WORKMEN (COMPENSATWN FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.

*LORD RATHMORE

moved, in Subsection (2), paragraph (a), after "injury," to insert "caused by the act of a stranger over whom the employer has no control, or." The case which his Amendment was intended to meet was one of hardship and grave injustice, and one which he could not believe was contemplated by the authors or the Bill when it was first introduced. The first clause in its present form proposed that an employer should be held responsible for an accident caused by the act of a stranger over whom he had no control whatever. The sixth clause, which proposed to give the employer in such cases the power to recover damages from the stranger, was an obvious corollary to that provision, and yet the sixth clause was not in the. Bill when it was first introduced, but was the result of an Amendment moved by a Member of the Opposition in another place. Therefore, he argued, the liability of the employer for the acts of a stranger over whom he had no control could not have been originally intended, and it must in any case strike everyone at first sight as being contrary to common justice and common sense. On what ground had this proposal been supported? The only reason which had been brought forward, so far as he had been able to ascertain, was that to introduce such an Amendment as. he proposed would be contrary to the general scope and purpose of this clause, that purpose being that workmen should have compensation in every case from the employer, in the first place at all events, for 991 the consequences of accidents which occurred in the course of their employment. But there was an old saying that there was no rule without an exception, and would it not be wisdom, where they found that a general principle would be likely to work gross injustice, to introduce such an exception as this? There were already two exceptions in this first clause; in the first place the exception that for the first two weeks after the accident there was not to be compensation; and, secondly, that workmen should not be entitled to compensation when the accident was the result of their own serious and wilful misconduct. Therefore they had already two exceptions in this case. It was impossible to say that there was iii this Bill but one principle. There was a confusion and sometimes a conflict of principles. What purpose and principle—looking beyond the scope of the clause —upon which this Bill had been introduced. That purpose and principle was stated in a remarkable passage with which the Prime Minister closed the Debate on the. Second Heading:— Now, by a wise and general revision of the principle upon which the law rests, applying it for a purpose for which it was originally destined and for which it has been most commonly and profitably employed for the purpose of forcing all who, by process of their industry and the extent of their position, have the lives of their fellow men in their power—forcing I hem to spare no labour, ingenuity, or money to make those industries as safe as possible to those by whom they are carried on. If this was indeed the principle of the Bill was there anything contrary to it in the Amendment? How was it possible to force a man to make his industry as safe as possible by fining him for the act of another person who was, to loin, a total stranger? How could they by any amount of labour, ingenuity, or money prevent the act of another person over whom he had no control? This was a case of such extreme hardship and grave injustice that it would be wise and well to make an exception from the general scope of the clause. It was in no way inconsistent with the general purposes of the Bill as explained by the Prime Minister. Before he sat down he wished to refer to Clause 6, which bore on the Amendment. As he had said, the purpose of the, clause was to give a 992 remedy over against the stranger. But in a multitude of cases the stranger would be a man of straw, and it would be folly for the employer to throw good money after bad by endeavouring after he has provided indemnity for the workman under Clause 1, to seek indemnity for himself under Clause 6, and would be quite unable to give that indemnity; but if a stranger was the cause of the accident he would be entitled to plead all the usual defences such as contributory negligence against the employer, the very defence of which the employer was deprived by this Bill as between himself and the workman. It appeared from "Hansard" that some attempt was made to remedy this anomaly in the other House. It was proposed by an hon. and learned Member that a stranger should not be entitled to make use of any defences which were not open to the employer. That Amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore if this Bill passed, this strange anomaly would stand in the law, that whereas this defence would not be open to an employer who was perfectly innocent against the workman when he came to seek a remedy to which by this Bill he was declared to be entitled, the stranger who was really the guilty person would be able to avail himself of it, and any one acquainted with the ordinary course of such cases knew what a difference that would make to the chance of success in litigation.

LORD BELPER

said that if the clause stood alone it might be difficult to answer sonic of his noble Friend's arguments. But he himself suggested what the answer of the Government would be when he mentioned that the Amendment was clearly not within the scope of the Bill, and it was contrary to the principle of the Bill as introduced. The Bill in every case gave fair and reasonable compensation to the workman, quite irrespective of the cause of the accident for which he suffered, and one of the objects of the Government in introducing the Bill was to set aside as far as possible those expensive and complicated actions under which as the law stood at present the workman had to prove whether the accident was due to special or particular circumstances or not. If the Amendment were adopted it would open a door it was wished to keep closed, to a large field of litigation. Take the case of an 993 engine driver who was injured in an accident put on the line. At once the question would have to be inquired how the obstruction came there, whether it was owing to the act of a stranger over whom the employer had no control, or was in any way partly due to the act of the employer who should have seen that the line was clear. This was not an Amendment which the Government could accept, for the very reason that it would open the door to litigation in a large number of cases, and prevent the workman getting the compensation to which he was entitled under the general provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord referred to Clause 6, and recognised, as every one recognised, that at all events an attempt was made in that Clause to meet the case of hardship as far as the employer was concerned. It laid down that where an injury was caused under circumstances that created a legal liability on a stranger, the workman might proceed against either the employer or the stranger. The noble Lord said that although this might be a remedy in certain cases it would not be a remedy in all, because the stranger might be a man of straw. This might be so. But the clause was drawn to meet cases like that.

*LORD RATHMORE

observed that after what had been said on the part of the Government, he was afraid it would be useless for him to attempt to press the Amendment further. He would however, just like to say one word. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was quite willing to divide—["hear, hear!"]—but he should like to say one word, before the Division was taken, in reply to what had fallen from the noble Lord. When he proposed this Amendment he really had not in his mind so much the case of railway companies and other great undertakings to which the noble Lord had alluded, as what might happen in the case of an employer who was himself a humble man, perhaps very little better off than the man in his service who was injured. Take, instead of a wealthy railway company, the case of a humble man who was an employer, working side by side with his own workmen in his own yard. Some stranger might throw something into the yard which would cause an accident, and perhaps a fatal accident, and 994 this employer would be obliged to make good to the representatives of the workman the consequences of the accident, possibly to the extent of his own utter ruin. ["Hear, hear!"] Unless some such Amendment as this were accepted, serious injury and gross injustice might be inflicted in many cases.

*THE MARQUEES OF LONDONDERRY

moved in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out "two," and insert "four." He said he could not for a moment imagine that it was not the intention of the Government in introducing the Bill to apportion the pecuniary responsibility 996 for accidents between employer and employed, by which he meant that those burdens should be borne in certain proportion by the two parties concerned, whether the proportions were equal or unequal. But he could not but think that as the clause stood the burden on one of the parties, the employer, was out of proportion entirely with what was right and just, while at the same time the proportion of the burden employés had borne up to the present time without complaint was, he would not say entirely but almost entirely removed. What were the liabilities of the employer? In the first place he was left responsible for all accidents resulting from his personal negligence, or the negligence of a person he put in a position of supervision. In addition he was to be made responsible for all fatal accidents and for all nonfatal accidents causing disablement, except for two weeks at the commencement of the illness. What did this mean to the employer? It gave no relief to an employer in respect of fatal accidents, and as regards non-fatal accidents it would relieve him only to the extent of 20 per cent. of the cost of such accidents, and the liability of the employer in respect to fatal and non-fatal accidents would be relieved to the extent of 13 per cent. of the whole of the total cost. And what would be the effect of extending the two weeks in the clause to four weeks? Even, if this Amendment became law the employer would remain liable for the entire cost of fatal accidents and 70 per cent. of the cost of all non-fatal, or 80 per cent. of the whole together. These statistics had been put forward by the Lancashire and Cheshire Permanent Relief Association, and he could not think it was the intention of Her Majesty's. Government to place this burden of an absolutely unfair character on the employer, and with the exception of depriving him of two weeks' payment to acquit the emploé of any pecuniary responsibility for injury that might accrue to him under his employment. There were other points of enormous importance upon which this Amendment would be the means of warding off from a large number of people great harm and damage that they would otherwise suffer. One point of great importance he noticed had been recognised by Mr. Chamberlain, and that was the 997 absolute necessity of preserving those permanent relief funds at present in maintained by the working classes. He had no hesitation in saying that if this term were not extended from two weeks to four weeks it would be found that these associations which, up to the present time, had done incalculable good to the working classes would be more or less abolished. If the employer had to pay almost everything there would be no inducement whatever for the working classes to contribute, and the only way to induce the working classes to continue their contributions to these permanent relief funds was by proving that in their own interest it was necessary they should do so. Two weeks were a very short period, and in all probability the injured man would have the wages of the past fortnight to support him, and perhaps he belonged to another society. In the circumstances was it likely that any working man would contribute to any permanent relief fund when he knew that after his, own wages were exhausted he would be maintained by his employer? He would not do so, and the consequence would be that these associations which had worked so satisfactorily in the past would cease to exist, to the detriment of the men who now subscribed to them and the discomfort and misery of those who had to rely on them for support. An enormous number of people unable to work were maintained by these funds. The Northumberland and Durham Permanent Relief Society maintained 6,476 people, widows, children, and those who were permanently disabled or too old to work. The Lancashire and Cheshire Society supported 2,029 people, and the South Wales Association, 2,692; and the complete figures showed that about 12,000 derived support from these sources. Of course, he knew full well that although there were large sums of money at the disposal of these associations, still they had considerable deficiences which would have to be met before the wants of these people he had alluded to could be supplied, but while the association was a going concern, supported by subscriptions, the deficiency was unimportant, but once subscriptions stopped the deficiency became of enormous importance. What would be the result if subscriptions ceased, as he had no doubt they would? Each association would realise its capital, and so long as the 998 capital lasted it would support these widows, children, and disabled men, but when that capital became exhausted, and it could not extend over many years, the people for whom these funds had been established would be pauperised, and would have to be supported by the rates. It should also be remembered if the Bill were carried into effect, as he mentioned the other night, the preference of employment among larger employers would be for those who were physically sound, and had nobody dependent upon them. It might be taken for granted that if the Bill became law the numbers he had quoted would be materially increased, and the funds would not go so far as the sanguine hopes of the present administration anticipated. In the third place, unless the period of two weeks were extended, there would virtually be a premium on malingering. He repeated what he said last week, that he did not wish to say anything detrimental to the working classes; it was simply human nature for a man to try to get what he could, and statistics showed that as larger compensation was given claims increased, and with them malingering. Up to the present these various funds had been safeguarded by the men themselves in their own interest, but if the Bill became law, what object would any man have in guarding against malingering in another man when the men combining would be able to get anything from the employers? According to figures supplied by the Lancashire and Cheshire Society, in 1873, when the amount of relief was only 6s. a week, the applicants were 12.5 per cent. In 1874, when the amount was raised to 8s., the applicants increased to 13.5 per cent.; and when, in 1896, the amount was increased to 10s. a week, the applicants became 18.3 per cent. Experience in Germany of the operation of a Bill of this character confirmed his view, and according to the statement of the Chief of the Statistical Bureau of Saxony, with all the safeguards and precautions introduced, there was no corresponding decrease in accidents, anti the results seemed to show that the men were becoming less careful. He thought that answered the statement of the noble Marquess below him last week that this Bill was intended to reduce the number of accidents, and, if possible, to make employers of labour more 999 careful. He maintained that employers of labour had been as careful as they possibly could be, and that it was to their interest, as well as to their sense of justice, that they should be careful. He was glad to think that Acts of Parliament in the past had insisted on the most perfect precautions being taken by employers to safeguard the interest of the men who were employed in these dangerous trades. But his contention was that what he had quoted from this German inquiry showed that no matter how carefully you protect and safeguard the interests of these men, so long as they gave a premium to malingering so long would these accidents increase. Another great authority, the head agent of the local association at Freiburg, expressed the same opinion. He said,— We are hopelessly blocked by an amount and variety of feigned weakness and incapacity that I never would have believed possible. Those were opinions given before a Commission on an Act of a very similar character to that which was passed in Germany, and they went to show how malingering and carelessness increased no matter how carefully they safeguarded the interests of the men. If they extended the time from two to four weeks they would, he thought, at once stop to a great extent the inducement to malinger; they would assist to maintain those permanent relief funds which had done so much good in the past and the abolition of which would carry ruin and misery to large numbers of people; and they would prevent the relations between employers and employed becoming strained, and so proving detrimental to the interests of trade.

LORD BELPER

thought there was some slight confusion in the mind of the noble Marquess when he spoke of the Bill dividing the burden between the employer and the employed. With regard to the proposal in the Bill, he ought at once to state that when the Bill was originally drafted it was the intention of the Government to exclude the first four weeks from the operation of the Bill. It was also proposed at that time that if anybody who had been disabled for four weeks was still disabled at the end of that period, they should be allowed to be recouped for either the whole or a consider- 1000 able part of the four weeks, and to get back the money to which they would have been entitled if the four weeks had not been excluded. Very strong opposition was taken to this on the part of the employers. It was pointed out, very reasonably, that by the four weeks they gave such a very strong inducement for the injury being kept on as a serious injury as would tend very strongly indeed to encourage malingering. Under these circumstances, that provision was obliged to be left out, and he thought the House would agree that it would be impossible to put it in whatever period of time might be settled on. When this alteration was made from four weeks to two, it was made as a compromise. The figures of the Lancashire and Cheshire Permanent Relief Society, to which the noble Marquess referred, had been laid before the Home Office, and he was therefore familiar with them. In the first instance, he should like to point out the number of cases which would be actually affected by the two weeks and the four weeks—cases which would not go beyond those periods, and which, if they were to insert the four weeks, would be absolutely excluded from the operation of the Bill. Taking the figures of the Lancashire and Cheshire Society for five years, and adopting two weeks as the limit, he found that a very considerable number of work-people would be excluded from the Bill. The number, he should say, would be about 25 per cent. of the whole of the workmen who came under the temporary disablement compensation, and if the time was extended to four weeks, it would increase that number by an additional 40 per cent. So that by the acceptance of this Amendment 65 per cent. of the workmen who would come under the temporary disablement compensation would get no compensation at all. That was not all. They must remember that if they were going to take off the four weeks they must also take off another two weeks for cases of permanent or temporary disablement as well, and it 1001 had been calculated that, as far as temporary disablement was concerned, this would affect about 30 per cent. of the cases. That seemed rather a serious matter, and he thought their Lordships could hardly have realised how large an effect this Amendment would have upon those who were temporarily disabled. The noble Marquess said that 20 per cent. of the total cost of the Bill was taken off by the present two weeks. The figures given him showed that the cost of the two weeks would be about 25 per cent. of the temporary disablement, but about 12 or 13 per cent., and not 20 per cent., of the total cost of the Bill to the employer. If that period were increased to four weeks, careful calculations which had been made showed that an additional percentage, of something like 15 or 16 per cent. would be taken off the whole cost of the Bill to the employer. He thought that was a serious amount to be struck off by one Amendment. He ventured to think that their Lordships would agree that, on the whole, a happy mean had been arrived at by making the period two instead of four weeks, and that it would not be desirable to extend it as the noble Marquess proposed. He asked their Lordships whether, in view of the fact that in the other House no Amendment was pressed upon this part of the Bill, it was desirable that this House should by one Amendment strike off 40 per cent. of the cases in which compensation would be paid, and also reduce to such a large extent the compensation which would be given in the case of permanent and temporary disablement.

*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said the noble Lord had not altogether recognised that there was a difference between the numbers who might be incapacitated and the cost that would fall upon the employer. He was sorry that his noble Friend had not, on behalf of the Government, seen his way to accept the very fair proposal he had made. Perhaps, however, the noble 1002 Lord would accept three weeks. If so, he would withdraw the Amendment, and move another to that effect.

LORD HERSCHELL

moved to omit the words at the end of the paragraph:— and shall not be liable to pay such compensation independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act. He confessed he did not know the meaning or the effect of those words. Were they intended to exclude a right which the workman had under the existing law? The words were either meaningless or they had some hidden purpose which he was not able to divine.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said he understood the object of the words was to simplify the procedure in all such cases —that unless an employer had been guilty of wilful neglect he should not be liable to any proceeding except under this Act. He was not sufficiently cognisant of the existing law of employers' liability to define the cases which were not wilful neglect to which the employer might be liable; but if there was any such the intention of the Government was that the employers should not be liable for them except as provided under this Act.

LORD HERSCHELL

pointed out that any liability under the Act could only be proceeded for under the Act. If the purpose of the words was what the noble Earl had stated, they did not appear to carry them out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord IIALSBURY)

said he was not enamoured of the drafting,. but he read the words to emphasise what had already been set forth in the sub-section—that there should be no further liability than that which was pointed out in. the sub-section.

LORD HERSCHELL

thought the words ought to be struck out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

pointed out that there was a drafting Amendment to be moved which would show 1005 clearly what was the intention of the words. The Amendment was to add at the end of the section the words "as aforesaid."

LORD HERSCHELL

That does not improve the situation.

THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

May I make an observation as to the meaning of the words? There are two separate sorts of liability in an employer under the existing law. One is that which is the result of his wilful act; the other is that which is not entirely the result of his wilful act, but still sufficiently the result of Ins act to carry with it compensation under the existing law, and therefore tins clause says that only the one, and not the other, shall be enforceable outside this Act.

LORD HERSCHELL

said that the noble Marquess suggested that those words took away a liability of the employer under the existing law. That was an important matter. He thought the object of the Bill was to leave untouched common law liabilities, but to leave to the workman to choose under which he will take proceedings under the common law or under the Bill. He should like to know what was the liability intended to be excluded by the words?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

did not think there was any liability intended to be excluded. All that was intended was hat there should not be two liabilities—that there should be either one or the other, and the draftsman only repeated at the end of the section what was explicitly included in the section.

THE EARL of KIMBERLEY

said he could not help thinking that the words of the section, as they stood, were deliberately intended to limit in some way common law rights that now existed. He thought the words should be carefully examined to see whether or not that was their intention.

LORD HERSCHELL

asked the noble Lord whether he would inform them on he next stage what the difference in liability would be if these words were struck out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said he would inform the noble Lord what was intended.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked what the words "such compensation" at the end of paragraph (b) referred to.

LORD BELPER

said he would look into the point before the Report stage.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY

moved, in paragraph (c) to omit the word "solely." The object of Ins Amendment was to make it quite clear that the man who contributed to his own injury should not be entitled to compensation. They were all agreed that the employer should pay compensation, where a man was injured through the fault or negligence of the employer, but it was a very different matter to call upon him to pay compensation for an injury which would never have occurred if it had not been for the action of the moan himself. They should remember that they were laying the foundations of a Measure winch would eventually be extended to many other trades, and they should therefore be very careful to do nothing winch would render the working of it difficult in the future. Surely it Was only reasonable that the State should make it quite clear that the principle of personal responsibility, whether of employer or of employed, should be respected.

LORD BELPER

said there was considerable force in the contention of the noble Lord. It was clear that the word which it was proposed to omit would open the way to a large number of very complicated questions, as to whether there was or was not some slight technical contributory negligence on the part of somebody else, although the workman himself had been guilty of serious and wilful misconduct. If the workman were guilty of serious and wilful misconduct they thought that he himself, at all events, should not be entitled to the compensation, and under those circumstances the Government accepted the Amendment.

LORD WINDSOR

moved, in paragraph (c), after the word "disallowed," to insert: — and the breach by a workman of any rule contained in, or established under any Act of Parliament in respect of which the workman is liable to fine or imprisonment, shall be deemed to be serious and wilful misconduct within the meaning of the Act, unless the arbitrator should be of opinion that the breach of such rules was so trivial that it ought not to deprive the work man of his right to compensation. The object of the Amendment was to define, to a certain extent, "serious and wilful misconduct." Under the Bill as it stood at present a workman might be fined for a breach of the rules and compensated by the employer also, which was an anomalous position. It was of enormous importance to secure the co-operation of the workmen in taking precaution against accidents. In mines especially the work was carried out under conditions which made it almost impossible for the employer to exercise continual supervision. He cited also the case, in a textile industry, where a shuttle-guard was forgotten, and the shuttle flew off and injured, not the workman whose neglect had occasioned it, but his neighbour.

LORD BELPER

replied that in the House of Commons it was stated on legal authority that "serious and wilful misconduct" would include any breaking of rules of a serious character. It was said that under the clause no serious rules could be broken. But trivial rules were constantly being broken with the assent of the employer. The noble Lord by his Amendment had met that point, but the Government, after considering this carefully, were of opinion that the Amendment would not strengthen the clause in any way, and it was desirable to give the fullest possible discretion to the arbitrator, and the words "serious and wilful misconduct" would include all the cases that could possibly be included by the Amendment.

*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

said that if Lord Windsor intended to apply his Amendment only to workmen causing the injury, the objection was that, inasmuch as he defined a breach of the rule to be wilful negligence, as mentioned in the subsection, he would by the definition create a fictitious negligence which might never touch the accident at all. There might have been a breach of the rules, yet it 1008 might have had no connection with the accident. But under the Amendment that would be wilful negligence, and, coming within this section, would deprive the workmen of compensation, although the breach of the rule had never contributed to the accident. If Lord Windsor intended a breach of a rule to affect a third person the Amendment did not touch a third person. It only affected a workman guilty of negligence.

LORD WINDSOR

intimated that he would withdraw his Amendment. He quite admitted that the case of a third person being injured was not touched. He only quoted it because he thought some such distinction of serious and wilful misconduct would make a workman careful and serious accidents less common.

THE EARL OF MAYO

asked whether a man who committed a breach of the rules could be fined by a magistrate and compensated by the employed as well?

LORD BELPER

replied that under the clause as it stood any breach of the rules construed by the arbitrator as "serious and wilful misconduct" would prevent a workman from getting compensation. If fined in such a case he would not get compensation.

LORD HERSCHELL

In some cases though fined by a magistrate and sent to prison he would get compensation.

THE PRIME MINISTER

I understand that magistrates would not fine for an offence if it was not serious. If they fined for an offence presumably it would be serious, and if serious it would be a bar to compensation.

LORD HERSCHELL

The words are "serious and wilful misconduct." There may be a breach of the rule which could not be described as serious and wilful misconduct. If every breach of a rule for which a magistrate can fine is therefore "serious and wilful" that would be a wide interpretation of the clause.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

It is a question for the arbitrator.

*LORD RATHMORE

had the following Amendment on the Paper: Leave out Sub-section (1). The noble Lord said that as this Amendment depended for its advisability on the true construction put on the words at the foot of page 1, and these were involved in clouds of darkness, it would be wiser to postpone any action which it might be well to take in This matter until the clouds rolled by. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]

LORD STANMORE

moved to leave out the following words,— it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the want of such notice, or that. His Lordship said that the point raised by the Amendment was not one of first class importance, but it was not, he ventured to think, unworthy of their Lordships' consideration. The second clause of the Bill imposed, as was usual in Acts of this description, limits of time within which notice must be given of the accident, and of the claim arising from it. No proceedings were to be taken unless notice of the accident had been given as soon as possible after its occurrence, and compensation had been claimed within six months of the accident or of death resulting from it. But as a rigid adherence to such limits might sometimes be productive of unmerited hardship, it was quite right that an exception should be made in favour of cases where delay had been due to mistake or other reasonable cause. To this, lie thought, no rational objection could be taken, and if his Amendment were carried this exception would be still fully maintained and recognised. But the proviso appended to this sub-section in its present shape went a great deal further than this, and virtually repealed the sub-section itself which it followed. For if the employer be not prejudiced in his defence by the delay, all time limits whatsoever were absolutely got rid of, and any workman who from laziness, carelessness, wilful negligence, or deliberate intention might have failed to give notice at the proper time was enabled by the proviso to come forward at any time subsequently—no matter after how long an interval—and commence proceedings, 1011 without any allegation of mistake as to the notice, or special reason for having delayed it. That appeared to him unusual, illogical, and unfair. Noble and learned Lords on both sides of the House would know much better than he what had hitherto been the custom, but so far as he was aware, where a time limit was imposed for public reasons and in the public interest, it was not usually dispensed with, except for mistake or some other special cause. It was illogical, for it contradicted what went immediately before it, and that it was unfair hardly required demonstration. The time limit was imposed, for obvious reasons, in the public interest, generally not only in the interest of the employer, and he ventured to think it ought not to be got rid of without evidence that the delay had been caused by mistake or some other good reason. But under this proviso the workman, as he had said, might at any period commence proceedings, and maintain them, if he showed that he employer had not been prejudiced in his defence by the delay. Just see how this would work. A man met with a slight accident. There was a good understanding between him and his employer, and though aware that he might possibly claim compensation, he did not press it; feeling, perhaps, that he was himself partly in fault, or being unwilling, in a doubtful ease, to take steps which might injuriously affect the existing good understanding. Two or three years after he had a quarrel with his employer. Then, under this proviso there would be nothing to prevent him from bringing forward this old claim, or from successfully maintaining it, if he could show that the employer was not technically prejudiced in his defence by the delay; that was to say, that the same evidence was now procurable that was available at the time of the accident. But even if this were not shown, and the proceedings were, on this account, barred, the employer would have been put to the expense and trouble in proving that this old and half-forgotten claim could not be pressed without prejudice to his defence. To this annoyance, inconvenience, and expense he ought not to be subjected. It was intolerable that the employer should have hanging over him for a perfectly indefinite time the possibility of long past accidents, of which no notice was given 1012 him when they occurred, being brought up again against him years subsequently—perhaps long after the workman had quitted his employment. The words which would still be retained in the proviso, if his Amendment were adopted, would be amply sufficient to meet any case where real hardship might be incurred through a strict adherence to the time limitation, whilst the employer would be protected from the vague and harassing uncertainty to which he was subjected by the proviso in the present shape. The Amendment appeared to him so reasonable that he was induced to hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might not be disinclined to adopt it; but if not, he would, perhaps, undertake to consider between this time and the next stage of the Bill whether some such alteration as he had suggested might not be introduced into the clause with advantage. He begged to move the Amendment.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

did not think the noble Lord quite understood the way in which this clause would work. The limit was put down as a guide to the time within which notice of a claim ought to be given, but there was no intention that the workman who had suffered injury should be excluded from the compensation which this Bill was meant to bring him, merely on the technical point that he had omitted to give notice within the specified time. Very often a man would be an ignorant man, without any knowledge of business, and in such cases it was not desirable that he should be debarred by a merely technical point. But if the Amendment of his noble Friend were accepted, in what position might an employer find himself? A man to whom compensation was due might have omitted for months to send in notice of a claim. He might still be perfectly deserving, and at the end of that time might send in his claim. If the Amendment were accepted the mere explanation on his part that the omission to send in the, claim was due to mistake or other reasonable cause, would necessitate the case coming forward. But what would be the position of the employer? The accident might have happened months before, and there might have been a complete answer on his part to the claim, but all possibility of the employer getting proof 1013 that the claim was not good would have passed away from the lapse of time, and he would be called upon to meet a claim which he could not possibly answer, and which might possibly he bad. These words were, therefore, absolutely necessary. If the employer was able to show he was prejudiced in his defence by the length of time that had elapsed before the claim had been made, then that would be an answer to the claim; but in default of such prejudice to the case of the employer, surely it was just that the claim should go forward.

LORD HERSCHELL

could not help thinking there had been some misapprehension as to the effect of this clause. The clause simply provided that notice was to be given as soon as practicable. That was perfectly reasonable. There was a limit of time within which the action must be brought. The latter part of the clause was in reality a limiting of the time in which the action must be brought, and the only reference to the preliminary notice was that it must be given as soon as practicable. Of course the claim must be sent in. There could be no undue delay, because if the claim did not come within six months it was debarred. The clause merely provided that if the preliminary notice was not given, that might be excused in the circumstances set forth.

LORD SHAND

sympathised with the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment. It appeared to him that employers should have notice that claims were to be made against them certainly within six months of the occurrence, in order to enable them to make their defence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought his noble and learned Friend, contrary to his wont, had not read with sufficient attention the language of the section. The six months had nothing whatever to do with the notice. The six months was the statute of limitation, so to speak, upon a claim for compensation altogether. It had no relation whatever to the notice. The notice was simply required to be given as soon as practicable, and certainly, according to his experience of such notices, he did not think they either did much good or harm. But there it was, and all that was required was that the notice should be given as soon 1014 as practicable. No claim could go outside the six months; it must be within the six months, and the notice which the employer was to receive, "as soon as practicable." All must take place within six months, and the only dispensing power was where it had been proved that the employer had not been prejudiced in his defence, and the notice—not the claim, but the notice—had not been served by reason of a mistake or accident, then, notwithstanding that the notice was not given as soon as practicable that condition might be dispensed with. What he wished to impress on his noble and learned Friend was that this question had nothing whatever to do with the stipulated limit of six months.

LORD BELPER

moved in Sub-section (2), after "employers," to insert "or may be served on any superior officer of the injured workman." This proposal was made for the convenience of both parties. It was thought that in very large undertakings such as railways, with workmen in all parts of the country under different officers it might not be so convenient if a man had to serve the notice on his employer at the central office.

THE EARL OF DURHAM

said the adoption of this Amendment would cause great inconvenience to colliery proprietors if the words were not qualified in some way. It would be allowing too much latitude to a workman to allow him to serve a notice upon whom he pleased, and it was probable that such a notice so served would not reach the employer so quickly as it should. The words would not be affected in substance if the noble Lord would add at the end, "appointed or authorised by the employer." That would meet the case of the railway service where it might be difficult for a man to approach his employer, and it would be easy for an employer to appoint or authorise a certain number of officers to receive notice of an injury. In a coal pit a man might have as many as a hundred and fifty superior officers.

*THE MARQUES OF LONDONDERRY

said he certainly thought the words "superior officer" ought to be defined in 1015 some way. As applied to a regiment, the expression had a well understood meaning, but as his noble Friend had said, a man working in a colliery would have a large number of superior officers. The Mines Act clearly defined the officer in this connection. How was an employer to have knowledge that a man had received injury if notice were allowed to be given to anyone of 150 persons who might go home and forget all about the incident, and the employer would remain entirely in the dark? There should be some definition of superior officer, as in the Mines Act.

*LORD STALBRIDGE

hoped the noble Lord would consent to withdraw this Amendment. So far as railway companies were concerned, the adoption of these words would lead to the utmost confusion, instead of simplifying the matter. As a train was going along a line it would often be very difficult to define who was the superior officer. The following sections in the clause clearly defined the process of serving a notice; it might be delivered or served through the post as a registered letter at the office of the company, and every railway servant would know where the office of the company was. The proposed words would introduce the greatest difficulty in working the clause. Take such an instance as that of a platelayer injured by an accident, his superior officer would be the ganger, and lie receiving notice might put it in his pocket and he might be discharged on the Saturday, and the railway company would hear nothing about the accident and injury, the words might lead to endless confusion.

LORD BELPER

recognised there was force in these remarks of his noble Friends, and he would withdraw the proposal, and if it were found necessary, propose an Amendment on Report.

LORD HENEAGE

moved, in Subsection (1), to omit the words: — certifies that any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workman of an employer in any employment, 1017 in order to insert:— and after due consideration of all the provisions and advantages of any scheme of compensation or insurance for the workmen of an employer in any employment certifies that such scheme. Since he gave notice of the Amendment other Amendments had been drawn up, and after consulting with noble Lords in whose names they stood, he had slightly altered his Amendment to meet the views of noble Lords, and the proposals came forward as one Amendment. He looked at this clause as the most important in the Bill, because of the principle involved, that of contracting out, and also as involving the credit and honour of the Unionist Party in the House. Although he did not intend to go into historical researches, the House should bear in mind the fact impressed on their Lordships the other day by the noble Lord opposite that the Bill of Mr. Asquith was accepted in principle by the House, subject to the "Dudley" clause, and that was on all fours with the clause proposed by Mr. McLaren in the other House. He could not speak with knowledge of what took place in that House and what were the motives of their Lordships in dealing with the Bill, but he took part in the proceedings in the other House, and recollected Mr. McLaren's Amendment. He was perfectly convinced that had the Bill proceeded with the clause inserted it would have passed with unanimity, for there was a general feeling in favour of preserving freedom of contract in the case of railway companies and others having satisfactory arrangements with their employers, allowing workmen to adopt their own particular scheme in preference to that proposed in the Bid. That was what he desired should be done in this. Bill. That of a hundred people outside the House with whom their Lordships might discuss the Bill, ninety-nine would say the clause did not carry out their wishes. There were differences of opinion upon different clauses in the Bill, but upon this clause outside opinion was unanimous. He believed that the Government had intended the clause should be a reality, Init in the opinion of people outside the House it was thought to be a sham, and therefore he called attention to the subject, suggesting words that would make the clause a reality. The 1018 noble Lord who introduced the Bill said it was absolutely necessary for a Government bringing in a Measure of this kind to allow the contracting-out question a prominent place in the Bill, hut the noble Lord said very little about it, and when Lord Dunraven challenged the clause on the Second Reading in his able and brilliant speech, the noble Marquess did not allude to it in Ids reply. Again, ho wished to ask whether the Registrar could approve any scheme and give a certificate if the employer contributed a less sum than his calculated liability under the Bill? Under Lord Dudley's clause the workmen had an option, but under the Bill the Registrar would have to ascertain the views of the workmen, and then he would have to consider the scheme, so that it might come to this, that supposing workman and employer agreed that the sum the employer contributed was a reasonable sum, and equivalent to the amount under the Bill, still if the Registrar thought differently he would be able to refuse a. certificate on that ground alone. There were many points to be taken into consideration in dealing with insurance compensation. It could not be dealt with altogether as regarding the subscriptions of the employer; there were the advantages of co-operation and prompt payment without litigation to consider, and the fact that under the Bill there would be a fortnight without receipt of anything. There was the advantage of payment from the date of accident and of that greater security a stronger association offered. These matters the Registrar should take into consideration as a possible set off against the difference in amount the employer would provide, and particularly when the workmen and employer were agreed in preferring their own scheme. In Sub-section (1) the words were "any scheme of compensation or insurance." That was when the certificate was required, but in Sub-section (5) when power was given to the Registrar to revoke the scheme, the words used were, "the provisions of any scheme are no longer on the whole as favourable." He wanted to know why "the provisions of any scheme" are introduced in one place, and only "the scheme" in another? Surely the draftsman must have had some reason for it. Were the various provisions of the insurance scheme to be taken into 1019 consideration if any of them had gone wrong in the interval, while the good points in, the scheme were not to be taken into consideration when a certificate was required? The question had been threshed out very often before, but he wished to hear the opinion, of the Government upon it. In order to evoke that opinion he would move in Sub-section (3), after the words "employer and workmen," to insert the following words:— and after due consideration of all the provisions and benefits that any scheme of compensation or insurance confers on the workmen, as well as the nature of the security, certifies such scheme is on the whole not less favourable.

LORD BELPER

thought it would be convenient, as there were several Amendments to, different parts of the clause, to make a short statement as to the view of the Government with regard to them. In the first place, he did not think that any expressions he used in moving the Second Reading of the Bill went at all beyond the view of the Government, and he believed he was entirely authorised to state that their object was to make this clause as effective as possible for the purpose. The Government were entirely at one with the noble Lord who had just spoken, and with the other noble Lords who had got Amendments to the clause, in wishing that everything should be included for the consideration of the Registrar that could possibly be of importance in coming to a decision as to whether a scheme should receive a certificate or not. When, however, they came to the question of the best way of carrying out the object in view they were not entirely at one with the noble Lord opposite. They had given very careful attention to all the words which had been suggested, and had also consulted the Chief Registrar on the subject. That official, he might say in the most complete way, was fully sensible of the wide discretion which was given by the words of the clause as they now stood, and that he was fully alive to the responsibility of his duty with regard to the full inquiries which should be made before he gave his certificate to any scheme. The objection which was taken to the words suggested by his noble Friend Lord Heneage, and other similar words, was that it, would not be wise to make them as, a condition precedent to his granting a certificate. It 1020 was urged that in a great number of cases it would not be necessary for the purposes of granting a certificate for him to examine the particular points which were specially referred to in the noble Lord's Amendment, and that, if in any case his certificate had been granted and it was the object of some one to upset the scheme, it might be very possible, by taking legal steps and getting a discovery as to whether the particular points had been examined into, that the scheme might be upset, although it, was a perfectly reasonable scheme, simply for the reason that the Registrar had not thought it necessary to examine into those particular points. For this reason the Government had thought it would be far better to leave the words as general as possible, so that, in cases where anybody had to come to a decision who was in somewhat of the position of an arbitrator, his discretion would be larger if he were not attempted to be bound, on one side or another, by specific directions. On the whole, they believed that the intention both of the noble Lords and of the Government themselves to make this scheme as effective as, possible, and to give the widest possible discretion to the Registrar would be best met by not inserting any additional words in the clause. He had an Amendment to insert "the general body of workmen" where the word "workmen" now stood, so as to carry out what, was the intention of the Government. It was not desirable that it should be absolutely necessary for every individual workman in a particular scheme to get precisely as much as he might have had given him by the arbitrator under the Bill. He thought he ought also to state that, after considering the whole effect of this clause, the Government were willing to accept the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Portsmouth to omit Sub-section (4). ["Hear, hear!"]

LORD HERSCHELL

said the last statement of .the noble Lord was a most important one, but he did not propose to discuss it now. In the meantime he wished to ask a question which seemed to him closely connected with all these Amendments. He asked it because he found some difference of opinion prevailing as to what was the meaning and intention of the early provisions of the clause with regard to a scheme. The Registrar was to certify that any scheme 1021 of compensation or insurance for the workman of an employer was on the whole not less favourable than the provisions of the Act. The question he wished to ask was this—was the scheme to be looked at only with reference to provisions relating to compensation for injury or death, and was that to be compared with the scheme of compensation under the Act; or would the Registrar be entitled to look at a scheme which provided, it might be, a lower rate a compensation for injury or death than was provided for under the Act, but which provided other advantages such as allowances in time of sickness as well as in case of absence from injury? Was the Registrar entitled to look at such a scheme and consider whether it was on the whole wore advantages than if the workman remained under the provisions of the Bill, or was it only to be an alternative scheme of compensation for injury and death? It was suggested that the use a the words "compensation or insurance" rather pointed to the exclusion of anything except provision against injury, whether fatal or not fatal. He wanted to know if that was what was meant and intended.

THE LOUD CHANCELLOR

thought the view of the Government was that the alternative suggested by his noble and learned Friend was in their contemplation, and that that was supposed to be carried out by the words "on the whole." It might be that that was not sufficiently expressed, but he did not know whether his noble, and learned Friend would consider that, if they were to add the words "under all the circumstances of the case," they would bring in the other considerations which lie had suggested and which certainly it was intended to include.

LORD HERSCHELL

said the difference of opinion to which he had referred was not as to the words "on the whole," but as to whether the words "scheme of compensation or insurance" would be apt words to apply to such a thing as sick allowance as will as compensation in case of injury. He thought those were the words which needed to be considered.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said that the word "scheme" to his mind, included that, but the word "insurance" coupled with it might perhaps be held to limit it. He did not think that was intended, but if any doubt existed as to the intentions of the Government words would be 1022 brought up so as to remove that doubt. He thought the words "on the whole?" gave the widest possible discretion, but he could quite see what his noble and learned Friend pointed out, and that it must be all the arrangements which the Registrar was entitled to take into consideration and see that they were not less favourable to the workman than the proposals of the Bill.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that, if the Registrar, in comparing the relative merits of the Act and any scheme of compensation or insurance, could in fact take into consideration what might be termed collateral advantages, that fulfilled all that he desired in that respect. But he would like to ask how far the existing schemes could be considered to come under the clause. No existing permanent society could be accurately described by the words of he clause.

*LORD STALBRIDGE

regretted that the Government would not accept any of the forms of words suggested. His words—"having regard to all the benefits which such scheme confers upon the workmen"—were perhaps the simplest and the shortest, and they would, he thought, meet to a certain extent the difficulties which had been pointed out. The Government had had the advantage of conferring with the present Registrar, but it must be remembered that other Registrars would arise, and unless they read this Debate, or had something to guide them either in the Bill or in the traditions of the office, he did not know how they were to ascertain the good intentions of the Government. The difficulties which Lord Herschell had pointed out were very great, but there were many others known to those who had to deal with a large insurance fund such as the London and North Western Railway Company had. The company were very anxious to keep that fund alive if they possibly could, but there would be great difficulty in doing so. He was not without hope that the Government would accept his words.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

called the noble Lord's attention to what would be the effect of his words. As he had explained to Lord Dunraven, the Registrar was entitled, as the clause now stood, to 1023 look at the collateral benefits of the scheme. Under Lord Stalbridge's amendment the Registrar would simply be entitled to look at what would be the benefits of the scheme itself.

LORD STALBRIDGE

All the benefits.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, but of the scheme. The noble Lord wished to enlarge the operations of the section, but in truth Ids Amendment limited them.

LORD STALBRIDGE

asked if the Government would bring up other words on Report.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

suggested that the words "under all circumstances," which would bring up all the collateral circumstances as well as the scheme itself, should be inserted

THE PRIME MINISTER

said that the observation of Lord Dunraven, that the words "of an employer" might cut out those larger societies where more than one employer was concerned, was deserving of attention. He suggested that they should leave the words out now subject to further consideration before Report. He did not wish there to be in the clause an appearance of hostility to those larger societies which were really of very great benefit.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

thought it was very desirable that some words should be inserted in the Bill to show exactly what the intentions of the Government were. There was certainly no guarantee that any future Registrar would interpret the clause as this Government intended it should be interpreted.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said he attached immense importance to doing everything that could be done without without transgressing the main principles of the Bill, to encourage the continuance of the great benefit societies. He did not know exactly how they stood, and Lord Belper had said the clause would be better without any Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Without any of those proposed.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that in that case he trusted the Government would bring up an Amendment on Report.

LORD HENEAGE

said that his only object in moving his Amendment was to 1024 make the clause a reality. He had no partiality for one set of words or another, and if the Government would undertake to reconsider the clause before the next stage be would withdraw his Amendment.

LORD WIMBORNE

moved in subsection (3) after "hiring" to insert,— unless the Registrar of Friendly Societies shall decide that the views of the workmen can be more satisfactorily obtained by some other method, they shall be obtained by ballot vote of the majority of the workmen who will be brought under the scheme under rules made by the Registrar as to how, when, and where the ballot vote shall be taken.

LORD BELPER

said the Government thought it would be well to leave to the Registrar full discretion as to how he should ascertain the views of the general body of workmen. Besides, it was clear that the Registrar would have the power to take a ballot, and no doubt he would, in a large number of cases, have recourse to such a proceeding.

LORD HERSCHELL

asked if it was quite certain that, under the words taking steps to ascertain the views of the employer and workmen," the Registrar would be in a position to order a ballot of the workmen to be taken.

LORD BELPER

understood that, in the other House, the Home Secretary stated that by ballot would probably be the way in which the Registrar would ascertain the views of the men. He would inquire into the matter before report.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

moved to leave out Sub-section (4). As Lord Belper had said the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment, he would content himself by formally moving it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said this seemed to him to be a matter of very serious importance. He understood the provision in the sub-section was supported by the Government in the other House; but, of course, they might change their minds there. A society might be devised which might offer to the workman such benefit as might induce him to join it; but the sub-section which it was proposed to leave out seemed to him to be essential to the workman's not being deprived of his compensation in the event of the funds of the society not being sufficient to meet the demands made upon it. It seemed to him that as the employer would be responsible for the framing of the schemes the workman should be compensated by the employer if the scheme broke down. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were accepted, workmen should be cautious in joining societies which eventually might not be able to pay them the compensation the Act intended they should be paid.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

regretted that it should be supposed that the supporters of the Amendment desired to do any thing unfair to the workman. He would point out that the Bill provided that no scheme should be certified which contained an obligation on the workmen to join a scheme as a condition of their hiring. Therefore the workmen would enter into a scheme entirely unfettered. If the Sub-section were allowed to stand, he could not imagine how any employer would join with his workmen in any association which might be managed by the workmen in so extravagant a fashion, that in the event of a calamity the funds of the association would be insufficient to meet the claims, and the employer would practically find himself responsible for an unlimited liability. ["Hear, hear!"] The object of his Amendment was to give fair play to those voluntary arrangements which tended so much to bring about a good understanding between workmen and employers. ["Hear, hear!"]