened to be disease of the heart or disease of the kidneys. The very fact of the Admiralty's doctor and the medical evidence at the post mortem declaring this was a case of long standing disease of the heart, bears out the evidence of witnesses given before our Committee that lead taken into the system in small doses sets up disease of the kidneys and disease of the heart, and that lead taken into the system in this way leads to more terrible results than in the case where it is taken into the system in larger doses, in which case the persons affected are often laid aside only temporarily and may easily recover. Recovery is almost impossible when the system is impregnated in the way suggested by the statement of the Noble 1626 Lord. It must have been a very elementary medical inquiry which the Admiralty held in this case at the time of the man's death for it to have been suggested that disease of the heart could not have had anything to do with lead poisoning. That, I understand, is one of the symptoms for which doctors holding post mortem examinations in the Potteries always look. If a man has worked in lead, and he is found to have had disease of the kidneys or heart the doctors decide at once that his death was due to lead poisoning. The ground on which it is suggested the Admiralty did not recognise this claim is therefore the very ground on which claims made in my Constituency are substantiated. There is unquestionably room for some inquiry as to what kind of information was presented to the Board of Admiralty, and what kind of advice they got which led them to the conclusion that a man suffering from disease of the heart could not necessarily have been the result of lead poisoning. No matter how the doctors differed as to whether leadless glaze should be used, there was no difference among those who appeared before the Commission upon the fact that one of the elements in deciding whether death was the result of lead poisoning was disease of the kidneys and the heart. It is most astonishing that the Admiralty should have taken that as evidence that they were not liable to pay compensation.
There are other elements in the case which are equally peculiar. I can understand that, having got all the advice they could upon the subject, and having decided there was no case for a claim for compensation, they were entitled to resist the claim to the very best of their ability, but it is clear that when they got to the point of having it put to the issue they were afraid of the advice they had got, for they made a further investigation, came to the conclusion the advice was unreliable, and decided to meet the claim. There are one or two things connected with this case which do not, after all, show the Admiralty in a very good light as employers of labour. I understand there was some seven months between the death of the man and any payment to the widow. I do not know what kind of contracting out arrangement the Board of Admiralty has with its workmen. I do not know how far they force or compel men to contract out.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
Whatever it is, it does not seem to me to be fair. First of all, you compel a man to contract out.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
Well, never mind how it comes about. I know something of this voluntary business. I have had some of it in other businesses. Schemes are drafted by firms, and leaders of gangs in the shops and so on decide to contract out, and the man who does not go with the mob is in rather a peculiar position. I know that is so so far as private firms are concerned, and I do not know whether there is any difference under the Admiralty. I daresay it amounts to very much the same thing. It is surprising that, when there is a dispute whether a man's relatives are entitled to compensation the Admiralty should say they are the people absolutely to decide, and that there should be no appeal from them to the courts of the country. I should imagine that is an astounding proposition to make. If the dockyard workmen all over the country are to understand they are to submit absolutely and entirely to the decision of the Board of Admiralty——
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
It does not matter who it is. The man who wants his money does not distinguish between the Board of Admiralty and the Treasury. He only knows the Board of Admiralty employ him, and refuse to pay. He does not inquire whether it is due to the failure of negotiations between the Board of Admiralty and the Treasury. He does not trouble anything about that. If these men are first of all asked whether they will contract out and then, when they agree, there is no provision whatever made for submitting disputed points with reference to their right to claim compensation to some independent tribunal, as I understand there is not, then it is a moral certainty that the proper advice to be given to them is to renounce this agreement at once if the Board of Admiralty will allow them. It is a thousand times better to be at the tender mercies of the law, however peculiarly it is sometimes administered, than to be at the tender mercies of the Board of Admiralty. Of the two, the courts will clearly give the workmen greater protection than the Board of Admiralty is likely to do. If this were the only case in which hardship 1628 had been done and in which the rules and regulations had been interpreted against a workman's claim by the Admiralty, I should have nothing to say about it. I should say it was an isolated case in which there were points of difference between the Admiralty and the workman, and that, although they had not taken all the facts into consideration at first, they did eventually do something to try and put matters right; but I am doubtful whether it does not represent a real old-fashioned policy of the Board and a tendency to interpret laws and regulations against the bottom dog. If it were an isolated case, I can see an excuse for the Admiralty up to a certain point, but it seems to me to be part of a policy that, if there are any points of difference, they should always be decided against the workman. The Noble Lord has a right to ask for some thing in this matter. I understand that the Admiralty have now paid £260 to this woman, and have admitted her claim that far. It becomes a question of the solicitor's costs. The widow having been forced to employ legal assistance because of the failure of the Admiralty to recognise her claim, I think the Board should do the handsome thing in this matter. The Financial Secretary may take it from me, how ever he may try to get out of it, that the solicitor will get his costs. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke a few moments ago said he doubted the telegram from the legal adviser of the Treasury be cause in connection with costs it mentioned the term "reasonable," and he added that no lawyer would ever think of mentioning that word in connection with costs. At any rate, in my opinion, that was absolutely sufficient evidence for thinking the telegram a forgery. Whenever I have had anything to do with law costs reason has never entered into the question. One is asked to pay a certain amount and has to pay it, whether it is reasonable or not. That is the situation as it stands now. The Admiralty has gone a certain stage to wards as it were effacing an injustice; they have admitted that the woman is entitled to a certain sum although they refuse to pay the whole of the costs of the solicitor——
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
That is worse than ever, for it means that a great slice of the compensation to which this woman is entitled is going to be taken from her in payment of solicitor's costs which were im- 1629 posed upon her by a lack of foresight on the part of the medical advisers of the Board of Admiralty. Under these circumstances, whatever my Friends may do in this Division—I am not going to play the Opposition game—unless there is some reasonable explanation on some of these points which one cannot gather, even taking an impartial view of the statements that have been made by the Noble Lord and by the hon. Member who seconded his Motion, unless there are some reasonable excuses for the conduct of the Admiralty relating to this question, most certainly I shall vote for the reduction of the Estimate.
§ Mr. HOHLER
The matter before the House is one of very great importance. I shall never rest content until I get rid of this scheme. I have given great consideration to it, and I cannot understand how the Registrar ever allowed it to be registered. The Act provides that the scale of compensation to which workmen are entitled under a scheme shall be not less favourable than that which the scheme itself provides. You cannot register a scheme which is less favourable in regard to compensation than that provided for by the Act. The Act provides that in the ease of injury, either permanent or partial, to a workman, he shall obtain half his Mages. Let us turn to the scheme. You will find it provided in Clause 9 that if a man is totally incapacitated he is to be entitled to 24–60ths; if his ability is seriously impaired he is only to get 24–60ths; if it is moderately impaired only 12–60ths; and if slightly impaired but 6–60ths. Suppose the man's wages are £1 a week. Under this scheme, instead of getting not less than 10s. a week, as he would under the Act, he is only to have 8s. In the same way in the other cases mentioned, whereas the county court judge, as arbitrator, has power to award up to one-half of the wages under the scheme, there is a descending scale beginning from 8s. down to 6s., 4s., and 2s. Therefore the scheme only gives 2s. where the county court judge may give 10s. This scheme ought never to have been registered. It is a great injustice to working men, and I fail to understand why it was passed by the Registrar. In the case of death it is provided by the Act that compensation to the amount of £300 shall be given, and, as the House is probably aware, where a man leaves persons wholly dependent, the dependents are necessarily entitled to the full amount. If he leaves them partially dependent the county court judge, as arbi- 1630 trator, may give anything up to £300. But under this scheme, if the deceased man leaves persons partially dependent they can only get one-half of the £300. There, again, the scheme is entirely unfair to working men. That does not exhaust the comments I have to make in regard to it.
I drew attention to a case the other night to illustrate its injustice. I desire to say, in regard to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, that whatever other people may say of him, in this matter I have had the most sympathetic treatment at his hands. I honestly believe his only fault in life is that he is not sitting on these benches. Therefore what I say must not be taken as in any way reflecting upon his desire to administer this scheme properly. But there is another injustice which has been the subject of correspondence between us. Take the case of a young fellow who has just completed his apprenticeship. We will say, for the sake of argument, that he has been earning 10s. or 12s. a week. At the conclusion of his articles he becomes a skilled fitter or mechanic. Under the Act, according to a decision of the Court of Appeal, he is entitled, if he meets with an accident immediately after becoming a skilled mechanic, to one-half of the wages he is earning on that grade. But under this scheme, if the same facts exist, instead of being entitled to one-half of what he earns in his new grade, he is only entitled to half his average wages for the previous twelve months, and, instead of getting, say, the half of 30s., he will receive perhaps 10s., or less, under this scheme.
I maintain that we want to get rid, root and branch, of this scheme. I know of no-self-respecting man who would consent to act as arbitrator of his own case. He would say, "I am not fitted to do it, however much I may desire to do justice. If there is a dispute between us the aid of a third party must be invoked." Here are the workmen suffering from a double disability. First of all they have got to pass the Admiralty, and supposing the Admiralty are in favour of a particular workman, and I do not think it is an unjust supposition to them to say that they sometimes are, he has then got to pass the Treasury, and there is a double adjudication on his case. The Treasury do not like their finances dealt with, and the Treasury send the case down and I have known cases in which I have had the support of the Admiralty and the difficulty has been elsewhere, and I have had to carry my facts there.
1631 I say that this scheme is entirely unjust and improper, and I can see no benefit in it to the workmen at all. The only benefit which it can be suggested they obtain is this, that the man gets free medical attendance. I advised the workmen strongly that it is no benefit to them to receive that for two reasons. First of all, the individual workman does not get an independent opinion in the case of continued illness. I am not casting any aspersion on the medical officers employed, but the ground I take is, that he has only got their opinion and he wants outside opinion. I have had cases in which the opinions of the doctors diametrically differed, and I must say that I preferred the opinion of my doctor, who seemed to be accurate according to common sense to those of the Admiralty doctors, but what I want is some tribunal before whom these cases can be put and adjudicated upon. I want a legal tribunal, naturally because I am a lawyer, and in our profession we listen to what a doctor says, and if we do not consider it is common sense, we ignore it. In regard to the benefits which the men get, there is another point which arises. Almost eighty per cent. of these men are all prudent thrifty men, and you will almost invariably find that they are insured in some benefit society and they get free medical attendance. What do they want more? And I say it is better for them to be outside the scheme and get rid of it, so that they should have an independent tribunal who should decide this matter, evidence being given on both sides. The case of Mrs. Horn is an interesting case; thanks to her good friends, she has carried it successfully through, subject to this question of costs, and I cannot doubt that the Admiralty will deal reasonably and generously with them, because they were expended for a proper purpose, and, although the courts are against the right to take the question into a court of law, yet in my judgment the question might as well have been decided the other way.
However that may be, I pass from that case, and I want to show how really important this is, and when an hon. Member says that we want to serve a party purpose I can only say that, speaking for myself and the junior Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Falle), the idea we had at heart was the interest of the men. We want this Act properly and fairly administered, and we have indeed, we think as deeply at heart, the welfore of the working classes as hon. Members opposite, 1632 though we show it in different ways. I want to point out really what injustice may be worked under this scheme. I have had a great number of these cases, and I have a great number still, and some of them have been cases of rupture. The men have been ruptured in the Government employ, and I would appeal to hon. Members to say whether that does or does not seriously impair a man's working capacity. I should have thought it was undoubted. I know—and I do not think I am saying anything which is any way a breach of confidence—I am supported by the Admiralty in my contention, but, unfortunately, I had to fight the Treasury—ultimately I had to fight the Treasury, and I was successful. I want to point out, however, how dangerous the schemes are where you appoint a person who is asked to be an arbitrator in his own case. I have in my hand an Order issued by the Admiralty on 3rd February, 1909. It is dated from Chatham, and says:—I am to acquaint you that with reference to Article 4694 of the Home Dockyard Regulations, the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have notified that they will no longer grant compensation for rupture where the person's discharge is due to another cause, and where rupture is capable of being well controlled by truss, with consequently no appreciable diminution of earning capacity. The regulation will therefore remain in full force.Let us take the case of a man at sixty. At sixty he is cast out automatically into the market. What is the value of a man at sixty with a rupture controlled by a truss? I put in a claim for compensation on behalf of a man in that position, but what chance had I got with the Admiralty, and even if I got over the Admiralty, with the Treasury with that letter in the background? I have, however, succeeded in that case, and the Treasury have yielded, and I want to give them every credit. I did press the case upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he gave way, and the man was compensated, but what I want to point out is, that I do not think that it was unadvantageous to that man that I had his case in hand, because these men when they represent themselves do not understand the law as we do who charge for knowing it. I happen to be a lawyer, and I was very glad to help the man, but I want to point out that if you have orders in the background such as these, it is a very serious thing indeed for the men. I have a case in my hand and there are cases still before the Board of Admiralty. Take the case of Ethelbert Figge, he was a man who met with an injury prior to 1909, some considerable time before, two or three years. He fell into 1633 a caisson, and was taken out more dead than alive. That fall has injured his left arm, and for ligaments he has got leather. I have seen it myself, and what the man tells me I do not doubt. He has four or five children. He has not been able to work since. Of course, if you got some charitable person who would employ him to carry things with his right hand, he could get work, but that is not earning capacity. He was a man earning 30s. 10d. a week, and he was dealt with on the basis that he had never received more, and in his case his ability to work was reported as being "only materially impaired." Did you ever hear of such a thing? That man has only been receiving 9s. 3d. a week and his wages were £1 10s. 10d. If there is a County Court judge in this country who, as arbitrator, would not have awarded him his full half wages for the whole period I do not know that judge. I have no hesitation in saying that man suffered a great injustice. I do not want to prejudice the case because it is before the Admiralty now, and they will no doubt deal fairly and properly with it, and will give the arrears of compensation to which I claim this man is entitled. I have an independent medical certificate given this year in which his own doctor certifies that the whole of the left side is affected, the left hand and arm being quite useless, and paralysis having set in. If the case had been disputed by a private employer, and I could put the case into a Court of Law, he would have got his 15s. a week for the whole period, and the employer would have had to pay.
These are not isolated cases. There are several of them. There is the case of a man named Lunn still under adjudication. Lunn met with an injury to his head, and there is great anxiety for what his future mental condition may be. The case is greatly disputed, but that case does not rest alone. I have the case of a boy named T. C. Philpott, about which I have written to the Admiralty. I draw attention to this case to show that this matter is one of grave importance, and that we ought in this way to get an undertaking that this scheme shall be abolished, and that there shall be a new scheme upon a basis which shall be approved, and shall be fair to the workman. We ought to get rid of it to-night. This is a case to my mind that indicates the real difficulty under which the working classes labour in regard to these matters. The accident happened in 1903. He was at that time an 1634 apprentice, having passed an examination for the dockyard. He was working, I think, in a dry dock and fell some fourteen feet, pitching on his head. He was picked up unconscious and remained at home a fortnight. He resumed work, being told he might by the doctors, but he continued to complain of headache, and early in 1904, within a year of the accident, he had a fit. He was a perfectly healthy boy, and had never had a day's illness in his life at all. The fits continued, and in 1904, the attention of the people in the yard having been drawn to it, he was put on other work, so that if he did fall in a fit he might not be killed. Ultimately, in August, 1904, they cancelled his indentures. I have not a doubt in my mind that that boy's present condition is solely due to the injury, and he has been wholly unable to recover a halfpenny of compensation. He has had fits and is now in an asylum, and his father has to pay for his maintenance there so far as he can afford. I have copies of the medical certificates of two doctors certifying that in their opinion his present condition is caused by the injury to his head. I have a letter that the boy's father wrote to Rear-Admiral Craigie, Admiral Superintendent of His Majesty's Dockyard at Chatham. It is not dated, but it was written in 1903. It is an admirable and most courteous letter. Some correspondence took place, and ultimately, on 5th June, 1906, the Admiralty wrote as follows:—Sir,—In reply to your letter of 15th March last respecting the case of T. C. Philpott, late shipwright in His Majesty's Dockyard. Chatham, who was injured on duty on 14th April, 1913, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that, as his present condition cannot be medically certified to be due to the service, and there is no evidence that the injury to his head was sustained on duty, your claim for compensation cannot be entertained.The fellow who wrote that must have been a wag. He must have supposed, because the unfortunate fellow fell and pitched on his head, that while falling he was not doing his duty. I cannot understand it, but that is the answer we got. It is a most startling case. The matter has now been brought to my attention, and I have it before the Admiralty, and I have no doubt I shall get justice done. It may be there will be a bit of a struggle with the Treasury, but I mean to carry it on until I get this case through. I am not in any way condemning the Admiralty, but I am condemning the system. This scheme is all wrong. It is not for the benefit of the workmen. It is against the elementary principles of justice that a man should be a judge in his own case. It is 1635 wrong because the Registrar ought never to have certified it. The compensation is not as reasonable under the scheme as it is outside, and these cases ought not to have arisen. I know the Financial Secretary is aware that when I first had the honour to become the representative of Chatham there was the case of a man named Albert Gray. For four years, I believe, through the late Member, Mr. Jenkins, he had been urging his case, but he saw it was quite useless, and that he would get nothing, but ultimately I fought it through and got him compensation. The man had actually got the tendons of the left arm severed and had lost two fingers and was ruptured, and yet they told him he was not entitled to compensation. They had to give way. They could not do otherwise. I use these facts, I know they are true, as being the strongest evidence that this scheme is deserving of the condemnation of the House and that we should get rid of it at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. BOWERMAN
I consider that the Noble Lord in raising this question has done workmen a distinct service, and I hope, after the speeches which have been delivered, the Admiralty may see their way to reconsider the whole of this scheme. It appears to me that the Admiralty under this scheme is in the position of not only being the employer, but, in cases where compensation have to be considered, they are judge, jury, counsel, and everybody concerned in the matter. There have been cases where men with responsibilities in the way of wives and children have been offered the magnificent sum of 3s. 9d. per week, and, after an appeal and a certain amount of friendly pressure, that amount was raised, I think, to 6s. 9d. The main point I would like to raise is this. In laying down a scheme of this kind it is understood that the workmen suffer no disability from the point of view of compensation. In other words, that the scheme of benefits is not inferior to those which he will obtain by an ordinary appeal to the Law Courts. I understand the way of getting at the feeling of the men before they contract out of the Act and accept a scheme of this kind is by means of a ballot. I think in this particular case no ballot of the men was taken. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not the last time."] The hon. Gentleman says: "Not the last time." If I understand the position aright, it means that when a workman applies at the gate for employment, 1636 and is handed a copy of this scheme, he is advised to take it home and consider it. If he makes no comment upon the scheme, it is assumed that he is favourable to its acceptance. I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am afraid that, as a consequence of any opposition on his part—I do not say it would be—and of his saying: "I object to this scheme," he would not find employment. All I can say is that, in the case of a man applying to a private employer, that would be the direct result of a man's opposition to a scheme. I think the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty must have been influenced in the direction that some consideration is necessary in regard to the scheme itself with a view to its being either reconstituted or abolished in favour of the ordinary course. I wish to know what steps the Registrar took in this case to ascertain the opinion of the men before the scheme was accepted. I have been informed that a ballot was not taken.
§ Mr. BOWERMAN
If that be so, it goes a long way towards invalidating the scheme. I do not speak as a lawyer, but as one having a small measure of common sense, that appeals to me very strongly. If the Registrar did not take proper steps as laid down by the Act of Parliament to ascertain the opinion of the workmen, I think that goes a long way towards invalidating the scheme. The scheme does not admit of an appeal to anyone but the employer. That surely is not justice. It seems to me to be a violation of the elementary principles of justice, that an employer is to be the judge whether compensation is to be paid or not, and also whether there has been an accident, and what have been the extent and nature of the accident. I hope the Admiralty will see their way to remove the scheme, and let the men take their chance like workmen outside of appealing to the employer, and, failing a satisfactory arrangement in that way of appealing to a court of justice. I feel strongly that this scheme is not fair, is not justified by the Act, and I am very doubtful whether, in the face of the laches I have referred to, it is binding on the workmen in the docks.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I make no manner of complaint that this matter should have been raised, nor do I complain of the manner generally speaking in which it has 1637 been raised. We all desire to treat our employés with consideration and fairness. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lord C. Beresford) will agree that that is our purpose, and, generally speaking, I am quite certain that we succeed, because even my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) has said again and again that cases which he has raised have been attended to. I think I may take it that we treat our employés fairly and considerately. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) was so good as to say that we always interpret the law against what he called the bottom dog. If the hon. Member had been here I would have reminded him that his memory must be rather short, because he has evidence to the contrary. That is not our way of interpreting matters affecting the well-being of the working classes of which he is a sincere advocate. Let me say a word in regard to the scheme and the alternative, the Workmen's Compensation Act. I doubt whether the hon. Member would carry any appreciable number of the dockyard workers with him in what he proposes. When the first Workmen's Compensation Act came into operation in 1898, we had in existence a scheme of hurt pay and compensation for dependants.
I have looked into the scheme which existed anterior to the first Workmen's Compensation Act, and I can certainly say that the conditions were at least as favourable as the Act which came into operation in 1898. At that point the Treasury thought that advantage might be taken of Clause 3 of the Act which admitted workmen to contract out. There was no compulsion. The hon. Member for Stoke is wrong if he suggests that the men were compelled to contract out. Nothing could be further from the fact. I have many times heard men in support of their petitions, and I am quite certain that any man who knows them knows that they are not liable to compulsion of that sort. The hon. Member says that if there was not some sort of implied compulsion and if they were absolutely voluntary agents the men would denounce this scheme. I do not think so. The scheme provides that any workman who wishes to withdraw from it may do so at any time. When the alternative was put to them, a great majority of them elected to come under the scheme. As to the methods of taking their views, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman) that they signed a contract which I have in my hand. A ballot in recent times has 1638 not been taken. I will take note of the complaint that we are not acting in accordance with what is required as to taking a ballot. If our form of taking the men's views as to whether they would accept the Act or contract out of it imposes any sort of hardship, or inflicts any injustice, I shall take care on my own responsibility to see that the charge shall no longer be possible. As to the scheme, it must be remembered that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has to be satisfied. The Chief Registrar certified that this scheme of compensation is not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The workmen know their own interests, and knowing that this scheme has been certified by the Registrar as not less favourable, they elect to contract out of the Act. The hon. Gentleman cannot explain why these workmen should use their intelligence in favour of a scheme like this, whereas if they wished to act otherwise they could come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I will tell him why. Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, a man would get no hurt pay unless his disablement was at least a fortnight. Our scheme has always provided that the man will get hurt money from the date of injury. In my humble judgment that is mainly why, in the first instance, the men practically unanimously adopted it.
§ Mr. HOHLER
May I point out that this applies to the year 1907, and that the new Act of 1906 had then come into force, and under that Act if a man were injured for more than a week he got hurt pay.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am coming to that. I am going to state the case fully.
The first scheme expired on 30th June, 1905, and was replaced by another scheme, and recertified by the Chief Registrar as not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the Workmen's Compensation Act. The scheme came into operation on 1st July, 1905, and on that occasion, when our scheme was recertified thirty-one men rejected it, and some 39,000 accepted it as a better alternative than the Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will challenge me and say that I can put such compulsion 1639 upon 39,000 men as that they, against their own better judgment, and their own interests, agree to contract out, and that only thirty-one have the independence to say, despite this pressure put upon them, that they are going to stand out and go in for the Workmen's Compensation Act. I really cannot imagine that that is the case. The Act of 1906 did undoubtedly treat more generously the question of hurt pay in cases of disablement, and reduced the fortnight to a week.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
But our scheme still gave the men hurt pay from the date of injury, and was again preferable under this head of hurt pay to the Workmen's Compensation Act even of 1906. A new scheme came into force on 1st January, 1908. Seventeen men rejected our scheme, and about 38,000 agreed to go under it as a better alternative, as they thought. After all, the proof of the pudding sometimes is in the eating, and as a mere commonsense person anxious to do his best, I should have thought that those figures were eloquent, that on the whole the men think the scheme better than the Act. What are the principal points against the scheme? The first is that made by my hon Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie), the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), and the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), last Monday week when discussing it at a late hour. That is the demand for an outside tribunal of independent appeal. I believe I have rightly interpreted the general criticism, to all which I have listened with great interest, when I say that that is the first point. I may be allowed to offer a comment or two upon that. It must be remembered in regard to this scheme as an alternative to the Compensation Act, to which the workmen can revert if they wish, that the fact that it has been in the control of the Admiralty, assisted by the Treasury, has always been within the knowledge of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. Each case is dealt with in the first place by the Admiralty. I shall be prepared to admit in a moment that in the case of the late Mr. Horn, there undoubtedly the case did rest for the time being, and I shall be prepared to make admissions upon that when I come to it. But now it has been provided that in the future, if there is the slightest doubt in 1640 the evidence tendered to the Admiralty, they will not themselves settle it offhand, but will refer it to the Treasury, which can and does in any doubtful case call to its help its own medical referee. [An HON. MEMBER: "That will not do."] What I am trying to show is the modification recently made, that in any case of doubt the Admiralty would refer to the Treasury, which can and does call in its medical referee. It is always open to the workman, under this scheme, to complain if he thinks that the scheme is being administered unfairly.
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
In that case, does it mean that the workman can refer to the Registrar in the case of the Admiralty settling it as well as in the case of the Treasury settling it under the new scheme?
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am proposing a new practice and not a new scheme. The Admiralty will not settle it themselves if there is any question of doubt, but will at once refer it to the Treasury, and then only the men can complain to the Registrar if they consider that the scheme has not been fairly administered.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I used the words "fairly administered." If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Act, Section 3, Subsection (4), he will see if complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workman, and so on, as to the provisions of the scheme being violated or that the scheme has not been fairly administered. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read on and see what remedy the workman gets."] I may be allowed to take my case my own way. I was coming to that. I said that the workman might complain to the Chief Registrar if he was of opinion it was not being fairly administered, and the Chief Registrar is bound to investigate the claim. I would like to say that, though there have been such complaints, I am very glad to say there has been no such complaint made recently to the Chief Registrar. I quite admit that the Chief Registrar could not impose his views upon the Treasury, but he has a moral power in regard to these matters, in respect of his sanctioning a scheme, and I should think the Treasury would give considerable 1641 weight to any serious comment made by him as to any scheme submitted as an alternative to the Workmen's Compensation Act. In regard to the general demand for an independent tribunal of appeal it has been ascertained by the Chief Registrar that out of thirty or forty schemes certified by him under the Act of 1906, those of a non-contributory nature, so far as can be traced, do not make any provision for outside arbitration. I would point out that of all these thirty or forty schemes certified by the Chief Registrar none of them have this provision of an exceptional character for an independent referee.
§ Mr. HOHLER
Until the decision of the Admiralty came I understood there was a right of appeal to enforce an agreement in regard to a scheme.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I should doubt that very much, because some of these schemes must have been certified before the Horn case. There are objections which hon. Gentlemen must weigh to the proposal of an independent outside tribunal. In the first place there can be no doubt that it would add to the delay which has been complained of in regard to administration, and in settling cases under this scheme. In the second place it would undoubtedly lead to additional expense both to the Crown and the workman in presenting and defending a disputed case before an outside independent referee. I think the very existence of an outside referee might lead to an increase in the number of disputed cases, with the result that I think it would be quite likely that the Treasury would throw up its hands, and say, "Very well, we will not go on with this scheme, and we will go back to the Workmen's Compensation Act." I do not think the vast majority of men wish for that. Any workman who wishes to withdraw from the scheme might do so at any time; therefore the option is quite clear. [An HON. MEMBER: "That man would be a marked man."] The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the independent character of the dockyard men. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would mark such men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] Of course not. Or does he suggest that the men themselves would mark such workmen. I do not think that that would be entertained for a moment. As to delay, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee made a very strong attack upon the delay which followed 1642 from the operation of this scheme. He said the poor widow might be kept waiting for months for a settlement, and get no reply from the Admiralty to the representations made. The simple cases are settled in a very few weeks—seven, eight, or nine weeks. Where there is a large number of detailed inquiries involved the time occupied, of course, is longer. I will take a list of the last ten deaths in the home yards. I will take the date from the man's death to the date of the Admiralty Order authorising payment of compensation. No. 1. 17th May, 1910, to the 30th June, 1910—from the date of death to the date of awarding the compensation. No. 2, 23rd June, 1910, to the 5th October, 1910. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not give the names."] No, certainly not; there is no particular point in the names. Of course, as I said, there is considerable delay where communications pass to and fro between the Admiralty and the Home Yard, and where the collection of further evidence is perhaps required. No. 3, 20th June, 1910, the date of the death, to the 6th August, 1910. No. 4, 15th August, 1910, to the 23rd September, 1910. No. 5, 7th August, 1910, to 27th September, 1910. No. 6, 13th October, 1910, to 30th December, 1910. No. 7 is the only other case in which there was considerable delay, and there we had the assistance of an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who suggested that the particular method of paying compensation which we adopted did not operate to the best advantage and that we should make some other allocation in the interests of the person concerned. We did that, and we were very much obliged to the hon. Member. No. 7, 14th December, 1910, to 6th March, 1911. No. 8, 31st December 1910, to 15th February, 1911. No. 9, 18th November, 1910, to 16th February, 1911. No. 10, 5th January, 1911, to 16th February, 1911. I am rather inclined to think that the county court jurisdiction would not be any more prompt than the jurisdiction in connection with which I have given this list of cases. Then I come to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), who last Monday week referred to the question of compensation in the case of apprentices on the wages paid for the previous twelve months, though the wages, perhaps, had quadrupled from the time the apprentice had entered. I would point out to him that the scheme provides for compensation on the actual earnings for the previous 1643 twelve months. That is why we take the earnings for twelve months. We have no choice but to administer the scheme upon its own terms. We have secured this from the Treasury in regard to this particular aspect, that in the case of an apprentice who is hurt soon after leaving apprenticeship, the Treasury have undertaken that any real case of hardship of this character shall be specially considered in the matter of dealing with the amount of money to be awarded. Those are the criticisms of these schemes as far as I have heard them, and I have endeavoured to meet them with as much desire to treat those men considerately as any man in this House.
I turn to the Horn case, and I make no complaint of the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) raising it. Generally the dates, although there are slight variations, agree. Let me try to put the case of the late Mr. George Horn, tinsmith. He was observed by Dr. Emmett, the local medical inspector of factories, when visiting the depot on 20th October, not the 26th, although these little differences do not affect the main issue, to be suffering from lead poisoning. He suggested that Mr. Horn should be examined by the dockyard surgeon. Mr. Horn was so examined, and was placed on the hurt list on 23rd October. He was attended by the dockyard surgeon until 12th November, when he was sent to Haslar Hospital. The surgeon who admitted him undoubtedly considered he was suffering from lead poisoning. But a more detailed examination on 13th November and subsequent examinations led the Haslar Hospital doctor to form the opinion that Mr. Horn was suffering from organic heart disease of long standing. He died on 12th December. A post mortem examination was held, no traces of lead poisoning were found, but heart disease was of long standing, and the death certificate was therefore natural causes, heart disease, not attributable to the Service. Our statement of the case and that of the Noble Lord agree to that point. According to the subsequent testimony of Dr. Legge of the Home Office, Mr. Horn's case was one in which the patient was rapidly breaking up with the symptoms of heart disease becoming dominant and signs of lead poisoning becoming masked. On 31st December a claim for compensation on behalf of the widow was received by the Admiralty. The claim was preferred by 1644 Mr. Kent, a solicitor on behalf of those who collected a fund, as the Noble Lord tells us, to pursue this matter, and to see that Mrs. Horn got what they considered was justice and fair play. It wag care fully considered, and while it is not disputed that Horn had suffered from lead poisoning——
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
By us. The Haslar Hospital report, which was endorsed by the then Deputy Director-General of the Medical Department, so that we certainly took medical testimony of considerable weight, stated emphatically that the cause of death was failure of heart compensation following long standing disease of the heart. Therefore the claim for compensation was refused by the Admiralty on 7th February, 1910, because death was not attributable to the service, as shown by the certificate. The Noble Lord says if Mrs. Horn had not got behind her a few friends who could put some money down she would never have got her rights. I do not know that I should express an opinion on that. It is a matter of opinion. Let me state the facts, and then let Members form their own opinion. The claim for compensation was refused. Mr. Kent made further communication, including a detailed report from Dr. Emmett, which I think we had never had up to that time——
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The Inspector of Factories—the Home Office inspector. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Government Inspector."] Surely I am not to take on my shoulders the responsibilities of all Departments? I think I am right in saying that we had not this detailed report, as the Noble Lord observed, and in view of the conflict of medical testimony then before us, and some of which had not been before us up to that time, on 22nd April, 1910, we decided to hold a special inquiry presided over by Admiral Sir John Durnford. The Noble Lord said that if there were not people behind Mrs. Horn she would not have secured this inquiry, but having received this evidence we proceeded straight away to hold the inquiry and the Noble Lord can put what construction he pleases on our action. In the meantime an application was filed in the 1645 county court, and the hearing by agreement was fixed for the 9th June. I want the House to observe that the inquiry reported on the 11th May to the effect that Mr. Horn suffered from heart disease of long standing, and also from lead poisoning, and that death was due to aortic disease and lead poisoning. The case was at once represented to the Treasury and that Department on the 6th June, 1910, awarded compensation to the amount of £266 three days before the case was heard in the county court. Let no one say that our action was decided by what took place in the county court. That was not the case.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I think it was suggested that we gave compensation because the county court judge gave a verdict against us, a verdict in a matter in which they had no jurisdiction, as will appear. That was not so. As a matter of fact the decision of the Treasury was arrived at three days before the county court decision was arrived at. The Noble Lord would say possibly you would never have had the inquiry or had the finding with £266 compensation had it not been that this action had been taken. As I say, he must draw his own conclusions. All I have to do is to state facts. The Noble Lord said, "What a mean thing it is to withdraw from the compensation the hurt pay." I am sorry to say we have no choice in that matter. We cannot break the law. I am not quite sure whether if the hon. Gentleman would look into the Statute that he would not find that we could not do so.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
If he will look at the schedule he will find that we are compelled to withdraw hurt-pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under the Act."] And the scheme is framed under the Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "You made the scheme."] Quite true, and we have no alternative but to withdraw the hurt-pay.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
As regards costs. If we had relieved these people there would have been no charge on the Navy Votes. It is a matter for the Treasury; it would not have come out of our money at all. We have no jurisdiction except that we could say to the Treasury it might be I 1646 desirable that they should pay the costs. But what happened with regard to costs? Before the hearing in the county court the solicitor for the Crown offered to pay the full compensation due, and the Treasury, in addition, as an act of grace, offered to pay the reasonable costs of the applicant. I do not understand the extraordinary view taken of the word "reasonable." An hon. Member opposite suggested that the inclusion of the word "reasonable" indicated that it was a bogus telegram. That is an extraordinary interpretation which I cannot follow. That offer was refused. Why, I do not know. These good people exercised their judgment, as it was their business to do, and they refused it. At no time did the Admiralty, in the court, contest its liability to pay compensation. What it did contest was the jurisdiction of the county court in the matter, and the full settlement of the case was suspended until the Court of Appeal had decided the point involved. The Treasury took the view—and it was so under the scheme—that the county court had no jurisdiction in the matter; and, although we had offered to pay full compensation, we were bound to appeal against the jurisdiction assumed by the county court. In the end we were successful. Meantime, we made an allowance of 10s. a week to this poor widow.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I cannot say the precise length of time, but whatever blame is attachable to us I am prepared to take. I am stating the case quite fairly. We made an allowance of 10s. a week from the time we gave an undertaking to pay compensation, pending the appeal on the question of the jurisdiction of the county court. The Court of Appeal decided, as I have said, that the county court had no jurisdiction, and the Noble Lord said the other night that that circumstance ought to be noted by Labour Members, because our action had prevented any appeal ever being made in the future in regard to this matter. But there was nothing new in that decision. The assumption of the county court was entirely new. We were not introducing a new disability.
§ Lord C. BERESFORD
That was not any point. We all know perfectly well that the county court had no jurisdiction. My point was that here was a case produced as a practical fact showing the working men and employés that they could never 1647 appeal again, no matter how unjust they thought a case might be, against the domination of the Treasury, who settled the affair in their own way, being judge, jury, and everything else.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
They could not appeal under this scheme. But they never could. Therefore, it was nothing new that we had done. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did not know it before."] They did not know it before; but now it is laid down. They could appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They are welcome tomorrow to come and say: "We will not have this scheme." I would advise hon. Gentlemen who represent dockyard constituencies to endeavour to get to know perfectly clearly what the wish of the men is in this matter. The Court of Appeal decided that the county court judge had no jurisdiction. On the question of costs let me say that the case going against the Crown in the first instance in the county court, we bore the £23 costs. That sum was refunded to the Crown on behalf of the widow when the Crown won on appeal. The Crown—this is the meanness!—could also have imposed upon Mrs. Horn if we had wished our costs in the county court and in the Court of Appeal. We waived this. Is the Noble Lord aware of that?
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I think it ought to be known that the question of costs does not affect us at all—does not affect the Estimates one way or the other. But I will undertake to convey the suggestion that has been made in regard to these costs to the Treasury. All I would say in regard to Horn is that from the medical point of view—I think the Noble Lord will agree—it was a difficult case.
Even if we fail to agree here, in nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand cases we do manage to solve them with consideration, sympathy, and even generosity to our employés. It has been decided that instead of the Admiralty saying: "When we get a certificate we will settle the case one way or the other—if there is any doubt on that point this is the weak link in the chain—we shall refer it to the Treasury and to their medical referee for what it is worth. Many hon. Members desire that there should be an independent tribunal. That brings me back to the general proposition to set up an independent tribunal. I will convey this suggestion, the one 1648 about the apprentices, and that about the costs to the Treasury. What the success will be it would ill-become me to say. I do not want to raise any hopes that I shall not be able to realise, particularly in regard to this poor widow. It may be impracticable to set up this independent tribunal. It may be that it will be considered by those concerned that the workmen had better go back to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Very well; they must take the consequences of that proposition. I will undertake that the matter shall be re-examined carefully by those who, together with us, are responsible for the carrying out of the administration of this scheme, which, in the vast majority of cases, is administered sympathetically to the workmen, and who, I believe honestly, and for a number of reasons, would rather have this than the Workmen's Compensation Act.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down commenced his speech by making a claim that I think he was fully justified in making, that the Admiralty does endeavour to do justice in all these cases, and certainly that is my recollection of the Admiralty practice. With regard to the hon. Gentleman himself in particular, we recognise on both sides of the House he does look into all these matters in a sympathetic spirit, and perhaps with unusual attention. But I think, having said that, the hon. Member will agree that the raising of this case by my hon. Friends, supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House, was fully justified, and that the Debate has been productive of very good results. So far as assurances and undertakings on the part of the hon. Gentleman himself are concerned, it has done good. Whether he will be able to make these assurances good is another matter; we know he will do his best. We all know the difficulties with the Treasury. I shall only refer briefly to the individual case of the man Horn, because it has been so fully and adequately dealt with already. I should like to say this about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Admiralty really acted generously in the case of this man Horn, and that in fact they had intended to act generously all the time, and that it was rather unwarrantable on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House to suggest that the Admiralty would not do exactly what they are doing now, quite irrespective of any pressure being brought to bear upon them, or apart 1649 from the fact that the widow of this unfortunate man was lucky enough to enlist influential support of her claim, the House can draw its own deduction. The House has drawn its own deduction, and was bound to do so from the statement of the facts. There is not a shadow of doubt nothing would have been done but for the action taken. We can all draw our own deductions. It was only upon the report of Dr. Emmett that the Admiralty took action. There would have been no action on the part of the Admiralty but for the report of Dr. Emmett. The Admiralty have now paid £266 compensation; they have deducted a certain sum as they were bound to do, I understand, by statute. In that case the sooner the statute is altered the better, because it does seem hard when the sum which the hon. Gentleman calls full compensation was paid that there should be any deduction from it when it is the only means of livelihood left to the widow. There was also the point raised of the delay of seven months. Thai, I suggest, is a very serious matter indeed. Even if the Admiralty are going to pay in the end this widow has been left for seven months without any visible means of subsistence. There is no more difficult position than that for a widow to be left in at the death of her husband. I hope the hon. Member will approach the Treasury in order to see whether it is not possible where there is prima facie evidence of a case of this nature to have some kind of interim allowance for a widow in such circumstances to protect her against the perils to which she is exposed. The Admiralty doctors certified that this man had been suffering from plumbism, and I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will find some means of dealing with this difficulty. With regard to costs, I thank the hon. Member for his promise to approach the Treasury. He says it is no business of the Admiralty, and he has undertaken to bring the matter before the Treasury. So much for that individual case, but what is more important for us to know is how we can make sure that there will be no more of these Horn cases in future. What is the position of men similarly situated as a result of this litigation and the decision of the High Court that the men cannot go to law about this matter at all. I am sure their position is not understood by them, and it is very difficult to see what security they will have. This brings me back to the general question of this scheme. I think the hon. Gentleman was quite justified in the 1650 caveat he put in against the suggestion that the men wished to see this scheme abolished. I think there is a greater difference of opinion than that which is reflected by the figures read to the House. In spite of the cogent arguments of the hon. Member for Chatham, I do not believe if a ballot were taken it would be found that there was a majority in favour of giving up the scheme. At any rate, that is my own private view, and I give it for what it is worth. I am not prepared personally to advocate that that course should be adopted.
An important point was raised which, I think, was made somewhat too light of, as to whether there was coercion to make the men accept the scheme, and whether there was any misunderstanding or impression that their prospects might be injured if they did not accept the scheme. An hon. Member showed us a form of contract which was handed to the men at the dockyard gates, which they are asked to sign. I think that is a somewhat ominous way of eliciting the opinion of the men, and it may tend to make them suspicious. Probably that accounts for the overwhelming preponderance of figures in favour of the scheme, and that practice might very well be done away with. Whether the best course would be to hold a ballot at intervals I am not prepared to say. The Secretary to the Admiralty has undertaken to look into that matter and consider whether it is possible to alter the present practice, which is open to a certain amount of objection. The real objection to the scheme about which so much has been said undoubtedly is to the idea that whether it is the Admiralty or the Treasury, they are acting as the prime judge in a matter which affects their pocket. There is, undoubtedly, a very strong opinion on that point. The hon. Gentleman says that if you appointed an outside referee it would lead to greater delay, but I think the men would be willing to chance that. I think the suggestion or undertaking to appoint an independent referee would be very warmly received by the men. At any rate, I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will give the men an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this point. What I feel about the matter is not that there is so much objection to the scheme itself as to the way in which it is interpreted by Government Departments and the way in which it has worked in certain particulars. I believe it works well as a rule, but I believe it is inevitable, when you make a Government Department referee or judge 1651 in matters which concern itself, whilst it may work well and smoothly in the majority of cases, the door will always be left open for the perpetration of individual cases of hardship, such as, I think, occurred in Horn's case. It ought to be possible to make the scheme so watertight that individual cases of hardship are no longer possible, as they are possible, and I think the way in which that can be done is by having an independent referee outside. Those are the considerations which have occurred to me in listening to all the speeches made and to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, and I feel sure he will do his best in the matter. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) is not in his place, but I should have felt inclined to resent the suggestion which he made that we, the Opposition, in this matter are influenced in any way by a desire to attack or injure the Government. I do not think the Government would bring that accusation against us, in view of the way in which we have supported them throughout this Session on matters of naval policy and of Naval Estimates. We do feel, however, this was a substantial grievance, and my hon. Friends have been thoroughly justified in bringing it forward. I only hope the result of the Debate will be that the recurrence of a case such as this will be utterly impossible.
§ Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN
I have been very deeply interested in this case, and I must confess I think it has been fairly well discussed. I believe a good deal of credit is to be given to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) for having raised the question, but I understand he alleged that the Labour party, when they raised a similar question, ran away from the Division. I am rather surprised to find, according to the speeches, that there is not going to be a Division to-night.
§ Mr. DUNCAN
It did not appear so, but, if there is one, the Noble Lord will, at any rate, see the Member for Barrow with him. After a little experience in this House, one is rather inclined to think the worse the case the more eloquently it is pleaded. That is the conclusion to which I have come after having listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara). If this case had not been fought in the County Court there 1652 is not the slightest conceivable doubt in my mind that the widow would never have got a cent. The real weakness of the position is that the claims men may make under the scheme are not enforceable. That is at the root of the whole difficulty. We have had a rather lengthy speech from the hon. Gentleman, but I am inclined to think he did not deal as fully with that point as he might have done. Let the House clearly understand that, so far as the present scheme is concerned, it cannot be enforced. If the men employed in the dockyards understood that as well as hon. Members of this House do, they would realise that they are absolutely without a remedy. The whole scheme breathes a system of begging for those things which ought to be given in justice; they have under it to be asked for in forma pauperis, and I object altogether to that kind of business. If any big employer in the North of England tried it on he would find he had struck a piece of iron which was exceedingly hot. It is a bad system, a system no reasonable man can defend, and the sooner the people in dockyard and arsenal towns are told frankly, honestly, and straight that their claims under this scheme cannot be enforced the better it will be. If they had the facts before them I very much doubt if they would vote by 39,000 to 139 in favour of the scheme.
We have, too, a bone to pick with the Registrar. If Horn's case had been under the Workmen's Compensation Act and it had been taken into the County Court he would have won it and would have obtained not only the £260, but also his costs. The Registrar, in certifying that the scheme was as good as the Act, was not up to his business, for it has been demonstrated that in this particular case the scheme was worse than the Act to the extent of the £90 costs. What is the position of the Registrar? He receives a salary from the Government, and to that extent he is not an independent party. He has to assume that the Government will treat its employés fairly and that any scheme they lay before him is bonâ fide. The scheme may be bonâ fide so far as benefits are concerned, but the point at issue is the enforceability of the claims. The Registrar only accepts the scheme as equal to or even, perhaps, a little better than the Act as far as the benefits are concerned. He has nothing to do with the enforceability of the claims. That suggests to me the position of a man riding on a donkey's back and holding a 1653 stick from which dangles a bunch of carrots in front of his nose. The carrots are there, but the donkey never reaches them, and we have had this case to-night which proves to demonstration that however well disposed these people who are behind the scheme are there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any man in this House to-night that under such a so-called beneficent scheme the most scandalous cases of hardship and cruelty might easily arise. Therefore it seems to me that the case as it has been laid down by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) will not hold water if the whole case is considered. What we have to consider is whether the men employed in the dockyards and arsenals will be given to understand what a broken reed they have been relying upon. It is very easy, of course, to draft a scheme which might be very touching to the eye, and which might seem acceptable to the men, but if the men only realised as the Members of this House do that this scheme is not enforceable and the benefits are illusory, I venture to suggest the voting would be the other way. We are told that a copy of the scheme is given to the men. It is very simple to make a statement like that, but I venture to say that my experience in this House is a wonderful acquisition to me. I think if such a scheme had been put before me a few years before I stood for Parliament, and come to this House, I might have swallowed it, but I venture to say the hon. Member for Camberwell would not expect me to swallow this scheme now, after having been in the House, and realising how illusory the promises made in it are. There has been sufficient criticism in this House to indicate both to the Admiralty and the War Department that they have the men to-day at a disadvantage, and I want to suggest to them that it is their business to see what a flimsy base the whole scheme stands on. The hon. Member himself gave his case away—absolutely gave it away. When opening his speech he alluded to what one of the hon. Members opposite said about bringing the case to this House, and the individual is supposed to say "then I get fair play."
§ Mr. C. DUNCAN
That is quite good enough. It is just as good for my case as the other statement I made. He brings 1654 the case to the Admiralty, and then he begins to get fair play, but then it seemed to me that that is really a scandalous thing to suppose that a man who was injured in following his employment has got to come to this House——[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, he has got to find a Member somewhere who is prepared to fight his case.
§ Mr. C. DUNCAN
He has got to find a Member to put his case. It is not to be supposed that he will have sufficient brains to state his case himself.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We have these cases before us every year, and sit and listen to them very patiently constantly. There is no occasion to come to Parliament.
§ Mr. HOHLER
I would ask whether every case that I had has not been refused by the Admiralty, and I have had to bring it on?
§ Mr. C. DUNCAN
I do not think for a moment I am endeavouring to put the case too high, but I am endeavouring to put the case as strongly as I can, and I think that every Member in this House, on whichever side he sits, will agree with me that until the individual concerned succeeds in getting some Member properly to put his case he is practically out of court. Then, I suggest, he has got further to find the kind of Member of Parliament who will persist in fighting his case. Under these circumstances, the man has in some way to get into touch with somebody he did not know before, and he has to get him to take his case up and fight it, and then, and then only, can he hope for justice. I do not attribute the slightest shadow of feeling to my hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara). All I am saying is that the scheme is bad and the system is rotten, and the sooner the whole thing is put on a fair and proper basis the better it will be not only for the workman, but for the various Government Departments. I understand, of course, the point underlying the scheme. It is supposed to be a little more generous than the Act. I think we ought to be getting past the time when it is the business of the Government to start coddling its thousands of workmen. It seems to me if the Act is good enough for the millions of workpeople in this country—and under that Act they can at least get justice—it ought to be equally good for men employed by the Government. I do 1655 not care for the moment whether the men in the dockyard towns and the arsenals agree with that or not, but as soon as they realise the precarious position of the scheme as it exists to-day, they will pretty speedily come to my opinion too. I think I have said enough to indicate that there is something seriously wrong, and I am pleased to think that the question has been raised. But in this case where the first doctor certified lead poisoning, and other doctors who, I suppose, knew less about lead poisoning certified heart disease, and then another doctor agreed with the first, it seems to me that there has been a good deal of slackness in not testing the medical opinion of the first doctor. That was the first slip, and I hope now that the case has been voiced we shall never have another case, and that the method of dealing with the workmen in giving them their compensation will be just as good as that given to the rest of the workpeople in this country.
§ Mr. BOOTH
Perhaps some observations from one who has carefully studied the question and is deeply interested in it might be of advantage to the House. The compensation scheme which has been put before the House is after all one of those things which require very calm consideration. A compensation scheme such as has been suggested requires not only to be carried out in the letter, but also in the spirit. Speaking as a business man with considerable experience of compensation schemes, I urge hon. Members in
§ their consideration of it always to remember that an important part is the spirit in which it is administered. I have a very large amount of sympathy with the position of the hon. Member (Mr. Duncan), but at the same time his chief complaint was that he was afraid of the spirit in which it would be administered. These compensation cases come before the county courts, and the judges there, who are ornaments of their profession, may be trusted to put the best construction on the various cases that come before, them. I think hon. Members who have heard the Debate understand the scheme thoroughly well, but I am not so sure about those who have come in late. This important scheme ought, in my judgment, to have a trial. I can assure hon. Members below the Gangway, that if when this scheme has had a fair trial and has received the consideration it ought to receive, and if the Treasury or the Admiralty do not give it the consideration which the workpeople think it deserves, they may rely on Liberals like myself to support them in any effort they may make to have the position improved. I hope I have said sufficient to convince hon. Members opposite that when they have a good case it always receives sympathetic consideration on this side of the House. As I wish to give hon. Members opposite the opportunity which will delight their hearts, I will refrain from saying those things which I might have said.
§ Question put, "That '£395,500' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 103.1657
|Division No. 102]||AYES.||[10.59 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Clynes, John R||Harvey, T. E (Leeds, West)|
|Adamson, William||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Crooks, William||Hayward, Evan|
|Armitage, Robert||Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hinds, John|
|Barton, William||Dawes, James Arthur||Hodge, John|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Hudson, Walter|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Elverston, Harold||John, Edward Thomas|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Falconer, James||Johnson, William|
|Brace, William||Ferens, Thomas Robinson||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Brigg, Sir John||France, Gerald Ashburner||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Gulland, John William||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)|
|Cawby, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Hancock, John George||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Lawson, Sir W (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Toulmin, George|
|Maclean, Donald||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wadsworth, John|
|M'Callum, John M.||Robinson, Sydney||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Rose, Sir Charles Day||Watt, Henry A.|
|Millar, James Duncan||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Webb, H.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||St. Maur, Harold||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Munro, Robert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Scanlan, Thomas||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Neilson, Francis||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Whyte, A. F.|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Shortt, Edward||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Spicer, Sir Albert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Pointer, Joseph||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Sutton, John E.|
|Radford, George Heynes||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Howard|
|Raffan, Peter Wilson||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Fleming, Valentine||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Newton, Harry Kottinghnm|
|Ashley, Wilfred W.||Forster, Henry William||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Astor, Waldorf||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Nield, Herbert|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Gibbs, George Abraham||O'Grady, James|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Gilmour, Captain John||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Goldman, Charles Sydney||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goldsmith, Frank||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goldstone, Frank||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward||Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)|
|Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Barnes, George N.||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Barnston, Harry||Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)||Spear, John Ward|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||Stewart, Gershom|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Boyton, James||Kebty-Fletcher. J. R.||Swift, Rigby|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Campion, W. R.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, Edward Hildred||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cassel, Felix||Lansbury, George||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)|
|Cater, John||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cave, George||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Malcolm, Ian||Wood, John (Stalybrldge)|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Martin, Joseph||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Younger, George|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Eyres-Mensell, Bolton M.||Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Lord Charles Beresford and Mr. Falle.|
|Fisher, William Hayes|
§ Debate adjourned; to be resumed upon Monday next, 3rd April.